Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 13 references

Separation control applied to the turbulent flow around a NACA4412 wing section

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read At 11 degrees angle of attack, steady suction on the suction side of a NACA4412 wing can eliminate flow separation, raising lift by up to 11 percent, but the accompanying drag increase reduces the lift-to-drag ratio; only pressure-side…

desk verdict Good LES dataset with a real abstract contradiction and thin statistical basis for the efficiency ranking. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07910 v3 pith:2KTFIN2Z submitted 2025-02-11 physics.flu-dyn

Yuning Wang , Fermin Mallor , Carlos Guardiola , Raffaello Mariani , Ricardo Vinuesa This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords flowseparationcontrolNACA4412winglarge-eddysimulationuniformblowingandsuctionperiodicexcitationlift-to-dragratioturbulentboundarylayeradversepressuregradient
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether steady or periodic wall blowing and suction can reattach the separated flow over a NACA4412 wing at 11 degrees angle of attack and chord Reynolds number 200,000, and at what cost in lift and drag. Using wall-resolved large-eddy simulations with a wide spanwise domain, it finds that steady suction on the suction side combined with blowing on the pressure side can shrink or eliminate the separated region and raise lift by up to about 11 percent, but the accompanying drag rise lowers the lift-to-drag ratio. Suction alone gives the same separation delay as the combined case with a smaller lift gain, while pressure-side blowing alone is the only tested steady case that slightly improves aerodynamic efficiency. The authors conclude that periodic control, tested near the trailing-edge separation point, neither further delays separation nor improves efficiency. The study matters because it tests control ideas in three-dimensional resolved turbulence rather than two-dimensional models, and it separates the lift benefit from the efficiency penalty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a wall-resolved large-eddy simulation of a NACA4412 section with spanwise width L_z = 0.6c, discretized with a spectral-element method and adaptive mesh refinement, resolving about 90 percent of the dissipation. Control is injected as a steady wall-normal velocity psi between 0.25 and 1.0 percent of U_infinity over 0.25 <= x/c <= 0.86 on the suction and/or pressure side, with its momentum input quantified by the momentum coefficient C_mu = rho $psi^{2}$ ell_ctrl / (0.5 rho $U_infinity^{2}$). The primary outcome variable is the separation length ell_sep = (x_TE - x_sep)/c, computed from the sign change of the skin-friction coefficient. The argument works by showing that C_mu scales the separation delay and lift rise, while decomposition of total drag into skin-friction and pressure components explains why aerodynamic efficiency falls even when lift rises.

