基于CM-FCE-AHP的战时维修器材供应保障能力评价研究

doi:10.12382/bgxb.2022.0681

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

战时维修器材供应保障具有高度的复杂性、随机性和动态性,导致战时维修器材供应保障评价的不确定性和模糊性。以战时维修器材供应保障任务与流程为依据构建保障能力评价指标体系,提出一种基于云模型的层次分析法和模糊综合评价方法,对战时维修器材供应保障能力进行客观评价。利用云模型对判断矩阵进行标度并聚合,得到指标权重,降低权重计算的主观性和随机性;利用云模型描述评价矩阵,得到隶属度矩阵。评价结果表明,指标体系能够很好地反映战时维修器材供应保障能力,改进的综合评价方法能有效解决战时维修器材供应保障能力评价中的高度模糊性和不确定性,提高评价结果的鲁棒性和客观性。

关键词: 战时维修器材供应保障, 模糊综合评价, 层次分析法, 云模型, 模糊性

Abstract:

The supply support of wartime maintenance equipment is highly complex, random and dynamic, which leads to the uncertainty and fuzziness in the evaluation of wartime maintenance equipment supply support. A support ability evaluation indicator system is constructed based on the supply support tasks and processes of wartime maintenance equipment. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and a fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) method based on cloud model (CM) are proposed to objectively evaluate the supply support ability of wartime maintenance equipment. An indicator weight is obtained by using the cloud model to scale and aggregate the judgment matrix, which reduces the subjectivity and randomness of weight calculation.A membership matrix is obtained by using the cloud model to describe the evaluation matrix. The evaluated results show that the indicator system can well reflect the effect of wartime maintenance equipment supply support, and the improved comprehensive evaluation method can effectively solve the high fuzziness and uncertainty in the evaluation of wartime maintenance equipment supply support ability, and improve the robustness and objectivity of the evaluated results.

Key words: wartime maintenance equipment supply support, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation, analytic hierarchy process, cloud model, fuzziness

中图分类号:

E939

王金帼, 王亚彬, 郭宇荣, 王帅, 赵建民, 马飒飒. 基于CM-FCE-AHP的战时维修器材供应保障能力评价研究[J]. 兵工学报, 2024, 45(3): 1010-1024.

WANG Jinguo, WANG Yabin, GUO Yurong, WANG Shuai, ZHAO Jianmin, MA Sasa. Research on Evaluation of Wartime Maintenance Equipment Supply Ability Based on CM-FCE-AHP[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(3): 1010-1024.

