arxiv: 2605.04884 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

Recognition: unknown

Buffet Alleviation via Linear Stability Adjoint

Rohit Sunil Kanchi , Sicheng He , Eirikur Jonsson , Joaquim R. R. A. Martins

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 16:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.flu-dyn

keywords transonic buffetlinear stability analysisadjoint sensitivityaerodynamic shape optimizationOAT15A airfoildrag minimizationsupercritical wing

0 comments

The pith

Coupled adjoint method supplies linear stability sensitivities to enable buffet-constrained drag minimization.

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

Transonic buffet limits the cruise speeds of transport aircraft, yet current design rules rely on empirical surrogates that can be either too cautious or unsafe. The paper introduces a coupled adjoint technique that efficiently differentiates the dominant eigenvalue of the linearized flow operator about a steady base flow, allowing the linear stability prediction of buffet onset to serve as an optimization constraint. This removes the previous computational bottleneck of repeated eigenvalue solves for many design variables. The method is verified on a standard cylinder shedding case and on the OAT15A airfoil, where it reproduces published spectra and matches the initial growth of unsteady simulations. The resulting gradients are then used to reshape the airfoil, producing a 22.4 percent drag drop while keeping the flow below the linear stability threshold.

Core claim

The authors develop a top-and-bottom-level decomposition of the eigenproblem that reuses the existing steady CFD adjoint to obtain the shape sensitivity of the dominant linear stability eigenvalue. On the OAT15A airfoil at Mach 0.73 and Reynolds number 3.2 million, this adjoint drives a single-point drag minimization that satisfies the buffet constraint and yields 22.4 percent lower drag. Preliminary three-dimensional results on the CRM wing recover buffet onset near four degrees angle of attack from warm-started unsteady runs, establishing a path to three-dimensional buffet-constrained wing design.

What carries the argument

Coupled adjoint decomposition of the linear stability eigenproblem that reuses the steady CFD adjoint to compute eigenvalue sensitivities with respect to shape variables.

If this is right

Buffet onset can be treated as a first-principles constraint rather than an empirical margin in shape optimization.
Single-point optimizations can now trade drag directly against linear stability margins on supercritical airfoils.
The same adjoint infrastructure supplies gradients for three-dimensional wing buffet constraints once the eigenproblem is solved.
Designs can avoid the conservatism or risk of Delta-alpha or separation-sensor criteria while still remaining stable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the linear stability threshold continues to bound nonlinear buffet across a wider range of geometries, cruise Mach numbers could be set closer to the physical limit without added safety factors.
The decomposition approach may extend to other eigenvalue-constrained problems such as flutter or vortex shedding in different flow regimes.
Multi-point optimizations could incorporate buffet margins at several Mach numbers once the adjoint cost is amortized across operating points.

Load-bearing premise

Linear stability analysis of the steady base flow accurately predicts the onset of nonlinear transonic buffet for the tested airfoil and wing configurations.

What would settle it

Unsteady simulation of the optimized OAT15A geometry at the design condition showing buffet onset at a lower angle of attack than the linear stability constraint permits.

read the original abstract

Transonic buffet, self--sustained shock and shear--layer oscillations, imposes hard limits on the cruise envelope of modern transport aircraft, and avoiding it is a primary design driver. State-of-the-art buffet-onset criteria used in design, such as the $\Delta\alpha = 0.1^\circ$ criterion and separation--sensor methods, are empirical surrogates rather than first--principle predictors, and can yield either overly conservative or unsafe designs. Linear stability analysis (LST) predicts buffet onset directly from the spectrum of the linearized operator about the steady base flow, but using it as an aerodynamic shape optimization constraint has been bottlenecked by the cost of differentiating an eigenvalue with respect to many design variables. In this paper, we develop a coupled adjoint method that efficiently computes the sensitivity of the dominant LST eigenvalue with respect to a large number of shape design variables, by reusing the steady CFD adjoint within a top and bottom level decomposition of the eigenproblem. We verify the eigensolver and adjoint against the canonical cylinder vortex--shedding benchmark, then verify the LST predictions on the OAT15A supercritical airfoil at $M=0.73$, $Re=3.2\times 10^{6}$ against published eigenspectra and against the linear growth phase of a URANS run. Using the resulting gradients, a single-point buffet-constrained drag minimization of the OAT15A achieves a $22.4\%$ drag reduction while satisfying the LST-based buffet constraint. Finally, we present preliminary three-dimensional results on the wing only NASA common research model (CRM) at $M=0.85$, $Re=5\times 10^{6}$, recovering buffet onset at $\alpha \approx 4.0^\circ$ from a sweep of warm--started URANS runs and providing a stepping stone toward three-dimensional buffet-constrained wing optimization with the present adjoint.

