A Safety-Focused System Architecting Framework for the Conceptual Design of Aircraft Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To reduce the environmental impact of aviation, aircraft manufacturers develop novel aircraft configurations and investigate advanced systems technologies. These new technologies are complex and characterized by electrical or hybrid-electric propulsion systems. Ensuring that these complex architectures are safe is paramount to enabling the certification and entry into service of new aircraft concepts. Emerging techniques in systems architecting, such as using model-based systems engineering (MBSE), help deal with such complexity. However, MBSE techniques are currently not integrated with the overall aircraft conceptual design, using automated multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization (MDAO) techniques. Current MDAO frameworks do not incorporate the various aspects of system safety assessment. The industry is increasingly interested in Model-Based Safety Assessment (MBSA) to improve the safety assessment process and give the safety engineer detailed insight into the failure characteristics of system components. This paper presents a comprehensive framework to introduce various aspects of safety assessment in conceptual design and MDAO, also considering downstream compatibility of the system architecting and safety assessment process. The presented methodology includes specific elements of the SAE ARP4761 safety assessment process and adapts them to the systems architecting process in conceptual design. The proposed framework also introduces a novel safety-based filtering approach for large system architecture design spaces. The framework’s effectiveness is illustrated with examples from applications in recent collaborative research projects with industry and academia. The work presented in this paper contributes to increasing maturity in conceptual design studies and enables more innovation by opening the design space while considering safety upfront.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".