Aircraft cockpit man-machine work efficiency evaluation system and method thereof

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of aircraft data processing, in particular to an aircraft cockpit man-machine work efficiency evaluation system and method, and the method comprises the steps: obtaining the space utilization rate, the sight range and the equipment accessibility of a cockpit of each design scheme; obtaining operability, information transmission efficiency and physical feedback strength of a control panel of each design scheme; acquiring information readability and information priority of the display interface; obtaining the fatigue degree, psychological stress and comfort of the cockpit of the design scheme to the pilot; and obtaining an optimal design scheme. According to the method, the design accuracy and reliability of the aircraft cabin are improved, the operation comfort and flight safety of a pilot can be ensured, and the method has wide application prospects and practical value.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of aircraft data processing, and in particular to an aircraft cockpit human-machine ergonomics evaluation system and method thereof. Background Art

[0002] The aircraft cockpit is the core area where pilots operate, and its design is directly related to the pilot's operating efficiency, comfort, and safety. Ergonomics considers the physiological and psychological needs of people when interacting with machines or the environment, and optimizes this interaction through reasonable design. At present, the ergonomics evaluation of aircraft cockpits mainly relies on manual observation and empirical judgment. This method is highly subjective and lacks objectivity and accuracy. In addition, with the development of aviation technology, the equipment in the cockpit is becoming increasingly complex, and traditional evaluation methods can no longer meet the needs of modern aircraft.

[0003] Existing aircraft cockpit designs often focus more on the functionality and operational performance of equipment, but not enough on the ergonomics of pilots. This limitation makes pilots prone to fatigue, distraction, and slow response during long-term operations or complex tasks, which in turn leads to misoperation and even endangers flight safety. Existing technologies lack a data analysis system that can comprehensively monitor and evaluate the physiological and psychological state of pilots and effectively combine operational behaviors, and cannot provide sufficient objective basis for cockpit design optimization.

[0004] Therefore, it is necessary to provide an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system and method thereof to solve the above problems. Summary of the invention

[0005] The present invention provides an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system and method thereof, which monitors the physiological and psychological loads of pilots and analyzes operational behaviors, thereby providing a reference for optimizing cockpit equipment layout and interface design, aiming to improve pilot work performance and ensure flight safety, so as to solve the problem that existing evaluation results are not comprehensive enough, leading to misoperation and even endangering flight safety.

[0006] The present invention provides an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation method using the following technical solutions, including: Obtain the space utilization of the cockpit of each design scheme, the sight range of the pilot in the driving seat of each design scheme, and obtain the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme based on the number of devices that the simulated pilot can reach when operating the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme; The operability of the control panel of each design solution is obtained according to the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design solution; the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design solution is obtained according to the correct recognition rate of the flight information on the control panel of each design solution within the specified time by the pilot; the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design solution is obtained according to the feedback force when each control element is operated on the control panel of each design solution; The pilots' scores on the information readability of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme are obtained according to the preset scoring criteria, and the average score of all information items on the display interface is used as the information readability of the display interface of each design scheme; the recognition time of each item of display information on the cockpit display interface of the design scheme within the specified time is used as the priority value when recognizing each item of information, and the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme is obtained according to the priority value when recognizing each item of information; The heart rate variability and skin conductivity of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design were obtained, and the average heart rate variability of all pilots was used as the fatigue degree of the cockpit of each design on the pilots; the average skin conductivity of all pilots was used as the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design on the pilots; the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design was obtained; The space utilization, sight range, equipment accessibility, control panel operability, information transmission efficiency, physical feedback intensity, information readability and information priority of the display interface, as well as the pilot's fatigue and psychological stress during simulated flight in the cockpit and the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot are used as evaluation indicators for the design scheme; All evaluation indicators are normalized to obtain the target evaluation indicators, and the CRITIC method is used to obtain the weight of each evaluation indicator. According to the target evaluation indicators and weights in each design scheme, the VIKOR method is used to obtain the optimal design scheme among all design schemes.

[0007] Preferably, the step of obtaining the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design solution is: The total volume of equipment and available space in the cockpit interior according to the design solution; The ratio of the total volume of the equipment to the volume of the available space is taken as the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design scheme.

[0008] Preferably, the steps of obtaining the accessibility of the equipment in the cockpit of each design solution are: Based on the number of devices that the pilot can reach with his arms when driving the seat in the design and the total number of devices; The percentage of the number of devices that the pilot can reach with his arms when driving the seat in the design scheme to the total number of devices is taken as the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme.

[0009] Preferably, the steps of obtaining the operability of the control panel of each design solution are: Get the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design scheme; Use expert weighting method to assign operation weight to each operation; The operability of the control panel of each design solution is obtained by taking a weighted sum of the average operation time when executing each operation and the operation weight of each operation.

[0010] Preferably, the step of obtaining the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design solution is: According to the pilots' recognition of the flight information on the control panel of each design within the specified time, the ratio of the number of correct recognitions by all pilots to the total number of pilots is taken as the correct recognition rate of each type of flight information; Use expert weighting method to assign information weight to each flight information on the control panel; The correct recognition rate and information weight of each type of flight information on the control panel are weighted and summed to obtain the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme.

[0011] Preferably, the step of obtaining the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design solution is: Obtain the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design solution; Use expert weighting method to assign force weight to each control element command on the control panel; The feedback force and force weight when operating each control element are weighted and summed to obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme.

[0012] Preferably, the step of obtaining the information priority of the display interface in the cockpit of each design scheme is: Assign priority weight to each information on the display interface according to the expert weighting method; The priority value and priority weight of each pilot when identifying each piece of information are weighted and summed to obtain the information priority of the display interface.

