Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Far-field Boundary Conditions for Airfoil Simulation at High Incidence in Steady, Incompressible, Two-dimensional Flow

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At high incidence, consistent far-field boundary conditions must include a point source of strength D/(ρU∞) alongside the usual point vortex; the paper shows this removes most of the drag error on small domains and derives a cheap…

desk verdict Careful, useful CFD study showing that high-incidence airfoil far-field BCs need a point source, not just a point vortex; the main weakness is the unvalidated point-source representation of the deflected wake. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13077 v1 pith:E366DYH5 submitted 2024-11-20 physics.flu-dyn

Narges Golmirzaee , David H. Wood This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords airfoilsimulationfar-fieldboundaryconditionshighangleofattackpointsourcevortexLagally-Filonrelationimpulseequationsblockagecorrection
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

Simulating a deeply stalled airfoil in a finite computational box needs a far-field boundary condition that represents drag as well as lift. This paper shows that at 45° incidence, where drag equals lift in size, the correct representation is a point source of strength Λ = D/(ρU∞) added to the usual point vortex; the source balances the mass deficit of the deflected wake. Boundary conditions that lack the source seal the top and bottom sides of the square domain, creating a blockage that inflates drag, much like wind-tunnel sidewall blockage. The paper derives a one-line correction, the Lagally-Filon correction, that brings ordinary boundary-condition results close to the source-based ones, and shows the residual moment inconsistency is small for this flow. If the result holds, airfoil simulations on small domains can be made more accurate or cheaper by matching boundary conditions to the physics of the wake.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the point-source contribution to the far-field velocity: (u, v) from a source of strength Λ = D/(ρU∞) at the airfoil center, combined with the point-vortex term (Eq. 15). The source represents the mass deficit of the deflected wake and restores mass conservation at the domain boundaries, so the top and bottom walls no longer block the flow. The paper's derived Lagally-Filon correction, u**/U_I = (1/2)(√(1 + C_d** c/(2A)) − 1) and C_d*/C_d** = (1 + u**/U_I)^{-2}, encodes that blockage in terms of the computed drag and domain size, turning a cheap blocked-boundary simulation into an approximation of the source-based one. For the moment, the key diagnostic is the vorticity integral ∫_O y²Ω dy, whose logarithmic growth, proportional to C_l C_d downstream, quantifies the inconsistency that the source condition cannot remove.

