Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Identification of Beneficial and Detrimental Structure Locations Around Flettner Rotors Using Topology-Optimization-Inspired Sensitivity Fields

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The sign of one scalar field, $s = \hat{v}_i v_i$, computed from primal and adjoint flow fields, tells where structures around a Flettner rotor will help or hurt the chosen force objective.

desk verdict Sound derivations, useful design-support idea, but the validation is too thin to support the strong claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04833 v2 pith:RP6FQ5K6 submitted 2025-05-07 physics.flu-dyn

Niklas Kühl This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords ComputationalFluidDynamicsContinuousAdjointSensitivityAnalysisTopologyOptimizationFlettnerRotorMaritimeAerodynamicsvirtualporositydeckcargoplacementdragandlift
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

The paper claims that a single scalar field, obtained by multiplying a converged flow solution with a continuous-adjoint companion solution, maps out where adding a solid structure near a Flettner rotor improves or worsens rotor drag and lift. The field is the topological sensitivity with respect to a virtual porosity penalty, $s = \hat{v}_i v_i$, and only its sign is used. This matters because a designer can screen many deck arrangements by reading colored slices of the field, without running an optimization loop or modifying a CFD solver. The paper supports the claim by placing a six-container stack at positions the sign map marks beneficial or detrimental and confirming that lift and drag change in the predicted directions. The demonstration is for one full-scale rotor at $Re_D = 2\times10^6$ and spin ratio $k=3$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the topological sensitivity $s = \hat{v}_i v_i$ arising from a continuous-adjoint treatment of a virtual porosity source term $\alpha(v_i - v_i^{\mathrm{tar}})$ with $\alpha\to0$. The porosity field is never introduced into the primal computation or updated; instead, the adjoint solution is post-multiplied by the averaged primal velocity to produce a scalar map. The map is then read by sign, following the steepest-descent convention (the plotted quantity is $-s$). The derivation uses the frozen-turbulence assumption and neglects density variations, and the paper relies on the same adjoint solver infrastructure used for shape optimization, so the method is a post-processing step rather than a new solver.

