MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606015851 · doi:10.1177/0954410017703416

Impact of ground proximity on the aerodynamic properties of an unsteady airfoil

2017· article· en· W2606015851 on OpenAlexaff
T. Lee, Afraz Hussain Majeed, Bilal Siddiqui, V. Tremblay-Dionne

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilAerodynamicsGround effect (cars)Aerospace engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanicsGeologyPhysicsAcousticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aerodynamic properties of a NACA 0012 airfoil, both stationary and unsteady, in ground effect (for nondimensional ground clearance h/ c ≤ 60%) were investigated experimentally at Re = 98,000. For the stationary airfoil, the ground proximity led to a reduced (or enhanced) lift and an increased nose-up (or nose-down) pitching moment for α < 6° (or α > 6°). The drag was, however, always increased in ground effect. For the oscillating airfoil, a substantial change in the aerodynamic loadings, especially during downstroke, was observed for h/ c ≤ 30%, leading to a greatly reduced C l -hysteresis compared to the baseline airfoil. As the case of the stationary airfoil, the lift increase was mainly caused by the RAM pressure effect, but to a greater extent. The dynamic-stall vortex was also weakened and broke down earlier with reducing h/ c, rendering an enlarged separated flow compared to the baseline airfoil. The results are of importance in understanding the ground effect on an unsteady airfoil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207