A method for optimizing the site selection of highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning

Abstract

The present invention discloses a method for optimizing the site selection of highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, including: S1, establishing a layout decision-making model for highway aircraft runways; S2, establishing an evaluation index system for the survival ability of airport aircraft; S3, determining the survival ability of airport aircraft; S4, solving the layout decision-making model for highway aircraft runways; S5, establishing an evaluation index system for the site selection of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning; S6, determining the optimal newly-built site and the optimal reconstructed site; S7, determining the optimal site among the sites of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways. Through this method, the optimal planar layout position of highway aircraft runways can be quantitatively determined. For the site sets of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways with non-optimal layout positions, the most suitable construction sites can be preferably determined. It is applicable to the site selection of newly-built highway aircraft runways, the site selection of reconstructed highway aircraft runways, and the integrated site selection of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways, improving the scientificity and rationality of the site selection decision-making of highway aircraft runways.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of highway aircraft runway construction, and specifically to the field of site selection decision-making for highway aircraft runways. Background Art

[0002] Highway aircraft runways mainly serve as backup airports for military and civilian aircraft for emergency takeoffs and landings. They are important supplements to existing airports. Their spatial positions in the airport network will directly affect the extent to which their support effectiveness can be exerted. It is necessary to conduct a site selection demonstration before constructing a highway aircraft runway.

[0003] Current research on the site selection of highway aircraft runways mainly focuses on multiple potential new sites for highway aircraft runways or sites for reconstructing highway aircraft runways from existing highway sections. On the basis of considering the factors affecting the site selection of highway aircraft runways, a site selection evaluation index system is established. Subjective weighting methods, objective weighting methods or combined weighting methods are used to determine the weights of evaluation indexes. Then, the advantages and disadvantages of all site evaluation indexes are comprehensively compared to determine the optimal site. For example, Liu Chen et al. considered usability, political, national defense and local significance, technical and economic rationality, resource development and environmental protection requirements, and established a judgment index for the site selection scheme of highway aircraft runways. For the evaluation indexes of each new site, expert scoring was used to establish a grey evaluation weight matrix for optimization; Zhang Luoli et al. considered usage conditions, construction conditions and support conditions, and established an evaluation index system for reconstructed highway aircraft runways. On the basis of constructing the normalization matrix of each site index, the optimal theory was used to determine the index weights; Liu Zhou et al. also considered usage conditions, construction conditions and support conditions, and established an analytic hierarchy process model for the comprehensive evaluation of the reconstructed highway aircraft runway scheme; Geng Hao et al. considered applicable requirements, technical requirements, economic requirements and environmental protection requirements, established a site selection evaluation index system for highway aircraft runways, used the entropy method and the improved analytic hierarchy process to determine the index weights, and used the Euclidean measure to optimize multiple reconstructed sites.

[0004] The construction location of a highway aircraft runway should first be macroscopically arranged: in combination with the existing airport network, the highway aircraft runway can not only support the mobile operations and evacuation and concealment of aviation troops during wartime, but also provide emergency takeoffs and landings for transport aircraft and helicopters in case of need. As an important channel for disaster relief, dealing with emergencies and ensuring material transportation, it fully meets the task requirements under the conditions of war preparedness and non-war military operations, and realizes effective connection with surrounding military and civilian airports. Based on this, the best location for constructing a highway aircraft runway can be determined, and a new or reconstructed highway aircraft runway can be built at this location in combination with the local highway plan or existing highway. When restricted by actual site conditions and the best location is not suitable for constructing a highway aircraft runway, then within the macro-site selection feasible region, multiple construction sites are selected around the best location. Among the construction sites, there may be new sites or reconstructed sites, and their site selection evaluation indexes are different. It is necessary to establish a corresponding site selection evaluation index system, comprehensively compare the evaluation indexes of each new and reconstructed site, and determine the final construction location of the highway aircraft runway.

[0005] The current research on the site selection of highway aircraft runways first directly selects multiple sites for new or reconstructed highway aircraft runways, and then optimizes them individually, lacking consideration of the quantitative decision-making problem of highway aircraft runway layout and the integrated optimization of the site sets of new and reconstructed highway aircraft runways. Summary of the Invention

[0006] The present invention provides a method for optimizing the site selection of highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, aiming to solve the problems existing in the above-mentioned background technology.

[0007] The technical solution provided by the present invention is as follows:

[0008] A method for optimizing the site selection of highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, characterized by including the following steps:

[0009] S1. Establish a highway aircraft runway layout decision-making model: Quantitatively characterize the combat intention and battlefield planning and construction and the relevant indicators of the highway aircraft runway layout. With the minimum sum of the distances between the highway aircraft runway and each surrounding airport weighted by the aircraft survivability as the goal, obtain the objective function, and establish a highway aircraft runway layout decision-making model through the objective function;

[0010] S2. Establish an evaluation index system for the survivability of airport aircraft: Establish an evaluation index system for the survivability of airport aircraft from two aspects of airport anti-blockade and aircraft anti-strike;

[0011] S3. Determine the survivability of airport aircraft: Based on the evaluation index system for the survivability of airport aircraft, by constructing an evaluation index weight matrix and an index weight importance ranking matrix for the survivability of airport aircraft, evaluating the credibility of experts, and then determining the final value of the index weight, improving and applying the analytic hierarchy process to quantitatively evaluate the survivability of airport aircraft;

[0012] S4. Solve the highway aircraft runway layout decision-making model: According to the survivability of airport aircraft, use the ant lion optimization algorithm to solve the highway aircraft runway layout decision-making model to determine the optimal plane position of the highway aircraft runway;

[0013] S5. Establish an evaluation index system for the site selection of new and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning: Establish an evaluation index system for the site selection of new and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning from three aspects of layout rationality, flight feasibility, and engineering economy;

[0014] S6. According to the quantitative evaluation method of the survivability of airport aircraft and the evaluation index system for the site selection of new and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, determine the weights of each evaluation index, and combine the values of each evaluation index to determine the optimal new site and the optimal reconstructed site;

[0015] S7. Determine the optimal site for the concentration of new and reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites: Determine the weights of the fusion evaluation indicators for new and reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites, standardize the comparison values of each evaluation indicator in the optimal new and optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites, and determine the ranking of the advantages and disadvantages of the optimal new and optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites.