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 adjoint decomposition for LST buffet constraints is a solid technical step that delivers a 22% drag cut on the OAT15A, but the optimized shape lacks nonlinear URANS confirmation.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper makes linear stability analysis a workable constraint inside adjoint-based shape optimization for transonic buffet. They achieve a 22.4% drag reduction on the OAT15A while keeping the dominant eigenvalue negative, and the method reuses the existing steady CFD adjoint through a top-bottom decomposition to get the sensitivities at reasonable cost. That reuse is the practical advance over prior eigenvalue differentiation work. The verifications hold up reasonably well: the cylinder shedding benchmark checks out, the OAT15A eigenspectra match published data, and the linear growth phase aligns with URANS for the baseline airfoil. The 3D CRM wing sweep recovering buffet onset near 4 degrees is a useful stepping stone. These pieces show the numerics are under control and the approach scales to the target application. The soft spot is exactly the one the stress test flags. The optimization enforces the linear constraint on the steady base flow, but the paper does not run nonlinear URANS or equivalent time-accurate simulation on the final optimized geometry. Transonic buffet is a nonlinear limit-cycle process driven by shock motion and separation, so a stable linear eigenvalue does not automatically guarantee suppression once the shape alters shock strength or topology. That missing check leaves the practical value of the drag reduction a bit open. The work is aimed at groups already running adjoint-based aerodynamic optimization who want to replace empirical buffet rules with a first-principles stability constraint. Readers focused on adjoint methods or stability-constrained design will find the decomposition and the concrete numbers useful. It has enough new technique and verification to deserve a serious referee, though reviewers will probably ask for the post-optimization nonlinear runs. I would send it to review.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a coupled adjoint method for computing sensitivities of the dominant eigenvalue from linear stability analysis (LST) of the steady base flow to aerodynamic shape variables. The approach decomposes the eigenproblem to reuse the existing steady CFD adjoint, enabling efficient buffet-constrained optimization. Verification is performed on the cylinder vortex-shedding benchmark, OAT15A airfoil eigenspectra at M=0.73 and Re=3.2e6 (matching published data and URANS linear growth phase), followed by a single-point drag minimization achieving 22.4% reduction while satisfying the LST constraint, plus preliminary 3D buffet-onset results on the NASA CRM wing at M=0.85.

Significance. If the LST-to-nonlinear correlation holds for modified shapes, the work supplies a first-principles alternative to empirical buffet-onset surrogates and demonstrates a practical adjoint decomposition that reuses steady solvers. The concrete optimization result and benchmark verifications (cylinder, OAT15A spectra, URANS growth phase) are positive elements that support the method's viability for 2D and eventual 3D applications.

major comments (1)

[Optimization results (as summarized in abstract)] The headline optimization result (22.4% drag reduction under the LST buffet constraint) is load-bearing for the central claim of buffet alleviation. The manuscript verifies LST onset and linear growth only on the baseline OAT15A; no nonlinear URANS simulation is reported on the final optimized geometry to confirm that finite-amplitude shock oscillations remain suppressed after the shape change alters shock strength or separation topology.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states that 3D buffet onset is recovered at α≈4.0° from warm-started URANS but does not detail the exact metric used for onset detection or how the sweep supports extension of the adjoint method.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and for highlighting the potential of the coupled adjoint method. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The headline optimization result (22.4% drag reduction under the LST buffet constraint) is load-bearing for the central claim of buffet alleviation. The manuscript verifies LST onset and linear growth only on the baseline OAT15A; no nonlinear URANS simulation is reported on the final optimized geometry to confirm that finite-amplitude shock oscillations remain suppressed after the shape change alters shock strength or separation topology.

Authors: We agree that the lack of nonlinear URANS verification on the optimized geometry is a genuine limitation for claiming nonlinear buffet alleviation. The manuscript verifies the LST eigensolver and adjoint on the cylinder benchmark, matches published OAT15A eigenspectra at the baseline condition, and shows consistency with the linear growth phase of URANS on that baseline. The optimization enforces a negative dominant eigenvalue as the buffet constraint, yielding the reported 22.4% drag reduction while satisfying this first-principles stability criterion. Because the shape change can alter shock strength and separation, the LST-to-nonlinear correlation is not guaranteed a priori for the new geometry. We did not perform the additional URANS runs on the optimized shape owing to the substantial computational expense. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit discussion of this assumption and its implications in the results and conclusions sections, thereby providing a partial revision that clarifies the scope of the buffet-alleviation claim. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; adjoint derivation and optimization result are independently verified and self-contained

