Producability design and evaluation method, device, equipment, medium and product

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of aerospace, in particular to a productibility design and evaluation method, device, equipment, medium and product, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining a development program for designing the productibility of an aero-engine based on a development process of the aero-engine; based on a job task corresponding to the development program, obtaining design content included in the development program; according to the design content, first-level indexes are obtained, and second-level indexes influencing the first-level indexes are obtained; based on the target second-level index, obtaining an evaluation result of the first-level index correspondingly influenced by the target second-level index; and obtaining a comprehensive evaluation result based on the first-level indexes. The development procedure is designed by analyzing the development process of the aero-engine and fully considering the whole development process of design, production, assembly and inspection, the limitation that the producibility of the aero-engine is designed only for products in the prior art is overcome, and the production cost and the development period of the aero-engine are reduced.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present disclosure relates to the field of aerospace technology, and in particular to a method, device, equipment, medium and product for designing and evaluating producibility. Background Art

[0002] Aircraft engine manufacturing technology is an important factor in the development direction of China's aircraft engine industry chain. In order to solve the problems of high production cost and long development cycle of aircraft engines, it is now expected to propose a new research direction, namely, the design and evaluation of manufacturability. Manufacturability design stipulates the requirements of product reliability and other indicators, while the evaluation (i.e., process) determines whether the design requirements can be achieved. For example, in the design and manufacturing process of aircraft engines, manufacturability evaluation is required to fully consider various factors affecting manufacturability and take control measures to improve the process level and ensure that the reliability indicators of the engine meet the design requirements.

[0003] In the existing technology, the design for manufacturability is mainly focused on the product design stage. However, due to the complexity of the aircraft engine structure itself, the existing evaluation method only considers the product design aspect, which makes it impossible to fully consider the various factors affecting manufacturability and cannot solve the many difficult problems faced by aircraft engine manufacturing in design, production, assembly, inspection, etc. As a result, aircraft engines still have the problems of high production costs and long development cycles. Summary of the invention

[0004] The present disclosure is proposed in view of the above problems, and provides a method, device, equipment, medium and product for designing and evaluating producibility.

[0005] According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a method for designing and evaluating manufacturability is provided, comprising: Based on the development process of aircraft engines, obtain the development procedures for designing the manufacturability of aircraft engines; Based on the operation tasks corresponding to the development program, obtaining the design content for designing the manufacturability of the aircraft engine included in the development program; According to the design content, obtaining a primary index for evaluating the manufacturability of the aircraft engine, and obtaining a secondary index affecting the primary index; Based on the target secondary indicator, the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is obtained, and the target secondary indicator is a secondary indicator that affects the same primary indicator; and based on the primary indicator, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

[0006] In addition, the design and evaluation method for manufacturability according to one aspect of the present disclosure, before obtaining a development procedure for designing manufacturability of an aircraft engine based on the development process of the aircraft engine, further includes: Setting control parameters for each production process implemented using a production facility, the production facility being used to implement the development process of the aircraft engine, the control parameters being used to regulate a tolerance range of process data, the process data being parameters used by the production facility during the production process; Analyzing the process data based on the control parameters and the change trends of the process data to confirm that the production facility has process capability; The process capability is used to characterize that the production facility can manufacture products that meet quality requirements within a specified tolerance range, and the variation trend of the process data is used to characterize the quality fluctuation of the products produced by the production facility.

[0007] In addition, according to the design and evaluation method for manufacturability in one aspect of the present disclosure, based on the primary index, a comprehensive evaluation result of manufacturability of an aircraft engine is obtained, including: Obtaining an objective weight of the first-level indicator based on a scoring result representing the importance of the first-level indicator; Obtaining the subjective weight of the first-level indicator, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the first-level indicator based on the subjective weight and the objective weight; Based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained; Based on the target secondary indicator, the evaluation results of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicator are obtained, including: Based on the scoring result representing the importance of the target secondary indicator, an objective weight of the target secondary indicator is obtained; Obtaining the subjective weight of the target secondary indicator, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator based on the subjective weight and the objective weight of the target secondary indicator; Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator, the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is obtained.

[0008] In addition, according to the design and evaluation method for manufacturability of one aspect of the present disclosure, based on the scoring result representing the importance of the primary indicator, the objective weight of the primary indicator is obtained, including: Based on the scoring results representing the importance of the first-level indicators, obtaining the entropy value of each of the first-level indicators; Calculating the objective weight of the first-level indicator based on the entropy value of each first-level indicator; Based on the scoring result representing the importance of the target secondary indicator, the objective weight of the target secondary indicator is obtained, including: Based on the scoring results representing the importance of the target secondary indicators, the entropy value of each target secondary indicator is calculated; Based on the entropy value of each of the target secondary indicators, the objective weight of the target secondary indicator is calculated.

[0009] In addition, according to the design and evaluation method for manufacturability in one aspect of the present disclosure, obtaining the subjective weight of the primary indicator includes: Obtaining a comparison matrix representing the relative importance of any two of the first-level indicators, and obtaining a consistency judgment index and a random consistency judgment index of the comparison matrix based on the eigenvector and matrix order of the comparison matrix; Based on the consistency judgment index and the random consistency judgment index, the consistency ratio of the comparison matrix is ​​obtained. When the consistency ratio is less than a preset threshold, the subjective weight of the primary index is obtained based on the comparison matrix.

[0010] In addition, according to the design and evaluation method for manufacturability of one aspect of the present disclosure, based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator, the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is obtained, including: Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the target secondary indicators, obtaining the secondary relationship matrix corresponding to the target secondary indicators; Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator and the secondary relationship matrix, the evaluation vector of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is calculated; Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the evaluation vector, obtaining the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator; Based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained, including: Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the first-level indicators, a first-level relationship matrix corresponding to the first-level indicators is obtained, and based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators and the first-level relationship matrix, a comprehensive evaluation vector of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is calculated; Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the comprehensive evaluation vector, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

[0011] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a producibility design and evaluation device, comprising: A first acquisition module is used to acquire a development procedure for designing manufacturability of an aircraft engine based on the development process of the aircraft engine; A second acquisition module is used to acquire design content for designing the manufacturability of the aircraft engine included in the development program based on the operation task corresponding to the development program; A third acquisition module is used to acquire, according to the design content, a primary index for evaluating the manufacturability of the aircraft engine, and to acquire a secondary index affecting the primary index; An evaluation module is used to obtain an evaluation result of a primary indicator affected by a target secondary indicator based on the target secondary indicator, wherein the target secondary indicator is a secondary indicator affecting the same primary indicator; and, based on the primary indicator, obtain a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of an aircraft engine.

[0012] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, a computer device is provided, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the method of the above aspect.

[0013] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the method of the above aspect is implemented.

[0014] According to another aspect of the present disclosure, a computer program product is provided, including a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the method of the above aspect is implemented.

[0015] As will be described in detail below, according to a method, device, equipment, medium and product for design and evaluation of producibility of an embodiment of the present disclosure, the development process of an aircraft engine is analyzed, and a development program is designed after fully considering the entire development process such as design, production, assembly and inspection. Through the work tasks corresponding to the development program, the design content for designing the producibility of the aircraft engine is obtained, which overcomes the limitations and singleness of the prior art of only designing the producibility of the aircraft engine for the product design process, solves many difficult problems such as design, production, assembly and inspection faced by aircraft engine manufacturing, and is conducive to reducing the production cost and development cycle of aircraft engines.

[0016] It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary, and are intended to provide further explanation of the technology as claimed. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0017] The above and other purposes, features and advantages of the present disclosure will become more apparent by describing the embodiments of the present disclosure in more detail in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. The accompanying drawings are used to provide a further understanding of the embodiments of the present disclosure and constitute a part of the specification. Together with the embodiments of the present disclosure, they are used to explain the present disclosure and do not constitute a limitation of the present disclosure. In the accompanying drawings, the same reference numerals generally represent the same components or steps.

[0018] Figure 1 is a flowchart illustrating the application of a design and evaluation method for producibility according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0019] Figure 2 is another flow chart illustrating the application of the design and evaluation method for producibility according to the embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0020] Figure 3 is an overall flow chart illustrating the application of the design and evaluation method for producibility according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0021] Figure 4 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating the structure of a device for designing and evaluating producibility according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0022] Figure 5 It is a schematic diagram illustrating the structure of a computer device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.

[0023] Figure 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating a computer program product according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0024] In order to make the purpose, technical solution and advantages of the present disclosure more obvious, the exemplary embodiments according to the present disclosure will be described in detail with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present disclosure, rather than all the embodiments of the present disclosure, and it should be understood that the present disclosure is not limited to the exemplary embodiments described here.

[0025] Aircraft engine manufacturing technology is an important factor in the development direction of China's aircraft engine industry chain. In order to solve the current problems of high production costs and long development cycles of aircraft engines, it is now expected to propose a new research direction, namely, the design and evaluation of producibility. Producibility is to improve the manufacturability and assemblability of products in the early stages of product design and development, while meeting product performance and functions, so that the designed products have the lowest possible manufacturing and assembly costs. The design of producibility stipulates the requirements of product reliability and other indicators, and the evaluation (i.e., process) determines whether the design requirements can be achieved. For example, in the design and manufacturing process of aircraft engines, it is necessary to conduct a producibility evaluation, fully consider various factors that affect producibility, and take control measures to improve the process level and ensure that the reliability indicators of the engine meet the design requirements.

[0026] However, most existing technologies use a single evaluation method, which can easily lead to weight imbalance and affect the accuracy of the evaluation results. Other evaluation methods of producibility often have certain shortcomings of subjectivity and arbitrariness, and it is also difficult to ensure the objective accuracy of the evaluation results.

[0027] In the existing technology, the design for manufacturability is mainly focused on the product design stage. However, due to the complexity of the aircraft engine structure itself, the existing evaluation method only considers the product design aspect, which makes it impossible to fully consider the various factors affecting manufacturability and cannot solve the many difficult problems faced by aircraft engine manufacturing in design, production, assembly, inspection, etc. As a result, aircraft engines still have the problems of high production costs and long development cycles.

[0028] In the above, a method, device, equipment, medium and product for designing and evaluating the producibility according to an embodiment of the present disclosure are described with reference to the accompanying drawings. By analyzing the development process of aircraft engines, a development program is designed after fully considering the entire development process such as design, production, assembly and inspection. Through the work tasks corresponding to the development program, the design content for designing the producibility of aircraft engines is obtained, which overcomes the limitations and singleness of the prior art of only designing the producibility of aircraft engines for the product design process, solves many difficult problems such as design, production, assembly and inspection faced by aircraft engine manufacturing, and is conducive to reducing the production cost and development cycle of aircraft engines.

[0029] By analyzing the producibility work in the process of aircraft engine development, combining some tool technologies to improve producibility, and then analyzing the producibility factors in the process, using fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods to divide the producibility levels, and analyzing whether any link needs to be improved, this plays an important role in shortening the development cycle.

[0030] The disclosed embodiment introduces objective weights in the evaluation stage, and calculates comprehensive weights through subjective weights and objective weights, which can reduce the subjectivity and arbitrariness of the evaluation stage to a certain extent, and is conducive to ensuring the objectivity and accuracy of the evaluation results.

[0031] To facilitate understanding of this embodiment, a design and evaluation method for manufacturability disclosed in the embodiment of the present disclosure is first introduced in detail. The execution subject of the design and evaluation method for manufacturability provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure is generally a computer device with certain computing capabilities, and the computer device includes, for example: a terminal device or a server or other processing device, and the terminal device can be a user equipment (User Equipment, UE), a mobile device, a user terminal, a terminal, a cellular phone, a cordless phone, a personal digital assistant (Personal DiTital Assistant, PDA), a handheld device, a computing device, a vehicle-mounted device, a wearable device, etc. In some possible implementations, the design and evaluation method for manufacturability can be implemented by a processor calling a computer-readable instruction stored in a memory.

