过站航班地面保障流程效能评估

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2020.07.16

系统工程与电子技术 ›› 2020, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (7): 1543-1549.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-506X.2020.07.16

过站航班地面保障流程效能评估

李彪^1,²(), 王立文¹(), 邢志伟²(), 罗谦³()

1. 中国民航大学航空工程学院, 天津 300300;
2. 中国民航大学电子信息与自动化学院, 天津 300300;
3. 中国民用航空局第二研究所工程技术研究中心, 四川成都 610041

收稿日期:2019-10-22 出版日期:2020-06-30 发布日期:2020-06-30
作者简介:李彪 (1993-),男,博士研究生,主要研究方向为民航装备与系统、机场运行安全保障技术。E-mail:18330227730@163.com|王立文 (1962-),男,教授,博士研究生导师,博士,主要研究方向为民航装备与系统、机场运行安全保障技术。E-mail:cauc_wlw@126.com|邢志伟 (1970-),男,教授,硕士研究生导师,博士,主要研究方向为民航装备与系统、机场运行安全保障技术。E-mail:cauc_xzw@163.com|罗谦 (1975-),男,研究员，硕士研究生导师，博士,主要研究方向为机场运营管理、数据挖掘。E-mail:caacsri_luoqian@163.com
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划项目(2018YFB1601200);国家自然科学基金委员会-中国民用航空局联合研究基金(U1533203);中央高校基本科研业务费项目中国民航大学专项(3122019094)

Effectiveness evaluation of ground support process for transit flight

Biao LI^1,²(), Liwen WANG¹(), Zhiwei XING²(), Qian LUO³()

1. College of Aeronautical Engineering, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China;
2. College of Electronic Information and Automation, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin 300300, China;
3. Engineering Technology Research Center, The Second Research Institute of Civil Aviation Administration of China, Chengdu 610041, China

Received:2019-10-22 Online:2020-06-30 Published:2020-06-30
Supported by:
国家重点研发计划项目(2018YFB1601200);国家自然科学基金委员会-中国民用航空局联合研究基金(U1533203);中央高校基本科研业务费项目中国民航大学专项(3122019094)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了感知过站航班地面保障流程运行状况和优化机场协同决策信息系统,研究了单航班条件下的保障流程效能评估问题。通过系统分析地面保障流程,得到各场景的效能评估指标。结合评估指标的大小、重要性及聚散状态3个维度,构建了流程效能评估指标体系。设计了一种基于雷达图周长-面积的过站航班地面保障流程动态效能评估方法,并结合实际运行数据开展仿真验证。研究表明,流程效能评估结果整体上直观描述了保障流程效能的动态变化。通过客观性对比和敏感性分析可知，结果一定程度反映了过站航班离港属性,为航班推出控制提供依据。

关键词: 地面保障流程, 动态效能评估, 动态先验权重, 正态变尺度函数, 敏感性分析

Abstract:

In order to perceive the operation status of the ground support process for transit flights and optimize the airport collaborative decision-making information system, the effectiveness evaluation of the support process is studied under the single flight condition. By systematically analyzing the ground support process, the effectiveness evaluation indicators for each scenario are obtained. Combining the three dimensions of the value, importance and the state of convergence of the indicators, the process effectiveness evaluation indicator system is constructed. A dynamic effectiveness evaluation method is designed based on the perimeter-area of the radar chart for the ground support process of the transit flights, and the simulation verification is carried out based on the actual operation data. It is showed that the results of the process effectiveness evaluation intuitively describe the dynamic changes of support process effectiveness. Through the objective comparison and sensitivity analysis, it can be seen that the results reflect the departure attributes of the transit flights to a certain extent, and provide a basis for the flight launch control.

Key words: ground support process, dynamic effectiveness evaluation, dynamic prior weight, normal scaling function, sensitivity analysis

中图分类号:

李彪, 王立文, 邢志伟, 罗谦. 过站航班地面保障流程效能评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2020, 42(7): 1543-1549.