full rationale

The paper develops a coupled adjoint for LST eigenvalue sensitivities by reusing the steady CFD adjoint in a top-bottom decomposition, verifies the eigensolver and adjoint on the cylinder vortex-shedding benchmark and OAT15A baseline against published spectra and URANS linear growth, then applies the gradients to a single-point optimization yielding the 22.4% drag reduction under the LST constraint. No step reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the central numerical result follows from the verified sensitivities rather than being forced by construction. Any self-citations on standard adjoint techniques are not load-bearing for the novelty or the optimization outcome.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard domain assumptions of linear stability analysis and steady CFD adjoints; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Linear stability analysis predicts buffet onset directly from the spectrum of the linearized operator about the steady base flow.
Explicitly stated as the foundation for replacing empirical criteria.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1286 out tokens · 69938 ms · 2026-05-08T16:33:38.419202+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[1]

Predicting Transonic Buffet Onset for the Boeing Transonic Truss–Braced Wing Aircraft,

Browne, O. M. F., Maldonado, D., Housman, J. A., Duensing, J. C., and Milholen, W. E., “Predicting Transonic Buffet Onset for the Boeing Transonic Truss–Braced Wing Aircraft,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 62, No. 1, 2025, pp. 62–80. doi:10.2514/1.C037981

work page doi:10.2514/1.c037981 2025
[2]

URANS Computations of Shock-Induced Oscillations Over 2D Rigid Airfoils: Influence of Test Section Geometry,

Thiery, M., and Coustols, E., “URANS Computations of Shock-Induced Oscillations Over 2D Rigid Airfoils: Influence of Test Section Geometry,”Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, Vol. 74, No. 4, 2005, pp. 331–354. doi:10.1007/s10494-005-0557-z

work page doi:10.1007/s10494-005-0557-z 2005
[3]

Transonic unsteady aerodynamics in the vicinity of shock-buffet instability,

Iovnovich, M., and Raveh, D., “Transonic unsteady aerodynamics in the vicinity of shock-buffet instability,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 29, 2012, pp. 131 – 142. doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2011.12.015

work page doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2011.12.015 2012
[4]

Numerical Study of Shock Buffet on Three-Dimensional Wings,

Iovnovich, M., and Raveh, D. E., “Numerical Study of Shock Buffet on Three-Dimensional Wings,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2015, pp. 449–463. doi:10.2514/1.j053201. 38

work page doi:10.2514/1.j053201 2015
[5]

ZDES and URANS Simulations of 3D Transonic Buffet Over Infinite Swept Wings,

Plante, F., Dandois, J., and Laurendeau, É., “ZDES and URANS Simulations of 3D Transonic Buffet Over Infinite Swept Wings,”Progress in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling, Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 259–269. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27607-2_21

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-27607-2_21 2019
[6]

Large-eddy simulation of laminar transonic buffet,

Dandois, J., Mary, I., and Brion, V., “Large-eddy simulation of laminar transonic buffet,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 850, 2018, pp. 156–178. doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.470

work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2018.470 2018
[7]

Linear Response of Transonic Laminar Shock Buffet on the OALT25 Airfoil,

Song, H., Wong, M.-L., and Lele, S., “Linear Response of Transonic Laminar Shock Buffet on the OALT25 Airfoil,”AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2025. doi:10.2514/6.2025-2185

work page doi:10.2514/6.2025-2185 2025
[8]

Numerical Study of an Oscillating Airfoil in Transonic Buffeting Flows,

Raveh, D. E., “Numerical Study of an Oscillating Airfoil in Transonic Buffeting Flows,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2009, pp. 505–515. doi:10.2514/1.35237

work page doi:10.2514/1.35237 2009
[9]

Modal Analysis of Transonic Shock Buffet on 2D Airfoil,

Poplingher, L., Raveh, D. E., and Dowell, E. H., “Modal Analysis of Transonic Shock Buffet on 2D Airfoil,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 7, 2019, pp. 2851–2866. doi:10.2514/1.J057893

work page doi:10.2514/1.j057893 2019
[10]

Cost-Effective Robust Stabilization and Bifurcation Suppression,

Church, K. E. M., and Liu, X., “Cost-Effective Robust Stabilization and Bifurcation Suppression,”SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2019, pp. 2240–2268. doi:10.1137/18M1213142

work page doi:10.1137/18m1213142 2019
[11]

Methodology for Numerically Stabilizing a Harmonic-Balance-Based Forced ResponseAeroelastic Solution Approach,

