MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165561557 · doi:10.1115/imece2005-81092

Inner-Loop Feedback for Deadband Compensation in Electromechanical Flight Surface Actuation Systems

2005· article· en· W2165561557 on OpenAlexaff
Saeid Habibi, Jeff Roach, Greg R. Luecke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuatorInner loopControl theory (sociology)AileronCompensation (psychology)Flight control surfacesControl systemModular designLoop (graph theory)Feedback loopComputer scienceEngineeringControl engineeringController (irrigation)Control (management)Aerospace engineeringAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This manuscript pertains to the application of an inner-loop control strategy to electro-mechanical flight surface actuation systems. Modular Electro-Mechanical Actuators (EMA) are increasingly used in-lieu of centralized hydraulics for the control of flight surfaces in the aerospace sector. The presence of what is termed as a dead zone in these actuators significantly affects the maneuverability, stability, and the flight profiles of aircrafts that use this actuation concept. The hypothesis of our research is that flight surface actuation systems may be desensitized to the effects of dead zone by using a control strategy with multiple inner-loops. The proposed strategy involves: high-gain inner-loop velocity control of the driving motor; and inner-loop compensation for the differential velocity between the motor versus the aileron. Our results indicate that this strategy is very effective and that it can considerably improve the system’s performance. The above hypothesis is confirmed by theoretical and simulated analysis using the model of an EMA flight surface actuator.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207