[0013] Preferably, the step of obtaining the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design solution is: According to the preset comfort rating standard, the comfort level evaluated by the pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme is obtained; The average comfort level evaluated by all pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design option is taken as the cockpit comfort level of each design option.

[0014] Preferably, the steps of using the VIKOR method to obtain the optimal design solution among all design solutions are: The VIKOR method is used to obtain the group utility value and individual regret value of each design scheme according to the target evaluation index and weight in each design scheme; According to the group utility value and individual regret value of each design scheme, the compromise value of each design scheme is obtained; The optimal design solution among all design solutions is obtained based on the group utility value, individual regret value and compromise value.

[0015] An aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system of the present invention adopts the following technical solution, including: The cockpit layout index evaluation module is used to obtain the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design scheme, the sight range of the pilot in the driving seat of each design scheme, and the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme according to the number of equipment that the simulated pilot can reach when operating the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme; The control panel index evaluation module is used to obtain the operability of the control panel of each design scheme according to the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design scheme; obtain the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme according to the correct recognition rate of the flight information on the control panel of each design scheme within the specified time by the pilot; and obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme according to the feedback force when each control element is operated on the control panel of each design scheme; The display interface index evaluation module is used to obtain the pilot's score of the information readability of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme according to the preset scoring standard, and use the average score of all information items on the display interface as the information readability of the display interface of each design scheme; use the recognition time of each display information of the cockpit display interface of the design scheme within the specified time as the priority value when recognizing each information, and obtain the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme according to the priority value when recognizing each information; The pilot physiological and psychological state index evaluation module is used to obtain the heart rate variability and skin conductivity of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme, and use the average heart rate variability of all pilots as the fatigue degree of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilots; use the average skin conductivity of all pilots as the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilots; obtain the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme; The design scheme evaluation module is used to use the space utilization rate of the cockpit, the visual range, the equipment accessibility, the operability of the control panel, the information transmission efficiency, the physical feedback strength, the information readability of the display interface, the information priority, and the pilot's fatigue level and psychological pressure during simulated flight in the cockpit, as well as the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot as evaluation indicators of the design scheme; all evaluation indicators are normalized to obtain the target evaluation indicators, and the CRITIC method is used to obtain the weight of each evaluation indicator; according to the target evaluation indicators and weights in each design scheme, the VIKOR method is used to obtain the optimal design scheme among all design schemes.

[0016] The beneficial effects of the present invention are: 1. The present invention adopts a combination of computer simulation, prototype design, subjective questionnaire feedback and objective data collection to form a comprehensive evaluation system. This multi-dimensional evaluation method can not only comprehensively measure all aspects of cockpit design, but also ensure that different types of data complement each other and provide more accurate and reliable evaluation results. At the same time, the present invention adopts the multi-criteria decision-making method of CRITIC method and VIKOR method, and scientifically calculates and comprehensively analyzes various evaluation indicators. Through the quantitative evaluation process, the optimal design scheme can be finally determined, thereby providing scientific and fair support for design scheme decision-making, avoiding human bias and subjective interference, not only improving the accuracy and reliability of aircraft cockpit design, but also ensuring the pilot's operating comfort and flight safety, and has broad application prospects and practical value.

[0017] 2. The present invention evaluates the cockpit layout, control panel, display interface, and the physiological and psychological state of the pilot respectively, and integrates the data of each evaluation index to design a comprehensive and flexible comprehensive decision-making evaluation system to ensure that the cockpit design scheme can be comprehensively evaluated from multiple dimensions. This method not only combines the analysis of quantitative indicators, but also integrates the pilot's subjective feedback and operation test data, thereby ensuring the comprehensiveness of the evaluation results. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0018] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative work.

[0019] Figure 1 A flowchart of an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation method according to the present invention; Figure 2A schematic diagram of an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system of the present invention; Figure 3 The present invention is a system block diagram of an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0020] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0021] An embodiment of an aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation method of the present invention, it should be noted that this embodiment is an evaluation performed under normal lighting environment, noise, temperature and humidity conditions, because these factors directly affect the efficiency and accuracy of the pilot's operation and information recognition in the cockpit. The pilot's normal lighting environment in the cockpit (such as simulating the standard light intensity at noon, 500 to 1000 Lux) is a common working lighting condition in aircraft design. This embodiment chooses to conduct an evaluation in this environment to simulate the actual working conditions commonly seen by pilots. This condition helps to eliminate visual interference caused by excessive or weak light, ensure that the information on the display interface is clearly visible within the normal visual range of the pilot, and does not affect the operating efficiency due to lighting problems. The noise environment simulates a common flight noise environment of 70 decibels to evaluate the efficiency of the display interface in this environment, ensuring that pilots can quickly obtain the required information without additional interference; the temperature varies between 22°C and 24°C, and the humidity varies between 40% and 60%. Display interface evaluation under these conditions can ensure that pilots can operate quickly and accurately in a comfortable environment, while reducing the impact of external environmental factors on their physiological state and operating efficiency. Figure 1 As shown, including: S1. Obtain the space utilization, sight range and equipment accessibility of the cockpit of each design solution; The goal of step S1 is to ensure that the pilot can operate under reasonable and comfortable conditions by analyzing the cockpit layout evaluation indicators of the design scheme, such as space utilization, visual range, and equipment accessibility, so as to improve the pilot's work efficiency and safety. The three cockpit layout evaluation indicators of space utilization, visual range, and equipment accessibility are obtained according to the following steps 11 to 13.

