Competitive preferential evaluation method for inertial device of weapon equipment

Abstract

The invention provides a competitive preferential evaluation method for an inertial device of weapon equipment, which comprises the following steps of: orthogonalizing the characteristics of the inertial device to form a special performance index set and a general performance index set, further dividing the special performance index set and the general performance index set into attribute index subsets, and forming an inertial device characteristic index set by the attribute index subsets; determining inertial device characteristic index weights for various characteristic indexes in the inertial device characteristic index set, and sorting the characteristic indexes according to the weights; determining an index system for evaluation according to the sorting result; performing normalization processing on each characteristic index weight in the index system to obtain a comprehensive evaluation weight; and according to the index system, corresponding indexes of all the current to-be-evaluated inertial devices are collected and processed, a processing result and the comprehensive evaluation weight are subjected to weighted synthesis, a comprehensive evaluation result is obtained, and thus the optimal inertial device meeting the current application requirement is obtained.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the field of weapon equipment index system establishment and comprehensive evaluation, and relates to a competitive selection evaluation method for inertial devices of weapon equipment. Background Art

[0002] Inertial technology is a multidisciplinary cross-integrated technology based on Newton's laws of motion. It senses the angular motion and linear motion of a moving object in an inertial space, and then obtains information such as the posture, position and speed of the moving object, thereby realizing the measurement and control of the posture and trajectory of the moving object. The application of inertial technology is based on inertial devices. Inertial devices mainly include gyroscopes and accelerometers. Gyroscopes obtain the angular velocity of a moving object to calculate the angular change of the moving object; accelerometers obtain the linear acceleration of a moving object to calculate the velocity change of the moving object.

[0003] Due to the rapid development of the automotive industry, consumer electronics, aerospace and navigation, and weapon equipment, the application scope of inertial technology continues to expand, the market demand for inertial devices continues to increase, and inertial devices have become an important mass-produced product. In order to efficiently select inertial devices suitable for engineering, it is necessary to establish an effective inertial device index system determination and comprehensive evaluation method. The comprehensive evaluation results of the inertial device index system can, on the one hand, compare the performance of different inertial devices, and on the other hand, provide a decision-making basis for the optimization of batch inertial devices. Summary of the invention

[0004] The technology of the present invention solves the problem: overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art and provides a competitive selection evaluation method for inertial devices of weapon equipment.

[0005] The technical solution of the present invention is: a competitive selection and evaluation method for inertial devices of weapons and equipment, comprising:

[0006] Orthogonalize the characteristics of inertial devices to form a dedicated performance indicator set and a general performance indicator set. Orthogonalize the dedicated performance indicator set into various attribute indicator subsets from the perspectives of physical characteristics, combat technical indicators, and technical models according to the application requirements of inertial devices; orthogonalize the general performance indicator set into various attribute indicator subsets from the perspectives of general quality characteristics and other general performance according to the application requirements of inertial devices. Each attribute indicator subset constitutes the inertial device characteristic indicator set;

[0007] Determine the weight of the inertial device characteristic index for each characteristic index in the inertial device characteristic index set and sort the characteristic index according to the weight;

[0008] According to the ranking results, determine the indicator system used for evaluation;

[0009] Normalizing the weights of various characteristic indicators in the indicator system to obtain a comprehensive evaluation weight;

[0010] According to the above indicator system, the corresponding indicators of all the inertial devices to be evaluated are collected and processed, and the processing results are weighted and synthesized with the comprehensive evaluation weights to obtain a comprehensive evaluation result, thereby obtaining the optimal inertial device that meets the current application requirements.

[0011] Preferably, the dedicated performance indicator set is orthogonally divided into various attribute indicator subsets from the perspectives of physical characteristics, combat technical indicators, and technical modes according to the application requirements of the inertial device, including a basic attribute indicator subset, a dedicated tactical technical performance indicator subset, and a technical system indicator subset; wherein the basic attribute indicator subset includes: volume, mass, size, and interface cross-sectional area; the dedicated tactical technical performance indicator subset includes: startup stabilization time, gyroscope accuracy, accelerometer accuracy, navigation accuracy, self-alignment accuracy, self-alignment time, self-calibration time, parameter validity period, overvoltage resistance, and power consumption; the technical system indicator subset includes: transmission standard, signal mode, and numbering plan.