[0016] Furthermore, the relevant indicators include the combination with the national defense system, concealment and protection, coordination with the air transportation support system, and flight support conditions.

[0017] The objective function is:

[0018]

[0019] Among them, the objective function represents the minimum sum of the distances d between the highway aircraft runway P and each surrounding airport i after being weighted by the aircraft survivability, so as to meet the requirements of combination with the national defense system, where the weight T pi is the aircraft survivability of airport i; i For the aircraft survivability of airport i; (x P , y P ) represents the coordinates of the highway aircraft runway P in the plane rectangular coordinate system; (x i , y i ) represents the coordinates of the surrounding airport i of the highway aircraft runway in the plane rectangular coordinate system;

[0020] The constraint conditions are:

[0021] To meet the requirements of concealment and protection, there is a minimum distance requirement between the highway aircraft runway and its surrounding airport i, that is, D 近i , and at the same time, to ensure rapid activation, there is a maximum distance requirement between the highway aircraft runway and its surrounding airport i, that is, D 远 , then Among them, D 近i is the minimum distance requirement, which is obtained according to the perimeter range a i of airport i and the safety distance requirement b, that is, D 近i = a i + b;

[0022] The highway aircraft runway should be covered by the combat radius D Fi of the aircraft taking off and landing on its surrounding airport i, then d Pi ≤ D Fi ;

[0023] To coordinate with the air transportation support system, the distance between the highway aircraft runway and the civil transport airport or general airport j with demand is not greater than the aircraft range D j , then Among them, (x j , yj ) represents the coordinates of civil transport airport or general airport j in the plane rectangular coordinate system.

[0024] Further, in step S2, the establishment of the evaluation index system for the survival ability of airport aircraft: from two aspects of airport anti-blockade and aircraft anti-strike, establish the evaluation index system for the survival ability of airport aircraft, including four layers: target layer, first-level criterion layer, second-level index layer and scheme layer. Specifically:

[0025] The target layer is the survival ability of airport aircraft; the first-level criterion layer is airport anti-blockade, and the second-level indicators under it include the number of runways, total runway length, total runway width, average distance between runways, average distance between runway and taxiway, and distance from the combat demand point; the first-level criterion layer also includes aircraft anti-strike, and the second-level indicators under it include the aircraft capacity ratio of the collective apron, average distance between collective aprons, aircraft capacity ratio of the single-aircraft shelter, average distance between single-aircraft shelters, aircraft capacity ratio of the individual apron, average distance between individual aprons, aircraft capacity ratio of the aircraft cave depot, and protection level of the aircraft cave depot. The aircraft capacity ratio is the total area of the collective apron, single-aircraft shelter, individual apron or aircraft cave depot divided by the sum of the external dimension areas (length of the aircraft × wingspan) of all parked aircraft; the scheme layer is the airport set that needs to be guaranteed by the highway aircraft runway.

[0026] Further, in step S5, the evaluation index system for the site selection of newly-built and rebuilt highway aircraft runways based on layout and positioning: establish the evaluation index system for the site selection of newly-built and rebuilt highway aircraft runways based on layout and positioning from three aspects of layout rationality, flight feasibility and engineering economy, including four layers: target layer, first-level criterion layer, second-level index layer and scheme layer. Specifically:

[0027] The target layer is the compliance of the proposed new or reconstructed site; in the first-level criterion layer, for the new and reconstructed highway aircraft runways, the layout rationality has an index of the difference from the optimal objective function of the layout decision. When determining it, first combine the plane position of the proposed highway aircraft runway site, calculate the objective function value of this site by the objective function described in S1, and then subtract the optimal objective function value to obtain this index value; the project economy has a construction cost index, including the demolition costs of buildings and structures, the costs of engineering geology and hydrological transformation, the costs of accessing the construction site such as water, electricity, oil, and roads before construction, and the costs incurred by hiring personnel, machinery, purchasing and transporting building materials during the construction of the runway and flight support facilities; for the new highway aircraft runway, the flight feasibility has indexes including the maximum longitudinal slope of the runway, the amount of clearance treatment, the wind guarantee rate, and the environmental impact assessment results; for the reconstructed highway aircraft runway, the flight feasibility has indexes including the length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, flatness, maximum longitudinal slope of the runway, the amount of clearance treatment, the wind guarantee rate, and the environmental impact assessment results; the scheme layer is the set of new sites or reconstructed sites of each proposed highway aircraft runway.

