MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395515489 · doi:10.1088/1748-3190/10/3/036007

Aerodynamic performance of two-dimensional, chordwise flexible flapping wings at fruit fly scale in hover flight

2015· article· en· W2395515489 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinspiration & Biomimetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster UniversityUniversity of Alabama in Huntsville
KeywordsWingFlappingAerodynamicsWing twistAerodynamic forceWashoutMechanicsFlight dynamicsAeroelasticityInsect flightWing loadingLift (data mining)WingspanLift coefficientReynolds numberStructural engineeringPhysicsAngle of attackEngineeringComputer scienceTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fruit flies have flexible wings that deform during flight. To explore the fluid-structure interaction of flexible flapping wings at fruit fly scale, we use a well-validated Navier-Stokes equation solver, fully-coupled with a structural dynamics solver. Effects of chordwise flexibility on a two dimensional hovering wing is studied. Resulting wing rotation is purely passive, due to the dynamic balance between aerodynamic loading, elastic restoring force, and inertial force of the wing. Hover flight is considered at a Reynolds number of Re = 100, equivalent to that of fruit flies. The thickness and density of the wing also corresponds to a fruit fly wing. The wing stiffness and motion amplitude are varied to assess their influences on the resulting aerodynamic performance and structural response. Highest lift coefficient of 3.3 was obtained at the lowest-amplitude, highest-frequency motion (reduced frequency of 3.0) at the lowest stiffness (frequency ratio of 0.7) wing within the range of the current study, although the corresponding power required was also the highest. Optimal efficiency was achieved for a lower reduced frequency of 0.3 and frequency ratio 0.35. Compared to the water tunnel scale with water as the surrounding fluid instead of air, the resulting vortex dynamics and aerodynamic performance remained similar for the optimal efficiency motion, while the structural response varied significantly. Despite these differences, the time-averaged lift scaled with the dimensionless shape deformation parameter γ. Moreover, the wing kinematics that resulted in the optimal efficiency motion was closely aligned to the fruit fly measurements, suggesting that fruit fly flight aims to conserve energy, rather than to generate large forces.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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