Novel morphing wing actuator control-based Particle Swarm Optimisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The paper presents the design and experimental testing of the control system used in a new morphing wing application with a full-scaled portion of a real wing. The morphing actuation system uses four similar miniature brushless DC (BLDC) motors placed inside the wing, which execute a direct actuation of the flexible upper surface of the wing made from composite materials. The control system of each actuator uses three control loops (current, speed and position) characterised by five control gains. To tune the control gains, the Particle Swarm Optimisation (PSO) method is used. The application of the PSO method supposed the development of a MATLAB/Simulink® software model for the controlled actuator, which worked together with a software sub-routine implementing the PSO algorithm to find the best values for the five control gains that minimise the cost function. Once the best values of the control gains are established, the software model of the controlled actuator is numerically simulated in order to evaluate the quality of the obtained control system. Finally, the designed control system is experimentally validated in bench tests and wind-tunnel tests for all four miniature actuators integrated in the morphing wing experimental model. The wind-tunnel testing treats the system as a whole and includes, besides the evaluation of the controlled actuation system, the testing of the integrated morphing wing experimental model and the evaluation of the aerodynamic benefits brought by the morphing technology on this project. From this last perspective, the airflow on the morphing upper surface of the experimental model is monitored by using various techniques based on pressure data collection with Kulite pressure sensors or on infrared thermography camera visualisations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".