[0028] Further, in step S7, determining the optimal site in the set of new and reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites includes the following steps:

[0029] Determine the weights of the integrated evaluation indexes for the new and reconstructed highway aircraft runway site sets. Combine the weights of each evaluation index in the new and reconstructed highway aircraft runway site selection evaluation index system determined in S6, propose an index weight preference coefficient, and determine the weights of the integrated evaluation indexes That is

[0030]

[0031] where λ is the index weight preference coefficient, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1. When 0.5 ≤ λ ≤ 1, it is biased towards the index weights of the new sites; when 0 ≤ λ < 0.5, it is biased towards the index weights of the reconstructed sites; when the index weights of the new sites and the reconstructed sites are equally important, λ = 0.5; are the index weights of the new sites and the reconstructed sites respectively, i = 1, 2, …, N;

[0032] Determine the integrated evaluation index weight matrix of the second-level criterion layer in S5 and the integrated evaluation index weight matrix under the flight feasibility criterion layer respectively by this formula, which are

[0033] Standardize the comparison values of each evaluation index value in the optimal new and optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites determined in S6. The standardization formula is

[0034]

[0035] Among them, f j Rk is the standardized comparison value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer, that is, the comparison value between the optimal reconstruction and the optimal newly built highway aircraft runway site evaluation index value; is the value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer of the optimal reconstruction site; is the value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer of the optimal newly built site. Among them, for the flight feasibility criterion layer, is the length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, and flatness of the runway design of the newly built site;

[0036] From this formula, the standardized matrix f of the evaluation index comparison value under the k-th criterion layer is obtained Rk , that is

[0037]

[0038] Determine the superiority and inferiority ranking of the optimal newly built and optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites. By and f Rk , the expression of the compliance difference R between the optimal newly built and optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites is obtained as

[0039]

[0040] When R > 0, the optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway site is superior to the optimal newly built highway aircraft runway site. When R ≤ 0, the optimal newly built highway aircraft runway site is superior to the optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway site.

[0041] Compared with the existing technology, the beneficial effects of the present invention are:

[0042] The present invention provides a method for optimizing the selection of highway aircraft runway sites based on layout positioning. Through this method, the optimal plane layout position of the highway aircraft runway can be quantitatively determined, and for the set of newly built and reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites with non-optimal layout positions, the most suitable construction site can be preferably determined, which is applicable to the site selection of newly built highway aircraft runways, the site selection of reconstructed highway aircraft runways, and the integrated site selection of newly built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways, improving the scientificity and rationality of the site selection decision of highway aircraft runways. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0043] Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the highway aircraft runway layout decision model in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0044] Figure 2 is a diagram of the airport aircraft survivability evaluation index system in the embodiment of the present invention;

[0045] Figure 3This is the evaluation index system for the siting of a new-built highway aircraft runway based on layout positioning in the embodiments of the present invention;

[0046] Figure 4 This is the evaluation index system for the siting of a reconstructed highway aircraft runway based on layout positioning in the embodiments of the present invention. Detailed implementation manners

[0047] To make the objectives, technical solutions, and advantages of the embodiments of the present application clearer, the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the embodiments described below are only a part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all the embodiments. Usually, the components of the embodiments of the present application described and illustrated in the accompanying drawings here can be arranged and designed in various different configurations.

[0048] Therefore, the detailed description of the embodiments of the present application provided below with reference to the accompanying drawings is only intended to represent the selected embodiments of the present application, and does not limit the scope claimed by the present application. All other embodiments obtained by those of ordinary skill in the art based on the embodiments of the present application without creative efforts fall within the scope of protection of the present application.

[0049] The present invention provides a method for optimizing the site selection of a highway aircraft runway based on layout positioning, including the following steps:

[0050] S1. Establish a layout decision-making model for the highway aircraft runway

[0051] To meet the mission requirements of the highway aircraft runway in war preparedness and non-war military operations, the indicators directly affecting the layout of the highway aircraft runway mainly include: combat intention and battlefield planning and construction, combination with the national defense system, coordination with the air transportation support system, good concealment and protection conditions, good flight support conditions, etc.

[0052] Among them, the combat intention and battlefield planning mainly refer to that the highway aircraft runway should be arranged around the combat requirement points, reasonably filling the gaps in the airport network, and the highway aircraft runway needs to be configured in combination with the airport quantity requirements in different combat areas. The combination with the national defense system mainly refers to the effectiveness of the highway aircraft runway in supporting the defensive operations of the surrounding airport groups. On the basis that the combat radius of the aircraft taking off and landing at the surrounding airports is effectively covered, the distance from the highway aircraft runway to each airport should be as short as possible, and it should be close to the airport with weak aircraft survival ability to facilitate the evacuation and concealment of the aircraft. The coordination with the air transportation support system mainly means that the highway aircraft runway can also be used for the emergency takeoff and landing of transport aircraft and helicopters. As an important channel for disaster relief, responding to emergencies and ensuring material transportation, its location layout should also give consideration to the takeoff and landing of aircraft at civil transport airports and general airports as much as possible to meet the task requirements under non-war military operations. Good concealment and protection conditions mainly mean that the location of the highway aircraft runway should not be too close to the airport to prevent being discovered and attacked prematurely. Good flight support conditions mainly mean that the activation support of the highway aircraft runway mainly relies on the personnel and facilities and equipment of the nearby airport. For quick activation, the highway aircraft runway should not be too far from the airport.

[0053] To make the layout decision of the highway aircraft runway more targeted and operable and meet the above index requirements, on the basis of considering the combat intention and battlefield planning, the highway aircraft runway should mainly ensure the emergency takeoff and landing of the aircraft belonging to the surrounding airport groups, and at the same time radiate and cover the takeoff and landing of aircraft at civil airports. The following quantitative layout decision model of the highway aircraft runway is established, as Figure 1 shown.