What would settle it

Compute the same case with PVSBC on a series of domains A = 10c, 20c, 30c, 50c, and 100c and compare with A = 500c; if the coefficients do not approach the reference within the quoted margins, or if the boundary velocity profile departs measurably from Eq. (15) outside the wake, the isotropic-source model is inadequate. A sharper check is to repeat at α ≈ 60°, where C_l C_d is maximal: the claimed smallness of the moment inconsistency predicts only mild growth in the residual, whereas a noticeable C_m error at small domains would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that consistency with the impulse-form drag equation requires a point source in the far-field boundary conditions, with strength set by the Lagally-Filon relation Λ = D/(ρU∞), just as consistency with lift requires a point vortex of circulation Γ = L/(ρU∞). Using a NACA 0012 airfoil at Re = 6×$10^{6}$ and α = 45°, the authors compare three boundary-condition sets on square domains from A = 10c to A = 500c. The point-vortex-plus-source condition (PVSBC) gives drag, lift, and moment coefficients at A = 30c much closer to the A = 500c reference than either the point-vortex-only condition or a standard fixed/slip condition; for drag the error drops from about 1.2% to about 0.3%. Standard conditions produce an artificially reduced inlet velocity and sidewall blockage; the derived Lagally-Filon correction, applied to those results, brings them close to PVSBC. The PVSBC still fails exact moment consistency because the moment's vorticity integral diverges logarithmically with downstream distance as the wake deflects, but the residual Imai correction to the flow ahead of the airfoil is shown to be about 5×$10^{{-4}}$, negligible for the force and moment coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that carries the argument is that a single isotropic point source placed at the airfoil center, with strength D/(ρU∞), adequately represents the far-field effect of the stalled airfoil and its deflected wake; if directional or higher-order wake effects matter at the boundaries, the source boundary condition and its correction are incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a fixed domain size, using PVSBC removes most of the drag error for high-incidence airfoils; at A = 30c the drag coefficient error falls from about 1.2% to about 0.3% relative to the A = 500c reference.
  • For users of standard boundary conditions, the Lagally-Filon correction offers a post-processing route to obtain accurate coefficients without the roughly 50% extra cost of PVSBC, provided the blockage is small.
  • The inlet velocity in a stalled-airfoil simulation should not be treated as U∞; the paper's u** analysis implies that optimization routines and database computations on small domains carry a systematic lift-to-drag bias unless corrected.
  • The remaining moment inconsistency is negligible for this case, but the paper identifies vertical-axis-turbine flows, where the moment is critical, as the case where the higher-order correction could matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: The same sidewall-blockage mechanism should appear in any two-dimensional high-incidence simulation, steady or unsteady; a testable extension is whether time-averaged drag errors in unsteady stalled flows obey the same c/A scaling as the Lagally-Filon correction.
  • Editorial: Because the Lagally-Filon relation does not carry over to three dimensions, where induced drag lives in the Trefftz plane, a three-dimensional analogue would need a different construction, limiting the direct transfer of PVSBC to wings or rotors.
  • Editorial: Since C_l C_d peaks near α ≈ 60°, that angle offers the sharpest test of the paper's claim that the moment inconsistency remains negligible at small domains.
  • Editorial: The closeness of the Lagally-Filon correction to established wind-tunnel blockage corrections suggests a unified way to compare CFD and experiment in high-blockage facilities: correct both simulated and measured coefficients with the same formula, so remaining differences reflect turbulence-model error rather than domain effects.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates far-field boundary conditions for steady, incompressible, two-dimensional RANS simulations of a NACA 0012 airfoil at α=45° and Re=6×10^6. It compares a standard boundary condition (BC-3), a point-vortex boundary condition (PVBC), and a novel point-vortex-source boundary condition (PVSBC) in which the source strength is set by the Lagally-Filon relation D=ρU∞Λ. The main claim is that for domains as small as A=10c to 30c, the PVSBC yields lift, drag, and moment coefficients closer to an A=500c reference than the other two BCs, because the point source represents the blockage-correcting effect of the wake at high drag. The paper also derives a simple 'Lagally-Filon' correction for the computational sidewall blockage induced by BC-3/PVBC, and shows that this correction brings those results close to the PVSBC values. Finally, the PVSBC is shown to be inconsistent with the impulse moment equation, but the authors argue the residual correction is small.

