Research on monitoring information quality of ATC based on combination weighting

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.006

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to accurately evaluate monitoring information quality and provide decision-making reference for air traffic control (ATC) so as to prevent accidents, an information quality evaluation system was developed. Firstly, seven indices were chosen from three perspectives of integrity, accuracy and correctness, and they included target tracking integrity, target parameter integrity, position accuracy, velocity accuracy, heading accuracy, parameter correctness, probability value of true target. Secondly, with minimum total deviation as an aim, weights of these indices were determined by employing EAHP and entropy before evaluating value of monitoring information quality was obtained through weighted sum. Then, corresponding level of estimated values were decided through comparison with evaluating standards set by experts. Finally, simulated experiment was conducted with nine target trajectories in one period of a sector in North China as an instance. The results show that the evaluating results of the nine target trajectories are consistent with experts' analyses. The proposed evaluating system provides an effective and reliable approach to assess monitoring information, which can improve ACT safety.

Key words: combination weighting method, monitoring information, quality evaluation, extension analytic hierarchy process (EAHP), entropy weight method

WANG Xinglong, CHEN Ziyan, LIU Yan. Research on monitoring information quality of ATC based on combination weighting[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1): 41-50.

Figures/Tables 15

Fig.1

Tab.1

Corresponding table of tracking completeness level

跟踪完整性T_c	跟踪完整性等级 $L T c$
≤0.333	1
≤0.463	2
≤0.576	3
≤0.76	4
≤0.826	5
≤0.905	6
>0.905	7

Tab.1

Tab.2

Corresponding table of position accuracy level

位置精度 E_p/km	位置精度等级 $L E p$	位置精度 E_p/km	位置精度等级 $L E p$
>9 449	1	≤3.77	9
≤9 449	2	≤0.096 4	10
≤2 353	3	≤0.024 0	11
≤1 506	4	≤0.006 2	12
≤847	5	≤0.001 4	13
位置精度 E_p/km	位置精度等级 $L E p$	位置精度 E_p/km	位置精度等级 $L E p$
≤377	6	≤0.000 34	14
≤92	7	≤0.000 10	15
≤15	8	—	—

Tab.2

Tab.3

Corresponding table of velocity accuracy level

速度精度 $E v$ /(m·s^-1)	速度精度等级 $L E v$
>45.4	1
≤45.4	2
≤17.3	3
≤3.5	4
<0.8	5

Tab.3

Tab.4

Corresponding table of heading accuracy level

航向精度 $E h$ /(°)	航向精度等级 $L E h$
>15	1
≤15	2
≤7	3
≤3	4
<1	5

Tab.4

Tab.5

Corresponding table of target tracking completeness level normalization

跟踪完整性 $T c$	跟踪完整性等级 $L T c$	跟踪完整性等级归一化 $L T c'$
≤0.333	1	0
≤0.463	2	1/6
≤0.576	3	1/3
≤0.76	4	1/2
≤0.826	5	2/3
≤0.905	6	5/6
>0.905	7	1

Tab.5

Tab.6

Tab.7

Fig.2

Tab.8

Tab.9

Indicators and weights of monitoring information quality assessment system

目标层	准则层	准则层权重	指标层	指标层权重	权重 $W 1$
监视信息质量	航迹完整性	0.031 9	跟踪完整性	0.922 4	0.029 4
	航迹完整性	0.031 9	参数完整性	0.077 6	0.002 5
	航迹精确性	0.385 9	位置精度	0.509 5	0.196 6
			速度精度	0.024 7	0.009 5
			航向精度	0.465 8	0.179 8
	航迹正确性	0.582 2	目标真伪值	0.983 7	0.572 7
	航迹正确性	0.582 2	参数正确性	0.016 3	0.009 5

Tab.9

Tab.10

Entropy and entropy weight of each index

指标	跟踪完整性	参数完整性	位置精度	速度精度	航向精度	目标真伪值	参数正确性
熵值	0.813 7	0.826 4	0.848 1	0.795 2	0.795 2	0.816 4	0.836 9
权重 $W 2$	0.145 8	0.143 7	0.118 8	0.160 2	0.160 2	0.143 7	0.127 6