What would settle it

Repeat the five control cases and the uncontrolled baseline in the same setup but average over at least ten flow-over times, or run several independent realizations and compute confidence intervals for Cl, Cd, and L/D; if the reported differences of +0.79 to -11.5 percent in lift-to-drag ratio fall inside the uncertainty band, or the rank ordering changes, the conclusion that only pressure-side blowing improves efficiency would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At AoA = 11 degrees and Re_c = 200,000, steady uniform suction applied to the suction side from x/c = 0.25 to 0.86 is the dominant mechanism for separation delay: suction alone at psi = 0.25 percent U_infinity reduces the separation length from 0.14 to 0.02, matching the combined suction-and-blowing case, and combined control at psi = 0.50 and 1.00 percent U_infinity eliminates separation entirely. Lift tracks the momentum coefficient, rising by 3.2, 5.9, and 11.45 percent for Cases A, B, and C, but total drag rises by 5.4, 11.2, and 25.9 percent, so the lift-to-drag ratio falls by 2.1, 4.7, and 11.5 percent. Only pressure-side blowing alone (Case E) improves aerodynamic efficiency, by 0.79 percent, through a 12.5 percent reduction in skin-friction drag. The paper interprets this as a structural trade-off: control adds near-wall momentum to delay separation and increase lift, and that same momentum addition costs drag. It also reports that periodic control at several frequencies and momentum coefficients did not beat the steady configurations in separation delay or efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on treating lift and drag coefficients averaged over about two flow-over times as statistically converged, without error bars, so the small efficiency differences between configurations are taken as real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the force results hold, steady suction over the suction side from quarter-chord to near the trailing edge can restore attached flow on a NACA4412 at AoA = 11 degrees and Re_c = 200,000.
  • Combined suction and blowing provides a controllable lift increase of up to about 11 percent, but at psi = 1.0 percent U_infinity the drag rise costs roughly 11.5 percent of the lift-to-drag ratio.
  • Pressure-side blowing alone is the only tested steady case with a positive, though marginal, efficiency change, obtained by lowering skin-friction drag rather than pressure drag.
  • Suction on the suction side dominates separation delay, which suggests that control placement and momentum budget matter more than the total momentum coefficient alone.
  • The conclusions are specific to one airfoil, one angle of attack, and one Reynolds number; control strategies that work for attached boundary layers at lower angles of attack do not transfer directly to separated conditions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension, suggested by the paper's own discussion, is that at higher angles of attack where the separated region is much longer, the same steady suction may shift the balance and yield a net gain in lift-to-drag ratio; the paper does not test that regime.
  • Because suction alone matches the combined case in separation delay, optimizing the suction distribution or moving it farther upstream may recover part of the drag penalty; this is a testable extension of the reported data.
  • The abstract's statement that periodic control 'neither enhanced separation delay nor improved efficiency' should be read as no improvement over the steady combined cases: the appendix tables show every periodic case does reduce the separation length relative to the uncontrolled wing, and the small efficiency differences would need longer averaging to rank reliably.
  • A closed-loop or learning-based controller that modulates suction and blowing in time, rather than using steady or single-frequency forcing, is a plausible route to recovering some efficiency while keeping the separation delay; the paper names this direction but does not pursue it.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents wall-resolved large-eddy simulations of a NACA4412 wing section at AoA = 11° and Re_c = 200,000, with spanwise width Lz = 0.6c, using the spectral-element solver Nek5000 with AMR and roughly 3.9×10^8 grid points. The authors compare five steady-control configurations (uniform suction on the suction side, uniform blowing on the pressure side, and combinations at three intensities) and, in an appendix, nine periodic-control cases. The reported findings are that combined suction and blowing can eliminate separation (ℓsep = 0 for Cases B and C), increase lift by up to 11.45%, but generally increase drag so that only pressure-side blowing (Case E) modestly improves L/D. The abstract further claims that periodic control 'neither enhanced separation delay nor improved efficiency.' The manuscript includes analysis of boundary-layer integral quantities, Reynolds stresses, and power-spectral densities.

