Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the reliability of NPC and ANPC power converters for aeronautical applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In more electrical aircraft, most flight control wing surface actuators are either electro-hydrostatic or electro-mechanical, whether in manual or autopilot mode. Their reliability is essential for flight safety; failure of even one actuator can have catastrophic consequences. According to ARP4761 guidelines for the development and certification of critical aircraft systems, the probability of failure of flight-control actuator components must be less than 10-9 per hour of flight. In this paper, we compare the probability of failure per hour (PFH) of conventional two-level power converters and three-level NPC and ANPC converter topologies designed in our laboratory. In accordance with ARP procedures, PFH was calculated using an approach that includes qualitative analysis based on failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) methodology as well as quantitative analysis based on truth tables. ANPC converter met all the requirements of the functional hazard assessment in all cases of defects. Finally, we discuss factors that determine the feasibility of implementing power converters in flight control systems.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".