First, a is trained for a less sophisticated FE model (recall ysim(x;θ) in Eq. 1).

Next, the synthetic data from the baseline FE model is used to train a

associated with this model (recall δ(x) in Eq. 1). The procedure is repeated for each of the

four alternative modeling strategies. Although several levels of sophistication are removed

from the baseline model to develop the four alternative models, the initial step of rotating

the bi axial layers to create a composite blade with layers oriented in the same direction (i.e.

from the baseline blade to Blade 1) is observed to have the highest effect on discrepancy.

For brevity, the results are presented for Blade 4 only.

In Figure 9 a, the accuracy of the trained is confirmed by the agreement

shown between the GPM predictions and 100 simulated data. The trained is

non deterministic in nature, therefore error bars are used to represent the bias corrected

predictions in Figure 9 b. For all ten data points, the experimental data falls within the range

of bias corrected predictions, increasing confidence in the results. The discrepancy at the ten

locations of synthetic experimental data are plotted in Figure 9 c.

Figure 10: Bias Corrected Predictions (top) and Calibrated Predictions (bottom)

19