- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Fluids

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Extreme aerodynamics: A data-driven perspective

Kunihiko Taira*

  • *Contact author: ktaira@seas.ucla.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 014702 – Published 15 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8pr4-txmt

Abstract

While experiencing atmospheric turbulence on a commercial flight can be uncomfortable, it rarely compromises the stability of the aircraft. The situation is quite different for small air vehicles that operate in urban canyons, around mountainous terrains, and in the wakes of marine vessels, where they could encounter highly unsteady atmospheric conditions with relatively strong gusts. The spatiotemporal scales of such disturbances can be larger than the characteristic aerodynamic scales of the small vehicles, making the relative effect of disturbance significantly stronger than what a large commercial aircraft would experience. The gust ratio can exceed 1 in these extreme flight environments, making stable flight difficult, if not currently impossible. We refer to the study of aerodynamics for gust ratios over 1 as extreme aerodynamics and identify major challenges that require breakthroughs, particularly with data-driven approaches. Extreme aerodynamics present unique opportunities for innovative analysis techniques to study rich flow physics problems with strong nonlinearity, transient dynamics, and low-dimensional modeling over a large parameter space. Some of the approaches discussed herein should apply to a wider range of fluid dynamics problems with similar challenges.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (165)

  1. J. de Medeiros and P. D. Williams, Future trends in upper-atmospheric shear instability from climate change, J. Atmos. Sci. 82, 2375 (2025).
  2. A. R. Jones, O. Cetiner, and M. J. Smith, Physics and modeling of large flow disturbances: Discrete gust encounters for modern air vehicles, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 54, 469 (2022).
  3. A. R. Jones and O. Cetiner, Overview of unsteady aerodynamic response of rigid wings in gust encounters, AIAA J. 59, 716 (2021).
  4. A. Bajaj, B. Philips, E. Lyons, D. Westbrook, and M. Zink, Determining and communicating weather risk in the new drone economy, in 2020 IEEE 92nd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Fall) (IEEE Vehicular Technology Society, 2020), pp. 1–6.
  5. M. Gao, C. H. Hugenholtz, T. A. Fox, M. Kucharczyk, T. E. Barchyn, and P. R. Nesbit, Weather constraints on global drone flyability, Sci. Rep. 11, 12092 (2021).
  6. D. Coumou and S. Rahmstorf, A decade of weather extremes, Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 491 (2012).
  7. H. Wagner, Über die Entstehung des dynamischen Auftriebes von Tragflügeln, Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 5, 17 (1925).
  8. H. Glauert, The force and moment on an oscillating aerofoil, in Vorträge aus dem Gebiete der Aerodynamik und verwandter Gebiete, edited by A. Gilles, L. Hopf, and T. v. Kármán (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1930), pp. 88–95.
  9. T. Theodorsen, General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. NACA, Tech. Rep. 496, Washington, DC (1949).
  10. W. R. Sears, Some aspects of non-stationary airfoil theory and its practical application, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 8, 104 (1941).
  11. F. M. Hoblit, Gust Loads on Aircraft: Concepts and Applications (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, D.C., 1988).
  12. J. Katz and A. Plotkin, Low-Speed Aerodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
  13. J. G. Leishman, Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).
  14. C. J. Barnes and M. R. Visbal, Gust response of rigid and elastically mounted airfoils at a transitional Reynolds number, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 74, 112 (2018).
  15. A. Medina, O. Cetiner, M. Rockwood, B. Zaloglu, M. Saritas, and A. Gozukara, On the effects of discrete and continuous vortex-gust encounters, in AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum (AIAA, Orlando, 2020).
  16. H. Biler, G. Sedky, A. R. Jones, M. Saritas, and O. Cetiner, Experimental investigation of transverse and vortex gust encounters at low Reynolds numbers, AIAA J. 59, 786 (2021).