[0054] The objective function is:

[0055]

[0056] Among them,

[0057] The constraint conditions are:

[0058]

[0059] Among them, D 近i = a i + b. (4)

[0060] d Pi ≤ D Fi (5)

[0061]

[0062] Equation (1) indicates that the sum of the weighted distances d pi between the highway aircraft runway P and each surrounding airport i is the smallest to meet the requirements of the combination with the national defense system. Among them, the weight T iis the aircraft survivability of airport i. In Equation (2), (x P , y P ) represents the coordinates of the highway aircraft runway P in the plane rectangular coordinate system; (x i , y i ) represents the coordinates of airport i around the highway aircraft runway in the plane rectangular coordinate system. Equation (3) means that to meet the requirements of concealment and protection, there is a minimum distance requirement between the highway aircraft runway and airport i around it, that is, D 近i ; at the same time, to ensure rapid activation, there is a maximum distance requirement between the highway aircraft runway and airport i around it, that is, D 远 . Equation (4) is the minimum distance requirement D 近i , which is obtained according to the perimeter range a i of airport i and the safety distance requirement b. Equation (5) means that the highway aircraft runway should be covered by the combat radius D Fi of the aircraft taking off and landing at airport i around it; Equation (6) is to be coordinated with the air transportation support system, and the distance between the highway aircraft runway and the civil transport airport or general airport j with demand is not greater than the aircraft range D j , where, (x j , y j ) represents the coordinates of the civil transport airport or general airport j in the plane rectangular coordinate system.

[0063] S2. Establish an evaluation index system for airport aircraft survivability

[0064] As described in step S1, the objective function F of the highway aircraft runway layout decision model is closely related to the aircraft survivability of the airports around the highway aircraft runway, and an evaluation index system for airport aircraft survivability needs to be established.

[0065] Combined with the relevant measures taken to ensure aircraft survival in the airport, mainly considering the differences in the positions and facility configurations of different airports, in order to ensure aircraft takeoff and landing as much as possible and reduce aircraft attacks, an evaluation index system for airport aircraft survivability is established from two aspects: airport anti-blockade and aircraft anti-strike, as Figure 2 shown. Among them, the target layer is the airport aircraft survivability; the first-level criterion layer has airport anti-blockade, and its secondary indicators include the number of runways, the total length of runways, the total width of runways, the average spacing between runways, the average spacing between runways and taxiways, the distance from the combat demand point, etc.; the first-level criterion layer also has aircraft anti-strike, and its secondary indicators include the aircraft capacity ratio of the collective apron, the average spacing of the collective apron, the aircraft capacity ratio of the single-aircraft shelter, the average spacing of the single-aircraft shelter, the aircraft capacity ratio of the individual apron, the average spacing of the individual apron, the aircraft capacity ratio of the aircraft cave, the protection level of the aircraft cave, etc. The aircraft capacity ratio is defined as the total area of the collective apron, the single-aircraft shelter, the individual apron or the aircraft cave divided by the sum of the external dimension areas (length of the aircraft × wingspan) of all parked aircraft; the scheme layer is the set of airports that the highway aircraft runway needs to support.

[0066] S3. Determine the survivability of airport aircraft

[0067] As described in step S2, the established index system for the survivability of airport aircraft is a hierarchical structure model composed of a target layer, a first-level criterion layer, a second-level index layer, and a scheme layer. The influence degrees of the various indexes in the criterion layer and the index layer on the survivability of airport aircraft are different, and the weights they occupy are also different. Therefore, considering the credibility of expert evaluation, multiple experts use the improved analytic hierarchy process to determine it; then, combined with the index values of each airport in the scheme layer, the target layer - the survivability of airport aircraft is determined. The specific steps are as follows:

[0068] (1) For the N indexes under the same criterion layer or in the criterion layer, R experts compare the importance between every two indexes according to the 1-9 scale respectively to construct a judgment matrix where

[0069] (2) Obtain the maximum eigenvalue λ of the judgment matrix max and its corresponding eigenvector, calculate the consistency index Compare it with the random consistency index RI, and calculate the test coefficient When CR < 0.1, the judgment matrix passes the consistency test. Normalize the elements in the eigenvector to obtain the weight matrix η of the N indexes given by R experts R×N ; otherwise, the experts re-evaluate the importance between the indexes and repeat steps (1) and (2) until the consistency test passes.

[0070]

[0071] (3) Determine the final weight value of the N evaluation indexes for the survivability of airport aircraft

[0072] Affected by factors such as work experience, knowledge level, thinking depth and breadth, different experts will produce different evaluation results for the weights of the same group of evaluation indexes, which contains a certain degree of subjectivity. To minimize the influence of individuals on the irrationality of the evaluation results, it is necessary to evaluate the credibility of the experts. Considering the consistency between individual evaluation and group evaluation, if the difference between the index weights determined by the individual and the group is smaller, it means that the consistency is better, and the credibility of this expert is higher. When determining the final weight of the index, the weight given to this expert is larger. The difference between the index weights determined by the individual and the group can be reflected by the difference in the index values determined by different experts and the difference in the importance ranking of each index, so as to reasonably determine the expert weights.

[0073] 1) For the N index weight values determined by each expert, after numbering and assigning values to their importance in ascending order, normalization is performed to obtain the weight importance ranking matrix γ R×N , as follows:

[0074]

[0075] 2) Evaluate the individual differences on the weight vectors and weight importance ranking vectors determined by any two experts l and k respectively by Equation (9) and Equation (10)

[0076]

[0077] 3) Evaluate the overall differences α l , β l on the weight vectors and weight importance ranking vectors determined by the l-th expert and the R - 1 experts respectively by Equation (11) and Equation (12).

[0078]

[0079] 4) The smaller α l and β l , the smaller the difference, the greater the credibility of the l-th expert. Then the credibility of the l-th expert is

[0080] Φ l = μ(1 - α l )+(1 - μ)(1 - β l ), l = 1, 2, …, R (13)

[0081] In the formula: μ ∈ [0, 1] is the preference coefficient of the decision maker. When μ > 0.5, it means that the decision maker attaches more importance to the difference in weight values. When μ < 0.5, it means that the decision maker attaches more importance to the difference in weight importance ranking.