Thomas, J. P., and Dowell, E. H., “Methodology for Numerically Stabilizing a Harmonic-Balance-Based Forced ResponseAeroelastic Solution Approach,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2, 2023, p. 965–972. doi:10.2514/1.j061599

work page doi:10.2514/1.j061599 2023
[12]

Coupled Newton–Krylov Time-Spectral Solver for Flutter and Limit Cycle Oscillation Prediction,

He, S., Jonsson, E., Mader, C. A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Coupled Newton–Krylov Time-Spectral Solver for Flutter and Limit Cycle Oscillation Prediction,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 59, No. 6, 2021, pp. 2214–2232. doi:10.2514/1.J059224

work page doi:10.2514/1.j059224 2021
[13]

Nonlinear Inviscid Aerodynamic Effects on Transonic Divergence, Flutter, and Limit-Cycle Oscillations,

Thomas, J. P., Dowell, E. H., and Hall, K. C., “Nonlinear Inviscid Aerodynamic Effects on Transonic Divergence, Flutter, and Limit-Cycle Oscillations,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2002, pp. 638–646. doi:10.2514/2.1720

work page doi:10.2514/2.1720 2002
[14]

A novel approach for flutter prediction of pitch–plunge airfoils using an efficient one-shot method,

Li, H., and Ekici, K., “A novel approach for flutter prediction of pitch–plunge airfoils using an efficient one-shot method,”Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 82, 2018, pp. 651–671. doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2018.08.012

work page doi:10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2018.08.012 2018
[15]

Physics-Based Data-Driven Buffet- Onset Constraint for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,

Li, J., He, S., Zhang, M., Martins, J. R. R. A., and Khoo, B. C., “Physics-Based Data-Driven Buffet- Onset Constraint for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 60, No. 8, 2022, pp. 4775–4788. doi:10.2514/1.J061519

work page doi:10.2514/1.j061519 2022
[16]

Buffet-Onset Constraint Formulation for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,

Kenway, G. K. W., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Buffet-Onset Constraint Formulation for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 55, No. 6, 2017, pp. 1930–1947. doi:10.2514/1.J055172

work page doi:10.2514/1.j055172 2017
[17]

Origin of Transonic Buffet on Aerofoils,

Crouch, J. D., Garbaruk, A., Magidov, D., and Travin, A., “Origin of Transonic Buffet on Aerofoils,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 628, 2009, pp. 357–369. doi:10.1017/S0022112009006673

work page doi:10.1017/s0022112009006673 2009
[18]

Stability, Receptivity, and Sensitivity Analyses of Buffeting Transonic Flow over a Profile,

Sartor, F., Mettot, C., and Sipp, D., “Stability, Receptivity, and Sensitivity Analyses of Buffeting Transonic Flow over a Profile,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 53, No. 7, 2015, pp. 1980–1993. doi:10.2514/1.j053588

work page doi:10.2514/1.j053588 2015
[19]

Global instability of wing shock-buffet onset,

Timme, S., “Global instability of wing shock-buffet onset,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 885, 2020, p. A37. doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.1001

work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.1001 2020
[20]

A.,Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory, Springer New York, 2004

Kuznetsov, Y. A.,Elements of Applied Bifurcation Theory, Springer New York, 2004. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757- 3978-7

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757- 2004
[21]

Adjoint-based Hopf-bifurcation Instability Suppression via First Lyapunov Coefficient,

He, S., Howell, M., Huang, D., Jonsson, E., Ng, G. W., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Adjoint-based Hopf-bifurcation Instability Suppression via First Lyapunov Coefficient,” , 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2511.03840

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.03840 2025
[22]

Sensitivity analysis and passive control of cylinder flow,

Marquet, O., Sipp, D., and Jacquin, L., “Sensitivity analysis and passive control of cylinder flow,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 615, 2008, pp. 221–252. doi:10.1017/s0022112008003662

work page doi:10.1017/s0022112008003662 2008
[23]

Computation of Eigenvalue Sensitivity to Base Flow Modifications in a Discrete Framework: Application to Open-Loop Control,

Mettot, C., Renac, F., and Sipp, D., “Computation of Eigenvalue Sensitivity to Base Flow Modifications in a Discrete Framework: Application to Open-Loop Control,”Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 269, 2014, pp. 234–258. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.022. 39

work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2014.03.022 2014
[24]

Natural Laminar-Flow Airfoil Optimization Design Using a Discrete Adjoint Approach,

Shi, Y., Mader, C. A., He, S., Halila, G. L. O., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Natural Laminar-Flow Airfoil Optimization Design Using a Discrete Adjoint Approach,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 58, No. 11, 2020, pp. 4702–4722. doi:10.2514/1.J058944

work page doi:10.2514/1.j058944 2020
[25]