[0022] Step 11: The steps for obtaining the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design scheme are as follows: The 3D model of the design scheme is imported into the system using computer-aided design (CAD) software. Then, the total volume of the equipment and the volume of the available space in the interior space of the cockpit of the design scheme are calculated. The ratio of the total volume of the equipment to the available space volume is used as the space utilization rate (unit: percentage) of the cockpit of each design scheme.

[0023] Among them, the purpose of step 11 is to ensure the maximum efficiency of space utilization inside the cockpit, avoid space waste, and ensure the reasonable layout of key equipment and control panels. The ideal space utilization rate should reach 80%-90%, ensuring that no unnecessary gaps are created between equipment and operating areas, while not affecting the pilot's comfort and activity space.

[0024] Step 12: The steps to obtain the pilot's visual range in the driving seat of each design are: The pilot's seat position and body shape data are input into the ergonomics software (JACK), and the field of view simulation tool is used to simulate the pilot's visual coverage from the standard seat position of each design scheme. The ergonomics software analyzes the visibility of the pilot's front, instrument panel, display and other key areas, and generates a pilot's visual range map, marking his visible horizontal and vertical viewing angles (unit: degree).

[0025] The purpose of step 12 is to ensure that the pilot can clearly see the key equipment, instruments and displays to avoid operational difficulties or safety hazards caused by blind spots. That is, the design requirements for visual field coverage are that the horizontal viewing angle is not less than 120 degrees and the vertical viewing angle is not less than 30 degrees. Through the visual field simulation tool, it is evaluated whether the pilot can clearly see all key equipment and instruments in the standard seat position of the design to ensure that there are no blind spots.

[0026] Step 13: The steps for obtaining the accessibility of the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme according to the number of equipment that the simulated pilot can reach when operating the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme are as follows: The standard pilot seat position was input into the system using ergonomic software (JACK), and the arm reach of the pilot was simulated. The different operating postures of the pilot in the cockpit were simulated using the ergonomic software, and the number of devices that the pilot could reach in the driving seat position in the design scheme was obtained, that is, the number of devices that the pilot could reach with his arms when driving the seat in the design scheme. The percentage of the number of devices that the pilot could reach with his arms when driving the seat in the design scheme to the total number of devices was used as the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme.

[0027] Among them, the purpose of step 13 is to ensure that the pilot can easily and comfortably reach all key equipment and control panels during operation, avoid fatigue or operating errors caused by inconvenient operation or over-extension, evaluate the pilot's comfort during operation through simulation tests and pilot feedback, and ensure that the arms do not need to be over-extended or bent. Ideally, the pilot should be able to reach more than 90% of the equipment.

[0028] So far, three cockpit layout evaluation indicators, namely space utilization, visual range, and equipment accessibility, have been obtained. According to the cockpit layout evaluation indicators, it can be ensured that the design of the aircraft cockpit meets the ergonomic requirements and provides a comfortable and efficient operating environment. Virtual simulation technology plays an important role in these evaluations. Through 3D models and ergonomic software, the actual operation of pilots can be accurately simulated in a virtual environment, and potential problems in the design can be quickly identified, thus avoiding the large amount of time and resources required for traditional physical prototype testing.

[0029] S2, obtain the operability, information transmission efficiency and physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design solution; Based on each design solution, the operability, information transmission efficiency and physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design solution are obtained to ensure that the control panel meets the pilot's operational needs and ergonomic requirements, thereby improving the operational efficiency and safety of the aircraft. The specific steps for obtaining the control panel evaluation indicators in the three dimensions of operability, information transmission efficiency and physical feedback strength are as shown in steps 21 to 23.

[0030] Step 21: According to the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design solution, the steps of obtaining the operability of the control panel of each design solution are as follows: Obtain the operation time when performing each operation on the control panel of each design scheme; use the expert weighting method to assign an operation weight to each operation; and perform a weighted summation of the average operation time when performing each operation and the operation weight of each operation to obtain the operability of the control panel of each design scheme. Among them, the purpose of step 21 is to ensure that the pilot can complete each operation in the shortest time, avoid misoperation or time waste caused by complex or cumbersome operations, and ideally, each operation should be completed within the pilot's reasonable reaction time to ensure convenient and intuitive operation.

[0031] In this embodiment, the operations of the control panel commonly used by pilots are selected to be functions related to flight control, navigation, communication and environmental control. T 1 )、Flap / aileron adjustment( T 2 )、Flight mode switch( T3 )、Route mode switch( T 4 )、Radio Frequency Adjustment( T 5 )、Cabin temperature adjustment( T 6 ) to test these operations to obtain the operation time from the pilot issuing the operation instruction to completing the operation, that is, multiple tests are conducted on each operation, and the average operation time of each operation is calculated (in seconds). Since the importance and normal completion time range of each operation type may be different, the original operation time needs to be normalized. Different operations may have different degrees of impact on convenience. To this end, weights are assigned to each operation through consultation with experts. w i1 , throttle control lever ( w 11 =0.25), flap / aileron adjustment ( w 21 =0.2), flight mode switch ( w 31 =0.15), route mode switch ( w 41 =0.15), radio frequency adjustment ( w 51 =0.15), cabin temperature adjustment ( w 61 =0.1). Finally, the average operation time when performing each operation and the operation weight of each operation are weighted and summed to obtain the operability of the control panel of each design scheme.

