Aircraft cabin comfort level analysis and evaluation method

Abstract

The invention belongs to the technical field of scheme design, and particularly relates to an aircraft cabin comfort level analysis and evaluation method which comprises the following steps: S1, establishing a cabin comfort evaluation index system which comprises a target layer, a plurality of first-level indexes included in the target layer and a plurality of second-level indexes included in the first-level indexes; s2, establishing a discrimination matrix according to the cabin comfort evaluation index system; s3, inviting an expert group to score according to the index system, and obtaining values of all vectors in the discrimination matrix according to the scoring condition of the expert group; and S4, based on the discrimination matrix of all known vector values, calculating the weight of each first-level index and the weight of each second-level index by adopting an analytic hierarchy process. Emphasis optimization can be performed according to the evaluation index weight in the detailed design stage, scoring calculation can be performed on a plurality of complete detailed design schemes, and the objectivity of passenger cabin comfort evaluation is improved by optimizing the schemes according to objective scores.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application belongs to the technical field of scheme design, and in particular relates to a hierarchical analysis and evaluation method for comfort of aircraft cabins. Background Art

[0002] Cabin comfort has become an important indicator for passengers to choose airlines. In order to improve the comfort experience of passengers during the flight, it is necessary to conduct in-depth research on various factors affecting comfort during the flight. The comprehensive evaluation of cabin comfort is an important basis and one of the key references for cabin quality evaluation, and is the basis for comfort evaluation and improved design. A scientific and reasonable evaluation index system is needed to guide the optimization of cabin industrial design solutions and better improve the cabin comfort experience design. Summary of the invention

[0003] In order to solve the above problems, the present application provides an aircraft cabin comfort level analysis evaluation method, including:

[0004] Step S1, establishing a cabin comfort evaluation index system, wherein the cabin comfort evaluation index system includes a target layer, a plurality of primary indicators included in the target layer, and a plurality of secondary indicators included in the primary indicators;

[0005] Step S2, establishing a discriminant matrix according to the cabin comfort evaluation index system;

[0006] Step S3, inviting an expert panel to score according to the indicator system, and obtaining the values ​​of all vectors in the discriminant matrix according to the expert panel's scores;

[0007] Step S4: Based on the discriminant matrix of all known vector values, the weight of each primary indicator and each secondary indicator is calculated using the hierarchical analysis method.

[0008] Preferably, the first-level index includes: cabin comfort U.

[0009] Preferably, the secondary indicators include: cabin environment comfort U1, cabin layout design comfort U2, cabin seat comfort U3, and cabin facilities and entertainment system comfort U4.

[0010] Preferably, the cabin environment comfort U1 includes multiple three-level indicators, specifically including: cabin temperature U11, cabin humidity U12, cabin air quality U13, cabin vibration U14, cabin noise U15, cabin pressure U16, cabin lighting U17 and cabin interior color U18;

[0011] The cabin layout design comfort U2 includes multiple third-level indicators, including: cabin sign design U21, cabin luggage rack height U22, cabin luggage rack space U23, cabin toilet design U24, cabin window design U25, cabin aisle width U26, cabin PSU layout design U27;

[0012] The cabin seat comfort U3 includes multiple three-level indicators, including: cabin seat layout U31, seat back adjustability U32, seat seat width U33, seat seat height U34, seat surface material comfort U35, seat lumbar support U36, seat armrest design U37, and seat front and rear row distance U38;

[0013] The cabin facilities and entertainment system comfort U4 includes multiple three-level indicators, including: cabin service facilities U41 and cabin entertainment system U42.

[0014] Preferably, the judgment matrix A of the first-level indicators specifically includes:

[0015] It is known that the number of elements in the target layer is 1, and the number of elements in the first-level index is 4, so the judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0016] A=(a ij ) n×n Where n = 4, and there is

[0017] Get the pairwise comparison matrix:

[0018] a 11 =U1:U1,a 12 =U1:U2...a 44 =U4:U4.

[0019] Preferably, the expert panel specifically scores the secondary indicators and the tertiary indicators.

[0020] Preferably, the weights of the first-level indicators corresponding to the target layer U civil aircraft cabin comfort are calculated and averaged to obtain a weight vector W = {U1*, U2*, U3*, U4*}.

[0021] Preferably, each second-level indicator corresponds to a weight vector W1, W2, W3 and W4 of the first-level indicator.

[0022] Preferably, the judgment matrix is ​​edited and calculated by MATLAB or SPSS tool software.

[0023] Preferably, step S4 further includes step S5, including:

[0024] Scoring existing cabin industrial design solutions based on the cabin comfort evaluation index system;

[0025] The final score of the existing cabin industrial design scheme can be obtained by weighting each indicator and the scoring results.

