arxiv: 2603.23843 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-25 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

DMR effect on drag reduction of a streamlined body measured by Magnetic Suspension and Balance System

Aiko Yakeno , Hiroyuki Okuizumi , Kento Inokuma , Yoshiyuki Watanabe

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

keywords distributed micro-roughnessdrag reductionmagnetic suspension and balance systemtransitional flowskin frictionboundary layerstreamlined bodypassive flow control

0 comments

The pith

Distributed micro-roughness coatings reduce drag by up to 43.6 percent in transitional flow on a streamlined body.

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

The paper tests whether distributed micro-roughness coatings can lower aerodynamic drag on a streamlined shape. Direct measurements with an interference-free magnetic suspension system show reductions reaching 43.6 percent when the flow is transitioning from laminar to turbulent. Large-eddy simulations break down the forces and find that skin friction accounts for the main savings while pressure drag stays secondary. Oil-flow pictures look nearly the same with and without the coatings, ruling out major changes in separation as the cause. The results therefore point to a change in boundary-layer state as the operating mechanism.

Core claim

Direct aerodynamic drag measurements using the magnetic suspension and balance system revealed a substantial reduction of up to 43.6% within the transitional flow regime. The total pressure-drag budget is subordinate to skin friction according to large-eddy simulation decomposition. Oil-flow observations revealed qualitatively similar flow patterns regardless of the surface condition. Consequently, the observed drag reduction is primarily ascribed to friction drag reduction achieved through the modification of the boundary layer state.

What carries the argument

The interference-free 1-m magnetic suspension and balance system for direct drag measurement, paired with wall-resolved large-eddy simulation drag decomposition that isolates skin friction from pressure drag.

Load-bearing premise

The drag reduction originates primarily from friction drag modification of the boundary layer state rather than suppression of flow separation.