Tab.10

Tab.11

Tab.12

Tab.13

References 16

[1]	DAVIS B W, GRAHAM C, STAMM D, et al. Tactical digital information link (TADIL) J Range Extension (JRE)[C]. MILCOM 97 Proceedings, 1997:408-412.
[2]	KRONHAMN T R. Surveillance performance[C]. Proceedings International Radar Conference, 1995:77-82.
[3]	EUROCONTROL. Eurocontrol specification for ATM surveillance system performance[M]. Beljum: Eurocontrol Headquarters, 2011:1-85.
[4]	VERBRAAK T L, ELLERBROEK J, SUN J, et al. Large-scale ADS-B data and signal quality analysis[C]. USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar, 2017: 82-91.
[5]	曹岱伟, 刘刚. 低空飞行器即时航迹评估方法及模型[J]. 现代电子技术, 2014, 37(2):6-8.
	CAO Daiwei, LIU Gang. Assessment methods and model for present flight track of low-altitude aircraft[J]. Modern Electronics Technique, 2014, 37(2):6-8.
[6]	张良成, 王运锋. 动态自适应的多雷达信息加权融合方法[J]. 计算机科学, 2020, 47(增2):321-326.
	ZHANG Liangcheng, WANG Yunfeng. Dynamic adaptive multi-radar tracks weighted fusion method[J]. Computer Science, 2020, 47(S2):321-326.
[7]	雷刚, 张大巧, 董敏周. 基于UAV飞行航迹包络的即时航迹评估方法[J]. 飞行力学, 2014, 32(3):222-225,230.
	LEI Gang, ZHANG Daqiao, DONG Minzhou. Research on real-time path evaluation method based on UAV flight envelope[J]. Flight Dynamics, 2014, 32(3):222-225,230.
[8]	吴志建, 方胜良, 吴付祥. 雷达对目标探测航迹质量建模与仿真[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2014, 26(1):186-190.
	WU Zhijian, FANG Shengliang WU Fuxiang. Research on track quality modeling and simulation of target detection by radar[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2014, 26(1):186-190.
[9]	赵嶷飞, 于克非. 星基广播式自动相关监视系统监视数据空中位置信息质量分析[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2018, 18(14):279-284.
	ZHAO Yifei, YU Kefei. Quality analysis of air position on space-based automatic dependent surveillance broadcast surveillance data[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2018, 18(14): 279-284.
[10]	李洋, 张靖, 石教华, 等. 目标航迹融合质量度量方法研究[J]. 中国电子科学研究院学报, 2015, 10(3):254-259,273.
	LI Yang, ZHANG Jing, SHI Jiaohua, et al. Research on fusion quality measurements for target track[J]. Journal of China Academy of Electronics and Information Technology, 2015, 10(3):254-259,273.
[11]	刘红亮, 周生华, 刘宏伟, 等. 一种利用幅度信息的航迹质量评估方法[J]. 西安电子科技大学学报, 2017, 44(1):65-70.
	LIU Hongliang, ZHOU Shenghua, LIU Hongwei, et al. Track quality evaluation method using amplitude information[J]. Journal of Xidian University, 2017, 44(1):65-70.
[12]	杨越, 宋祥波, 王建忠. 基于TRACEr的管制员差错风险量化分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(8):109-115. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.016
	YANG Yue, SONG Xiangbo, WANG Jianzhong. Quantitative analysis method of ATCO's error risks based on TRACEr[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(8):109-115. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.016
[13]	闫东方. 可拓层次分析法及其应用[D]. 大连: 大连海事大学, 2012.
	YAN Dongfang. Extension analytic hierarchy process and its applications[D]. Dalian: Maritime University, 2012.
[14]	SAATY T L. Analytic hierarchy process[M]. State of New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2013: 19-28.
[15]	蒋琴, 钟少波, 朱伟. 京津冀地区森林火灾综合风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(10):119-125. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.017
	JIANG Qin, ZHONG Shaobo, ZHU Wei. Research on comprehensive risk assessment of forest fire in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(10): 119-125. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.10.017
[16]	马爱迪, 岳忠, 孙宝平, 等. 基于改进组合赋权法的建筑火灾保险费率研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(11):134-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.020
	MA Aidi, YUE Zhong, SUN Baoping, et al. Research on building fire insurance premium rate based on improved combination weighting method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(11): 134-140. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn 1003-3033.2020.11.020

