MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569681108 · doi:10.2514/6.2017-1182

Development of Parametric Power Generation and Distribution Subsystem Models at the Conceptual Aircraft Design Stage

2017· article· en· W2569681108 on OpenAlexaff
Gökçin Çınar, Dimitri N. Mavris, Mathias Emeneth, Alexander Schneegans, Yann Fefermann

Bibliographic record

Venue55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual designParametric statisticsStage (stratigraphy)Computer sciencePower (physics)Systems engineeringEngineeringGeologyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ongoing efforts to reduce aviation related greenhouse gas emissions and fuel burn have led to advancements in power generation and distribution (PG&D) subsystem technology. Due to the absence of historical data, PG&D subsystem models must be created from first-order analysis without compromising crucial information on their characteristics. This paper demonstrates the development of parametric, physics-based subsystem models such as battery, electric motor, power distribution and management system, and propeller speed reduction unit for rapid and low-cost sizing, simulation and analysis at early design stages. A special focus was put on rechargeable battery technology and implementing a dynamic (rather than steady-state) discharge behavior into the propulsion architecture. A methodology to integrate the developed subsystem models was presented. A sample application was also provided to demonstrate the combined capabilities of the models. To this end, the models were applied within a sample parallel hybrid electric architecture using Dornier 328 as a test bed. The subsystem behaviors under varying power requirements were then analyzed. Finally, the importance of having more dimensionality at the subsystem level at early design stages was highlighted by comparing the results of two different architectural choices.

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)0.001
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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences MeetingSame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207