Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>This thesis report presents a structural and vibrational analysis experiment of a wing model with morphing winglets. It details the theory behind Aeroelasticity and its importance to the aircraft’s structural integrity. It provides methods to validate the structural integrity and performance of the wing which will allow engineers to optimize the wing design. The experiment was developed and designed by undergraduate thesis students in collaboration with the faculty of the Aerospace Department at Toronto Metropolitan University. The wing model of the wing was created based on the dimensions obtained for the wind tunnel at Toronto Metropolitan University. The wing was designed to have a locking mechanism that allows the morphing winglets at various cant angles to attach safely and firmly onto the wing. After creating the CAD models of the wing with morphing winglets at 15°, 25°, 35°, and 45° on a popular design software known as Solidworks, the static structural and vibrational analysis were conducted on ANSYS Workbench. Using vibrational analysis, the first 6 mode shapes of the model were determined. It was found that the natural frequency of the wing with morphing winglets was around 29 Hz for the various cant angle configurations. An analytical solution was also obtained on MATLAB through several iterations. The flutter speed of the analytical solution was found to be 57.65 m/s. Through the principle of damping extrapolation, the natural frequency of the analytical solution was found to be 33.2 Hz which was similar to the theoretical results. For further study in this undergraduate thesis, the next steps involve manufacturing the wing and conducting the Ground Vibration Test (GVT) and the wind tunnel test on the model to determine the frequency of vibration, mode shapes, and damping ratios.</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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".