[0032] Step 22: According to the correct recognition rate of the pilot for the flight information on the control panel of each design solution within the specified time, the steps of obtaining the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design solution are as follows: According to the pilot's identification of the flight information on the control panel of each design within the specified time, the ratio of the number of correct identifications of all pilots to the total number of pilots is used as the pilot's correct identification rate of each flight information; the expert weighting method is used to assign information weights to each flight information on the control panel; the correct identification rate and information weight of each flight information on the control panel are weighted and summed to obtain the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design. Among them, the purpose of step 22 is to ensure that the pilot can quickly and accurately obtain the key information on the control panel, so as to avoid operational errors caused by information delays or misunderstandings. The pilot's correct identification rate of key information should reach more than 95%.

[0033] In this embodiment, different types of common flight information, such as flight altitude, speed, heading, fuel level, engine status, and navigation information, are displayed on the control panel. These flight information are simulated, and each pilot is asked to read and report the flight information to test the pilot's reaction speed and accuracy, record whether the pilot identifies the flight information correctly, and calculate the correct recognition rate of all pilots for each flight information (unit: percentage). Different flight information may have different effects on the efficiency of information transmission. To this end, weights are assigned to each aircraft information through expert empowerment consultation. w i2 , flight altitude ( w 12 =0.2), speed ( w 22 =0.2), heading ( w 32 =0.15), fuel level ( w 42 =0.15), engine status ( w 52 =0.2), navigation information ( w 62 =0.1). The correct recognition rate and information weight of each flight information on the control panel are weighted and summed to obtain the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme.

[0034] Step 23: According to the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design solution, the step of obtaining the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design solution is as follows: Obtain the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design scheme; use the expert weighting method to assign a force weight to each control element instruction on the control panel; and perform weighted summation of the feedback force and force weight when operating each control element to obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme. Among them, the purpose of step 23 is to ensure that the physical feedback (such as tactile feedback, force feedback) of the control panel can help pilots improve operational accuracy and avoid operational difficulties or fatigue caused by inappropriate feedback. The feedback strength of the control element should be controlled within the design range, and the physical feedback strength should be consistent to avoid inaccurate operation or fatigue caused by unstable feedback strength.

[0035] In this embodiment, force sensors are used to measure the force feedback strength provided by various common control elements on the control panel. This embodiment uses the operation of the throttle control lever, flap control lever, rudder pedal, flight mode control knob, and radio frequency adjustment knob as examples to test the feedback strength and consistency felt by the pilot when operating the control elements of specific instructions. Different feedback forces may have different degrees of influence on physical feedback. To this end, weights are assigned to each control element instruction through consultation and empowerment. w i3 , Throttle control lever ( w 13 =0.3)、Flap control lever( w 23 =0.25), rudder pedals ( w 33 =0.25), flight mode control knob ( w 43 =0.10), radio frequency adjustment knob ( w 53 =0.10). The feedback force and force weight when operating each control element are weighted and summed to obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme.

[0036] So far, three control panel evaluation indicators have been obtained: control panel operability, information transmission efficiency, and physical feedback intensity, to ensure that pilots can operate more efficiently, safely, and comfortably in the cockpit. Through accurate data collection and testing, potential problems in control panel design can be quickly identified and optimized, thereby improving the overall performance and safety of the aircraft. These evaluations provide a scientific basis for control panel design, help optimize the aircraft's human-machine interface design, and ensure the best operating experience for pilots.

[0037] S3, obtaining information readability and information priority of the display interface; The goal of step S3 is to ensure that the pilot can quickly and accurately obtain information and operate efficiently, thereby improving the safety and efficiency of aircraft operation. In this step, the two display interface evaluation indicators of information readability and information priority are mainly concerned. The steps for obtaining these two display interface evaluation indicators based on each design scheme are as shown in steps 31 and 32.

[0038] Step 31: The steps of obtaining the information readability of the display interface of each design solution are as follows: The pilots' scores on the information readability of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme are obtained according to the preset scoring criteria, and the average score of all information items on the display interface is used as the information readability of the display interface of each design scheme. The purpose of step 31 is to ensure that the information on the display interface is clear and easy to read, so that the pilot can obtain the required information in a short time, reduce cognitive burden, and improve decision-making efficiency.

[0039] In this embodiment, a rating scale for the readability of information on the display interface is designed to ask pilots about their subjective evaluation of the readability of information on the display interface, especially their feelings about font size, font style, color contrast, and information arrangement. Specifically, the rating scale is shown in Table 1. Table 1 is used to perform a quantitative analysis of the readability of information on the display interface, and the average of the scores of various information on the display interface is taken to evaluate the differences in pilots' cognitive differences on information readability.

[0040] Table 1

[0041] Among them, the pilot's ideal score for the information readability of the display interface should be above 4 points.

[0042] Step 32: The steps of obtaining the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme are as follows: The recognition time of each display information of the display interface in the cockpit of the designed scheme within the specified time is used as the priority value when recognizing each information, and a priority weight is assigned to each information on the display interface according to the expert weighting method; the priority value and the priority weight when each pilot recognizes each information are weighted and summed to obtain the information priority of the display interface; wherein, the purpose of step 32 is to ensure that the pilot can obtain the most critical operation data and warning information on the display interface in priority, avoid information overload, and reduce the possibility of decision-making errors.

