Analysis and Validation of CFD Model in Propeller-Wing Configurations
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
Recent advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) designs have increasingly incorporated Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP) systems, characterized by multiple propellers attached on the leading edge of the wing. The increased interest in DEP necessitates understanding the aerodynamic effect of such multi-propeller configurations on aircraft performance. The development of a propeller model using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) ensures flexibility in simulating different situations and analyzing the flow around the wing. In the present study, a CFD model developed to simulate the propeller slipstream was validated in the presence of a wing in different configurations. Simulations were assessed by varying freestream velocity, propeller advance ratio, and wing geometry. The effects produced by a single propeller were examined first before extending the analysis to multi-propeller configurations. The aerodynamic coefficients, specifically lift and drag, were compared to existing experimental results, demonstrating good agreement.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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