A non-contact aircraft landing impact test spatial attitude and deformation measurement and analysis method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper designs the system structure to meet the impact test of aircraft landing, and utilizes finite element calculation to derive the maximum impact stress of the impact platform and the maximum bearing stress.Analyze the attitude combination measurement system, based on the coordinate transformation theory to build a digital level, attitude probe and inclination sensor combination of attitude measurement model, the horizontal attitude angle of the object to solve the calculation.And the robustness overall least squares method is applied for plane fitting.The overall flow of the attitude measurement experiment is designed to analyze the stability and accuracy of the spatial attitude measurement system based on the combination of multi-sensors, and analyze the measurement error of the measured target in different states (translation or deflection).Different attitude solving algorithms are used to measure the attitude angle of the dynamic simulation experiment, and the measurement errors of the roll angle, pitch angle, heading angle and the root-mean-square error are compared.The RMS errors of the roll angle, pitch angle and heading angle measured by the attitude solution model in this paper are 0.2982, 0.2214 and 1.0333, respectively.Comparing with the data in the charts and graphs, it can be seen that the measurement errors and RMS errors of the attitude solution algorithm used in this paper are smaller, which are more in line with the requirements of the target spatial attitude measurement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".