[0032] like Figure 1 As shown, it is a flow chart of a method for designing and evaluating manufacturability provided in an embodiment of the present disclosure, and the method includes S101-S104: S101: Based on the aircraft engine development process, obtain the development procedures for designing the manufacturability of aircraft engines.

[0033] In combination with the aircraft engine development process, the producibility analysis is implemented in each aircraft engine development procedure. The development procedure may specifically include the demonstration stage, scheme stage, engineering development stage, finalization stage, and batch production and use guarantee stage.

[0034] Preferably, the embodiment of the present disclosure further includes the following steps 1-2 before obtaining a development procedure for designing manufacturability of an aircraft engine based on the development process of the aircraft engine: Step 1: Set control parameters for each production process performed using the production facility.

[0035] Among them, production facilities are used to implement the development process of aircraft engines, control parameters are used to standardize the tolerance range of process data, and process data are parameters used by production facilities in the production process, such as product dimensions, environmental parameters, equipment parameters, production efficiency and time, etc.

[0036] Step 2: Based on the change trends of the control parameters and process data, the process data is analyzed to confirm that the production facility has process capability.

[0037] Among them, process capability is used to characterize whether the production facilities can produce products that meet quality requirements within the specified tolerance range, and the changing trend of process data is used to characterize the quality fluctuations of the products produced by the production facilities.

[0038] This embodiment is further preferred to use statistical process control (SPC) to monitor the changing trend of process data and perform regular maintenance to avoid product quality fluctuations due to equipment problems. Analyze process data, establish operating standards, reduce process differences caused by human factors, and after process measurement and control, record production quality data (standard size data, pass rate, number of defective products, etc.), equipment operation data (equipment status, downtime, usage efficiency, etc.), environment and process data (temperature, humidity, tool wear, etc.) and supply chain data in the production process and update them regularly.

[0039] S102: Based on the work tasks corresponding to the development program, the design content for designing the manufacturability of the aircraft engine included in the development program is obtained.

[0040] For example, the corresponding tasks in the demonstration phase are to determine the technical principles, technical indicators and preliminary research and development funds, etc. Among them, the technical indicators are a series of specific and quantitative performance parameters and engineering standards, such as thrust, fuel consumption rate, high temperature / high pressure performance, manufacturing accuracy, etc.

[0041] The corresponding tasks in the scheme stage are to carry out system scheme design, tackle key technologies, and trial-produce and test new components and subsystems.

[0042] The corresponding tasks in the engineering development phase are to prepare draft aviation engine production specifications, process specifications, and material specifications in accordance with relevant national military standards, and to formulate other relevant technical documents.

[0043] The corresponding tasks in the design finalization stage are design finalization and production finalization. Design finalization is to consider whether the performance and use requirements of the aircraft engine meet the development requirements, while production finalization is to assess whether it has reached mass production and stable quality.

[0044] The tasks in the batch production and use guarantee phase are to conduct system inspection and production preparation, conduct trial production and production, and finally deliver the aircraft engine to the equipment user after passing comprehensive and systematic inspection and testing. The use guarantee phase is to deliver the final product and its related supporting equipment to the user, focus on technical training for equipment users, provide consulting services, and provide operation and maintenance support for subsequent use.

[0045] S103: According to the design content, obtain the primary index for evaluating the manufacturability of the aircraft engine, and obtain the secondary index affecting the primary index.

[0046] Specifically, the design content is mapped into specific evaluation dimensions (i.e., first-level indicators), such as design dimension, production dimension, time dimension, and cost dimension.

[0047] For example, the secondary indicators that affect producibility in the design dimension may be the substitutability of materials, flexibility of production choices, and technical verification capabilities; the secondary indicators that affect producibility in the production dimension may be skill levels, equipment availability, material availability, and production and processing capabilities; the secondary indicators that affect producibility in the time dimension may be the control of the development cycle, demand, production time, and determination of batch production processes; the secondary indicators that affect producibility in the cost dimension may be material selection, process equipment and technology level, cost control management level, and sensitivity of performance parameters.

[0048] S104: Based on the target secondary indicator, obtain the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator; and, based on the primary indicator, obtain the comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine.

[0049] The specific steps to obtain the comprehensive evaluation results of aircraft engine manufacturability are as follows: Step 1: Based on the scoring results that characterize the importance of the first-level indicators, obtain the entropy value of each first-level indicator.

[0050] Specifically, several experts are selected to score the importance of each first-level indicator according to the 1-5 scale method (very important, important, not very important, general, not important), and the scoring results of the relative importance of each first-level indicator are obtained. Specifically, the entropy value can be calculated by standardizing the proportion matrix constructed according to the scoring results through the matlab code. The calculation formula of the entropy value is:

[0051] in, represents the entropy value, represents the number of first-level indicators, Represents the normalized scale matrix.

[0052] Step 2: Based on the entropy value of each first-level indicator, calculate the objective weight of the first-level indicator.

[0053] The objective weight is calculated as follows:

[0054] in, represents the objective weight, Represents entropy value .

[0055] Step 3: Obtain the subjective weight of the first-level indicator. The specific steps include: Obtain a comparison matrix that represents the relative importance of any two first-level indicators, and obtain the consistency judgment index and random consistency judgment index of the comparison matrix based on the eigenvector and matrix order of the comparison matrix; specifically, any two first-level indicators can be judged according to the 1-9 scaling method to obtain the comparison matrix; Based on the consistency judgment index and the random consistency judgment index, the consistency ratio of the comparison matrix is ​​obtained. When the consistency ratio is less than the preset threshold, the subjective weight of the first-level index is obtained based on the comparison matrix according to the hierarchical analysis method.

[0056] If the consistency ratio is less than the preset threshold, it means that the consistency test has passed, and the subjective weight can be obtained at this time.

[0057] The calculation formula of the consistency judgment index is:

[0058] in, represents the consistency judgment index, represents the eigenvector of the comparison matrix, Represents the matrix rank of the comparison matrix.

[0059] The formula for calculating the consistency ratio is:

[0060] in, represents the consistency ratio, represents the consistency judgment index, represents the random consistency judgment index, The value of is related to the matrix order n.

[0061] Step 4: Based on the subjective weight and objective weight, calculate the comprehensive weight of the first-level indicators.

[0062] Specifically, the calculation formula of the comprehensive weight is:

[0063] in, represents the comprehensive weight, represents the objective weight, represents the subjective weight, is a coefficient, which is generally taken as 0.5.

[0064] Step 5: Based on the comprehensive weight of the first-level indicators, obtain the comprehensive evaluation results of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine. Specifically, it includes the following steps: 1) According to the characteristics of the evaluation objectives and evaluation factors, the fuzzy evaluation set V (i.e., evaluation level) is determined in advance.

[0065] The evaluation goal is to obtain good producibility, which can be expressed in terms of good or bad. The characteristics of the evaluation factors need to be considered comprehensively in combination with the evaluation index system. Generally, the evaluation levels can be divided into: , The levels are descending, such as "good, medium, poor, bad".

[0066] 2) Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the first-level indicators, the first-level relationship matrix corresponding to the first-level indicators is obtained.

[0067] For example, B1 represents the design dimension, B2 represents the production dimension, B3 represents the time dimension, and B4 represents the cost dimension. Select several evaluators to conduct fuzzy comprehensive evaluation on each first-level indicator B, and the first-level relationship matrix is ​​obtained as follows:

[0068] Among them, R represents the first-level relationship matrix, m represents the evaluation level of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, and n represents the first-level indicator.

[0069] 3) Based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators and the first-level relationship matrix, the comprehensive evaluation vector of aircraft engine producibility is calculated.

[0070] The calculation formula of the comprehensive evaluation vector is:

[0071] in, represents the comprehensive evaluation vector, represents the comprehensive weight, It represents the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicators under each primary indicator, and R represents the primary relationship matrix.

[0072] 4) Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the comprehensive evaluation vector, the comprehensive evaluation results of the aircraft engine manufacturability are obtained. Specifically including: Get the maximum value in the comprehensive evaluation vector and determine the evaluation level corresponding to the maximum value, for example: , the maximum value is " ”, and the corresponding evaluation level is , so the comprehensive evaluation result is "poor" and the degree of membership is 39.95%.

[0073] The target secondary indicator is a secondary indicator that affects the same primary indicator. The specific steps for obtaining the evaluation results of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator are as follows: Step 1: Based on the scoring results that characterize the importance of the target secondary indicators, obtain the entropy value of each target secondary indicator.

[0074] Specifically, select several experts to score the importance of each secondary target indicator according to the 1-5 scale method (very important, important, not very important, general, not important), and obtain the scoring results of the relative importance of each secondary target indicator. Specifically, the entropy value can be calculated by standardizing the proportion matrix constructed according to the scoring results through the matlab code. The entropy value calculation formula is:

[0075] in, represents the entropy value, Indicates the number of target secondary indicators, Represents the normalized scale matrix.

[0076] Step 2: Based on the entropy value of each target secondary indicator, calculate the objective weight of the target secondary indicator.

[0077] The objective weight is calculated as follows:

[0078] in, represents the objective weight, Represents entropy value .

[0079] Step 3: Obtain the subjective weight of the target secondary indicator. The specific steps include: Obtain a comparison matrix that represents the relative importance of any two target secondary indicators, and obtain the consistency judgment index and random consistency judgment index of the comparison matrix based on the eigenvector and matrix order of the comparison matrix; specifically, any two target secondary indicators can be judged according to the 1-9 scaling method to obtain a judgment matrix; Based on the consistency judgment index and the random consistency judgment index, the consistency ratio of the judgment matrix is ​​obtained. When the consistency ratio is less than the preset threshold, the subjective weight of the target secondary indicator is obtained based on the judgment matrix according to the hierarchical analysis method.

[0080] If the consistency ratio is less than the preset threshold, it means that the consistency test has passed, and the subjective weight can be obtained at this time.

[0081] The calculation formula of the consistency judgment index is:

[0082] in, represents the consistency judgment index, represents the eigenvector of the judgment matrix, Represents the matrix order of the judgment matrix.

[0083] The formula for calculating the consistency ratio is:

[0084] in, represents the consistency ratio, represents the consistency judgment index, represents the random consistency judgment index, The value of is related to the matrix order n.

[0085] Step 4: Based on the subjective weight and objective weight, calculate the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator.

[0086] Specifically, the calculation formula of the comprehensive weight is:

[0087] in, represents the comprehensive weight, represents the objective weight, represents the subjective weight, is a coefficient, which is generally taken as 0.5.

[0088] Step 5: Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicators, obtain the evaluation results of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicators. Specifically, it includes the following steps: 1) According to the characteristics of the evaluation objectives and evaluation factors, the fuzzy evaluation set V (i.e., evaluation level) is determined in advance.

[0089] The evaluation goal is to obtain good producibility, which can be expressed in terms of good or bad. The characteristics of the evaluation factors need to be considered comprehensively in combination with the evaluation index system. Generally, the evaluation levels can be divided into: , The levels are descending, such as "good, medium, poor, bad".

[0090] 2) Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the target secondary indicators, obtain the secondary relationship matrix corresponding to the target secondary indicators.

[0091] Taking the design dimension as an example, the target secondary indicators included in the design dimension are: material substitutability C1, production selection flexibility C2 and technical verification capability C3. Several evaluators are selected to conduct fuzzy comprehensive evaluation on each target secondary indicator C, and the secondary relationship matrix is ​​obtained as follows:

[0092] in, represents the secondary relationship matrix, m represents the evaluation level of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, and n represents the target secondary indicator.

[0093] 3) Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicators and the secondary relationship matrix, calculate the evaluation vector of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicators.

[0094] The calculation formula of the evaluation vector is:

[0095] in, represents the evaluation vector, Represents the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicators, It represents the comprehensive weight of each target secondary indicator, and r represents the secondary relationship matrix.

[0096] 4) Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the evaluation vector, obtain the evaluation results of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicators. Specifically include: Get the maximum value in the evaluation vector and determine the evaluation level corresponding to the maximum value, for example: , the maximum value is "0.3462", and the corresponding evaluation level is , so the comprehensive evaluation result is "poor" and the degree of membership is 34.62%.

