Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Developing a Numerical Framework for the High-Fidelity Simulation of Contrails: Sensitivity Analysis for Conventional Contrails

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Aircraft size, then soot emissions and fuel burn, control how many ice crystals a contrail forms in its first seconds.

desk verdict Useful LES framework with honest V&V, but the headline aircraft-size sensitivity rests on a widebody geometry whose listed radii give a bypass ratio near 1.5, not the stated ~8. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19348 v1 pith:YRMPPI5T submitted 2025-05-25 physics.flu-dyn

Tânia S. C. Ferreira , Juan J. Alonso , Catherine Gorlé This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords contrailslarge-eddysimulationicenucleationsootemissionindexradiativeforcingjet-vortexinteractionambientaerosolsensitivityanalysis
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 develops a three-dimensional large-eddy simulation framework for the jet and early vortex phases of contrail formation, solving the airflow on an Eulerian grid while tracking soot and aerosol particles in a Lagrangian manner. The authors show that, for a conventional-fuel contrail at typical cruise conditions, the number of nucleated ice crystals and the estimated net radiative forcing are most sensitive to aircraft size, followed by the soot number emission index and fuel consumption. They also find that adding ambient aerosol as a precursor reveals a nonlinear relation between the number of emitted soot particles and the number of nucleated ice crystals, so that in low-soot regimes ambient aerosol contributes substantially to ice formation. The work matters because contrail radiative forcing is one of the most uncertain aviation climate impacts, and the framework is intended as a precursor for studying contrails from alternative fuels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-phase large-eddy simulation model: a compressible Navier-Stokes carrier phase with a static-coefficient eddy-viscosity subgrid model, coupled through mass and energy source terms to Lagrangian particles that can each represent many physical particles. The contrail-specific machinery is the microphysics chain, which includes saturation-with-respect-to-water activation, depositional growth through a diffusion law with a collision factor and deposition coefficient, hygroscopicity-based droplet activation, condensation with latent heat, and homogeneous freezing, combined with an idealized initialization: a hyperbolic-tangent jet for the jet phase and a Lamb-Oseen vortex for the early vortex phase, embedded in a stably stratified atmosphere with periodic axial boundaries. This machinery converts inputs such as fuel mass flow, soot emission index, aircraft size, ambient temperature, and relative humidity into particle-level ice growth and, through a Mie-based optical-depth parameterization, into net radiative forcing per meter of plume.

