Parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method

Abstract

The invention discloses a parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method. Comprising the following steps: evaluating the space utilization degree of overall arrangement: setting n airborne equipment in an overall arrangement scheme, recording the airborne equipment as Eqj, j = 1, 2,..., n, the cross section of an aircraft body where the geometric center of the Eqj is located as Aj, the sum of the sectional areas of Eqi in the Aj is Srj, i = 1, 2,..., n, i is not equal to j, and the sum of the sectional areas of available areas in the Aj is Spj; the congestion degree # imgabs0 # definition vector K = [K1, K2,... Kn] of the Eqj is defined as the congestion degree evaluation vector of the overall arrangement scheme, and the mean value # imgabs1 # of K is the average space utilization degree of the overall arrangement scheme; and a weight vector # imgabs2 # of spatial arrangement is introduced to obtain a weighted mean value # imgabs3 #. The method is used for quantitatively judging the advantages and disadvantages of an overall arrangement scheme, so that optimization iteration of overall design is facilitated.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the field of aircraft overall arrangement, and in particular relates to a parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method. Background Art

[0002] The overall layout is the key work in the overall design. Taking aircraft development as an example, the overall layout corresponds to the preliminary design stage of the entire aircraft development process, which is a collaborative design process between structure and system, and system and system. The plans for overall, structure, system, production and processing, use and maintenance, four properties and other aspects are constantly iterated, improved and deepened at this stage. Usually, this stage of work is the most time-consuming and repetitive in the entire aircraft design process. Different overall designers may give completely different overall layout plans under the same requirements due to different design experience and styles. How to quantitatively evaluate the pros and cons of the overall layout plan when all design requirements are met is an inevitable requirement for the rapid iterative optimization of the overall design. Therefore, how to quantitatively evaluate the pros and cons of the overall layout plan is a problem that needs to be solved urgently. Summary of the invention

[0003] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a parameterized overall layout evaluation method, which is used to quantitatively judge the pros and cons of overall layout schemes, thereby facilitating the optimization iteration of overall design.

[0004] The technical solution of the present invention is a parameterized overall layout evaluation method, including the evaluation of the spatial utilization degree of the overall layout:

[0005] Assume that the overall layout has n airborne equipment, and the airborne equipment is Eq j , j = 1, 2, ... n, Eq. j The cross section of the body where the geometric center is located is A j , A j Eq i The sum of the cross-sectional areas is Sr j , i=1,2,…n,i≠j, the available area is in A j The sum of the cross-sectional areas in is Sp j ;

[0006] Define Eq. j The congestion Define vector K = [K 1 ,K 2 ,…K n ] is the crowding evaluation vector of the overall layout plan, and the mean value of K is the average space utilization of the overall layout scheme; the weight vector of space layout is introduced as ρ = [ρ 1 ,ρ 2 ,…ρ n ],0≤ρ j ≤1;∑ρj =1; then the weighted mean

[0007] In the aforementioned parameterized overall layout evaluation method, the available area is the entire space area in the overall layout that can be used for the layout of airborne equipment.

[0008] The aforementioned parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method also includes the weight sensitivity evaluation of the overall arrangement:

[0009] Assume Eq. j The weight is m j , the center of gravity is c j , the total weight of the machine is M, and the center of gravity is C; Eq j The sensitivity to the center of gravity of the whole machine is defined as:

[0010]

[0011] Among them, m j |Cc j |For Eq j The moment about the center of gravity of the whole machine; vector ξ=[ξ 1 ,ξ 2 ,…ξ n ] is the gravity center sensitivity evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme; introduce the actual weight vector p = [p 1 ,p 2 ,…p n ],0≤p j ≤1; but It is the total sensitivity of all airborne equipment in the overall layout plan to the center of gravity of the entire aircraft.

