MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323926580 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-1786

Design and Evaluation of Aeroelastically Tuned Joined-Wing SensorCraft Flight Test Article

2013· article· en· W2323926580 on OpenAlexaff
Jenner Richards, Jeffrey Samuel Garnand-Royo, Afzal Suleman, Robert A. Canfield, Craig A. Woolsey

Bibliographic record

Venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersAir Force Research Laboratory
KeywordsWingTest (biology)AeronauticsComputer scienceFlight testAerospace engineeringEngineeringSimulationGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Boeing Joined Wing SensorCraft is a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platform. Boeing′s approach in utilizing a joined-wing configuration offers potential aerodynamic and structural benefits including unmatched ISR capabilities complementing the overall mission. However, associated with these advantages is the potential for nonlinear aeroelastic response. In an effort to compliment computational studies, the design, construction, and flight testing of a 1/9th scale, aeroelastically tuned model of the Joined-Wing SensorCraft has been the subject of an ongoing international collaboration aimed at experimentally demonstrating the nonlinear aeroelastic response. To accurately measure and capture the configuration′s potential for structural nonlinearity, the test article must exhibit equivalent structural flexibility and be designed to meet airworthiness standards. Previous work has demonstrated airworthiness through the successful flight of a Geometrically Scaled Remotely Piloted Vehicle, but its capability to demonstrate geometric nonlinearities in flight has yet to be determined. Current work involves evaluation of an aeroelstically tuned design through finite element modeling and experimentation. Initial investigation using lower order models point to the possibility of using the existing forward wings, combined with tailored aft wings. The focus of this work is the evaluation suitability of these wings in terms of the structural limits, based on high fidelity modeling and ground test validation.

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 score0.007

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials ConferenceSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207