Parametric Study of an Oscillating Airfoil in a Power-Extraction Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wing that is heaving and pitching simultaneously may extract energy from an oncoming flow, thus acting as a turbine. The theoretical performance of such a concept is investigated here through unsteady two-dimensional laminar-flow simulations using the commercial finite volume computational fluid dynamics code FLUENT. Computations are performed in the heaving reference frame of the airfoil, thus leaving only the pitching motion of the airfoil to be dealt with through a rigid-body mesh rotation and a circular nonconformal sliding interface. Unsteady aerodynamics basics of the oscillating airfoil are first exposed, with a description of the operating regimes. Effects of unsteadiness are stressed and the inadequacy of a quasi-steady approach to take them into account is exposed. We present a mapping of power-extraction efficiency for a single oscillating airfoil in the frequency and pitching-amplitude domain: 0 55deg in which efficiencies are higher than 20%. Results from a parametric study are then provided and discussed. It is found that motion-related parameters such as heaving amplitude and frequency have the strongest effects on airfoil performances, whereas geometry and viscous parameters turn out to play a secondary role.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".