Low-Reynolds-Number Aerodynamic Performances of the NACA 0012 and Selig–Donovan 7003 Airfoils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study of two airfoils at low Reynolds numbers using the transitional unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes shear-stress transport model and the ANSYS CFX computational fluid dynamics suite is proposed. The NACA 0012 and Selig–Donovan 7003 airfoils were selected and exposed to chord-based Reynolds numbers ranging from to at angles of attack ranging from 0 to 8 deg. The adopted numerical model and setup were shown to accurately predict the main flow features. Specifically, both laminar separation without reattachment and laminar-separation-bubble flow modes were observed depending on the airfoil geometry and orientation, Reynolds number, and freestream-turbulence intensity. In general, with increasing angle of attack or Reynolds number, laminar-separation bubbles shrank and receded toward the leading edge while vortex-shedding periodicity and coherency degraded. In all cases, the Selig–Donovan 7003 proved of superior aerodynamic performance when compared to the NACA 0012, which was expected.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".