[0082] 5) The weight of the l-th expert is

[0083]

[0084] 6) Determine the weights ω 1×N of the N indicators by Equation (7) and Equation (14), which is

[0085] ω 1×N = σ 1×R η R×N = (ω1, ω2, …, ω N ) (15)

[0086] (4) According to steps (1) to (3), determine the weights of the indicators under the first criterion layer in turn as The weights of each index under the second criterion layer are and the weights of each index in the criterion layer are ω 1×2 =(ω1, ω2).

[0087] (5) The index values under each criterion layer can be quantified, and they are all benefit-type indices for the survival ability of airport aircraft. Combining the actual data of n airports, each index is standardized according to Equation (16), and then the index standardization matrix f n×N .

[0088]

[0089] In the formula: T ij is the value of the j-th index of the i-th airport; T ijmax and T ijmin are the maximum and minimum values of the j-th index among n airports respectively; when the values of the j-th index of the i-th airport are all 0 or the same, f ij takes 0.

[0090]

[0091] (6) According to Equation (17), the standardization matrices under the first and second criterion layers are determined as f n×6 and f n×8 respectively. Combining with step (4), the aircraft survival ability T n of n airports is

[0092]

[0093] S4. Solve the highway aircraft runway layout decision model

[0094] As described in S1, the established highway aircraft runway layout decision model belongs to the single-facility Weber problem with constraints, and it is difficult to obtain an exact solution. However, an iterative method can be used to effectively approximate the problem solution. To avoid falling into a local optimal solution and improve the convergence accuracy and robustness, the present invention adopts the ant lion optimization algorithm in the swarm intelligence algorithm. By numerically simulating the mechanism of ant lions hunting ants, a large number of ant lion positions are randomly generated, and the roulette wheel strategy and the elite strategy are comprehensively used to update the ant lion positions, continuously narrowing the search range of the fitness function variables, so as to obtain the global optimal solution of this problem. Specifically, it can be divided into the following steps:

[0095] (1) Initialize the population positions of the ant lions. According to the dimension number of the position of a single ant lion or ant (in this problem, it is the plane coordinates of the highway aircraft runway), random numbers within its specified range are generated by Equation (19).

[0096] X ij =l j +(u j -lj ) × rand() where i = 1, 2, …, p; j = 1, 2, …, q (19)

[0097] In the formula: X ij is the random number of the position of the i-th antlion or ant in the j-th dimension; l j is the lower boundary of the j-th dimension; u j is the upper boundary of the j-th dimension; rand() is a random number generated within the interval [0, 1]; p is the population size of antlions or ants; q is the number of dimensions of the position of a single antlion or ant.

[0098] (2) Set the fitness function as the objective function F, which also includes the corresponding constraint conditions, determined by equations (1) to (6).

[0099] (3) Combine the initialized population of antlion positions, calculate the fitness value of each antlion's position, and record the position and fitness value of the elite antlion (i.e., the one with the optimal fitness value).

[0100] (4) Set the random walk formula for antlions. First, assume that the position of the antlion after random walk is related to the iteration number, and is

[0101] X(t) = [0, cumsum(2r(t1) - 1), cumsum(2r(t2) - 1), …, cumsum(2r(t max ) - 1)] (20)

[0102] In the formula: X(t) is the position of the antlion after random walk; cumsum is the cumulative sum; t is the current iteration number; t max is the maximum iteration number; r(t) is a random function, that is

[0103]

[0104] Secondly, normalize the position of the antlion after random walk according to equation (22).

[0105]

[0106] In the formula: X t ij is the normalized position of the i-th antlion in the j-th dimension at the t-th iteration; a j , b j are respectively the minimum and maximum values in the random walk position X(t) of the j-th dimension; is the upper boundary of the j-th dimension at the t-th iteration; is the lower boundary of the j-th dimension at the t-th iteration.

[0107] Meanwhile, to simulate the process of antlions capturing ants, the upper and lower boundaries of their wandering continuously shrink with the increase of the number of iterations, which are determined by Equations (23) and (24).

[0108]

[0109] Among them, is the position of the random antlion or elite antlion at the t-th iteration in the j-th dimension; In the formula, w depends on the current iteration number t and is determined by Equation (25).

[0110]

[0111] (5) Randomly select an antlion position according to the roulette wheel strategy where the smaller the fitness value, the greater the probability of being selected. Combining with the random wandering formula of the antlion, around the positions of the random antlion and the elite antlion, generate the position of the ant at the t-th iteration by Equation (26).

[0112]

[0113] In the formula: is the position of the i-th ant at the t-th iteration; RE t is the position of the ant after random wandering around the position of the elite antlion at the t-th iteration; RA t is the position of the ant after random wandering around the position of the random antlion selected by the roulette wheel strategy at the t-th iteration.

[0114] Meanwhile, for it is necessary to ensure that each dimension is within the specified range. When it exceeds the upper boundary, it is set to the upper boundary, and when it exceeds the lower boundary, it is set to the lower boundary. Its logical expression is as follows:

[0115]

[0116] (6) Generate the elite antlion group and the ant group from step (5), merge the two, calculate their fitness values, and select the random antlion or ant with the best fitness value as the new elite antlion.

[0117] (7) Repeat steps (4) to (6). After continuous iteration, when the end condition is met, output the optimal antlion position, that is, obtain the optimal plane coordinates of the highway aircraft runway.

[0118] S5. Establish an evaluation index system for the site selection of newly built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning

[0119] Although the optimal horizontal position for the construction of a highway airport runway has been located through quantitative layout decision-making, the actual site conditions were not considered during the layout decision-making process. There may be situations where the meteorological conditions are poor, the geomagnetic interference is strong, or it is exactly located in the city center, large water areas, etc. at the optimal horizontal position. It is necessary to search for suitable sites for new construction or reconstruction of highway airport runways within the site selection feasible region described by Equations (3) to (6) in S1 around the optimal horizontal position.

