MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010024672 · doi:10.1177/1045389x11416031

Aero-Structural Optimization and Performance Evaluation of a Morphing Wing with Variable Span and Camber

2011· article· en· W2010024672 on OpenAlexaff
José Vale, Adriana Maria Lucena de Medeiros Leite, Fernando Lau, Afzal Suleman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaEuropean Science Foundation
KeywordsCamber (aerodynamics)AirfoilWingMorphingAerodynamicsStructural engineeringChord (peer-to-peer)Lift-to-drag ratioStall (fluid mechanics)DragAngle of attackWing twistWing loadingEngineeringAerospace engineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aero-structural design and analysis study of a telescopic wing with a conformal camber morphing capability is presented. An aerodynamic analysis of a telescoping wing, first with a high speed airfoil followed by an analysis with a low speed airfoil is performed. The data obtained from these analyses is used to determine the optimum polar curves for drag reduction at different speeds. This information in turn provided the background for devising an optimal morphing strategy for drag reduction assuming that the telescoping wing airfoil has the capability to step morph between the high and low speed airfoils. Next, a conformal camber morphing concept is introduced. The concept is based on a non-uniform thickness distribution along the chord of a wing shell section that deforms from a symmetrical airfoil shape into a cambered airfoil shape under actuation. Structural optimization based on finite element models is used to obtain the shell thickness distribution for minimum shell section weight and best airfoil shape adjustment. Finally, a comparison study between the performance of an aircraft equipped with a morphing wing (telescopic wing combined with conformal camber morphing) and the performance of the same aircraft equipped with an optimized fixed wing for 30 m/s cruise speed and 100 N weight is presented. Aerodynamic optimization based on computational fluid dynamics models is used for the optimum fixed wing geometric parameters calculations. The optimal wing configurations for various performance parameters are calculated. The morphing wing generally outperforms the optimum fixed wing with the exception of a 10% reduction in rate of climb and 4% drag penalty at 30 m/s cruise speed.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
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)0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and StructuresSame topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207