CN113158522B - Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III - Google Patents

Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III Download PDF

Info

Publication number
CN113158522B
CN113158522B CN202110416856.7A CN202110416856A CN113158522B CN 113158522 B CN113158522 B CN 113158522B CN 202110416856 A CN202110416856 A CN 202110416856A CN 113158522 B CN113158522 B CN 113158522B
Authority
CN
China
Prior art keywords
sample
index
attribute
attribute value
threshold
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Active
Application number
CN202110416856.7A
Other languages
Chinese (zh)
Other versions
CN113158522A (en
Inventor
庞继红
代金坤
袁开宇
罗中伦
吴磊
李勇
徐安察
罗强
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
University of Shaoxing
Wenzhou University
Original Assignee
University of Shaoxing
Wenzhou University
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by University of Shaoxing, Wenzhou University filed Critical University of Shaoxing
Priority to CN202110416856.7A priority Critical patent/CN113158522B/en
Publication of CN113158522A publication Critical patent/CN113158522A/en
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of CN113158522B publication Critical patent/CN113158522B/en
Active legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
    • G06F30/20—Design optimisation, verification or simulation
    • G06F30/23—Design optimisation, verification or simulation using finite element methods [FEM] or finite difference methods [FDM]
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/06—Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling
    • G06Q10/063—Operations research, analysis or management
    • G06Q10/0639—Performance analysis of employees; Performance analysis of enterprise or organisation operations
    • G06Q10/06393—Score-carding, benchmarking or key performance indicator [KPI] analysis
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F2119/00—Details relating to the type or aim of the analysis or the optimisation
    • G06F2119/08—Thermal analysis or thermal optimisation
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
    • G06F2119/00—Details relating to the type or aim of the analysis or the optimisation
    • G06F2119/12—Timing analysis or timing optimisation

Abstract

The invention discloses an electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III, which relates to the field of valve body assembly quality and comprises the following steps: A. selecting factors influencing the response time of the electromagnet to respectively comprise included angles among magnets, gaps among magnets, rotational inertia, magnet thickness and working environment temperature through experience and historical data, and assigning weights to each attribute; B. judging the attribute value of specific data and the influence of the specific data of each scheme, dividing three thresholds of the attribute on the basis of the attribute value, and calculating to obtain a consistency index and an inconsistency index according to the difference between the thresholds and the attribute value and the weight of the attribute; C. according to the consistency index and the inconsistency index, making the consistency index and the inconsistency index perform difference offset to obtain the net credibility of a sample; D. and carrying out simulation design analysis by using a finite element tool JMAG, observing response time, and verifying the evaluation result. The invention has the advantages of accurate evaluation and time saving.

