A multidisciplinary robust optimisation framework for UAV conceptual design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper describes a multidisciplinary robust optimisation framework for UAV conceptual design. An in-house configuration designer system is implemented to generate the full sets of configuration data for a well-developed advanced UAV analysis tool. A fully integrated configuration designer along with the UAV analysis tool ensures that full sets of configuration data are provided simultaneously while the UAV configuration changes during optimisation. The computational strategy for probabilistic analysis is proposed by implementing a central difference method and fitting distribution for a reduced number of Monte Carlo Simulation sampling points. The minimisation of a new robust design objective function helps to enhance the reliability while other UAV performance criteria are satisfied. In addition, the fully integrated process and a probabilistic analysis strategy method demonstrate a reduction in the probability of failure under noise factors without any noticeable increase in design turnaround time. The proposed robust optimisation framework for UAV conceptual design case study yields a more trustworthy prediction of the optimal configuration and is preferable to the traditional deterministic design approach. The high fidelity analysis ANSYS Fluent 13 is performed to demonstrate the accuracy of proposed framework on baseline, deterministic and RDO configuration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".