标准	跟踪完整性	参数完整性	位置精度/km	速度精度/ (m·s^-1)	航向精度/ (°)	目标真伪值	参数正确性
优秀	>0.905	≥0.9	≤0.0014	<0.8	<1	≥0.9	≥0.9
良好	(0.76,0.905]	[0.7,0.9)	(0.0014,0.0240]	[0.8,3.5]	[1,3]	[0.7,0.9)	[0.7,0.9)
中等	(0.576,0.76]	[0.5,0.7)	(0.0240,3.77]	(3.5,17.3]	(3,7]	[0.5,0.7)	[0.6,0.7)
差	(0.463,0.576]	[0.3,0.5)	(3.77,15]	(17.3,45.4]	(7,15]	[0.3,0.5)	[0.4,0.6)
不合格	≤0.463	<0.3	>15	>45.4	>15	<0.3	<0.4

标准	跟踪完整性	参数完整性	位置精度/km	速度精度/ (m·s^-1)	航向精度/ (°)	目标真伪值	参数正确性
优秀	1	0.9	6/7	1	1	0.9	0.9
良好	2/3	0.7	5/7	3/4	3/4	0.7	0.7
中等	1/2	0.5	4/7	1/2	1/2	0.5	0.6
差	1/3	0.3	1/2	1/4	1/4	0.3	0.4
不合格	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

专家	航迹精确性	位置精度	速度精度	航向精度
专家1	位置精度	(1,1)	(2.5,3.5)	(1,1)
	速度精度	(1/3.5,1/2.5)	(1,1)	(1/3.5,1/2.5)
	航向精度	(1,1)	(2.5,3.5)	(1,1)
专家2	位置精度	(1,1)	(7.5,8.5)	(2.5,3.5)
	速度精度	(1/8.5,1/7.5)	(1,1)	(1/5.5,1/4.5)
	航向精度	(1/3.5,1/2.5)	(4.5,5.5)	(1,1)
专家3	位置精度	(1,1)	(4.5,5.5)	(2.5,3.5)
	速度精度	(1/5.5,1/4.5)	(1,1)	(1/3.5,1/2.5)
	航向精度	(1/3.5,1/2.5)	(2.5,3.5)	(1,1)
单层权重		0.5095	0.0247	0.4658

标准	EAHP	熵权法	组合赋权法
优秀	≥0.913 4	≥0.941 5	≥0.932 9
良好	[0.711 3,0.913 4)	[0.712 9,0.941 5)	[0.712 4,0.932 9)
中等	[0.515 0,0.711 3)	[0.521 2,0.712 9)	[0.519 3,0.712 4)
差	[0.331 8,0.515 0)	[0.325 4,0.521 2)	[0.327 3,0.519 3)
不合格	<0.331 8	<0.325 4	<0.327 3

目标	跟踪完整性	参数完整性	位置精度/km	速度精度/(m·s^-1)	航向精度/(°)	目标真伪值	参数正确性
目标1	0.896	1	808.34	14.84	16.05	1	1
目标2	1	0.9	591.2	12.3	18.34	0.8	1
目标3	1	1	100.41	1.88	0	1	0.05
目标4	1	1	698.85	8.12	1.15	0.5	1
目标5	0.812	0.9	459.84	7.35	0	0.8	0.02
目标6	1	1	230.27	3.13	0	0.8	1
目标7	1	1	225.51	6.02	0.57	1	1
目标8	0.914	1	348.21	18.78	5.16	0.8	1
目标9	1	1	61.12	1.94	4.01	1	1