Shape optimization towards stability in constrained hydrodynamic systems,

Heuveline, V., and Strauß, F., “Shape optimization towards stability in constrained hydrodynamic systems,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 228, No. 4, 2009, pp. 938–951. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.06.030

work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2008.06.030 2009
[26]

Scalable Parallel Approach for High-Fidelity Steady-State Aeroelastic Analysis and Adjoint Derivative Computations,

Kenway, G. K. W., Kennedy, G. J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Scalable Parallel Approach for High-Fidelity Steady-State Aeroelastic Analysis and Adjoint Derivative Computations,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 52, No. 5, 2014, pp. 935–951. doi:10.2514/1.J052255

work page doi:10.2514/1.j052255 2014
[27]

Optimal Control of Hopf Bifurcations,

Boullé, N., Farrell, P. E., and Rognes, M. E., “Optimal Control of Hopf Bifurcations,” , 2022. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201.11684

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11684 2022
[28]

Control of Bifurcation Structures Using Shape Optimization,

Boullé, N., Farrell, P. E., and Paganini, A., “Control of Bifurcation Structures Using Shape Optimization,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 44, No. 1, 2022, pp. A57–A76. doi:10.1137/21M1418708

work page doi:10.1137/21m1418708 2022
[30]

Direct and adjoint global stability analysis of turbulent transonic flows over a NACA0012 profile,

Iorio, M. C., González, L. M., and Ferrer, E., “Direct and adjoint global stability analysis of turbulent transonic flows over a NACA0012 profile,”International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2014, pp. 147–168. doi:10.1002/fld.3929

work page doi:10.1002/fld.3929 2014
[31]

Various approaches to determine active regions in an unstable global mode: application to transonic buffet,

Paladini, E., Marquet, O., Sipp, D., Robinet, J.-C., and Dandois, J., “Various approaches to determine active regions in an unstable global mode: application to transonic buffet,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 881, 2019, pp. 617–647. doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.761

work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.761 2019
[32]

Transonic buffet instability: from two- dimensional airfoils to three-dimensional swept wings,

Paladini, E., Beneddine, S., Dandois, J., Sipp, D., and Robinet, J.-C., “Transonic buffet instability: from two- dimensional airfoils to three-dimensional swept wings,”Physical Review Fluids, Vol. 4, No. 10, 2019, p. 103906. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.103906

work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.4.103906 2019
[33]

Global instability in the onset of transonic-wing buffet,

Crouch, J. D., Garbaruk, A., and Strelets, M., “Global instability in the onset of transonic-wing buffet,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 881, 2019, pp. 3–22. doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.748

work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2019.748 2019
[34]

Global stability analysis of full-aircraft transonic buffet at flight Reynolds numbers,

Sansica, A., and Hashimoto, A., “Global stability analysis of full-aircraft transonic buffet at flight Reynolds numbers,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 61, No. 10, 2023, pp. 4437–4455. doi:10.2514/1.J062808

work page doi:10.2514/1.j062808 2023
[35]

Sensitivity gradients of surface geometry modifications based on stability analysis of compressible flows,

Martínez-Cava, A., Chávez-Modena, M., Valero, E., de Vicente, J., and Ferrer, E., “Sensitivity gradients of surface geometry modifications based on stability analysis of compressible flows,”Physical Review Fluids, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2020, p. 063902. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFluids.5.063902

work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.5.063902 2020
[36]

Adjoint-based unsteady shape optimization to suppress transonic buffet,

Chen, W., Gao, C., Zhang, W., and Gong, Y., “Adjoint-based unsteady shape optimization to suppress transonic buffet,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 127, 2022, p. 107668. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2022.107668

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2022.107668 2022
[37]

Optimization of Supercritical Airfoil Design with Buffet Effect,

Xu, Z., Saleh, J. H., and Yang, V., “Optimization of Supercritical Airfoil Design with Buffet Effect,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 57, No. 10, 2019, pp. 4343–4353. doi:10.2514/1.j057573

work page doi:10.2514/1.j057573 2019
[38]

Transonic Buffet Suppression by Airfoil Optimization,

Gong, Y., Gao, C., and Zhang, W., “Transonic Buffet Suppression by Airfoil Optimization,”Aerospace, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2024, p. 121. doi:10.3390/aerospace11020121

work page doi:10.3390/aerospace11020121 2024
[39]

Physics-guided airfoil optimization design for shock buffet suppres- sion,

Ma, Q., Gao, C., Wu, X., and Zhang, W., “Physics-guided airfoil optimization design for shock buffet suppres- sion,”Advances in Aerodynamics, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2026. doi:10.1186/s42774-025-00228-1

work page doi:10.1186/s42774-025-00228-1 2026
[40]

