Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics
Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022, pp.393 – 405
Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship
missiles based on double hierarchy linguistic
term sets and evidence theory
*
YAO Tianle , WANG Weili, MIAO Run, DONG Jun, and YAN Xuefei
1. Ordnance Engineering College, Naval University of Engineering, Wuhan 430000, China; 2. Xi’an Modern Chemistry Research In-
stitute, Xi’an 710065; 3. Institute of Systems Engineering, Academy of Military Science, Beijing 100082
Abstract: The research on the damage effectiveness assess-
ment of anti-ship missiles involves system science and weapon
science, and has essential strategic research significance. With
comprehensive analysis of the specific process of the damage
assessment process of anti-missile against ships, a synthetic
damage effectiveness assessment process is proposed based
on the double hierarchy linguistic term set and the evidence the-
ory. In order to improve the accuracy of the expert ’s assess-
ment information, double hierarchy linguistic terms are used to
describe the assessment opinions of experts. In order to avoid
the loss of experts ’ original information caused by information
fusion rules, the evidence theory is used to fuse the assessment
information of various experts on each case. Good stability of
the assessment process can be reflected through sensitivity
analysis, and the fluctuation of a certain parameter does not
have an excessive influence on the assessment results. The as-
sessment process is accurate enough to be reflected through
comparative analysis and it has a good advantage in damage ef-
fectiveness assessment.
Keywords: anti-ship missile, damage effect assessment, lin-
guistic term set, evidence reasoning.
DOI: 10.23919/JSEE.2022.000041
1. Introduction
The damage effect assessment of anti-ship missiles
against ship targets is an important long-term continuous
research in various countries around the world, and is an
important basis for assessing real-time battle conditions
in actual combat environment. Therefore, there is an ur-
gent need for an efficient and low-cost assessment me-
thod that can effectively assess the damage effect of anti-
ship missiles. In actual situations, the damage effect is the
result of the interaction between the damage source and
the damaged object, so it induces strong causality [1,2].
Manuscript received December 21, 2020.
*Corresponding author.
This is a comprehensive research involving weapon sci-
ence and system science, and many factors need to be
considered comprehensively. In the field of damage as-
sessment and effectiveness assessment, scholars have
conducted research and established related models for
analyzing the relationship between criteria and the prob-
ability of damage. For example, according to the charac-
teristics of infrared imaging and the Global Positioning
System (GPS), Zhao et al. [3] analyzed the characterist-
ics of terminal ballistics to determine the relationship
between damage effect, fuze explosion height, and guid-
ance accuracy. Wang et al. [4] established a calculation
model of warhead damage probability based on the
Monte Carlo method, and obtained the damage probabi-
lity of different warhead’s modes of action to two targets.
Xiong et al. [5] analyzed the damage mechanism of tor-
pedoes to ship targets, established a damage assessment
model based on damage trees, and simulated the effects
of different factors on the damage effect of ships. Guo
et al. [6] designed four levels of combat effectiveness as-
sessment criteria for air-to-surface missile weapon sys-
tems and provided mathematical expressions of effective-
ness criteria, forming a complete air-to-surface missile
weapon system combat effectiveness assessment method.
In terms of the combination of qualitative judgment and
quantitative calculation, Li [7] used the fishbone diagram
method to construct an assessment model that supported
causal analysis, and provided a basis for causal analysis
of the effectiveness of weapon equipment system assess-
ment results. In order to improve the shortcomings of the
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) combat effectiveness
assessment, Peng et al. [8] applied the gray cloud model
to the whitening weight function, and established a com-
bat effectiveness assessment model that integrated the ad-
vantages of the gray cloud model and the improved AHP.
394 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022
Aiming at the situation of the anti-radiation weapon range
test, Liu et al. [9] proposed an anti-radiation weapon
combat effectiveness assessment model based on nonli-
near criteria aggregation, and gave the corresponding cri-
teria system model and criteria aggregation method. Li et
al. [10] constructed a fuzzy Bayesian network model to
quickly assess the damage effect to target under various
attack conditions. Analyzing the above works, it can be
seen that there are two key steps to conduct damage ef-
fectiveness assessment. The first is to construct an appro-
priate assessment criteria system based on the relation-
ship between the damage source and the damage object,
and to form a reasonable assessment analytic structure.
The second is to select an appropriate assessment method
based on the correlation between the criteria, and form a
suitable criteria data fusion process. Much research has
been done in both aspects.
Although work has been done on the research of da-
mage effect assessment, there are still two problems that
have not been fully resolved in the actual assessment pro-
cess, which need to be further considered. The first prob-
lem is that it is difficult to control the accuracy of the data
assessed by the experts when the assessment process is
conducted. The more accurate the data assessed by the
experts, the more difficult it is for the experts to distin-
guish the performance of adjacent data. Therefore, how to
enable the experts to better distinguish and judge the
granularity of data without reducing the accuracy of the
assessment is also an urgent problem in the process of as-
sessing the damage effect of the anti-ship missile. The
second is that the mapping between the hierarchical struc-
ture of the assessment criteria system is non-linear. How
to effectively fuse the information assessed by the ex-
perts and how to prevent the assessment information from
being lost in the assessment process are problems that
need to be solved. Therefore, it is necessary to construct a
novel assessment process to analyze and handle the com-
plex damage effect assessment of anti-ship missiles.
Generally, in complex assessment situations, the score
often cannot directly reflect the preference and personal
judgment of the assessment expert. At this time, because
linguistic term can describe the assessment information
vividly, the greater assessment advantages than numbers
can be fully reflected [11,12]. Double hierarchy linguis-
tic term set divides complex linguistic information into
two simple linguistic hierarchies in which the first hier-
archy linguistic term set is the main linguistic hierarchy
and the second hierarchy linguistic term set is the lin-
guistic feature or detailed supplementary of each linguis-
tic term in the first hierarchy linguistic term set [13].
Scholars such as Zhang et al. [14] and Xue et al. [15] de-
veloped extensions of the double hierarchy linguistic term
set and successfully applied it in haze management and
strategic capability assessment. In order to prevent the
loss of information due to information fusion rules, the
evidence theory proposed by Dempster et al. [16] can
preserve the integrity of the information to the greatest
extent, and it can fuse uncertain information from differ-
ent experts by using evidence inference rules [17] and re-
duce the loss of information in the assessment process [18].
Moreover, the evidence theory has also been widely used
in weight calculation. Fei et al. [19] introduced the
concept of evidence contradiction coefficient and pro-
posed a method for calculating the weight of evidence
that can effectively use conflict information, overcoming
the shortcomings of the classic Dempster-Shafer (D-S)
evidence theory. It also has been widely used in the field
of information fusion, and better fusion results can be ob-
tained in an effective reasoning form without prior prob-
ability [20]. Based on the above analysis, damage effect
assessment of anti-ship missiles against ship targets is
taken as the background in this paper, and a damage ef-
fect assessment process is proposed based on the double
hierarchy linguistic term set and the evidence theory.
While improving the accuracy of expert assessment dur-
ing the assessment process, this process can minimize the
information loss and effectively integrate multiple opi-
nions from different experts, thus improving the accur-
acy of damage effect assessment.
2. Construction of the hierarchical structure
of assessment criteria system for
anti-ship missile
As shown in Fig. 1, the hierarchical structure of the as-
sessment criteria system is divided into three layers,
where F1, F2, and F3 represent the three layers, and C rep-
resents the damage effect criteria. There are many actual
operational factors that need to be considered in the ac-
tual combat environment, including the command status
of the commander, the interference of the electromagnet-
ic environment, and so on. Therefore, it is difficult to accu-
rately assess the damage effectiveness of the damage
source. Fig. 1 only shows the result of the interaction
between the damage source and the damage object. This
result can only represent the physical result produced by
the causal interaction between the damage source and the
damaged object, which is the damage effect of the da-
mage source against the damaged object. Yet it can lay a
useful foundation for further assessing the damage effecti-
veness of the damage source under actual combat condi-
tions. Therefore, it is meaningful to conduct damage ef-
fect assessment. Because damage effect is mainly the re-
sult of the interaction between the warhead damage capa-
bility of the anti-ship missile and the damage resistance
YAO Tianle et al.: Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship missiles… 395