Description

Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III
Technical Field
The invention relates to the field of valve body assembly quality, in particular to an electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III.
Background
The electromagnet response time refers to the time required from when the electromagnet applies a voltage until the armature engages the core. When the electromagnet is mounted on a specific product, the prediction and control of the response time are very important, but the response time of the electromagnet is often influenced by various attributes such as the volume of the iron core of the electromagnet, the distance between the iron core and the base, and the like, so that when the response time of the electromagnet is estimated by engineering personnel, the size of influencing factors needs to be adjusted slightly according to experience, but the influencing factors, namely the attributes, are related to each other, and the influence degree of each influencing factor on the response time is different, so that the evaluation process takes a lot of time, and the accuracy is not high.
Disclosure of Invention
In order to overcome the defects of the background technology, the invention provides an electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III, which is accurate in assessment and time-saving.
The invention adopts the technical scheme that: an electromagnet response time evaluation method based on ELECTRE-III comprises the following steps:
A. selecting factors influencing the response time of the electromagnet to respectively comprise included angles among magnets, gaps among magnets, rotational inertia, magnet thickness and working environment temperature through experience and historical data, and assigning weights to each attribute;
B. judging the attribute value of specific data and the influence of the specific data of each scheme, dividing three thresholds of the attribute on the basis of the attribute value, and calculating to obtain a consistency index and an inconsistency index according to the difference between the thresholds and the attribute value and the weight of the attribute;
C. according to the consistency index and the inconsistency index, making the consistency index and the inconsistency index perform difference offset to obtain the net credibility of a sample, wherein the net credibility can be used as a basis for evaluating the sample;
D. and carrying out simulation design analysis by using a finite element tool JMAG, observing response time, and verifying the evaluation result.
The step B comprises the following steps:
b1, determining sample attribute value and threshold value, and assuming m sample sets L= (L) 1 ，l 2 ，l 3 ，…，l m ) N evaluation index sets t= (T) 1 ，t 2 ，…，t n ) Then a ij It is indicated at t j Sample on index l i Attribute values of (2); the threshold values include a no-difference threshold value, a preference threshold value, and a overrule threshold value, wherein the no-difference threshold value q= (Q) 1 ，q 2 ，…，q m ) Strict preference threshold p= (P 1 ，p 2 ，…，p m ) Overrule threshold v= (V) 1 ，v 2 ，…，v m )；
B2, calculating the consistency index and the inconsistency index of each attribute value;
consistency index b for each attribute value j (i, k) means that at the evaluation index t j Sample l i Is superior to sample I k The expression is:
in combination with the attribute weight, the consistency index of the alternative scheme is calculated, and the expression is as follows:
omega in j For the evaluation index t j As can be seen from the above expression, at the evaluation index t j Sample l i Attribute value of (1) and sample l k The larger the difference in attribute values of (c), the smaller its B (i, k), and when B (i, k) =1, sample l i Attribute value of (1) and sample l k There is no significant difference in attribute values of (B), (i, k) =0, sample l i The attribute value of (a) is strictly better than that of sample I k Attribute values of (2);
inconsistency index d of each attribute value j (i, k) means that at the evaluation index t j Reject sample l i Is superior to sample I k The extent of (3); the expression:
calculating the inconsistency index of the alternative scheme by combining the attribute weights;
the expression of the inconsistency index of the alternative is:
omega in j For the evaluation index t j From the above expression, d j (i，k)∈[0，1]At the evaluation index t j Sample l i Attribute value of (1) and sample l k The larger the difference in attribute values of (c), the larger the D (i, k) thereof, and when D (i, k) =0, the sample l is rejected i Is superior to sample I k Is 0, when D (i, k) =1, reject sample l i Is superior to sample I k To a degree of 1.
In the step B1:
the no-variance threshold refers to the most acceptable decision maker on one of the attributesIf the two samples have a property less than the threshold, the decision maker considers the difference between the two to be negligible, and the mathematical expression is |a ij -a kj |≤q j If true, then consider that the evaluation index t is j Sample l i And sample l k There is no significant difference;
the strict preference threshold value refers to the maximum error tolerated by a decision maker, and the mathematical expression is a ij -a kj ≥p j Then consider that at the evaluation index t j Sample l i Strictly better than sample I k Decision maker pair l i There is an absolute preference. In addition, when q j ＜a ij -a kj ＜p j Sample l i Slightly better than sample I k Decision maker pair l i There is a relative preference;
the overrule threshold is considered to be the evaluation index t j Sample l i The attribute value of (a) is smaller than sample l k If a ij -a kj ≥v j Then reject at evaluation index t j Sample l i Is superior to sample I k And the threshold v j ＞p j ＞q j 。