[0097] like Figure 2 As shown, it is another flow chart of the design and evaluation method for manufacturability provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure. This embodiment is explained by taking a military aircraft engine as an example. The aircraft engines described below are all military aircraft engines. The method includes S201-S207: S201: Establish productive infrastructure.

[0098] Five producibility factors are proposed to guide users to consider what is needed to establish and support an effective producibility system. The work required according to these five producibility factors is as follows: (1) Recognize the need for management commitment: train, empower and encourage the team; (2) Organize producibility: form a multidisciplinary integrated product team (IPT), production disciplines such as production / manufacturing engineering, industrial engineering, quality control, process design, etc., and communicate with each production discipline in the team to ensure that the necessary goals are achieved; (3) Implement a risk management plan: identify, evaluate and try to reduce production risks through relevant tools, technologies and methods in the early stages of design; (4) Incorporate producibility into the new aircraft engine introduction strategy: consider producibility at every stage of the new aircraft engine development process; (5) Find relevant literature and use existing producibility experience knowledge or related knowledge, such as manufacturability, to guide the research on aircraft engine producibility.

[0099] S202: Determine process capability.

[0100] Two producibility factors are proposed to fully understand the process capabilities of the enterprise and its suppliers, namely: (1) understanding the current process capabilities (the company and suppliers); (2) predicting future process capabilities. Specifically: (1) Understand current process capabilities (company and supplier) 1) Establish an enterprise process capability team to coordinate process capability information and determine the required processes.

[0101] 2) Determine the process of collecting data. Identify the depth of knowledge required for each capability (knowledge depth means that in manufacturing and design, different products or processes may require different levels of knowledge to ensure efficient development and production. This knowledge includes technical principles, operating experience, equipment use, quality management, and theoretical and practical knowledge related to specific materials or processes). For each product, the process capability with different knowledge depths should be coordinated with the product-specific IPT.

[0102] 3) Identify the suppliers whose capability data is needed. Determine the depth of knowledge required for supplier capabilities.

[0103] 4) Determine the process capability documentation method to be used, as well as its distribution and access requirements. Determine the document update process and update cycle, and select document support tools.

[0104] 5) Develop formats and forms for data collection.

[0105] 6) Collect data. DOE, PFMEA, prototypes or modeling simulation can be studied or analyzed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of process capability and determine the optimal process parameters. On the other hand, process inconsistencies can be highlighted and their causes can be determined, and statistical analysis can be used to evaluate process capability.

[0106] 7) Organize and document the data in the process capability criteria.

[0107] 8) Integrate and apply process capability criteria in company design guidelines and engineering regulations.

[0108] 9) Continuously verify and monitor data through methods such as SPC or Six Sigma, and ensure that process capability does not change over time by using SPC tracking mechanisms.

[0109] 10) Regularly review and update process capability guidelines. Ensure that the collected data matches the required data and update the list of suppliers who need data.

[0110] (2) Predicting future process capabilities 1) Identify potential new capabilities through internal brainstorming, Internet searches, industry working groups, trade publications and trade shows, and strategic supplier partnerships.

[0111] 2) Evaluate candidate technologies. This can be done from the perspectives of marketing, financial and schedule impact as well as technical aspects.

[0112] 3) Choose to develop internally or acquire mature technologies.

[0113] 4) Evaluate process capability and determine if an adequate level of understanding of process capability exists.

[0114] 5) If sufficient data are available, incorporate new process capability data into the process capability criteria. If process capability is immature and the process is not well understood, conduct a study or analysis.

[0115] In this embodiment, it is preferred that a full understanding of current process capabilities and prediction of future process capabilities be carried out simultaneously so that when new or improved processes mature, they can be easily introduced into manufacturing. Process capability data and manufacturability design guidelines (if any) are jointly concerned with ensuring that the design is manufacturable by combining process knowledge with specific design parameters. Process capability analysis is used to ensure that the manufacturability infrastructure meets relevant requirements to achieve the goal of integrated product and process development (IPPD).

[0116] For process capability data, by combining process knowledge with specific design parameters, manufacturability is measured throughout the entire stage of manufacturability design. Specifically: (3) Carry out effective process measurement and process control, record the result data, create data files and update them regularly.

[0117] Process measurements are performed by production personnel during process research or product manufacturing (e.g., dimensions, environmental parameters, equipment parameters, production efficiency and time, etc.). Data is collected online (sensors, etc.) or offline (coordinate measuring machines, etc.), and statistical process control (SPC) is used to monitor process data changes and detect deviations in a timely manner. During the production process of a specific product, the process measurement results are analyzed and appropriate measures are taken. Process capability data can also be analyzed and tracked, and action plans can be developed and implemented, as well as incorporated into process capability guidelines.

[0118] The process control phase includes: 1) Develop a control plan. First, set the target value and tolerance range of the control parameters for each process.

[0119] 2) Establish SPC control charts to monitor the trends of process data.

[0120] 3) Preventive maintenance: By monitoring the equipment status and performing regular maintenance, quality fluctuations caused by equipment problems can be avoided.

[0121] 4) Standardization of process specifications. Establish operating standards to reduce process differences caused by human factors. After process measurement and control, record and regularly update production quality data (standard size data, pass rate, number of defective products, etc.), equipment operation data (equipment status, downtime, usage efficiency, etc.), environmental and process data (temperature, humidity, tool wear, etc.) and supply chain data in the production process.

[0122] (4) For highly complex parts or components that require precise and difficult processing, the following work can be carried out: 1) Supplier evaluation and selection A. Evaluate the supplier's production capacity and quality management system to ensure that it complies with relevant standards (such as ISO certification); B. Verify the supplier's processing accuracy and consistency through sample testing or small batch production.

[0123] 2) Establish clear technical requirements A. Establish clear technical requirements and tolerance standards to ensure that suppliers understand processing requirements; B. Conduct in-depth technical communication with suppliers to ensure that both parties have a common understanding of processing technology, material properties, etc.

[0124] 3) Implement process monitoring A. Share production data and quality inspection results with suppliers to ensure transparency; B. Establish effective feedback channels to communicate problems and improvement suggestions in a timely manner.

[0125] 4) Quality control and improvement Suppliers use SPC methods to monitor processes, identify and correct deviations, and work with suppliers to carry out improvement activities to promote process optimization and quality improvement.

[0126] 5) Supply Chain Management A. Establish a diversified supply chain to ensure that a supplier can be quickly switched when a problem occurs; B. Regularly assess supply chain risks to ensure timely responses to potential issues.

[0127] (5) Conduct a trade-off analysis to analyze the level of understanding and control required for each process, and determine which processes must be fully understood, monitored, and controlled, and which processes may be less complex or less critical to aircraft engine manufacturing. The analysis of the level of understanding and control required for each process can be systematically conducted through the following steps to ensure that resources are focused on the most critical links and optimize production management.

[0128] 1) Identify critical processes: Determine whether a process directly affects the safety, performance or compliance of the product (for example, the processing of core components of an aircraft engine (such as turbine blades) is more critical than that of the outer casing components).

[0129] 2) Conduct complexity assessment: for example, A. Technical complexity, check whether the process requires high-precision equipment, complex programming or special materials (such as high-temperature alloys); B. Determine whether the process is mature and whether there is sufficient empirical data to support control; C. Analyze whether production is affected by environmental factors (such as temperature, humidity, vibration), etc.

[0130] 3) Use the Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) tool to identify possible failure modes in each process. Generally, high-risk and difficult-to-detect processes require a high degree of understanding and control.

[0131] 4) Decide whether to conduct full inspection or sampling inspection on the product according to the risk level. For example, high-risk processes usually require 100% inspection, while low-risk processes can use sampling.

[0132] 5) Classification and priority sorting: A. Processes that must be fully understood, monitored and controlled: such as machining, welding and heat treatment of core engine components. B. Processes that can be partially understood and monitored: such as machining of external shells, involving non-critical components. C. Processes that do not require strict control: such as some auxiliary processes or non-critical assembly processes.

[0133] 6) Continuous optimization and feedback mechanism: Dynamically adjust the level of understanding and control based on the data and problems in actual production. At the same time, regularly analyze the monitoring results and optimize the process control strategy.

[0134] By establishing a productive infrastructure, setting up the equipment, process flow, information system (such as ERP, etc.), quality control system, and personnel training and management system required for production, we can ensure that the company has the basic conditions to execute highly complex processes, and can provide production equipment, resources and processes to lay the material and management foundation for production and process control. After the infrastructure is established, the process capability is determined to test the actual production capacity of these equipment and processes. For example, the stability and consistency of the production process are evaluated through process capability indexes (such as Cp, Cpk) and statistical process control (SPC). Ensure that under the established infrastructure, the production process can stably produce products that meet the design requirements within the specified tolerance range, while identifying bottlenecks or links that need to be optimized in production, and provide feedback for design and process.

[0135] S203: Manufacturability design of aircraft engine development program.

[0136] After verifying the process capability, by analyzing the manufacturability design of the aircraft engine development program, production feedback is further integrated into the design phase to optimize the product's manufacturability. Carrying out manufacturability design in the design phase ensures that the product structure can be easily manufactured and assembled, reducing production complexity and costs. Regarding the design method for aircraft engine manufacturability, this embodiment combines the aircraft engine development process and implements manufacturability analysis into each aircraft engine development procedure, namely: demonstration stage, scheme stage, engineering development stage, finalization stage, and batch production and use guarantee stage. The following is a specific analysis of the manufacturability work in each stage: (1) Argumentation stage:

[0137] The corresponding tasks in the demonstration phase are to determine the technical principles, technical indicators and preliminary research and development funds, etc. Among them, the technical indicators are a series of specific and quantitative performance parameters and engineering standards, such as thrust, fuel consumption rate, high temperature / high pressure performance, manufacturing accuracy, etc.

[0138] For technical principles and technical indicators, we can consult relevant literature on aero-engine manufacturing and production, or expand to complex products such as large automobile parts, fuses, rockets, ships, etc., to analyze and summarize the technologies involved in the development process. Secondly, virtual experiment technology can be used to verify some technical principles. Since there are no physical products yet, users need to build equipment models according to military needs, use construction simulation methods to conduct virtual experiments on computers, determine the combat and technical indicators of equipment, select the best support plan, and analyze and evaluate the feasibility of various technical approaches and alternative plans.

[0139] For development expenses, development expenses usually refer to the sum of all expenses required for various tasks related to aircraft engine systems, such as applied research, preliminary research, engineering design, analysis, testing, identification and trial production, research and development management. For the preliminary estimation of development expenses, the action cost method (ABC) is used in each stage. For example, the general implementation steps of the activity cost method are as follows: 1) Determine the cost object: the specific project or product that ultimately needs to be calculated and controlled. In the aircraft engine development plan, the cost object is generally the entire system, that is, the specific product that needs to be calculated and controlled. Services refer to the testing services, quality inspection and certification involved in the research and development process, as well as maintenance and after-sales support, and operations refer to specific manufacturing and engineering operations, such as precision casting, heat treatment, machining, assembly operations, and quality inspection and testing in each link.

[0140] 2) Identification operations: refers to the specific work involved in achieving a certain cost object during the development and production process. In the aircraft engine development project, various operations run through the design, production, testing and verification, and delivery processes, including: A. Design and R&D: preliminary design, material selection and testing, computer simulation and emulation, prototype manufacturing, etc. For example, when designing an aircraft engine compressor blade, it is necessary to simulate its aerodynamic performance under high temperature and high pressure, and test whether it meets the life requirements.

[0141] B. Manufacturing: precision casting, heat treatment, machining, component assembly, surface treatment, etc. For example, compressor blades need to be cast, heat treated, and precision machined, and then coated to enhance their wear resistance.

[0142] C. Testing and verification: static testing, environmental testing, engine test, quality inspection, etc. For example, after the engine is assembled, a series of performance tests are required to verify its thrust and stability.