[0012] Preferably, the orthogonalization from the perspective of general quality characteristics and other general performance is divided into various attribute indicator subsets, and each attribute indicator subset constitutes the inertial device characteristic indicator set including the general quality characteristic indicator subset and other general performance indicator subsets; wherein, the general quality characteristic indicator subset includes: reliability, maintainability, testability, security, safety, and environmental adaptability; other general performance indicator subsets include: electromagnetic compatibility, ergonomics, transportability, information level, document applicability, adaptability, economy, and inheritance indicators.

[0013] Preferably, the orthogonalization is performed so that the obtained object concepts are clear, the boundaries between objects are clear, and there is no overlap between objects.

[0014] Preferably, determining the weight of the characteristic index of the inertial device includes:

[0015] (5.1) In the inertial device characteristic index set X = {x i}, select the most important s indicators at random, select them L times, and record the result of the kth selection as the inertial device characteristic indicator set X = {x i}(i=1,2,…,m)

[0016] (5.2) Construct the Boolean function μ k (i)

[0017]

[0018] make:

[0019]

[0020] (5.3) Determine the normalized inertial device characteristic index weight ω i :

[0021]

[0022] Preferably, the indicator system determined for evaluation includes:

[0023] The weight of each characteristic index in the five aspects of physical characteristics, combat skill indicators, technical mode, general performance, and other general performance is ω i They are marked as subsets A to E respectively;

[0024] Select the minimum and maximum weights from each subset respectively;

[0025] The minimum value among the maximum values ​​and the maximum value among the minimum values ​​selected from the five subsets are used as the determination range of the cut-off weight z;

[0026] Then: When ω i ≤z, then filter out ω i The corresponding index x i ;

[0027] When i >z, then keep the ω i The corresponding index x i ;

[0028] The reserved indicators constitute the inertial device indicator system.

[0029] Preferably, the comprehensive evaluation weight is obtained in the following manner:

[0030] Assuming that there are q characteristic indicators in the inertial device indicator system, the weight of each evaluation indicator in the inertial device indicator system is calculated according to the following formula:

[0031]

[0032] The weight vector is then expressed as:

[0033] W=[ω 1 ,ω 2 ,…ω q ].

[0034] Preferably, the corresponding indicators of all the inertial devices to be evaluated are collected and processed according to the above indicator system, and the processing results are weighted and synthesized with the comprehensive evaluation weights to obtain the comprehensive evaluation results including:

[0035] (8.1) Constructing the evaluation matrix

[0036] Assume that a comprehensive evaluation of the index system is performed on p different inertial devices, then the evaluation matrix is:

[0037]

[0038] x st , s=1,2,…,p, t=1,2,…,q represents the tth characteristic index of the sth inertial device;

[0039] (8.2) Take the optimal value of each characteristic index and construct an ideal index set;

[0040] (8.3) Calculate the evaluation index x of different inertial devices st and the optimal evaluation index x 0t The same degree:

[0041]

[0042] The connection matrix is ​​determined from this:

[0043]

[0044] (8.4) Combined with the weight vector, weighted synthesis is performed to obtain the final evaluation matrix:

[0045]

[0046] Where: [y 1 ,y 2 ,…,y p ] T It is the comprehensive evaluation value of the index system of p different inertial devices.

[0047] Preferably, the ideal construction index set includes:

[0048] If x st It is a benefit indicator, that is, the larger the indicator value, the more favorable it is to the evaluation result. Let x 0t =max{x st |1≤s≤p} is the optimal evaluation index;

[0049] If x st It is a cost-type indicator, that is, the smaller the indicator value, the more favorable it is for the evaluation result. Let x 0t =min{x st |1≤s≤p} is the optimal evaluation index.

[0050] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: the present invention realizes the completeness of each attribute index and the non-correlation of attribute index subsets by orthogonalizing the characteristics of inertial devices from multiple angles; realizes the optimization of inertial device characteristic indicators by selecting and calculating the indicator weights of the inertial device characteristic indicator set through multiple rounds of iterations; forms the optimal value for evaluating the inertial device indicator system by constructing an ideal indicator set, and realizes the relative comprehensive evaluation of different inertial device indicator systems by comparing the optimal values; and ensures the representativeness of the inertial device indicator system and the credibility of the evaluation results by constructing the "indicator weight sorting - indicator system establishment - evaluation indicator weight recalculation - indicator system evaluation optimal value - indicator system comprehensive evaluation" link.