Significance. The paper addresses an important practical problem: the choice of far-field boundary conditions in airfoil simulations at high incidence, where drag and moment are large. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing that a point source is a more important element of the far-field model than a point vortex in high-drag flows, and by providing a simple analytical correction for computational blockage that closely tracks a known wind-tunnel blockage correction (Section 4.1, Eq. 21 vs. Eq. 22). The derivation of the Lagally-Filon correction from mass conservation is clean and parameter-free, and the comparison with experimental blockage corrections is a strength. The paper also carefully documents grid convergence and uses a consistent control-volume framework. However, the main comparison (Table 5) is weakened by the fact that the PVSBC sets its vortex and source strengths from the running solution's Cl and Cd, and by the absence of a quantitative sensitivity check of the isotropic point-source representation of the wake.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.4, §4.3, §4.6] The central claim that PVSBC is more accurate than BC-3 and PVBC rests on the assumption that the far-field effect of the deeply stalled airfoil and its deflected wake is adequately represented by an isotropic point source of strength Λ=D/(ρU∞) located at the airfoil center (Eq. 15). The paper's own Figs. 7–10 show that the actual velocity distributions at the domain boundaries differ from this model, particularly near and downstream of the wake, and these differences are acknowledged qualitatively in Section 4.3. However, the effect of these differences on the boundary integrals in Eqs. (1)–(6) is never quantified. Since the PVSBC sets its source and vortex strengths from the computed Cl and Cd, the agreement with the A=500c reference in Table 5 is partly a consistency check of the model rather than an independent validation. To establish that the point source is the dominant far-field effect at A=30c, the authors should provide a sensitivity analysis with respect to source location or distribution, or impose the actual A=500c velocity profiles as boundary conditions at A=30c and compare the resulting forces.
  2. [§4.5, Table 10] The PVSBC's inconsistency with the moment equation is not as small as the abstract suggests. For A=30c, the impulse moment balance over the CV coincident with the computational domain has an error of 65.9% (Table 10), whereas moving the CV inward by 1c (y=±29c) reduces the error to 0.05%. The paper attributes this to vorticity layers at the top and bottom boundaries but does not analyze these layers in detail. The statement that 'the further correction for this inconsistency is shown to be very small' refers to the Imai correction for the logarithmic divergence, not to the 66% imbalance shown in Table 10. The authors should either quantify the effect of the vorticity layers on the reported Cm and on the force integrals, or explicitly restrict the consistency claim to lift and drag.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] The zero-grid-spacing values of Cd=0.9082 and Cl=0.9207 reported after the grid convergence study appear to correspond to the BC-3 A=30c case rather than the A=500c reference used in Table 5. Please clarify whether a separate grid convergence study was performed for the A=500c PVSBC reference, and report the corresponding uncertainties.
  2. [§1] The statement that the Lagally-Filon relation is 'largely unknown' is difficult to reconcile with the three prior uses cited (Kelmanson 1987, Dannenhoffer 1987, Allmaras et al. 2005). Consider softening the phrasing.
  3. [§4.2] The procedure of 'approximately doubling' the LF correction to match the experimental data of Sheldahl and Klimas and Critzos et al. is ad hoc. A quantitative basis for the extra factor of two would strengthen the comparison.
  4. [§5] Equation (26) is an empirical fit with two free parameters (a*, b*) per component. Since the paper states that Imai's streamfunction contains an error and is not used directly, the support for the smallness of the Imai correction would be enhanced by reporting the sensitivity of the fitted parameters to the fit range.
  5. [References] Reference [25] lists the date for Critzos et al. as 1995; the NACA TN 3361 report is from 1955. Please correct this citation.
  6. [§2, Eq. (13)] The notation in Eq. (13) mixes terms with and without U∞ factors (e.g., the term '−∫_O uvdy' has no U∞ factor while neighboring terms do). Please check the notational consistency and clarify that all terms are perturbation quantities.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central drag claim survives on a BC-independent A=500c benchmark, but the PVSBC's force-consistent construction and a fitted Imai estimate introduce minor self-referential elements.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eq. (11); Section 3.4, Eq. (15); Section 6 conclusion.]
    "Clearly, the application of PVBC depends upon the solution of the simulation. Every user-input number of iterations (typically 100), a user-defined function updates the boundary pressure and velocities using the lift calculated at that step. ... the PVSBC for the velocity perturbations is (u, v) = ( yU∞Clc/(4π(x2+y2)) + xU∞Cdc/(4π(x2+y2)) , − xU∞Clc/(4π(x2+y2)) + yU∞Cdc/(4π(x2+y2)) ) ."

    The PVBC/PVSBC boundary data on I, T, and B are the Biot-Savart fields of a vortex and source whose strengths are set by the running solution's Cl and Cd (Eqs. 11 and 15). The paper's 'consistency' for lift is largely a construction property: three sides of the CV carry a vortex-field circulation proportional to the input Cl, and the outlet flow adjusts to nearly the same field (Figs. 9 and 10), so Eqs. (5)+(8) return essentially the Cl that was fed into the BC, up to the small quadratic terms of Table 8. The central drag claim is not forced, because the source is irrotational and the wake-vorticity integral in Eq. (7) is a nonlinear output; the PVSBC drag advantage (0.9002 vs 0.9082 at A=30c) is an empirical fixed-point result checked against the BC-independent A=500c value (0.8973).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Eq. (26) and Fig. 14.]
    "Figure 14 shows the least squares fit of Eq. (26) to the results for A = 30c and 500c. For u∗, (a∗, b∗) = (0.0928, 0.0635) for A = 500c and (0.0926, 0.0598) for A = 30c. ... It appears, therefore, that the data for A = 30c can be used to estimate u∗/UI at x = A from Eq. (26) by allowing A → ∞. This gives u∗/UI = 5.5 × 10−4 for A = 30c."