Biao LI, Liwen WANG, Zhiwei XING, Qian LUO. Effectiveness evaluation of ground support process for transit flight[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2020, 42(7): 1543-1549.

图/表 13

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

图10

参考文献 22

1	CORRIGAN S , KAY A , OKWIR S , et al. Preparing for airport collaborative decision making (A-CDM) implementation: an evaluation and recommendations[J]. Cognition Technology & Work, 2015, 17 (2): 1- 12.
2	FAN L W , WU F , ZHOU P . Efficiency measurement of Chinese airports with flight delays by directional distance function[J]. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2014, 34 (1): 140- 145.
3	VISMARI L F , JUNIOR J B C . A safety assessment methodology applied to CNS/ATM-based air traffic control system[J]. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2011, 96 (7): 727- 738.
4	ZHANG H , HOU Y , ZHANG J , et al. A new method for nondestructive quality evaluation of the resistance spot welding based on the radar chart method and the decision tree classifier[J]. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2015, 78 (5/8): 841- 851.
5	XIE K , OZBAY K , YANG H , et al. A new methodology for before-after safety assessment using survival analysis and longitudinal data[J]. Risk Analysis, 2018, 39 (4): 1- 16.
6	高扬, 吴建多. 基于多级物元分析的机场安全评价[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2009, 5 (6): 151- 155.
	GAO Y , WU J D . Evaluation for civil airport operation safety and security based on multi-level matter-element analysis[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2009, 5 (6): 151- 155.
7	TIAN B L . Airport emergency capacity assessment model based on an interval-number analytic hierarchy process[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21 (3): 170- 176.
8	VAZE V L . An assessment of the impact of demand management strategies for efficient allocation of airport capacity[J]. International Journal of Revenue Management, 2013, 6 (1/2): 5- 27.
9	BHADRA D , KNORR D A , LEVY B . Benefits of virtual queuing at congested airports using ASDE-X: a case study of JFK airport[J]. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 2016, 20 (3): 225- 252.
10	KANG L , HANSEN M . Assessing the impact of tactical airport surface operations on airline schedule block time setting[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 2018, 89 (4): 133- 147.
11	RAMANUJAM V , BALAKRISHNAN H . Data-driven modeling of the airport configuration selection process[J]. IEEE Trans.on Human-Machine Systems, 2015, 45 (4): 490- 499.
12	BADRINATH S , LI M , BALAKRISHNAN H . An integrated surface-airspace model of airport departures[J]. AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 2018, 42 (5): 1049- 1063.
13	LI M Z , RYERSON M , BALAKRISHNAN H . Topological data analysis for aviation applications[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2019, 128 (2): 149- 174.
14	邢志伟, 李彪, 罗谦. 过站航班地面保障运行效能评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41 (5): 1071- 1078.
	XING Z W , LI B , LUO Q . Operational effectiveness evaluation of ground service for transit flight[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41 (5): 1071- 1078.
15	SHOJAEI P , HAERI S A S , MOHAMMADI S . Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique[J]. Journal of Air Transport Management, 2017, 68 (2): 1- 15.
16	罗承昆, 陈云翔, 项华春, 等. 装备体系贡献率评估方法研究综述[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41 (8): 1789- 1794.
	LUO C K , CHEN Y X , XIANG H C , et al. Review of the evaluation methods of equipment's contribution rate to system-of systems[J]. Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2019, 41 (8): 1789- 1794.
17	CHEN D , AHN S . Capacity-drop at extended bottlenecks: merge, diverge and weave[J]. Transportation Research Part B Methodological, 2018, 108, 1- 20.
18	HOSSAIN M M , ALAM S , DELAHAYE D . An evolutionary computational framework for capacity-safety trade-off in an air transportation network[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2019, 32 (4): 233- 244.
19	ZHANG H , HOU Y , ZHANG J , et al. A new method for nondestructive quality evaluation of the resistance spot welding based on the radar chart method and the decision tree classifier[J]. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2015, 78 (5/8): 841- 851.
20	张才坤, 朱战霞, 冯琦, 等. 基于区间数雷达图的可视化空战威胁评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2016, 38 (5): 1052- 1058.
	ZHANG C K , ZHU Z X , FENG Q , et al. Visualization threat assessment for air combat based on interval-radar chart[J]. System Engineering and Electronics, 2016, 38 (5): 1052- 1058.
21	林木, 李小波, 王彦锋, 等. 基于QFD和组合赋权TOPSIS的体系贡献率能效评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41 (8): 1802- 1809.
	LIN M , LI X B , WANG Y F , et al. Capability effectiveness evaluation of contribution ratio to system-of-systems based on QFD and combination weights TOPSIS[J]. Systems Engineer-ing and Electronics, 2019, 41 (8): 1802- 1809.
22	LIN Y K , NGUYEN T P , YENG L C L . Reliability evaluation of a multi-state air transportation network meeting multiple travel demands[J]. Annals of Operations Research, 2019, 277 (2): 63- 82.