[0120] The main differences between the new construction and reconstruction of highway airport runways lie in the existence of the runway and the compliance of runway performance. The runway for a newly constructed highway airport runway has not been built yet, and the construction cost is high. However, it can be built in combination with the local highway construction plan, and all performance indicators of the runway to be built meet the usage requirements. For a reconstructed highway airport runway, the location has been determined, and it has a runway foundation, with a low construction cost. However, the performance indicators of the runway may not meet the usage requirements, and sometimes it is necessary to expand or reconstruct the original highway section. Therefore, when selecting the optimal site, for the new construction and reconstruction of highway airport runways, the indicators and their weights in the corresponding site selection evaluation index system are different.

[0121] Considering the differences in the initial construction conditions between the new construction and reconstruction of highway airport runways and the usage requirements of highway airport runways, combined with the layout decision-making model of highway airport runways, qualitative evaluation indicators are minimized as much as possible to enhance the objectivity of the optimal selection of highway airport runway sites. An evaluation index system for the site selection of new construction and reconstruction of highway airport runways based on layout positioning is established from three aspects: layout rationality, flight feasibility, and engineering economy, as Figure 3 、 Figure 4 shown, which is divided into four layers: the target layer, the first-level criterion layer, the second-level index layer, and the scheme layer. Among them, the target layer is the compliance of the proposed new construction or reconstruction site. In the first-level criterion layer, under layout rationality, there is an index of the difference from the optimal objective function of the layout decision-making. When determining it, first, in combination with the horizontal position of the proposed highway airport runway site, the objective function value of this site is calculated by Equation (1), and then the index value is obtained by subtracting the optimal objective function value; under engineering economy, there is a construction cost index, including the demolition costs of buildings and structures, the costs of engineering geology and hydrological transformation, the connection projects such as water, electricity, oil, and roads to the construction site before construction, and the costs generated by items such as hiring personnel, machinery, purchasing and transporting building materials during the construction of the runway and flight support facilities. The above two aspects are applicable to both the new construction and reconstruction of highway airport runways; for newly constructed highway airport runways, under flight feasibility, there are indicators such as the maximum longitudinal slope of the runway, the amount of clearance treatment, the wind guarantee rate, and the environmental impact assessment results; for reconstructed highway airport runways, under flight feasibility, there are indicators such as the length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, flatness, maximum longitudinal slope, the amount of clearance treatment, the wind guarantee rate, and the environmental impact assessment results; the scheme layer is the set of newly proposed highway airport runway sites or the set of reconstructed sites.

[0122] S6. Optimal Selection of Sites for Newly-built and Reconstructed Highway Aircraft Runways

[0123] As described in S5, the evaluation indicators for the site selection of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways are different, and the corresponding evaluation indicator weights are also different. Therefore, for the site sets of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways, the evaluation indicator weights should be determined separately first, then the optimal sites in the corresponding site sets should be determined, and finally, through comprehensive comparison, the optimal site should be determined. The steps for the optimal selection of sites for newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways are as follows:

[0124] (1) Determine the evaluation indicator weights

[0125] Based on the evaluation indicator system for the site selection of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, as described in S3, first, the analytic hierarchy process is used to establish the weight matrix of N indicators under the same criterion layer or within the criterion layer, as shown in Equation (7).

[0126] Secondly, the final weights of N indicators considering the credibility of expert evaluation are determined by Equations (8) to (14). Among them, for the sites of newly-built highway aircraft runways, the weights of each indicator in the criterion layer are

[0127]

[0128] The weights of each indicator under the flight feasibility criterion layer are

[0129]

[0130] For the sites of reconstructed highway aircraft runways, the weights of each indicator in the criterion layer are

[0131]

[0132] The weights of each indicator under the flight feasibility criterion layer are

[0133]

[0134] (2) Standardize the values of each evaluation indicator in the site sets of newly-built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways

[0135] For the benefit-type indicators under each criterion layer, such as the length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, wind guarantee rate, environmental impact assessment results of the runway, etc., they are standardized according to Equation (16); for the cost-type indicators under each criterion layer, such as the difference from the optimal objective function of layout decision-making, runway flatness, maximum longitudinal slope of the runway, clearance treatment volume, construction cost, etc., they are standardized according to Equation (32).

[0136]

[0137] In the formula: X ij or G ijis the value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer for the i-th newly built (or rebuilt) highway airport runway site; or or are respectively the maximum and minimum values of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer among n newly built (or rebuilt) highway airport runway sites; when the values of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer for the i-th newly built (or rebuilt) highway airport runway sites are all 0 or the same, or take 0.

[0138] Generate the standardized matrix of the evaluation index values under the k-th criterion layer for the sets of newly built and rebuilt highway airport runway sites from Equation (32), which are respectively

[0139]

[0140] (3) Determine the compliance of the sets of newly built and rebuilt highway airport runway sites

[0141] From Equations (28), (29), (32), and (33), the compliance of the p sets of newly built highway airport runway sites is

[0142]

[0143] Determine X from Equation (35) i (i = 1, 2,..., p) to obtain the compliance ranking of the p sets of newly built highway airport runway sites, where X Y = maxX p is the optimal newly built site.

[0144] From Equations (30) to (32), (34), the compliance of the q sets of rebuilt highway airport runway sites is

[0145]

[0146] Similarly, determine G from Equation (36) i (i = 1, 2,..., q) to obtain the compliance ranking of the q sets of rebuilt highway airport runway sites, where G Y = maxG q is the optimal rebuilt site.

