MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391300876 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-2150

Design and Optimization of Droop Nose Leading Edge (DNLE) Morphing Wing Skin for the UAS-S45

2024· article· en· W4391300876 on OpenAlexaff
Musavir Bashir, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Tony Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltage droopMorphingWingComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionEngineeringComputer visionAerospace engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the design and optimization of a flexible Droop Nose Leading Edge (DNLE) based on the composite laminate skin for the UAS-S45. The concept of a morphing DNLE airfoil has excellent potential for drag and airframe noise reduction. The essential part of this DNLE airfoil type is the easiness of its mechanism deformation while maintaining the wing's structural integrity. The morphing DNLE must change the baseline shape under the influence of the aerodynamic loads to obtain its desired optimized target shape. This study proposes an optimization method to evaluate the skin design's feasibility and check the composite's failure index when the morphing DNLE changes shape. The approach yielded the desired aerodynamics shape of flexible droop nose leading edge. Wing leading edge topology depends on composite wing properties, such as ply-orientation, ply-thickness, and other composite wing parameters. This paper presents a design methodology of stiffness coefficients and lamination parameters for the stacking sequence optimization during the DNLE morphing deformation. In addition to increasing the deformation accuracy of the final airfoil shape made of composite skin, the use of stiffness coefficients and lamination parameters also effectively and efficiently defines the sequence of the composite lay-up. The deformed airfoil shapes between the optimized lay-ups and their modified shapes are compared to confirm their abilities to morph and aerodynamically optimize their shapes. The numerical results of the droop nose morphing with composite materials proved structure morphing capacity and showed feasibility of wing leading edge design mechanism and show the ability and accuracy of the methodology to obtain their morphing wing shapes.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207