民机座舱空气环境参数权重分析方法对比研究
收稿日期: 2023-01-09
修回日期: 2023-04-11
录用日期: 2023-05-29
网络出版日期: 2023-06-05
基金资助
国家重点基础研究发展计划(973计划)(2012CB720100)
Comparative study on weight analysis methods of cabin air parameters in civil aircraft
Received date: 2023-01-09
Revised date: 2023-04-11
Accepted date: 2023-05-29
Online published: 2023-06-05
Supported by
National Program on Key Basic Research Project (973 Program)(2012CB720100)
民机座舱空气环境包含的参数众多且相互耦合,是人体直接接触并感知的一类环境,影响人体舒适性和健康。对空气环境的综合评价旨在明确影响人体感官的关键因素,评判不同设计方案的优劣,为系统设计优化提供指导。在众多的综合评价方法中,权重系数均是最为关键但最难定义的指标,直接影响综合评价结果。权重分析方法一般分为主观赋权法和客观赋权法,这2类方法的计算原理种类繁多。现有研究中一般仅选择一种方法定义权重,无法评判所选方法是否适用于该领域的综合评价,因此权重结果的参考价值也无从考究。针对民机座舱空气环境,从参数体系架构出发,采用常用的主客观赋权法各2种,基于相同的调研航班完成权重分析与结果对比。结果表明主客观赋权法的意义不同,主观赋权法反映人群对不同参数的重视程度,客观赋权法反映不同机型舱内空气环境参数控制水平的差距,建议同时采用主客观赋权法,以使评价结论更为全面。此外,各机型对舱内空气环境参数的控制水平较为一致,但温度、压力、湿度仍然是需重点关注的参数,应重视相应系统的技术革新。
张絮涵 , 曹祎 , 孙静楠 , 潘舜智 . 民机座舱空气环境参数权重分析方法对比研究[J]. 航空学报, 2023 , 44(20) : 228480 -228480 . DOI: 10.7527/S1000-6893.2023.28480
Cabin air environment of civil aircraft contains large numbers of parameters that are coupled with each other. It is a kind of environment that humans directly contact and sense, affecting human comfort and health. The comprehensive evaluation of air environment aims to clarify the key factors affecting human senses, compare the advantages and disadvantages among different design schemes, and provide guidance for system design optimization. Among various comprehensive evaluation methods, weight coefficient, which directly affects the results of comprehensive evaluation, is the most critical but difficult index to define. Weight analysis methods can be generally divided into subjective methods and objective methods, and their calculation principles are multifarious. Existing studies generally select only one method to determine weight, but it is impossible to judge whether the selected method is suitable for the comprehensive evaluation in their field, so it is difficult to tell the reference value of these weight results. Starting from the cabin air environment parameters series, two subjective methods and two objective methods which are commonly used, are selected to analyze weight, and results comparison are completed based on the same surveyed flight data.Results show that subjective methods and objective methods of determining weight have different meanings: subjective methods reflect the level of people’s attention on different parameters, while objective methods reflect the difference level in cabin air control of different aircraft types. It is suggested to use both two methods to get a more all-sided evaluation conclusion. In addition, all aircraft types have relatively consistent level of cabin air control, but temperature, pressure and humidity are still the parameters that people pay more attention to, so the technical innovation of relevant systems should be attached importance to.
1 | 朱春玲. 飞行器环境控制与安全救生[M]. 北京: 北京航空航天大学出版社, 2006: 35-45. |
ZHU C L. Aircraft environmental control and safety lifesaving[M]. Beijing: Beihang University Press, 2006: 35-45 (in Chinese). | |
2 | ASHRAE. Air quality within commercial aircraft: ANSI/A Standard 161-2013 [S]. 2013: 2-7. |
3 | ASHRAE. Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy: ANSI/A Standard 55-2013 [S]. 2013: 2-8. |
4 | AECMA. Aerospace series-aircraft internal air quality standards, criteria and determination methods: PrEN 4618-2013 [S]. 2013: 4-9. |
5 | 彼得·温克,克劳斯·布劳尔.飞机客舱舒适性设计[M].党铁红,译.上海: 上海交通大学出版社, 2013: 6-11. |
VINK P, BRAUER K. Aircraft interior comfort and design[M]. DANG T H, translated. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press, 2013: 6-11 (in Chinese). | |
6 | ASHRAE. F 09.Thermal comfort[M]∥ASHRAE handbook:fundamentals (SI). Atlanta: ASHRAE Handbook Press, 2009: 1-20. |
7 | RANKIN W L, SPACE D R, NAGDA N L. Passenger comfort and the effect of air quality [C]∥Air Quality and Comfort in Airliner Cabins. 2000: 269-289. |
8 | 袁领双, 庞丽萍, 王浚. 大型客机座舱舒适性发展分析[J]. 航空制造技术, 2011, 54(13): 64-67. |
