MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Aeroelastic Performance Optimization of Adaptive Aerospace Structures Using Structural Geometric Nonlinearities

2022· article· en· W4293155122 on OpenAlexaff
William P. Parsons, Victor E. L. Gasparetto, Mostafa S. A. ElSayed, Mohamed Saad, Stephen A. Shield, Gary L. Brown, L. Hilliard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aerospace Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticityAerodynamicsTrussActuatorStructural engineeringControl theory (sociology)StiffnessEngineeringModalComputer scienceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a framework for the design optimization of geometric nonlinearities developed by active elements embedded in prestressable, statically indeterminant, truss-like aerospace structures for the purpose of attenuating their dynamic aeroelastic response under turbulent aerodynamic gust conditions. Dynamic aeroelastic responses are analyzed considering random power spectral density (PSD) gust with a continuous Davenport spectrum (DS) and tuned discrete gust (TDG) with a one-minus-cosine (OMC) wind excitation profiles. A genetic optimization algorithm (GA) is utilized to determine optimal prestress values through active element actuations for the purpose of tuning the geometric stiffness and, therefore, the modal response of the structure when exposed to gust excitations. In addition, a new simplified control metric for comparing active member locations is proposed. A case study is analyzed with this methodology to minimize the pointing error of a simplified antenna structure. Pointing error attenuations of 22.1% and 17.0% were found for the structure under DS mean wind speeds of 889 (349.95) and 2,778 cm/s (1,093.61 in./s), respectively. Using the same two operating cases with the TDG excitation profile resulted in the overall pointing error to be reduced by 36.8% and 37.0%, respectively. The adaptive nature of the presented methodology allows a single actuator layout to mitigate structural response for a variety of load cases, which is a large benefit over many traditionally passive techniques. This paper expands the existing usage of geometric nonlinearities to determine optimal active element location and actuations for given optimization objectives under realistic environmental loading conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207