of ship, the criteria in the second layer are the warhead ments C19 . The criteria in the lower layer of the damage
damage capability C1 and the damage resistance of ship resistance of ship C2 include geometry of the ship C21,
C2. The criteria in the third layer are mainly used to de- hull bulkhead structure C22 , hull deck structure C23 , spe-
scribe the performance of the criteria in layer. The crite- cial structure C24 , main material of the ship C25 , ship
ria in the lower layer of the warhead damage capability stiffener C26 , and welding material for ship C27 . The sym-
C1 include missile hit position C11 , hole size C12 , number bols of criteria in the second layer and the third layer are shown
of penetrating cabins C13, range of shock wave C14, shock in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1, there are three criteria in the first layer
wave overpressure C15 , positive pressure duration C16, and the second layer, so there are a total of three times of
number of fragments C17 , and initial velocity of frag- information fusion.

C Damage effectiveness
F1

C1 C2
F2 Warhead damage capability Damage resistance of ship structure
Number of penetrating cabins

Initial velocity of fragments

Welding materials for ship

Positive pressure duration
Shock wave overpressure

Main material of the ship

Hull bulkhead structure
Number of fragments
Range of shock wave

Geometry of the ship

Quality of fragment
Missile hit position

Hull deck structure

Special structure

Ship stiffener
Hole size
C12

C13

C14

C15

C16

C17

C18

C19

C21

C22

C23

C24

C25

C26

C27
C11

F3

Fig. 1 Hierarchical structure of damage effect assessment criteria system

3. Information processing and fusion model S =‘terrible’,‘bad’,‘poor’,‘normal’,

{
3.1 Information processing model based on double ‘good’,‘excellent’,‘perfect’} =
hierarchy linguistic term set {S k , k = −3, −2, −1, 0, 1, 2, 3} . (2)
Before assessing the damage effect, the relevant sets and The second linguistic term set is denoted as
variables should be defined. The lower layer criteria of C2
are used as examples. Let C s = {C si |i = 1, 2, · · · , 7 } be a set O = {Ot , t = −2, −1, 0, 1, 2} =
of criteria; w = {wi |i = 1, 2, · · · , 7 } be a set of weights, { −2 ’,
‘O ‘O−1 ’,
‘O0 ’,
‘O1 ’,
‘O2 ’}. (3)
∑ 7
{ } Among them, according to the different values of t, the
where wi = 1 。Let A = A j | j = 1, 2, 3 be a set of
i=1 meaning of Ot is slightly different when it is integrated
cases of damage. In this paper, a total of four experts are into the first hierarchy linguistic term set, as shown in
invited to participate in the assessment,
{ so the expert set Fig. 2.
{ }
is E = eq |q = 1, 2, 3, 4 . wAE = wAE
q |q = 1, 2, · · · , 4} is a
∑4 O−2 O2
q = 1 . In the
wAE −1 1
set of weights of the experts, where O O 0
O
i=1 O−2={O0=just right, O1=a little, O2=far from}
assessment criteria system shown in Fig. 1, Cw1−Cw9 are O−1={O−2=entirely, O−1=much, O0=just right, O1=a little, O2=far from}
the criteria of the benefit type and Cs1−Cs7 are the criteria
O0={O−2=far from, O−1=a little, O0=just right, O1=much, O2=entirely}
of the cost type. The cost type is converted into the bene-
O1={O−2=far from, O−1=a little, O0=just right, O1=much, O2=entirely}
fit type according to
O2={O−2=far from, O−1=a little, O0=just right}
{
score (Cwi ) , Cwi is the benefit type
x (C si ) = . (1) Fig. 2 Information expression form of the second hierarchy lin-
1 − score (C si ) , C si is the cost type guistic term set