YUAN L S, PANG L P, WANG J. Development of cabin comfortability for large airliner[J]. Aeronautical Manufacturing Technology, 2011, 54(13): 64-67 (in Chinese). | |
9 | 薛会琴. 多属性决策中指标权重确定方法的研究[D]. 兰州: 西北师范大学, 2008: 6-7. |
XUE H Q. The research on the methods of index’s weight to be determined in the multiple attribute decision-making[D]. Lanzhou: Northwest Normal University, 2008: 6-7 (in Chinese). | |
10 | 王宗军. 多目标权系数赋值方法及其选择策略[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 1993, 15(6): 35-41. |
WANG Z J. Multiobjective weights assigning methods and their choice strategies[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 1993, 15(6): 35-41 (in Chinese). | |
11 | 李桥兴. 多属性决策中指标权重确定的理论研究与应用[D]. 南宁: 广西大学, 2004: 1-17. |
LI Q X. The theoretical rearch and application of index’s weight to be determined in the multiple attribute decision making[D]. Nanning: Guangxi University, 2004: 1-17 (in Chinese). | |
12 | 梁乐谦. 几种多目标决策权重估计方法的比较与研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳工业大学, 1999: 12-17. |
LIANG L Q. Comparison and research of several weights estimation methods for multi-objective decision-making[D].Shenyang: Shenyang University of Technology, 1999: 12-17 (in Chinese). | |
13 | 王宗军, 冯珊. 社会经济系统仿真方案的多层次Fuzzy综合评价[J]. 华中理工大学学报, 1993, 21(3): 12-18. |
WANG Z J, FENG S. The multilayer overall fuzzy evaluation of different simulating schemes for the socio-economic system[J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1993, 21(3): 12-18 (in Chinese). | |
14 | 王莲芬,许树柏. 层次分析法引论[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 1990: 2-5. |
WANG L F, XU S B. Introduction to analytic hierarchy process[M]. Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 1990: 2-5 (in Chinese). | |
15 | 王文军. 飞机驾驶舱人机工效设计与综合评估关键技术[D]. 西安: 西北工业大学, 2015: 82-83. |
WANG W J. Key technologies of aircraft cockpit’s ergonomic design and comprehensive evaluation[D]. Xi’an: Northwestern Polytechnical University, 2015: 82-83 (in Chinese). | |
16 | 张玉, 魏华波. 基于CRITIC的多属性决策组合赋权方法[J]. 统计与决策, 2012(16): 75-77. |
ZHANG Y, WEI H B. Weighting method of multi-attribute decision combination based on CRITIC[J]. Statistics & Decision, 2012(16): 75-77 (in Chinese). | |
17 | 何思俊, 支锦亦. 基于AHP-独立性权数法的列车旅客界面设计评价[J]. 西南交通大学学报, 2021, 56(4): 897-904. |
HE S J, ZHI J Y. Evaluation of train passenger interface design based on analytic hierarchy process with independent weight method[J]. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2021, 56(4): 897-904 (in Chinese). | |
18 | 宁献文, 李运泽, 王浚. 旅客机座舱综合环境质量评价模型[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报, 2006, 32(2): 158-162. |
NING X W, LI Y Z, WANG J. Comprehensive evaluation model for integrative cabin environment quality of airliner[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006, 32(2): 158-162 (in Chinese). | |
19 | 孔云志. 飞机驾驶舱舒适性评价方法研究[D]. 南京: 南京航空航天大学, 2017: 43-47. |
KONG Y Z. Research on evaluation method of aircraft cockpit comfort[D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2017: 43-47 (in Chinese). | |
20 | 刘丹. 乘用车乘坐舒适性主客观评价相关性[D]. 西安: 长安大学, 2018: 9-18. |
LIU D. Study on the correlation between subjective and objective evaluations for ride comfort of passenger vehicles[D]. Xi’an: Chang’an University, 2018: 9-18 (in Chinese). | |
21 | 丁铁成, 林建辉, 杨岗, 等. 虚拟轨道列车综合舒适性评价研究[J]. 机车电传动, 2021(6): 18-24. |
DING T C, LIN J H, YANG G, et al. Research on comprehensive comfort evaluation of virtual rail train[J]. Electric Drive for Locomotives, 2021(6): 18-24 (in Chinese). | |
22 | 崔建国, 林泽力, 吕瑞, 等. 基于模糊灰色聚类和组合赋权法的飞机健康状态综合评估方法[J]. 航空学报, 2014, 35(3): 764-772. |
CUI J G, LIN Z L, LV R, et al. Comprehensive assessment method of aircraft health status based on fuzzy gray clustering and combination weighting[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2014, 35(3): 764-772 (in Chinese). | |
23 | ZHANG X H, WU C Y, WANG G W, et al. Establishment methodology of comfort parameters series for civil aircraft cabin[C]∥International Conference on Man-Machine-Environment System Engineering. Singapore: Springer, Singapore, 2020: 741-749. |
/
〈 |
|
〉 |