[0147] S7. Determine the optimal sites in the sets of newly built and rebuilt highway airport runway sites

[0148] From Equations (35) and (36), the optimal newly built highway airport runway site X pY , the optimal rebuilt highway airport runway site G qY, compare two sites to determine the optimal site, and the steps are as follows:

[0149] (1) Determine the weights of the fusion evaluation indicators for the sites of the newly built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways

[0150] As described in S5, the main differences in the evaluation index systems for the selection of sites for newly built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning are the different weights of each index in the criterion layer, and the different indexes and their weights under the flight feasibility criterion layer. To comprehensively evaluate the sites of the newly built and reconstructed highway aircraft runways, combined with equations (28) to (31), an index weight preference coefficient is proposed to determine the weights of the fusion evaluation indicators

[0151]

[0152] In the formula: λ is the index weight preference coefficient, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1. When 0.5 ≤ λ ≤ 1, it is biased towards the index weights of the newly built site. When 0 ≤ λ < 0.5, it is biased towards the index weights of the reconstructed site. Generally, it can be considered that the index weights of the newly built site and the reconstructed site are equally important, and λ = 0.5; are the index weights of the newly built site and the reconstructed site respectively, i = 1, 2, …, N.

[0153] For the optimal site of the newly built highway aircraft runway and the optimal site of the reconstructed highway aircraft runway determined by S6, according to equation (37), taking λ = 0.5, the weight matrix of the fusion evaluation indicators for the secondary criterion layer is

[0154]

[0155] For the indicators under the flight feasibility criterion layer, the index weights of the runway length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, flatness, etc. of the newly built highway aircraft runway site are 0. Combining equations (29) and (31), the weight matrix of the fusion evaluation indicators under the flight feasibility criterion layer is

[0156]

[0157] (2) Standardize the comparison values of the evaluation index values in the optimal newly built and optimal reconstructed highway aircraft runway sites

[0158] Taking the evaluation index values of the newly built site as the main, the standardization formula is

[0159]

[0160] In the formula: f j Rk is the standardized comparison value of the jth index under the kth criterion layer, that is, the comparison value of the evaluation index values of the optimal reconstructed and optimal newly built highway aircraft runway sites; It should be noted that there is an error in the original text where it says "λ=5" in item (13), which should be "λ = 0.5" for the correct logic. The translation is adjusted accordingly. is the j-th index value under the k-th criterion layer of the optimal reconstruction site; is the j-th index value under the k-th criterion layer of the optimal new construction site, where, for the flight feasibility criterion layer, are the length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, and flatness of the runway design of the new construction site, as Figure 3 shown.

[0161] The standardized matrix f of the comparison values of the evaluation indexes under the k-th criterion layer is obtained from Equation (40) Rk .

[0162] f Rk = [f1 Rk f2 Rk … f M Rk (41)

[0163] (3) Determine the superiority and inferiority ranking of the optimal new construction and optimal reconstruction highway aircraft runway sites

[0164] The compliance difference R between the optimal new construction and optimal reconstruction highway aircraft runway sites is obtained from Equations (38) to (41), and is

[0165]

[0166] When R > 0, the optimal reconstruction highway aircraft runway site is superior to the optimal new construction highway aircraft runway site; when R ≤ 0, the optimal new construction highway aircraft runway site is superior to the optimal reconstruction highway aircraft runway site.

[0167] In other embodiments, for the determination of the evaluation index weights in the evaluation index system of the airport aircraft survivability in step S3 and the evaluation index weights in the evaluation index system of the new construction and reconstruction highway aircraft runway site selection based on layout positioning in step S6, in addition to the analytic hierarchy process, subjective weighting methods such as the expert investigation method and the G1 method, objective weighting methods such as the entropy weight method, the CRITIC method, the standard deviation method, the principal component analysis method, and the coefficient of variation method, as well as the subjective and objective combined weighting method can also be used.

[0168] In other embodiments, for the solution of the highway aircraft runway layout decision model in step S4, in addition to the ant lion optimization algorithm, swarm intelligence optimization algorithms such as the particle swarm optimization algorithm and the wolf pack optimization algorithm can also be used.