[0026] Preferably, step S5 further includes step S6, including:

[0027] In the comparison of several cabin industrial design schemes, the scheme with the highest score calculated according to the final analytic hierarchy process is selected;

[0028] The cabin interior design scheme is continuously optimized and iterated according to design requirements to ensure that the industrial design scheme meets design expectations.

[0029] The advantages of this application include: after obtaining the weights of each cabin evaluation index, the importance and priority of each evaluation index can be known. In the detailed design stage, key optimization can be carried out according to the evaluation index weights, and several complete detailed design schemes can be scored and calculated. The scheme is selected by objectively scoring, which improves the objectivity of cabin comfort evaluation. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0030] Figure 1 This is a preferred embodiment of the present application of the aircraft cabin comfort level analysis evaluation method process

[0031] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of a cabin comfort evaluation index system according to a preferred embodiment of the present application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0032] In order to make the technical solution and advantages of the present application clearer, the technical solution of the present application will be further described in detail in detail and in detail in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. It can be understood that the specific embodiments described here are only partial embodiments of the present application, which are only used to explain the present application, not to limit the present application. It should be noted that, for the convenience of description, only the parts related to the present application are shown in the accompanying drawings, and other related parts can refer to the general design. In the absence of conflict, the embodiments in the present application and the technical features in the embodiments can be combined with each other to obtain new embodiments.

[0033] In addition, it should be noted that, unless otherwise clearly specified and limited, the words "installed", "connected", "connected" and similar terms used in the description of this application should be understood in a broad sense. For example, the connection can be a fixed connection, a detachable connection, or an integral connection; it can be a mechanical connection or an electrical connection; it can be a direct connection, an indirect connection through an intermediate medium, or the internal connection of two components. Technical personnel in the field can understand their specific meanings in this application according to the specific circumstances.

[0034] Taking the cabin interior of a certain aircraft model as an example, the industrial design scheme evaluation process is as follows: The cabin comfort evaluation index system is established

[0035] According to the characteristics of the cabin itself, the cabin comfort evaluation index system is divided into:

[0036] There are three levels: target level, primary indicators, and secondary indicators;

[0037] The secondary indicators include four aspects:

[0038] Cabin environment comfort index, cabin layout comfort index, cabin seat comfort index, and cabin facilities and entertainment equipment comfort index;

[0039] The three-level indicators are as follows Figure 2 shown.

[0040] The evaluation indicators of cabin environment comfort include: temperature, humidity, pressure, lighting, vibration, noise, color matching in the cabin, etc. Domestic research on cabin comfort mainly focuses on thermal comfort prediction and control. The evaluation indicators of cabin layout comfort include: legroom, number of rows of seats, seat row spacing, luggage compartment, ceiling, window, aisle, etc. Cabin layout comfort involves many aspects such as physiology and psychology. For example, the arrangement of the number of seats in each row and legroom will directly affect the psychological feelings of passengers. Seats are not only the most important carrier facilities for passenger comfort, but also an important carrier for reflecting the quality and comfort of aircraft. Most of the activities of passengers after entering the cabin are carried out on the seats, and the personal space constructed by the seats is directly related to the passenger comfort experience. The quality of seat comfort affects the passenger's entire flight experience and satisfaction with the airline. Cabin facilities include service facilities and entertainment systems. The in-flight entertainment system refers to any possible entertainment means provided to passengers in the cabin during air travel. It is an important part of the aircraft cabin system, and its performance is one of the important criteria for passengers to judge the service quality of airlines (the indicator layer can be added or deleted according to the specific requirements of different types of aircraft).

[0041] The cabin comfort evaluation index is decomposed into three levels according to the target layer, the first-level index, and the second-level index, and a scientific, reasonable, and comprehensive civil aircraft cabin comfort evaluation index system is established. Its model is defined as: U = {U1, U2, U3, U4}, where the first-level index U represents the civil aircraft cabin comfort; the second-level index U1 represents the cabin environment comfort, U2 represents the cabin layout design comfort, U3 represents the cabin seat comfort, and U4 represents the cabin facilities and entertainment system comfort. The specific comfort index system structure is shown in Table 1 below.

[0042] Table 1 Cabin comfort evaluation index system

[0043]

[0044] Building the discriminant matrix

[0045] The analytic hierarchy process quantifies qualitative analysis based on subjective judgment, and is a widely used method for determining indicator weights. A matrix is ​​established to compare a group of indicators at the same level in pairs, and values ​​are assigned according to their relative importance using a relative importance level table, forming a pairwise comparison judgment matrix:

[0046] Suppose there are n factors in a certain layer, X = [x1, x2, ..., xn]. To compare the influence of each factor in this layer on a factor in the previous layer, determine the proportion of each factor in this layer relative to a certain criterion. Suppose there are m factors in the previous layer and n factors in this layer, then for this layer we need to construct m n×n pairwise comparison matrices.