[0051] The method of the present invention is simple to calculate and has strong engineering practicability. It can be applied to the determination of the index system of inertial devices, comprehensive evaluation, and competitive selection of inertial devices. It can also be expanded to the establishment, evaluation and equipment optimization of the index system of other single equipment such as engines, receivers, and detectors. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0052] Figure 1 It is a schematic diagram of the implementation process of the embodiment of the present invention;

[0053] Figure 2 It is an index set of inertial devices based on holographic analysis method;

[0054] Figure 3 Weights of various indicators of inertial devices;

[0055] Figure 4 Comprehensive evaluation value of inertial device index system. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0056] like Figure 1 As shown, the present invention provides a competitive selection and evaluation method for inertial devices of weapons and equipment, the steps are as follows:

[0057] Step 1: Determine the characteristic index set of the inertial device.

[0058] Based on the application requirements of inertial devices, the characteristics of inertial devices are divided into mutually orthogonal dedicated performance index sets and general performance index sets. The orthogonal purpose of the present invention is to obtain an index set or index subset with clear concepts, clear boundaries and no overlap.

[0059] Among them, the dedicated performance is decomposed into the basic attribute indicator subset, the dedicated tactical and technical performance indicator subset, and the technical system indicator subset, and the general performance is decomposed into the general quality characteristic indicator subset and other general performance indicator subsets. The above indicator subsets are integrated comprehensively.

[0060] The basic attribute indicator subset includes: volume, mass, size, and interface cross-sectional area; the special tactical technical performance indicator subset includes: startup stabilization time, gyroscope accuracy, accelerometer accuracy, navigation accuracy, self-alignment accuracy, self-alignment time, self-calibration time, parameter validity period, overvoltage resistance, and power consumption; the technical system indicator subset includes: transmission standard, signal mode, and numbering plan.

[0061] The general quality characteristic index subset includes: reliability, maintainability, testability, assurance, safety, and environmental adaptability; other general performance index subsets include: electromagnetic compatibility, ergonomics, transportability, information level, document applicability, adaptability, economy, and inheritance. The inertial device characteristic index set X = {x i}, in this example, i=1,2,…,20.

[0062] Step 2: Determine the weights of the characteristic indicators of inertial devices.

[0063] (2.1) In the inertial device characteristic index set X = {x i}, select the most important s indicators at random, select them L times, and record the result of the kth selection as the inertial device characteristic indicator set X = {x i}(i=1,2,…,m)

[0064] In this example, 10 indicators that are considered to be the most important are randomly selected from the indicator set, and the selection is performed 10 times (the selection can be performed by 10 experts or by other methods). That is, the result of the kth (1≤k≤10) selection is the inertial device characteristic indicator set X={x i}(X={x i}(i=1,2,…,20)

[0065] (2.2) Construct function μ k (i)

[0066]

[0067] make:

[0068]

[0069] Get: g 1 =5, g 2 =9, g 3 =8, g 4 =7, g 5 =7, g 6 =2, g 7 =6, g 8 =5, g 9 =8, g10 =6, g 11 =6, g 12 =5, g 13 =6, g 14 =6, g 15 =3, g 16 =3, g 17 =3, g 18 =3, g 19 =1,g 20 =1.

[0070] (2.3) Determine the normalized characteristic index weight ω i :

[0071]

[0072] Get: ω 1 =0.05,ω 2 =0.09,ω 3 =0.08,ω 4 =0.07,ω 5 =0.07,ω 6 =0.02,ω 7 =0.06,ω 8 =0.05,ω 9 =0.08,ω 10 =0.06,ω 11 =0.06,ω 12 =0.05,ω 13 =0.06,ω 14 =0.06,ω 15 =0.03,ω 16 =0.03,ω 17 =0.03,ω 18 =0.03,ω 19 =0.01,ω 20 =0.01.

[0073] Step 3: Determine the inertial device indicator system.

[0074] The weight of each characteristic index from five perspectives: physical characteristics, combat skill indicators, technical mode, general performance, and other general performance i (i=1,2,…,20) are marked as subsets A to E respectively;

[0075] Determine the maximum value of each subset from A to E, and take the smallest one as M;

[0076] Determine the minimum value of each subset from A to E, and take the largest one as N;

[0077] Z takes a value between M and N, in this case z = 0.05;

[0078] Then: When ω i ≤z, then filter out ω i The corresponding index x 1 、x 6 、x 8 、x 12 、x 15 、x 16 、x 17 、x 18 、x 19 、x 20 .