[0043] In this embodiment, a functional analysis is performed on the display interface, common display information items are marked and the display information items are divided into critical display information items (high priority information) or non-critical display information items (low priority information). The critical display information items are: speed, altitude, fuel level, and the display information items should be within the pilot's field of view; non-critical display information items: weather information, navigation details, should be placed on the edge or below the screen. In this embodiment, the display interface is tested with speed, altitude, fuel level, weather information, and navigation details information. An eye tracker is used to test specific observation instructions, analyze the movement path of the pilot's line of sight, and evaluate the recognition time (unit: seconds) for the pilot to find and read high-priority display information. Different display information may have different degrees of influence on the priority of interface information. To this end, weights are assigned to each display information through consultation with experts. wi4 , speed( w 14 =0.3)、height( w 24 =0.3)、Oil volume( w 34 =0.3), weather information ( w 44 =0.1), navigation details ( w 54 =0.1). Finally, the priority value and priority weight of each pilot when identifying each piece of information are weighted and summed to obtain the information priority of the display interface.

[0044] So far, the two display interface evaluation indicators of information readability and information priority have been obtained. By evaluating the information readability and information priority of the display interface, it can be ensured that the display interface design of the design scheme not only conforms to the pilot's usage habits, but also can provide accurate and timely feedback in a high-pressure operating environment.

[0045] S4. Obtain the fatigue, psychological stress and comfort of the cockpit design on the pilot; The pilot's physiological and psychological condition in the cockpit is evaluated from three dimensions: fatigue level, psychological stress and comfort, so as to judge the impact of cockpit design on the pilot's physiological and psychological load and ensure their operational efficiency, comfort and flight safety. The specific evaluation steps are steps 41 to 43.

[0046] Step 41: The steps for obtaining the fatigue level of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilot are: The heart rate variability of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design is obtained, and the average heart rate variability of all pilots is used as the fatigue level of the cockpit of each design on the pilot; the purpose of step 41 is to evaluate the fatigue level of the pilot during the flight to understand the impact of his fatigue on flight operations and decision-making.

[0047] In this embodiment, a heart rate monitoring device (such as ECG, PPG) is used to continuously monitor the pilot's heart rate variability (HRV). HRV is an indicator that reflects the activity of the autonomic nervous system. A lower HRV (unit: milliseconds) is usually associated with an increase in fatigue and stress levels. That is, based on the design scheme, the pilot's heart rate variability is recorded during the flight (30 minutes after takeoff), and the average heart rate variability of all pilots is used as the fatigue level of the cockpit to the pilot of each design scheme.

[0048] Step 42: The steps of obtaining the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilot are: The skin conductivity of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design is obtained, and the average skin conductivity of all pilots is used as the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design on the pilots; wherein, the purpose of step 42 is to evaluate the psychological pressure level of the pilots during the flight, so as to understand the impact of pressure on their operating accuracy, decision-making and work efficiency.

[0049] In this embodiment, a skin conductivity sensor is used to monitor the pilot's skin conductivity. Skin conductivity (EDA) is an indicator of sympathetic nerve activity. Higher skin conductivity generally indicates higher psychological stress. The skin conductivity (unit: µS) of each pilot is collected 30 minutes after takeoff, and the average skin conductivity of all pilots is used as the psychological stress of the cockpit on the pilot for each design scheme.

[0050] Step 43: The steps of obtaining the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot during the simulated flight in the cockpit of each design solution are as follows: According to the preset comfort rating standard, the comfort level evaluated by the pilots during the simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme is obtained; the average comfort level evaluated by all pilots during the simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme is used as the comfort level of the cockpit of each design scheme; the purpose of step 43 is to evaluate the pilots' comfort in the cockpit to ensure their physical and mental health during long-term flight and avoid negative emotions caused by discomfort.

[0051] In this embodiment, since the evaluation under normal lighting environment, noise, temperature and humidity conditions has been emphasized in this embodiment, the influence of temperature, humidity and noise is no longer considered separately in this evaluation. A questionnaire survey on the comfort evaluation design includes comfort scoring standards for seat support, sense of space, adjustability and flexibility, and operational fluency indicators, and pilots are required to score these factors based on their personal feelings. To ensure the accuracy of the comfort evaluation, pilots use 1-5 points (5 points: very comfortable, 4 points: slightly uncomfortable, 3 points: moderately uncomfortable, 2 points: greater discomfort, 1 point: extremely uncomfortable) to score according to their personal feelings and evaluation questionnaires. Finally, the average comfort evaluated by all pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme is used as the comfort of the cockpit of each design scheme, among which the ideal score of the comfort mean should be above 4 points.

[0052] So far, the acquisition of evaluation indicators for the physiological and psychological state of pilots in the three dimensions of fatigue level, psychological stress and comfort has been completed. Through the collection and analysis of data in the three dimensions of fatigue level, psychological stress and comfort, a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of the physiological and psychological state of pilots during the flight can be carried out. These evaluation results can not only help designers optimize the cockpit environment and equipment layout, but also provide a scientific basis for pilot health management and flight mission optimization.

[0053] S5. Obtain the optimal design solution; Step 51: The space utilization rate, visual range, equipment accessibility of the cockpit, operability of the control panel, information transmission efficiency, physical feedback intensity, information readability of the display interface, information priority, as well as the pilot's fatigue level and psychological pressure during simulated flight in the cockpit and the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot are used as evaluation indicators of the design solution.