In said step C, the confidence index S (i, k) represents the overall sample l i Is superior to sample I k The extent of (2):
consistent confidence representation sample l i Degree of preference to other samples:
G + (l i )＝∑ k∈L S(i，k)；
inconsistent confidence indicates that other samples are better than sample l i I.e. the extent of S (k, i):
G - (l i )＝∑ k∈L S(k，i)；
the net confidence is therefore:
G(l i )＝G + (l i )-G-(l i )。
the attribute values are quantized using a quintessence.
The weight of the included angle between the magnets is set to be 0.3;
the weight of the inter-magnet gap was set to 0.3:
the weight of the moment of inertia is set to 0.2;
the weight of the magnet thickness is set to 0.1;
the weight of the operating environment temperature was set to 0.1.
The beneficial effects of the invention are as follows: the method of the ELECTRE-III is simple in calculation and relatively visual in result, so that time can be saved on the basis of ensuring accuracy, and the operation is easy; compared with other decision methods, the three thresholds are introduced to improve the compensatory property of the decision, and the compensatory property means that the decision methods are usually ordered only according to the dominant data and do not compensate for the weak data; compensating the weak data through the introduction of three thresholds; the final sorting is also sorting by net credibility, and according to a calculation formula of the net credibility, the final sorting can be found to comprise consistent credibility and inconsistent credibility, so that the final sorting not only considers forward movement of data, but also considers reverse direction of the data, and in addition, the final sorting method improves the defect of sorting by a distillation method of the traditional ELECTRE-III, so that calculation is simplified.
Drawings
FIG. 1 is a flowchart of an electromagnet response time evaluation method based on ELECTRE-III according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Fig. 2 is a schematic structural diagram of a rotary electromagnet.
Fig. 3 is the response time of sample 1.
Fig. 4 is the response time of sample 2.
Fig. 5 is the response time of sample 3.
Fig. 6 is the response time of sample 4.
Detailed Description
Embodiments of the invention are further described below with reference to the accompanying drawings:
an electromagnet response time evaluation method based on ELECTRE-III comprises the following steps:
A. selecting factors influencing the response time of the electromagnet to respectively comprise included angles among magnets, gaps among magnets, rotational inertia, magnet thickness and working environment temperature through experience and historical data, and assigning weights to each attribute;
B. judging the attribute value of specific data and the influence of the specific data of each scheme, dividing three thresholds of the attribute on the basis of the attribute value, and calculating to obtain a consistency index and an inconsistency index according to the difference between the thresholds and the attribute value and the weight of the attribute;
C. according to the consistency index and the inconsistency index, making the consistency index and the inconsistency index perform difference offset to obtain the net credibility of a sample, wherein the net credibility can be used as a basis for evaluating the sample;
D. performing simulation design analysis by using a finite element tool JMAG, observing response time, and verifying the evaluation result;
the method of the ELECTRE-III is simple in calculation and relatively visual in result, so that time can be saved on the basis of ensuring accuracy, and the operation is easy; compared with other decision methods, the three thresholds are introduced to improve the compensatory property of the decision, and the compensatory property means that the decision methods are usually ordered only according to the dominant data and do not compensate for the weak data; compensating the weak data through the introduction of three thresholds; the final sorting is also sorting by net credibility, and according to a calculation formula of the net credibility, the final sorting can be found to comprise consistent credibility and inconsistent credibility, so that the final sorting not only considers forward movement of data, but also considers reverse direction of the data, and in addition, the final sorting method improves the defect of sorting by a distillation method of the traditional ELECTRE-III, so that calculation is simplified.
The step B comprises the following steps:
b1, determining sample attribute value and threshold value, and assuming m sample sets L= (L) 1 ，l 2 ，l 3 ，…，l m ) N evaluation index sets t= (T) 1 ，t 2 ，…，t n ) Thena ij It is indicated at t j Sample on index l i Attribute values of (2); the threshold values include a no-difference threshold value, a preference threshold value, and a overrule threshold value, wherein the no-difference threshold value q= (Q) 1 ，q 2 ，…，q m ) Strict preference threshold p= (P 1 ，p 2 ，…，p m ) Overrule threshold v= (V) 1 ，v 2 ，…，v m )；
B2, calculating the consistency index and the inconsistency index of each attribute value;
consistency index b for each attribute value j (i, k) means that at the evaluation index t j Sample l i Is superior to sample I k The expression is:
in combination with the attribute weight, the consistency index of the alternative scheme is calculated, and the expression is as follows:
omega in j For the evaluation index t j As can be seen from the above expression, at the evaluation index t j Sample l i Attribute value of (1) and sample l k The larger the difference in attribute values of (c), the smaller its B (i, k), and when B (i, k) =1, sample l i Attribute value of (1) and sample l k There is no significant difference in attribute values of (B), (i, k) =0, sample l i The attribute value of (a) is strictly better than that of sample I k Attribute values of (2);