[0143] D. Management and support: project management, supply chain management, document preparation and review, etc. For example, the project management team needs to coordinate with suppliers to ensure that special alloy materials are delivered on time so as not to affect the production schedule.

[0144] 3) Determine cost drivers: What drives the cost of the operation? Common drivers include: output, working hours, equipment utilization rate (the time and frequency of equipment use during manufacturing and testing), human input (the degree of participation of engineers, technicians and workers), etc.

[0145] 4) Collect cost data: Collect cost data related to each operation. Cost data includes direct material costs (raw materials used for manufacturing or trial production, etc.), direct labor costs (wages and benefits for engineers, operators, etc.), manufacturing expenses (indirect expenses such as equipment depreciation, electricity consumption, and maintenance), etc.

[0146] 5) Calculate the cost of each activity: Based on the collected cost data and identified cost drivers, calculate the cost of each activity.

[0147] 6) Allocate the cost of each job to the cost object: After calculating the cost of each job, allocate these costs to the corresponding cost object. Multiple jobs work together on a cost object. Allocating the cost of each job according to its contribution to the cost object (determined by cost drivers) helps to understand which links consume the most resources. The purpose of allocation is to make the cost of different products, subsystems or stages transparent, while identifying high-cost links and providing optimization basis.

[0148] 7) Analyze cost results: According to the cost proportion of different operations, conduct producibility analysis on high-cost operations. For example, after cost analysis, it is found that the cost proportion of the test phase is the highest, mainly due to the high working hours caused by repeated tests. At this time, the following measures can be taken: A. Optimize the design in advance to reduce the number of unnecessary tests; B. Use simulation technology to replace some physical tests.

[0149] (2) Planning stage

[0150] The corresponding tasks in the scheme stage are to carry out system scheme design, tackle key technologies, and trial-produce and test new components and subsystems.

[0151] The production work to be done includes: 1) Use the WBS decomposition method to decompose the aircraft engine system step by step to form a work breakdown structure.

[0152] 2) Develop system specifications based on the technical indicators formed in the demonstration phase, and establish functional baselines according to the system specifications. The system specifications include defining performance goals, design constraints, and manufacturability goals.

[0153] 3) Summarize and identify new technologies, new materials and new process projects, conduct quantitative evaluations on them, and maximize the standardization of components and materials. Quantitative evaluations include performance evaluation, cost evaluation, risk evaluation, and environmental and sustainability evaluations.

[0154] 4) Evaluate key production processes, tools and test equipment, and verify the adequacy of the plan. This step refers to checking and confirming the reliability, effectiveness and applicability of key processes, tools and test equipment used in the production process to ensure that they can meet the design requirements and performance indicators of the product and can be implemented smoothly as planned. In aircraft engine production, this step is crucial because an inadequate verification plan may lead to unstable processes, unsuitable equipment, and inaccurate testing, which in turn affects product quality and delivery time. The specific steps of the evaluation are as follows: A. Determine the evaluation object: for example, key production processes include heat treatment, precision machining, etc.; tools include special fixtures, molds, calibration equipment, etc. for processing and assembly; test equipment includes testing instruments and test benches for performance verification, etc.

[0155] B. Establish verification standards and indicators: According to design specifications, production requirements and industry standards, establish clear evaluation standards and technical indicators. For example, the heat treatment process needs to ensure that the material reaches a certain hardness value; the test equipment must meet the accuracy and calibration requirements.

[0156] C. Review verification plan: Develop a detailed verification plan, including test conditions, methods, and schedule. Evaluate whether all key links are covered, such as for equipment calibration plan, ensure that all test equipment is calibrated on time.

[0157] D. Perform trial production and testing: Verify the effectiveness of processes and equipment through trial production and testing, and record the gap between actual performance and expected goals.

[0158] E. Analyze test results and data: Collect and analyze data during the trial production and testing process, such as process parameters, output accuracy of test equipment, and durability of tools. Evaluate whether the predetermined indicators are achieved and identify deviations.

[0159] F. Risk assessment and improvement: Identify any potential process risks or equipment problems (such as equipment errors or production bottlenecks) and develop improvement plans. For example, if a heat treatment process is found to be unstable, it is necessary to adjust process parameters or replace equipment.

[0160] G. Confirm the adequacy of certification: Finally confirm whether the verification plan covers all key processes, tools and test equipment to ensure that they meet the production, testing and delivery requirements. If there are unresolved issues, additional verification must be carried out.

[0161] 5) Simultaneously consider early manufacturability factors, such as key materials, tools, manufacturing methods, processes, and facilities.

[0162] (3) Engineering development phase.

[0163] The corresponding tasks in the engineering development stage are to compile drafts of aircraft engine production specifications, process specifications, and material specifications in accordance with relevant national military standards, and to formulate other relevant technical documents. The following steps are included: 1) Determine review requirements: A. Define performance goals, design constraints, and manufacturability goals: Clarify the performance indicators and design boundary conditions (such as weight and size restrictions) that the aircraft engine must meet.

[0164] B. Review design requirements: Check the requirements document to ensure that all customer requirements, regulatory standards, and internal specifications are listed and are clear and unambiguous.

[0165] This section involves the contents of the evaluation checklist, and the explanation of the evaluation checklist will be explained later.

[0166] 2) Develop ideas and conduct preliminary analysis: Conduct preliminary analysis by considering factors such as technical feasibility, material selection, and cost-effectiveness.

[0167] Contents involved: Analysis of candidate materials and alternative processes. If alternative materials are considered, specific review and analysis of the alternative materials will be conducted.

[0168] 3) Select methods for design: After determining the design plan, select appropriate engineering methods and design tools, such as finite element analysis (FEA), computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and other technical means to ensure that the design can meet performance and manufacturability requirements.

[0169] 4) Carry out engineering layout: Create a detailed engineering layout and formulate the preliminary configuration of the component structure and system, including how to assemble the various subsystems and components, and the interface design between them.

[0170] A. Requirements analysis and goal definition: clarify the system's performance goals, design constraints, manufacturability requirements, and interface requirements, and list the specific functional requirements, space restrictions, weight constraints, etc. of components and subsystems. For aircraft engines, for example, you can define its thrust requirements, weight distribution, and size restrictions.

[0171] B. System decomposition: Decompose the complex aircraft engine system into multiple subsystems or modules (such as compressor, combustion chamber, turbine, etc.), and clarify the functions and interface requirements for each subsystem.

[0172] C. Component layout and space arrangement: Determine the relative position and arrangement of each component to ensure maximum space utilization. On the other hand, consider the convenience of maintenance and inspection, as well as the difficulty of subsequent manufacturing and assembly.

[0173] D. Interface design and matching: Design interfaces between various subsystems (such as mechanical connection, signal transmission, fluid or electrical interface) to ensure interface compatibility and reliability between different subsystems. For example, design the airflow interface between the compressor and the combustion chamber to ensure efficient combustion.

[0174] E. Manufacturability assessment: Determine whether the layout meets manufacturability goals, such as production cost, assemblability, maintainability, etc. At the same time, consider the feasibility of process and material selection to avoid complex designs that increase manufacturing difficulty. For example, check whether the arranged parts are easy to assemble and whether special tools are required.

[0175] F. Complete the layout and generate preliminary design drawings: After completing the evaluation and optimization, generate preliminary engineering drawings and technical specifications to provide a basis for subsequent detailed design. At the same time, mark key dimensions, interfaces and component locations to ensure that all relevant parties can understand the design intent.

[0176] 5) Through design review, drawing and analysis: A. Design review: Organize a design review meeting with the participation of multiple parties to confirm whether the design meets all requirements and identify possible defects and risks.

[0177] B. Drawing and analysis: Generate detailed engineering drawings and conduct design verification to ensure that the dimensions and material selection of each part meet the specifications.

[0178] 6) Develop and evaluate hardware: Develop prototypes or samples to ensure the feasibility of the design. Tools and processes need to be debugged during the production process to ensure that the hardware can be manufactured according to the design requirements. For example, prototypes of aircraft engine parts are made and their key performance is tested in the laboratory.

[0179] 7) Preliminary testing and related reviews: Conduct preliminary tests on prototypes or samples to verify whether their performance meets the design requirements. Conduct reviews based on the test results, analyze deviations and problems, and propose necessary design modifications.

[0180] 8) Product production: After the design is confirmed, it enters the mass production stage. At this time, a detailed production plan needs to be implemented to ensure that the equipment, process and supply chain are ready and meet all quality control requirements.

[0181] In the embodiment of the present disclosure, it is preferred that a manufacturability assessment checklist be used throughout the design process. The following lists some specific considerations in the table: 1) Have you considered other design concepts and chosen the simplest and most effective one?

[0182] 2) Whether the design exceeds the current manufacturing level.

[0183] 3) Whether the design is conducive to economical processing applications.

[0184] 4) Whether there is already a design for the project.

[0185] 5) Is the project over-designed or under-designed?

[0186] 6) Does the redesign eliminate anything?

[0187] 7) Whether a simpler manufacturing process can be used.

[0188] 8) Are there cheaper parts that can achieve the same function?

[0189] 9) Whether parts designed for other equipment can be used.

[0190] 10) Is there a similar cheaper design?

[0191] After determining the review requirements, determine the characteristics of the material requirements, and further review the engineering material properties to select potential candidate materials. The review criteria are as follows: 1) Whether the material meets the design requirements, such as strength, hardness, corrosion resistance, etc.

[0192] 2) Whether the material is of strategic importance.

[0193] 3) Material availability, which takes into account standard factory products, geographic location, normal delivery times and quantity requirements.

[0194] When these properties (such as tensile strength, compressive strength, stiffness, etc.) are identified as requirements: 1) Review materials to determine which materials can meet the design performance characteristics; 2) Review the final list of materials and determine the manufacturing processes that are compatible with each material; 3) Review the process list against the design quality and quantity requirements, such as tolerance, finish, configuration, quantity, and schedule, to determine which manufacturing process can meet these requirements.

[0195] After the material is available, determine whether the process is suitable for the requirements (tolerance, availability, etc.), comprehensively consider whether the process has personnel constraints, and further, determine the appropriate schedule and have enough alternatives to ensure that the material and process combination can provide the best economy, availability and quality. Next, in the manufacturing process: 1) Find out unnecessary processing requirements in the design and simplify the design to the greatest extent; 2) Check design specifications to avoid limiting production personnel to one manufacturing process; 3) Ensure that parts can be reassembled economically without the need for special equipment or tools; 4) Check whether there are special handling equipment or procedures to protect critical or sensitive items.

[0196] Finally, a system review or audit is conducted, including a preliminary design review (PDR), a critical design review (CDR), a functional configuration audit (FCA), a physical configuration audit (PCA), and a formal qualification review (FQR). PDR is conducted on each configuration item (CI) to evaluate the progress, consistency, and technical adequacy of the selected design and test methods, and to establish compatibility with planned requirements. The items to be reviewed are: 1) Equipment CI; 2) Preliminary mechanical and packaging design; 3) A preliminary list of materials, parts and processes; 4) models, prototypes, and, where appropriate, pre-production hardware; 5) Description and characteristics of the off-the-shelf equipment; 6) Life cycle cost analysis; 7) Review the identification progress of long-lead support equipment items.

[0197] (4) Design finalization stage.

[0198] The corresponding tasks in the design finalization stage are design finalization and production finalization. Design finalization is to consider whether the performance and use requirements of the aircraft engine meet the development requirements, while production finalization is to assess whether it has achieved mass production and stable quality. Specifically include: 1) Process and method analysis: Minimize manufacturing costs and delivery time and maximize quality without affecting aircraft engine performance. The specific implementation steps are as follows: A. Sort out the existing process flow: analyze the time and cost of design, production, assembly and other links.

[0199] B. Identify bottlenecks: Find out the key processes that cause delays and high costs.

[0200] C. Optimization method: Improve efficiency by introducing advanced manufacturing technologies (such as automation or lean production), reducing unnecessary processes or using alternative materials.