[0054] Step 52: normalizing all evaluation indicators to obtain the target evaluation indicator is as follows: In order to ensure that different evaluation indicators can be effectively compared, all evaluation indicators must be standardized and quantified. Different evaluation indicators may generate data of different dimensions and forms due to differences in evaluation content, data type and collection method. Through standardization, these different forms of data are converted into a unified comparable data format for subsequent comprehensive evaluation and analysis, that is, the range and unit of each evaluation indicator are different, such as the field of view of the cockpit layout is degrees, the information transmission efficiency of the control panel is a percentage, and the response time of the display interface is milliseconds. These data cannot be directly compared horizontally, and data of different dimensions must be converted into a unified numerical representation through standardization. At the same time, in order to further study the individual differences of flight trainees, this embodiment uses 100 flight trainees as the test data set to ensure that different flight experiences and body shapes are covered, and to improve the representativeness of the research and the reliability of the results; let the flight trainees participate in the evaluation of multiple cockpit designs and provide feedback data. In the data processing process, normalization is an effective processing method, which scales the data to a fixed range in proportion to eliminate the influence of different dimensions. The normalization formula is:

[0055] In the formula, For the i Design proposal No. The target evaluation indicator of each evaluation indicator; For the i Design proposal No. evaluation indicators, For the i The maximum evaluation index among the design solutions; For the i The minimum evaluation index in each design scheme; through normalization, the data of different evaluation dimensions can be unified into dimensionless relative values ​​for easy comparison. This step ensures that all evaluation dimensions (such as field of view, ease of operation) are converted into a standard range of 0-1, thereby avoiding the influence of different dimensions (such as degrees, seconds, percentages) on subsequent analysis results; positive indicators refer to the design or system performance being better as the evaluation index value increases, indicating better results. In this embodiment, space utilization, field of view, equipment accessibility, information transmission efficiency, information readability and comfort are positive indicators. Negative indicators refer to the design or system performance being reduced as the evaluation index value increases, indicating worse results. In this embodiment, operability, physical feedback intensity, information priority, fatigue level and psychological pressure are negative indicators.

[0056] Step 53: The steps of obtaining the weight of each evaluation indicator using the CRITIC method are: When evaluating multiple design options, the weight of each target evaluation indicator is crucial to the final decision. Weight allocation is an important step in the comprehensive analysis of each target evaluation indicator. Figure 2 As shown, since the ergonomics evaluation in cockpit design involves evaluation indicators of multiple different dimensions, and each evaluation indicator has a different degree of influence on the overall performance, it is necessary to reasonably determine the weight of each evaluation indicator. In order to ensure the objectivity and scientificity of the evaluation, this embodiment adopts the CRITIC method (Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) to calculate the weights. Among them, the CRITIC method comprehensively evaluates the importance of each evaluation indicator by considering the data volatility of the evaluation indicator and its correlation with other indicators. Unlike the traditional subjective weighting method, the CRITIC method calculates weights based on the data itself, which can reduce the impact of human factors on weight distribution. This method can effectively quantify the contribution of different evaluation modules in comprehensive decision-making. Specifically, the steps for calculating weights by the CRITIC method are: Step 531, calculate the coefficient of variation of the evaluation index: quantify the coefficient of variation of the evaluation index by calculating the standard deviation of each index. The larger the coefficient of variation, the more information the evaluation index carries, and thus a larger weight should be given. The calculation formula of the coefficient of variation is:

[0057] In the formula, For the j The coefficient of variation of the evaluation indicators; m is the total number of design solutions; For the The first of the designs j evaluation indicators; For the j The mean of the evaluation indicators.

[0058] Step 532: Calculate the conflict coefficient of the evaluation index. The conflict coefficient is used to measure the correlation between different evaluation indexes. The smaller the correlation, the less information duplication between the two evaluation indexes, that is, a smaller weight is assigned. The conflict coefficient is evaluated by calculating the correlation coefficient. The expression of the conflict coefficient is:

[0059] In the formula, For the j The conflict coefficient of the evaluation index is For each design The evaluation indicators and j The correlation coefficient of the evaluation indicators.

[0060] Step 533: Calculate the information content of the evaluation indicators. The information content combines the variability and conflict of the evaluation indicators. The information content of each evaluation indicator The calculation formula is:

[0061] In the formula, For the j The amount of information of the evaluation index, For the j The coefficient of variation of the evaluation indicators; For the j The conflict coefficient of the evaluation index.

[0062] Step 534, calculate weight, weight The expression is:

[0063] In the formula, For the j The weight of the evaluation index, For the j The amount of information of the evaluation index, is the total number of evaluation indicators in the design.

[0064] At this point, the weight of each evaluation indicator can be obtained.

[0065] Step 54: According to the target evaluation index and weight in each design scheme, the steps of using the VIKOR method to obtain the optimal design scheme among all the design schemes are as follows: Among them, the VIKOR method is a multi-criteria decision-making method, which is particularly suitable for evaluating and ranking different design schemes under multiple conflicting indicators. The core of this method is to seek ideal solutions and anti-ideal solutions, comprehensively evaluate the performance of each scheme, and thus obtain a more compromise evaluation result. Therefore, the optimal design scheme is obtained according to steps 541 to 543.

[0066] Step 541: Determine the group utility value of each design solution based on the VIKOR theory and the target evaluation index and weight in each design solution. and individual regret value ,Right now: Group utility value for:

[0067] Individual regret value for:

[0068] In the formula, For the The group utility value of each design solution; For the The individual regret value of each design solution; No. The first of the designs The weight of each evaluation indicator; For all design solutions The maximum target evaluation index among the target evaluation indexes; For all design solutions The minimum target evaluation index among the target evaluation indexes; For the The first of the designs target evaluation indicators.

[0069] Step 542: According to the group utility value and individual regret value of each design solution, the compromise value of each design solution is obtained: The compromise value of the design solution is expressed as:

[0070] In the formula, For the The compromise value of the design options; For the The group utility value of each design solution; is the maximum group utility value among the group utility values ​​of all design options; is the minimum group utility value among the group utility values ​​of all design options; For the The individual regret value of each design solution; The maximum individual regret value among the individual regret values ​​of all design solutions; The minimum individual regret value among the individual regret values ​​of all design solutions; is the compromise coefficient, ,when When , it means making decisions based on group maximization. When , it means that the decision is made based on the minimization of individual regret. In this embodiment, the decision is made based on .

