On the force signatures of a pair of multi-plunging airfoils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unsteady aerodynamics of a pair of multi-plunging airfoils is studied using computational fluid dynamics based on a finite volume method and dynamic layering mesh motion algorithm. The two-dimensional unsteady, incompressible Navier–Stokes equations are used as the governing equations while the thin ellipsoidal airfoils, commonly used in micro aerial vehicles, perform harmonic plunging motion. The instantaneous lift and drag coefficients are examined in detail and the effects of Reynolds number, frequency and amplitude of oscillations, and the airfoils’ centre-to-centre spacing on the force coefficients are investigated. It is shown that the force coefficients of each of the plunging airfoils differ noticeably from those of a single plunging airfoil both quantitatively and qualitatively, showing the significance of the airfoil–airfoil interaction. It is also observed that the investigated parameters affect the magnitude and characteristics of the real-time lift and drag coefficients. There is an optimum frequency of oscillations, resulting in the highest thrust generation between the investigated frequencies. The amplitude of oscillations increases the aerodynamic performance by increasing the mean lift coefficient but decreasing the mean drag coefficient at the same time. Re effects on the lift coefficient are negligible; however, it is shown that increasing Re causes the airfoils to generate more thrust compared to the lower Re investigated here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".