ADflow: Anopen-sourcecomputational fluid dynamics solver for aerodynamic and multidisciplinary optimization,

Mader, C.A., Kenway, G.K.W., Yildirim, A., andMartins, J.R.R.A., “ADflow: Anopen-sourcecomputational fluid dynamics solver for aerodynamic and multidisciplinary optimization,”Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, Vol. 17, No. 9, 2020, pp. 508–527. doi:10.2514/1.I010796

work page doi:10.2514/1.i010796 2020
[41]

The Complex-Step Derivative Approximation,

Martins, J. R. R. A., Sturdza, P., and Alonso, J. J., “The Complex-Step Derivative Approximation,”ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2003, pp. 245–262. doi:10.1145/838250.838251. 40

work page doi:10.1145/838250.838251 2003
[42]

E., and Li, W.,Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991

Slotine, J.-J. E., and Li, W.,Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991

1991
[43]

Lyapunov Inverse Iteration for Identifying Hopf Bifurcations in Models of Incompressible Flow,

Elman, H. C., Meerbergen, K., Spence, A., and Wu, M., “Lyapunov Inverse Iteration for Identifying Hopf Bifurcations in Models of Incompressible Flow,”SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2012, pp. A1584–A1606. doi:10.1137/110827600

work page doi:10.1137/110827600 2012
[44]

Lyapunov Inverse Iteration for Stability Analysis Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Timme, S., Badcock, K. J., Wu, M., and Spence, A., “Lyapunov Inverse Iteration for Stability Analysis Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,”53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2012. doi:10.2514/6.2012-1547

work page doi:10.2514/6.2012-1547 2012
[45]

A Direct Method for the Computation of Hopf Bifurcation Points,

Roose, D., and Hlavaček, V., “A Direct Method for the Computation of Hopf Bifurcation Points,”SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, Vol. 45, No. 6, 1985, pp. 879–894. doi:10.1137/0145053

work page doi:10.1137/0145053 1985
[46]

Extensions to the Design Structure Matrix for the Description of Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis, and Optimization Processes,

Lambe, A. B., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Extensions to the Design Structure Matrix for the Description of Multidisciplinary Design, Analysis, and Optimization Processes,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2012, pp. 273–284. doi:10.1007/s00158-012-0763-y

work page doi:10.1007/s00158-012-0763-y 2012
[47]

Taylor Expansion of the Accumulated Rounding Error,

Linnainmaa, S., “Taylor Expansion of the Accumulated Rounding Error,”BIT, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1976, pp. 146–160. doi:10.1007/BF01931367

work page doi:10.1007/bf01931367 1976
[48]

Martins, J. R. R. A., and Ning, A.,Engineering Design Optimization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2022. doi:10.1017/9781108980647

work page doi:10.1017/9781108980647 2022
[49]

Benchmarking Optimization Algorithms for Wing Aerodynamic De- signOptimization,

Lyu, Z., Xu, Z., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Benchmarking Optimization Algorithms for Wing Aerodynamic De- signOptimization,”Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Chengdu, Sichuan, China, 2014. ICCFD8-2014-0203

2014
[50]

OpenMDAO: An open- source framework for multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization,

Gray, J. S., Hwang, J. T., Martins, J. R. R. A., Moore, K. T., and Naylor, B. A., “OpenMDAO: An open- source framework for multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2019, pp. 1075–1104. doi:10.1007/s00158-019-02211-z

work page doi:10.1007/s00158-019-02211-z 2019
[51]

Coupled Aeropropulsive Design Optimization of a Podded Electric Propulsor,

Yildirim, A., Gray, J. S., Mader, C. A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Coupled Aeropropulsive Design Optimization of a Podded Electric Propulsor,”AIAA Aviation Forum, 2021. doi:10.2514/6.2021-3032

work page doi:10.2514/6.2021-3032 2021
[52]

A Krylov–Schur algorithm for large eigenproblems,

Stewart, G. W., “A Krylov–Schur algorithm for large eigenproblems,”SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2002, pp. 601–614. doi:10.1137/S0895479800371529

work page doi:10.1137/s0895479800371529 2002
[53]

SLEPc: a scalable and flexible toolkit for the solution of eigenvalue problems,

Hernandez, V., Roman, J. E., and Vidal, V., “SLEPc: a scalable and flexible toolkit for the solution of eigenvalue problems,”ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2005, pp. 351–362. doi:10.1145/1089014.1089019

work page doi:10.1145/1089014.1089019 2005
[54]