As shown in the following equation, the first linguistic After experts express their opinions through the first
term set is denoted as hierarchy linguistic term set, the second hierarchy lin-
396 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022

guistic term set is used to adjust the assessment opinions. archy linguistic term set is a subtle adjustment to the ex-
The elements in the second hierarchy linguistic term set pert’s judgment on the basis of the first hierarchy lin-
shown in Fig. 2 are adverbs or adphrases and can be used guistic term set, which makes the expert’s judgment more
to modify the adjectives in the first hierarchy linguistic accurate. Therefore, the final scoring function is the li-
term set. There are five elements in Fig. 2: “just right”, “a near superposition of the two scoring functions. The score
little ”, “far from ”, “much ”, and “entirely ”. These ele- is represented by fraction before the final result is ob-
ments are used to adjust the degree of the elements in the tained.
first hierarchy linguistic term set.
The first score function is
Therefore, the double hierarchy linguistic term set can
be expressed as k+3
SCORE1 (Sk ) = . (6)
{ } 2×3
SO = S k⟨O ⟩ k = −2, −1, 0, 1, 2; t = −2, −1, 0, 1, 2 . (4)
t
The judgment of experts makes k take −2, −1, 0, 1, 2
Therefore, the decision matrix formed by an expert can respectively.
be obtained as The second-level score function is
 q(1,1)  t
 S S q(1,2) S q(1,3) 
 SCORE2 (Ot ) = . (7)
 q(2,1)
k⟨Ot ⟩ k⟨Ot ⟩ k⟨Ot ⟩
4×3×2
 S S q(2,2) S q(2,3) 
D =  .
q k⟨Ot ⟩ k⟨Ot ⟩
.. ..  .

k⟨Ot ⟩
(5) Therefore, the final score function is shown in the fol-
 .. . . 

  lowing equation and the possible scores of all criteria are
S q(7,1) S q(7,2) S q(7,3)
k⟨Ot ⟩ k⟨Ot ⟩ k⟨Ot ⟩
shown in Fig. 3:
Two scoring functions are used to quantify the opi- ( )
nions of each layer of linguistic term set assessed by ex- SCORE S k⟨O ⟩ =SCORE1 (S k ) + SCORE2 (Ot ) =
t

perts. The first hierarchy linguistic term set has obtained k+3 t
+ . (8)
the main judgment of the expert, and the second hier- 6 24

Terrible Bad Poor Normal Good Excellent Perfect

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
0 1
24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Fig. 3 Information expression form of the double hierarchy linguistic term set

3.2 Information transformation of criteria In order to calculate βi , the information shown in (5)
should be handled first. Using Hamming distance to
In the fusion process, in order to fully fuse the informa-
measure the difference in opinions between experts, the
tion of opinions expressed by experts and not cause in-
difference in opinions between any two experts can be
formation loss, the opinions are formed into evidence, so
expressed as
that the information of opinions can be fully reflected in
the assessment results. In order to facilitate analysis and ( p )
X S k⟨O t⟩
, S k⟨O
q
t⟩
=
information fusion, transforming all information into a ( p ) ( )
belief structure is considered [21]. Belief structure is ac- SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ − SCORE S k⟨O q
t⟩
. (10)
tually a method of using belief degree to represent the
distribution of assessment degree of a criterion. The spe- Then the similarity degree between the linguistic ele-
cific expression is ments assessed by any two experts and the support de-
gree for one of the expert ’ assessment result can be ex-
{( q ) }
D (ci ) = S k⟨O⟩ , βi , q = 1, 2, · · · , 4; i = 1, 2, · · · , 7 (9) pressed as
( q )
q
where S k⟨O⟩ represents the assessment degree，and βi ( q ) X S k⟨O ⟩ , S k⟨O ⟩
p

SL S k⟨O ⟩ , S k⟨O ⟩ = 1−
p
,
t t
(11)
q
represents the belief degree of S k⟨O⟩ in Ci.
t t
2×3
YAO Tianle et al.: Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship missiles… 397

( q ) ∑ 4 ( q )   7 
= , S k⟨O
p
. 

 ∏ ( ) ∏
7

ST S k⟨O t⟩
SL S k⟨O t⟩ t⟩
(12) 


 mn = k   mi,n + mi,H − mi,H 
p=1, 


p,q


  7
i=1 i=1



  ∏ ∏7


  
Finally， through calculating the support degree of all 


 m̃H = k  mi,H − m̄i,H 
expert’ assessment results, the belief degree of any expert’ 

 i=1 i=1

  7  , (16)
assessment result can be expressed as 

 
 ∏ 

( q ) 

 =  i,H 


m̄ H k m̄ 
( q ) ST S k⟨O 


B S k⟨O ⟩ = 4
⟩
.
t
(13) 

  24 7
i=1
−1
∑ ( ) 

 ∑ ∏ ( ∏ 
)
7

t

q
ST S k⟨O ⟩ 
 k = 

 mi,n + mi,H − (N − 1) mi,H 
t 
q=1 n=1 i=1 i=1
 mn


 βn =
Based on the above analysis, the evidence matrix that 

 1 − m̄H
integrate all experts’ assessment information and their be- 
 , (17)



m̃
 βH =
H
lief degree can be obtained: 1 − m̄H
{( q(i, j) ) } where n = 0, 1, · · · , 24 ， i = 1, 2, · · · , 9 ， N = 4 . βn and βH
D = S k⟨O t⟩
, B(S k⟨O
q(i, j)
t⟩
) q = 1, 2, 3, 4; j = 1, 2, 3; i = 1, 2, · · · , 7 .
represent the belief degrees of the aggregated assessment,
q
(14) which respectively correspond to degree S k⟨O⟩ and set S.
∑N

Yang [23] proved that βn + βH = 1 and the above evi-

3.3 Information fusion based on evidence reasoning n=1
dence reasoning is reasonable and effective. The normali-
Through information transformation, all qualitative in- zation process is provided by (17).
formation is expressed by belief structure. This section For the final assessment results, linear aggregation
uses evidence reasoning to aggregate the belief structure should be performed according to the weight of expert. It
of each criterion into up-layer criteria. The seven lower- is more objective to obtain the weight of expert based on
layer criteria of C2 are still used as examples. First, com- the experts ’ assessment results. The richness of the ex-
bine the relative weights and belief degrees of the criteria pert’s subjective experience is often reflected in the con-
and the belief degrees are transformed into the basic sistency of the assessment results, which has been stu-
died by Yu et al. [24]. Euclidean distance which is used
probability masses by
to measure the consistency of experts’ assessment results



 mi,n = mi (Hn ) = wi βi,n is an effective method to optimize expert’s weights.