[0169] The above is only the specific implementation manner of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be covered by the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application should be subject to the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for optimizing the site selection of highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, characterized in that It includes the following steps: S1. Establish a decision-making model for the layout of highway aircraft runways: Establish a decision-making model for the layout of highway aircraft runways through the following objective function; where Ti is the aircraft survivability of airport i; represent the coordinates of the highway aircraft runway P in the plane rectangular coordinate system; (x i , y i ) represent the coordinates of the airport i around the highway aircraft runway in the plane rectangular coordinate system; S2. Establish an evaluation index system for airport aircraft survivability: Establish an evaluation index system for airport aircraft survivability from two aspects of airport anti-blockade and aircraft anti-strike; S3. Determine the airport aircraft survivability: Based on the evaluation index system for airport aircraft survivability, by constructing an evaluation index weight matrix and an index weight importance ranking matrix for airport aircraft survivability, evaluating the credibility of experts, and then determining the final value of the evaluation index weight for airport aircraft survivability, improving and applying the analytic hierarchy process to quantitatively evaluate the airport aircraft survivability; S4. Solve the decision-making model for the layout of highway aircraft runways: According to the airport aircraft survivability, use the ant lion optimization algorithm to solve the decision-making model for the layout of highway aircraft runways to determine the optimal horizontal position of the highway aircraft runway; S5. If the meteorological conditions are poor, the geomagnetic interference is strong, or it is exactly located in the city center or a large water area at the optimal horizontal position, it is necessary to search for suitable sites for new or rebuilt highway aircraft runways within the site selection feasible region around the optimal horizontal position, and establish an evaluation index system for the site selection of new and rebuilt highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, including four levels: the target layer, the first-level criterion layer, the second-level index layer, and the scheme layer. The target layer is the compliance of the proposed new or rebuilt site, and the first-level criterion layer includes layout rationality, flight feasibility, and engineering economy; S6. According to the quantitative evaluation method of airport aircraft survivability and the evaluation index system for the site selection of new and rebuilt highway aircraft runways based on layout positioning, determine the weights of each evaluation index, and combine the values of each evaluation index to determine the optimal new site and the optimal rebuilt site; S7. Determine the optimal site among the optimal new and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites: Determine the fusion evaluation index weight for the optimal new and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites, standardize the comparison values of each evaluation index value in the optimal new and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites, and determine the ranking of the advantages and disadvantages of the optimal new and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites; Determining the optimal site among the optimal new and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites includes the following steps: Combined with the weights of each evaluation index in the siting evaluation index system of newly built and rebuilt highway airport runways determined in S6, propose the index weight preference coefficient and determine the integrated evaluation index weight where λ is the index weight preference coefficient, 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1, are the index weights of the newly built site and the rebuilt site respectively, r = 1, 2,..., N; Determine the weight matrix of the fusion evaluation index for the S5 first-level criterion layer and the weight matrix of the fusion evaluation index under the flight feasibility criterion layer from this formula, which are respectively Standardize the comparison values of each evaluation index value in the optimal new and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites determined in S6. The standardization formula is where f j Rk is the normalized comparison value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer, that is, the comparison value between the optimal reconstruction and the optimal newly-built highway airport runway site evaluation index value; is the value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer of the optimal reconstruction site; is the value of the j-th index under the k-th criterion layer of the optimal newly-built site; The standardized matrix f of the comparison values of the evaluation indicators at the k-th criterion layer is obtained from this formula Rk , that is f Rk = [f1 Rk f2 Rk …f M Rk ​ Determine the advantage and disadvantage ranking of the optimal new-built and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites. By and f Rk , obtain the compliance difference F of the optimal new-built and optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway sites, that is When F>0, the optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway site is superior to the optimal new highway aircraft runway site. When F≤0, the optimal new highway aircraft runway site is superior to the optimal rebuilt highway aircraft runway site.

2. The method for optimizing the site of a highway aircraft runway based on layout positioning according to claim 1, wherein: In step S1, the constraint condition of the highway aircraft runway layout decision model is that to meet the requirements of concealment and protection, there is a minimum distance requirement between the highway aircraft runway and the surrounding airport i, that is, D 近i , and at the same time, to ensure rapid activation, there is a maximum distance requirement between the highway aircraft runway and the surrounding airport i, that is, D 远 , then where D 近i is the minimum distance requirement, which is obtained according to the perimeter range a i of airport i and the safety distance requirement b, that is, D 近i = a i + b; The highway runway should be covered by the combat radius D of the aircraft taking off and landing at the surrounding airport i Fi so that d Pi ≤D Fi ; To coordinate with the air transportation support system, the distance between the highway aircraft runway and the civilian transport airport or general airport t with demand should not be greater than the aircraft range D t , then where (x t , y t ) represents the coordinates of the civilian transport airport or general airport t in the plane rectangular coordinate system.

3. The method for optimizing the site of a highway aircraft runway based on layout positioning according to claim 1, wherein: In step S2, the airport aircraft survivability evaluation index system is established: from the two aspects of airport anti-blockade and aircraft anti-strike, the airport aircraft survivability evaluation index system is established, which includes four layers: target layer, primary criterion layer, secondary indicator layer and scheme layer, specifically: The target layer is the survivability of airport aircraft; the first-level criterion layer includes airport anti-blockade, and the second-level indicators under it include the number of runways, the total length of runways, the total width of runways, the average spacing between runways, the average spacing between runways and taxiways, and the distance to the combat demand point; the first-level criterion layer also includes aircraft anti-strike, and the second-level indicators under it include the aircraft capacity ratio of collective aprons, the average spacing of collective aprons, the aircraft capacity ratio of single-aircraft shelters, the average spacing of single-aircraft shelters, the aircraft capacity ratio of individual aprons, the average spacing of individual aprons, the aircraft hangar capacity ratio, and the aircraft hangar protection level. The aircraft capacity ratio is the total area of collective aprons, single-aircraft shelters, individual aprons or aircraft hangars divided by the sum of the external dimensions of all parked aircraft; the plan layer is the set of airports that need to be protected by road runways.

4. The method for optimizing the site of a highway runway based on layout positioning according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the first-level criterion layer of the evaluation index system for the site selection of new and rebuilt highway runways based on layout positioning described in step S5, for new and rebuilt highway runways, the layout rationality is set with the difference index of the optimal objective function of layout decision. When determining, firstly, the plane position of the proposed highway runway site is combined, and the objective function value of the site is calculated by the objective function described in S1, and then the index value is subtracted from the optimal objective function value; the engineering economy is set with the construction cost index, including the demolition cost of buildings and structures, engineering geology and hydrological transformation cost, water, electricity, oil and road access cost before construction. The flight feasibility includes the costs incurred in the construction site of the project, as well as the costs incurred in hiring personnel, machinery, purchasing and transporting construction materials during the construction of runways and flight support facilities; for newly built road runways, the flight feasibility indicators include the maximum longitudinal slope of the runway, clearance handling capacity, wind guarantee rate, and environmental impact assessment results; for rebuilt road runways, the flight feasibility indicators include the length, width, bearing capacity, friction coefficient, flatness, maximum longitudinal slope, clearance handling capacity, wind guarantee rate, and environmental impact assessment results of the runway; the scheme layer is the set of newly built sites or rebuilt sites for each proposed road runway.

Images