[0012] The aforementioned parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method also includes the survivability evaluation of the overall arrangement:

[0013] Assume Eq. j The remainder is y j ,y j ≥1, and the device corresponding to each redundancy is recorded as Eq jv , v = 1, 2, ... y j ; Eq jv The probability of loss is w jv ; Assuming that the loss of a single redundancy does not cause changes in other redundancies, then:

[0014] Eq j The probability that there is at least one redundancy is vector is the survivability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme, n ' is the total amount of equipment when only single redundancy is calculated; introduce the weight vector of the whole machine survivability λ=[λ1 ,λ 2 ,…λ n' ],0≤λ j ≤1; Then, the survivability index of the whole machine is

[0015] The aforementioned parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method further includes an overall arrangement maintainability evaluation; the overall arrangement maintainability evaluation includes an evaluation of a first whole-machine maintainability index, and the evaluation method is as follows:

[0016] Assume Eq. j have uj Installation points, Eq j Corresponding to a certain maintenance cover, the polygon enclosed by the boundary of the maintenance cover is denoted as S j , S j The characteristic size is r j , the tth installation point to S j The minimum unobstructed distance is l jt , t=1,2,…u j ; The first maintainability evaluation index is Vector Θ 1 =[θ 1n ,θ 12 ,…θ 1n ] is a maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme; the whole machine maintainability weight vector α is introduced as [α 1 ,α 2 ,…α n ],0≤α j ≤1; Then the first whole machine maintainability index is

[0017] In the aforementioned parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method, the overall arrangement maintainability evaluation also includes the evaluation of the second whole machine maintainability index, and the evaluation method is as follows:

[0018] Let S j The unit normal vector is f j ,|f j |=1, the unit normal vector of each installation point of the device is q jt , t=1,2,…u j ;,|q jt |=1; the second maintainability evaluation index is Vector Θ 2 =[θ 21 ,θ 22 ,…θ 2n ] is the second maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme; the maintainability weight vector of the whole machine is also used, so the maintainability index of the second whole machine is

[0019] In the aforementioned parameterized overall arrangement evaluation method, the overall arrangement maintainability evaluation also includes the evaluation of the third whole-machine maintainability index, and the evaluation method is as follows:

[0020] Assume g j For S j Disassembly Eq j When, at least Eq i (i=1,2,…n;i≠j);The third maintainability evaluation index is Θ 3 =[θ 31 ,θ 32 ,…θ 3n ] is the third maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme, and the whole machine maintainability weight vector α is also used. The third whole machine maintainability index is

[0021] The aforementioned parametric overall layout evaluation method also includes the following evaluation index system summary of the overall layout:

[0022] Step 1: Construct a comprehensive evaluation matrix E, where the number of columns h of E is the number of identified indicators;

[0023] Step 2: When h≥2, normalize the row vector of E; when h=1, go to step 4, at this time A=1;

[0024] Step 3: Determine the indicator weight vector A based on engineering experience, or use the principal component analysis method to reduce the dimension of E to simplify the determination of vector A;

[0025] Step 4: According to the evaluation angle of the overall layout plan, the overall layout weight vector β is given;

[0026] Step 5: Solve the overall layout comprehensive evaluation index Q s =AEβ.

[0027] In the above-mentioned parameterized overall layout evaluation method, the overall layout comprehensive evaluation index Q s Calculate as follows:

[0028]

[0029] Among them, A=[a 1 a 2 … a h ] is the indicator weight vector, satisfying The dimension h represents the number of indicators involved in the evaluation; the matrix E is the comprehensive evaluation matrix, where the n-dimensional row vector e i(i=1,2,…h) is the evaluation index vector; e ij (i=1,2,…h;j=1,2,…n) represents Eq. j The value of the ith index; β = [β 1 ,β 2 ,…β n ] T is the overall layout weighted vector, which indicates the sensitivity of each airborne equipment to the comprehensive index and satisfies 0≤β j ≤1;

[0030] Beneficial effects of the present invention: Compared with the traditional empirical design method, the present invention can quantitatively evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the overall layout scheme. For certain characteristics of the overall layout, such as space utilization, quality characteristics, maintainability, etc., the index system proposed by the present invention can be used to measure them, and the corresponding indicators can be used as the optimization direction, which can significantly improve the iterative optimization efficiency of the overall design.