属性	上/撤轮挡	靠/撤廊桥	开/关客舱门	开/关货舱门	配餐开始/结束	下客开始/结束	添加燃油开始/结束	清洁开始/结束	上客开始/结束
开始时刻	10:08	10:09	10:09	10:09	10:08	10:12	10:11	10:13	10:36
结束时刻	10:52	10:50	10:50	10:42	10:27	10:17	10:33	10:23	10:46

属性	到达	处理垃圾结束	机务放行	允许上客	核对人数	上传配载	出港服务
时刻	10:03	10:30	10:31	10:34	10:49	10:39	10:16

保障流程/节点	变尺度参数		中心最佳点
保障流程/节点	期望	合理容限	中心最佳点
整体保障	52.85	15.61	(52.85, 1)
靠/撤廊桥	50.99	15.58	(50.99, 1)
开/关客舱门	49.97	15.56	(49.97, 1)
开/关货舱门	38.80	17.18	(38.80, 1)
下客开始/结束	7.56	1.70	(7.56, 1)
添加燃油开始/结束	18.63	8.53	(18.63, 1)
清洁	8.08	14.61	(8.08, 1)
处理垃圾结束	27.48	5.42	(27.48, 1)
配餐开始/结束	8.25	5.35	(8.25, 1)
出港服务	19.07	8.69	(19.07, 1)
机务放行	25.90	6.55	(25.90, 1)
上传配载	38.72	16.87	(38.72, 1)
允许上客	36.00	12.87	(36.00, 1)
上客开始/结束	17.48	6.97	(17.48, 1)
核对人数	56.43	15.35	(56.43, 1)

[1]	朱杰, 黄宁, 程亮. 云化虚拟化网络业务可用度多参数敏感性分析[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2022, 44(8): 2677-2687.
[2]	潘星, 张振宇, 张艳梅, 王冉冉. 基于Sobol敏感性分析的装备体系保障效能评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2021, 43(2): 390-398.
[3]	张壮, 李琳琳, 魏振华, 余宏峰. 基于变权投影灰靶的指控系统动态效能评估[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41(4): 801-809.
[4]	步兵, 王卓健, 潘洪升. 基于Petri网的基层级多机种通用性维修保障设备优化配置[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2019, 41(2): 349-357.
[5]	房新鹏，严卫生，张福斌，李俊兵. 基于多USV/AUV的水下定位系统队形结构研究[J]. 系统工程与电子技术, 2014, 36(5): 947-951.
[6]	王永华，蒋科艺，孙涛，杨欣毅，朱飞翔. 基于克隆选择算法的航空发动机性能衰退研究[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2013, 35(6): 1236-1241.
[7]	孙世岩, 王航宇, 石章松. ELECTRE-Ⅲ法权重的敏感性分析方法[J]. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 2009, 31(11): 2645-2647 .

过站航班地面保障流程效能评估

Effectiveness evaluation of ground support process for transit flight

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 13

参考文献 22

相关文章 7

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价