[0047] That is: A=(a ij ) n×n

[0048] Use a i j represents the comparison result of the i-th factor relative to the j-th factor. The index elements at each level are compared pairwise, and the judgment matrix is ​​established using the 1-9 scaling method. After verifying the consistency test of each matrix, the weights of each item are obtained by calculating the maximum eigenvector of the judgment matrix. The weight set is: A = {a1, a2, a3, ..., al}, where 0≤ai≤1 and

[0049] From the cabin comfort evaluation criteria structure diagram, we can see that the evaluation objectives are divided into three levels. The target level is: civil aircraft cabin comfort; first-level indicators: cabin environment comfort, cabin layout design comfort, cabin seat comfort, cabin facilities and entertainment system comfort; second-level indicators: omitted (see Table 1 for details).

[0050] Let A be the pairwise comparison judgment matrix of the indicator elements of the first-level indicator. It is known that the number of elements in the target layer is 1 and the number of elements in the first-level indicator is 4, so the judgment matrix is ​​as follows:

[0051] A=(a ij ) n×n Where n = 4, and there is

[0052] Get the pairwise comparison matrix:

[0053] where a 11 Represents the element "Cabin environment comfort U1" in the second-level first-level indicator for self-comparison, that is, a 11 =U1:U1=1

[0054] where a 12 The comparison between the “cabin environment comfort U1” and the “cabin layout design comfort U2” in the second-level first-level index is performed. 12 =U1: (slightly unimportant), from the known Then we can conclude (slightly important), the above comparison results are based on the scores given by an expert according to the comparison table.

[0055] Invite experts to rate

[0056] An expert panel of more than 8 experts in the field of ergonomics will be formed and score according to the indicator system. An example of the expert scoring is shown in Table 2.

[0057] Table 2 Expert scoring table

[0058] a a a a a 1 3 4 5 a 1 / 3 1 3 4 a 1 / 4 1 / 3 1 2 a 1 / 5 1 / 4 1 / 3 1

[0059] Determine the weight of each evaluation index

[0060] According to the expert group's scoring, the values ​​of all vectors in the comparison matrix A are obtained. The matrix editing calculation is performed using MATLAB tool software. The program code is as follows:

[0061] clc

[0062] clear all

[0063] A=[1 1 / 3 1 / 5 5; 3 1 1 / 4 3; 5 4 1 7; 1 / 5 1 / 3 1 / 7 1];

[0064] [n, n] = size(A);

[0065] [v, d] = eig(A);

[0066] r = d(1, 1);

[0067] CI = (rn) / (n-1);

[0068] RI=[0 0 0.52 0.89 1.12 1.26 1.36 1.41 1.46 1.49 1.52 1.54];

[0069] CR = CI / RI(n);

[0070] if CR<0.10

[0071] CR_Result = 'Pass';

[0072] else

[0073] CR_Result = 'failed';

[0074] end

[0075] Weight vector calculation:

[0076] w = v(:, 1) / sum(v(:, 1));

[0077] w=w';

[0078] Result output:

[0079] Consistency index: CI = 0.1139

[0080] Consistency ratio: CR = 0.1279

[0081] Consistency check result: CR_Result = passed

[0082] Eigenvalue: r = 4.3417

[0083] Weight vector: w = (0.1396, 0.2188, 0.5864, 0.0552)

[0084] (When n=1-12, RI is 0, 0, 0.52, 0.89, 1.12, 1.26, 1.36, 1.41, 1.46, 1.49, 1.52, 1.54 respectively)

[0085] The results of the expert scores in this study are as follows: The weights of the first-level indicators {U1, U2, U3, U4} corresponding to the target layer U civil aircraft cabin comfort are calculated and averaged to obtain the weight vector W = (0.2225, 0.2585, 0.3325, 0.1865). From the weight ratio, it can be seen that the seat comfort weight is 0.3325, which has the greatest impact on passenger comfort, followed by cabin layout design, cabin environment and cabin facilities and entertainment system.