 q


 ∑24 The weighted Euclidean distance between S k⟨O ⟩ and


 p
t

 i,H = mi (H) = 1 − wi βi,n

 m S k⟨O ⟩ as the assessment results between any two experts is



t

 n=1 ∑ 4 ( )2

 (15) z2qp = q · SCORE(S k⟨O ⟩ ) − w p · SCORE(S k⟨O ⟩ ) .
q p


 m̄i,H = m̄i (H) = 1 − wi wAE AE



t t



   q=1,q,p


  ∑ 24
 (18)

 
 mi,H = m̃i (H) = wi 1 −
 βi,n  The optimization model that minimizes the sum of
n=1 squared distances between the assessment results of all
where n = 0, 1, · · · , 24 ， i = 1, 2, · · · , 9 . mi,H = m̄i,H + m̃i,H experts is constructed as follows:
∑9 ∑4 ∑

and wi = 1 . mi,n denotes the basic probability mass be- min Z = z2qp
q=1 p=1,4
i=1 q q,p
ing assessed to assessment degree S k⟨O⟩ on the criterion  AE
Csi. mi,H denotes the probability mass assigned to the set 

 wq ⩾ 0, q = 1, 2, 3, 4


∑
S, which consist of m̄i,H and m̃i,H . m̃i,H is caused by the in- s.t. 

4
. (19)


 q =1
wAE
completeness of the assessment on criterion Csi , and m̄i,H 
q=1
is caused by the relative importance of criteria. The Lagrangian algorithm is used to solve (19), the fi-
After transforming the lower-layer criteria of Csi from nal weight vector of expert can be obtained as
the belief structure to the basic probability mass, the fol- Ψ −1 I
wAE = T −1 (20)
lowing equations [22] are used to aggregate the basic I Ψ I
probability mass: where I = (1, 1, · · · , 1)T and Ψ is
398 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022

Ψ=
  7×3  
 ∑ ( ( )) 2
 ∑7×3(( ( ))( ( ))) ∑7×3 (( ( )) ( ( )))
 
(4−1)· SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩  1i
− SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩
1i 2i
· · · − SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ 
1i 4i
 
 7×3 i=1 i=1  7×3  i=1 
 ∑(( ( )) ( ( ))) ∑( ( ))2 ∑((
7×3 ( ))( ( )))
 − SCORE S 2i 1i
SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ (4−1)· SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩  2i  · · · − SCORE S k⟨Ot⟩ SCORE S k⟨Ot⟩ 
2i 4i
 k⟨Ot ⟩

 i=1 i=1 i=1 
 .. .. .. .. 
 . . . . 
 ∑   
 7×3 (( ( ))( ( ))) ∑7×3 (( ( )) ( ( ))) 
 ∑7×3 ( ( ))2 
− SCORE S k⟨O 4i 1i
− 4i 2i
· · · ·  4i  
t⟩
SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩ (4−1)  SCORE S k⟨Ot ⟩  
i=1 i=1 i=1

4. Case study result should be transformed into the double hierarchy

4.1 Collection of criteria information
In order to obtain the evidence matrix shown in (14), ex-
perts should first be asked to assess the criteria shown in
Fig. 1, and then the results of the linguistic assessment
Table 1
linguistic term set according to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. This pa-
per invites four experts from scientific research institutes
and industrial departments to assess the three damages in
the form of a survey report. The assessment results are
shown in Table 1.
Assessment linguistic results assessed by four experts

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4

Criterion
A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C11 S 3⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S −1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C12 S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C13 S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C14 S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S −1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C15 S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 3⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S −2⟨O2 ⟩ S −1⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C16 S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S −1⟨O2 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S −1⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C17 S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S −1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C18 S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C19 S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 3⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C21 S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C22 S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S −1⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C23 S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C24 S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C25 S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 3⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O2 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C26 S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O2 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O1 ⟩
{ } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { } { }
C27 S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 1⟨O0 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 0⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O0 ⟩ S 3⟨O−1 ⟩ S 2⟨O1 ⟩ S 2⟨O−1 ⟩

Substituting the assessment linguistic information in obtained. And the belief degrees of the linguistic in-
Table 1 into (8) can get the scores of all the criteria. formation of all criteria are finally obtained as shown
Substituting the score corresponding to each criterion in Table 2. After obtaining the data in Table 2, all the
into (9)−(13), the Hamming distance, the similarity de- evidence elements of the decision matrix in (14) are ob-
gree, and the support degree related to criteria can be tained.
YAO Tianle et al.: Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship missiles… 399