An efficient method for computing leading eigenvalues and eigenvectors of large asymmetric matrices,

Goldhirsch, I., Orszag, S. A., and Maulik, B. K., “An efficient method for computing leading eigenvalues and eigenvectors of large asymmetric matrices,”Journal of Scientific Computing, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1987, pp. 225–252. doi:10.1007/BF01061392

work page doi:10.1007/bf01061392 1987
[55]

Krylov methods for the incom- pressible Navier–Stokes equations,

Edwards, W. S., Tuckerman, L. S., Friesner, R. A., and Sorensen, D. C., “Krylov methods for the incom- pressible Navier–Stokes equations,”Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 110, No. 1, 1994, pp. 82–102. doi:10.1006/jcph.1994.1007

work page doi:10.1006/jcph.1994.1007 1994
[56]

Bifurcation analysis for timesteppers,

Tuckerman, L. S., and Barkley, D., “Bifurcation analysis for timesteppers,”Numerical Methods for Bifurcation Problems and Large-Scale Dynamical Systems, The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 119, edited by E. Doedel and L. S. Tuckerman, Springer, New York, 2000, pp. 453–466. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1208- 9_20

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1208- 2000
[57]

Global stability of a jet in crossflow,

Bagheri, S., Schlatter, P., Schmid, P. J., and Henningson, D. S., “Global stability of a jet in crossflow,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 624, 2009, pp. 33–44. doi:10.1017/S0022112009006053

work page doi:10.1017/s0022112009006053 2009
[58]

Crank and P

Crank, J., and Nicolson, P., “A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of the heat-conduction type,”Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1947, pp. 50–67. doi:10.1017/S0305004100023197. 41

work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100023197 1947
[59]

The restarted Arnoldi method applied to iterative linear system solvers for the computation of rightmost eigenvalues,

Meerbergen, K., and Roose, D., “The restarted Arnoldi method applied to iterative linear system solvers for the computation of rightmost eigenvalues,”SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1997, pp. 1–20. doi:10.1137/S0895479895281022

work page doi:10.1137/s0895479895281022 1997
[60]

Two methods for the numerical detection of Hopf bifurcations,

Garratt, T. J., Moore, G., and Spence, A., “Two methods for the numerical detection of Hopf bifurcations,”IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1991, pp. 83–108. doi:10.1093/imanum/11.1.83

work page doi:10.1093/imanum/11.1.83 1991
[61]

PETSc Users Manual,

Balay, S., Abhyankar, S., Adams, M. F., Brown, J., Brune, P., Buschelman, K., Dalcin, L., Dener, A., Eijkhout, V., Gropp, W. D., Kaushik, D., Knepley, M. G., May, D. A., McInnes, L. C., Mills, R. T., Munson, T., Rupp, K., Sanan, P., Smith, B. F., Zampini, S., Zhang, H., and Zhang, H., “PETSc Users Manual,” Tech. Rep. ANL-95/11 - Revision 3.10, Argonne Nat...

2018
[62]

pyGeo: A geometry package for multidisciplinary design optimization,

Hajdik, H. M., Yildirim, A., Wu, N., Brelje, B. J., Seraj, S., Mangano, M., Anibal, J. L., Jonsson, E., Adler, E. J., Mader, C. A., Kenway, G. K. W., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “pyGeo: A geometry package for multidisciplinary design optimization,”Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 8, No. 87, 2023, p. 5319. doi:10.21105/joss.05319

work page doi:10.21105/joss.05319 2023
[63]

pyOptSparse: A Python framework for large-scale constrained nonlinear optimization of sparse systems,

Wu, N., Kenway, G., Mader, C. A., Jasa, J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “pyOptSparse: A Python framework for large-scale constrained nonlinear optimization of sparse systems,”Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 5, No. 54, 2020, p. 2564. doi:10.21105/joss.02564

work page doi:10.21105/joss.02564 2020
[64]

A software package for sequential quadratic programming,

Kraft, D., “A software package for sequential quadratic programming,” DFVLR-FB 88-28, DLR German Aerospace Center–Institute for Flight Mechanics, Koln, Germany, 1988

1988
[65]

A numerical investigation of wall effects up to high blockage ratios on two- dimensional flow past a confined circular cylinder,

Sahin, M., and Owens, R. G., “A numerical investigation of wall effects up to high blockage ratios on two- dimensional flow past a confined circular cylinder,”Physics of Fluids, Vol. 16, No. 5, 2004, pp. 1305–1320. doi:10.1063/1.1668285

work page doi:10.1063/1.1668285 2004
[66]

Numerical Simulation of Laminar Flow Past a Circular Cylinder,

Rajani, B. N., Kandasamy, A., and Majumdar, S., “Numerical Simulation of Laminar Flow Past a Circular Cylinder,”Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2009, pp. 1228–1247. doi:10.1016/j.apm.2008.02.019

work page doi:10.1016/j.apm.2008.02.019 2009
[67]

Phys Nonlinear Phenom 65(1-2):117-134

Franke, R., Rodi, W., and Schönung, B., “Numerical Calculation of Laminar Vortex-Shedding Flow Past Cylin- ders,”Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 35, 1990, pp. 237–257. doi:10.1016/0167- 6105(90)90219-3

work page doi:10.1016/0167- 1990
[68]

Vortex Dynamics in the Cylinder Wake,

Williamson, C. H. K., “Vortex Dynamics in the Cylinder Wake,”Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1996, pp. 477–539. doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.28.010196.002401

work page doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.28.010196.002401 1996
[69]

Eigenvalue problem derivatives computation for a complex matrix using the adjoint method,

He, S., Shi, Y., Jonsson, E., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Eigenvalue problem derivatives computation for a complex matrix using the adjoint method,”Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 185, 2023, p. 109717. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109717

work page doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109717 2023
[70]

Linear analysis of the cylinder wake mean flow,

Barkley, D., “Linear analysis of the cylinder wake mean flow,”Europhysics Letters (EPL), Vol. 75, No. 5, 2006, pp. 750–756. doi:10.1209/epl/i2006-10168-7

work page doi:10.1209/epl/i2006-10168-7 2006
[71]

Global stability of base and mean flows: a general approach and its ap- plications to cylinder and open cavity flows,

SIPP, D., and LEBEDEV, A., “Global stability of base and mean flows: a general approach and its ap- plications to cylinder and open cavity flows,”Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 593, 2007, pp. 333–358. doi:10.1017/s0022112007008907

work page doi:10.1017/s0022112007008907 2007
[72]

Experimental Study of Shock Oscillation over a Transonic Supercritical Profile,

Jacquin, L., Molton, P., Deck, S., Maury, B., and Soulevant, D., “Experimental Study of Shock Oscillation over a Transonic Supercritical Profile,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 47, No. 9, 2009, pp. 1985–1994. doi:10.2514/1.30190

work page doi:10.2514/1.30190 2009
[73]

Efficient Mesh Generation and Deformation for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,

Secco, N., Kenway, G. K. W., He, P., Mader, C. A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Efficient Mesh Generation and Deformation for Aerodynamic Shape Optimization,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 59, No. 4, 2021, pp. 1151–1168. doi:10.2514/1.J059491

work page doi:10.2514/1.j059491 2021
[74]

Computational Studies of Transonic Buffet and Related Phenomena,

Eldridge-Allegra, I. K., “Computational Studies of Transonic Buffet and Related Phenomena,” Ph.D. thesis, Duke University, 2024. URLhttps://hdl.handle.net/10161/31904

2024
[75]

A Jacobian-free approximate Newton– Krylov startup strategy for RANS simulations,

Yildirim, A., Kenway, G. K. W., Mader, C. A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “A Jacobian-free approximate Newton– Krylov startup strategy for RANS simulations,”Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 397, 2019, p. 108741. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.06.018. 42

work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.06.018 2019
[76]

Weakly nonlinear behaviour of transonic buffet on airfoils,

Crouch, J., Ahrabi, B., and Kamenetskiy, D., “Weakly nonlinear behaviour of transonic buffet on airfoils,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 999, 2024. doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.499

work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2024.499 2024
[77]

Development of the High Lift Common Research Model (HL-CRM): A Repre- sentative High Lift Configuration for Transonic Transports,

Lacy, D. S., and Sclafani, A. J., “Development of the High Lift Common Research Model (HL-CRM): A Repre- sentative High Lift Configuration for Transonic Transports,”54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2016

2016
[78]

Variational mode decomposition analysis of the relationship between low- frequency shock-wave oscillations and buffet cells,

Ohmichi, Y., and Sugioka, Y., “Variational mode decomposition analysis of the relationship between low- frequency shock-wave oscillations and buffet cells,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 168, 2026, p. 110835. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.110835

work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2025.110835 2026
[79]

An efficient 3D topology optimization code written in Matlab

Zhu, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., and Kang, Z., “A New Form of Forbidden Frequency Band Constraint for Dynamic Topology Optimization,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 65, No. 4, 2022. doi:10.1007/s00158- 022-03220-1. A. Real Formulation of the Eigenvalue Problem The complex eigenvalue problem Eqs. (6) and (4) can be decomposed into real and...

work page doi:10.1007/s00158- 2022