浅析广场空间的界面处理方式

广场空间是由建筑、道路等围合限定并把周围各独立部分结合成整体的城市公共空间.随着城市化进程的加快,建筑师对广场空间的处理方式呈现多样化趋势,不同的处理方式会对广场产生不同的限定效果.将广场空间处理方式划分成水平界面处理和垂直界面处理两种类型进行研究,通过实例分析,揭示了不同处理方式可以产生封闭、开敞,内向、外向,宁静、庄严等不同感觉,这既丰富了市民的文化生活,改善了城市环境,也反映了当代特有的广场文化.     

基于标杆技术比较的靶场软件界面试验技术研究

根据靶场软件试验不同于第三方软件测评方进行软件界面"易用性、好用性"试验评价的需求,从质量管理对设计开发的验证和确认要求、工程与技术的关系、用户3种需求的关系,分析了基于工程标准检查表方法和用户测试方法用于靶场软件界面试验的不足,提出了基于标杆技术比较的靶场软件界面试验技术,并应用该方法对典型GUI图形用户软件界面进行了试验评价,给出了改进人机界面设计的对策。基于标杆技术比较的靶场软件界面试验技术可用于指导靶场开展软件界面试验,提高靶场作战试验能力。     

以用户为中心的防空导弹武器系统人机界面设计研究

防空导弹武器系统不断更新换代,复杂功能和简单操作需求的矛盾成为设计过程中普遍存在的问题。为优化防空导弹武器系统人机界面设计,运用人机交互学中以用户为中心的设计和评估理论,对防空导弹武器系统人机界面设计进行研究。将设计过程分为用户与需求分析、设计、评估与改进三个阶段,给出了每个阶段的工作思路以及工作重点。将方法应用于某型防空导弹武器系统人机界面设计,有效地规范了设计流程,提高了设计水平。     

局部最大延迟检测抗转发欺骗干扰算法

接收机在进行窄带干扰抑制后,其输出信号的相关峰会发生分裂。使用传统的基于信号到达时间的抗转发欺骗干扰算法,会使得捕获锁定的相关值为真实信号的旁瓣。针对该问题提出一种基于局部相关值最大的时延检测方法,在真实信号相关峰分裂所产生的旁瓣与欺骗信号不重合前提下,通过对主瓣三个码片范围内最大值的搜索,保证捕获不会锁定在旁瓣,再选择局部最大值中的最早码相位点从而避免锁定到转发欺骗干扰。与传统的基于信号到达时间的抗转发欺骗干扰算法相比,在无窄带干扰情况下,所提算法性能相当;在存在窄带干扰情况下,其性能明显优于传统算法。通过数值仿真验证了方法的有效性。     

基于PXI总线的雷达装备通用模块接口电路设计

为做好对部队雷达装备日常性能的检测与维护,充分保障其性能的可靠性,研制开发了基于PXI总线的雷达装备性能检测模块。在对模块的接口电路的设计中,采用目前流行的PCI9030接口芯片,简化了设计难度。经实验验证,采用该方案的各模块都实现了相应的功能,达到了预期的设计目的。需要改进的方面是接口电路中热插拔部分性能的可靠性有待进一步提高。     

通用装备机液系统综合检测试验平台综合信息管理系统设计与实现

探讨了通用装备机液系统综合检测试验平台综合信息管理系统在网络和功能结构、信息处理流程、数据分类和数据结构、数据传输接口等方面的设计方法,该设计方法在通用装备机液系统综合检测试验平台综合信息管理系统项目中进行了应用,取得了良好效果,为类似的综合管理信息系统的设计探索了一条有效的路径。     

航天器智能能力的构建

为解决航天器智能能力的构建和智能技术的引入问题,从能力部署视角提出了智能等级的划分,从定性的自动、自治、自主的等级出发,自底向上分解为数据注入接收能力、任务执行能力、自学习能力、系统自我管理能力、任务自我管理和思考能力,其程度分为底层反应、中层程序和高层思考。对照上述能力给出可实施的5阶模型和人字架构。人字架构是以即插即用技术加自主控制技术来支持上层智能能力的模型。该模型基于航天器接口业务架构和欧洲空间局的包应用标准业务,采用管理信息库和电子数据单技术进行数据化设计。对应星上的智能能力等级讨论相适应的地面系统能力。人字架构具有层次化、业务模型化和自底向上归一化构建的特点,对上层智能技术的引入是开放的。     

