MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267999761 · doi:10.1177/0954410015588573

Design and wind tunnel experimental validation of a controlled new rotary actuation system for a morphing wing application

2015· article· en· W2267999761 on OpenAlexafffund
Michel Joël Tchatchueng Kammegne, Teodor Lucian Grigorie, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Andreea Koreanschi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersBeijing Institute of TechnologyTechnische Universiteit DelftCanada Research ChairsNational University of SingaporeUniversity of Notre Dame
KeywordsAirfoilMorphingWingWind tunnelActuatorController (irrigation)Angle of attackControl theory (sociology)Flow (mathematics)Position (finance)Computer scienceFlow control (data)AerodynamicsComputational fluid dynamicsSimulationEngineeringStructural engineeringAerospace engineeringMechanicsControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the design and the experimental validation of a position controller for a morphing wing application. The actuation mechanism uses two DC motors to rotate two eccentric shafts which morph a flexible skin along two parallel actuation lines. In this way, the developed controller aim is to control the shape of a wing airfoil under different flow conditions. In order to control the actuators positions, a proportional–derivative control algorithm is used. The morphing wing system description, its actuation system structure, the control design, and its validation are highlighted in this paper. The results, obtained both by numerical simulation and experimental validation, are obtained following the control design and its validation. An analysis of the wind flow characteristics is included as a supplementary validation; the pressure coefficients obtained through numerical simulation for several desired airfoil shapes are compared with those obtained through measurements for the experimentally obtained airfoil shapes under different flow conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207