What would settle it

If direct local skin-friction measurements or higher-resolution simulations at the same conditions showed that differences in separation location or pressure drag account for most of the 43.6 percent reduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.23843 by Aiko Yakeno, Hiroyuki Okuizumi, Kento Inokuma, Yoshiyuki Watanabe.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: The streamlined model in 1-m Magnetic Suspension and Balance System (1-m MSBS) installed in the low-turbulence wind tunnel. The system uses electromagnetic forces to suspend the test model without physical supports, allowing for highly accurate, interference-free aerodynamic measurements. 2.2. 1-m Magnetic Suspension and Balance System (1-m MSBS) The experimental measurements in this study were conducted u… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: A photograph of the streamlined test model. 2.3. Test Model Description A photograph of the streamlined model utilised in the test is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Geometry of parts of the streamlined test model. An overview of the model’s constituent components is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Trip tapes. 2.4. DMR Coating 2.4.1. Phase I The effectiveness of the DMR concept was initially evaluated through experiments conducted in Phase I. In this initial setup, the DMR primarily consisted of glass beads affixed with a transparent adhesive. These roughness elements were Fuji Glass Beads (model number FGB-320) manufactured by Fuji Seisakusho, with diameters ranging from 38 to 53 𝜇m. For prototyping… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Characteristics of the glass-DMR-coated test piece surface. (a) Magnified image of the cylinder surface Roughness Height [μm] Position [μm] 0.00 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 -25 0.00 25 50 75 100 125 150 Probability Density Function Roughness Height [μm] 0.00 25 50 75 100 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 (b) Surface height characteristics; one-dimensional height profile measured along a horizontal line indicated by … view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Characteristics of the glass-DMR-coated cylinder surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Characteristics of the DMR1 and DMR2 surfaces of a cylinder. 1.000E-05 1.000E-04 1.000E-03 1.000E-02 1.000E-01 1.000E+00 -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 Probability Height (um) Hight occurence Probability ［DMR-1］ Probability Density Function 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0.00001 Roughness Height [μm] -16.0 -12.0 -8.0 -4.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 (a) DMR1 surface 1.000E-05 1.000E-04 1.000E-03 1.000E-02 1.000E-01 1.000E+00 … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Probability Density Function (PDF) of the roughness height, calculated from the images in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Computational domain and boundary conditions. The specific boundary conditions are detailed as follows: A Dirichlet condition was applied for velocity at the inlet boundary. A Neumann condition (zero-gradient for velocity) was applied to the side wall of the cylindrical computational domain, simulating a slip wall. At the outlet boundary, a zero-gradient Neumann condition was imposed. Finally, 0 X0-13 [P… view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Enlarged view of computational grid around the leading edge of the baseline simulations. 3. Validation of Measurements 3.1. Measurement Error Accurate and precise measurements of forces and moments are paramount for the validation of our experimental results. Measurement error was quantified by assuming a linear relationship between the applied external load and the corresponding output current from the M… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the model’s position and attitude variation components measured by the MSBS position sensor. Figures show the results (a) for the Plain case and (b) for the glass-DMR case. The data presented is the raw, unfiltered signal, illustrating the full spectrum of vibration noise, including high-frequency components from the sensing system. The PSD provides detailed insight into th… view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Comparison of the total drag coefficient (𝐶𝐷) versus the Reynolds number (Re) for the smooth and glass-DMR surfaces in Phase I (without tripping tapes). The data include results from Baseline (21M cells) and Refined (45M cells) Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and experiments using the Magnetic Suspension and Balance System (MSBS). For the LES Results, open square (□) and diamond (⋄) symbols denote baseline 𝐶𝐷… view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Comparison of the total drag coefficient (𝐶𝐷) versus the Reynolds number (Re) for the smooth (Plain), DMR1, and DMR2 surfaces in Phase II with tripping tapes applied. The dashed lines represent the theoretical skin friction coefficient (𝐶𝑓 ) for laminar and turbulent flow (e.g., flat plate formulae). For the MSBS Experimental Data of the Smooth Surface (Plain), small circular (◦), square (□), triangle (△)… view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: Comparison of the total drag coefficient (𝐶𝐷) versus the Reynolds number (Re) for the smooth (Plain), DMR1, and DMR2 surfaces in Phase II with tripping tapes applied. The dashed lines represent the theoretical skin friction coefficient (𝐶𝑓 ) for laminar and turbulent flow (e.g., flat plate formulae). For the MSBS Experimental Data, individual runs are shown only for the DMR1 Surface by diamond (⋄), hexago… view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: Comparison of the total drag coefficient (𝐶𝐷) versus the Reynolds number (Re) for the smooth (Plain), DMR1, and DMR2 surfaces in Phase II with tripping tapes applied. The dashed lines represent the theoretical skin friction coefficient (𝐶𝑓 ) for laminar and turbulent flow (e.g., flat plate formulae). For the MSBS Experimental Data, individual runs are shown only for the DMR2 Surface by pentagon, left-poin… view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Oil flow visualisation for the smooth surface case and glass-DMR case at 𝑅𝑒 = 1.2 × 106 (Phase II). Note that the measured total drag coefficient (𝐶𝐷) is identical for both cases at this Reynolds number, despite the presence of localized oil accumulation near the tail. 0 X0-28 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Oil flow visualisation with enhanced contrast and annotations of flow features for the smooth surface and glass-DMR cases at 𝑅𝑒 = 1.2 × 106 (Phase II). Although localized separation regions and small inverse flows are identified, the consistency in the measured 𝐶𝐷 values confirms that these structures do not contribute to a detectable change in total aerodynamic drag. This suggests that the observed oil a… view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Oil flow visualisation for the smooth surface case and glass-DMR case at 𝑅𝑒 = 3.4 × 106 (Phase II). At this higher Reynolds number, the oil is smoothly advected downstream without localized stagnation for both surfaces. The fact that a significant reduction in 𝐶𝐷 is observed for the glass-DMR surface in this attached-flow regime reinforces the conclusion that the drag benefit is independent of tail separa… view at source ↗

