A MORPHING WING USED SHAPE MEMORY ALLOY ACTUATORS NEW CONTROL TECHNIQUE WITH BI-POSITIONAL AND PI LAWS OPTIMUM COMBINATION - Part 2: Experimental Validation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper represents the second part of a study related to the development of an actuators control system for a morphing wing application, and describes the experimental validation of the control designed in the first part. After a short presentation of the finally adopted control architecture, the physical implementation of the control is done. To implement the controller on the physical model two Programmable Switching Power Supplies AMREL SPS100-33 and a Quanser Q8 data acquisition card, were used. The inputs of the data acquisition were two signals from Linear Variable Differential Transformer potentiometers, indicating the positions of the actuators, and six signals from thermocouples installed on the SMA wires. The acquisition board outputs channels were used to control power supplies in order to obtain the desired skin deflections. The control validation was made in two experimental ways: bench test and wind tunnel test. All 35 optimized airfoil cases, used in the design phase, were converted into actuators vertical displacements which were used as inputs reference for the controller. In the wind tunnel tests a comparative study was realized around of the transition point position for the reference airfoil and for each optimized airfoil.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it