Frangibility of airport approach lighting towers
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of full-scale impact tests on approach lighting towers, used at Canadian airports, was conducted to provide information on tower response. These data were necessary for the development of simplified requirements and test methods for the design of frangible structures, which will minimize the impact hazard to aircraft. A total of 48 tests were completed which included striking the tower triangular cross-section at both the apex and on the side at high, medium and low impact speeds (140, 80 and 50 Ian/h). High-speed video cameras were used during test program to record the impact sequence, the mode of failure and the contact time between the impactor and the tower. The influence of impact speed on the maximum impact force, energy to maximum force and energy over the contact period were key parameters measured in order to define the requirements for frangibility. A discrete model to simulate the impact of.the tower was developed using finite element analysis (FEA). The results obtained from this model were compared to the full-scale test results to validate the accuracy of the model. In addition, the tower dynamic behavior was compared to the visual data obtained from the high-speed video cameras to confirm failure mode predictions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it