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: Control diagram of 1-m MSBS control system A.0.2. Procedures Our experimental measurements commenced with the meticulous fabrication and preparation of the test model. As the MSBS suspends the model without physical contact, each model must be equipped with ferromagnetic cores that interact directly with the system’s electromagnets. To ensure the highest accuracy in force and moment measurements and to gu… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This study experimentally investigates the aerodynamic drag reduction capabilities of distributed micro-roughness (DMR) coatings on a streamlined model, utilising the 1-m magnetic suspension and balance system (MSBS) at Tohoku University. Previous direct numerical simulations (DNS) indicated that DMR can mitigate turbulent-energy growth by suppressing Tollmien--Schlichting (TS) waves and influencing the breakdown of streamwise vortices. The present work provides the first experimental validation of these effects using an interference-free MSBS, which is essential for accurate measurement in the laminar and transitional regimes. A streamlined model was tested with two rows of artificial tripping tape to induce transition; the DMR height was approximately 1% of the local boundary layer thickness, significantly smaller than typical roughness elements. Direct aerodynamic drag measurements using the MSBS revealed a substantial reduction of up to 43.6% within the transitional flow regime. Crucially, integrated analysis using wall-resolved large-eddy simulations (LES) and dynamic oil-flow visualisation confirmed that this benefit does not mainly originate from the suppression of flow separation. The LES drag decomposition established that the total pressure-drag budget is subordinate to skin friction, a finding complemented by oil-flow observations, which revealed qualitatively similar flow patterns regardless of the surface condition. Consequently, the observed drag reduction is primarily ascribed to friction drag reduction achieved through the modification of the boundary layer state. These findings provide compelling experimental evidence for the efficacy of DMR and offer valuable insights for optimising surface designs for passive flow control.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper measures 43.6% drag reduction with DMR on a streamlined body using MSBS, but the friction-drag attribution rests on LES without direct experimental cross-check.

read the letter

The main point is that they report a substantial drag drop, up to 43.6%, on a streamlined model with distributed micro-roughness in the transitional regime, measured directly with the magnetic suspension and balance system. This is the first experimental validation of earlier DNS work on DMR effects using an interference-free force balance, which is a clear practical advance for low-speed transitional testing where support struts normally disturb the flow. They trip the boundary layer with tape, keep the roughness height at roughly 1% of local boundary-layer thickness, and combine the total-force data with wall-resolved LES drag decomposition plus oil-flow visualization to argue that the benefit comes from skin-friction modification rather than separation control. The LES shows pressure drag as subordinate to friction, and the surface patterns look similar with and without the coating, which is a coherent way to read the integrated measurement. The experimental setup itself is careful and relevant for anyone working on passive surface treatments. The soft spots are straightforward. No error bars, uncertainty budgets, or tabulated raw data appear in the available description, so the precision of the 43.6% figure is hard to judge. More critically, the claim that friction dominates the reduction depends on the LES split and qualitative visuals; there is no reported experimental separation of pressure and skin-friction components, such as surface pressure integration or local shear measurements, to confirm the simulation. If the LES under-resolves the transitional bubble or the DMR-induced shift in transition, the mechanistic story could change even if total drag matches. The roughness height relative to boundary-layer thickness is also a free parameter that invites calibration questions. This work is aimed at researchers in passive flow control and transitional aerodynamics who need clean force data. A reader focused on experimental methods for low-interference testing would find the MSBS application useful. It deserves peer review because the core measurement is new and the setup is solid, even though revisions would need to tighten the uncertainty reporting and add direct validation for the drag-component split.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper experimentally investigates the aerodynamic drag reduction of distributed micro-roughness (DMR) coatings on a streamlined body using the 1-m Magnetic Suspension and Balance System (MSBS) at Tohoku University. It reports a maximum drag reduction of 43.6% in the transitional regime, supported by wall-resolved LES drag decomposition and dynamic oil-flow visualization, and concludes that the benefit arises primarily from skin-friction modification of the boundary-layer state rather than suppression of flow separation.

Significance. If the attribution to friction-drag modification is confirmed, the work supplies the first interference-free experimental validation of DMR effects in the transitional regime, strengthening the case for passive surface-based flow control. The MSBS approach and integration of LES decomposition with visualization are methodological strengths that could be extended to other roughness-based control strategies.

major comments (3)

[Results section (MSBS drag measurements)] Results section (MSBS drag measurements): the 43.6% reduction is stated without error bars, full data tables, or explicit uncertainty analysis; this is load-bearing for the central experimental claim and prevents assessment of statistical significance in a regime known for high variability.
[LES drag decomposition section] LES drag decomposition section: the attribution of reduction to skin friction (rather than pressure/separation) rests on the simulation showing pressure drag as subordinate, yet no experimental cross-validation (pressure integration, local shear, or wake surveys) is reported for the DMR case; if the LES under-resolves the transitional separation bubble or transition shift, the mechanistic conclusion fails.
[Oil-flow visualization section] Oil-flow visualization section: patterns are described as qualitatively similar across surface conditions, but without quantitative metrics (e.g., measured separation-point locations or bubble extents), this evidence is insufficient to rule out separation suppression as a contributing mechanism.

minor comments (2)

[Model and surface preparation] The statement that DMR height is ~1% of local boundary-layer thickness should include the exact measurement technique, streamwise station, and Reynolds-number dependence.
[Experimental setup] Clarify the placement and height of the two rows of artificial tripping tape and their interaction with the DMR coating.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. We address each major point below, indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Results section (MSBS drag measurements): the 43.6% reduction is stated without error bars, full data tables, or explicit uncertainty analysis; this is load-bearing for the central experimental claim and prevents assessment of statistical significance in a regime known for high variability.