OPC技术EMS系统与SIS系统数据接口设计与实现

针对企业能源信息系统要求数据采集速度高、需要把一些孤立的数据流程化地整合在一起的特点,设计了EMS系统与SIS系统之间的数据接口.介绍了EMS系统与SIS系统通信关键技术,设计了基于OPC通讯方式的实时数据接口方案、接口程序通讯配置、点配置表等,同时在采集模块中进行实时数据积分处理.     

Inventory financing under Risk-Adjusted-Return-On-Capital criterion

Risk-Adjusted-Return-On-Capital (RAROC) is a loan-pricing criterion under which a bank sets the loan term such that a certain rate of return is achieved on the regulatory capital required by the Basel regulation. Some banks calculate the amount of regulatory capital for each loan under the standardized approach (“standardized banks,” the regulatory capital is proportional to the loan amount), and others under the internal rating-based (IRB) approach (“IRB banks,” the regulatory capital is related to the Value-at-Risk of the loan). This article examines the impact of the RAROC criterion on the bank's loan-pricing decision and the retailer's inventory decision. We find that among the loan terms that satisfy the bank's RAROC criterion, the one that benefits the retailer the most requires the bank to specify an inventory advance rate in addition to the interest rate. Under this loan term, the retailer's inventory level is more sensitive to his asset level when facing an IRB bank compared to a standardized bank. An IRB (standardized) loan leads to higher profit and inventory level for retailers with high (low) asset. For retailers with medium asset, an IRB loan results in a higher retailer profit but a lower consumer welfare. Calibrated numerical study reveals that the benefit of choosing standardized banks (relative to IRB banks) can be as high as 30% for industries with severe capital constraints, volatile demands, and low profit margins, highlighting the importance for retailers to carefully choose the type of banks to borrow from. When the interest rate is capped by regulation, retailers borrowing from a standardized bank are more likely to be influenced by the interest rate cap than those borrowing from an IRB bank. Under strong empire-building incentives (the bank will offer loan terms to maximize the size of the loan), retailers with medium initial asset level shift their preference from IRB banks to standardized banks.     

Selling to strategic and loss‐averse consumers: Stocking,procurement, and product design policies

Motivated by the presence of loss‐averse decision making behavior in practice, this article considers a supply chain consisting of a firm and strategic consumers who possess an S‐shaped loss‐averse utility function. In the model, consumers decide the purchase timing and the firm chooses the inventory level. We find that the loss‐averse consumers' strategic purchasing behavior is determined by their perceived gain and loss from strategic purchase delay, and the given rationing risk. Thus, the firm that is cognizant of this property tailors its inventory stocking policy based on the consumers' loss‐averse behavior such as their perceived values of gain and loss, and their sensitivity to them. We also demonstrate that the firm's equilibrium inventory stocking policy reflects both the economic logic of the traditional newsvendor inventory model, and the loss‐averse behavior of consumers. The equilibrium order quantity is significantly different from those derived from models that assume that the consumers are risk neutral and homogeneous in their valuations. We show that the firm that ignores strategic consumer's loss‐aversion behavior tends to keep an unnecessarily high inventory level that leads to excessive leftovers. Our numerical experiments further reveal that in some extreme cases the firm that ignores strategic consumer's loss‐aversion behavior generates almost 92% more leftovers than the firm that possesses consumers’ loss‐aversion information and takes it into account when making managerial decisions. To mitigate the consumer's forward‐looking behavior, we propose the adoption of the practice of agile supply chain management, which possesses the following attributes: (i) procuring inventory after observing real‐time demand information, (ii) enhanced design (which maintains the current production mix but improves the product performance to a higher level), and (iii) customized design (which maintains the current performance level but increases the variety of the current production line to meet consumers’ specific demands). We show that such a practice can induce the consumer to make early purchases by increasing their rationing risk, increasing the product value, or diversifying the product line. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 62: 435–453, 2015