What would settle it

Run the same rotor case and compare the sign map with a genuine porosity perturbation: take the converged flow, add a small but finite $\alpha$ in a spherical probe region at several points, and measure the objective change; if the sign of measured change disagrees with the sign of $s$ at that point, or if the disagreement appears only for larger container blocks, then the sign map's predictive range is bounded. A wind-tunnel or higher-fidelity test placing a container stack exactly at a predicted-beneficial location and measuring drag and lift would settle the practical claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the sign of the topological sensitivity field $s = \hat{v}_i v_i$ identifies where introducing material improves or deteriorates a selected aerodynamic objective around a Flettner rotor. Starting from a time-averaged, scale-resolving flow field, the paper derives adjoint equations for an incompressible flow with a virtual Darcy-like penalty term $\alpha(v_i - v_i^{\mathrm{tar}})$, with $\alpha$ identically zero in the actual simulation. The sensitivity of the force objective to a porosity perturbation reduces to the inner product of the primal and adjoint velocity vectors; negating it gives the direction of steepest descent. The author interprets regions of negative sensitivity as beneficial and positive as detrimental for the chosen objective, for drag, lift, and a combined drift objective. Validation runs place six TEU20 containers in predicted positive and negative regions and report relative changes in lift and drag consistent with the sign map, e.g., a starboard stack increases lift while a port stack reduces it, and both tested drag-beneficial placements reduce drag by roughly half.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the sign of the sensitivity obtained from an infinitesimal virtual-porosity perturbation, computed with frozen turbulence, still predicts the effect of placing a large solid, non-porous container stack at the same location; the paper tests this with four configurations but does not derive the transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can screen an arbitrary number of deck arrangements around a Flettner rotor by reading the sign of $s$, re-running the primal/adjoint pair only when the rotor geometry or operating condition changes.
  • For any force objective, the same machinery works by changing the adjoint boundary condition $r_i$ on the rotor, e.g., $\delta_{i1}$ for drag, $\delta_{i2}$ for lift, or a normalized combination for drift.
  • The validated outcome implies that drag reductions of around 50 percent are available by placing cargo in the predicted beneficial zone, while a misplaced stack can increase drag significantly.
  • Because no porosity design variable enters the flow solver, the method can be attached to existing adjoint-enabled CFD setups without altering the turbulence model or discretization.
  • The sign map is qualitative and does not claim optimality: it identifies improved, not optimal, placements, as the paper states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the sign map is read as a derivative at zero porosity, the strongest untested extension is quantitative: finite solid bodies at the same location but different size or shape may not follow the infinitesimal prediction; a size-threshold study would show where the extrapolation breaks.
  • The same virtual-porosity sensitivity could be used to guide placement of other deck structures, superstructure elements, or windshields, and also underwater appendages, by defining the objective on a different surface and re-running the adjoint.
  • A natural test is to compare the sign map against a finite-difference porosity perturbation of small but finite strength; agreement for small strengths and divergence for large ones would calibrate how far the linearization can be trusted.
  • The author's suggested extension to true local topology optimization would reveal whether the sign map's zero contours coincide with the optimal material distribution once an optimization loop is run.
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. The paper presents a continuous-adjoint, topology-optimization-inspired sensitivity diagnostic for the flow around a Flettner rotor. A virtual Darcy-type porosity term is included in the momentum equations only for the purpose of differentiation; the actual primal simulation has zero porosity. The resulting topological sensitivity field is given by the inner product of the adjoint and primal velocity in Eq. (20). The sign of this field is interpreted as indicating where adding solid material (e.g., a container stack) would improve or deteriorate a chosen aerodynamic objective: drag, lift, or a combined drift objective. The method is applied at Re_D = 2e6 and spinning ratio k = 3. Validation is performed by inserting a six-TEU20 container stack at four hand-picked locations: two for the lift/drift map (one positive-sign, one negative-sign region) and two for the drag map (both in positive-sign, drag-beneficial regions). The measured force changes match the predicted sign in all four cases. The paper frames the method as a non-intrusive post-processing design-support tool and explicitly notes in the conclusion that only the sign was checked and future finite-difference validation is needed.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method would be a practically useful early-design screening tool: it would let a designer read, directly from a scalar field, where placing structures helps or hurts a rotor's lift or drag without running an optimization loop. The continuous-adjoint derivation is standard and the sensitivity expression is not fitted to the validation data, which is a genuine strength. The paper is also honest about its limitations: it acknowledges the frozen-turbulence assumption as delicate and states in the conclusion that only the sign of the sensitivity was checked. The main gap is that the load-bearing extension from an infinitesimal virtual-porosity derivative to a finite, impermeable container stack is supported by only a small, favorable sample of validation cases, and the drag direction is tested only in the beneficial sign. No error bars, grid-dependence study, or averaging-convergence evidence is reported. These are fixable shortcomings rather than fundamental flaws, but they need to be addressed before the claimed predictive capability is established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3 and Eq. (20)] The validation never tests the sign transfer for a predicted-detrimental drag location. Both drag arrangements (c) and (d) are placed in positively predicted (beneficial) regions, and both reduce drag. The central claim that the sign map identifies 'beneficial and detrimental locations' is therefore demonstrated only for the lift/drift functional, not for drag. Please add at least one drag case placed in a blue (negative-sensitivity) region, and ideally a neutral or counterfactual placement, to show that the sign map is specific rather than only identifying some region that improves drag.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (20) versus Sec. 3.3] Eq. (20) gives the derivative of the cost functional with respect to an infinitesimal porosity parameter at alpha = 0, but the validation inserts a finite, impermeable six-TEU container stack. The paper does not justify why the sign of a local, infinitesimal derivative should persist for a large solid body at Re_D = 2e6, where blockage and separation produce strongly nonlinear, nonlocal responses. A direct supporting test would be a finite-difference check of dJ/dalpha for a small virtual-porosity bump at several candidate locations, or a series of stack sizes/porosities showing that the sign remains stable. As written, the extrapolation from the derivative to the finite solid body is an unsupported load-bearing step.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (9)] The paper acknowledges that the frozen-turbulence assumption is 'a delicate assumption' at the Reynolds numbers considered, but then states that 'later applications will show that satisfactory sensitivity derivatives can still be predicted.' This is a promise, not evidence. Since the entire diagnostic reduces to the sign of the sensitivity field, the paper should provide at least a quantitative check of the omitted terms, e.g., by comparing with a formulation that includes turbulent-viscosity variations, or by demonstrating sign stability under a perturbed turbulence model. A sign inversion under this assumption would directly undermine the design-guidance claim.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 3.3] No grid-dependence study, statistical-convergence study, or uncertainty quantification is reported for either the primal or adjoint solutions. The validation figure (Fig. 7) reports relative changes without error bars, so it is unclear whether the force differences are converged in averaging time or mesh resolution. Since the central claim is about sign accuracy, at least one mesh-refinement check and an averaging-convergence estimate for the reported drag and lift changes are needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 1] In the Introduction, 'an thus, the CFD solver' should read 'and thus the CFD solver.'
  2. [Sec. 2, after Eq. (9)] 'is an delicate assumption' should read 'is a delicate assumption.'
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence on the differences between the lift and drift functionals contains a typo: 'the lift ((b),(e),(h)) and the lift ((c),(f),(i))' should read 'the lift ((b),(e),(h)) and the drift ((c),(f),(i)).'
  4. [Sec. 3.1] The text and caption for Fig. 2(a) should be consistent: the text says slices at x3/H = [0, 1/3, 2/3, 1], while the caption uses the notation [0, 1, 2, 3]/3; please unify the notation.
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The abbreviation TEU20 is used as 'six TEU20 containers' but the expansion in the text is 'six Twenty-foot Equivalent container Units (TEU20)'; please define the abbreviation once and use it consistently.
  6. [Fig. 7] The force-change plot would benefit from explicit statements about convergence of the averaging window and, if available, estimated statistical error bars. At minimum, please state whether the four simulations were run to the same convergence criterion as the reference case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: sensitivity derived from adjoint Lagrangian, validated by independent forward simulations.