    The parameters (a*, b*) are least-squares fitted to the A=30c simulation itself, and the same fit is then evaluated to estimate the residual Imai correction at A=30c; the estimate is a restatement of the fitted data rather than an independent prediction. The circularity is non-damaging because the correction is two orders of magnitude below u**/UI ≈ 0.0075 (Table 6) and the independently fitted A=500c parameters give almost the same value (≈5.8×10^-4), so the conclusion that the Imai correction is negligible does not depend on the circular fit.

full rationale

The central claim—that a far-field point source (PVSBC) improves drag accuracy at α=45°—has independent content. Accuracy is anchored to A=500c simulations (Table 5) where all three BCs converge to nearly identical values (Cd: 0.8978, 0.8978, 0.8973), so the reference is not produced by the boundary condition under test. The source strength is prescribed by the classical Lagally-Filon relation Λ = D/(ρU∞) (Eq. 14; Batchelor Eq. 5.12.15), not fitted to the reference, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the centered-point-source model's limitations (Sections 4.4 and 4.6; Figs. 8–10). The 'Lagally-Filon correction' (Eq. 21) is derived from mass conservation (Eqs. 18–20) with no free parameters and is acknowledged to be close to Rainbird et al.'s empirical wind-tunnel blockage correction (Eq. 22), so the naming is honorific rather than circular. Two mild self-referential elements prevent a score of 0. First, the PVBC/PVSBC boundary conditions are updated from the running solution's Cl and Cd, so the lift consistency emphasized in the Conclusion is a construction property for the vortex part, although the drag is not directly forced since the outlet is free and the source is irrotational. Second, the Imai-correction estimate (Eq. 26) is fitted to the A=30c data it then evaluates, but the correction is negligible and cross-validated by the A=500c fit. Self-citations to Golmirzaee and Wood [6] supply the BC-3/PVBC baselines and grid methodology but are not load-bearing for the new result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported through self-citation. The adequacy of an isotropic centered source at A=30c is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the impulse-equation framework and the far-field point vortex/source model. The most consequential assumptions are that all non-bound vorticity exits through the outlet, that the drag signature is an isotropic source, and that quadratic terms are negligible at the boundaries. The Imai-correction estimate introduces fitted parameters but does not support the main lift/drag claim. No new entities are postulated; the point source and vortex are standard singularities.

free parameters (2)
  • Turbulence Reynolds number Re_t in wake profile fit = 48
    Section 4.6, Eq. (25) is fit to the simulated wake profile. Used to assess the wake scaling and the Imai correction; not used for the central lift/drag claim.
  • a* and b* in Eq. (26) for u* and v* = u*: (0.0928, 0.0635) at A=500c and (0.0926, 0.0598) at A=30c; v*: (0.0077, 0.0061) and (0.0076, 0.0063)
    Section 5, least-squares fits to the streamwise and vertical velocity corrections ahead of the airfoil. Used to estimate the magnitude of the Imai correction, which the paper concludes is small.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All vorticity not bound to the airfoil exits through the outlet O.
    Stated at the start of Section 2. Used to derive the impulse equations for the control volume coincident with the domain. The paper observes vorticity layers at T and B in Section 4.5, which is acknowledged as a source of the moment inconsistency.
  • domain assumption The far-field velocity perturbation of the airfoil plus wake is representable as a point vortex and a point source at the airfoil center.
    Used in Eqs. (11) and (15) to construct the PVBC and PVSBC. The paper's Figs. 8 to 10 show the actual induced field deviates from this representation near and downstream of the wake.
  • domain assumption Quadratic perturbation terms in the impulse equations are negligible for large A and sum to zero for smaller A.
    Section 2 uses this to derive the far-field force formulas (7) to (9) and the invariance argument. Section 4.4 notes these terms decay slowly and do not sum exactly to zero.
  • domain assumption The wake is approximately symmetric about its minimum-velocity point and is deflected according to ym ~ -L ln(x/c)/rho.
    Section 3.4 uses these two assumptions to derive the logarithmic divergence of the moment integral. Table 11 shows reasonable agreement with the simulated wake.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical form of Eq. (26) describes the Imai-correction velocity ahead of the airfoil.
    Section 5. The function is chosen to fit the simulation data, not derived from Imai's analysis, which the paper says appears to contain an error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Far-field Boundary Conditions for Airfoil Simulation at High Incidence in Steady, Incompressible, Two-dimensional Flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E366DYH5

