Coupled Dynamics of Steady Jet Flow Control for Flexible Membrane Wings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a steady jet-flow-based flow control of flexible membrane wings for the adaptive and efficient motion of bat-inspired drones in complex flight environments. A body-fitted variational computational aeroelastic framework is adopted for the modeling of fluid–structure interactions. High-momentum jet flows are injected from the leading edge and transported to the wake flows to alter the aerodynamic performance and the membrane vibration. The coupled dynamic effect of active jet flow control on membrane performance is systematically explored. While the results indicate that the current active flow control strategy performs well at low angles of attack, its effectiveness degrades at high angles of attack with large flow separation. To understand the coupling mechanism, the variations of the vortex patterns are examined by the proper orthogonal decomposition modes, and the fluid transport process is studied by the Lagrangian coherent structures. Two scaling relations that quantitatively connect the membrane deformation with the aerodynamic loads presented in our previous work are verified even when active jet flow control is applied. A unifying feedback loop that reveals the fluid–membrane coupling mechanism is proposed. These findings can facilitate the development of next-generation bio-inspired drones that incorporate smart sensing and intelligent control.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".