  17. A. Mohamed, M. Marino, S. Watkins, J. Jaworski, and A. Jones, Gusts encountered by flying vehicles in proximity to buildings, Drones 7, 365 (2023).
  18. D. Chen, F. Kaiser, J. Hu, D. E. Rival, K. Fukami, and K. Taira, Sparse pressure-based machine learning approach for aerodynamic loads estimation during gust encounters, AIAA J. 62, 275 (2024).
  19. S. Li, K. Ruda, P. Vadher, and H. Babinsky, Transverse gust mitigation by deploying trailing edge flap, in AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum (AIAA, Orlando, 2025).
  20. A. R. Jones, Gust encounters of rigid wings: Taming the parameter space, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 110513 (2020).
  21. C. M. Stutz, J. T. Hrynuk, and D. G. Bohl, Dimensional analysis of a transverse gust encounter, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 137, 108285 (2023).
  22. S. L. Brunton, B. R. Noack, and P. Koumoutsakos, Machine learning for fluid mechanics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 52, 477 (2020).
  23. S. L. Brunton and J. N. Kutz, Data-Driven Science and Engineering: Machine Learning, Dynamical Systems, and Control, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022).
  24. C. M. Bishop, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Springer, New York, NY, 2006).
  25. I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2016).
  26. R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2018).
  27. J. Watt, R. Borhani, and A. K. Katsaggelos, Machine Learning Refined: Foundations, Algorithms, and Applications, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020).
  28. C. M. Bishop and H. Bishop, Deep Learning: Foundations and Concepts (Springer, Cham, 2024).
  29. K. Taira, G. Rigas, and K. Fukami, Machine learning in fluid dynamics: A critical assessment, Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 090701 (2025).
  30. H. J. S. Fernando, J. Mann, J. M. L. M. Palma, J. K. Lundquist, R. J. Barthelmie, M. Belo-Pereira, W. O. J. Brown, F. K. Chow, T. Gerz, C. M. Hocut, P. M. Klein, L. S. Leo, J. C. Matos, S. P. Oncley, S. C. Pryor, L. Bariteau, T. M. Bell, N. Bodini, M. B. Carney, M. S. Courtney, et al., The Perdigão: Peering into microscale details of mountain winds, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 799 (2019).
  31. H. J. S. Fernando, E. R. Pardyjak, S. D. Sabatino, F. K. Chow, S. F. J. D. Wekker, S. W. Hoch, J. Hacker, J. C. Pace, T. Pratt, Z. Pu, W. J. Steenburgh, C. D. Whiteman, Y. Wang, D. Zajic, B. Balsley, R. Dimitrova, G. D. Emmitt, C. W. Higgins, J. C. R. Hunt, J. C. Knievel, et al., The MATERHORN: Unraveling the intricacies of mountain weather, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 1945 (2015).
  32. I. Eliasson, B. Offerle, C. S. B. Grimmond, and S. Lindqvist, Wind fields and turbulence statistics in an urban street canyon, Atmos. Environ. 40, 1 (2006).
  33. D. Zajic, H. J. S. Fernando, R. Calhoun, M. Princevac, M. J. Brown, and E. R. Pardyjak, Flow and turbulence in an urban canyon, J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 50, 203 (2011).
  34. S. Yang, L. Wang, T. Stathopoulos, and A. M. Marey, Urban microclimate and its impact on built environment—A review, Build. Sci. 238, 110334 (2023).
  35. M. Ilyas, B. R. Noack, G. Hu, H. Xiong, N. Gao, A. Khan, and Y. Yang, Drone anemometry of atmospheric winds—A review, Phys. Fluids 37, 061302 (2025).
  36. X. Hu and A. S. Morgans, Attenuation of the unsteady loading on a high-rise building using top-surface open-loop control, J. Fluid Mech. 968, A17 (2023).