[0201] D. Testing and feedback: After adjusting the process, conduct small-scale tests to verify the effect of process optimization and collect data for analysis.

[0202] For example, by analyzing the production process, it is found that the processing accuracy of a complex component exceeds the necessary standards, resulting in increased costs. The production difficulty can be reduced by modifying the tolerance standards.

[0203] 2) Apply alternative materials. Achieve the following effects: reduce the consumption of expensive materials and reduce overall costs; avoid production interruptions due to shortages or restrictions of key materials; find materials with similar performance but more cost-effective. The specific steps are as follows: A. Clearly define replacement targets: Consider related materials that are too costly, have unstable supply, are difficult to produce, or contribute little to overall performance.

[0204] B. Screening of alternative materials: a. Performance matching: The strength, heat resistance, corrosion resistance and other properties of the alternative materials must be equivalent to or close enough to those of the raw materials; b. Processability: Alternative materials should be easy to process with existing equipment to reduce production change costs; c. Supply chain feasibility: Choose materials that are easier to purchase and have stable prices to reduce the risk of supply interruption.

[0205] C. Small-scale testing and verification: Prototype the alternative materials and test their mechanical properties, durability and environmental adaptability, such as strength testing, fatigue testing, temperature and humidity testing, etc.

[0206] D. Cost and benefit analysis: a. Calculate the comprehensive cost of alternative materials in procurement, processing, maintenance, etc., and compare with the original materials. b. Evaluate the long-term benefits of alternative materials, such as reducing material waste, reducing energy consumption or improving production efficiency.

[0207] E. Process and design adjustments: If the processing method or characteristics of the substitute material are different from the original material, the production process and design need to be appropriately modified. This includes changing the mold design, adjusting the tolerance standard, modifying the assembly process, etc.

[0208] F. Production verification and monitoring: Before the replacement materials are put into formal production, trial production is carried out to verify the adaptability of the production line. At the same time, key indicators such as qualification rate, material loss, equipment stability, etc. are monitored to ensure the feasibility of the replacement plan.

[0209] G. Risk management: Establish a feedback mechanism to collect data from production and customer use, and adjust the process or supply chain in a timely manner. Identify and respond to possible risks, such as abnormal problems in the processing of new materials or changes in market demand.

[0210] 3) Investigate (including market trends, supplier capabilities, manufacturing technology development, competitor trends, etc.) and change production design in a timely manner. Change production design to achieve: A. Adapt to technological advances: When new processes or materials emerge, adjust the design to improve production efficiency.

[0211] B. Risk response: If the materials and technologies that the original design relies on have supply chain risks, change the design in a timely manner.

[0212] C. Optimize cost and performance: Based on the analysis results, change the design to achieve a better balance between performance and cost.

[0213] 4) Evaluate engineering changes, using the Producibility Assessment Work (PAW) form. PAW collects expert opinions through questionnaires or other non-face-to-face methods, identifies problem areas that may be difficult to define initially, and combines the knowledge, experience, and expert judgment of the evaluators to form relevant producibility indicators.

[0214] Regarding the application of PAW, for example, it is planned to change some high-temperature parts of the engine (such as turbine blades) from traditional casting processes to additive manufacturing (3D printing) processes to shorten the manufacturing cycle, reduce material waste, and improve the flexibility of component design. Generally: A. Collect expert opinions: Collect feedback from experts in different departments (material engineers, manufacturing engineers, supply chain managers, quality control experts, etc.) through questionnaires and online discussions to identify potential problems that are difficult to define. The survey content focuses on the following key issues: a. Process applicability: Whether the 3D printing process can stably meet the high temperature strength and fatigue resistance requirements of turbine blades.

[0215] b. Material properties: Whether the application of new powder alloy materials in additive manufacturing will affect the life of components.

[0216] c. Quality control: How to ensure that defects such as micro cracks and pores are avoided during the printing process.

[0217] d. Cost and supply chain: Will the cost of 3D printing equipment and materials exceed that of traditional casting processes? Is the supply chain stable?

[0218] e. Post-processing process: whether complex heat treatment or machining is required after printing to achieve the required surface finish.

[0219] B. Identify Problem Areas and Risks: Based on the expert feedback, several key problem areas of 3D printing changes are assumed to be identified: a. Process uncertainty: Currently, the maturity of 3D printing metal technology in the field of high-temperature components of aircraft engines is relatively low, and the printing quality may be unstable.

[0220] b. Quality and detection complexity: The detection of micro defects inside printed parts requires advanced non-destructive testing technology (such as CT scanning), which increases the detection cost.

[0221] c. Cost and time: 3D printing equipment is expensive and has a slow printing speed, limited mass production capabilities, and may extend delivery cycles.

[0222] d. Materials and supply chain: Alloy powders are more expensive, and there are fewer suppliers, resulting in greater supply chain risks.

[0223] C. Constructing manufacturability indicators According to the feedback from experts, each key indicator is quantified and weighted, and the producibility indicators in the PAW table are assumed to be formed, as shown in Table 1: Table 1 Producibility indicators in PAW

[0224] D. Evaluation results and decision recommendations: Based on the analysis results of the PAW table, it is assumed that the evaluation results are: Although 3D printing has the advantages of shortening the development cycle and optimizing design flexibility, it also faces challenges such as high cost, complex quality inspection and unstable supply chain. Then the corresponding decision recommendations are: a. Phased introduction: Apply 3D printing technology first on non-critical components or in the pilot production phase to verify the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the process.

[0225] b. Optimize post-processing process: Study simplified solutions for heat treatment and surface processing to reduce subsequent processing costs.

[0226] c. Multi-supplier cooperation: Establish cooperation with multiple powder material suppliers to reduce supply chain risks.

[0227] d. Process and quality optimization: Introduce more mature non-destructive testing technologies, such as laser scanning or X-ray CT, to ensure the quality of printed parts.

[0228] e. Long-term cost monitoring: Reduce equipment depreciation costs and improve production efficiency through gradual scale-up of production.

[0229] 5) Apply new manufacturing technologies: As production experience accumulates, it may be necessary to improve processes and methods. Identify defects in the operating units of the aircraft engine that require redesign, allowing for further manufacturability analysis.

[0230] 6) During assembly: A. Consider producing complex contact parts as single entities, replacing complete sub-assemblies, thereby eliminating many assembly operations; B. Prioritize the human factor because human operators have strong dexterity and judgment and can work around the mechanical constraints imposed by machines in certain situations.

[0231] C. If mechanical assembly is involved, consider establishing a base component in the mechanized assembly to build the assembly on. The base component must have characteristics suitable for rapid and accurate positioning on the work carrier.

[0232] D. Test and inspect partially assembled units early in the assembly process, avoiding excessive disassembly and the resulting costs of component damage.

[0233] E. When performing large-scale assembly, divide the assembly work to ensure that the parts are designed so that several parts can be maintained and assembled at the same time.

[0234] F. Maintaining assembly line balance: Regarding the order of component assembly, a graphical method is considered here, which shows all the options. The recommended graphical method is a priority diagram (also called a critical path diagram). The general steps are as follows: a. First identify all project activities.

[0235] b. Next, determine the order of tasks. Tasks can be serial (i.e., one task must be started after another task is completed) or parallel (i.e., multiple tasks can be carried out at the same time). Further, draw a diagram on paper or using project management software, representing each task as a node (or vertex), and use arrows to represent the logical relationship between tasks. The direction of the arrow indicates the order of tasks, and the length of the arrow can indicate the duration of the task.

[0236] c. Mark the duration of the task at each node so that the total time of the project can be calculated later.

[0237] d. Calculate the critical path of the project based on the drawn priority diagram. The critical path refers to a series of tasks in the project that have the longest total time, and the delay of any task will affect the completion time of the entire project.

[0238] (5) Mass production and usage guarantee stage.

[0239] The tasks corresponding to the batch production and use guarantee stage are to conduct system inspection and production preparation, conduct trial production and production, and finally deliver the aircraft engine to the equipment user after passing comprehensive and systematic inspection and testing. The use guarantee stage is to deliver the final product and its related supporting equipment to the user, focus on technical training for equipment users, provide consulting services, and provide operation and maintenance support for subsequent use. Specifically include the following: 1) Measurement system: Measure the producibility of a production system, determine the characteristics of its producibility system based on the determined producibility goals, and combine production data from all aspects, analyze the data, determine trends and possible courses of action, improve the producibility of aircraft engines, and communicate success and progress in achieving goals to company employees and customers in a timely manner to improve competitiveness.

[0240] 2) Measuring products: The production of aircraft engines must meet the performance, cost and schedule requirements required by customers. Based on these requirements, IPT defines the goals of each stage in the previous stage. The goals are recorded and then compared with the actual situation to evaluate the manufacturability of aircraft engines and provide continuous feedback to make improvements possible.

[0241] 3) Evaluate manufacturing quality: mainly focus on process equipment, pay attention to processing accuracy, surface quality, manufacturing efficiency, manufacturing cost, etc.

[0242] In this embodiment, according to the above analysis of each stage, the design contents included in each development process are obtained as shown in Table 2: Table 2 Contents of aircraft engine manufacturability design

[0243] The “√” in Table 2 indicates a required option, “×” indicates a non-option, and “1” indicates an optional option. By carrying out these producibility tasks, the producibility of aircraft engines can be improved as much as possible during the design stage.

[0244] S204: Divide the primary indicators used to evaluate the manufacturability of aircraft engines, and obtain the secondary indicators that affect the primary indicators.

[0245] This embodiment describes the manufacturability design of aircraft engines. Specifically, the manufacturability work of each development procedure is considered separately. According to the manufacturability work examples of each stage, the manufacturability work basis of each stage is provided, and the key elements such as materials, processes, and modularization are clarified. Each design decision will directly affect the manufacturability of the aircraft engine, such as material selection, process route, modular design, etc. When dividing the first-level indicators, the above-mentioned design decisions are mapped to specific evaluation dimensions (i.e., first-level indicators), such as design, production, time, and cost. When evaluating, if the manufacturability work in the design stage is ignored, it is easy to cause the indicators of certain dimensions to be out of touch with actual production. In addition, through manufacturability evaluation, after obtaining the evaluation results, the manufacturability work of the corresponding stage can be improved to further improve manufacturability. In the development process, the earlier the manufacturability problem of the aircraft engine is considered, the lower the full life cycle cost. Therefore, in combination with the development process of the aircraft engine, in this embodiment, it is determined to consider the evaluation problem of manufacturability from the four first-level indicators of design dimension, production dimension, time dimension, and cost dimension. The following is a specific analysis: (1) Design Dimension First, the manufacturing process of aircraft engines usually has the characteristics of difficult material processing, complex shape and structure, and high processing precision. Secondly, there is a certain disconnect between the design and process of aircraft engines. Whether the structural designers consider the process requirements comprehensively when designing, and whether the process personnel are sufficiently involved in the structural design, are all issues to be considered. Finally, there may be some inherent manufacturability limitations at each stage of the life cycle process. For example, extensive manufacturability considerations may include the selection of materials and manufacturing processes. However, all requirements of the system, such as reliability, availability, maintainability, safety, or manufacturability, are interrelated throughout the design process and require trade-off studies. The following are secondary indicators that may affect the design dimension: 1) Specify materials.

[0246] Mechanical, physical, and chemical properties constitute the primary decision criteria for selecting materials to meet design objectives. These properties either facilitate or constrain the choice of manufacturing process because of their interrelationships with factors such as formability, machinability, joining, heat treatment, or surface treatment. For example, some materials have very limited ability to be configured into a desired shape, and a design that specifies only one material is limited to the manufacturing processes that are compatible with that material. Therefore, the design should specify as many alternative materials as possible to expand the number of potential manufacturing processes and allow for the substitution of non-scarce or non-strategic materials.

[0247] 2) Simplicity of design.

