Flutter Predictions for Very Flexible Wing Wind Tunnel Test
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stability boundaries of a very flexible wing are sought to inform a wind-tunnel flutter test campaign. The objective is twofold: to identify via simulation the relevant physical processes to be explored while ensuring safe and nondestructive experiments, and to provide a benchmark case for which computational models and test data are freely available. Analyses have been independently carried out using two geometrically nonlinear structural models coupled with potential flow aerodynamics. The models are based on a prototype of the wing for which static load and aeroelastic tests are available, and the experimental results have been successfully reproduced numerically. The wing displays strong geometrically nonlinear effects with static deformations as high as 50% of its span. This results in substantial changes to its structural dynamics, which display several mode crossings that cause the flutter mechanisms to change as a function of deformation. Stability characteristics depend on both the freestream velocity and the angle of attack. A fast drop of the flutter speed is observed as the wing deforms as the angle of attack is increased, whereas a large stable region is observed for wing displacements over 25%. The corresponding wind tunnel dynamic tests have validated these predictions.
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.
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 it