MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111612861 · doi:10.2514/2.3070

Theoretical Solutions for Unsteady Flows Past Oscillating Flexible Airfoils Using Velocity Singularities

2003· article· en· W2111612861 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Mateescu, Mohammed S. ‬Abdo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilAileronAerodynamicsAeroelasticityLift (data mining)MathematicsAngle of attackMechanicsVortex sheddingAerodynamic forceVortexMathematical analysisPhysicsClassical mechanicsTurbulenceReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method of solution is presented for the analysis of unsteady e ows past oscillating airfoils. This method is based on the derivation of the singular contributions of the leading edge and ridges (points where the airfoil boundary conditions change ) in the solutions of the e uid velocity and pressure coefe cient. The method has been validated by comparison with the results obtained by Theodorsen and by Postel and Leppert for rigid airfoil and aileron oscillations in translation and rotation. An excellent agreement was found between the present solutions and these previous results. This method has then been used to obtain solutions for the e exural oscillations of the e exible airfoils, e tted or not with oscillating e exible ailerons, which are of interest for the aeroelastic studies. The aerodynamic stiffness, damping, and virtual (or added) mass contributions in the solutions of the unsteady pressure distribution, lift coefe cient, and moment coefe cient are specie cally determined. An analysis of the relative magnitude of the quasi-steady and vortex shedding contributions in the aerodynamic coefe cients is also presented. In all cases studied, this method led to very efe cient and simple analytical solutions in closed form.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207