[0031] The indicators proposed in the present invention are relatively simple in measurement, evaluation and calculation, easy to implement through programming, and convenient for practical engineering applications.

[0032] The index system proposed in the present invention has strong scalability. The more indicators are identified, the more information the comprehensive evaluation index contains, and the stronger the evaluation ability is.

[0033] The index system proposed in the present invention can be used flexibly according to the evaluation focus in actual use. By adjusting the weight vector, the evaluation effect of the focus can be highlighted and the evaluation effect of the non-focus can be weakened. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0034] Figure 1 The cross section of the body of the device A at the geometric center;

[0035] Figure 2 A schematic diagram showing the loss probability of each area of ​​the entire aircraft using different colors;

[0036] Figure 3 For Eq j The fuselage cross section at the installation location. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0037] 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.

[0038] Example 1. A parametric overall layout evaluation method, see Figure 1-Figure 3 , assuming that the overall layout plan considers n airborne equipment, the airborne equipment is Eq j (j=1,2,…n).

[0039] 1. Overall layout space utilization evaluation system

[0040] Eq. j The cross section of the body where the geometric center is located is denoted by A j . j A j Eq i The sum of the cross-sectional areas of (i=1,2,…n;i≠j), denoted by Sp j For available area in A j Available area: the total space area that can be used for the arrangement of airborne equipment in the overall layout.

[0041] Define Eq. j The congestion level: K j The larger the value, the greater the value, indicating that Eq j The denser the surrounding equipment is, the higher the utilization of the surrounding space is. 1 ,K 2 ,…K n ] is the crowding evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme. It indicates the local space utilization degree of all airborne equipment in the overall scheme. The mean value of K is the average space utilization of the overall layout plan, The larger the value, the better the average space utilization of the overall layout. In addition, it is not desirable for every device to be in a crowded environment in the overall layout, such as some explosives or devices with high heat dissipation requirements. The weight vector ρ = [ρ 1 ,ρ 2 ,…ρ n ],0≤ρ j ≤1; ρ j The larger the value, the greater the value, indicating that Eq j The more suitable it is to be placed in a crowded environment. The weighted mean The larger it is, the better and more reasonable the space utilization of the overall layout is.

[0042] To further explain the calculation method of the indicator, Figure 1is the cross section of the fuselage at the geometric center of equipment A, Area1 to Area3 are the cross sections of the area that can be used for the overall layout, and Area4 is the fixed area determined by the scheme design stage, such as the fuel tank, air intake, and landing gear. The overall layout plan does not consider the changes of such areas for the time being, and Area4 is classified as an unusable area. s, t, p, and q represent the cross sections of the main wiring harness channels in the area. Since the main wiring harness channels are basically determined in the initial stage of the overall layout and generally do not change with the overall layout plan, s, t, p, and q can be regarded as unusable areas. Then:

[0043]

[0044] 2 Weight sensitivity evaluation system for overall layout

[0045] Remember Eq j The weight is m j , the center of gravity is c j , the total weight of the machine is M, and the center of gravity is C. Eq j The sensitivity to the center of gravity of the whole machine can be defined as:

[0046] Among them, m j |Cc j |For Eq j The moment about the center of gravity of the whole machine. Vector ξ=[ξ 1 ,ξ 2 ,…ξ n ] is the gravity center sensitivity evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme. It indicates the degree of influence of each airborne equipment in the overall layout scheme on the gravity center of the whole aircraft when it is replaced separately. Generally speaking, equipment with large weight and frequent replacement / missing installation should be arranged as far away from the gravity center of the whole aircraft as possible to avoid adding additional weight to the aircraft when replacing / missing this equipment. Introduce the actual installation weight vector p = [p 1 ,p 2 ,…p n ],0≤p j ≤1; p j The smaller it is, the smaller the Eq j The greater the probability of changing or missing equipment, that is, p j The larger the value, the larger the j The greater the probability of implementation.

[0047] is the total sensitivity of all airborne equipment to the center of gravity of the aircraft in the overall layout plan, The smaller it is, the better the center of gravity sensitivity of the overall arrangement.

