Evaluation of Ship Anti-Strike Capability Based on SEM-FCEM

doi:10.12382/bgxb.2025.0522

Abstract

Abstract:

To enhance the mission performance of ships，this paper focuses on the evaluation of ship anti-strike capability during missions，and proposes a ship anti-strike capability evaluation model based on the structural equation modeling-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method （SEM-FCEM） to comprehensively assess the anti-strike capability of ship.Starting from establishing an index system for the anti-strike capability of ship，a structural equation model （SEM） for the anti-strike capability of ship is constructed.Simulated mission data is processed and analyzed，and the structural equation model is implemented via statistical analysis software to derive the path coefficients of each index for the anti-strike capability of ship，thereby obtaining index weights.To calculate the evaluation value of the anti-strike capability of ship，the structural equation model is combined with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method.The calculation principles of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation are used to process the combat simulation data and the data obtained from the structural equation model，ultimately achieving mission-oriented evaluation of the anti-strike capability of ship.Additionally，this approach can assess and analyze the level of each sub-capability of ship strike resistance to identify the weaknesses and propose the targeted improvement suggestions.

Key words: anti-strike capability, structural equation model, fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, evaluation system

GUO Jingjing, ZHANG Gouzhou, CHEN Yutao, XIA Zichao, ZHAO Bo. Evaluation of Ship Anti-Strike Capability Based on SEM-FCEM[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2025, 46(S1): 250522-.

Figures/Tables 16

References 24

[1]	浦金云, 方远, 伞兵, 等. 国外船舶生命力新技术发展与未来趋势[J]. 海军工程大学学报, 2020(6):36-45.
	PU J Y, FANG Y, SAN B, et al. Development and future trends of new foreign ship vitality technologies[J]. Journal of Naval University of Engineering, 2020(6):36-45. (in Chinese)
[2]	SHEDKO S. Effect of structural protection upon ship survivability[J]. Transactions of the Krylov State Research Centre, 2020, 1(391):128-132.
[3]	林力, 张维英, 胡丽芬, 等. 舰船损害管制技术发展综述[J]. 舰船科学技术, 2015, 37(3):1-9.
	LIN L, ZHANG W Y, HU L F, et al. Overview of the development of ship damage control technology[J]. Ship Science and Technology, 2015, 37(3):1-9. (in Chinese)
[4]	姚梦雷, 侯海量, 李典, 等. 舰船舱内爆炸载荷下Y形夹层板动响应及抗爆性能影响因素[J]. 兵工学报, 2024, 45(3):837-854. doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.0761
	YAO M L, HOU H L, LI D, et al. Dynamic response and influencing factors of anti-explosion performance of Y-shaped sandwich panels under internal explosion loads in warship cabins[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(3):837-854. (in Chinese)
[5]	王杜晨. 基于贝叶斯网络的舰船动力系统生命力评估方法研究[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2023.
	WANG D C. Research on vitality evaluation method of ship power system based on bayesian network[D]. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University, 2023. (in Chinese)
[6]	贾佳. 舰船火灾生命力评估方法研究[D]. 合肥: 中国科学技术大学, 2014.
	JIA J. Research on vitality evaluation method of ship fire[D]. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China, 2014. (in Chinese)
[7]	吕世韬, 金涛, 曹杰. 水面舰船综合生命力评估方法研究[J]. 舰船科学技术, 2011, 33(2):126-130.
	LU S T, JIN T, CAO J. Research on comprehensive vitality evaluation method for surface ships[J]. Ship Science and Technology, 2011, 33(2):126-130. (in Chinese)
[8]	CHENG K, LI W, ZHOU Y, et al. A novel fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method for ship collision risk[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2025, 332:121462.
[9]	ALI H M, HOSSAIN B S, MAHMUD A M, et al. Exploration of the factors associated with suicide ideation among students:A structural equation modeling (SEM) approach[J]. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 2025, 21:100936.
[10]	王兆纶. 大型舰船功能毁伤评估方法研究[D]. 北京: 军事科学院, 2023.
	WANG Z L. Research on functional damage assessment method for large ships[D]. Beijing: Academy of Military Sciences, 2023. (in Chinese)
[11]	张林, 赵丹丹, 党元杰, 等. 反舰导弹战斗部毁伤效能评估方法研究[C]// 第三十四届中国仿真大会暨第二十一届亚洲仿真会议.中国, 长沙: 中国仿真学会,2022:802-807.
	ZHANG L, ZHAO D D, DABG Y J, et al. Research on damage efficiency evaluation method of anti-ship missile warhead[C]// Proceedings of the 34th Chinese Simulation Conference and the 21st Asian Simulation Conference.Changsha, China: China Simulation Federation,2022:802-807. (in Chinese)
[12]	DUAN C H, YIN J P, WANG Z J. Design and implementation of a damage assessment system for large-scale surface warships based on deep learning[J]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2022, 2022:1462508.
[13]	尹曰建, 浦金云. 提高舰船生命力方法研究[J]. 船舶工程, 2005(3):51-55.
	YIN Y J, PU J Y. Research on methods to improve ship vitality[J]. Ship Engineering, 2005(3):51-55. (in Chinese)
[14]	LI S P, SUN Y, LI Z. Personality traits and ensemble identification:a multilevel structural equation modeling approach[J]. Journal of Research in Music Education, 2025, 73(2):195-216.
[15]	ESPINOSA F, BLANCO I, ROMERO M N, et al. Cognitive biases and emotional symptomatology as predictors of changes in peer victimization:a longitudinal structural equation modeling study[J/OL]. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 2025,(2025-06-02)[2025-06-10].https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-025-01337-7.
[16]	高佳文, 左亚凡, 鲁雅雯, 等. 基于结构方程模型的白桦次生林健康评价——以大通县宝库河流域为例[J]. 生态学报, 2025, 45(12):5941-5954.
	GAO J W, ZUO Y F, LU Y W, et al. Health evaluation of betula platyphylla secondary forest based on structural equation model—a case study of baoku river basin in datong county[J]. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 2025, 45(12):5941-5954. (in Chinese)
[17]	姜凯利. 基于结构方程模型的精装修成本管理影响因素研究[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳建筑大学, 2023.
	JIANG K L. Research on influencing factors of fine decoration cost management based on structural equation model[D]. Shenyang: Shenyang Jianzhu University, 2023. (in Chinese)
[18]	YAMASHITA N. Simultaneous oblique rotation of parameter matrices in exploratory structural equation modeling[J/OL]. Japanese Journal of Statistics and Data Science, 2025,(2025-05-26)[2025-06-10].https://doi.org/10.1007/s42081-025-00306-0.
[19]	AMOS D, KUMARI N L W, CHUEN P A C, et al. Partial least squares structural equation modeling of challenges to existing residential building net zero carbon retrofitting[J]. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2025, 151(8):1-56.
[20]	LI Y, QIAO W, YANG F, et al. Carbon emission analysis and evaluation of steel-concrete composite structure bridge based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Science Progress, 2025, 108(2):326839.
[21]	李嘉宁, 郭明阳, 陈淼, 等. 基于模糊综合评价的邮轮防火区划设计研究[J]. 中国造船, 2024, 65(6):92-104.
	LI J N, GUO M Y, CHEN M, et al. Research on fire protection zoning design of cruise ships based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation[J]. Shipbuilding of China, 2024, 65(6):92-104. (in Chinese)
[22]	王永鼎, 王梦凡. 基于模糊综合评价法的拖网渔船主机优选[J]. 华中科技大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 51(4):49-54.
	WANG Y D, WANG M F. Optimal Selection of trawler main engines based on fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method[J]. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Natural Science Edition), 2023, 51(4):49-54. (in Chinese)
[23]	XIONG H, SHEN P, LUO Q H, et al. Elucidating the genetic underpinnings of human musculoskeletal system aging through genomic structural equation modeling[J]. Clinical Genetics, 2025.
[24]	CLERMONT C, RODRIGUE C, BÉGIN C. Empirical validation of a developmental model for binge-eating disorder in adolescents:a structural equation modeling approach[J]. Journal of Eating Disorders, 2025, 13(1):79-79.