@misc{pith2026241113077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Far-field Boundary Conditions for Airfoil Simulation at High Incidence in Steady, Incompressible, Two-dimensional Flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E366DYH5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13077}
}
read the original abstract

This study concerns the far-field boundary conditions (BCs) for airfoil simulations at high incidence where the lift and drag are comparable in magnitude and the moment is significant. A NACA 0012 airfoil was simulated at high Reynolds number with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model in incompressible, steady flow. We use the impulse form of the lift, drag, and moment equations applied to a control volume coincident with the square computational domain, to explore the BCs. It is well known that consistency with the lift requires representing the airfoil by a point vortex, but it is largely unknown that consistency with the drag requires a point source as was first discovered by Lagally (1922) and Filon (1926). We show that having a point source in the BCs is more important at high drag than using a point vortex. The reason is that BCs without a point source cause blockage at the top and bottom sidewalls in a manner very similar to wind tunnel blockage for experiments. A simple "Lagally-Filon" correction for small levels of blockage is derived and shown to bring the results much closer to those obtained using boundary conditions including a point source. Although consistent with the lift and drag, the combined point vortex and source boundary condition is not consistent with the moment equation but the further correction for this inconsistency is shown to be very small. We speculate that the correction may be more important in cases where the moment is critical, such as vertical-axis turbines.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lagally, M.: Berechnung der kr¨ afte und momente, die str¨ omende fl¨ ussigkeiten auf ihre begrenzung aus¨ uben. J. Appl. Math. Mech. 2(6), 409–422 (1922) https: //doi.org/10.1002/zamm.19220020601

    work page doi:10.1002/zamm.19220020601 1922

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Filon, L.N.G.: The forces on a cylinder in a stream of viscous fluid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A 113(763), 7–27 (1926) https://doi.org/ 10.1098/rspa.1926.0136

    work page arXiv 1926

  3. [3]

    Pearson Education Ltd, New York (2007)

    Versteeg, H.K., Malalasekera, W.: An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method, 2nd edn. Pearson Education Ltd, New York (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    J Aircr.55(4), 1338–1351 (2018) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034856

    Roy, C.J., Rumsey, C.L., Tinoco, E.N.: Summary of data from the sixth AIAA CFD drag prediction workshop: case 1 code verification. J Aircr.55(4), 1338–1351 (2018) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C034856

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c034856 2018

  5. [5]

    Computers & Fluids 126, 153–169 (2016)

    Choudhary, A., Roy, C.J., Luke, E.A., Veluri, S.P.: Code verification of bound- ary conditions for compressible and incompressible computational fluid dynamics codes. Computers & Fluids 126, 153–169 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Golmirzaee, N., Wood, D.H.: Some effects of domain size and boundary conditions on the accuracy of airfoil simulations. Adv. Aerodyn. 6(7) (2024) https://doi. org/10.1186/s42774-023-00163-z

    work page doi:10.1186/s42774-023-00163-z 2024

  7. [7]

