MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152133234 · doi:10.5589/q14-004

Methodology for ground and flight vibration testing of light aircraft

2014· article· en· W2152133234 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. Nejad Ensan, Viresh Wickramasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian aeronautics and space journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlight testFlutterEngineeringVibrationModalInstrumentation (computer programming)Modal analysisModal testingFlight simulatorDynamic testingStructural engineeringAerospace engineeringComputer scienceAerodynamicsFinite element methodAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes an efficient methodology to perform ground vibration tests (GVT) using Experimental Modal Analysis and flight vibration tests of light aircraft. The objective is to extract structural dynamics properties of the whole aircraft while overcoming major challenges such as time, cost, and aircraft availability to assess flutter clearance compliance with the certification requirements. The paper provides details of the approach taken to perform a successful GVT and in-flight vibration test that includes the aircraft configuration, test instrumentation, data analysis techniques, and test procedures to extract necessary information to perform flutter clearance certification from the GVT and flight vibration test. Typical test methodology, test instrumentation, software, and procedures used to obtain the modal parameters, namely natural frequency, damping ratio, and mode shapes, are presented in this paper. In flight tests, the modal parameters were obtained from operational data without a known excitation source.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian aeronautics and space journalSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207