TY - JOUR A1 - Ferrein, Alexander A1 - Siebel, Nils T. A1 - Steinbauer, Gerald T1 - Hybrid control for autonomous systems — Integrating learning, deliberation and reactive control JF - Robotics and Autonomous Systems Y1 - 2010 SN - 0921-8890 VL - 58 IS - 9 SP - 1037 EP - 1038 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ferrein, Alexander A1 - Niemüller, Tim A1 - Steinbauer, Gerald T1 - Team Zadeat 2010 : application for participation Y1 - 2010 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ferrein, Alexander T1 - golog.lua: Towards a Non-Prolog Implementation of Golog for Embedded Systems Y1 - 2010 SP - 20 EP - 28 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ferrein, Alexander T1 - golog.lua: Towards a Non-Prolog Implementation of Golog for Embedded Systems JF - Cognitive Robotics / Lakemeyer, Gerhard (ed.) Y1 - 2010 N1 - Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings ; 10081 SP - 1 EP - 15 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Ferrein, Alexander T1 - Robot controllers for highly dynamic environments with real-time constraints JF - Künstliche Intelligenz : KI. 24 (2010), H. 2 Y1 - 2010 SN - 1610-1987 SP - 175 EP - 178 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fellin, Wolfgang A1 - King, Julian A1 - Kirsch, Ansgar A1 - Oberguggenberger, Michael T1 - Uncertainty modelling and sensitivity analysis of tunnel face stability JF - Structural safety N2 - This paper proposes an approach to the choice and evaluation of engineering models with the aid of a typical application in geotechnics. An important issue in the construction of shallow tunnels, especially in weak ground conditions, is the tunnel face stability. Various theoretical and numerical models for predicting the necessary support pressure have been put forth in the literature. In this paper, we combine laboratory experiments performed at the University of Innsbruck with current methods of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for assessing adequacy, predictive power and robustness of the models. The major issues are the handling of the twofold uncertainty of test results and of model predictions as well as the decision about what are the influential input parameters. Y1 - 2010 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.06.001 SN - 0167-4730 VL - 32 IS - 6 SP - 402 EP - 410 PB - Elsevier CY - Amsterdam ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Feldhusen, Jörg A1 - Brezing, Alexander Nikolaus A1 - Pütz, Claus A1 - Wählisch, Georg T1 - Multi-system CAD-teaching in large classes T2 - When design education and design research meet : proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway, 2nd - 3rd September 2010 ; [E&PDE] Y1 - 2010 SN - 978-1-904670-19-3 SP - 204 EP - 209 PB - Design Society CY - Glasgow ER - TY - CHAP A1 - Evers, Jörg A1 - Fleischhaker, Robert A1 - Pálffy, A. A1 - Keitel, C. T1 - Light propagation : From atomic to nuclear quantum optics T2 - Modern optics and photonics: atoms and structured media Y1 - 2010 SN - 978-981431327-8 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814313278_0001 SP - 3 EP - 15 PB - World Scientific Publishing Co. ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Esch, Thomas A1 - Funke, Harald A1 - Roosen, Petra T1 - SIoBiA – Safety Implications of Biofuels in Aviation N2 - Biofuels potentially interesting also for aviation purposes are predominantly liquid fuels produced from biomass. The most common biofuels today are biodiesel and bioethanol. Since diesel engines are rather rare in aviation this survey is focusing on ethanol admixed to gasoline products. The Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of May 8th 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport encourage a growing admixture of biogenic fuel components to fossil automotive gasoline. Some aircraft models equipped with spark ignited piston engines are approved for operation with automotive gasoline, frequently called “MOGAS” (motor gasoline). The majority of those approvals is limited to MOGAS compositions that do not contain methanol or ethanol beyond negligible amounts. In the past years (bio-)MTBE or (bio-)ETBE have been widely used as blending component of automotive gasoline whilst the usage of low-molecular alcohols like methanol or ethanol has been avoided due to the handling problems especially with regard to the strong affinity for water. With rising mandatory bio-admixtures the conversion of the basic biogenic ethanol to ETBE, causing a reduction of energetic payoff, becomes more and more unattractive. Therefore the direct ethanol admixture is accordingly favoured. Due to the national enforcements of the directive 2003/30/EC more oxygenates produced from organic materials like bioethanol have started to appear in automotive gasolines already. The current fuel specification EN 228 already allows up to 3 % volume per volume (v/v) (bio-)methanol or up to 5 % v/v (bio-)ethanol as fuel components. This is also roughly the amount of biogenic components to comply with the legal requirements to avoid monetary penalties for producers and distributors of fuels. Since automotive fuel is cheaper than the common aviation gasoline (AVGAS), creates less problems with lead deposits in the engine, and in general produces less pollutants it is strongly favoured by pilots. But being designed for a different set of usage scenarios the use of automotive fuel with low molecular alcohols for aircraft operation may have adverse effects in aviation operation. Increasing amounts of ethanol admixtures impose various changes in the gasoline’s chemical and physical properties, some of them rather unexpected and not within the range of flight experiences even of long-term pilots. Y1 - 2010 N1 - Analysis of the safety implications of the use of biofuels (ethanol admixture) for piston engines and general aviation aircraft and assessment of potential environmental benefits. PB - EASA CY - Köln ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Esch, Thomas T1 - Trends in commercial vehicle powertrains JF - ATZautotechnology N2 - Low emission zones and truck bans, the rising price of diesel and increases in road tolls: all of these factors are putting serious pressure on the transport industry. Commercial vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers are in the process of identifying new solutions to these challenges as part of their efforts to meet the EEV (enhanced environmentally friendly vehicle) limits, which are currently the most robust European exhaust and emissions standards for trucks and buses. KW - European Transient Cycle KW - Common Rail Injection System KW - Commercial Vehicle KW - Selective Catalytic Reduction KW - Diesel Engine Y1 - 2010 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03247185 SN - 2192-886X VL - 2010 IS - 10 SP - 26 EP - 31 PB - Vieweg & Sohn CY - Wiesbaden ER -