Authors: We agree that the drag reduction results require explicit uncertainty quantification. In the revised manuscript we will add error bars to all drag coefficient figures, include a table of raw and processed drag data with uncertainties derived from repeated runs and MSBS calibration, and add a dedicated subsection describing the uncertainty analysis. These additions will allow proper evaluation of statistical significance. revision: yes
Referee: LES drag decomposition section: the attribution of reduction to skin friction (rather than pressure/separation) rests on the simulation showing pressure drag as subordinate, yet no experimental cross-validation (pressure integration, local shear, or wake surveys) is reported for the DMR case; if the LES under-resolves the transitional separation bubble or transition shift, the mechanistic conclusion fails.

Authors: The attribution relies on wall-resolved LES showing pressure drag as a minor fraction of total drag, corroborated by oil-flow images that show qualitatively unchanged separation patterns. We will expand the discussion to address possible LES resolution sensitivities in the transitional regime. However, wake surveys, local shear, or pressure-tap data were not acquired during the original MSBS campaign, so direct experimental cross-validation cannot be added. revision: partial
Referee: Oil-flow visualization section: patterns are described as qualitatively similar across surface conditions, but without quantitative metrics (e.g., measured separation-point locations or bubble extents), this evidence is insufficient to rule out separation suppression as a contributing mechanism.

Authors: We will revise the oil-flow section to report quantitative metrics extracted from the images, including measured separation-point locations and estimated bubble extents for each surface condition. These additions will strengthen the argument that separation behavior is not materially altered by the DMR coating. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved

We cannot supply new experimental cross-validation data (wake surveys, local shear, or pressure distributions) for the DMR cases, as these measurements were not part of the original experimental campaign.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct experimental force measurement stands independent of any derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on direct MSBS total-force measurements of drag reduction (up to 43.6%), which are raw experimental data rather than outputs of any model, fit, or equation. The attribution to friction-drag modification (versus separation) is supported by separate LES decomposition and oil-flow visualization; these are presented as complementary evidence and do not reduce the measured total drag to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chains appear in the derivation. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the MSBS delivers interference-free measurements in transitional regimes and on the interpretation that skin friction dominates the observed savings, as supported by LES decomposition.

free parameters (1)

DMR height relative to local boundary layer thickness = approximately 1%
Set at approximately 1% to remain significantly smaller than typical roughness elements while targeting TS-wave and vortex effects.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The 1-m magnetic suspension and balance system at Tohoku University provides interference-free aerodynamic force measurements essential for laminar and transitional regimes.
Invoked to justify the accuracy of the direct drag measurements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5589 in / 1250 out tokens · 44410 ms · 2026-05-15T01:14:56.955355+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

LES drag decomposition established that the total pressure-drag budget is subordinate to skin friction... observed drag reduction is primarily ascribed to friction drag reduction achieved through the modification of the boundary layer state.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

maximum aerodynamic drag reduction of 43.6%... at approximately Re=2.25×10^6 in the transition region

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Airbus2017 Airbus’ “BLADE” laminar flow wing demonstrator makes first flight.https: //www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2017-09-airbus-blade-laminar-flow\ -wing-demonstrator-makes-first-flight, accessed on June 26,

work page 2017
[2]

& Nishizawa, H.2019 Riblet Transfer Sheet, Riblet Transfer Sheet Manufacturing Method, Riblet Molding Method, and Transfer Sheet

Asai, M., Shinohara, R. & Nishizawa, H.2019 Riblet Transfer Sheet, Riblet Transfer Sheet Manufacturing Method, Riblet Molding Method, and Transfer Sheet. Japanese Patent, patent no. JP6511612B2, Issued in Japan. Assignee: National Research and Development Agency Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, O-Well Corp, Tokyo Metropolitan Univ. Bhaganagar, K., Kim,...

work page 2019
[3]