图/表 18

参考文献 14

[15]	姚天乐, 胡起伟, 齐子元, 等. 基于软计算的轻武器装备体系贡献率评估方法[J]. 兵工学报, 2019, 40(5):938-945. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2019.05.005
	YAO T L, HU Q W, QI Z Y, et al. Soft computing-based assessment method of contribution rate of small arms and equipment system[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2019, 40(5):938-945. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2019.05.005
[16]	李岩, 陈云翔, 罗承昆, 等. 基于FA-ER的装备保障资源供给能力评估方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2020, 42(3):630-637. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2020.03.017
	LI Y, CHEN Y X, LUO C K, et al. S Evaluation method for the supply capacity of equipment support resources based on FA-ER[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(3):630-637. (in Chinese)
[17]	周弘扬, 孔凡成, 马超. 基于D-AHP赋权的战时空空导弹装备保障效能灰色评估[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2021, 46(8):180-185.
	ZHOU H Y, KONG F C, MA C. Grey evaluation of wartime air-to-air missile equipment support based on D-AHP weighting[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2021, 46(8):180-185. (in Chinese)
[18]	李峻森, 方依宁, 张云安, 等. 面向任务的装备保障体系多Agent建模与评估方法[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2023, 45(1):279-290. doi: 10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2023.01.33
	LI J S, FANG Y N, ZHAN Y A, et al. Multi-agent modeling and evaluation method for mission-oriented equipment support SoS[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2023, 45(1):279-290. (in Chinese) doi: 10.12305/j.issn.1001-506X.2023.01.33
[19]	周立尧, 刘小方, 王亚光, 等. 基于改进FAHP的导弹装备火力打击能力评估[J]. 弹箭与制导学报, 2020, 40(5):105-108.
	ZHOU L Y, LIU X F, WANG Y G, et al. Evaluation of missile firepower strike capability based on improved FAHP[J]. Journal of Projectiles,Rockets,Missiles and Guidance, 2020, 40(5):105-108. (in Chinese)
[20]	HUANG T, XIANG J Q, YU H M. Gray assessment of equipment maintenance support capability based on the structure entropy weight method[J]. MATEC Web of Conferences, 2019, 256:02002. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/201925602002 URL
[21]	YANG H T. Research on the evaluation of vehicle equipment maintenance support capability[J]. Journal of Simulation, 2020, 8(4):63-65.
[22]	李梦梅, 牟凤云, 林孝松, 等. 基于GIS的公路洪灾危险性空间模糊综合评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(11):149-155. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.11.024
	LI M M, MOU F Y, LIN X S, et al. Spatial fuzzy comprehensive assessment of highway flood risk based on GIS[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28(11):149-155. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.11.024
[23]	SUN Z. Performance evaluation method of social public sports goods development based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. International Journal of Product Development, 2021, 25(2):160-174. doi: 10.1504/IJPD.2021.116152 URL
[24]	刘崇屹, 付霖宇, 朱桂芳, 等. 基于改进AHP和云模型的质量状态定性评估[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2019, 44(12):120-126.
	LIU C Y, FU L Y, ZHU G F, et al. Qualitative evaluation of quality state based on improved AHP and cloud model[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2019, 44(12):120-126. (in Chinese)
[25]	王艳丽, 金宇宁. 基于层次分析与云模型的TOD站点衔接设计评价[J]. 深圳大学学报(理工版), 2022, 39(2):193-200.
	WANG Y L, JIN Y N. A Evaluation of TOD rail station connection design based on analytic hierarchy process and cloud model[J]. Journal of Shenzhen University(Science and Engineering), 2022, 39(2):193-200. (in Chinese)
[26]	邓力源, 杨萍, 刘卫东, 等. 基于证据理论层次分析法的云贝叶斯网络在预警雷达毁伤效果评估中的应用[J]. 兵工学报, 2022, 43(4):814-825.
	DENG L Y, YANG P, LIU W D, et al. Application in damage effect evaluation of early warningradar of cloudy bayesian network based on dempster-shafer/analytic hierarchy process method[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2022, 43(4):814-825. (in Chinese)
[27]	张明旺, 侍克斌, 朱跃亮. 基于云模型和组合赋权的水库泥沙淤积影响多级模糊综合评价[J]. 武汉大学学报(工学版), 2023, 56(2):170-178.
	ZHANG M W, SHI K B, ZHU Y L. Multi-level fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of the impact of reservoir sedimentation based on cloud model and combination weighting[J]. Engineering Journal of Wuhan University, 2023, 56(2):170-178. (in Chinese)
[28]	YAO X L, DENG H W, ZHANG T Q, et al. Multistage fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of landslide hazards based on a cloud model[J]. PloS One, 2019, 14(11):e0224312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224312 URL
[29]	薛彦卓, 周莹, 鲁阳, 等. 基于模糊AHP-DEMATEL的北极冰区船舶冰困风险评价[J]. 哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2022, 43(7):944-949,992.
	XUE Y Z, ZHOU Y, LU Y, et al. Risk assessment of ships stuck in ice in Arctic ice area based on fuzzy AHP-DEMATEL[J]. Journal of Harbin Engineering University, 2022, 43(7):944-949,992. (in Chinese)
[30]	DAI X W, WU X W, HONG Y, et al. Safety and stability evaluation of the uranium tailings impoundment dam:based on the improved AHP-cloud model[J]. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, 2022, 15(1):21-31.
[31]	李德毅, 孟海军, 史雪梅. 隶属云和隶属云发生器[J]. 计算机研究与发展, 1995, 32(6):15-20.