Table 2 Belief degree of the linguistic information of all criteria

Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4
Criterion
A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3 A1 A2 A3
C11 0.249 4 0.253 3 0.249 4 0.250 6 0.249 7 0.250 6 0.250 6 0.243 7 0.250 6 0.249 4 0.253 3 0.249 4
C12 0.250 3 0.251 5 0.252 4 0.250 3 0.251 5 0.250 0 0.249 1 0.245 5 0.245 2 0.250 3 0.251 5 0.252 4
C13 0.249 4 0.250 9 0.249 4 0.250 6 0.248 5 0.250 6 0.250 6 0.249 7 0.250 6 0.249 4 0.250 9 0.249 4
C14 0.249 7 0.252 1 0.252 1 0.248 5 0.252 1 0.250 9 0.252 1 0.243 7 0.244 9 0.249 7 0.252 1 0.252 1
C15 0.250 9 0.251 2 0.251 8 0.244 9 0.253 7 0.249 4 0.253 3 0.243 9 0.247 0 0.250 9 0.251 2 0.251 8
C16 0.248 5 0.247 0 0.252 4 0.252 1 0.253 0 0.252 4 0.250 9 0.253 0 0.242 8 0.248 5 0.247 0 0.252 4
C17 0.251 8 0.250 0 0.251 8 0.251 8 0.250 0 0.250 6 0.244 6 0.250 0 0.245 8 0.251 8 0.250 0 0.251 8
C18 0.247 6 0.249 7 0.249 7 0.252 4 0.247 3 0.249 7 0.252 4 0.253 3 0.250 9 0.247 6 0.249 7 0.249 7
C19 0.248 8 0.250 9 0.249 4 0.248 8 0.248 5 0.250 6 0.253 6 0.249 7 0.250 6 0.248 8 0.250 9 0.249 4
C21 0.253 0 0.251 5 0.250 3 0.249 4 0.250 3 0.246 7 0.244 6 0.246 7 0.252 7 0.253 0 0.251 5 0.250 3
C22 0.252 4 0.251 5 0.248 8 0.254 9 0.250 3 0.251 2 0.240 2 0.246 7 0.251 2 0.252 4 0.251 5 0.248 8
C23 0.252 7 0.249 1 0.249 4 0.246 7 0.251 5 0.250 6 0.247 9 0.250 3 0.250 6 0.252 7 0.249 1 0.249 4
C24 0.250 3 0.248 5 0.250 9 0.251 5 0.250 9 0.249 7 0.247 9 0.252 1 0.248 5 0.250 3 0.248 5 0.250 9
C25 0.252 4 0.246 4 0.250 3 0.247 6 0.253 6 0.250 3 0.247 6 0.253 6 0.249 1 0.252 4 0.246 4 0.250 3
C26 0.251 5 0.249 7 0.251 2 0.251 5 0.250 9 0.251 2 0.245 5 0.249 7 0.246 4 0.251 5 0.249 7 0.251 2
C27 0.251 8 0.249 7 0.251 5 0.253 0 0.248 5 0.246 7 0.243 3 0.252 1 0.250 3 0.251 8 0.249 7 0.251 5

4.2 Fusion of criteria information Table 3 Weight of all criteria in the second and the third layers
Criterion in the second layer Criterion in the third layer
In order to aggregate the data information in Table 1 and
Missile hit position (0.1)
Table 2, the weight of each expert should be solved first.
Hole size (0.05)
Substituting the score corresponding to the linguistic in-
formation in Table 1 into the optimization model (19), the Number of penetrating cabins (0.05)
matrix Ψ can be obtained as Range of shock wave（0.07）
Warhead damage capability
  Shock wave overpressure (0.07)
 86.354 2 −29.706 6 −22.227 4 −26.463 5  (0.6)
 −29.706 6 94.453 1 −23.191 0 −27.637 2  Pressure duration (0.25)
Ψ =  .
 −22.227 4 −23.191 0 55.354 2 −20.652 8  Number of fragments (0.07)
−26.463 5 −27.637 2 −20.652 8 76.286 5 Quality of fragment (0.06)
Initial velocity of fragments (0.1)
Substitute the matrix Ψ into (20), and the weight vec-
Geometry of the ship (0.06)
tor of experts can be obtained as
Hull bulkhead structure(0.13)
wAE = [(0.235 1, 0.224 3, 0.291 5, 0.249 1)]T
Hull deck structure (0.1)
After the four experts have assessed the weights of the Damage resistance of ship
Special structure (0.05)
eighteen criteria in the second and third layers in Fig. 1, (0.4)
Main material of the ship (0.28)
the weight of each expert and the weights of criteria are
Ship stiffener (0.22)
linearly summed. The final weight shown in the brackets
Welding materials for ship (0.16)
of each criterion can be obtained as shown in Table 3.
Substitute the scores corresponding to the linguistic in- It can be seen from Fig. 4 to Fig. 7 that the distribution
formation in Table 1, the belief degree of the scores of of the fusion results of assessment information of Expert 3
criteria in Table 2, and the weights of criteria in Table 3 is relatively concentrated, the distribution of the fusion
into (16) and (17). The distributions of the assessment results of assessment information of Expert 1 and Expert 4
results of three damages assessed by four experts are is more scattered than that of Expert 3, and the fusion re-
shown in Fig. 4−Fig. 7. In Fig. 4−Fig. 7, the horizontal sults of assessment information of Expert 2 is the most
axis represents the numerator of the score corresponding scattered. Combine the distribution of the assessment re-
to the assessment degree, and the denominators are all sults in Fig. 4 to Fig. 7, and the expected values of the as-
twenty-four. The vertical axis represents the belief de- sessment results of the four experts for the three damage
gree of corresponding to each assessment degree. cases are shown in Table 4.
400 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022

0.10 0.14
0.09
0.12
0.08
0.07 0.10
Belief degree

0.06

Belief degree
0.08
0.05
0.04 0.06
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01 0.02
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0
Assessment degree 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
: A1; : A2; : A3. Assessment degree
: A1; : A2; : A3.
Fig. 4 Distribution of belief degree of the assessment information
expressed by Expert 1 Fig. 7 Distribution of belief degree of the assessment information
expressed by Expert 4
0.08
Table 4 Expected values of the assessment results of the four
0.07 experts for the three damages

0.06 Expert A1 A2 A3
Expert 1 0.196 2 0.161 3 0.249 6
0.05
Belief degree

Expert 2 0.207 1 0.181 7 0.237 6

0.04 Expert 3 0.211 9 0.110 7 0.152 3
Expert 4 0.163 7 0.193 1 0.202 5
0.03
According to the results in Table 4, the expected va-
0.02
lues of the assessment results assessed by four experts are
0.01 ranked as

0 Expert 1 : A3 > A1 > A2 ;

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Assessment degree
: A1; : A2; : A3. Expert 2 : A3 > A1 > A2 ;
Fig. 5 Distribution of belief degree of the assessment information
expressed by Expert 2 Expert 3 : A1 > A3 > A2 ;

0.10 Expert 4 : A3 > A2 > A1 .

0.09
The expected values in Table 4 and the weights of ex-
0.08 perts are linearly summed, and the final damage effect as-
0.07 sessment result is shown in Table 5.
Belief degree