full rationale

The core sensitivity expression s = \hat{v}_i v_i is derived analytically from the augmented Lagrangian (Eqs. 7-20), not fitted to the validation results. The paper then validates the sign of this field by placing solid container stacks in predicted improving/deteriorating locations and re-running independent forward simulations, so the validation does not reduce to the input of the derivation. Self-citations to prior solver validation (e.g., Angerbauer and Rung 2020; Kr\oger et al. 2018) are external evidence rather than a load-bearing circular chain, and the acknowledged frozen-turbulence assumption is a modeling limitation, not a definitional reduction. The main residual risk is the transfer from an infinitesimal porosity derivative to finite solid bodies, but that is a validation/correctness concern, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on standard adjoint calculus plus three modeling assumptions: the IDDES flow model, the frozen-turbulence simplification, and the transfer of an infinitesimal porosity sensitivity to finite solid bodies. No constants are fitted to the results; alpha=0 and scenario parameters such as Re, k, and the wind profile are prescribed inputs, so the free-parameter list is empty. No new physical entity is introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption IDDES turbulence closure and wall functions predict the averaged Flettner rotor flow accurately at ReD=2e6.
    Used for all primal and validation runs in Secs. 2 and 3; a wrong flow prediction would void both the sensitivity and the validation.
  • ad hoc to paper Frozen-turbulence assumption: variations of effective turbulent viscosity and density are neglected in the adjoint linearization.
    Stated in Sec. 2 after Eq. (9); the paper calls it a delicate assumption especially at high Reynolds numbers but relies on it for the sensitivity field.
  • ad hoc to paper The sign of an infinitesimal virtual porosity sensitivity transfers to finite solid bodies placed at that location.
    Sec. 3.3 validates using six solid TEU20 containers while the sensitivity Eq. (20) is a derivative at alpha=0; no derivation or test supports this transfer.
  • domain assumption The time-averaged force functional in Eq. (7) is a meaningful objective for an unsteady, scale-resolving flow.
    The rotor flow is unsteady DES; averaging over 100 equivalent flows is assumed to yield the design-relevant force.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identification of Beneficial and Detrimental Structure Locations Around Flettner Rotors Using Topology-Optimization-Inspired Sensitivity Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RP6FQ5K6

@misc{pith2026250504833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identification of Beneficial and Detrimental Structure Locations Around Flettner Rotors Using Topology-Optimization-Inspired Sensitivity Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RP6FQ5K6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04833}
}
read the original abstract