    Thomas, J.L., Salas, M.: Far-field boundary conditions for transonic lifting solu- tions to theeuler equations. AIAA J. 24(7), 1074–1080 (1986) https://doi.org/10. 30 2514/3.9394

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Destarac, D.: Spurious far-field-boundary induced drag in two-dimensional flow simulations. J Aircr. 48(4), 1444–1455 (2011) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031331

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c031331 2011

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge (2000)

    Batchelor, G.K.: An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, 2nd edn. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge (2000). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800955

    2000 doi

  2. [10]

    Liu, L., Zhu, J., Wu, J.: Lift and drag in two-dimensional steady viscous and compressible flow. J. Fluid Mech. 784, 304–341 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1017/ jfm.2015.584

    2015

  3. [11]

    Acta mechanica 68(3), 99–119 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01190877

    Kelmanson, M.: A direct boundary integral equation formulation for the oseen flow past a two-dimensional cylinder of arbitrary cross-section. Acta mechanica 68(3), 99–119 (1987) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01190877

    1987 doi

  4. [12]

    PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1987)

    Dannenhoffer, J.F.: Grid adaptation for complex two-dimensional transonic flows. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1987)

    1987

  5. [13]

    In: 17th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, p

    Allmaras, S., Venkatakrishnan, V., Johnson, F.: Farfield boundary conditions for 2-d airfoils. In: 17th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, p. 4711 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-4711

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

    Filon, L.N.G.: On the second approximation to the “Oseen” solution for the motion of a viscous fluid. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A 227(647-658), 93–135 (1928) https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1928. 0004

    1928 doi

  7. [15]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Goldstein, S.: On the two-dimensional steady flow of a viscous fluid behind a solid body. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A 142(847), 545–562 (1933)

    1933

  8. [16]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Imai, I.: On the asymptotic behaviour of viscous fluid flow at a great distance from a cylindrical body, with special reference to Filon’s paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A 208(1095), 487–516 (1951)

    1951

  9. [17]

    PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997)

    Noca, F.: On the evaluation of time-dependent fluid-dynamic forces on bluff bod- ies. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology (1997). https://doi.org/10. 7907/K2Z0-9016 31

    1997

  10. [18]

    PhD thesis, Oregon State University (2019)

    Siala, F.F.: Experimental investigations of the unsteady aerodynamics of oscillat- ing airfoils operating in the energy harvesting regime. PhD thesis, Oregon State University (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Fluids 170, 157–175 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.04.035

    E¸ ca, L., Pereira, F., Vaz, G.: Viscous flow simulations at high Reynolds numbers without wall functions: Is y+ ≃ 1 enough for the near-wall cells? Comput. Fluids 170, 157–175 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.04.035

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Roache, P.J.: Perspective: A method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. J. Fluids Eng. 116, 405–413 (1994) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2910291

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    McGraw-Hill, London (2017)

    Anderson, J.D.: Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill, London (2017). ISBN: 9781259129919

    2017

  14. [22]

    Rainbird, J., Peir´ o, J., Graham, J.: Blockage-tolerant wind tunnel measurements for a NACA 0012 at high angles of attack. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145, 209–218 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2015.06.006

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Bidadi, S., Vijayakumar, G., Sharma, A., Sprague, M.A.: Mesh and model require- ments for capturing deep-stall aerodynamics in low-mach-number flows. J. Turbul. 24(8), 393–418 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2023.2225141

    2023

  16. [24]

    Technical report, Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States) (1981)

    Sheldahl, R.E., Klimas, P.C.: Aerodynamic characteristics of seven symmetrical airfoil sections through 180-degree angle of attack for use in aerodynamic analysis of vertical axis wind turbines. Technical report, Sandia National Lab.(SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States) (1981)

    1981

  17. [25]

    Technical Report 3361, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va

    Critzos, C.C., Heyson, H.H., Boswinkle Jr, R.W.: Aerodynamic characteristics of NACA 0012 airfoil section at angles of attack from 0 ◦ to 180◦. Technical Report 3361, Langley Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va. (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1976) 32

    Townsend, A.: The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1976) 32

    1976

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.