An Experimental Comparison between Wing Root and Wingtip Corrugation Patterns of Dragonfly Wing at Ultra-low Reynolds Number and High Angles of Attack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents the empirical comparison between the wing root and wingtip corrugation patterns of dragonfly wing in the newly-built wind-tunnel at the IAUN. The main objective of the research is to investigate the effect of wingtip and wing root corrugations on aerodynamic forces and the flow physics around the cross-sections at Re=10000 and the angle of attack of 0° to 30°. For this aim, two cross-sections are extracted from wing root (first cross-section) and wingtip (second cross-section). The first cross-section has corrugations with higher density than the second cross-section. The comparison of lift coefficients obtained from pressure distribution and force measurement indicates an acceptable agreement between the results. Also, Particle Image Velocity (PIV) technique is used to measure the velocity field. The results show that all corrugation patterns do not have positive effects on the aerodynamic forces. The second cross-section can generate considerable aerodynamic forces compared to the first cross-section. At α=25°, the lift coefficient generated by the second cross-section is 90% and 25% higher than that of the first cross-section and the flat plate, respectively. Based on results, corrugations in the wing root's vicinity have a crucial role in the solidity of insect wings; however, corrugations in the wing tip's vicinity play a vital role in generating adequate aerodynamic forces. The comparison conducted in the current research reveals the second cross-section is an appropriate replacement for the flat plate in MAVs due to generating more essential forces for flight.
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".