Experimental Study of Aerodynamics and Wingtip Vortex of a Rectangular Wing in Flat Ground Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ground effect on the aerodynamics and tip vortex flow of a rectangular wing is investigated experimentally at Re = 2.71 × 105. The results show that there is a large lift increase with reducing ground distance. By contrast, only a small drag increase is observed in ground effect except in close ground proximity for which a great drag increase appears. The tip vortex also moves further outboard and upward with reducing ground distance. Near the ground, there is the presence of a corotating ground vortex (produced by the rolling up of the boundary layer developed on the ground surface), leading to an increased vortex strength. In extreme ground proximity, a counterrotating secondary vortex (SV) (induced by the crossflow of the tip vortex), relative to the tip vortex, appears which causes a reduced vortex strength and a lowered lift-induced drag, as well as a vortex rebound. The impact of ground effect on the vortex flow properties is also discussed. The lift-induced drag, computed based on the crossflow measurements via the Maskell wake integral method, in ground effect is also compared against the inviscid-flow predictions and wind tunnel total drag force measurements.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".