MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967916275 · doi:10.1115/smasis2008-377

Morphing Laminar Wing With Flexible Extrados Powered by Shape Memory Alloy Actuators

2008· article· en· W1967916275 on OpenAlexafffund
Vladimir Braïlovski, Patrick Terriault, Daniel Coutu, Thomas Georges, Emeric Morellon, Charles Fischer, Se ́bastien Be ́rube ́

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersThales GroupConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au Québec
KeywordsMorphingShape-memory alloyActuatorWingFinite element methodStructural engineeringTrussMechanical engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An active structure of a morphing wing designed for subsonic cruise flight conditions combines three principal subsystems: (1) flexible extrados, (2) rigid intrados and (3) an actuator group located inside the wing box. A structural model of the flexible extrados built with ANSYS finite element software is coupled with X’Foil fluid dynamics software to evaluate mechanical and aerodynamic performances of the morphing wing in different flight conditions. Using the multicriteria optimization technique, an active structure consisting of the 4-ply laminated composite flexible extrados powered by two individually controlled actuators is selected. Shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators are designed as power elements for the morphing wing. To meet the functional requirements of the application, the geometry of the SMA elements is calculated using the results of the constrained recovery testing of the selected material.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207