MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141149319 · doi:10.2514/6.2010-8212

Dynamic Wake Distortion in the UTIAS Real-time Helicopter Models

2010· article· en· W2141149319 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bruce Haycock, Peter R. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeDistortion (music)Computer scienceReal-time computingAerospace engineeringEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies has a number of previously developed real-time helicopter models, which are currently in the process of being updated and improved. An ongoing concern with helicopter simulations is that they often have an incorrect off-axis response to cyclic control inputs when compared with the corresponding flight test data. One of the more commonly suggested contributing factors for this discrepancy is the influence of rotor wake curvature. The dynamic wake distortion model with four states (curvature in two directions, stretch, and skew) and corresponding augmented Pitt-Peters dynamic inflow model developed by Zhao to account for this effect is computationally compact and therefore suitable for use in a real-time simulation. This paper presents the results obtained for the various UTIAS helicopter models with the dynamic wake distortion included compared to the original Pitt-Peters inflow, examining the on-axis and off-axis responses to cyclic inputs under various conditions. These results are also compared to flight test data where available. The results cover a wide cross section of helicopter designs to examine the impact of including the dynamic wake distortion in realtime helicopter simulations. The addition of wake distortion resulted in an altered inflow distribution across the rotor disk during dynamic maneuvers, with limited changes to the on-axis response to a cyclic input. The off-axis response was altered, however the changes were not as significant as expected. Overall the off-axis response was only slightly improved, and in some test cases the off-axis response was actually worse than that obtained with an undistorted wake.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies ConferenceSame topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207