MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250278632 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14635731

Design of Electrically Powered Morphing Winglet

2021· preprint· en· W4250278632 on OpenAlexaff
Kunj Mistry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBevel gearCycloidTorqueEngineeringCycloid gearRotation (mathematics)BevelMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cycloidal and planetary gear drives are considered for the actuation of an electrically powered morphing winglet. A torque of 6723 N*m is required at the winglet hinge. The stepper motor selected as the electrical actuator is the HT34-487 stepper motor. This motor can provide a torque of approximately 6 N*m. The cycloidal drive consists of the selected stepper motor, a bevel gearbox, and a two-stage cycloidal gearbox. The bevel gearbox is used to change the axis of rotation of the stepper motor from span-wise direction to chord-wise direction. Stage one of the cycloidal gearbox contains an input shaft, two cycloidal disks with 180 degrees offset rotation, an eccentric cam and an output shaft. The cycloidal disks in stage one have 35 lobes, providing a gear ratio of 35:1. The second stage of the cycloidal gearbox consists of only one cycloidal disk with 34 lobes, providing a gear ratio of 34:1. The total gear ratio of the cycloidal drive is 1190:1. Material selection and FEA simulations are performed on the components in the cycloidal drive to ensure the selected materials can withstand the applied loads. A differential planetary gear drive is also considered to actuate an electrically powered morphing winglet. Spur gears are selected to be used as the sun and planet gears. A ratio of 180:1 is achieved in the planetary gear drive. Using gear tooth bending calculators, it is found that designing spur gears to withstand the loads of the electrically powered morphing winglet and to fit inside the dimensions of the wingbox is not feasible.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207