Yakeno et al

0X0-35 A. Yakeno et al. Kohama, Y ., Kobayashi, R. & Ito, H.1982 Performance of small-scale low-turbulence wind tunnel.The Memoirs of the Institute of High Speed Mechanics (Tohoku University)48, 119–142, (In Japanese). Kohama, Y ., Kobayashi, R. & Ito, H.1992 Tohoku University Low-Turbulence Wind Tunnel. In28th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit of AIAA, p

work page 1982
[4]

& Motegi, D.1994 Traveling disturbance appearing in boundary layer transition in a yawed cylinder.Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science8(4), 273–278

Kohama, Y . & Motegi, D.1994 Traveling disturbance appearing in boundary layer transition in a yawed cylinder.Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science8(4), 273–278. Lawing, P . L., Dress, D. A. & Kilgore, R. A.1987 Potential benefits of magnetic suspension and balance systems. NASA Technical Memorandum NASA TM-89079. NASA Langley Research Center. Li, J., W ...

work page 1994
[5]

Lim, J., Kim, M., Bae, H., Lin, R. S. & Jee, S.2023 Turbulent transition control using porous surfaces in hypersonic boundary layer.International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences24(4), 972–984. Lim, J., Kim, M., Park, J., Kim, T., Jee, S. & Park, D.2022 Simulation of hypersonic boundary layer on porous surfaces using OpenFOAM.Computers & Fluids2...

work page 2023
[6]

M.1984 Boundary-layer linear stability theory.Tech

Mack, L. M.1984 Boundary-layer linear stability theory.Tech. Rep.. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Malmuth, N., Fedorov , A., Shalaev , V ., Cole, J., Hites, M., Williams, D. & Khokhlov , A.1998 Problems in high speed flow prediction relevant to control. In2nd AIAA, Theoretical Fluid Mechanics Meeting, p

work page 1984
[7]

& Obayashi, S.2024aDNS of boundary-layer transition over a transonic swept wing under real flight condition

Mori, Y ., Yakeno, A. & Obayashi, S.2024aDNS of boundary-layer transition over a transonic swept wing under real flight condition. InAIAA AVIATION FORUM AND ASCEND 2024, p

work page 2024
[8]

& Obayashi, S.2024bEffects of surface roughness and free-stream turbulence on transitions in the swept-wing boundary layer

Mori, Y ., Yakeno, A. & Obayashi, S.2024bEffects of surface roughness and free-stream turbulence on transitions in the swept-wing boundary layer. InAIAA SciTech Forum 2024, p

work page 2024
[9]

& Obayashi, S.2024cNumerical simulation of transition over a transonic swept wing with distributed roughness

Mori, Y ., Yakeno, A., Ogawa, T. & Obayashi, S.2024cNumerical simulation of transition over a transonic swept wing with distributed roughness. InIUTAM Symposium on Laminar-Turbulent Transition. Nagano, Japan. Morkovin, Mark V1969 On the many faces of transition. InViscous Drag Reduction: Proceedings of the Symposium on Viscous Drag Reduction held at the L...

work page 1968
[10]

Pankhurst, R. C. & Holder, D. W .1952Wind-tunnel technique. Pitman Publishing. 0X0-36 Journal of Fluid Mechanics Perry , A. E., Schofield, W . H. & Joubert, P . N.1969 Roughness-induced skin friction in turbulent boundary layers.Journal of Fluid Mechanics37(2), 383–401. Rasheed, A., Hornung, H. G., Fedorov , A. V . & Malmuth, N. D.2002 Experiments on pass...

work page 1969
[11]

S.1994 Low-speed boundary-layer transition.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics26(1), 379–409

Saric, W . S.1994 Low-speed boundary-layer transition.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics26(1), 379–409. Saric, W . S., Hoos, J. A. & Radeztsky , R. H.1991 Boundary-layer receptivity of sound with roughness. In Boundary Layer Stability and Transition to Turbulence; Proceedings of the Symposium, ASME and JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, 1st, pp. 17–2...

work page 1994
[12]

Tani, I.1935 Effect of wing deflection surface on wing performance (In Japanese).Mechanical Engineering Journalpp. 743–744. Tani, I.1989 Re-evaluation of Nikuradse’s experimental data for rough pipes.Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B65(6), 133–136. Tani, I., Hama, R. & Mitsuisi, S.1940 On the permissible roughness in the laminar boundary layer (I...

work page 1935