  37. Y. Cao, P. Xie, G. Huang, W. Wang, W.-L. Chen, G. Hu, and S. Cao, A pattern-constrained deep learning model for urban canopy turbulence reconstruction from sparse sensor data, Build. Sci. 285, 113535 (2025).
  38. J. S. Forrest and I. Owen, An investigation of ship airwakes using detached-Eddy simulation, Comput. Fluids 39, 656 (2010).
  39. R. Thedin, S. M. Murman, J. Horn, and S. Schmitz, Effects of atmospheric turbulence unsteadiness on ship airwakes and helicopter dynamics, J. Aircr. 57, 534 (2020).
  40. G. Dooley, J. Ezequiel Martin, J. H. Buchholz, and P. M. Carrica, Ship airwakes in waves and motions and effects on helicopter operation, Comput. Fluids 208, 104627 (2020).
  41. K. Fukami, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Super-resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows with machine learning, J. Fluid Mech. 870, 106 (2019).
  42. K. Fukami, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Machine-learning-based spatio-temporal super resolution reconstruction of turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech. 909, A9 (2021).
  43. K. Fukami, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Super-resolution analysis via machine learning: A survey for fluid flows, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 37, 421 (2023).
  44. S. Goto, Y. Saito, and G. Kawahara, Hierarchy of antiparallel vortex tubes in spatially periodic turbulence at high Reynolds numbers, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 064603 (2017).
  45. J. Fujino, Y. Motoori, and S. Goto, Hierarchy of coherent vortices in turbulence behind a cylinder, J. Fluid Mech. 975, A13 (2023).
  46. C.-C. Chang, Potential flow and forces for incompressible viscous flow, Proc. R. Soc. London A 437, 517 (1992).
  47. J.-J. Lee, C.-T. Hsieh, C. C. Chang, and C.-C. Chu, Vorticity forces on an impulsively started finite plate, J. Fluid Mech. 694, 464 (2012).
  48. K. Zhang, S. Hayostek, M. Amitay, A. Burtsev, V. Theofilis, and K. Taira, Laminar separated flows over finite-aspect-ratio swept wings, J. Fluid Mech. 905, R1 (2020).
  49. K. Menon, S. Kumar, and R. Mittal, Contribution of spanwise and cross-span vortices to the lift generation of low-aspect-ratio wings: Insights from force partitioning, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 114102 (2022).
  50. A. Lozano-Durán and G. Arranz, Information-theoretic formulation of dynamical systems: Causality, modeling, and control, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023195 (2022).
  51. G. Arranz and A. Lozano-Durán, Informative and non-informative decomposition of turbulent flow fields, J. Fluid Mech. 1000, A95 (2024).
  52. K. Fukami and R. Araki, Information-theoretic machine learning for time-varying mode decomposition of separated aerodynamic flows, AIAA J. (2025), https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J065914.
  53. K. Fukami and K. Taira, Grasping extreme aerodynamics on a low-dimensional manifold, Nat. Commun. 14, 6480 (2023).
  54. K. Fukami, H. Nakao, and K. Taira, Data-driven transient lift attenuation for extreme vortex gust-airfoil interactions, J. Fluid Mech. 992, A17 (2024).
  55. D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, 10th ed. (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2019).
  56. J. N. Fuhg, A. Fau, and U. Nackenhorst, State-of-the-art and comparative review of adaptive sampling methods for kriging, Arch. Comput. Method Eng. 28, 2689 (2021).
  57. R. Vinuesa, S. L. Brunton, and B. J. McKeon, The transformative potential of machine learning for experiments in fluid mechanics, Nat. Rev. Phys. 5, 536 (2023).
  58. Z. Sotoudeh and C. Barnes, Gust response analysis using the kriging method for laminar flow, AIAA J. 61, 2069 (2023).
  59. J. D. Eldredge and A. R. Jones, Leading-edge vortices: Mechanics and modeling, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 75 (2019).