inconsistency index d of each attribute value j (i, k) means that at the evaluation index t j Reject sample l i Is superior to sample I k The extent of (3); the expression:
calculating the inconsistency index of the alternative scheme by combining the attribute weights;
the expression of the inconsistency index of the alternative is:
omega in j For the evaluation index t j From the above expression, d j (i，k)∈[0，1]At the evaluation index t j Sample l i Attribute value of (1) and sample l k The larger the difference in attribute values of (c), the larger the D (i, k) thereof, and when D (i, k) =0, the sample l is rejected i Is superior to sample I k Is 0, when D (i, k) =1, reject sample l i Is superior to sample I k To a degree of 1.
In the step B1:
the non-difference threshold refers to the minimum error acceptable to a decision maker on one of the attributes, and if the two samples are smaller than the threshold on the attribute, the decision maker considers that the difference between the two samples is negligible, and the mathematical expression is |a ij -a kj |≤q j If true, then consider that the evaluation index t is j Sample l i And sample l k There is no significant difference;
the strict preference threshold value refers to the maximum error tolerated by a decision maker, and the mathematical expression is a ij -a kj ≥p j Then consider that at the evaluation index t j Sample l i Strictly better than sample I k Decision maker pair l i There is an absolute preference. In addition, when q j ＜a ij -a kj ＜p j Sample l i Slightly better than sample I k Decision maker pair l i There is a relative preference;
the overrule threshold is considered to be the evaluation index t j Sample l i The attribute value of (a) is smaller than sample l k If a ij -a kj ≥v j Then reject at evaluation index t j Sample l i Is superior to sample I k And the threshold v j ＞p j ＞q j 。
In said step C, the confidence index S (i, k) represents the overall sample l i Is superior to sample I k The extent of (2):
consistent confidence representation sample l i Degree of preference to other samples:
G + (l i )＝∑ k∈L S(i，k)； (6)
inconsistent confidence indicates that other samples are better than sample l i I.e. the extent of S (k, i):
G - (l i )＝∑ k∈L S(k，i)； (7)
the net confidence is therefore:
G(l i )＝G + (l i )-G-(l i )。 (8)
the rotary electromagnet is used in a blood cell separator, the working principle of the rotary electromagnet is that an electromagnetic coil is connected, so that a movable iron core 1 in the electromagnet moves, when the movable iron core contacts a shell of the electromagnet, the movable iron core swings by the maximum angle, and at the moment, the electromagnet drives a driven piece to move. The response time of the electromagnet is the time from the starting of switching on the electromagnet until the movable iron core swings by the maximum angle, and is influenced by factors such as gaps among the magnets, included angles among the magnets, rotational inertia and the like, and the five main factors such as the gaps 2 among the magnets, the included angles 3 among the magnets, the rotational inertia 4, the working environment temperature and the magnet thickness are only analyzed.
There are 4 designs, and the attribute values of the designs are evaluated according to the data values of the influencing factors of the designs, and the patent adopts 5 scores for quantification, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: sample data and attribute values thereof
Three thresholds for each evaluation index are shown in table 2.
Table 2: index threshold
Calculating a consistency index according to formula (1), for example, calculating a consistency index of the evaluation criterion of the included angle between the magnets of the sample 1 and the sample 2, firstly performing a 11 -a 21 =5-3=2, and then the relationship with the threshold value is determined, it can be clearly seen thatThe final consistency index is:
the consistency index of the remaining samples was calculated similarly as in table 3.
Table 3: consistency index
Similarly, the inconsistency index is calculated according to equation (3), as shown in Table 4;
table 4: index of inconsistency
The weights of the evaluation criteria are set as shown in table 5.
Table 5: evaluation criterion weight table
Calculating the consistency index and the inconsistency index of the samples according to the formula (2) and the formula (4), such as calculating the consistency index of the samples 1 and 2:
the consistency index and the inconsistency index of the rest samples are calculated in the same way, as shown in table 6:
table 6: consistency and inconsistency index
Then judge d j The magnitude relation of (i, k), B (i, k), the net credibility is calculated according to the formula (5), such as the inconsistency index d of the sample 1 compared with the sample 2 on the moment of inertia evaluation standard 3 (1, 2) =0.5 is greater than the consistency index B (1, 2) =0.055 of sample 1 compared to sample, so according to:
the net confidence level for the remaining samples can be calculated similarly as in table 7.
Table 7: sample net credibility
The samples are ordered according to the net credibility, namely 3>1>2>4, so that the design scheme of the sample 3 is determined, and the response time is the shortest.
According to the parameters of the 4 design schemes, a finite element tool JMAG is utilized to carry out simulation design analysis, observe response time, and verify the evaluation method, wherein the response time is as shown in table 8:
table 8: JMAG simulation response time
The skilled person will know: while the invention has been described in terms of the foregoing embodiments, the inventive concepts are not limited to the invention, and any modifications that use the inventive concepts are intended to be within the scope of the appended claims.

