MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317633488 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-1584

Design of a Variable Camber Morphing Winglet with Composite Lamination Structural Analysis and Failure Analysis – Application to the UAS-S45

2023· article· en· W4317633488 on OpenAlex
Musavir Bashir, Simon Longtin Martel, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Tony Wong

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingCamber (aerodynamics)Wingtip deviceStructural engineeringMaterials scienceWingComposite materialComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-1584.vid The purpose of this study is to design a variable camber morphing winglet with a composite laminate structure for the UAS-S45. The camber morphing winglet will be designed using a honeybee-inspired abdomen structure for the deformation mechanism. It was found that the morphing winglet could improve wing aerodynamic efficiency compared to its reference geometry. The leading edge and trailing edge deflections of the proposed morphing winglet design were generated by the bending and flexing motion mechanism represented by a honeybee abdomen and a flexible wing skin. The controlled winglet deformation was achieved by linear servos that stretched and retracted the flexible mechanism. The morphing winglet was controlled by three servos. The kinematic working mechanism will be presented in the study. The stress analysis is also performed on composite laminates winglet under various loads, used as pre-analysis data. A laminate with a stacking sequence of [0/90/±45/90/0] s was calculated in detail using the Classical Lamination Theory (CLT). The analysis consisted in the comparison of two materials, carbon epoxy and Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastics (GFRP). Ansys ACP was used to model the geometry, while Ansys Mechanical was utilized to model the loading cases and to perform the stress analysis to confirm the results. A demonstrative mechanism for morphing winglet was manufactured of thermoplastic polylactic acid (PLA), and its deformations were measured. The structural optimization analysis results will be presented, and investigated, therefore the optimization will result in a better orientation of composite lay-up and will minimize the morphing winglet weight.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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