Significance. If the results are robust, the study is a valuable contribution: it provides a high-resolution LES dataset for a separated wing section with a wide span, it demonstrates that a RANS-optimized control configuration (Case A) does not improve L/D in LES, and it documents nontrivial modifications of TBL statistics and spectra under control. The explicit comparison of steady versus periodic control at a single AoA is also useful. However, the central periodic-control claim is directly contradicted by the paper's own appendix table, and the aerodynamic-efficiency conclusions rest on force averages over only about two flow-over times without uncertainty estimates. Both issues are load-bearing and require correction before the findings can be accepted as stated. The novelty claim of being the first high-resolution LES study of separation control is too broad and should be softened.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §4 (Summary and conclusions); Appendix A, Table A.4] The abstract states that periodic control 'neither enhanced separation delay nor improved efficiency.' This is contradicted by the manuscript's own Table A.4: every one of the nine periodic-control cases reduces ℓsep from 0.14 to 0.04–0.06, a 57–71% reduction relative to the uncontrolled reference. The summary's wording ('neither further delayed separation') is ambiguous but the abstract's claim is false if the comparison baseline is the uncontrolled case. The authors must revise the abstract and summary to say either that periodic control delayed separation but did not improve L/D, or explicitly state that periodic control did not outperform the steady cases. This is not a cosmetic issue, as the sentence is a headline finding.
  2. [§2.2 (statistical convergence) and Table 2] The aerodynamic-efficiency conclusions lack uncertainty quantification. Section 2.2 states that 'for each case, simulations were run for at least 2 flow-over times' and that this is 'equivalent to ≈12 flow-over times' for a domain with Lz=0.1c, but no derivation or convergence diagnostics are provided. Table 2 reports L/D changes as small as −2.06% (Case A) and +0.79% (Case E). With only two flow-over times of averaging in a separated flow with low-frequency unsteadiness, these differences may be within the statistical uncertainty of the force coefficients. The authors should provide running-time averages or block-averaged uncertainties for Cl, Cd, and L/D for the main cases, and should justify the spanwise-width/time equivalence. The near-identical values reported for Cases 3 and 4 in Table A.4, which differ only in frequency, further suggest that the averaging period is too short to distinguish configurations.
  3. [§3.1 and Fig. 5] There is an internal inconsistency in the discussion of the local force distributions. The text states: 'as the only case that improves aerodynamic efficiency, Case D shows a clear reduction in Γd, particularly by decreasing Γd,p in the region x/c = 0.1 to 0.3.' This contradicts Table 2, which shows Case D reduces L/D by 4.21% and Case E is the only case that improves L/D (+0.79%). In addition, the preceding paragraph attributes a '1.1% increase in Cd,p' to Case D, whereas Table 2 lists Cd,p = +3.57% for Case D and +1.10% for Case E. These errors indicate a systematic mislabeling of Cases D and E in this section; the local-force analysis and its interpretation must be corrected.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The spanwise width is written as 'Lz = 0.6' without units; it should be 'Lz = 0.6c'.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains typos: 'Darg-force distributions' and 'cricle and dimonand markers' should be 'drag-force distributions' and 'circle and diamond markers'.
  3. [§3.2] The phrase 'flavorable-pressure-gradient conditions' should be 'favorable-pressure-gradient conditions'.
  4. [§3.4] The word 'siginificantly' should be 'significantly'.
  5. [Declarations] The heading 'Competing interesting' should be 'Competing interests'.
  6. [References] The reference to Prandtl contains an encoding artifact ('Uø ber'); it should be 'Über'.
  7. [Abstract and §1] The claim 'to the authors' best knowledge, this is the first numerical study utilizing high-resolution LESs to provide comprehensive assessments on separation control' is overly broad; earlier LES-based active-flow-control studies exist. Recommend making the novelty claim more specific, e.g., first high-resolution LES assessment of these steady/periodic uniform blowing and suction configurations on a wing section at this angle of attack.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the aerodynamic results are direct LES outputs, and the abstract's periodic-control overstatement is a data-consistency issue rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities (Cl, Cd, L/D, lsep, Reynolds stresses, and PSDs) are measured from large-eddy simulations rather than obtained by fitting parameters to the claimed outcomes. Case A is described as replicating a configuration optimized in prior 2D RANS work, but the paper's LES results differ substantially from that prior result (e.g., L/D decreases instead of the previously reported 42% improvement), showing that the LES output is not forced by the cited prior configuration. The spanwise-width and statistical-convergence justifications cite the authors' own earlier studies (Vinuesa et al. 2016, 2018; Mallor et al. 2024b), but these are auxiliary methodological premises about domain sizing and averaging-time equivalence, not restatements of the control conclusions; they are independently established and do not contain the target results. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The abstract's statement that periodic control 'neither enhanced separation delay nor improved efficiency' is contradicted by the paper's own Table A.4, where every periodic-control case reduces lsep from 0.14 to 0.04-0.06, but this is an internal consistency or accuracy problem, not circularity; the derivation chain itself remains open. Therefore no circular step is identified, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results depend on a set of simulation and control parameters (psi, control region, spanwise width, tripping location) that are inputs chosen from prior work rather than derived from first principles. The analysis also assumes the LES model, tripping, spanwise extent, averaging time, actuator model, and periodic-control parameter sweep are adequate. These are reasonable engineering assumptions for a high-fidelity parametric study, but they mean the reported numbers are conditional on the specific setup.

