MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255125459 · doi:10.2495/fdm030031

CF-18 Wing Full-scale Fatigue Testing And Structural Certification

2003· article· en· W2255125459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Dabayeh, Chun‐Wing Yeung, P. Londei

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on engineering sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Sensor Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirframeFuselageCertificationAeronauticsWingAerospaceFull scaleNavyEngineeringScale (ratio)Test (biology)Structural engineeringMechanical engineeringForensic engineeringAerospace engineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Forces (CF) ordered 138 FIA-18 from McDonnell aircraft company (McAir)/Northrup for delivery starting 1982. The design was intended to last 6000 hours under severe US Navy usage. This life was determined by the manufacturer after conducting full-scale fatigue tests. These tests were required to certify the safe life of the F/A-l8 based on the USN operating conditions. However, the difference between the CF-18 usage and the usage on which the airframe was originally tested, in addition to these tests not considering structural modifications performed on production aircraft after completion of full-scale testing, have created some structural concerns and a need to do additional fullscale fatigue testing. The Canadian Forces and the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) are currently collaborating in the International Follow-On Structural Test Program (IFOSTP) to conduct a full-scale fatigue test for the CF-18. This paper will show a summary on the effort which is currently going on the FT245 full-scale fatigue testing of the CF-18 wing. The wing is being tested by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) at the Institute of Aerospace Research (IAR) and technically supported by Bombardier Aerospace The fatigue test loads derivation process will be introduced, the test response and loading feedback monitoring through strain gauging of the entire wing and centre fuselage will be discussed, and the test inspection process for detectinglmonitoring growing fatigue cracks will be presented. The paper will also present the effort done in preparation for the structural certification of the CF18 wing. Transactions on Engineering Sciences vol 40, © 2003 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3533

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on engineering sciencesSame topicAdvanced Sensor Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207