What would settle it

A spatial near-field simulation, or a flight measurement campaign, that resolves the developing plume with engine geometry, axial compression, and ambient aerosol concentration would test the temporal idealization: if the resulting ice crystal number per meter, or the ranking aircraft size greater than soot emission index greater than fuel consumption, deviates beyond the roughly 1.3 percent simulation variability the authors report, the central sensitivity claim would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-stage temporal large-eddy simulation, starting from an idealized turbulent jet and then adding a Lamb-Oseen vortex, reproduces the jet and early vortex phases of contrail formation, and that within this framework the number of nucleated ice crystals and the optical-depth-based net radiative forcing are governed most strongly by aircraft size, then by soot number emission index, then by fuel consumption. A widebody aircraft forms roughly 4.8 times more ice crystals from soot and about three times the net radiative forcing of the narrowbody baseline after three seconds. Varying the soot number emission index from $10^{12}$ to $10^{15}$ per kilogram of fuel produces a nearly quadratic, rather than linear, relation between emitted soot and nucleated ice crystals, because ambient aerosol particles with higher hygroscopicity activate when soot is scarce. The paper further claims that more detailed aerosol-to-ice microphysics changes the nucleation timing but not the final ice crystal number or the optical effect, and that modeling the bypass flow delays jet development and reduces the net radiative forcing.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on the premise that the periodic, temporally evolving jet-plus-vortex idealization, without the axial compression and streamwise development of a real engine plume, captures the entrainment and mixing processes that set ice crystal number; the paper itself notes that this neglects the axial compression of the jet flow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In non-threshold baseline conditions, switching from simple ice-deposition microphysics to the full aerosol-to-ice pathway changes how quickly particles become ice crystals but leaves the final ice crystal count and net radiative forcing nearly unchanged.
  • Adding the bypass flow delays jet decay and lowers peak relative humidity, cutting net radiative forcing by about 9 percent even though ice crystal number changes by less than 2 percent.
  • Aircraft size is the dominant lever: the widebody case produces about 4.8 times more soot-nucleated ice crystals and about three times the net radiative forcing of the narrowbody at three seconds.
  • At high soot emission indices most ice crystals form on soot, while at low indices ambient aerosol with higher hygroscopicity contributes a much larger share, making the soot-to-ice relation nonlinear.
  • Atmospheric temperature near the formation threshold can suppress visible contrail formation: at 225 K, less than 5 percent of the baseline ice crystals form and the 90th-percentile optical depth falls below 0.02.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that a switch to low-soot alternative fuels may not cut ice crystal number proportionally; in a soot-poor regime ambient aerosol activation could dominate, so the climate benefit of a fuel switch would depend on local background aerosol concentrations.
  • Because larger aircraft entrain more ambient aerosol, the sensitivity ranking could shift for future widebody aircraft burning low-soot fuels, with ambient aerosol becoming a co-dominant factor alongside aircraft size.
  • A testable extension is to repeat the sensitivity analysis in a spatial simulation that includes axial compression and engine geometry, comparing not just mean ice radius but the full sensitivity ranking, since the paper validates jet-phase particle size rather than the ranking itself.
  • The radiative forcing estimates use an optical-depth parameterization at a fixed solar zenith angle and albedo, so extending to diurnal solar angles would show whether the ranking by warming potential matches the ranking by ice crystal number.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a numerical framework, built on the charLES solver, for large-eddy simulation of the early jet and vortex phases of contrail formation. The approach couples compressible LES with Lagrangian particle tracking and two microphysics schemes: a simple ice-deposition model and a more complete aerosol-to-ice model including activation, condensation, freezing, and deposition. Simulations are temporal, using idealized hyperbolic-tangent jet profiles and Lamb-Oseen vortices. The framework is validated against published results for stratified vortex descent (Sarpkaya 1983), ice deposition growth (Karcher et al. 1996), and the jet phase of a contrail simulation (Paoli et al. 2004), as detailed in Appendices A-C. A sensitivity analysis is then performed over modeling choices (bypass flow, latent heat, ambient aerosol, microphysics complexity) and over atmospheric, aircraft, and engine parameters (temperature, relative humidity, aircraft size, fuel flow rate, soot emission index). The headline findings are that aircraft size is the most significant sensitivity, followed by soot number emission index and fuel consumption, and that the relationship between emitted soot number and nucleated ice crystals is nonlinear when ambient aerosol is included.