free parameters (4)
  • Control intensity psi = 0.25%, 0.50%, 1.00% U_infinity (and appendix values up to 7.5%)
    Independent variable swept in the study. The claimed 11% lift increase corresponds to the largest main-set value, not to an optimized optimum. Values were chosen based on prior studies (Atzori et al. 2020, Mallor et al. 2024a).
  • Control region x/c = 0.25 to 0.86 chord
    Inherited from prior studies (Vinuesa and Schlatter 2017, Atzori et al. 2020, Wang et al. 2024) to enable direct comparison. The separation-delay and drag results depend on this placement.
  • Spanwise width Lz = 0.6c
    Chosen to satisfy the criterion of at least 0.4c from Mallor et al. (2024b); not fitted to data. The authors assume this is sufficient to avoid artificial constraints on separation dynamics.
  • Boundary-layer trip location = x/c = 0.1
    Chosen from prior tripping methodology (Hosseini et al. 2016). It forces transition and removes the natural leading-edge separation bubble, which is a premise for the baseline and controlled flow development.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with an implicit relaxation-term SGS model capture the relevant turbulent dynamics at Re_c=200,000.
    Section 2.1; the implicit SGS model is validated in prior simulations but is a modeling choice, not a direct guarantee of exactness for separated-flow control.
  • domain assumption Boundary-layer tripping at x/c=0.1 produces a fully turbulent, attached boundary layer with no leading-edge separation bubble affecting downstream separation.
    Section 2.1 states 'the tripping force... ensures flow reattachment shortly downstream of the leading edge' and that the separation bubble 'does not affect the flow development further downstream.' This premise underlies both baseline and controlled cases.
  • domain assumption A spanwise width of 0.6c is large enough to avoid artificial domain-induced constraints on turbulence dynamics and separation.
    Section 2.1 justifies Lz=0.6c using a criterion from Mallor et al. (2024b) that at least 0.4c is needed, but does not demonstrate convergence with respect to spanwise width in this paper.
  • domain assumption Two flow-over times of averaging, combined with Lz=0.6c, provide statistically converged force and turbulence statistics without error bars.
    Section 2.2: 'For each case, simulations were run for at least 2 flow-over times... to ensure statistical convergence.' The equivalence to 12 flow-over times at Lz=0.1c is an estimate, and no convergence diagnostics or uncertainty estimates are shown.
  • domain assumption The periodic-control parameters tested (frequencies F* of 0.86, 1.0, 4.2, 10.1 and intensities of 0.1 to 2% U_infinity) are representative enough to support the conclusion that periodic control is not beneficial.
    Appendix A tests a limited set of configurations near the trailing edge. The broad conclusion that periodic control does not improve performance rests on this representativeness assumption.
  • domain assumption Wall control modeled as a Dirichlet boundary condition with specified wall-normal velocity and zero tangential velocity faithfully represents a physical distributed suction/blowing actuator.
    Section 2.2 describes the boundary-condition implementation and verifies the wall-normal velocity matches the imposed value, but the equivalence to a real porous surface or slot actuator is not assessed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Separation control applied to the turbulent flow around a NACA4412 wing section." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2KTFIN2Z

@misc{pith2026250207910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Separation control applied to the turbulent flow around a NACA4412 wing section},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2KTFIN2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07910}
}
abstract