	LI D Y, MENG H J, SHI X M. Membershipclouds and Membership cloud generators[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 1995, 32(6):15-20. (in Chinese)
[32]	李照, 高惠瑛, 代晓奕, 等. 一种耦合LSTM算法和云模型的疫情传播风险预测模型[J]. 地球信息科学学报, 2021, 23(11):1924-1935. doi: 10.12082/dqxxkx.2021.210576
	LI Z, GAO H Y, DAI X Y, et al. An epidemic spread risk prediction model coupled with LSTM algorithm and cloud model[J]. Journal of Geo-information Science, 2021, 23(11):1924-1935. (in Chinese)
[33]	王双川, 胡起伟, 白永生, 等. 基于非对称灰色云模型的装备维修保障系统效能评估[J]. 兵工学报, 2019, 40(6):1277-1286. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2019.06.019
	WANG S C, HU Q W, BAI Y S, et al. Effectiveness evaluation of equipment maintenance support system based on asymmetric grey cloud model[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2019, 40(6):1277-1286. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-1093.2019.06.019
[34]	WEN X X, NIE Y, DU Z X, et al. Operational safety assessment of straddle-type monorail vehicle system based on cloud model and improved CRITIC method[J]. Engineering Failure Analysis, 2022, 139:106463. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2022.106463 URL
[35]	赵立坤, 侯兴明. 基于AHP-FCE的装备保障能力评价分析[J]. 科技创新与应用, 2020(3):66-67.
	ZHAO L K, HOU X M. Evaluation and analysis of equipment support capability based on AHP-FCE[J]. Technology Innovation and Application, 2020(3):66-67. (in Chinese)
[1]	高崎. 军械维修器材管理学[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2012.
	GAO Q. Ordnance maintenance equipment management[M]. Beijing: National Defense Industry Press, 2012. (in Chinese)
[2]	王双川, 贾希胜, 胡起伟. 合成旅装备维修保障效能评估的理论框架[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2020, 45(8):9-15.
	WANG S C, JIA X S, HU Q W. A theoreticalframework for equipment maintenance support effectiveness evaluation of synthetic brigade[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2020, 45(8):9-15. (in Chinese)
[3]	李慧珍, 杜健, 胡红娟, 等. 基于数据包络分析的陆军装备维修保障能力评估优化[J]. 信息系统工程, 2020(12):107-108,110.
	LI H Z, DU J, HU H J, et al. Evaluation and optimization of army equipment maintenance support capability based on data envelopment analysis[J]. China CIO News, 2020(12):107-108,110. (in Chinese)
[4]	朱敦祥, 史宪铭, 马志新, 等. 基于二元语义的装备维修保障能力评估[J]. 火力与指挥控制, 2019, 44(7):74-78.
	ZHU D X, SHI X M, MA Z X, et al. Assessment on equipment maintenance support capability based on binary semantics[J]. Fire Control & Command Control, 2019, 44(7):74-78. (in Chinese)
[5]	郭金茂, 尹瀚泽, 徐玉国. 装备维修保障能力评估指标模糊聚类分析[J]. 兵器装备工程学报, 2020, 41(10):76-80.
	GUO J M, YIN H Z, XU Y G. Fuzzy cluster analysis of assessment indicator of equipment maintenance support ability[J]. Journal of Ordnance Equipment Engineering, 2020, 41(10):76-80. (in Chinese)
[6]	史宪铭, 朱敦祥, 李震, 等. 基于集对论的装备维修保障核心能力评估[J]. 指挥控制与仿真, 2019, 41(1):64-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-3819.2019.01.013
	SHI X M, ZHU D X, LI Z, et al. Evaluation of core competence of equipment maintenance support based on set pair theory[J]. Command Control & Simulation, 2019, 41(1):64-67. (in Chinese)
[7]	肖国华, 朱一真, 韩晔. 基于专家调查的技术转移效率影响因素重要性评价分析[J]. 科技管理研究, 2020, 40(23):57-63.
	XIAO G H, ZHU Y Z, HAN Y. Evaluation and analysis of importance of factors influencing technology transfer efficiency based on expert survey[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2020, 40(23):57-63. (in Chinese)
[8]	YU K M, ZHOU X L, LI X Y, et al. Aircraft spare parts supply risk evaluation based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process[J]. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2014, 543-547:4291-4293. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.543-547 URL
[9]	祝东攀, 曹继平. 基于AHP和模糊综合评价法的装备维修保障资源点选址方案评价[J]. 火炮发射与控制学报, 2023, 44(2):75-80.
	ZHU D P, CAO J P. Assessment of the location scheme for equipment maintenance support resource points based on AHP and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Journal of Gun Launch & Control, 2023, 44(2):75-80. (in Chinese)
[10]	XIAN L M, JIAN H Q, LIANG H Y. Study on the assessment method of wastewater treatment technologies based on comprehensive scoring method[J]. Advanced Materials Research, 2013, 788:418-421. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.788 URL
[11]	LU H G, SHENG X J, DU F. Economic benefit evaluation system of green building energy saving building technology based on entropy weight method[J]. Processes, 2022, 10(2):382. doi: 10.3390/pr10020382 URL
[12]	邢彪, 曹军海, 宋太亮, 等. 基于TOPSIS的装备保障网络节点重要性综合评价方法[J]. 装甲兵工程学院学报, 2017, 31(3):28-34.
	XING B, CAO J H, SONG T L, et al. Synthesis evaluation method for network node importance in equipment support based on TOPSIS[J]. Journal of Armored Forces, 2017, 31(3):28-34. (in Chinese)
[13]	李勤敏, 郭进利. 基于主成分分析和神经网络对作者影响力的评估[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(7):709-715.
	LI Q M, GUO J L. Evaluation of author’s influence based on principal component analysis and a neural network[J]. Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, 2019, 38(7):709-715. (in Chinese)
[14]	ZHANG H B, YU D Q, YANG H K. Quantitative evaluation of ecological environment improvement in saihanba based on principal component analysis[J]. International Core Journal of Engineering, 2022, 8(2):608-615.