[0248] Complex approaches to meeting design goals can result in significant cost increases. Often, such designs exceed functional requirements, increasing weight, manufacturing costs, and increasing the costs of reliability, availability, and maintainability. More likely, complex designs will require additional costs and delivery time due to increased manufacturing and assembly costs.

[0249] 3) Flexibility in production options.

[0250] In rare cases, only one material or manufacturing process will meet the requirements of the design goals. More often, any one of several materials or processes will produce an acceptable product. Identify alternative materials and processes by anticipating bottlenecks due to potential lack of material or process availability.

[0251] 4) Tolerance requirements.

[0252] Unnecessarily tight tolerances and surface finish specifications have a very negative impact on manufacturability. As tolerances and surface finishes become tighter, more specialized and more expensive manufacturing operations are required. As the stringency of tolerance and surface finish requirements increases, the labor intensity of the manufacturing process also increases, which in turn increases labor costs.

[0253] 5) Ability to verify technology.

[0254] The system or the elements of the system refer to the system requirements, functions, input / output flows, system components, interfaces, design features, and verification procedures that constitute the system. These elements need to be verified to meet their specified requirements and characteristics, proving that each conversion process of the system from input to output does not introduce errors / defects / errors. Verification needs to confirm that this conversion process is correct based on the requirements and the selected verification method. If the technical verification capability is insufficient during the design process, when the product is designed according to the requirements, the verification will fail or the confirmation will be unsuccessful because the product requirements cannot meet the user needs, thereby affecting the manufacturability of the aircraft engine during the design stage.

[0255] 6) Clarity and conciseness of the Technical Data Pack (TDP).

[0256] The reliability of the information conveyed by the TDP is critical to the successful achievement of design goals. Unclear or ambiguous design information can be just as detrimental to production as inaccurate information.

[0257] (2) Production dimension. The following are secondary indicators that may affect the production dimension: 1) Special tooling requirements Special purpose tools are tools needed to accomplish a specific task, adapting a general purpose machine to a special purpose. They are necessary to support high-rate production and may be required at lower rates. Generally speaking, the quality and cost of tooling is directly proportional to productivity. Failure to plan for tooling requirements can idle an entire line and have a catastrophic effect on manufacturability.

[0258] 2) Labor Access to unique labor skills is critical to any production plan. For example, the availability of specially trained human resources that can perform highly skilled production operations, such as grinding optical components, is important to the producibility of any component that requires that operation.

[0259] 3) Facilities Having unique equipment, such as five-axis CNC machines, is critical to the producibility of components when they are the only manufacturing equipment capable of producing the component.

[0260] 4) Availability of materials The timing of material delivery consistent with the production schedule is a relevant factor affecting manufacturability. A good manufacturability plan will ensure that materials are not critical or sensitive without the specification of an appropriate alternative material.

[0261] 5) Materials Materials are a prerequisite for production. From design to a series of processing, this process involves most of the original production materials. Each original material corresponds to one or more supply chains. However, the stability of each supply chain will affect the quality of aircraft engines. Ensuring the stability of supply and demand in each supply chain is of great significance for risk management.

[0262] 6) Production and processing capabilities Production and processing is the process of converting production resources into products. It is the core stage of manufacturing, including manufacturing, assembly, and inspection. It is also a high-risk process. Problems that arise in demand acquisition, design and development, and material supply may be transformed into risk accidents in this process, leading to the failure of aircraft engine development, damage to processing equipment, and even casualties of operators. Therefore, risk management of this process is particularly important. At this stage, by sorting out processing object information (material characteristics and performance), manufacturing resource information (equipment and facilities, worker skills), and processing process information (process procedures, production quality inspection), possible risks and hidden dangers can be identified, such as outdated equipment and facilities, insufficient worker skills, etc.

[0263] (3) Time dimension Time refers to the time of the entire R&D cycle. For the development process of aircraft engines, the factors affecting the time dimension can be analyzed from the five stages of demonstration stage, scheme stage, engineering development stage, design finalization stage, and batch production and use guarantee stage. The following are the secondary indicators that may affect the time dimension: 1) Analysis of time influencing factors in the demonstration stage The main task of the demonstration phase is to preliminarily determine the tactical and technical indicators, the overall technical plan, the preliminary development funds, the development cycle and the guarantee conditions through demonstration and necessary tests, and to compile the general requirements for the development of related systems. It can be seen that the control of the development cycle at this stage is one of the most important factors. For example, the main and auxiliary lines of the project are parallel, and the status management is complex; there are many management levels and cooperative supporting units, and the progress control is difficult; the technical design verification is complex, there are many verification projects, and there are many uncertain risks, etc. These aspects will affect the entire development cycle, resulting in a long development cycle, which will affect the delivery date.

[0264] 2) Analysis of time-influencing factors in the scheme, engineering development and design finalization stages The main tasks of these three stages are the design and testing of technology verification machines, engineering verification machines and prototypes. Their demand and production time affect their test cycle. When demand is less than available capacity and stable, the manufacturing lead time will be shortened, the total delivery time will be shorter, and it will be more predictable. When demand is greater than available capacity, the manufacturing lead time will be longer due to the increased waiting time. As a result, the total delivery time will be significantly longer and become more difficult to predict.

[0265] In terms of production time, the following factors should be considered to ensure that the performance and quality of aircraft engines are within the specified requirements and to shorten the production time as much as possible. The specific analysis is as follows: A. Response time Response time refers to the waiting time before parts are processed. When processing a batch of parts, the equipment needs to perform a series of related operations such as preparation, startup, and tool setting. The time spent on these preparation operations from the time the task order is placed to the formal processing process is the response time.

[0266] B. Processing time Processing time is the time consumed to process part features, such as cutting time.

[0267] C. Preparation time Production preparation time refers to the time it takes for a machine tool to complete the processing of spare parts for another product from the completion of the last part of the previous product. It includes: the time required for tool (mold) preparation and replacement, machine tool adjustment, workpiece placement and loading and unloading, first piece trial processing, first piece inspection and other operations.

[0268] D. Assembly time Various assembly operations (picking and inserting) are encoded, and the picking time and insertion time are obtained by looking up the table according to the code. This time period is the assembly time.

[0269] E. Process auxiliary time Process auxiliary time refers to the time consumed by various auxiliary operations performed to achieve smooth part processing, including raw material transportation, temporary storage, inspection and other delays.

[0270] 3) Analysis of time influencing factors in batch production and use guarantee stage In this stage, the process and procedure quality control of batch production products is strictly implemented in accordance with the provisions of the production quality assurance outline. Batch production is carried out according to the production process and procedures solidified during production finalization. It can be seen that the determination of the batch production process and the stability of strict quality control and guarantee capabilities are important factors affecting product delivery. For example, in batch production, many material numbers, complex process processes, and many processes will all lead to tight delivery dates.

[0271] (4) Cost dimension. The following are secondary indicators that may affect the cost dimension: 1) Output First of all, output is one of the important factors affecting production costs. The cost of each product is very different between single-piece small-batch production and large-scale production. This is mainly because the fixed equipment for producing aircraft engines, such as advanced machine tools, has very high purchase and maintenance costs. If the output is small, the purchase or depreciation costs of fixed assets are all calculated in a small number of products, making the production cost of a single product extremely high. When the output is large, the cost of fixed assets can be amortized, so the average cost of a single product is reduced. In addition, this is also related to the worker's proficiency and quality stability, that is, the scrap rate. When small-batch production is carried out, workers are not familiar enough with the production process, processing procedures, and operating specifications, etc., resulting in insufficient product quality stability and a high scrap rate, thereby increasing production costs; while when large-scale production is carried out, the worker's proficiency is significantly improved, the scrap rate is greatly reduced, and the production cost of a single product is also reduced. Therefore, output is one of the most important factors affecting the production cost of aircraft engines.

[0272] 2) Selected materials Secondly, it is obvious that the materials used in the production of aircraft engines are a direct factor affecting the production cost. For example, the price of titanium alloy or special stainless steel is very different. The toughness, plasticity, carbon content and other factors of different steels directly affect the production cost. For example, if the material used is Class I forgings, it needs to undergo mechanical property inspection, which increases the production cost. Class II or Class III forgings do not require this process. However, it should be noted that the choice of material in production is determined by the design and development goals, not the production process.

[0273] 3) Process equipment and technical level Generally speaking, the higher the technical level of equipment, the more conducive it is to reducing production costs. This is obviously one of the purposes of countries actively developing science and technology and applying advanced technology to production.

[0274] 4) Cost control management level The production cost of aircraft engines is also related to the cost control management level of the production enterprise. If the production enterprise adopts advanced production management methods and scientific and reasonable cost control measures, establishes cost control awareness among all employees of the enterprise, promotes the concept of cost lean management, and establishes various systems and norms to ensure the smooth implementation of cost control measures, it will definitely reduce production costs in the long run.

[0275] 5) Performance parameters The production cost of aircraft engines is also related to the sensitivity of various engine performance parameters to the development cost. Under the premise of ensuring that the R&D goals can be achieved, sometimes changing one or several performance parameter indicators within a certain range will have a greater impact on the development cost. For example, after determining the overall range of the R&D goals and the design range of each performance indicator, the design target value is reduced to the lower limit within the design range of the turbine inlet temperature (such as the design target is [900℃~1000℃], and the lower limit is 900℃), so that cheaper materials tend to be used in the selection of heat-resistant materials, which can not only ensure the realization of the R&D goals but also greatly reduce the cost. However, sometimes this approach is not feasible, that is, reducing a certain performance parameter indicator to the lower limit, but the impact on the entire development cost can be almost ignored. This shows that different performance parameter indicators have different sensitivities to the development cost. Therefore, the sensitivity of various engine performance parameters to the development cost is also an important factor affecting the development cost.

[0276] S205: Build a manufacturability evaluation system.

[0277] Based on S204's analysis of the factors affecting various dimensions of aircraft engines, and considering the presence of cross-factors in various dimensions, and the fact that fewer key indicators should be used for comprehensive evaluation, this embodiment introduces the concept of key performance indicators (KPIs). Through the key performance indicators, the manufacturability goals are decomposed into quantifiable sub-goals, thereby determining the evaluation indicators that affect the manufacturability of aircraft engines.

[0278] According to the basic principles of indicator establishment, combined with the characteristics of the aircraft engine production process and the development requirements of manufacturability design, the evaluation indicators of the manufacturability capability of aircraft engines are determined in accordance with the three steps of "goal determination-factor decomposition-indicator refinement", as follows: Step 1: Determine the manufacturing goals. Analyze the system's operating goals and the goals of this evaluation. The operating goal is to shorten the development cycle on the basis of reducing various costs in the production and manufacturing process, and the evaluation goal is to improve the manufacturability of each development stage of the aircraft engine.

[0279] Step 2: Factor decomposition. According to the productivity target, determine the key factors that represent the degree of target achievement.

[0280] Step 3: Indicator refinement: Conduct a detailed analysis of each influencing factor and refine each key factor into specific, quantifiable and measurable indicators.

[0281] In this embodiment, the key performance indicators KPI can be summarized as follows: (1) Conduct application benefit analysis on key performance indicators.

[0282] (2) Analysis of the time scale used when testing key performance indicators, such as on-demand testing, periodic testing, and real-time online monitoring.

[0283] (3) Determine the quantitative evaluation method based on the definition of the indicator and analysis of its influencing factors.

[0284] (4) Provide detailed explanations of the relevant definitions of the key performance indicators as notes.

[0285] According to the key performance indicator description structure defined above, all KPIs involved in the manufacturability evaluation of aircraft engines, namely the four aspects of design, production, time and cost, are uniformly described through this description method to facilitate the determination of sub-indicators under each key performance indicator. Taking the cost dimension as an example, key indicator analysis is performed, as shown in Table 3: Table 3 Cost KPI analysis

[0286] In the KPI description of cost, we can see that the cost structure of the entire development cycle includes raw material costs, equipment maintenance costs, labor costs, etc. When determining the secondary indicators, the technical level of materials, labor, and equipment are all taken into consideration. Therefore, after a specific analysis, the secondary indicators of the cost dimension are initially established as: output, type of materials selected, process equipment and technology level, cost control level, and sensitivity of performance parameters.