[0079] When i >z, then keep the ω i The corresponding index x 2 、x 3 、x 4 、x 5 、x 7 、x 9 、x 10 、x 11 、x 13 、x 14 , then the evaluation index is q = 10, such as Figure 2 shown.

[0080] Recalculate the weights of various evaluation indicators in the inertial device indicator system:

[0081]

[0082] If Figure 3 As shown, the weight vector is expressed as:

[0083] W=[ω 1 ,ω 2 ,…ω 10 ]

[0084] =[0.131,0.116,0.101,0.101,0.087,0.116,0.087,0.087,0.087,0.087]

[0085] Step 4: Comprehensive evaluation of the indicator system.

[0086] (4.1) Obtain the evaluation matrix based on the indicator system

[0087] According to the above indicator system, the corresponding indicators of all the inertial devices to be evaluated are collected, and the qualitative indicators are quantified. The processing principles are as follows:

[0088] Qualitative indicator level description - scoring table

[0089]

[0090] Assume that a comprehensive evaluation of the index system is conducted on 5 different inertial devices, and there are 10 indicators involved in the evaluation, thus the evaluation matrix can be obtained:

[0091]

[0092] (4.2) Constructing an ideal index set

[0093] Take the optimal value of each indicator and construct an ideal indicator set.

[0094] If x st (s=1,2,…,5,t=1,2,…,10) is a benefit-type indicator, that is, the larger the indicator value, the more favorable it is for the evaluation result. Let x 0t =max{x st |1≤s≤5} is the optimal evaluation index, and the benefit index is: x s2 、x s4 、x s6 、x s7 、x s9 .

[0095] If x st (s=1,2,…,5,t=1,2,…,10) is a cost-type indicator, that is, the smaller the indicator value, the more favorable it is for the evaluation result. Let x 0t =min{x st |1≤s≤5} is the optimal evaluation index, and the cost index is: x s1 、x s3 、x s5 、x s8 、x s10 .

[0096] (4.3) Find the connection matrix

[0097] Calculate the similarity between the evaluation indicators of different inertial devices and the optimal evaluation indicators:

[0098]

[0099] This gives the connection matrix:

[0100]

[0101] (4.4) Comprehensive evaluation

[0102] Combine the weight vectors for linear superposition, i.e. weighted synthesis, to obtain the final evaluation matrix, as Figure 4 As shown:

[0103] Y=R·W=[0.7117,0.7475,0.8516,0.6828,0.7032]

[0104] Where: [y 1 ,y 2 ,…,y 5 ] T It is the comprehensive evaluation value of the index system of 5 different inertial devices.

[0105] (4.5) Selection of inertial devices

[0106] For 1 ,y 2 , …, y p The values ​​of y are sorted, where optimal =y 3 , that is, the third inertial device is the optimal inertial device.

[0107] Parts of the present invention that are not described in detail belong to common knowledge among those skilled in the art.

[0108] Although the present invention has been disclosed as above in the form of a preferred embodiment, it is not intended to limit the present invention. Any person skilled in the art may make possible changes and modifications to the technical solution of the present invention by using the methods and technical contents disclosed above without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Therefore, any simple modifications, equivalent changes and modifications made to the above embodiments based on the technical essence of the present invention without departing from the content of the technical solution of the present invention shall fall within the protection scope of the technical solution of the present invention.