Flettner rotors are highly sensitive to their surrounding flow field and may be significantly affected by nearby ship structures, deck cargo, and superstructures. Assessing the aerodynamic influence of such structures during early design stages remains challenging, particularly when a large number of potential arrangements must be considered. This paper presents a topology-optimization-inspired numerical sensitivity-analysis approach for identifying beneficial and detrimental locations of additional structures around Flettner rotors. The numerical method is based on a virtual porosity formulation and evaluates the corresponding sensitivity field using a continuous adjoint framework. In contrast to classical topology optimization, the porosity field is not treated as a design variable and no optimization loop is performed. Instead, the resulting sensitivity field is interpreted as a design-support tool that indicates regions where the introduction of material is expected to improve or deteriorate a selected aerodynamic objective. The approach is demonstrated for a full-scale Flettner rotor operating at a diameter-based Reynolds number of ReD = 2E+06 and a spinning ratio of k=3. Sensitivity fields are evaluated for drag, lift, and a combined objective. Their predictive capability is assessed by positioning container stacks at locations identified as beneficial or detrimental by the sensitivity analysis and subsequently re-evaluating the aerodynamic performance of the modified configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Perspective view of the near-field grid and (b) instantaneous vortex structures colored with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Normalized magnitude of the time-averaged velocity vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Representation of the adjoint velocity vector components (row-wise) for the three cost functional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Topological sensitivity along three sections at different vertical positions (row-wise) and for three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Four different container-rotor arrangements, where the first two (a)-(b) are used to examine the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Numerical grids for the four different container-rotor arrangements from Fig. 5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative changes in the lift and drag cost functions for the arrangements considered in Fig. 5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Adjoint Sensitivity Maps for Passive Flow Control Around Rotating Circular Cylinders Across a Wide Operating Envelope

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Topology adjoint maps for drag, lift, and torque on rotating cylinders are governed mainly by spinning ratio, with weak Reynolds-number dependence, yielding a passive-control design atlas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alexandersen and B.S

    J. Alexandersen and B.S. Lazarov. Topology Optimisation of Manufacturable Microstructural Details Without Length Scale Separation Using a Spectral Coarse Basis Preconditioner . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 290: 0 156--182, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.cma.2015.02.028

    doi:10.1016/j.cma.2015.02.028 2015

  2. [2]

    Angerbauer and T

    R. Angerbauer and T. Rung. Hybrid RANS/LES Simulations of Aerodynamic Flows Around Superstructures of Ships . In 17th Symposium on Hybrid RANS-LES Methods, 17--19 September, 2018, Berlin, Germany, pages 367--377. Springer, 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27607-2_30

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27607-2_30 2018

  3. [3]

    Bendsoe and O

    M.P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund. Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications . Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Blank, H

    L. Blank, H. Garcke, L. Sarbu, T. Srisupattarawanit, V. Styles, and A. Voigt. Phase-Field Approaches to Structural Topology Optimization . Constrained Optimization and Optimal Control for Partial Differential Equations, pages 245--256, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0133-1_13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-0133-1_13 2012

  5. [5]

    Borrvall and J

    T. Borrvall and J. Petersson. Topology Optimization of Fluids in Stokes Flow . International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 41 0 (1): 0 77--107, 2003. doi:10.1002/fld.426

    doi:10.1002/fld.426 2003

  6. [6]

    De Leon, J

    D.M. De Leon, J. Alexandersen, J.S. O. Fonseca, and O. Sigmund. Stress-Constrained Topology Optimization for Compliant Mechanism Design . Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 52: 0 929--943, 2015. doi:10.1007/s00158-015-1279-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-015-1279-z 2015

  7. [7]

    Garcke, C

    H. Garcke, C. Hecht, M. Hinze, and C. Kahle. Numerical Approximation of Phase Field Based Shape and Topology Optimization for Fluids . SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37 0 (4): 0 A1846--A1871, 2015. doi:10.1137/140969269

    work page doi:10.1137/140969269 2015

  8. [8]

    Gauger, A

    N.R. Gauger, A. Walther, C. Moldenhauer, and M. Widhalm. Automatic D ifferentiation of an E ntire D esign C hain for A erodynamic S hape O ptimization. In New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics VI, pages 454--461. Springer, 2008. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74460-3_56

