Laminar Separation Bubble Development on a Finite Wing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental study considers the development of a laminar separation bubble formed over a finite wing and contrasts it with the flow evolution over a two-dimensional airfoil. The experiments were performed on a reference NACA 0018 airfoil model and a finite wing with an aspect ratio of 2.5 at a Reynolds number of 125,000 involving surface pressure and particle image velocimetry measurements. For equivalent effective angles of attack, the results reveal significant differences between the two- and three-dimensional configurations. Specifically, increasing the effective angle of attack causes the separation bubble to shift upstream on the two-dimensional airfoil, whereas its mean position and streamwise extent remain invariant to spanwise changes in the effective angle on the finite wing. Similarly, the dominant shear layer frequency and characteristics of shear layer rollers do not vary appreciably over the wingspan. This suggests that the sectional analogy between the local effective angle on the wing and that on the airfoil is not universally applicable to the wing sections subjected to the formation of laminar separation bubbles. Instead, the spanwise characteristics of the bubble on the wing are well approximated by those obtained on the airfoil at the angle of attack matching the effective angle of the wing root. It should be noted, however, that these findings are exclusive of the regions in the immediate vicinity of the wing tip and/or root, which were not considered in the present investigations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".