Claims

1. A competitive selection and evaluation method for inertial devices of weapons and equipment, characterized in that: include: Orthogonalize the characteristics of inertial devices to form a dedicated performance indicator set and a general performance indicator set. Orthogonalize the dedicated performance indicator set into various attribute indicator subsets from the perspectives of physical characteristics, combat technical indicators, and technical models according to the application requirements of inertial devices; orthogonalize the general performance indicator set into various attribute indicator subsets from the perspectives of general quality characteristics and other general performance according to the application requirements of inertial devices. Each attribute indicator subset constitutes the inertial device characteristic indicator set; Determine the weight of the inertial device characteristic index for each characteristic index in the inertial device characteristic index set and sort the characteristic index according to the weight; According to the ranking results, determine the indicator system used for evaluation; Normalizing the weights of various characteristic indicators in the indicator system to obtain a comprehensive evaluation weight; According to the above indicator system, the corresponding indicators of all the inertial devices to be evaluated are collected and processed, and the processing results are weighted and synthesized with the comprehensive evaluation weights to obtain a comprehensive evaluation result, thereby obtaining the optimal inertial device that meets the current application requirements.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The dedicated performance indicator set is orthogonally divided into various attribute indicator subsets from the perspectives of physical characteristics, combat technical indicators, and technical modes according to the application requirements of inertial devices, including a basic attribute indicator subset, a dedicated tactical and technical performance indicator subset, and a technical system indicator subset; wherein the basic attribute indicator subset includes: volume, mass, size, and interface cross-sectional area; the dedicated tactical and technical performance indicator subset includes: startup stabilization time, gyroscope accuracy, accelerometer accuracy, navigation accuracy, self-alignment accuracy, self-alignment time, self-calibration time, parameter validity period, overvoltage resistance, and power consumption; the technical system indicator subset includes: transmission standard, signal mode, and numbering plan.

3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The general quality characteristics and other general performance angles are orthogonally divided into various attribute indicator subsets, and each attribute indicator subset constitutes an inertial device characteristic indicator set including a general quality characteristic indicator subset and other general performance indicator subsets; wherein, the general quality characteristic indicator subset includes: reliability, maintainability, testability, assurance, safety, and environmental adaptability, and other general performance indicator subsets include: electromagnetic compatibility, ergonomics, transportability, information level, document applicability, adaptability, economy, and inheritance indicators.

4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The orthogonalization is to obtain a clear concept of the object, clear boundaries between objects, and no overlap between objects.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Determining the weights of inertial device characteristic indicators includes: (5.1) In the inertial device characteristic index set X = {x i }, select the most important s indicators at random, select them L times, and record the result of the kth selection as the inertial device characteristic indicator set X = {x i }(i=1,2,…,m) (5.2) Construct the Boolean function μ k (i) make: (5.3) Determine the normalized inertial device characteristic index weight ω i :

6. The method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The indicator system determined for evaluation includes: The weight of each characteristic index in the five aspects of physical characteristics, combat skill indicators, technical mode, general performance, and other general performance is ω i They are marked as subsets A to E respectively; Select the minimum and maximum weights from each subset respectively; The minimum value among the maximum values ​​and the maximum value among the minimum values ​​selected from the five subsets are used as the determination range of the cut-off weight z; Then: When ω i ≤z, then filter out ω i The corresponding index x i ; When i >z, then keep the ω i The corresponding index x i ; The reserved indicators constitute the inertial device indicator system.

7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The comprehensive evaluation weights are obtained in the following way: Assuming that there are q characteristic indicators in the inertial device indicator system, the weight of each evaluation indicator in the inertial device indicator system is calculated according to the following formula: The weight vector is then expressed as: W=[ω1,ω2,…ω q ]。 8. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that: The corresponding indicators of all the inertial devices to be evaluated are collected and processed according to the above indicator system, and the processing results are weighted and synthesized with the comprehensive evaluation weights to obtain the comprehensive evaluation results including: (8.1) Constructing the evaluation matrix Assume that a comprehensive evaluation of the index system is performed on p different inertial devices, then the evaluation matrix is: x st , s=1,2,…,p, t=1,2,…,q represents the tth characteristic index of the sth inertial device; (8.2) Take the optimal value of each characteristic index and construct an ideal index set; (8.3) Calculate the evaluation index x of different inertial devices st and the optimal evaluation index x 0t The same degree: The connection matrix is ​​determined from this: (8.4) Combined with the weight vector, weighted synthesis is performed to obtain the final evaluation matrix: Where: [y1,y2,…,y p ] T It is the comprehensive evaluation value of the index system of p different inertial devices.

9. The method according to claim 8, characterized in that: The ideal construction indicator set includes: If x st It is a benefit-type indicator, that is, the larger the indicator value, the more favorable it is to the evaluation result, so let x0t=max{xst|1≤s≤p} be the optimal evaluation indicator; If x st It is a cost-type indicator, that is, the smaller the indicator value, the more favorable it is for the evaluation result. Therefore, let x0t=min{xst|1≤s≤p} be the optimal evaluation indicator.

Images