Comparative Investigations on Hydrodynamic Performance of Active and Passive Tails of Undulating Swimmers
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
Fish display remarkable swimming capabilities through the coordinated interaction of the body and caudal fin, yet the potential role of a passively pitching tail in enhancing hydrodynamic performance remains unresolved. In this work, we evaluate the performance of a carangiform swimmer equipped with either an actively pitching tail or a passively pitching tail. High-fidelity fluid-structure interaction simulations are employed to assess how variations in joint stiffness, damping, and inertia influence thrust generation, power demand, and overall stability at two representative Reynolds numbers, 500 and 5000. The results reveal that actively pitching tails tend to generate greater thrust, while passively pitching tails deliver improved outcomes in terms of power demand at the lower Reynolds number. Larger pitching amplitudes contribute positively only when associated with higher swimming frequency; when produced by reduced inertia or more flexible joints, they lead to unfavorable effects. At the higher Reynolds number, active tails consistently outperform passive ones, although a small subset of passive cases still achieve favorable performance. Across all cases, a recurring balance emerges, with thrust production and power expenditure varying inversely. These findings clarify the hydrodynamic consequences of passive versus active tail motion and establish design principles for bio-inspired underwater vehicles, in which smaller swimmers may benefit from passive tail pitching, whereas larger swimmers are better served by active 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.
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