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it provides a valuable new tool for near-field contrail simulation, with a more detailed aerosol-to-ice microphysics treatment than most existing LES studies. The verification and validation effort is a genuine strength: the stratified vortex descent, ice deposition box model, and jet-phase comparison all show reasonable agreement with published data, and the authors are transparent about the idealized temporal setup. However, the paper contains internal inconsistencies that affect the headline sensitivity ranking, most notably the widebody bypass-ratio discrepancy and an erroneous-looking collision-factor equation. These issues are fixable but require substantial revision before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.E (Table 4)] The widebody case described in Section V.E is inconsistent with its stated bypass ratio. Taking r_core = 0.61 m and r_total = 0.85 m from Table 4 together with the core and bypass velocities (480.3 and 311.6 m/s) and temperatures (580 and 242 K) from Table 1, the bypass-to-core mass-flow ratio is approximately (0.85^2-0.61^2)/0.61^2 * (311.6/480.3) * (580/242) ≈ 1.5, not the 'about 8' stated in the text. Repeating the same calculation for the narrowbody entries (r_core = 0.305 m, r_total = 0.755 m) gives a ratio close to 8.0, so the discrepancy is specific to the widebody setup. Because the widebody case drives the headline result that aircraft size is the most significant sensitivity (Fig. 11 and the Conclusions), the ranking is not established until the widebody geometry is corrected or the deviation is explicitly justified.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The collision factor G in Eq. (12) is written as G = [1/(1+Kn + 4/3 Kn/α)]^{-1}, which simplifies to 1+Kn + (4/3)Kn/α. This expression increases without bound as Kn becomes large, whereas the text states that G should tend to 0 in the free-molecular limit (Kn ≥ 1). The displayed formula therefore contradicts its own stated limits and presumably has a misplaced inverse. Since G is central to the deposition growth model in Eq. (10) and to the sensitivity study of the deposition coefficient α in Section V.D, the correct functional form must be restored and the verification results in Appendix B re-examined under the corrected formula.
  3. [Section II.A] Equations (1)-(4) contain a mass source term ω_v in the continuity and water-vapor equations, but the momentum equation (2) and the energy equation (3) show no source terms, despite the text asserting that ω_m and ω_h couple momentum and energy. Later, Section V.D reports the effect of 'adding latent heat' for condensational and depositional growth; however, the single-particle equations (8) neglect heat exchange and no energy equation source is visible. The manuscript should clarify exactly how latent heat enters the carrier-phase equations, or the latent-heat sensitivity conclusion (less than 2% in radiative forcing) lacks a stated basis in the governing equations.
  4. [Section V.E (Fig. 11)] The 'aircraft size' comparison in Fig. 11(a) changes many parameters simultaneously: fuel mass flow (0.34 to 1.5 kg/s), wingspan (35.7 to 65 m), circulation (290 to 570 m^2/s), core radius (0.305 to 0.61 m), and total radius (0.755 to 0.85 m). The resulting differences in ice crystal number and radiative forcing are therefore not attributable to aircraft size alone. To support the stated sensitivity ranking, the authors should isolate the size effect (e.g., by scaling geometry while holding fuel flow and emission indices fixed) or reinterpret the result as a combined aircraft-engine scaling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V.E] The text 'B373/A320' appears to be a typo for 'B737/A320'.
  2. [Section V.C] In the sentence about particle number, 'we initial ensured' should read 'we initially ensured'.
  3. [Fig. 11(c)] The y-axis label 'Number of ice crystals [m^{-1}]' is missing the power-of-ten scale used in other panels; values are shown in logarithmic scale without a clear unit prefix.
  4. [Section V.E] The statement that the widebody emits '4.5 times more soot particles' does not match the fuel-flow ratio 1.5/0.34 ≈ 4.41. Please align the text and the table.
  5. [Appendix A] The non-dimensional time T and height Z appear in Fig. 13 but are defined only in the text; consider adding the definitions to the caption.
  6. [Section V.C and Fig. 11] The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 11 is based on single realizations. Given the 1.3% variability in mean particle radius reported in Section V.C, adding error bars or ensemble information would strengthen the confidence in the ranking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation framework is validated against external benchmarks, model constants come from prior published work, and the reported sensitivities are simulation outputs rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed results are generated by an LES framework whose microphysics, jet initialization, and vortex initialization are taken from independently published sources (Kärcher et al. 1996, Paoli et al. 2004, Paoli et al. 2013, Bier et al. 2022), and the framework is checked against external benchmarks: the stratified vortex descent experiment of Sarpkaya (1983), the deposition model of Kärcher et al. (1996), and the jet phase simulation of Paoli et al. (2004). No parameter in the sensitivity analysis is fitted to the reported quantities, and no predicted ice-crystal number or radiative-forcing value is used as an input to the model. The single self-citation (Ferreira et al. 2024, reference [36]) is a prior conference version of the same framework and is used only to note differences from a previous configuration, not as load-bearing support for the current sensitivity ranking or nonlinearity claim. The nonlinear relation between soot emission index and ice crystal number is explicitly described as consistent with earlier literature (Kärcher 2018) and is obtained from the simulations rather than imposed. The paper's own caveat that the temporal jet/vortex approach neglects axial compression, and the apparent inconsistency in the widebody bypass ratio (r_core = 0.61 m and r_total = 0.85 m do not yield the stated bypass ratio of about 8), are correctness or modeling concerns, not circularity: they do not make any output equal to an input by construction. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard CFD plus microphysics closures imported from prior literature. The listed free parameters are chosen inputs that directly affect the reported sensitivities, particularly the aerosol properties that drive the nonlinear low-soot behavior. No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims are not circular, since the model is checked against external benchmarks, but they are contingent on the assumed aerosol properties and the temporal jet/vortex idealization.