  60. K. Fukami, L. Smith, and K. Taira, Extreme vortex-gust airfoil interactions at Reynolds number 5000, Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 084703 (2025).
  61. H. Odaka, L. Smith, and K. Taira, Extreme vortex gust encounters by a square wing (unpublished).
  62. K. Weiss, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, and D. Wang, A survey of transfer learning, J. Big Data 3, 9 (2016).
  63. M. Inubushi and S. Goto, Transfer learning for nonlinear dynamics and its application to fluid turbulence, Phys. Rev. E 102, 043301 (2020).
  64. K. Taira, S. L. Brunton, S. Dawson, C. W. Rowley, T. Colonius, B. J. McKeon, O. T. Schmidt, S. Gordeyev, V. Theofilis, and L. S. Ukeiley, Modal analysis of fluid flows: An overview, AIAA J. 55, 4013 (2017).
  65. K. Taira, M. S. Hemati, S. L. Brunton, Y. Sun, K. Duraisamy, S. Bagheri, S. Dawson, and C.-A. Yeh, Modal analysis of fluid flows: Applications and outlook, AIAA J. 58, 998 (2020).
  66. G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley, The proper orthogonal decompsotion in the analysis of turbulent flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 25, 539 (1993).
  67. L. Sirovich, Turbulence and the dynamics of coherent structures, parts I–III, Q. Appl. Math. 45, 561 (1987).
  68. A. J. Linot, B. Lopez-Doriga, Y. Zhong, and K. Taira, Extracting dominant dynamics about unsteady base flows, Fluid Dyn. Res. 57, 031401 (2025).
  69. G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov, Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks, Science 313, 504 (2006).
  70. E. Özalp and L. Magri, Stability analysis of chaotic systems in latent spaces, Nonlinear Dyn. 113, 13791 (2025).
  71. N. Omata and S. Shirayama, A novel method of low-dimensional representation for temporal behavior of flow fields using deep autoencoder, AIP Adv. 9, 015006 (2019).
  72. A. J. Linot and M. D. Graham, Deep learning to discover and predict dynamics on an inertial manifold, Phys. Rev. E 101, 062209 (2020).
  73. C. E. P. De Jesús and M. D. Graham, Data-driven low-dimensional dynamic model of Kolmogorov flow, Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 044402 (2023).
  74. L. Smith, K. Fukami, G. Sedky, A. Jones, and K. Taira, A cyclic perspective on transient gust encounters through the lens of persistent homology, J. Fluid Mech. 980, A18 (2024).
  75. H. Odaka, K. Fukami, and K. Taira, Plunging airfoil wakes in low-order latent space coordinates, in AIAA Aviation Forum and Ascend 2025 (AIAA, Las Vegas, 2025).
  76. K. Fukagata and K. Fukami, Compressing fluid flows with nonlinear machine learning: Mode decomposition, latent modeling, and flow control, Fluid Dyn. Res. 57, 041401 (2025).
  77. Y. Lecun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner, Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition, Proc. IEEE 86, 2278 (1998).
  78. A. Dosovitskiy, An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, Vienna, 2021).
  79. G. Haller and S. Ponsioen, Nonlinear normal modes and spectral submanifolds: Existence, uniqueness and use in model reduction, Nonlinear Dyn. 86, 1493 (2016).
  80. G. Sedky, A. Gementzopoulos, F. D. Lagor, and A. R. Jones, Experimental mitigation of large-amplitude transverse gusts via closed-loop pitch control, Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 064701 (2023).
  81. H. Hornung, Vorticity generation and transport, in Tenth Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference (University of Melbourne, 1989), pp. KS3.1-KS3.7.
  82. J.-Z. Wu, H.-Y. Ma, and M.-D. Zhou, Vorticity and Vortex Dynamics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012).
  83. C. J. Barnes and M. R. Visbal, Counterclockwise vortical-gust/airfoil interactions at a transitional Reynolds number, AIAA J. 56, 2540 (2018).