[0071] Step 543, the steps of obtaining the optimal design solution among all the design solutions according to the group utility value, the individual regret value and the compromise value are as follows: In this embodiment, when the following two conditions are met, the design solution corresponding to the minimum compromise value is considered to be The best solution is: Condition 1 is:

[0072] In the formula, is the minimum value in the increasing sequence of compromise values ​​composed of compromise values; is the second smallest value in the ascending sequence of compromise values ​​formed by the compromise values; is the total number of design solutions.

[0073] Condition 2: The design solution corresponding to the minimum value in the increasing sequence of compromise values At least one of the group utility value or individual regret value is minimum.

[0074] It should be noted that if only condition 1 is met, the solution set of the compromise value is , that is, the design solutions corresponding to the minimum compromise value and the second smallest compromise value are both optimal solutions; if only condition 2 is met, the solution set of the compromise value is , that is, all design schemes are optimal schemes.

[0075] At this point, the optimal solution has been determined, that is, this embodiment can scientifically and objectively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different cockpit design solutions through the multi-criteria comprehensive evaluation of the VIKOR method, ensuring that the optimal solution finally selected can meet the ergonomic requirements in all aspects, while taking into account the balance between maximum benefits and individual regrets. Finally, based on the evaluation results, corresponding optimization suggestions can also be made for other cockpit design solutions. For example, if a certain solution performs poorly in the display interface module, improvement measures for optimizing information readability can be proposed.

[0076] An aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system of this embodiment is as follows: Figure 3As shown, it includes: a cockpit layout index evaluation module, a control panel index evaluation module, a display interface index evaluation module, a pilot physiological and psychological state index evaluation module and a design scheme evaluation module, wherein the cockpit layout index evaluation module is used to obtain the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design scheme, the sight range of the pilot in the driving seat of each design scheme, and obtain the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme according to the number of devices that the simulated pilot can touch when operating the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme; the control panel index evaluation module is used to obtain the operability of the control panel of each design scheme according to the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design scheme; obtain the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme according to the correct recognition rate of the flight information on the control panel of each design scheme within the specified time; obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme according to the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design scheme; the display interface index evaluation module is used to obtain the pilot's score of the information readability of the display interface in the cockpit of each design scheme according to the preset scoring standard, and the average score of all items of information on the display interface is used as the information readability of the display interface of each design scheme; the pilot's correct recognition of the design scheme within the specified time is used as the information readability of the display interface of each design scheme. The recognition time of each display information on the cockpit display interface is used as the priority value when recognizing each information, and the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme is obtained according to the priority value when recognizing each information; the pilot physiological and psychological state index evaluation module is used to obtain the heart rate variability and skin conductivity of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme, and the average heart rate variability of all pilots is used as the fatigue degree of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilot; the average skin conductivity of all pilots is used as the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilot; the pilot's evaluation of simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme is obtained. The cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot is the cockpit space utilization rate, the sight range, the equipment accessibility, the operability of the control panel, the information transmission efficiency, the physical feedback intensity, the information readability of the display interface, the information priority, as well as the pilot's fatigue level and psychological pressure during the simulated flight in the cockpit and the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot as the evaluation indicators of the design scheme; all the evaluation indicators are normalized to obtain the target evaluation indicators, and the CRITIC method is used to obtain the weight of each evaluation indicator; according to the target evaluation indicators and weights in each design scheme, the VIKOR method is used to obtain the optimal design scheme among all the design schemes.

[0077] In summary, the aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system and method provided by the embodiment of the present invention adopts a combination of computer simulation, prototype design, subjective questionnaire feedback and objective data collection to form a comprehensive evaluation system. This multi-dimensional evaluation method can not only comprehensively measure all aspects of cockpit design, but also ensure that different types of data complement each other and provide more accurate and reliable evaluation results. At the same time, the present invention adopts the multi-criteria decision-making method of CRITIC method and VIKOR method, and performs scientific weight calculation and comprehensive analysis on various evaluation indicators. Through the quantitative evaluation process, the optimal design scheme can be finally determined, thereby providing scientific and fair support for design decisions, avoiding human bias and subjective interference, not only improving the accuracy and reliability of aircraft cockpit design, but also ensuring the pilot's operating comfort and flight safety, and has broad application prospects and practical value.

[0078] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the ergonomics of an aircraft cockpit, characterized in that: include: Obtain the space utilization of the cockpit of each design scheme, the sight range of the pilot in the driving seat of each design scheme, and obtain the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme based on the number of devices that the simulated pilot can reach when operating the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme; Obtaining operability of the control panel of each design solution according to the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design solution; The information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme is obtained according to the correct recognition rate of the flight information on the control panel of each design scheme within the specified time by the pilot; the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme is obtained according to the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design scheme; The pilots' scores on the readability of the information on the cockpit display interface of each design scheme are obtained according to the preset scoring criteria, and the average score of all items of information on the display interface is used as the readability of the information on the display interface of each design scheme; The recognition time of each display information of the cockpit display interface of the design scheme by the pilot within the specified time is used as the priority value when recognizing each information, and the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme is obtained according to the priority value when recognizing each information; The heart rate variability and skin conductivity of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design were obtained, and the average heart rate variability of all pilots was used as the fatigue degree of the cockpit of each design on the pilots; the average skin conductivity of all pilots was used as the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design on the pilots; Obtain cockpit comfort as assessed by pilots during simulated flights in the cockpit of each design; The space utilization, sight range, equipment accessibility, control panel operability, information transmission efficiency, physical feedback intensity, information readability and information priority of the display interface, as well as the pilot's fatigue and psychological stress during simulated flight in the cockpit and the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot are used as evaluation indicators for the design scheme; All evaluation indicators are normalized to obtain the target evaluation indicator, and the CRITIC method is used to obtain the weight of each evaluation indicator; According to the target evaluation indicators and weights in each design scheme, the VIKOR method is used to obtain the optimal design scheme among all the design schemes.