free parameters (7)
  • Ice deposition coefficient alpha = 0.5 (baseline)
    Controls the deposition/sublimation rate and can change activated ice number by up to about 20% at alpha=1.0 (noted in Section V.D). The baseline value is chosen to equal the mass accommodation coefficient in Bier et al. [8], not measured here.
  • Soot hygroscopicity kappa = 0.005
    Sets the activation barrier for soot particles in the Kappa-Kohler model, taken from Refs. [7-9,22]. It directly modulates the soot-to-ice conversion efficiency that the nonlinearity analysis depends on.
  • Ambient aerosol hygroscopicity and concentration = kappa=0.5; concentration=600 cm^-3
    Determines how many background aerosol particles activate into ice, driving the nonlinear low-soot behavior in Fig. 12. The concentration is stated as '600 cm-1' (likely a typo for cm^-3) and comes from Bier et al. [9], not from a measurement for the present conditions.
  • Turbulent Prandtl and Schmidt numbers Pr_t = Sc_t = 0.419 (baseline)
    Control turbulent mixing of heat and water vapor; the authors choose Pr_t=Sc_t to enforce Le_t=1 in Section II.A. This affects plume cooling and supersaturation, hence the timing and number of nucleations.
  • Jet momentum-thickness ratio r_j/theta = 10 narrowbody, 30 widebody
    Sets the initial shear-layer thickness in the hyperbolic-tangent jet profile; changed to 30 for the widebody to obtain a sharper profile with bypass flow (Section III). This is a modeling choice that influences jet decay and mixing.
  • Initial particle radius (monodisperse) = 20 nm
    Assumed monodisperse radius for soot and ambient aerosol based on Paoli et al. [12]. It affects activation and deposition rates; the authors note that a log-normal distribution made no difference in [12], but that check is not repeated here.
  • Radiative forcing scenario inputs = solar zenith angle 0 degrees, albedo 0.2, Julian day 152
    The net RF ranking is evaluated for noon-over-land conditions only. The ranking could differ at other sun angles or albedos, and the optical depth parameterization itself is a simplified modeling choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Calorically perfect gas and single-species carrier phase with transported water vapor.
    Used to close the energy equation in Section II.A. This ignores liquid water in the carrier phase and variable gas composition, which is standard for plume mixing studies.
  • domain assumption Particles are tracers: Stokes numbers between 1e-9 and 1e-5 imply instantaneous momentum and thermal equilibrium with the carrier flow.
    Invoked in Section II.B (Eq. 8) to drop momentum and heat exchange terms. This neglects inertial segregation of ice crystals in the vortex, which could affect spatial distribution and optical depth.
  • domain assumption Ice nucleation occurs only after saturation with respect to water, or through Kappa-Kohler activation plus homogeneous freezing at the freezing temperature of [22].
    Defines the activation criterion in Section II.B. It omits heterogeneous freezing modes and ice-nucleating particles other than the prescribed aerosol, which could change ice crystal numbers in low-soot regimes.
  • domain assumption A temporal simulation with a periodic axial extent and an idealized bypass flow represents the spatial evolution of the real jet and vortex pair.
    The simulation is run in a periodic box with 1% random perturbations (Section III), and the authors acknowledge in Section V.D that this 'neglects the axial compression of the jet flow.' This is the load-bearing idealization for the sensitivity ranking.
  • domain assumption Radiative forcing can be estimated from vertically integrated optical depth with Mie extinction at 0.55 microns and the Corti-Peter / Sanz-Morere parameterization.
    The RF values in Section IV.B are not full radiative transfer calculations. They assume fixed refractive index, wavelength, solar zenith angle, and albedo, so the reported ranking is contingent on this parameterization.
  • domain assumption The stratified vortex validation case, scaled up by a factor of 500 to atmospheric conditions, remains representative for vortex descent statistics.
    In Appendix A, the brine-tank experiment is rescaled from b0 about 0.103 m to about 50.7 m with ideal-gas atmospheric conditions. Matching non-dimensional parameters is assumed to transfer the physics to flight altitudes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Developing a Numerical Framework for the High-Fidelity Simulation of Contrails: Sensitivity Analysis for Conventional Contrails." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YRMPPI5T

