Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) was performed on a helicopter rotor blade. The blade was modeled as a rigid flapping blade for dynamics; Blade Element Theory (BET) was the analysis approach to model the aerodynamic loading, and a simple linearly elastic hollowed rectangular section was the main structural component. MATLAB was used to solve the flapping differential equations and its Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) and Genetic Algorithm (GA) were used for the optimization. A Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) routine was also tested. The optimization process consisted of three cases. The first case was a simple cantilever beam under centrifugal and an assumed bending loads. The optimization was performed using the SQP, GA, and PSO algorithms. The SQP resulted in the superior design with 75.45 compared to the GA's 87.1 and the PSO's 79.2, but a local minimum was present. The second case was an expansion of the first case by turning it into multidisciplinary problem. Aerodynamics was included in the design variables and objective function. Only the SQP algorithm was used and there was a reduction in hub vertical shear by 33.6%. The blade mass increased by 36.84%. The last case was an improvement to the second by creating a multiobjective problem by including the hub radial shear and the results were improved significantly by reducing the hub vertical shear by 34.06% and radial shear by 17.87% with a reduction of blade mass by 23.86%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".