保障部门、配送中心和作战群队	评分等级
保障部门、配送中心和作战群队	D₁	D₂	D₃	D₄
保障部门U₁	(95,6.2666,0.4255)	(85,6.2666,0.4557)	(70,12.5331,0.4483)	(30,37.5994,0.4014)
配送中心U₂	(95,6.2666,0.4255)	(85,6.2666,0.4557)	(70,12.5331,0.4483)	(30,37.5994,0.4014)
作战群队U₃	(95,6.2666,0.4255)	(85,6.2666,0.4557)	(70,12.5331,0.4483)	(30,37.5994,0.4014)

保障部门、配送中心和作战群队	评分等级
保障部门、配送中心和作战群队	D₁	D₂	D₃	D₄
保障部门U₁	(95,6.2666,0.4255)	(85,6.2666,0.4557)	(70,12.5331,0.4483)	(30,37.5994,0.4014)
配送中心U₂	(95,6.2666,0.4255)	(85,6.2666,0.4557)	(70,12.5331,0.4483)	(30,37.5994,0.4014)
作战群队U₃	(95,6.2666,0.4255)	(85,6.2666,0.4557)	(70,12.5331,0.4483)	(30,37.5994,0.4014)

目标层	子系统	评价指标	评分等级
目标层	子系统	评价指标	D₁	D₂	D₃	D₃
战时维修器材供应保障能力	保障部门U₁	需求预测U₁₁	非常准确	基本准确	不够准确	很不准确
		方案制定U₁₂	非常全面	基本全面	不够全面	很不全面
		方案实施U₁₃	非常合理	基本合理	不够合理	很不合理
		消耗时间U₂₁	很短	短	较短	长
	配送中心U₂	消耗时间U₂₁	很短	短	较短	长
		运输工具U₂₂	很安全	安全	一般	不安全
		成本费用U₂₃	很少	少	较少	多
		占用资源U₂₄	很少	少	较少	多
		任务完成U₂₅	很好	较好	一般	不好
	作战群队U₃	任务完成U₂₅	很好	较好	一般	不好
		配送及时U₃₁	按时送达	稍早/稍晚送达	较早/较晚送达	不能送达
		器材准确U₃₂	非常准确	基本准确	不够准确	很不准确
		器材使用U₃₃	非常熟练	基本熟练	不够熟练	很不熟练
		器材管理U₃₄	很好	较好	一般	不好

目标层	子系统	评价指标	评分等级
目标层	子系统	评价指标	D₁	D₂	D₃	D₃
战时维修器材供应保障能力	保障部门U₁	需求预测U₁₁	非常准确	基本准确	不够准确	很不准确
		方案制定U₁₂	非常全面	基本全面	不够全面	很不全面
		方案实施U₁₃	非常合理	基本合理	不够合理	很不合理
		消耗时间U₂₁	很短	短	较短	长
	配送中心U₂	消耗时间U₂₁	很短	短	较短	长
		运输工具U₂₂	很安全	安全	一般	不安全
		成本费用U₂₃	很少	少	较少	多
		占用资源U₂₄	很少	少	较少	多
		任务完成U₂₅	很好	较好	一般	不好
	作战群队U₃	任务完成U₂₅	很好	较好	一般	不好
		配送及时U₃₁	按时送达	稍早/稍晚送达	较早/较晚送达	不能送达
		器材准确U₃₂	非常准确	基本准确	不够准确	很不准确
		器材使用U₃₃	非常熟练	基本熟练	不够熟练	很不熟练
		器材管理U₃₄	很好	较好	一般	不好

目标层	子系统	评价指标	评分	综合评分
战时维修器材供应保障能力	保障部门U₁	需求预测U₁₁	85.50	85.50
		方案制定U₁₂	62.30	62.30
		方案实施U₁₃	71.00	71.00
	配送中心U₂	消耗时间U₂₁	[71.5,51.6,47]	56.70
		运输工具U₂₂	[50.5,80,69]	66.50
		成本费用U₂₃	[35,39,70]	48.00
		占用资源U₂₄	[72.5,43.2,42.1]	52.60
		任务完成U₂₅	[52.2,56.8,83.6]	64.20
	作战群队U₃	配送及时U₃₁	[62.5,92.8,90.5,85,89,92]	85.30
		器材准确U₃₂	[69.5,82,79.6,90,69.5,63]	75.60
		器材使用U₃₃	[85.5,56,64.5,52,41,61]	60.00
		器材管理U₃₄	[95,82.5,81,72.5,92,96]	86.50