@misc{pith2026250519348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Developing a Numerical Framework for the High-Fidelity Simulation of Contrails: Sensitivity Analysis for Conventional Contrails},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YRMPPI5T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19348}
}
read the original abstract

Contrails have recently gained widespread attention due to their large and uncertain estimates of effective radiative forcing, i.e., warming effect on the planet, comparable to those of carbon dioxide. To study this aircraft-induced cloud formation in the context of current conventional fuels and future alternative fuels, we have developed a numerical framework for simulating the jet and early vortex interaction phases of contrail formation. Our approach consists of high-fidelity, 3D large-eddy simulations (LES) of an Eulerian-Lagrangian two-phase flow using the compressible flow solver charLES. We perform temporal simulations of the early contrail formation phases for a single linear contrail and compare the sensitivity of the results to modeling choices and atmospheric, aircraft, and engine parameters. Specifically, we discuss how these choices and parameters affect the number of nucleated ice crystals and estimated net radiative forcing (based on an optical depth parameterization). Our simulations show the most significant sensitivity to the aircraft size, followed by the soot number emission index and fuel consumption. Adding atmospheric aerosol as a precursor for future studies of sustainable fuels evidences a non-linear relation previously highlighted in the literature between number of emitted soot and nucleated ice crystals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018,

    Lee, D. S., Fahey, D. W., et al., “The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018,” Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 244, 2021, p. 117834

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Contrail modeling and simulation,

    Paoli, R., and Shariff, K., “Contrail modeling and simulation,”Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 48, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    On the Life Cycle of Individual Contrails and Contrail Cirrus,

    Schumann, U., and Heymsfield, A. J., “On the Life Cycle of Individual Contrails and Contrail Cirrus,”Meteorological Monographs, Vol. 58, 2017, pp. 3.1 – 3.24. https://doi.org/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0005.1, URL https: //journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/amsm/58/1/amsmonographs-d-16-0005.1.xml

    work page doi:10.1175/amsmonographs-d-16-0005.1 2017

  4. [4]

    Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus,

    Kärcher, B., “Formation and radiative forcing of contrail cirrus,”Nature communications, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2018, p. 1824

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A trajectory box model for aircraft exhaust plumes,

    Kärcher, B., “A trajectory box model for aircraft exhaust plumes,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 100, No. D9, 1995, pp. 18835–18844

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    Numerical simulation of aerosols in an aircraft wake using a 3D LES solver and a detailed microphysical model,

    Vancassel, X., Mirabel, P., and Garnier, F., “Numerical simulation of aerosols in an aircraft wake using a 3D LES solver and a detailed microphysical model,”International Journal of Sustainable Aviation, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2014, pp. 139–159

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    A large-eddy simulation study of contrail ice number formation,

    Lewellen, D. C., “A large-eddy simulation study of contrail ice number formation,”Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 77, No. 7, 2020, pp. 2585–2604

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Box model trajectory studies of contrail formation using a particle-based cloud microphysics scheme,

    Bier, A., Unterstrasser, S., and Vancassel, X., “Box model trajectory studies of contrail formation using a particle-based cloud microphysics scheme,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2022, pp. 823–845

    work page 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Contrail formation on ambient aerosol particles for aircraft with hydrogen combustion: a box model trajectory study,

    Bier, A., Unterstrasser, S., Zink, J., Hillenbrand, D., Jurkat-Witschas, T., and Lottermoser, A., “Contrail formation on ambient aerosol particles for aircraft with hydrogen combustion: a box model trajectory study,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2024, pp. ...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Contrail formation in aircraft wakes using large-eddy simulations,

    Paoli, R., Hélie, J., Poinsot, T., and Ghosal, S., “Contrail formation in aircraft wakes using large-eddy simulations,”Studying Turbulence Using Numerical Simulation Databases-IX: Proceedings of the 2002 Summer Program, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    Contrail formation in aircraft wakes,

    Paoli, R., Helie, J., and Poinsot, T., “Contrail formation in aircraft wakes,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 502, 2004, pp. 361–373. 32

    2004

  4. [12]

    Effects of jet/vortex interaction on contrail formation in supersaturated conditions,

    Paoli, R., Nybelen, L., Picot, J., and Cariolle, D., “Effects of jet/vortex interaction on contrail formation in supersaturated conditions,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    Influence of vortex dynamics and atmospheric turbulence on the early evolution of a contrail,

    Paugam, R., Paoli, R., and Cariolle, D., “Influence of vortex dynamics and atmospheric turbulence on the early evolution of a contrail,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 10, No. 8, 2010, pp. 3933–3952

    2010

  6. [14]

    Large eddy simulations of contrail development: Sensitivity to initial and ambient conditions over first twenty minutes,

    Naiman, A., Lele, S., and Jacobson, M., “Large eddy simulations of contrail development: Sensitivity to initial and ambient conditions over first twenty minutes,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 116, No. D21, 2011