[0287] In the evaluation indicators initially established, the secondary indicators established by each primary indicator are repetitive, and the boundaries between the evaluation indicators at each level are fuzzy, and the classification of categories is not clear. The Delphi method is used to further improve the initial indicator system. For example, the secondary indicator "output" in the above-mentioned cost dimension will be associated with the two indicators "production and processing capacity" in the production dimension and "demand" in the time dimension that will be initially determined later, so the secondary indicator "output" is deleted after comprehensive consideration. In addition, the indicator direction is added. The characteristic of the "positive indicator" is that the larger the value, the better the evaluation effect or result, the characteristic of the "reverse indicator" is that the smaller the value, the better the evaluation effect or result, and the "moderate indicator" requires a balanced or stable state. The final producibility evaluation indicator system is determined as shown in Table 4: Table 4 Productivity evaluation index system

[0288] S206: Establish a comprehensive evaluation model for manufacturability.

[0289] The use of a single evaluation method will lead to an imbalance in the weight of the evaluation system and affect the evaluation results. Therefore, this embodiment adopts a comprehensive evaluation algorithm that combines subjective and objective factors, namely, the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method. In order to solve the shortcomings of the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method in determining the weight of indicators, which is subjective and arbitrary, this embodiment adopts a comprehensive weight algorithm that combines subjective and objective factors, namely, the combination of the analytic hierarchy process and the entropy weight method. The comprehensive evaluation process includes: (1) According to the characteristics of the evaluation objectives and evaluation factors, determine the fuzzy evaluation set V (i.e., evaluation level). The evaluation objective is to obtain good producibility, which can be expressed in terms of good or bad, and the characteristics of the evaluation factors need to be considered comprehensively in combination with the evaluation index system.

[0290] Generally speaking, the evaluation levels can be divided into: ,in , The levels are descending, such as "good, medium, poor", and specific analysis should be made in different situations.

[0291] (2) Determine the index evaluation element set. Divide the evaluation system into levels and construct the evaluation element set. The first-level index layer is represented by B, which represents the first-level index of the aircraft engine producibility rating index system; the second-level index layer is represented by C, which represents the second-level index of the corresponding evaluation index system. The expression form is: , .

[0292] (3) Establish the relationship matrix R. Organize multiple experts to evaluate each first-level indicator and second-level indicator according to the evaluation level, count the number of relevant people, construct the factor fuzzy matrix, and normalize it to obtain the fuzzy relationship matrix R of the first-level indicator layer or the second-level indicator layer (that is, the first-level relationship matrix or the second-level relationship matrix):

[0293] (4) Construct a pairwise matrix as shown in Table 5 to determine the relative importance of each indicator. The pairwise matrix shown in Table 5 is a comparison matrix of primary indicators or a judgment matrix of target secondary indicators. For the sake of convenience, this embodiment takes the comparison matrix as an example to describe the calculation process of the comprehensive evaluation results of aircraft engine manufacturability. The relative importance of indicators of the same level (same as B or same as C) is judged using the nine-level scoring scale method shown in Table 6.

[0294] Table 5 Judgment matrix of relative importance

[0295] Taking the time dimension as an example, it includes 4 secondary indicators. It indicates the control of the development cycle. Express demand, Indicates the production time, It indicates the determination of the batch production process, combining experience and knowledge to determine the relative importance of each secondary indicator and give a score.

[0296] Table 6 Nine-level rating scale and its meaning

[0297] (5) Determine the subjective weight.

[0298] The consistency test of the comparison matrix constructed in (4) is as follows: 1) Based on the eigenvector and matrix order of the comparison matrix, the consistency judgment index and random consistency judgment index of the comparison matrix are obtained.

[0299] The calculation formula of the consistency judgment index is:

[0300] in, represents the consistency judgment index, represents the feature vector, Represents the matrix order.

[0301] 2) Based on the consistency judgment index and the random consistency judgment index, the consistency ratio of the comparison matrix is ​​obtained. When the consistency ratio is less than the preset threshold, the subjective weight of the first-level index is obtained.

[0302] The formula for calculating the consistency ratio is:

[0303] in, represents the consistency ratio, represents the consistency judgment index, represents the random consistency judgment index, The values ​​of are shown in Table 7: Table 7 Random consistency judgment index table

[0304] If the consistency ratio is less than the preset threshold, it means that the consistency test has passed. At this time, the comparison matrix can be analyzed and calculated by the hierarchical analysis method to obtain the subjective weight.

[0305] (6) Determine the objective weight.

[0306] Several experts are selected to score the importance of each first-level indicator according to the 1-5 scale (very important, important, not so important, general, unimportant) to obtain the scoring results of the relative importance of each first-level indicator. Specifically, the entropy value can be calculated by standardizing the proportion matrix constructed according to the scoring results through the matlab code.

[0307] The calculation formula of entropy value is:

[0308] in, represents the entropy value, Indicates the number of samples, such as the number of first-level indicators, The comparison matrix of each sample under each indicator after data standardization, such as the first comparison matrix or the second comparison matrix.

[0309] The objective weight is calculated as follows:

[0310] in, represents the objective weight, Represents the entropy value.

[0311] (7) Determine the comprehensive weight.

[0312] The calculation formula of comprehensive weight is:

[0313] in, represents the comprehensive weight, represents the objective weight, represents the subjective weight, is a coefficient, which is generally taken as 0.5.

[0314] (8) Calculate the evaluation vector.

[0315] The calculation formula of the comprehensive evaluation vector is:

[0316] in, represents the comprehensive evaluation vector, represents the comprehensive weight, represents the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicators under each primary indicator, and R represents the fuzzy relationship matrix, which is obtained in step (3).

[0317] S207: Evaluate the manufacturability of aircraft engines.

[0318] (1) According to the construction steps of S206 evaluation model, Figure 3 The overall flow chart of the design and evaluation method for producibility shown sets the fuzzy evaluation levels as: good, better, average, and poor, that is, V = (good, better, average, and poor).

[0319] (2) Single factor fuzzy comprehensive evaluation A fuzzy comprehensive evaluation is performed on each primary indicator. This embodiment takes the design dimension as an example to perform relevant specific calculation and analysis. The processing methods of other primary indicators are the same and will not be repeated here.

[0320] Design Dimensions: 15 evaluators were selected to evaluate the secondary indicators of the first-level indicator layer B1 (design dimension) according to "good, better, average, and poor". The statistical table is shown in Table 8, among which, , and are three secondary indicators under the design dimension. According to the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of each secondary indicator by 15 evaluators, the fuzzy membership relationship matrix of producibility evaluation is constructed.

[0321] Table 8 Statistics of the number of people in fuzzy comprehensive evaluation

[0322] After normalization, we get the fuzzy relationship matrix .

[0323] Construct the pairwise comparison matrix of B1 layer: Compare according to the nine-level scaling method and get:

[0324] After consistency check, according to the calculation steps of AHP, the corresponding subjective weight of C layer in B1 layer is determined. .

[0325] Furthermore, the evaluation personnel of the organization scored the B1 layer according to the 1-5 scale (very important, important, not very important, general, not important), and the scoring results were shown in Table 9: Table 9 Scoring results

[0326] Combined with the calculation steps of the entropy weight method, the corresponding entropy value is obtained And calculate the objective weight : , , According to the subjective weight of B1 layer, the comprehensive weight of B1 layer is obtained for:

[0327] Therefore, the evaluation vector of layer B1 for:

[0328] According to the above calculation, the evaluation vector , select the numerical result 0.3462 with the highest membership of the corresponding evaluation level, corresponding to the fuzzy evaluation level V= (good, better, average, poor), it can be concluded that the evaluation level of the design dimension is "average" and the membership is 34.62%.

[0329] In this embodiment, the production dimension is preferably , Time Dimension , Cost Dimension The evaluation process of is similar to that of , and we get:

[0330]

[0331]

[0332] According to the above calculation, the evaluation result of the production dimension is "poor", with a membership of 48.58%. The evaluation result of the time dimension is "good", with a membership of 32.51%. The evaluation result of the cost dimension is "poor", with a membership of 28.20%.

[0333] (3) Overall fuzzy comprehensive evaluation The calculation steps for the design dimension are the same as above. The comprehensive weight of the first-level indicators of the four dimensions of design, production, time and cost is represented by W, and the calculation is as follows:

[0334] Fuzzy Relationship Matrix for:

[0335]

[0336] According to the above calculation, the comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of aircraft engines is "poor", with a membership degree of 39.95%. Therefore, in order to improve the manufacturability of aircraft engines, according to the single factor evaluation results, the comprehensive evaluation result of the design dimension is "average", the production dimension is "poor", and the cost dimension is also "poor", so it is necessary to improve the capabilities of various indicators in the design, production, and cost dimensions.

[0337] According to another aspect of the embodiment of the present disclosure, a producibility design and evaluation device is provided, such as Figure 4 As shown, the device comprises: The first acquisition module 101 is used to acquire a development procedure for designing manufacturability of an aircraft engine based on the development process of the aircraft engine; A second acquisition module 102 is used to acquire design content for designing the manufacturability of the aircraft engine included in the development program based on the operation task corresponding to the development program; A third acquisition module 103 is used to acquire a primary index for evaluating the manufacturability of the aircraft engine according to the design content, and to acquire a secondary index affecting the primary index; The evaluation module 104 is used to obtain the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator based on the target secondary indicator, wherein the target secondary indicator is a secondary indicator affecting the same primary indicator; and, based on the primary indicator, obtain the comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine.

[0338] The manufacturability design and evaluation device is further used to: before obtaining a development procedure for designing manufacturability of an aircraft engine based on the development process of the aircraft engine, set control parameters for each production process implemented using a production facility, the production facility being used to implement the development process of the aircraft engine, the control parameters being used to standardize a tolerance range of process data, the process data being parameters used by the production facility in the production process; Analyzing the process data based on the control parameters and the change trends of the process data to confirm that the production facility has process capability; The process capability is used to characterize that the production facility can manufacture products that meet quality requirements within a specified tolerance range, and the variation trend of the process data is used to characterize the quality fluctuation of the products produced by the production facility.

[0339] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is used to: Obtaining an objective weight of the first-level indicator based on a scoring result representing the importance of the first-level indicator; Obtaining the subjective weight of the first-level indicator, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the first-level indicator based on the subjective weight and the objective weight; Based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

[0340] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is used to: Based on the scoring result representing the importance of the target secondary indicator, an objective weight of the target secondary indicator is obtained; Obtaining the subjective weight of the target secondary indicator, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator based on the subjective weight and the objective weight of the target secondary indicator; Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator, the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is obtained.

[0341] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is further configured to: Based on the scoring results representing the importance of the first-level indicators, obtaining the entropy value of each of the first-level indicators; Based on the entropy value of each of the first-level indicators, the objective weight of the first-level indicator is calculated.

[0342] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is further configured to: Based on the scoring results representing the importance of the target secondary indicators, the entropy value of each target secondary indicator is calculated; Based on the entropy value of each of the target secondary indicators, the objective weight of the target secondary indicator is calculated.

[0343] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is further configured to: Obtaining a comparison matrix representing the relative importance of any two of the first-level indicators, and obtaining a consistency judgment index and a random consistency judgment index of the comparison matrix based on the eigenvector and matrix order of the comparison matrix; Based on the consistency judgment index and the random consistency judgment index, the consistency ratio of the comparison matrix is ​​obtained. When the consistency ratio is less than a preset threshold, the subjective weight of the primary index is obtained based on the comparison matrix.

[0344] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is further configured to: Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the target secondary indicators, the secondary relationship matrix corresponding to the target secondary indicators is obtained, and based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicators and the secondary relationship matrix, the evaluation vector of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicators is calculated; Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the evaluation vector, the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is obtained.