[0086] Similarly, the weight vector of each second-level indicator corresponding to the first-level indicator can be obtained as follows:

[0087] W1=(0.1338, 0.0490, 0.1764, 0.1546, 0.0966, 0.2903, 0.0608, 0.0383)

[0088] W2=(0.0915, 0.1564, 0.1238, 0.0577, 0.0358, 0.4506, 0.0841)

[0089] W3=(0.0308, 0.0780, 0.1458, 0.1174, 0.0592, 0.1310, 0.1042, 0.3338)

[0090] W4=(0.7333,0.2667)

[0091] Through further calculation, we can get the absolute weight value of the third-level indicator corresponding to the first-level indicator. The calculation results are shown in Table 3 below:

[0092] Table 3 Cabin comfort evaluation index evaluation calculation weights

[0093]

[0094]

[0095] After obtaining the weights of each cabin evaluation index, the importance and priority of each evaluation index can be known. In the detailed design stage, key optimization can be carried out according to the evaluation index weights, and several complete detailed design schemes can be scored and calculated. The scheme with the highest and lowest objective scores can be selected, which improves the objectivity of cabin comfort evaluation.

[0096] The above is only a specific implementation of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto. Any changes or substitutions that can be easily thought of by a person skilled in the art within the technical scope disclosed in the present application should be included in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application shall be based on the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A hierarchical analysis evaluation method for aircraft cabin comfort, characterized in that: include: Step S1, establishing a cabin comfort evaluation index system, wherein the cabin comfort evaluation index system includes a target layer, a plurality of primary indicators included in the target layer, and a plurality of secondary indicators included in the primary indicators; Step S2, establishing a discriminant matrix according to the cabin comfort evaluation index system; Step S3, inviting an expert panel to score according to the indicator system, and obtaining the values ​​of all vectors in the discriminant matrix according to the expert panel's scores; Step S4: Based on the discriminant matrix of all known vector values, the weight of each primary indicator and each secondary indicator is calculated using the hierarchical analysis method.

2. The aircraft cabin comfort level analysis evaluation method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The first-level indicators include: cabin comfort U.

3. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 2, characterized in that: The secondary indicators include: cabin environment comfort U1, cabin layout design comfort U2, cabin seat comfort U3 and cabin facilities and entertainment system comfort U4.

4. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 3, characterized in that: The cabin environment comfort U1 includes multiple three-level indicators, including: cabin temperature U11, cabin humidity U12, cabin air quality U13, cabin vibration U14, cabin noise U15, cabin pressure U16, cabin lighting U17 and cabin interior color U18; The cabin layout design comfort U2 includes multiple third-level indicators, including: cabin sign design U21, cabin luggage rack height U22, cabin luggage rack space U23, cabin toilet design U24, cabin window design U25, cabin aisle width U26, cabin PSU layout design U27; The cabin seat comfort U3 includes multiple three-level indicators, including: cabin seat layout U31, seat back adjustability U32, seat seat width U33, seat seat height U34, seat surface material comfort U35, seat lumbar support U36, seat armrest design U37, and seat front and rear row distance U38; The cabin facilities and in-cabin entertainment system comfort U4 includes multiple three-level indicators, including: cabin service facilities U41 and cabin entertainment system U42.

5. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 4, characterized in that: The judgment matrix A of the first-level indicators specifically includes: It is known that the number of elements in the target layer is 1, and the number of elements in the first-level index is 4, so the judgment matrix is ​​as follows: A=(a ij ) n×n Where n = 4, and there is Get the pairwise comparison matrix: a 11 =U1:U1、a 12 =U1:U2...a 44 =U4:U4。 6. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 5, characterized in that: The expert panel specifically assigns scores to the secondary indicators and the tertiary indicators.

7. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that: The weights of the first-level indicators corresponding to the target layer U civil aircraft cabin comfort are calculated and averaged to obtain the weight vector W = {U1*, U2*, U3*, U4*}.

8. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 6, characterized in that: Each second-level indicator corresponds to the weight vector W1, W2, W3 and W4 of the first-level indicator.

9. The aircraft cabin comfort analysis and evaluation method according to claim 8, characterized in that: The judgment matrix is ​​edited and calculated using MATLAB or SPSS tool software.

10. The aircraft cabin comfort level analysis evaluation method according to claim 8, characterized in that: Step S4 is followed by step S5, which includes: Scoring existing cabin industrial design solutions based on the cabin comfort evaluation index system; The final score of the existing cabin industrial design scheme can be obtained by weighting each indicator and the scoring results.

11. The aircraft cabin comfort level analysis evaluation method according to claim 10, characterized in that: Step S5 is followed by step S6, which includes: In the comparison of several cabin industrial design schemes, the scheme with the highest score calculated according to the final analytic hierarchy process is selected; The cabin interior design scheme is continuously optimized and iterated according to design requirements to ensure that the industrial design scheme meets design expectations.

Images