    2011

  7. [15]

    Large-eddy simulation of contrail evolution in the vortex phase and its interaction with atmospheric turbulence,

    Picot, J., Paoli, R., Thouron, O., and Cariolle, D., “Large-eddy simulation of contrail evolution in the vortex phase and its interaction with atmospheric turbulence,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 15, No. 13, 2015, pp. 7369–7389

    2015

  8. [16]

    F.,Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009

    Toro, E. F.,Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. https: //doi.org/10.1007/b79761

    2009 doi

  9. [17]

    An eddy-viscosity subgrid-scale model for turbulent shear flow: Algebraic theory and applications,

    Vreman, A., “An eddy-viscosity subgrid-scale model for turbulent shear flow: Algebraic theory and applications,”Physics of fluids, Vol. 16, No. 10, 2004, pp. 3670–3681

    2004

  10. [18]

    Contrail formation on ambient aerosol particles for aircraft with hydrogen combustion: A box model trajectory study,

    Bier, A., Unterstrasser, S., Zink, J., Hillenbrand, D., Jurkat-Witschas, T., and Lottermoser, A., “Contrail formation on ambient aerosol particles for aircraft with hydrogen combustion: A box model trajectory study,”EGUsphere, Vol. 2023, 2023, pp. 1–39

    2023

  11. [19]

    The initial composition of jet condensation trails,

    Kärcher, B., Peter, T., Biermann, U. M., and Schumann, U., “The initial composition of jet condensation trails,”Journal of atmospheric sciences, Vol. 53, No. 21, 1996, pp. 3066–3083

    1996

  12. [20]

    R., and Klett, J

    Pruppacher, H. R., and Klett, J. D.,Microphysics of clouds and precipitation, second revised and enlarged edition with an introduction to cloud chemistry and cloud electricity ed., Springer Science & Business Media, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity,

    Petters, M., and Kreidenweis, S., “A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 7, No. 8, 2007, pp. 1961–1971

    2007

  14. [22]

    The microphysical pathway to contrail formation,

    Kärcher, B., Burkhardt, U., Bier, A., Bock, L., and Ford, I., “The microphysical pathway to contrail formation,”Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, No. 15, 2015, pp. 7893–7927

    2015

  15. [23]

    Review of the vapour pressures of ice and supercooled water for atmospheric applications,

    Murphy, D. M., and Koop, T., “Review of the vapour pressures of ice and supercooled water for atmospheric applications,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography, Vol. 131, No. 6...

    2005

  16. [24]

    Engineemissionalterationinthenearfieldofanaircraft,

    Garnier, F., Baudoin, C., Woods, P., andLouisnard, N., “Engineemissionalterationinthenearfieldofanaircraft,”Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 31, No. 12, 1997, pp. 1767–1781

    1997

  17. [25]

    C.,Light scattering by small particles, Courier Corporation, 1981

    van de Hulst, H. C.,Light scattering by small particles, Courier Corporation, 1981

    1981

  18. [26]

    Aerodynamic contrails: Microphysics and optical properties,

    Kärcher, B., Mayer, B., Gierens, K., Burkhardt, U., Mannstein, H., and Chatterjee, R., “Aerodynamic contrails: Microphysics and optical properties,”Journal of the atmospheric sciences, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2009, pp. 227–243. 33

    2009

  19. [27]

    Impacts of multi-layer overlap on contrail radiative forcing,

    Sanz-Morère, I., Eastham, S. D., Allroggen, F., Speth, R. L., and Barrett, S. R., “Impacts of multi-layer overlap on contrail radiative forcing,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2021, pp. 1649–1681

    2021

  20. [28]

    A simple model for cloud radiative forcing,

    Corti, T., and Peter, T., “A simple model for cloud radiative forcing,”Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 9, No. 15, 2009, pp. 5751–5758

    2009

  21. [29]

    Numerical investigation of turbulent mixing in a jet/wake vortex interaction,

    Gago, C. F., Brunet, S., and Garnier, F., “Numerical investigation of turbulent mixing in a jet/wake vortex interaction,”AIAA journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2002, pp. 276–284

    2002

  22. [30]

    Dynamics and mixing in jet/vortex interactions,

    Paoli, R., Laporte, F., Cuenot, B., and Poinsot, T., “Dynamics and mixing in jet/vortex interactions,”Physics of fluids, Vol. 15, No. 7, 2003, pp. 1843–1860