2. The method for evaluating the ergonomics of an aircraft cockpit according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain the space utilization of the cockpit of each design solution are: The total volume of equipment and available space in the cockpit interior according to the design solution; The ratio of the total volume of the equipment to the volume of the available space is taken as the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design scheme.

3. The method for evaluating the ergonomics of an aircraft cockpit according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain the equipment accessibility in the cockpit for each design solution are: Based on the number of devices that the pilot can reach with his arms when driving the seat in the design and the total number of devices; The percentage of the number of devices that the pilot can reach with his arms when driving the seat in the design scheme to the total number of devices is taken as the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme.

4. The method for evaluating aircraft cockpit ergonomics according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain operability of the control panel for each design solution are: Get the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design scheme; Use expert weighting method to assign operation weight to each operation; The operability of the control panel of each design solution is obtained by taking a weighted sum of the average operation time when executing each operation and the operation weight of each operation.

5. The method for evaluating the ergonomics of an aircraft cockpit according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain the information transfer efficiency of the control panel for each design solution are: According to the pilots' recognition of the flight information on the control panel of each design within the specified time, the ratio of the number of correct recognitions by all pilots to the total number of pilots is taken as the correct recognition rate of each type of flight information; Use expert weighting method to assign information weight to each flight information on the control panel; The correct recognition rate and information weight of each type of flight information on the control panel are weighted and summed to obtain the information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme.

6. The method for evaluating aircraft cockpit ergonomics according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel for each design solution are: Obtain the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design solution; Use expert weighting method to assign force weight to each control element command on the control panel; The feedback force and force weight when operating each control element are weighted and summed to obtain the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme.

7. The method for evaluating aircraft cockpit ergonomics according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme are: Assign priority weight to each information on the display interface according to the expert weighting method; The priority value and priority weight of each pilot when identifying each piece of information are weighted and summed to obtain the information priority of the display interface.

8. The method for evaluating aircraft cockpit ergonomics according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps to obtain the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design are: According to the preset comfort rating standard, the comfort level evaluated by the pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme is obtained; The average comfort level evaluated by all pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design option is taken as the cockpit comfort level of each design option.

9. The method for evaluating aircraft cockpit ergonomics according to claim 1, characterized in that: The steps of using the VIKOR method to obtain the optimal design solution among all design solutions are: The VIKOR method is used to obtain the group utility value and individual regret value of each design scheme according to the target evaluation index and weight in each design scheme; According to the group utility value and individual regret value of each design scheme, the compromise value of each design scheme is obtained; The optimal design solution among all design solutions is obtained based on the group utility value, individual regret value and compromise value.

10. An aircraft cockpit ergonomics evaluation system, characterized in that: include: The cockpit layout index evaluation module is used to obtain the space utilization rate of the cockpit of each design scheme, the sight range of the pilot in the driving seat of each design scheme, and the equipment accessibility in the cockpit of each design scheme based on the number of devices that the simulated pilot can reach when operating the equipment in the cockpit of each design scheme; A control panel indicator evaluation module, used to obtain the operability of the control panel of each design solution according to the operation time when each operation is performed on the control panel of each design solution; The information transmission efficiency of the control panel of each design scheme is obtained according to the correct recognition rate of the flight information on the control panel of each design scheme within the specified time by the pilot; the physical feedback strength of the control panel of each design scheme is obtained according to the feedback force when operating each control element on the control panel of each design scheme; The display interface index evaluation module is used to obtain the pilot's score of the information readability of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme according to the preset scoring criteria, and the average score of all items of information on the display interface is used as the information readability of the display interface of each design scheme; The recognition time of each display information of the cockpit display interface of the design scheme by the pilot within the specified time is used as the priority value when recognizing each information, and the information priority of the cockpit display interface of each design scheme is obtained according to the priority value when recognizing each information; The pilot physiological and psychological state index evaluation module is used to obtain the heart rate variability and skin conductivity of multiple pilots during simulated flight in the cockpit of each design scheme, and the average heart rate variability of all pilots is used as the fatigue degree of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilot; the average skin conductivity of all pilots is used as the psychological pressure of the cockpit of each design scheme on the pilot; Obtain cockpit comfort as assessed by pilots during simulated flights in the cockpit of each design; The design scheme evaluation module is used to use the space utilization rate, visual range, equipment accessibility of the cockpit, operability of the control panel, information transmission efficiency, physical feedback intensity, information readability of the display interface, information priority, as well as the pilot's fatigue level and psychological pressure during simulated flight in the cockpit, and the cockpit comfort evaluated by the pilot as evaluation indicators of the design scheme; all evaluation indicators are normalized to obtain the target evaluation indicators, and the CRITIC method is used to obtain the weight of each evaluation indicator; According to the target evaluation indicators and weights in each design scheme, the VIKOR method is used to obtain the optimal design scheme among all the design schemes.

Images