[0048] 3 Overall layout survivability evaluation system

[0049] Remember Eq j The remainder is yj (y j ≥1), the device corresponding to each redundancy is recorded as Eq jv (v=1,2,…y j ). Eq. jv The probability of loss is w jv ,like Figure 2 , the loss probability of each area of ​​the whole machine is distinguished by different colors, and the equipment arranged in the same color area has the same loss probability. Assuming that the loss of a single redundancy does not cause changes in other redundancies, then Eq j The probability that there is at least one redundancy is The larger the value, the greater the value. j The stronger the survival ability. ( n ' is the total amount of equipment when only single redundancy is calculated) is the survivability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme. It indicates the survivability of all airborne equipment in the overall scheme. The introduction of the total survivability weight vector λ = [λ 1 ,λ 2 ,…λ n' ],0≤λ j ≤1; λ j The larger the value, the greater the value, indicating that Eq j The more important it is to the survival of the entire machine. The survivability index of the entire machine can be expressed as The larger it is, the greater the overall survivability of the entire machine.

[0050] 4 Maintainability evaluation system of overall layout

[0051] like Figure 3 For Eq j The cross section of the fuselage where the installation compartment is located, and the blue area is the installation compartment. j There is j installation points, Eq j Corresponding to a certain maintenance cover, the polygon enclosed by the boundary of the maintenance cover is denoted as S j ( Figure 3 The red line indicates j The characteristic dimension (such as the diagonal length) is denoted by r j . The tth installation point to S j The minimum unobstructed distance is l jt (t=1,2,…u j ), r j The larger the size, the better the maintainability. jt The smaller it is, the better the maintainability is. A maintainability evaluation index can be expressed as θ 1j The larger the value, the greater the Eq. jThe better the maintainability. Vector Θ 1 =[θ 1n ,θ 12 ,…θ 1n ] is a maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme. Introducing the whole machine maintainability weight vector α = [α 1 ,α 2 ,…α n ],0≤α j ≤1; α j The larger the value, the greater the value, indicating that Eq j The more attention is paid to maintainability (the higher the maintenance frequency). The maintainability index of the whole machine can be expressed as The larger it is, the better the maintainability of the overall arrangement.

[0052] S j The unit normal vector is denoted by f j ,|f j |=1, the unit normal vector of each installation point of the equipment is denoted as q jt (t=1,2,…u j ),|q jt |=1, vector f j and q jt The higher the parallelism, the better the maintainability. Another maintainability evaluation index can be expressed as θ 2j The larger the value, the greater the Eq. j The better the maintainability. Vector Θ 2 =[θ 21 ,θ 22 ,…θ 2n ] is a maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme. Using the same whole-machine maintainability weight vector, another whole-machine maintainability index can be recorded as The larger it is, the better the maintainability of the overall arrangement.

[0053] Remember j For S j Disassembly Eq j When, at least Eq i Another maintainability evaluation index can be expressed as θ 3j The larger the larger, the more Eq. j The better the maintainability. 3 =[θ 31 ,θ 32 ,…θ 3n ] is a maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme. Similarly, using the whole machine maintainability weight vector α, another whole machine maintainability index can be recorded as The larger it is, the better the maintainability of the overall arrangement.

[0054] 5. Summary of the evaluation index system of overall layout

[0055] The overall layout comprehensive evaluation index is Q s , Among them, A=[a 1 a 2 … a h ] is the indicator weight vector, satisfying The dimension h represents the number of indicators involved in the evaluation. The matrix E is a comprehensive evaluation matrix, where the n-dimensional row vector e i (i=1,2,…h) is the evaluation index vector (if h≥2, e i Standardization is carried out to prevent the differences in the nature, dimensions and magnitude of different indicators from causing different degrees of impact on the comprehensive indicators). ij (i=1,2,…h;j=1,2,…n) represents Eq. j The value of the i-th index. β=[β 1 ,β 2 ,…β n ] T is the overall layout weighted vector, which indicates the sensitivity of each airborne equipment to the comprehensive index and satisfies 0≤β j ≤1;

[0056] When the indicator dimension h = 1, A = 1. The evaluation indicator vector e corresponds to the congestion evaluation vector K, the center of gravity sensitivity evaluation vector ξ, and the viability evaluation vector Φ. The overall layout weight vector β corresponds to the spatial layout weight vector ρ, the actual installation weight vector p, and the viability weight vector λ.