    2003

  23. [31]

    Large-eddy simulation of turbulence in the free atmosphere and behind aircraft,

    Schumann, U., Dörnbrack, A., Dürbeck, T., and Gerz, T., “Large-eddy simulation of turbulence in the free atmosphere and behind aircraft,”Fluid dynamics research, Vol. 20, No. 1-6, 1997, p. 1

    1997

  24. [32]

    Dilution of aircraft exhaust plumes at cruise altitudes,

    Schumann, U., Schlager, H., Arnold, F., Baumann, R., Haschberger, P., and Klemm, O., “Dilution of aircraft exhaust plumes at cruise altitudes,”Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 32, No. 18, 1998, pp. 3097–3103

    1998

  25. [33]

    Eulerian–LagrangianCFD-microphysicsmodelingofanear-fieldcontrail from a realistic turbofan,

    Cantin,S.,Chouak,M.,Morency,F.,andGarnier,F.,“Eulerian–LagrangianCFD-microphysicsmodelingofanear-fieldcontrail from a realistic turbofan,”International Journal of Engine Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2022, pp. 661–677

    2022

  26. [34]

    Spatial simulation of contrail formation in near-field of commercial aircraft,

    Khou, J.-C., Ghedhaifi, W., Vancassel, X., and Garnier, F., “Spatial simulation of contrail formation in near-field of commercial aircraft,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 52, No. 6, 2015, pp. 1927–1938

    2015

  27. [35]

    CFD simulation of contrail formation in the near field of a commercial aircraft: Effect of fuel sulfur content,

    Khou, J., Ghedhaïfi, W., Vancassel, X., Montreuil, E., and Garnier, F., “CFD simulation of contrail formation in the near field of a commercial aircraft: Effect of fuel sulfur content,”Meteorologische Zeitschrift, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2017, pp. 585–596

    2017

  28. [36]

    Developing a Numerical Framework for the High-Fidelity Simulation of Contrails: Sensitivity Analysis for Conventional Contrails,

    Ferreira, T., Alonso, J. J., and Gorlé, C., “Developing a Numerical Framework for the High-Fidelity Simulation of Contrails: Sensitivity Analysis for Conventional Contrails,”AIAA AVIATION FORUM AND ASCEND 2024, 2024, p. 3775

    2024

  29. [37]

    Large eddy simulation of early stage aircraft contrails,

    Shirgaonkar, A. A., and Lele, S. K., “Large eddy simulation of early stage aircraft contrails,” Report No. TF-100, Stanford University, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Trailing vortices in homogeneous and density-stratified media,

    Sarpkaya, T., “Trailing vortices in homogeneous and density-stratified media,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 136, 1983, pp. 85–109

    1983

  31. [39]

    On the motion of laminar wing wakes in a stratified fluid,

    Spalart, P. R., “On the motion of laminar wing wakes in a stratified fluid,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 327, 1996, pp. 139–160

    1996

  32. [40]

    Numerical study of vertical shear and stratification effects on the evolution of a vortex pair,

    Robins, R. E., and Delisi, D. P., “Numerical study of vertical shear and stratification effects on the evolution of a vortex pair,” AIAA journal, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1990, pp. 661–669

    1990

  33. [41]

    Short-scale instabilities in trailing wake vortices in a stratified fluid,

    Delisi, D. P., and Robins, R. E., “Short-scale instabilities in trailing wake vortices in a stratified fluid,”AIAA journal, Vol. 38, No. 10, 2000, pp. 1916–1923. 34

    2000

  34. [42]

    Modeling aircraft contrails and emission plumes for climate impacts,

    Naiman, A. D., “Modeling aircraft contrails and emission plumes for climate impacts,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2011

    2011

  35. [43]

    Cheyenne: HPE/SGI ICE XA system (university community computing),

    Computational, and Laboratory, I. S., “Cheyenne: HPE/SGI ICE XA system (university community computing),” , 2017. https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    ACCESS: Advancing innovation: NSF’s advanced cyberinfrastructure coordination ecosystem: Services & support,

    Boerner, T. J., Deems, S., Furlani, T. R., Knuth, S. L., and Towns, J., “ACCESS: Advancing innovation: NSF’s advanced cyberinfrastructure coordination ecosystem: Services & support,”Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing, NA, 2023, pp. 173–176. 35

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.