类别	拟合指标	检验标准
KMO<0.5	χ²	越趋于0拟合越好
	GFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
	RMSEA	<0.1，越趋于0拟合越好
增值拟合指标	AGFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
增值拟合指标	NFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
精度拟合指标	CFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
	IFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
	AIC	越趋于0拟合越好

类别	拟合指标	检验标准
KMO<0.5	χ²	越趋于0拟合越好
	GFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
	RMSEA	<0.1，越趋于0拟合越好
增值拟合指标	AGFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
增值拟合指标	NFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
精度拟合指标	CFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
	IFI	>0.9，越趋于1拟合越好
	AIC	越趋于0拟合越好

外生潜变量	内生潜变量	显变量
舰船抗打击能力ξ₁	防护能力η₁	预警拦截成功率y₁ 结构防护破损率y₂ 电子信息干扰成功率y₃
	设备抗损能力η₂	设备受攻击率y₄ 设备备用成功率y₅ 设备受损率y₆
	损害管制能力η₃	进水堵漏成功率y₇ 灭火成功率y₈ 监测防护成功率y₉ 设备维修成功率y₁₀
	支援保障能力η₄	基地协调保障成功率y₁₁ 受损接收成功率y₁₂
	舰员任务能力η₅	指挥判断准确率y₁₃
	舰员任务能力η₅	舰员操作准确率y₁₄

外生潜变量	内生潜变量	显变量
舰船抗打击能力ξ₁	防护能力η₁	预警拦截成功率y₁ 结构防护破损率y₂ 电子信息干扰成功率y₃
	设备抗损能力η₂	设备受攻击率y₄ 设备备用成功率y₅ 设备受损率y₆
	损害管制能力η₃	进水堵漏成功率y₇ 灭火成功率y₈ 监测防护成功率y₉ 设备维修成功率y₁₀
	支援保障能力η₄	基地协调保障成功率y₁₁ 受损接收成功率y₁₂
	舰员任务能力η₅	指挥判断准确率y₁₃
	舰员任务能力η₅	舰员操作准确率y₁₄

指标	次数	最大值	最小值	均值	标准差
y₁	244	8	4	6.10	1.412
y₂	244	8	4	6.10	1.019
y₃	244	8	4	6.03	1.017
y₄	244	8	4	5.94	1.049
y₅	244	8	4	5.96	0.860
y₆	244	8	4	5.99	0.922
y₇	244	8	4	5.91	1.043
y₈	244	8	4	5.90	0.880
y₉	244	8	4	5.91	0.950
y₁₀	244	8	4	5.92	0.920
y₁₁	244	8	4	5.98	0.899
y₁₂	244	8	4	5.93	0.885
y₁₃	244	8	4	5.95	1.144
y₁₄	244	8	4	5.86	0.937