Two Dimensional CFD Simulation of Optimizing Lift to Drag Ratio of Flapping Tandem NACA 0012 Airfoils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NACA 0012 airfoil is a symmetrical airfoil that has been widely used in aerodynamic studies. This research investigates the maximum lift to drag ratio (L/D) of the flapping NACA 0012 airfoils under different configurations at low Reynolds numbers (Re ≈ 1300). Through Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations using COMSOL, the research first optimizes the configuration of a single airfoil with a linear motion and a rotational motion by varying the amplitude of the rotational motion and the phase difference between two motions, and then apply the results on simulations of two tandem airfoils with the same motions, by changing the distance between the airfoils and the phase difference between the linear motion of two airfoils. A maximum lift to drag ratio is reached in each simulation. The studies are significant in understanding the effect of vortex produced by the front airfoil on the rear airfoil, and can guide the design of new airfoil and new energy recovery systems.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".