Claims (2)

1. The electromagnet response time evaluation method based on ELECTRE-III is characterized by comprising the following steps:
A. selecting factors influencing the response time of the electromagnet to respectively comprise included angles among magnets, gaps among magnets, rotational inertia, magnet thickness and working environment temperature through experience and historical data, and assigning weights to each attribute;
B. judging the attribute value of specific data and the influence of the specific data of each scheme, dividing three thresholds of the attribute on the basis of the attribute value, and calculating to obtain a consistency index and an inconsistency index according to the difference between the thresholds and the attribute value and the weight of the attribute;
C. according to the consistency index and the inconsistency index, making the consistency index and the inconsistency index perform difference offset to obtain the net credibility of a sample, wherein the net credibility can be used as a basis for evaluating the sample;
D. performing simulation design analysis by using a finite element tool JMAG, observing response time, and verifying the evaluation result;
the step B comprises the following steps:
b1, determining sample attribute value and threshold value, assuming thatmSets of samples，/>Sets of evaluation indexesThen->It is indicated at +.>Sample on index->Attribute values of (2); the threshold values include a no difference threshold value, a preference threshold value, and a overrule threshold value, wherein the no difference threshold value +.>Strict preference threshold->Overrule threshold->；
B2, calculating the consistency index and the inconsistency index of each attribute value;
consistency index for each attribute valueRefers to the evaluation index->Sample->Is better than sample->The expression is:
；
in combination with the attribute weight, the consistency index of the alternative scheme is calculated, and the expression is as follows:
；
in the middle ofFor evaluation index->As can be seen from the above expression, in the evaluation index +.>Sample->Attribute value and sample->The greater the difference in attribute values, the +.>The smaller the ∈>Sample->Attribute value and sample->There is no obvious difference in the attribute values of +.>Sample->Property values of (2) are strictly better than those of the sample +.>Attribute values of (2);
inconsistency index for each attribute valueRefers to the evaluation index->Reject sample->Is better than sample->The extent of (3); the expression:
；
calculating the inconsistency index of the alternative scheme by combining the attribute weights;
the expression of the inconsistency index of the alternative is:
；
in the middle ofFor evaluation index->As can be seen from the above expression, the weight of +.>In evaluation index->Sample->Attribute value and sample->The greater the difference in attribute values, the +.>The larger, when->When refusing the sample->Is better than sample->The degree of (2) is 0, when->When refusing the sample->Is better than sample->The degree of (2) is 1;
in the step B1:
the non-difference threshold refers to the minimum error acceptable to a decision maker on one of the attributes, if the two samples are smaller than the threshold on the attribute, the decision maker considers that the difference between the two samples is negligible, and the mathematical expression is thatIf true, it is considered that the evaluation index is->Sample->Sample->There is no significant difference;
the strict preference threshold refers to the maximum error tolerated by a decision maker, and the mathematical expression is thatThen consider that the evaluation index is->Sample->Strictly better than the sample->Decision maker pair->Has absolute preference, additionally, when->Sample->Slightly better than the sample->Decision maker pair->There is a relative preference;
overrule threshold is considered to be the evaluation indexSample->Attribute value of (2) is smaller than sample +.>If the attribute value of (2)Then refusing to evaluate the index +.>Sample->Is better than sample->And the threshold ∈>；
In the step C, the credibility indexRepresenting the overall sample->Is better than sample->The extent of (2):
；
consistent confidence representation samplesDegree of preference to other samples:
；
inconsistent confidence indicates that other samples are better than the sampleThe extent of (i.e.)>：
；
The net confidence is therefore:
；
the weight of the included angle between the magnets is set to be 0.3;
the weight of the inter-magnet gap is set to 0.3;
the weight of the moment of inertia is set to 0.2;
the weight of the magnet thickness is set to 0.1;
the weight of the operating environment temperature was set to 0.1.
2. The electromagnet response time assessment method according to claim 1, wherein the attribute values are quantified using a five-component metric.
CN202110416856.7A 2021-04-19 2021-04-19 Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III Active CN113158522B (en)

Priority Applications (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202110416856.7A CN113158522B (en) 2021-04-19 2021-04-19 Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
CN202110416856.7A CN113158522B (en) 2021-04-19 2021-04-19 Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
CN113158522A CN113158522A (en) 2021-07-23
CN113158522B true CN113158522B (en) 2023-11-28

Family

ID=76868467

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
CN202110416856.7A Active CN113158522B (en) 2021-04-19 2021-04-19 Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III

Country Status (1)

Country Link
CN (1) CN113158522B (en)

Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB579211A (en) * 1944-04-05 1946-07-26 Everett Edgcumbe & Company Ltd Improvements in and relating to instruments for the measurement of current impulses
US3203447A (en) * 1963-10-09 1965-08-31 Skinner Prec Ind Inc Magnetically operated valve
BG24030A1 (en) * 1972-11-04 1977-12-15 Petkanczin Circuit for enhancing reset rating and cutting response time of dc electromagnet relay
CN109977568A (en) * 2019-03-29 2019-07-05 温州大学 A kind of electromagnet preferred design method emulated based on orthogonal test and JMAG
CN110276140A (en) * 2019-06-26 2019-09-24 温州大学 To the prediction technique of electromagnet response time
CN111639411A (en) * 2020-04-17 2020-09-08 温州大学 Electromagnet multi-quality characteristic decision method based on ELECTRE and VIKOR method

Patent Citations (6)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB579211A (en) * 1944-04-05 1946-07-26 Everett Edgcumbe & Company Ltd Improvements in and relating to instruments for the measurement of current impulses
US3203447A (en) * 1963-10-09 1965-08-31 Skinner Prec Ind Inc Magnetically operated valve
BG24030A1 (en) * 1972-11-04 1977-12-15 Petkanczin Circuit for enhancing reset rating and cutting response time of dc electromagnet relay
CN109977568A (en) * 2019-03-29 2019-07-05 温州大学 A kind of electromagnet preferred design method emulated based on orthogonal test and JMAG
CN110276140A (en) * 2019-06-26 2019-09-24 温州大学 To the prediction technique of electromagnet response time
CN111639411A (en) * 2020-04-17 2020-09-08 温州大学 Electromagnet multi-quality characteristic decision method based on ELECTRE and VIKOR method

Non-Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
"基于ELECTRE-III法的高纬多弥补调和进化算法";易高明;《软件导刊》;89-94 *
"An Intelligent Evaluation Method of Design Scheme for Electromagnet Quality Based on ELECTRE II";Jihong Pang等;《2021 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Engineering (ICAICE)》;359-362 *
"An Intelligent Evaluation Method of Design Scheme for Electromagnet Quality Based on ELECTRE II";Jihong Pang等;《2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Engineering (ICAICE)》;359-362 *
"一种直流电磁铁响应时间的测试方法";蒋佑华;《液压气动与密封》;52-53 *
"基于ELECRE-III法的高纬多目标调和进化算法";易高明等;《软件导刊》;89-94 *

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
CN113158522A (en) 2021-07-23

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
CN108804784A (en) A kind of instant learning soft-measuring modeling method based on Bayes's gauss hybrid models
CN104951842B (en) A kind of new oilfield production forecast method
CN108614418B (en) Titanium alloy milling-polishing-shot blasting reinforcement residual stress field process control method
CN111310348A (en) Material constitutive model prediction method based on PSO-LSSVM
CN110222454B (en) Process design method for milling precision consistency
CN109408969A (en) A method of constitutive model is established using finite element software identification rubber viscoelastic parameter
CN107885928A (en) Consider the stepstress acceleration Degradation Reliability analysis method of measurement error
CN107092751B (en) Variable weight model combination forecasting method based on Bootstrap
CN111639411B (en) Electromagnet multi-quality characteristic decision method based on ELECTRE and VIKOR methods
CN104978971A (en) Oral evaluation method and system
CN108304348A (en) A kind of bearing residual life prediction technique based on binary Wiener-Hopf equation
Hong et al. Bayesian life test planning for log-location-scale family of distributions
Madhankumar et al. Optimization of micro electrochemical machining of Inconel 625 using Taguchi based grey relational analysis
CN113158522B (en) Electromagnet response time assessment method based on ELECTRE-III
CN106991074B (en) Accelerated degradation test optimization design method based on principle of acceleration factor invariance
CN110647106B (en) Cutter performance monitoring and evaluating method and system
CN113868912B (en) Parameter identification and correction method for J-C constitutive model of titanium alloy
CN109388227A (en) A method of user experience is predicted using eye movement data recessiveness
CN110750926A (en) Particle swarm algorithm-based high-speed tensile curve processing and predicting method
CN105910921B (en) A method of prediction DZ125 alloy creep curves
CN107180293B (en) Exploration target-oriented geological evaluation level determination method
CN117434484A (en) Permanent magnet life assessment method
CN108221004B (en) A kind of measurement method of molten aluminum interface fluctuation
JP2018185274A (en) Method and computer program for predicting fatigue limit
CN108250342B (en) A kind of perfluoroethylene-propylene product processes and system

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
PB01 Publication
PB01 Publication
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
SE01 Entry into force of request for substantive examination
GR01 Patent grant
GR01 Patent grant