We carried out high-resolution large-eddy simulations (LESs) to investigate the effects of several separation-control approaches on a NACA4412 wing section with spanwise width of $L_z = 0.6$ at an angle of attack of $AoA=11^{\circ}$ at a Reynolds number of $Re_c = 200,000$ based on chord length $c$ and free-stream velocity $U_{\infty}$. Two control strategies were considered: (1) steady uniform blowing and/or suction on the suction and/or pressure sides, and (2) periodic control on the suction side. A wide range of control configurations were evaluated in terms of aerodynamic efficiency (i.e., lift-to-drag ratio) and separation delay. Uniform blowing and/or suction effectively delayed flow separation, leading to a lift increase of up to $11\%$, but yielded only marginal improvements in aerodynamic efficiency. In contrast, periodic control neither enhanced separation delay nor improved efficiency. A detailed analysis of the interaction between uniform blowing and/or suction and turbulent boundary layers (TBLs) over the wing was performed, including assessments of (1) integral boundary-layer quantities, (2) turbulence statistics, and (3) power-spectral densities. Significant modifications in Reynolds stresses and spectral characteristics were observed. To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first numerical study utilizing high-resolution LESs to provide comprehensive assessments on separation control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07910 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Two-dimensional plane of the spectral-element mesh used in the computational domain. The inset illustrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshots of the horizontal velocity component at an arbitrary time step for (top) the uncontrolled case and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The length of separation region ℓsep as a function of momentum coefficient Cµ. The color code follows tab. 1. On the other hand, although the control consistently increases Cl up to 11.45%, aerodynamic efficiency is more sensitive to changes in total drag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Total drag for all considered cases, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Lift (Γl) and (b) drag (Γd) force and its friction-force and pressure-force components around the airfoil as a function of x/c. The solid line with cross marker denotes the local force while the cricle and dimonand markers denote its pressure- and fricition-force c…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Skin-friction coefficient (c f ) distributions on the suction and pressure side of NACA4412 at AoA = 11◦ and Rec = 200, 000, where the solid and dashed lines denote the distributions on the suction and pressure side, respectively. The gray dash-dotted line denotes …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Clauser pressure-gradient parameter (β [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a, c) Inner- and (b, d) outer-scaled mean components of wall-tangential velocity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a, c) Inner- and (b, d) outer-scaled mean components of wall-normal velocity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ((a), (c)) Inner- and ((b), (d)) outer-scaled fluctuation components of wall-tangential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of vortical structures identified by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Inner-scaled premultiplied spanwise power-spectral density (PSD) of the wall-tangential velocity fluctuation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Power-spectral density (PSD) of ((a), (b)) fluctuating streamwise velocity and ((c), (d)) pressure in terms of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maskell, Flow separation in three dimensions, RAE Report No

    E. Maskell, Flow separation in three dimensions, RAE Report No. Aero 2565 (1955). R. L. Simpson, Turbulent boundary-layer separation, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 21 (1989) 205–232. S. Abdolahipour, Review on flow separation control: effects of excitation frequency and momentum coefficient, Frontiers in Mechanical Engineering 10 (2024) 1380675. doi:10...

    work page arXiv 1955

  2. [58]

    R. Azim, M. Hasan, M. Ali, Numerical investigation on the delay of boundary layer separation by suction for NACA4412, Procedia Engineering 105 (2015) 329–334. T. Oktay, Ö. Ö. Kanat, Aerodynamic e ffects of designing a suction channel over NACA4412 wing, Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi (2019) 1001–1007. 29

    work page 2015

  3. [62]

    Prandtl, Uø ber flussigkeitsbewegung mit kleiner reibung, Verhandlungen des III

    L. Prandtl, Uø ber flussigkeitsbewegung mit kleiner reibung, Verhandlungen des III. Internationalen Mathematiker- Kongresses, Heidelberg (1904) 8–13. H. Schlichting, K. Gersten, Boundary-layer theory, springer,

    work page 1904

  4. [140]

    Amitay, D

    M. Amitay, D. R. Smith, V . Kibens, D. E. Parekh, A. Glezer, Aerodynamic flow control over an unconventional airfoil using synthetic jet actuators, AIAA Journal 39 (2001) 361–370. doi: 10.2514/2.1323. S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, Closed-Loop Turbulence Control: Progress and Challenges, Applied Mechanics Reviews 67 (2015) 050801. doi:10.1115/1.4031175. B. N...