[0345] In one or more embodiments, the evaluation module 104 is further configured to: Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the first-level indicators, a first-level relationship matrix corresponding to the first-level indicators is obtained, and based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators and the first-level relationship matrix, a comprehensive evaluation vector of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is calculated; Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the comprehensive evaluation vector, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

[0346] The producibility design and evaluation device provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure and the producibility design and evaluation method provided in the embodiment of the present disclosure are based on the same inventive concept and have the same beneficial effects as the methods adopted, operated or implemented therein.

[0347] The present disclosure also provides a computer device to execute the above-mentioned producibility design and evaluation method. Figure 5 It shows a schematic diagram of a computer device provided by some embodiments of the present disclosure. Figure 5 As shown, the computer device 8 includes: a processor 800, a memory 801, a bus 802 and a communication interface 803, wherein the processor 800, the communication interface 803 and the memory 801 are connected via the bus 802; the memory 801 stores a computer program that can be run on the processor 800, and when the processor 800 runs the computer program, the producibility design and evaluation method provided by any of the aforementioned embodiments of the present disclosure is executed.

[0348] The memory 801 may include a high-speed random access memory (RAM), and may also include a non-volatile memory, such as at least one disk storage. The communication connection between the device network element and at least one other network element is realized through at least one communication interface 803 (which may be wired or wireless), and the Internet, wide area network, local area network, metropolitan area network, etc. may be used.

[0349] The bus 802 may be an ISA bus, a PCI bus, or an EISA bus, etc. The bus may be divided into an address bus, a data bus, a control bus, etc. The memory 801 is used to store programs, and the processor 800 executes the programs after receiving execution instructions. The design and evaluation method for manufacturability disclosed in any implementation of the aforementioned embodiment of the present disclosure may be applied to the processor 800, or implemented by the processor 800.

[0350] The processor 800 may be an integrated circuit chip with signal processing capabilities. In the implementation process, each step of the above method can be completed by the hardware integrated logic circuit or software instructions in the processor 800. The above processor 800 can be a general-purpose processor, including a central processing unit (CPU), a network processor (NP), etc.; it can also be a digital signal processor (DSP), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a ready-made programmable gate array (FPTA) or other programmable logic devices, discrete gates or transistor logic devices, discrete hardware components. The disclosed methods, steps and logic block diagrams in the embodiments of the present disclosure can be implemented or executed. The general-purpose processor can be a microprocessor or the processor can also be any conventional processor. The steps of the method disclosed in conjunction with the embodiments of the present disclosure can be directly embodied as a hardware decoding processor to be executed, or a combination of hardware and software modules in the decoding processor can be executed. The software module can be located in a mature storage medium in the field such as a random access memory, a flash memory, a read-only memory, a programmable read-only memory or an electrically erasable programmable memory, a register, etc. The storage medium is located in the memory 801, and the processor 800 reads the information in the memory 801 and completes the steps of the above method in combination with its hardware.

[0351] The computer device provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure and the design and evaluation method for producibility provided by the embodiment of the present disclosure are based on the same inventive concept and have the same beneficial effects as the methods adopted, run or implemented by them.

[0352] The embodiments of the present disclosure also provide a computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the design and evaluation method for producibility provided in the aforementioned embodiments. The computer-readable storage medium is a CD on which a computer program (i.e., a computer program product) is stored. When the computer program is run by a processor, it will execute the design and evaluation method for producibility provided in any of the aforementioned embodiments.

[0353] It should be noted that examples of the computer-readable storage medium may also include, but are not limited to, phase change memory (PRAM), static random access memory (SRAM), dynamic random access memory (DRAM), other types of random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory or other optical or magnetic storage media, which are not listed here one by one.

[0354] The computer-readable storage medium provided by the above-mentioned embodiments of the present disclosure and the method for designing and evaluating producibility provided by the embodiments of the present disclosure are based on the same inventive concept and have the same beneficial effects as the methods adopted, run or implemented by the application programs stored therein.

[0355] The present disclosure also provides a computer program product. Figure 6 The computer program product 600 carries a program code, namely, a computer program 601. The instructions included in the computer program 601 can be used to execute the steps of the design and evaluation method for manufacturability described in the above method embodiment. For details, please refer to the above method embodiment, which will not be repeated here.

[0356] The computer program product may be implemented in hardware, software or a combination thereof. In one optional embodiment, the computer program product is implemented as a computer storage medium. In another optional embodiment, the computer program product is implemented as a software product, such as a software development kit (SDK).

[0357] The basic principles of the present disclosure are described above in conjunction with specific embodiments. However, it should be noted that the advantages, strengths, effects, etc. mentioned in the present disclosure are only examples and not limitations, and it cannot be considered that these advantages, strengths, effects, etc. are required by each embodiment of the present disclosure. In addition, the specific details disclosed above are only for the purpose of illustration and ease of understanding, and are not limitations. The above details do not limit the present disclosure to the necessity of adopting the above specific details to be implemented.

[0358] The block diagrams of the devices, apparatuses, equipment, and systems involved in this disclosure are only illustrative examples and are not intended to require or imply that they must be connected, arranged, and configured in the manner shown in the block diagrams. As will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, these devices, apparatuses, equipment, and systems can be connected, arranged, and configured in any manner. Words such as "including," "comprising," "having," and the like are open words, referring to "including but not limited to," and can be used interchangeably therewith. The words "or" and "and" used herein refer to the words "and / or," and can be used interchangeably therewith, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. The word "such as" used herein refers to the phrase "such as but not limited to," and can be used interchangeably therewith.

[0359] Additionally, as used herein, "or" used in a list of items beginning with "at least one" indicates a separate list, so that, for example, a list of "at least one of A, B, or C" means A or B or C, or AB or AC or BC, or ABC (i.e., A and B and C). Furthermore, the word "exemplary" does not mean that the example described is preferred or better than other examples.

[0360] It should also be noted that in the system and method of the present disclosure, each component or each step can be decomposed and / or recombined. Such decomposition and / or recombination should be regarded as equivalent solutions of the present disclosure.

[0361] Various changes, substitutions, and modifications of the techniques described herein may be made without departing from the teachings defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, the scope of the claims of the present disclosure is not limited to the specific aspects of the processes, machines, manufactures, compositions of events, means, methods, and actions described above. Currently existing or later to be developed processes, machines, manufactures, compositions of events, means, methods, or actions that perform substantially the same functions or achieve substantially the same results as the corresponding aspects described herein may be utilized. Thus, the appended claims include such processes, machines, manufactures, compositions of events, means, methods, or actions within their scope.

[0362] The above description of the disclosed aspects is provided to enable any person skilled in the art to make or use the present disclosure. Various modifications to these aspects will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be applied to other aspects without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. Therefore, the present disclosure is not intended to be limited to the aspects shown herein, but rather to the widest scope consistent with the principles and novel features disclosed herein.

[0363] The above description has been given for the purpose of illustration and description. In addition, this description is not intended to limit the embodiments of the present disclosure to the forms disclosed herein. Although multiple example aspects and embodiments have been discussed above, those skilled in the art will recognize certain variations, modifications, changes, additions and sub-combinations thereof.

Claims

1. A method for designing and evaluating manufacturability, characterized in that: include: Based on the development process of aircraft engines, obtain the development procedures for designing the manufacturability of aircraft engines; Based on the operation tasks corresponding to the development program, obtaining the design content for designing the manufacturability of the aircraft engine included in the development program; According to the design content, obtaining a primary index for evaluating the manufacturability of the aircraft engine, and obtaining a secondary index affecting the primary index; Based on the target secondary indicator, obtaining the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator, wherein the target secondary indicator is a secondary indicator that affects the same primary indicator; And, based on the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

2. The method for designing and evaluating manufacturability according to claim 1, characterized in that: Before obtaining the development procedure for designing the manufacturability of aircraft engines based on the aircraft engine development process, it also includes: Setting control parameters for each production process implemented using a production facility, the production facility being used to implement the development process of the aircraft engine, the control parameters being used to regulate a tolerance range of process data, the process data being parameters used by the production facility during the production process; Analyzing the process data based on the control parameters and the change trends of the process data to confirm that the production facility has process capability; The process capability is used to characterize that the production facility can manufacture products that meet quality requirements within a specified tolerance range, and the variation trend of the process data is used to characterize the quality fluctuation of the products produced by the production facility.

3. The method for designing and evaluating manufacturability according to claim 1, wherein: Based on the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained, including: Obtaining an objective weight of the first-level indicator based on a scoring result representing the importance of the first-level indicator; Obtaining the subjective weight of the first-level indicator, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the first-level indicator based on the subjective weight and the objective weight; Based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained; Based on the target secondary indicator, the evaluation results of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicator are obtained, including: Based on the scoring result representing the importance of the target secondary indicator, an objective weight of the target secondary indicator is obtained; Obtaining the subjective weight of the target secondary indicator, and calculating the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator based on the subjective weight and the objective weight of the target secondary indicator; Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator, the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is obtained.

4. The method for designing and evaluating manufacturability according to claim 3, characterized in that: Based on the scoring result representing the importance of the first-level indicator, the objective weight of the first-level indicator is obtained, including: Based on the scoring results representing the importance of the first-level indicators, obtaining the entropy value of each of the first-level indicators; Calculating the objective weight of the first-level indicator based on the entropy value of each first-level indicator; Based on the scoring result representing the importance of the target secondary indicator, the objective weight of the target secondary indicator is obtained, including: Based on the scoring results representing the importance of the target secondary indicators, the entropy value of each target secondary indicator is calculated; Based on the entropy value of each of the target secondary indicators, the objective weight of the target secondary indicator is calculated.

5. The method for designing and evaluating manufacturability according to claim 3, characterized in that: Obtaining the subjective weight of the first-level indicator includes: Obtaining a comparison matrix representing the relative importance of any two of the first-level indicators, and obtaining a consistency judgment index and a random consistency judgment index of the comparison matrix based on the eigenvector and matrix order of the comparison matrix; Based on the consistency judgment index and the random consistency judgment index, the consistency ratio of the comparison matrix is ​​obtained. When the consistency ratio is less than a preset threshold, the subjective weight of the primary index is obtained based on the comparison matrix.

6. The method for designing and evaluating manufacturability according to claim 3, wherein: Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator, the evaluation results of the primary indicators affected by the target secondary indicator are obtained, including: Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the target secondary indicators, obtaining the secondary relationship matrix corresponding to the target secondary indicators; Based on the comprehensive weight of the target secondary indicator and the secondary relationship matrix, the evaluation vector of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator is calculated; Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the evaluation vector, obtaining the evaluation result of the primary indicator affected by the target secondary indicator; Based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained, including: Based on the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation results of the first-level indicators, a first-level relationship matrix corresponding to the first-level indicators is obtained, and based on the comprehensive weights of the first-level indicators and the first-level relationship matrix, a comprehensive evaluation vector of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is calculated; Based on the evaluation level and the maximum value included in the comprehensive evaluation vector, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

7. A producibility design and evaluation device, characterized in that: include: A first acquisition module is used to acquire a development procedure for designing manufacturability of an aircraft engine based on the development process of the aircraft engine; A second acquisition module is used to acquire design content for designing the manufacturability of the aircraft engine included in the development program based on the operation task corresponding to the development program; A third acquisition module is used to acquire, according to the design content, a primary index for evaluating the manufacturability of the aircraft engine, and to acquire a secondary index affecting the primary index; An evaluation module, for obtaining an evaluation result of a primary indicator affected by a target secondary indicator based on the target secondary indicator, wherein the target secondary indicator is a secondary indicator that affects the same primary indicator; And, based on the first-level indicators, a comprehensive evaluation result of the manufacturability of the aircraft engine is obtained.

8. A computer device comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory, characterized in that: The processor executes the computer program to implement the method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

9. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, the method described in any one of claims 1 to 6 is implemented.

10. A computer program product, comprising a computer program, characterized in that When the computer program is executed by a processor, the method described in any one of claims 1 to 6 is implemented.

Images