0.06 Table 5 Final assessment result

0.05 A1 A2 A3
Case
0.04 Assessment value 0.195 1 0.159 0 0.206 8
0.03
Therefore, the expected values of the assessment re-
0.02
sults are ranked as
0.01
0
A3 > A1 > A2 .
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Assessment degree It can be seen from the above rank that the final assess-
: A1; : A2; : A3. ment result is consistent with the assessment results of
Fig. 6 Distribution of belief degree of the assessment information Expert 1 and Expert 2, and partly consistent with the as-
expressed by Expert 3 sessment results of Expert 3 and Expert 4. Among the
YAO Tianle et al.: Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship missiles… 401

four experts, Expert 3 has the highest weight, while Ex- 0.10
pert 1 and Expert 2 have relatively low weights. This is 0.09
closely related to the consistency of the original assess- 0.08
ment information of several experts. However, the differ- 0.07
ence of consistency does not make the gap of weight

Belief degree
0.06
between experts too large. Therefore, the final assess-
ment result is still the assessment result that combines the 0.05
common preferences of the four experts. 0.04
0.03
4.3 Sensitivity analysis of weight
0.02
The weights of criteria may have a greater influence on
0.01
the final assessment result, so it is necessary to analyze its
influence on the result according to the fluctuation of the 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
weights. The weight in the paper is divided into two Assessment degree
parts: the weights of criteria and the weights of experts. : −30%; : −20%; : −10%; : 0;

Since the weights of experts used in this paper are objec- : 10%; : 20%; : 30%.
tively solved based on a large number of assessment data Fig. 8 Distribution of assessment results of A1 under different
of experts, it has good stability. The weights of criteria weights
come entirely from the assessment of experts, which is Table 6 Changed criteria weight values
too subjective, so different assessment results of the same
θ/% w1 w2
expert can be different. From Fig. 4 to Fig. 8, it can be
−30 0.72 0.28
seen that the assessment results of different experts will
inevitably produce different results. Based on above ana- −20 0.68 0.32

lysis, the influence of the fluctuation of the weight on the
final assessment result should be analyzed. First, we
should analyze the sensitivity of the weight’s fluctua-
tions to the results. As shown in Table 3, the number of
criteria at the bottom layer is large, so the weights of cri-
teria are generally small, and the fluctuation of a single
weight has a little influence on other weights. However,
there are only two criteria in the second layer of the as-
sessment criteria system hierarchy structure, and fluctua-
tions in the weight of each criterion may have more obvi-
ous influence on the final result. Therefore, assessment of
A1 handled by Expert 1 is taken as an example to analyze
the weight sensitivity. The weight of the criteria in the
second layer will fluctuate as
w1 = 1 − θ · w2 . (21)
The fluctuation range is −30%−30%, and the fluctuation
step is 10 %. θ is the fluctuation range of the weight value
of w2 . As shown in Table 6, the fluctuation range is from
−30% to 30%.
It can be seen from Fig. 8 that when θ fluctuates from
−30% to 30%, the belief degree of the assessment result
in the low score area becomes higher, while the belief de-
gree in the high score area becomes lower. When the as-
sessment degree is less than 10/24, the belief degree in-
creases with the increase of θ ; when the assessment de-
gree is greater than 15/24, the belief degree decreases
with the increase of θ.
−10 0.64 0.36
0 0.60 0.40
10 0.56 0.44
20 0.52 0.48
30 0.48 0.52
It can be seen from Table 1 that after the normaliza-
tion, the scores of warhead damage capability are mainly
distributed in the high score area, while the scores of
damage resistance of the ship are mainly distributed in
the low score area. From (21) and Table 6, we can see
that w1 decreases monotonously as θ increases. Since w1
is the weight of the warhead damage capability and w2 is
the weight of damage resistance of the ship, it shows that
the influence of the change of weight is transmitted to the
result of information fusion along with evidence reason-
ing, and mainly influence the results related to criteria. It
can be seen from Fig. 8 that the change in the distribu-
tion of the assessment result is very obvious as the
weights are constantly changing.
In order to further analyze the influence of the fluctua-
tion of weight on the final assessment result, the expec-
ted value of the assessment result in Fig. 8 under the fluc-
tuation of weight is solved. Moreover, the trend graph of
distribution of the expected value shown in Fig. 9 is ob-
tained. It can be seen from Fig. 9 that the change of the
expected value of the assessment degree presents a curve
of the convex function. When θ fluctuates from −30% to
30%, the expected value of the assessment result is
402 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022

monotonously reduced, and the variation does not exceed
0.05. In the actual assessment process, the fluctuation of
θ generally does not reach 60%. When θ fluctuates from
−10% to 10%, the change in the expected value of the as-
sessment result does not exceed 0.02. At this time, the
fluctuation of θ also reaches 20%, which is still a small
probability event. Therefore, although the fluctuation of
the weight of the criteria has an influence on the assess-
ment result, it can be considered that the influence is very
limited. If the weight value given by the expert does not
have a major error, the assessment result can be con-
sidered accurate.
0.215
0.210
0.205
0.200
Expected value
5. Comparative analysis
5.1 Comparison with simulation result and
test result
As shown in Table 7, the data reflecting the specific at-
tribute values of the warhead damage capability in each
case are provided, and the data can be used as a basis to
verify the accuracy of the assessment process. It can be
seen from Table 5 that the anti-ship missile has the
highest damage effect in case A3 . By verifying the accu-
racy of the case with the highest damage effect, the as-
sessment process of several cases can be considered reas-
onable. Therefore, the relevant conditions of A3 are used
to verify the damage effect through dynamic simulation
and actual explosion test. In order to simulate the dam-
age of the missile against the cabin, the simulation is car-
ried out according to the relevant conditions of case A3.

As shown in Fig. 10, the simulation of the damage of the

0.195
missile to the proportionally reduced single cabin is car-
0.190 ried out in LS-DYNA software. The hole on the right side
0.185 of the cabin in Fig. 10 describes the part hit by the mis-
sile. It can be seen from Fig. 10(a) that the stress is the
0.180
highest at the welds and corners in the cabin, so the disin-
0.175 tegration of the cabin starts from the edge. It can be seen
0.170 from Fig. 10(b) that the disintegration effect of the cabin
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
Fluctuation range/% is better, and the bulkhead stress begins to decrease after
Fig. 9 Change trend of the expected value of the assessment result cabin disintegration, which shows that the damage effect
of A1 under different weights of the missile is very good.

