MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040910020 · doi:10.4271/2013-01-2217

Challenges Associated with a Complex Compound Curvature Passenger Doors

2013· article· en· W2040910020 on OpenAlexaff
Sunil Mistry

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International Journal of Aerospace · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutomotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoorsCurvatureAeronauticsComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringStructural engineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">This study investigates challenges associated with integrating a passenger (PAX) door on complex compound curvature (CCC) fuselages. Aerospace companies are investigating concepts that no-longer have constant cross-section (CS) fuselages.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The PAX door is based on a generic semi-plug door for a long range business jet (BJ). This study investigates limitations of locating the door by varying the transition zone angle. A parametric CATIA tool, coupled with the use of finite element model (FEM) results can highlight key drivers in the design and location of PAX doors, creating a first-draft structural layout. The associated impact on the design and structural architecture for a fold down PAX door with integrated stairs is discussed.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The impact of CCCs on the PAX door design is investigated with consideration to location, kinematics and function of the door. Design requirements, when coupled with stress analysis to simulate pressurization effect of the load applied to the stops, can create a powerful tool. Combining the architectural layout, design requirements and top-level stress analysis can be used to define limit curves and understand key design drivers that impact the door position, with reference to weight, design and human factor constraints.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The design conclusions to-date suggest for a transition angle above 5 degrees, the structure is too complex to use a traditional frame and lintel design and will be an interesting case for bird impact. Below 5 degrees is the limit for conventional door and kinematic designs in-line with frames.</div></div>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International Journal of AerospaceSame topicAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207