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74460-3_56 2008

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    A. Gerdes. Fluid D ynamic O ptimization of HVAC - C omponents with A djoint M ethods . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Gerdes, M

    A. Gerdes, M. Hinze, and T. Rung. An Efficient Line Search Technique and Its Application to Adjoint Topology Optimisation . PAMM, 14 0 (1): 0 719--720, 2014. doi:10.1002/pamm.201410342

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Gersborg-Hansen, O

    A. Gersborg-Hansen, O. Sigmund, and R. B. Haber. Topology Optimization of Channel Flow Problems . Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 30 0 (3): 0 181--192, 2005. doi:10.1007/s00158-004-0508-7

    2005 doi

  4. [12]

    Giles and N.A

    M.B. Giles and N.A. Pierce. Adjoint Equations in CFD: Duality, Boundary Conditions and Solution Behaviour . AIAA Paper, 1997. doi:10.2514/6.1997-1850. AIAA--97--1850

    1997 doi

  5. [13]

    Giles and N.A

    M.B. Giles and N.A. Pierce. An Introduction to the Adjoint Approach to Design . Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 65 0 (3): 0 393--415, 2000. doi:10.1023/A:1011430410075

    doi

  6. [14]

    Gritskevich, A.V

    M.S. Gritskevich, A.V. Garbaruk, J. Sch \"u tze, and F.R. Menter. Development of DDES and IDDES F ormulations for the k- S hear S tress T ransport M odel. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 88 0 (3): 0 431--449, 2012. doi:10.1007/s10494-011-9378-4

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Gritskevich, A.V

    M.S. Gritskevich, A.V. Garbaruk, and F.R. Menter. A Comprehensive Study of Improved Delayed Detached Eddy Simulation with Wall Functions . Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 98: 0 461--479, 2017. doi:10.1007/s10494-016-9761-2

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Guest and J.H

    J.K. Guest and J.H. Pr \'e vost. Topology Optimization of Creeping Fluid Flows using a Darcy-Stokes Finite Element . International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 66 0 (3): 0 461--484, 2006. doi:10.1002/nme.1560

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    o rster, M. Dorn, G. Th \

    F. Klemens, B. F \"o rster, M. Dorn, G. Th \"a ter, and M.J. Krause. Solving Fluid Flow Domain Identification Problems with Adjoint Lattice Boltzmann Methods . Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 79 0 (1): 0 17--33, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2018.07.010

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    Kr\"oger

    J. Kr\"oger. A N umerical P rocess for the H ydrodynamic O ptimisation of S hips . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    o ger, N. K \

    J. Kr \"o ger, N. K \"u hl, and T. Rung. Adjoint V olume-of- F luid A pproaches for the H ydrodynamic O ptimisation of S hips. Ship Technology Research, 65 0 (1): 0 47--68, January 2018. doi:10.1080/09377255.2017.1411001

    2018

  12. [20]

    K \"u hl

    N. K \"u hl. Adjoint- B ased S hape O ptimization C onstraint by T urbulent T wo- P hase N avier- S tokes S ystems . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    K \"u hl

    N. K \"u hl. On the Continuous Adjoint of Prominent Explicit Local Eddy Viscosity-based Large Eddy Simulation Approaches for Incompressible Flows . Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 113 0 (2): 0 293--330, 2024. doi:10.1007/s10494-024-00543-5

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    K \"u hl

    N. K \"u hl. Differential Equation Based Wall Distance Approaches for Maritime Engineering Flows . arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07286, 2025 a

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K \"u hl

    N. K \"u hl. Elliptic Relaxation Strategies to Support Numerical Stability of Segregated Continuous Adjoint Flow Solvers . arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12518, 2025 b

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K \"u hl and T

    N. K \"u hl and T. Rung. Discrete A djoint M omentum- W eighted I nterpolation S trategies. Journal of Computational Physics, 467: 0 111474, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111474

    2022

  17. [25]

    u hl, J. Kr \

    N. K \"u hl, J. Kr \"o ger, M. Siebenborn, M. Hinze, and T. Rung. Adjoint C omplement to the V olume-of- F luid M ethod for I mmiscible F lows. Journal of Computational Physics, 440: 0 110411, 2021 a . doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110411