Table 7 Normalized values of each criterion of warhead damage capability

Criterion C12 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19
A1 0.698 8 0.530 0 0.505 4 0.622 3 0.557 1 0.542 1 0.595 9 0.504 4 0.629 2
A2 0.205 5 0.622 2 0.398 8 0.414 9 0.371 4 0.477 6 0.681 0 0.378 6 0.486 9
A3 0.685 1 0.576 1 0.593 2 0.663 8 0.742 8 0.596 9 0.425 6 0.623 1 0.584 3

According to the relevant conditions of case A3, the ac-
tual explosion test of the proportionally reduced single
cabin is carried out, and the test results is shown in Fig. 11.
It can be seen from Fig. 11 that the cabin has been com-
pletely dismantled, and the bulkhead has been seriously
damaged. It proves once again that the damage effect of
the missile in case A3 is high, and it also proves the accur-
acy of the assessment process proposed in this paper.
5.2 Comparison with other assessment processes
In order to verify the accuracy of the synthetic assess-
ment process proposed in this paper, this sub-section
presents a comparison with two existing assessment pro-
cess to determine the effectiveness of the proposed syn-
thetic assessment process.
Literature [10−12] mainly used the hesitant fuzzy lin-
guistic term sets theory to reflect information, which is
helpful to solve the problem of disagreement of experts or
hesitation of experts. Therefore, this section combines the
hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (HFLTS) theory with
the evidence theory for joint assessment. In addition, as a
classic decision-making theory, the technique for order
preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS)
plays an essential role in many assessment occasions.
Therefore, TOPSIS is often used as a way for compre-
hensive assessment. According to the analysis in Subsec-
tion 4.2, the damage effect of the missile in case A3 is the
highest. Therefore, taking the case A3 as an example, the
above two assessment processes are used for assessment.
As shown in Fig. 12, the three curves respectively repres-
ent the assessment results of case A3 in different assess-
ment processes under the fluctuation of weights.
YAO Tianle et al.: Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship missiles… 403

V-M stress/MPa cesses are very close in principle. Hesitant fuzzy linguist-
526.4
473.8 ic term sets are more suitable for fuzzy environments.
421.1 When experts are hesitant to many assessment values,
368.5 hesitant fuzzy sets provide a powerful tool to solve prob-
315.8
lems. In this paper, a distance-based optimization model
263.2
210.6 is adopted to optimize the weights of experts. Therefore,
157.9 the final assessment result excludes the subjective factors
105.3 of the experts and considers all the information of the ex-
52.6
0
perts. Therefore, changes in the final assessment results
(a) t=4 200 μs should be gentler. If the TOPSIS method is used for as-
sessment, it can be seen that the change in the assess-
V-M stress/MP ment results using the TOPSIS method are the gentlest.
493.5 As the weights change, the assessment results change
444.1 very little. The TOPSIS method cannot obtain informa-
394.8
tion as finely as the linguistic term set, and the TOPSIS
345.4
296.1
method uses Euclidean distance and close degree to char-
246.7 acterize the assessment results, which cannot provide a
197.4 good explanation for the fusion process with nonlinear
148.0 characteristics. Therefore, the TOPSIS method as a quick
98.7
assessment method is very convenient, but the assess-
49.4
0 ment results are relatively rough.
(b) t=8 000 μs
0.23
Fig. 10 Von-Mises (V-M) equivalent stress cloud diagram of the
bulkhead 0.22
Assessment characteristic value

