Vortex Dynamics from Burst-and-Coast Motion of Anguilliform and Carangiform Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish perform various propulsive maneuvers while swimming by generating traveling waves along their bodies and producing thrust through tail strokes. Anguilliform swimmers spread motion along the body, while carangiform swimmers' motion is more prominent near their tails. Many species also switch between continuous undulation and intermittent swimming, such as burst-and-coast maneuver, which can save energy but can also change the wake structure and hydrodynamic forces. Our current study aims at explaining} how duty cycle (DC), undulatory gaits, and Strouhal number (St), shape the near-body vortices, overall wakes, and the hydrodynamic forces. We carry out three-dimensional simulations at Re = 3000 for flows around an eel (anguilliform) and a Jack Fish (carangiform) for DC = 0.2-1.0 and St = 0.30 and 0.40. Our results reveal that the burst-and-coast motion for both swimmer produce bow-shaped wakes, the two rows of which on the sides approach each other to form a more coherent wake as DC is increased to 1.0 that corresponds to the wake of continuously undulating swimmers. It is also found that the intermittent motion at a higher Strouhal number produces more drag, contrary to the continuous undulatory kinematics. We further investigate this behavior by quantifying the strengths of vortices produced around the two swimmers and their instantaneous kinematic metrics. A detailed analysis for the role of different body sections in the production of unsteady streamwise forces is also presented. These insights provide important connections between the swimmers' physiologies, their kinematics, and the governing vortex dynamics to attain certain hydrodynamic metrics for designing next-generation autonomous bio-inspired underwater robots.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".