  84. W. J. Devenport, M. C. Rife, S. I. Liapis, and G. J. Follin, The structure and development of a wing-tip vortex, J. Fluid Mech. 312, 67 (1996).
  85. A. J. Linot, P. J. Schmid, and K. Taira, On the laminar solutions and stability of accelerating and decelerating channel flows, J. Fluid Mech. 999, A43 (2024).
  86. H. Odaka, B. Lopez-Doriga, and K. Taira, Vortical similarities across laminar and turbulent extreme gust encounters (unpublished).
  87. K. Taira and T. Colonius, Three-dimensional flows around low-aspect-ratio flat-plate wings at low Reynolds numbers, J. Fluid Mech. 623, 187 (2009).
  88. P. J. Schmid and D. S. Henningson, Stability and Transition in Shear Flows (Springer, New York, NY, 2001).
  89. T. Colonius and A. Towne, Modal decomposition, in Data Driven Analysis and Modeling of Turbulent Flows, Computation and Analysis of Turbulent Flows, edited by K. Duraisamy (Academic Press, London, 2025), pp. 27–81.
  90. J. N. Kutz, X. Fu, and S. L. Brunton, Multi-resolution dynamic mode decomposition, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 15, 713 (2016).
  91. O. T. Schmidt and P. J. Schmid, A conditional space-time pod formalism for intermittent and rare events: Example of acoustic bursts in turbulent jets, J. Fluid Mech. 867, R2 (2019).
  92. L. F. de Souza, R. F. Miotto, and W. R. Wolf, Analysis of transient and intermittent flows using a multidimensional empirical mode decomposition, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 38, 291 (2024).
  93. Z. Kai, P. Frame, and A. Towne, Data-driven transient growth analysis, arXiv:2507.02525.
  94. H. Babaee and T. P. Sapsis, A minimization principle for the description of modes associated with finite-time instabilities, Proc. R. Soc. London A 472, 20150779 (2016).
  95. Y. Zhong, A. Amiri-Margavi, H. Babaee, and K. Taira, Optimally time-dependent modes of vortex gust-airfoil interactions, J. Fluid Mech. 1006, A18 (2025).
  96. P. G. Saffman, Vortex Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
  97. J. E. Eldredge, Mathematical Modeling of Unsteady Inviscid Flows (Springer, Cham, 2019).
  98. P. J. Baddoo, R. Hajian, and J. W. Jaworski, Unsteady aerodynamics of porous aerofoils, J. Fluid Mech. 913, A16 (2021).
  99. M. Le Provost and J. D. Eldredge, Ensemble Kalman filter for vortex models of disturbed aerodynamic flows, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 050506 (2021).
  100. K. Ramesh, A. Gopalarathnam, K. Granlund, M. V. Ol, and J. R. Edwards, Discrete-vortex method with novel shedding criterion for unsteady aerofoil flows with intermittent leading-edge vortex shedding, J. Fluid Mech. 751, 500 (2014).
  101. J. Deparday and K. Mulleners, Modeling the interplay between the shear layer and leading edge suction during dynamic stall, Phys. Fluids 31, 107104 (2019).
  102. Y. Zhong, K. Fukami, B. An, and K. Taira, Sparse sensor reconstruction of vortex-impinged airfoil wake with machine learning, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 37, 269 (2023).
  103. H. Mousavi and J. D. Eldredge, Low-order flow reconstruction and uncertainty quantification in disturbed aerodynamics using sparse pressure measurements, J. Fluid Mech. 1013, A41 (2025).
  104. R. Maulik, K. Fukami, N. Ramachandra, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Probabilistic neural networks for fluid flow surrogate modeling and data recovery, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 104401 (2020).
  105. Y. Yasuda, R. Onishi, and K. Matsuda, Super-resolution of three-dimensional temperature and velocity for building-resolving urban micrometeorology using physics-guided convolutional neural networks with image inpainting techniques, Build. Sci. 243, 110613 (2023).