    2021

  18. [26]

    u hl, P. M. M \

    N. K \"u hl, P. M. M \"u ller, and T. Rung. Adjoint C omplement to the U niversal M omentum L aw of the W all. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 2021 b . doi:10.1007/s10494-021-00286-7

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    u hl, P.M. M \

    N. K \"u hl, P.M. M \"u ller, and T. Rung. Continuous A djoint C omplement to the B lasius E quation. Physics of Fluids, 33 0 (3): 0 033608, 2021 c . doi:10.1063/5.0037779

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    K \"u hl, H

    N. K \"u hl, H. Fischer, M. Hinze, and T. Rung. An Incremental Singular Value Decomposition Approach for Large-Scale Spatially Parallel & Distributed but Temporally Serial Data -- Applied to Technical Flows . Computer Physics Communications, 296: 0 109022, 2024. doi:10.1016/j....

    2024

  21. [29]

    M. Loft, N. K \"u hl, M.P. Buckley, J.R. Carpenter, M. Hinze, F. Veron, and T. Rung. Two-phase Flow Simulations of Surface Waves in Wind-Forced Conditions . Physics of Fluids, 35 0 (7), 2023. doi:10.1063/5.0156963

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    L \"o hner, O

    R. L \"o hner, O. Soto, and C. Yang. An adjoint-based design methodology for cfd optimization problems. In 41st Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, page 299, 2003. doi:10.2514/6.2003-299

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    M. Manzke. Development of a S calable M ethod for the E fficient S imulation of F lows using Dynamic G oal- O rientated Local Grid - Adaption . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Manzke, J.P

    M. Manzke, J.P. Voss, and T. Rung. Sub- C ycling S trategies for M aritime T wo- P hase F lows. In Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, volume 120, pages 237--251. Springer, 2012. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33221-0_14

    2012 doi

  25. [33]

    u ller, N. K \

    P. M. M \"u ller, N. K \"u hl, M. Siebenborn, K. Deckelnick, M. Hinze, and T. Rung. A N ovel p - H armonic D escent A pproach A pplied to F luid D ynamic S hape O ptimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2021. doi:10.1007/s00158-021-03030-x

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    S. K. Nadarajah. The D iscrete A djoint A pproach to A erodynamic S hape O ptimization . PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    N rgaard, O

    S. N rgaard, O. Sigmund, and B. Lazarov. Topology Optimization of Unsteady Flow Problems Using the Lattice Boltzmann Method . Journal of Computational Physics, 307: 0 291--307, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2015.12.023

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    Olesen, F

    L.H. Olesen, F. Okkels, and H. Bruus. A High-Level Programming-Language Implementation of Topology Optimization Applied to Steady-State Navier--Stokes Flow . International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 65 0 (7): 0 975--1001, 2006. doi:10.1002/nme.1468

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    C. Othmer. A Continuous Adjoint Formulation for the Computation of Topological and Surface Sensitivities of Ducted Flows . International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 58 0 (8): 0 861--877, 2008. doi:10.1002/fld.1770

    2008 doi

  30. [38]

    Othmer, D.E

    C. Othmer, D.E. Manosalvas-Kjono, A. Jameson, and J.J. Alonso. Aerodynamic Topology Optimization: Some Observations on Hysteresis in Separated Flows . In 23rd AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, page 4413, 2017. doi:10.2514/6.2017-4413

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    R. Pache. Datenbasierte Modellierung der Aerodynamischen Lasten auf \"U berwasserschiffe . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Papoutsis-Kiachagias and K.C

    E.M. Papoutsis-Kiachagias and K.C. Giannakoglou. Continuous Adjoint Methods for Turbulent Flows, Applied to Shape and Topology Optimization: Industrial Applications . Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 23 0 (2): 0 255, 2016. doi:10.1007/s11831-014-9141-9

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Pizzolato, A

    A. Pizzolato, A. Sharma, K. Maute, A. Sciacovelli, and V. Verda. Topology Optimization for Heat Transfer Enhancement in Latent Heat Thermal Energy Storage . International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 113: 0 875--888, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.05.098

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Pizzolato, A

    A. Pizzolato, A. Sharma, K. Maute, A. Sciacovelli, and V. Verda. Multi-Scale Topology Optimization of Multi-Material Structures with Controllable Geometric Complexity -- Applications to Heat Transfer Problems . Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 357: 0 1125...

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    S.B. Pope. Turbulent F lows . Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  36. [44]

    u hl, T. Suchan, T. Rung, A. D \

    L. Radtke, G. Bletsos, N. K \"u hl, T. Suchan, T. Rung, A. D \"u ster, and K. Welker. Parameter-Free Shape Optimization: Various Shape Updates for Engineering Applications . Aerospace, 10 0 (9), 2023. doi:10.3390/aerospace10090751

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Rhie and W

    C.M. Rhie and W. L. Chow. Numerical S tudy of the T urbulent F low P ast an A irfoil with T railing E dge S eparation. AIAA Journal, 21 0 (11): 0 1525--1532, 1983. doi:10.2514/3.8284

    1983 doi

  38. [46]

    Roth and S

    R. Roth and S. Ulbrich. A Discrete Adjoint Approach for the Optimization of Unsteady Turbulent Flows . Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 90: 0 763--783, 2013. doi:10.1007/s10494-012-9439-3

    2013 doi

  39. [47]

    E. Ruberto. An Adjoint Based Topology Optimization for Flows Including Heat Transfer . PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    Rung, H.M

    T. Rung, H.M. L \"u bcke, and F. Thiele. Universal W all- B oundary C onditions for T urbulence T ransport M odels. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, 81: 0 481--482, 2001. doi:10.1002/zamm.20010811520

    2001 doi

  41. [49]

    o ckner, M. Manzke, J. Brunswig, C. Ulrich, and A. St \

    T. Rung, K. W \"o ckner, M. Manzke, J. Brunswig, C. Ulrich, and A. St \"u ck. Challenges and P erspectives for M aritime CFD A pplications. Jahrbuch der Schiffbautechnischen Gesellschaft, 103: 0 127--39, 2009

    2009

  42. [50]

    Schubert

    S. Schubert. Analysis of C oupling T echniques for O verset- G rid F inite- V olume M ethods . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    J. Seifert. A review of the Magnus Effect in Aeronautics . Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 55: 0 17--45, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2012.07.001

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Sigmund and K

    O. Sigmund and K. Maute. Topology optimization approaches: A comparative review. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 48 0 (6): 0 1031--1055, 2013. doi:10.1007/s00158-013-0978-6

    2013 doi

  45. [53]

    St \"u ck

    A. St \"u ck. Adjoint N avier- S tokes M ethods for H ydrodynamic S hape O ptimisation . PhD thesis, Hamburg University of Technology, 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    St \"u ck and T

    A. St \"u ck and T. Rung. Adjoint C omplement to V iscous F inite- V olume P ressure- C orrection M ethods. Journal of Computational Physics, 248: 0 402--419, 2013. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2013.01.002

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    Vrionis, K.D

    P.Y. Vrionis, K.D. Samouchos, and K.C. Giannakoglou. Topology Optimization in Fluid Mechanics Using Continuous Adjoint and the Cut-Cell Method . Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 97: 0 286--297, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2021.06.002

    2021 doi

  48. [56]

    Woeckner, W

    K. Woeckner, W. Drazyk, and T. Rung. An E fficient V o F -based RANS M ethod to C apture C omplex S ea S tates. In International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, volume 49149, pages 755--763, 2010

    2010

  49. [57]

    S. Xu, W. Jahn, and J.D. M \"u ller. CAD-Based Shape Optimisation with CFD Using a Discrete Adjoint . International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 74 0 (3): 0 153--168, 2014. doi:10.1002/fld.3844

    2014 doi

  50. [58]

    Yakubov, T

    S. Yakubov, T. Maquil, and T. Rung. Experience U sing P ressure- B ased CFD M ethods for Euler - Euler S imulations of C avitating F lows. Computers & Fluids, 111: 0 91--104, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.01.008

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    G. Yu, J.D. M \"u ller, D. Jones, and F. Christakopoulos. CAD-Based Shape Optimisation Using Adjoint Sensitivities . Computers & Fluids, 46 0 (1): 0 512--516, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2011.01.043

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.