    doi:10.2514/2.1323 2001

  5. [552]

    Hsiao, C.-F

    F.-B. Hsiao, C.-F. Liu, J.-Y . Shyu, Control of wall-separated flow by internal acoustic excitation, AIAA journal 28 (1990) 1440–1446. A. Tuck, J. Soria, Separation control on a naca 0015 airfoil using a 2d micro znmf jet, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology 80 (2008) 175–180. A. Carnarius, B. Gunther, F. Thiele, D. Wachsmuth, F. Tröltzsch, J. C...

    work page 1990

  6. [1261]

    Suárez, F

    P. Suárez, F. Álcantara Ávila, A. Miró, J. Rabault, B. Font, O. Lehmkuhl, R. Vinuesa, Active flow control for drag reduction through multi-agent reinforcement learning on a turbulent cylinder at ReD = 3900, 2024a. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.17655. arXiv:2405.17655. P. Suárez, F. Álcantara Ávila, J. Rabault, A. Miró, B. Font, O. Lehmkuhl, R. Vinuesa,...

    arXiv 2022

  7. [1937]

    Harun, J

    Z. Harun, J. P. Monty, R. Mathis, I. Marusic, Pressure gradient effects on the large-scale structure of turbulent boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 715 (2013) 477–498. 28 R. Pozuelo, Q. Li, P. Schlatter, R. Vinuesa, An adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer with nearly constant β≃ 1.4 up to Reθ≃ 8700, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 939 (...

    work page 2013

  8. [1948]

    Vinuesa, A

    R. Vinuesa, A. Bobke, R. Örlü, P. Schlatter, On determining characteristic length scales in pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers, Physics of fluids 28 (2016). Y . Kametani, K. Fukagata, R. Örlü, P. Schlatter, E ffect of uniform blowing /suction in a turbulent bound- ary layer at moderate Reynolds number, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow...

    doi:10.1016/j 2016

Show all 13 references
  1. [1956]

    Goodarzi, R

    M. Goodarzi, R. Fereidouni, M. Rahimi, Investigation of flow control over a NACA0012 airfoil by suction e ffect on aerodynamic characteristics, Canadian Journal on Mechanical Sciences & Engineering 3 (2012) 102–109. Z. Zhi-yong, Z. Wang-long, C. Zhi-hua, S. Xiao-hui, X. Chen-c...

    2012

  2. [1997]

    C. Mavriplis, A posteriori error estimators for adaptive spectral element techniques, in: Proceedings of the Eighth GAMM-Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluid Mechanics, Springer, 1990, pp. 333–342. Á. Tanarro, F. Mallor, N. O ffermans, A. Peplinski, R. Vinuesa, P. Schlatte...

    2020 arXiv

  3. [2008]

    http://nek5000.mcs.anl.gov. A. T. Patera, A spectral element method for fluid dynamics: laminar flow in a channel expansion, Journal of computa- 27 tional Physics 54 (1984) 468–488. Y . Maday, A. T. Patera, Spectral element methods for the incompressible navier-stokes equation...

    1984

  4. [2017]

    Yousefi, R

    K. Yousefi, R. Saleh, Three-dimensional suction flow control and suction jet length optimization of NACA0012 wing, Meccanica 50 (2015) 1481–1494. A. Seifert, A. Darabi, I. Wyganski, Delay of airfoil stall by periodic excitation, Journal of Aircraft 33 (1996) 691–698. doi:10.25...

    2015 doi

  5. [2019]

    P. R. Spalart, Comments on the feasibility of les for wings and on the hybrid rans /les approach, in: Proceedings of the First AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES, 1997, 1997, pp. 137–147. C. Burstedde, L. C. Wilcox, O. Ghattas, p4est: Scalable algorithms for parallel ad...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.