Instability and the post-critical behaviour of two-dimensional inverted flags in axial flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inverted flags – clamped–free elastic thin plates subjected to a fluid flowing axially and directed from the free end towards the clamped end – have been observed experimentally and computationally to exhibit large-amplitude flapping beyond a critical flow velocity. The motivation for further research on the dynamics of this system is partly due to its presence in some engineering and biological systems, and partly because of the very rich dynamics it displays. In the present paper, the goal is to develop a nonlinear analytical model for the dynamics and stability of high aspect ratio (i.e. height to length ratio) flags. The inviscid fluid flow is modelled via the quasi-steady version of Theodorsen’s unsteady aerodynamic theory, and the Polhamus leading-edge suction analogy is utilized to model flow separation effects from the free end (leading edge) at moderate angles of attack. Gear’s backward differentiation formula and a pseudo-arclength continuation technique are employed to solve the governing equations. Numerical results suggest that fluidelastic instability may be the underlying mechanism for the flapping motion of high aspect ratio heavy inverted flags. In other words, flapping may be viewed as a self-excited vibration. It was found from numerical results that the undeflected static equilibrium of the inverted flag is stable at low flow velocities, prior to the occurrence of a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation. The pitchfork bifurcation is associated with static divergence (buckling) of the flag. At higher flow velocities, past the pitchfork bifurcation, a supercritical Hopf bifurcation materializes, generating a flapping motion around the deflected static equilibrium. At even higher flow velocities, flapping motion becomes symmetric around the undeflected static equilibrium. Interestingly, it was also found that heavy flags may exhibit large-amplitude flapping right after the initial static equilibrium, provided that they are subjected to a sufficiently large disturbance. Moreover, inverted flags with a non-zero initial angle of attack were found to be less stable than their perfectly flow-aligned counterparts.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".