Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This work presents a numerical and analytical vibrational and structural analysis of a wing model with morphing winglets. The methodology for this analysis is developed by the undergraduate thesis students in collaboration with the faculty at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson University) and performs a static structural and modal analysis for the developed wing with morphing winglet model. This report summarizes the modal and static structural analysis conducted on the model. The CAD model for the study was developed on Solidworks while the two analyses were conducted on Ansys. The wing model was developed with four winglet configurations with varying cant angles. Various winglet configurations were designed with variable cant to study the effect of morphing winglet on the structure’s modal analysis. During the structural test, it was observed that the model undergoes a deflection of 0.001 in under the prescribed loading conditions. The modal analysis was completed for the four configurations using similar boundary conditions as for the static structural analysis. The average frequency for the first mode shape for all the configurations were recorded to be 29 Hz.</p> <p>The results for the modal analysis conducted on Ansys were then verified using an analytical methodology. The equations for this method were developed by modelling the wing as a slender and straight wing with rigid root and no sweep back angles. The procedure for this accounted for the maximum speed of the wind tunnel at Toronto Metropolitan University. The frequency solution obtained from the analytical methodology was then compared to the frequency obtained from the modal analysis completed on Ansys. The frequency at flutter was calculated to be 30 Hz. This validates the assumptions and expectations made prior to both methods of analysis.</p> <p>The next step for this study would be to build the 3D model of the wing with morphing winglets and conduct a ground vibration testing and wind tunnel testing. The observations made during this study, specifically, the natural frequencies, damping, and mode shapes, can be further compared and validated through conducting the ground vibration testing and wind tunnel testing of these models. By comparing the results, it is possible to validate the numerical models and simulation techniques used for the modal analysis and improve the design of the wing with winglets.</p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".