MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203988482 · doi:10.1017/s0001924000011131

Design, numerical simulation and experimental testing of a controlled electrical actuation system in a real aircraft morphing wing model

2015· article· en· W2203988482 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Michel Joël Tchatchueng Kammegne, Teodor Lucian Grigorie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Aeronautical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au QuébecUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
KeywordsMorphingActuatorWingAileronFlight control surfacesRigidity (electromagnetism)TorqueEngineeringStructural engineeringWind tunnelMechanism (biology)Mechanical engineeringAerospace engineeringComputer scienceAerodynamicsElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper focuses on the modelling, simulation and control of an electrical miniature actuator integrated in the actuation mechanism of a new morphing wing application. The morphed wing is a portion of an existing regional aircraft wing, its interior consisting of spars, stringers, and ribs, and having a structural rigidity similar to the rigidity of a real aircraft. The upper surface of the wing is a flexible skin, made of composite materials, and optimised in order to fulfill the morphing wing project requirements. In addition, a controllable rigid aileron is attached on the wing. The established architecture of the actuation mechanism uses four similar miniature actuators fixed inside the wing and actuating directly the flexible upper surface of the wing. The actuator was designed in-house, as there is no actuator on the market that could fit directly inside our morphing wing model. It consists of a brushless direct current (BLDC) motor with a gearbox and a screw for pushing and pulling the flexible upper surface of the wing. The electrical motor and the screw are coupled through a gearing system. Before proceeding with the modelling, the actuator is tested experimentally (stand alone configuration) to ensure that the entire range of the requirements (rated or nominal torque, nominal current, nominal speed, static force, size) would be fulfilled. In order to validate the theoretical, simulation and standalone configuration experimental studies, a bench testing and a wind-tunnel testing of four similar actuators integrated on the real morphing wing model are performed.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations25
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Aeronautical JournalSame topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207