0.21

0.20

0.19

0.18

0.17

0.16
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
Fluctuation range/%
: Process in this paper; : Process with HFLTS;
: Process with TOPSIS.
Fig. 11 A part of the cabin after being damaged
Fig. 12 Fluctuation of the assessment result of A3 with different as-
In Fig. 12, the black curve represents the assessment sessment processes
results of the assessment process proposed in this paper;
the red curve represents the assessment results of the as-
sessment process using HFLTS and evidence theory; the
6. Conclusions and future work
blue curve represents the assessment results of the assess- Based on the damage effect assessment of the anti-ship
ment process using TOPSIS. The results of the TOPSIS missile against the ship target, this paper proposes a dam-
method is relatively close, so the final assessment result age effect assessment process based on double hierarchy
has a larger value. In order to show the changing trend of linguistic term set and evidence theory. The following
the curve more clearly, the blue curve in Fig. 12 repres- two main conclusions can be drawn:
ents the result of a downward shift of 0.4-unit length. It (i) Aiming at solving the problem of low accuracy of
can be seen from Fig. 12 that the assessment results of the experts’ assessment information in the assessment process,
assessment process using hesitant fuzzy linguistic term double hierarchy linguistic term set is used to describe
sets theory and the evidence theory are very close to the experts’ opinions, and an appropriate scoring function is
assessment results in this paper. Actually, these two pro- used to convert experts’ opinions into quantifiable scores.
404 Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics Vol. 33, No. 2, April 2022
The overall accuracy of the missile damage effect assess-
ment process is improved.
(ii) This evidence reasoning is used to fuse experts’ as-
sessment information in this paper, which can reduce in-
formation loss caused by information fusion rules. Sensi-
tivity analysis shows that the assessment process pro-
posed in this paper has good stability, and the assessment
results will not change greatly due to the fluctuation of a
certain parameter. Comparative analysis shows that the
assessment process proposed in this paper has good ac-
curacy.
The hierarchical structure of the assessment criteria
system established in this paper only considers the per-
formances of damage source and the damage object, but
many actual combat factors have great influence on the
capabilities of both the source and the object. Therefore,
in future work, if it is needed to accurately assess the
damage effectiveness of the anti-ship missile against the
ship in the actual combat environment, it is necessary to
further investigate the influencing factors in the actual
combat environment based on the assessment criteria sys-
tem established in this paper, and the key influencing
factors should be included as criteria into the assessment
criteria system. In this way, the comprehensive process
proposed in this paper can be used to further quantita-
tively assess the damage effectiveness. Moreover, the in-
teraction between criteria and the effect of damage on the
time scale can be considered. On the basis of the work in
this paper, the accuracy of damage effectiveness assess-
ment can be further improved.
References
[1] XU Y, WU Y L, HUANG C, et al. Combat effectiveness as-
sessment of buried air-to-air missile based on improved two-
step judgment method. Systems Engineering and Electronics,
2019, 41(12): 2763–2771. (in Chinese)
[2] TANG X, YANG J J, YAN C, et al. HPM weapon electronic
damage assessment method. Systems Engineering and Elec-
tronics, 2016, 38(10): 2317–2323. (in Chinese)
[3] ZHAO X X, HAN X G, WU H, et al. Application research on
the assessment of the damage effectiveness of guided anti-ex-
plosive projectile. Transactions of Beijing Institute of Tech-
nology, 2019, 39(6): 551–557. (in Chinese)
[4] WANG Z Q, WEI J F, WANG S S, et al. Research on da-
mage effectiveness assessment of a dual-mode warhead. Acta
Armamentarii, 2016, 37(S1): 24–29. (in Chinese)
[5] XIONG Z Y, WANG X Y, SONG M Y, et al. Simulation re-
search on the damage effectiveness of torpedo to ship target.
Acta Armamentarii, 2016, 37(S1): 76–79. (in Chinese)
[6] GUO J F, YIN Z H, CUI N G. Simulation-based method for
evaluating the operational effectiveness of air-to-surface mis-
sile weapon systems. Control and Decision, 2009, 24(10):
1576–1579. (in Chinese)
[7] LI S L. Effectiveness evaluation of weapon equipment sys-
tem oriented to causality analysis. Modern Information Tech-
nology, 2020, 4(5): 12–15. (in Chinese)
[8] PENG S X, WANG H T, ZOU Q. Operational effectiveness
evaluation model of submarine-to-air missile weapon system.
Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2015, 35(1):
267–272. (in Chinese)
[9] LIU Y, ZHAO C N, WANG X S, et al. A method for evaluat-
ing the combat effectiveness of anti-radiation weapons. Acta
Armamentarii, 2011, 32(3): 321–326. (in Chinese)
[10] LI W X, HUANG C Q, WU W C, et al. Damage assessment
of air-to-ground precision guided weapons to ground attack
target. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 2012, 32(1):
211–218. (in Chinese)
[11] RODRIGUEZ R M, MARTINE L, HERRERA F. Hesitant
fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans.
on Fuzzy Systems, 2012, 20(1): 109–119.
[12] LIAO H C, WU X L, LIANG X D. A new hesitant fuzzy lin-
guistic ORESTE method for hybrid multicriteria decision
making. IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems 2018, 26(6):
3793–3807.
[13] GOU X J, XU Z S. Double hierarchy linguistic term set and
its extensions: the state-of-the-art survey. International Jour-
nal of Intelligent Systems, 2021, 36(2): 832–865.
[14] ZHANG W Y, YANG F X, FAN H Y, et al. Evaluation of
haze management based on the double hierarchy hesitant
fuzzy linguistic TOPSIS method. Statistics and Decision,
2019, 35(10): 36–41. (in Chinese)
[15] XUE Y, ZHANG W Y, YANG F X, et al. Evaluation of
China’s military-civilian dual-use technology and product pro-
motion strategy capability based on double hierarchy hesi-
tant fuzzy language MULTIMOORA model analysis. Mana-
gement World, 2018(11): 192–193. (in Chinese)
[16] DEMPSTER A P. Upper and lower probabilities induced by
a multi-walued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics,
1967, 38(2): 325–339.
[17] LIU P D, ZHANG X H. Approach to multi-attributes de-
cision making with intuitionistic linguistic information based
on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. IEEE Access, 2018, 6:
52969–52981.
[18] YANG J B, WANG Y M, XU D L, et al. The evidential rea-
soning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and
fuzzy uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 2006, 171(1): 309–343.
[19] FEI X T, ZHOU J Y. A D-S evidence weight calculation
method for dealing with conflict evidence. Computer Engi-
neering, 2016, 42(2): 142–145. (in Chinese)
[20] HUANG D R, CHAI Y C, ZHAO L, et al. Road network
traffic jam state identification method considering multi-
source uncertain information. Acta Automatica Sinica, 2018,
44(3): 533–544. (in Chinese)
[21] ZHANG X X, WANG Y M. A hybrid multiple attribute de-
cision making method based on interval reliability structure.
Control and Decision, 2019, 34(1): 180–188. (in Chinese)
[22] WANG Y M, YANG J B, XU D L. Environmental impact
assessment using the evidential reasoning approach.
European Journal of Operational Research, 2004, 174(3):
1885–1913.
[23] YANG J B. Nonlinear Information aggregation via eviden-
tial reasoning in multiattribute decision analysis under uncer-
tainty. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part
A: Systems and Humans, 2002, 32(3): 376–393.
[24] LEAN Y, KIN K L. A distance-based group decision-mak-
ing methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency
decision support. Decision Support Systems, 2010, 51(2):
307–315.
YAO Tianle et al.: Damage effectiveness assessment method for anti-ship missiles…
Biographies
YAO Tianle was born in 1994. He received his M.S. degree from Amy
Engineering University, China. He is currently a doctoral candidate in
Naval University of Engineering. His research interests include weapon
system of systems and damage effectiveness assessment.
E-mail: 18931970836@163.com
WANG Weili was born in 1962. He is currently a professor in Naval
University of Engineering. His research interests include warhead
design of missile and damage effectiveness assessment.
E-mail: w.l.wang@tom.com
MIAO Run was born in 1989. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
from Naval Aeronautical University, China. His research interests in-
clude damage effectiveness assessment and explosion test.
E-mail: miaorun1769@163.com
405
DONG Jun was born in 1982. He received his M.S. degree from Xi’an
Modern Chemistry Institute, China. He is currently a doctoral candidate
in Naval University of Engineering. His research interests include ex-
plosive manufacture.
E-mail: 94180853@qq.com
YAN Xuefei was born in 1989. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
from Ordnance Engineering College, China. He is currently a resear-
cher in Academy of Military Science. His research interests include da-
mage effectiveness assessment and warhead power assessment.
E-mail: jasonyan9023@163.com