  106. Y. Yasuda and R. Onishi, Two-stage super-resolution simulation method of three-dimensional street-scale atmospheric flows for real-time urban micrometeorology prediction, Urban Climate 59, 102300 (2025).
  107. T. Jaroslawski, A. Patil, and B. J. McKeon, Predicting turbulence structure in street-canyon flows using deep generative modeling, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 115, 109849 (2025).
  108. K. Fukami, R. Maulik, N. Ramachandra, K. Fukagata, and K. Taira, Global field reconstruction from sparse sensors with voronoi tessellation-assisted deep learning, Nat. Mach. Intell. 3, 945 (2021).
  109. R. D. Joslin and D. N. Miller, editors, Fundamentals and Applications of Modern Flow Control (AIAA, Reston, VA, 2009).
  110. M. Gad-el-Hak, Flow Control: Passive, Active, and Reactive Flow Management (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
  111. L. N. Cattafesta and M. Sheplak, Actuators for active flow control, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43, 247 (2011).
  112. A. Medina, M. V. Ol, P. Mancini, and A. Jones, Revisiting conventional flaps at high deflection rate, AIAA J. 55, 2676 (2017).
  113. X. Xu, A. Gementzopoulos, G. Sedky, A. R. Jones, and F. D. Lagor, Iterative maneuver optimization in a transverse gust encounter, AIAA J. 61, 2083 (2023).
  114. Z. Liu, D. Beckers, and J. D. Eldredge, Model-based reinforcement learning for control of strongly disturbed unsteady aerodynamic flows, AIAA J. 63, 4105 (2025).
  115. J. Rabault, M. Kuchta, A. Jensen, U. Réglade, and N. Cerardi, Artificial neural networks trained through deep reinforcement learning discover control strategies for active flow control, J. Fluid Mech. 865, 281 (2019).
  116. R. Vinuesa, O. Lehmkuhl, A. Lozano-Durán, and J. Rabault, Flow control in wings and discovery of novel approaches via deep reinforcement learning, Fluids 7, 62 (2022).
  117. A. J. Linot, K. Zeng, and M. D. Graham, Turbulence control in plane couette flow using low-dimensional neural ODE-based models and deep reinforcement learning, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 101, 109139 (2023).
  118. T. C. Déda, W. R. Wolf, and S. T. M. Dawson, Neural networks in feedback for flow analysis and control, Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 063904 (2024).
  119. P. Gunnarson, I. Mandralis, G. Novati, P. Koumoutsakos, and J. O. Dabiri, Learning efficient navigation in vortical flow fields, Nat. Commun. 12, 7143 (2021).
  120. V. Godavarthi, K. Krishna, S. L. Brunton, and K. Taira, Leveraging three-dimensionality for navigation in bluff-body wakes, Flow 5, E8 (2025).
  121. F. Tonti, J. Rabault, and R. Vinuesa, Navigation in a simplified urban flow through deep reinforcement learning, J. Comput. Phys. 538, 114194 (2025).
  122. I. H. Abbott and A. E. von Doenhoff, Theory of Wing Sections (Dover, New York, 1959).
  123. B. Lopez-Doriga, A. R. M. Jones, and K. Taira, On the effect of airfoil geometry on extreme vortex-gust encounters (unpublished).
  124. F. Bertagnolio, N. Sørensen, J. Johansen, and P. Fuglsang, Wind turbine airfoil catalogue, Forskningscenter Risoe, Risoe-R No. 1280(EN), Roskilde, Denmark (2001).
  125. Q. Ge, H. J. Qi, and M. L. Dunn, Active materials by four-dimension printing, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 131901 (2013).
  126. S. Shan, S. H. Kang, J. R. Raney, P. Wang, L. Fang, F. Candido, J. A. Lewis, and K. Bertoldi, Multistable architected materials for trapping elastic strain energy, Adv. Mater. 27, 4296 (2015).
