MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146605210 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-10913

Development of a Simulation and Optimization Framework for Improved Aerodynamic Performance of R/C Helicopter Rotor Blades

2015· dissertation· en· W3146605210 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Wiebe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilAerodynamicsBlade element theoryBlade element momentum theoryHelicopter rotorAeroelasticityRotor (electric)Chord (peer-to-peer)MATLABBlade (archaeology)EngineeringAerospace engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve the performance characteristics of small unmanned rotorcraft systems based on commercially available radio controlled helicopter components the simulation and optimization framework Qoptr was developed.The framework's simulation modules model main rotor performance in hover using blade element momentum theory (BEMT) and in forward flight conditions employing a blade element theory (BET) approach.The forward flight module incorporates empirical induced inflow models and rigid blade motion.Two software packages based on viscous-inviscid interaction methods were evaluated on their ability to generate the low Reynolds number 2D aerodynamic airfoil performance coefficients required by the simulation modules at conditions applicable to large radio controlled helicopters.The Qoptr hover module was integrated into an optimization scheme using an algorithm from the MATLAB Optimization Toolbox.Starting from a rotor using typical commercial r/c rotor blades the optimization raised the rotor figure of merit from 0.56 to 0.70 by adjusting rotor speed, solidity and the spanwise distributions of blade pitch and chord length.c 0 Mangler and Squire Fourier series coefficient C ar b Arbitrary constant C D Blade element drag coefficient C F x , C F r , C F z Aerodynamic force coefficients in the rotating reference frame C H Rotor drag force coefficient C l , C d , C m 2D airfoil lift, drag and pitching moment coefficients C L Blade element lift coefficient C l max Maximum 2D airfoil lift coefficient C l x Lift stall correction model transition lift coefficient C l α Lift curve slope xii C M x Rotor rolling moment coefficient C M y Rotor pitching moment coefficient c n Mangler and Squire Fourier series coefficient C p Pressure coefficient at airfoil surface C P Total power coefficient C P i Induced power coefficient C p inc Incompressible pressure coefficient C P o Profile power coefficient C Q Rotor torque coefficient C T Thrust coefficient C Y Rotor side force coefficient C ζ Lead-lag damping coefficient cam / c Relative airfoil camber CFD Computational fluid dynamics COTS Commercial off the shelf Ω Rotor rotational speed ω C F z Under-relaxation factor (hover module) ω k Excitation frequency xviii

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207