[0057] When h=3, the evaluation index vector e corresponds to the evaluation vector Θ' 1 ,Θ' 2 ,Θ' 3 (Θ' 1 ,Θ' 2 ,Θ' 3 is θ 1 ,Θ 2 ,Θ 3 The vector after data standardization), the overall layout weighted vector β corresponds to the maintainability weighted vector α. The identification characteristic index can be further expanded to obtain more comprehensive space utilization comprehensive index, weight sensitivity comprehensive index, survivability comprehensive index, maintainability comprehensive index, and other evaluation indicators.

[0058] For Q sTo solve the problem, we can use engineering experience to give the index weight vector A, Q s The result represents the trade-off of the engineering significance of the h evaluation indicators. For example, in the maintainability indicator, the engineering evaluation of maintainability may be: "one-time access" > "the cover is large enough" > "the installation point is straight enough", so let the weights of these three be 0.4, 0.35, and 0.25 respectively, that is, A = [0.35, 0.25, 0.4] respectively, and the evaluation vector Θ' 1 ,Θ' 2 ,Θ' 3 The weight of .

[0059] Principal Component Analysis (PCA) can also be used to reduce the dimensions of h indicators (usually with certain correlation) to k dimensions (k < h). When k is small enough, vector A can be more easily given.

[0060] Vector β represents the weight of each airborne equipment in the overall layout under different evaluation systems. In the above four indicator systems, it can be analyzed and determined according to the layout requirements of the airborne equipment, the replacement frequency, the criticality to the survivability of the whole aircraft, and the maintenance frequency.

[0061] In summary, the general steps for evaluating the overall layout plan are:

[0062] Step 1: Construct a comprehensive evaluation matrix E, where the number of columns h of E is the number of identified indicators;

[0063] Step 2: If h≥2, normalize the row vector of E, otherwise go to step 4 (A=1);

[0064] Step 3: Determine the indicator weight vector A based on engineering experience, or use the principal component analysis method to reduce the dimension of E to simplify the determination of vector A;

[0065] Step 4: According to the evaluation angle of the overall layout plan, the overall layout weight vector β is given;

[0066] Step 5: Solve the overall layout comprehensive evaluation index Q s =AEβ.

[0067] The above is only a specific embodiment of the present invention, and the present invention is described in detail. The unexplained part is a conventional technology. However, the protection scope of the present invention is not limited to this. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by any technician familiar with the technical field within the technical scope disclosed by the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention. The protection scope of the present invention shall be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A parameterized overall layout evaluation method, characterized in that: Including the evaluation of space utilization of the overall layout: Assume that the overall layout has n airborne equipment, and the airborne equipment is Eq j , j = 1, 2, ... n, Eq. j The cross section of the body where the geometric center is located is A j , A j Eq i The sum of the cross-sectional areas is Sr j , i=1,2,…n,i≠j, the available area is in A j The sum of the cross-sectional areas in is Sp j ; Define Eq. j The congestion Define vector K = [K1, K2, ... K n ] is the crowding evaluation vector of the overall layout plan, and the mean value of K is the average space utilization of the overall layout scheme; introduce the weight vector of space layout ρ = [ρ1, ρ2, … ρ n ],0≤ρ j ≤1; The weighted mean 2. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The available area is the space area that can be used for the arrangement of airborne equipment in the overall arrangement.

3. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: Also included is an evaluation of the weight sensitivity of the overall arrangement: Assume Eq. j The weight is m j , the center of gravity is c j , the total weight of the machine is M, and the center of gravity is C; Eq j The sensitivity to the center of gravity of the whole machine is defined as: Among them, m j |Cc j |For Eq j The moment about the center of gravity of the whole machine; vector ξ=[ξ1,ξ2,…ξ n ] is the gravity center sensitivity evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme; introduce the actual weight vector p = [p1, p2, ... p n ],0≤p j ≤1; but It is the total sensitivity of all airborne equipment in the overall layout plan to the center of gravity of the entire aircraft.

4. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: It also includes the survivability evaluation of the general arrangement: Assume Eq. j The remainder is y j ,y j ≥1, and the device corresponding to each redundancy is recorded as Eq jv , v = 1, 2, ... y j ; Eq jv The probability of loss is w jv ; Assuming that the loss of a single redundancy does not cause changes in other redundancies, then: Eq j The probability that there is at least one redundancy is vector is the survivability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme, n ' is the total amount of equipment when only single redundancy is calculated; introduce the weight vector of the whole machine survivability λ=[λ1,λ2,…λ n' ],0≤λ j ≤1; Then, the survivability index of the whole machine is 5. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: It also includes the maintainability evaluation of the overall arrangement; the maintainability evaluation of the overall arrangement includes the evaluation of the first whole machine maintainability index, and the evaluation method is as follows: Assume Eq. j There is j Installation points, Eq j Corresponding to a certain maintenance cover, the polygon enclosed by the boundary of the maintenance cover is denoted as S j , S j The characteristic size is r j , the tth installation point to S j The minimum unobstructed distance is l jt , t=1,2,…u j ; The first maintainability evaluation index is Vector θ1 = [θ 1n ,θ 12 ,…θ 1n ] is a maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme; introduce the whole machine maintainability weight vector α=[α1,α2,…α n ],0≤α j ≤1; Then the first whole machine maintainability index is 6. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The maintainability evaluation of the overall arrangement also includes the evaluation of the second whole machine maintainability index, and the evaluation method is as follows: Let S j The unit normal vector is f j ,|f j |=1, the unit normal vector of each installation point of the device is q jt , t=1,2,…u j ;|q jt |=1; the second maintainability evaluation index is Vector θ2 = [θ 21 ,θ 22 ,…θ 2n ] is the second maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme; the maintainability weight vector of the whole machine is also used, so the maintainability index of the second whole machine is 7. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The maintainability evaluation of the overall arrangement also includes the evaluation of the third whole-machine maintainability index, and the evaluation method is as follows: Assume g j For S j Disassembly Eq j When, at least Eq i (i=1,2,…n;i≠j);The third maintainability evaluation index is θ3=[θ 31 ,θ 32 ,…θ 3n ] is the third maintainability evaluation vector of the overall layout scheme, and the whole machine maintainability weight vector is also used α , the third whole machine maintainability index is 8. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: It also includes the evaluation index system summary of the overall layout: Step 1: Construct a comprehensive evaluation matrix E, where the number of columns h of E is the number of identified indicators; Step 2: When h≥2, normalize the row vector of E; when h=1, go to step 4, at this time A=1; Step 3: Determine the indicator weight vector A based on engineering experience, or use the principal component analysis method to reduce the dimension of E to simplify the determination of vector A; Step 4: According to the evaluation angle of the overall layout plan, the overall layout weight vector β is given; Step 5: Solve the overall layout comprehensive evaluation index Q s =AEβ.

9. The parameterized overall layout evaluation method according to claim 8, characterized in that: The overall layout comprehensive evaluation index Q s Calculate as follows: Where A=[a1 a2 … a h ] is the indicator weight vector, satisfying 0≤a i ≤1; The dimension h represents the number of indicators involved in the evaluation; the matrix E is the comprehensive evaluation matrix, where the n-dimensional row vector e i (i=1,2,…h) is the evaluation index vector; e ij (i=1,2,…h;j=1,2,…n) represents Eq. j The value of the ith index; β = [β1, β2, … β n ] T is the overall layout weighted vector, which indicates the sensitivity of each airborne equipment to the comprehensive index and satisfies 0≤β j ≤1;

Images