  127. B. Treml, A. Gillman, P. Buskohl, and R. Vaia, Origami mechanologic, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 6916 (2018).
  128. J. Tran, K. Fukami, K. Inada, D. Umehara, Y. Ono, K. Ogawa, and K. Taira, Aerodynamics-guided machine learning for design optimization of electric vehicles, Commun. Eng. 3, 174 (2024).
  129. K. Tangsali, R. Ranade, M. A. Nabian, A. Kamenev, P. Sharpe, N. Ashton, R. Cherukuri, and S. Choudhry, A benchmarking framework for AI models in automotive aerodynamics, arXiv:2507.10747.
  130. B. Peherstorfer, K. Willcox, and M. Gunzburger, Survey of multifidelity methods in uncertainty propagation, inference, and optimization, SIAM Rev. 60, 550 (2018).
  131. O. Pinti, A. A. Oberai, R. Healy, R. J. Niemiec, and F. Gandhi, Multi-fidelity approach to predicting multi-rotor aerodynamic interactions, AIAA J. 60, 3894 (2022).
  132. K. Mulleners, Self-exploring automated experiments for discovery, optimization, and control of unsteady vortex-dominated flow phenomena, Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, 124701 (2024).
  133. R. C. Smith, Uncertainty Quantification: Theory, Implementation, and Applications (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2014).
  134. D. J. Lucia, P. S. Beran, and W. A. Silva, Reduced-order modeling: New approaches for computational physics, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 40, 51 (2004).
  135. S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 3932 (2016).
  136. A. Racca, N. A. K. Doan, and L. Magri, Predicting turbulent dynamics with the convolutional autoencoder echo state network, J. Fluid Mech. 975, A2 (2023).
  137. A. J. Linot and M. D. Graham, Data-driven reduced-order modeling of spatiotemporal chaos with neural ordinary differential equations, Chaos 32, 073110 (2022).
  138. K. Yawata, R. Sakuma, K. Fukami, K. Taira, and H. Nakao, Phase autoencoder for rapid data-driven synchronization of rhythmic spatiotemporal patterns, Phys. Rev. E 112, 064211 (2025).
  139. A. Lozano-Durán and H. J. Bae, Machine learning building-block-flow wall model for large-eddy simulation, J. Fluid Mech. 963, A35 (2023).
  140. M. Oulghelou, S. Cherroud, X. Merle, and P. Cinnella, Machine-learning-assisted blending of data-driven turbulence models, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 115, 1095 (2025).
  141. K. Duraisamy, G. Iaccarino, and H. Xiao, Turbulence modeling in the age of data, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 357 (2019).
  142. S. S. Nair, R. F. Kunz, W. Zhang, and X. I. A. Yang, Rough-wall modeling on a low-dimensional manifold, Phys. Rev. Fluids 10, 064606 (2025).
  143. L. A. Treidel, K. D. Deem, M. K. Salcedo, M. H. Dickinson, H. S. Bruce, C.-A. Darveau, B. H. Dickerson, O. Ellers, J. R. Glass, C. M. Gordon, J. F. Harrison, T. L. Hedrick, M. G. Johnson, J. E. Lebenzon, J. H. Marden, K. Niitepõld, S. P. Sane, S. Sponberg, S. Talal, C. M. Williams, et al., Insect flight: State of the field and future directions, Integr. Comp. Biol. 64, 533 (2024).
  144. V. M. Ortega-Jimenez, J. S. M. Greeter, R. Mittal, and T. L. Hedrick, Hawkmoth flight stability in turbulent vortex streets, J. Exp. Biol. 216, 4567 (2013).
  145. C. Bamford, P. Swiney, J. Nix, T. L. Hedrick, and V. Raghav, Aerodynamic response of a red-tailed hawk to discrete transverse gusts, Bioinspir. Biomim. 19, 036011 (2024).
