working

nalu-wind/2D_airfoils_Transition/1_NLF1-0416/README.md

@@ -12,16 +12,15 @@ Validation and verification of the transition model were conducted for the NASA
    - 2-D strcutred C-type meshes: Tiny, Coarse, Medium, Fine, Extra, Ultra resolutions[^4]
 - Turbulence / Transition model: SST-2003 with the 1-eq Gamma transition model with µt/µ=1
 - Nalu-Wind version: [6155b17fa6b8914a819a492230c96f7990a97b78](https://github.com/Exawind/nalu-wind/commit/6155b17fa6b8914a819a492230c96f7990a97b78)
-- Case run on NREL's Kestrel HPC system using 26 cores / case
-- A case with the "Fine" mesh was run on 26 cores of NREL's Kestrel, took approximately 40 minutes to 10,000 iterations, using 4 Picard iterations per time step
-   - Note that the number of cores per case was not based on the scalability of Nalu-Wind on Kestrel but rather to fit 4 cases onto a single node of Kestrel
+- A case with the "Fine" mesh took approximately 40 minutes to 10,000 iterations, using 4 Picard iterations per time step, on 26 cores of NREL's Kestrel HPC cluster
+   - The number of cores per case was not determined by Nalu-Wind’s scalability on Kestrel, but simply to accommodate 4 cases on a single node of Kestrel.
 
 ## Results: Grid Sensitivity Study
 
-### Lift coefficient at AoA=5deg
+### Lift coefficient at AoA=5°
 <img src="figs/aoa5/nlf0416_aoa5_cl.png" alt="Cf" width="400">
 
-### Drag coefficient at AoA=5deg
+### Drag coefficient at AoA=5°
 <img src="figs/aoa5/nlf0416_aoa5_cd.png" alt="Cf" width="400">
 
 Two different options for the freestream conditions are tested here: 

nalu-wind/2D_airfoils_Transition/2_DU00-W-212/README.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 # TU Delft DU00-W-212 airfoil
 
-Validation of the transition model is conducted for the DU00-W-212 airfoil airfoil using Nalu-Wind with the 1-equation gamma transition model. A full angle-of-attack sweep was performed, and the results are compared against the experimental data[^1] and fully tubulent simulation results.
+Validation of the transition model is conducted for the DU00-W-212 airfoil using Nalu-Wind with the 1-equation gamma transition model. A full angle-of-attack sweep was performed, and the results are compared against the experimental data[^1] and fully tubulent simulation results.
 
 ## Simulation Conditions
 
@@ -12,8 +12,8 @@ Validation of the transition model is conducted for the DU00-W-212 airfoil airfo
    - 2-D structred O-type mesh, with a resolution equivalent to the "Fine" resolution of the AIAA mesh
 - Turbulence / Transition model: SST-2003 with the 1-eq Gamma transition model with µt/µ=1
 - Nalu-Wind version: [6155b17fa6b8914a819a492230c96f7990a97b78](https://github.com/Exawind/nalu-wind/commit/6155b17fa6b8914a819a492230c96f7990a97b78)
-- Each case was run on 26 cores of NREL's Kestrel, took approximately 40 minutes to 10,000 iterations, using 4 Picard iterations per time step
-   - Note that the number of cores per case was not based on the scalability of Nalu-Wind on Kestrel but rather to fit 4 cases onto a single node of Kestrel
+- Each case took approximately 40 minutes to 10,000 iterations, using 4 Picard iterations per time step, on 26 cores of NREL's Kestrel HPC cluster
+   - The number of cores per case was not determined by Nalu-Wind’s scalability on Kestrel, but simply to accommodate 4 cases on a single node of Kestrel.
 
 ## Results: Angle of Attack Sweep
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ The figure above shows comparisons of the lift, drag, and pitching moment from t
 
 For the lift coefficient, both the fully turbulent and transition simulations show good agreement with the experimental data in the linear range. The transition simulation predicts a slightly higher lift curve slope than the fully turbulent simulation in this range, but the differences are minor. However, neither the transition nor turbulent simulations accurately predict the stall angle of attack due to the limitations of RANS modeling under strong adverse pressure gradients.
 
-For the drag coefficient, the transition simulation captures the laminar drag bucket very well, whereas the fully turbulent simulation overpredicts drag across the entire linear range. At AoA = 0°, the errors in the predicted drag coefficient for the transition and turbulent simulations are -4.35% and 58.81%, respectively. Without the transition model, drag is over-predicted by almost 60%.
+For the drag coefficient, the transition simulation captures the laminar drag bucket very well, whereas the fully turbulent simulation overpredicts drag across the entire linear range. At AoA = 0°, the errors in the predicted drag coefficient for the transition and turbulent simulations are -4.35% and 58.81%, respectively. Without the transition model, the drag is over-predicted by almost 60%.
 
 Regarding the pitching moment, the transition simulations show better correlation with the experimental data compared to the fully turbulent simulations in the linear range of the lift curve. After the stall AoA, due to the limitations of the RANS turbulence model, neither simulation captures the pitching moment trends accurately, with both under-predicting the magnitude in the post-stall region.
 

nalu-wind/2D_airfoils_Transition/README.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 
 # Validation and Verification of the 1-eq Gamma Transition Model
 
-This repository contains ExaWind benchmark cases for the 1-equation Gamma transition model. The cases include:
+This repository contains 2-D airfoil ExaWind benchmark cases for the 1-equation Gamma transition model. The cases include:
 
 - NASA NLF(1)-0416 airfoil at M=0.1, Re=4M, Tu=0.15%
 - TU Delft DU00-W-212 airfoil at M=0.1, Re=3M, Tu=0.0864%