  146. C. Zhang, R. Mittal, and T. Hedrick, Aeromechanics of hovering flight in perturbed flows: Insights from computational models and animal experiments, in 47th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference (AIAA, Denver, 2017).
  147. J. Bakarji, J. Callaham, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, Dimensionally consistent learning with Buckingham Pi, Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 834 (2022).
  148. K. Fukami, S. Goto, and K. Taira, Data-driven nonlinear turbulent flow scaling with Buckingham Pi variables, J. Fluid Mech. 984, R4 (2024).
  149. D. J. Garmann and M. R. Visbal, Interactions of a streamwise-oriented vortex with a finite wing, J. Fluid Mech. 767, 782 (2015).
  150. C. J. Barnes and M. R. Visbal, Computational investigation of the effect of sweep on parallel vortical-gust/wing interactions, in AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum (AIAA, San Diego, 2019).
  151. Y. Qian, Z. Wang, and I. Gursul, Interaction of quasi-two-dimensional vortical gusts with airfoils, unswept and swept wings, Exp. Fluids 63, 124 (2022).
  152. K. Zhang, S. Hayostek, M. Amitay, W. He, V. Theofilis, and K. Taira, On the formation of three-dimensional separated flows over wings under tip effects, J. Fluid Mech. 895, A9 (2020).
  153. J. H. M. Ribeiro, J. Neal, A. Burtsev, M. Amitay, V. Theofilis, and K. Taira, Laminar post-stall wakes of tapered swept wings, J. Fluid Mech. 976, A6 (2023).
  154. J. S. S. Pandi and S. Mittal, Twisted finite wing at low Reynolds number: Cellular vortex shedding, wing-tip vortex and aerodynamic performance, J. Fluid Mech. 1002, A28 (2025).
  155. F. Fernandez, D. Cleaver, and I. Gursul, Unsteady aerodynamics of flexible wings in transverse gusts, J. Fluids Struct. 108, 103425 (2022).
  156. C. Thompson, H. Biler, S. Symon, and B. Ganapathisubramani, Aeroelastic wing performance in high-intensity freestream turbulence: Integral length scale effects, AIAA J. 63, 1789 (2025).
  157. N. Fonzi, S. L. Brunton, and U. Fasel, Data-driven nonlinear aeroelastic models of morphing wings for control, Proc. R. Soc. A 476, 20200079 (2020).
  158. A. G. Nair, S. B. Douglass, and N. Arya, Network-theoretic modeling of fluid–structure interactions, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 37, 707 (2023).
  159. M. K. Hickner, U. Fasel, A. G. Nair, B. W. Brunton, and S. L. Brunton, Data-driven unsteady aeroelastic modeling for control, AIAA J. 61, 780 (2023).
  160. B. E. Thompson and J. Jang, Aerodynamic efficiency of wings in rain, J. Aircr. 33, 1047 (1996).
  161. M. Bragg, A. Broeren, and L. Blumenthal, Iced-airfoil aerodynamics, Prog. Aero. Sci. 41, 323 (2005).
  162. Y. Cao, Z. Wu, and Z. Xu, Effects of rainfall on aircraft aerodynamics, Prog. Aero. Sci. 71, 85 (2014).
  163. Y. Cao, W. Tan, and Z. Wu, Aircraft icing: An ongoing threat to aviation safety, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 75, 353 (2018).
  164. Y. Liu, L. Li, H. Li, and H. Hu, An experimental study of surface wettability effects on dynamic ice accretion process over an UAS propeller model, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 73, 164 (2018).
  165. A. Dhulipalla, A. Samad, and H. Hu, An experimental study on aerodynamic performance degradation of a drone propeller due to rainfall, in AIAA Aviation Forum and Ascend (AIAA, Las Vegas, 2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 11, 014702– Published 15 January, 2026
  • Received 2 September 2025
  • Accepted 19 November 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation