30p30n

Author: pcarruscag

_data/vandv.yml

@@ -8,3 +8,4 @@
   - MMS_FVM_Navier_Stokes
   - Flat_Plate
   - Bump_Channel
+  - 30p30n

_vandv/30p30n.md

@@ -56,30 +56,30 @@ For completeness, we also test the effect of the limiter on the "fine" level by
 We observe second order convergence of the lift and drag coefficients, and good agreement between Roe + van Albada, JST, [FaSTAR results](https://jaxa.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=2921&item_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21), and [Cflow results](https://jaxa.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_view_main_item_detail&item_id=2923&item_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21).
 The Roe + Venkatakrishnan configuration predicts lower values, which were observed to be sensitive to the limiter coefficient. For example lowering it to 0.025 increases drag above the values obtained with the other two configurations.
 
-<p align="right">
+Drag coefficient at 5.5deg AoA.
+<p align="left">
 <img src="/vandv_files/30p30n/drag.png" alt="Drag coefficient at 5.5deg AoA" />
 </p>
-Drag coefficient at 5.5deg AoA.
 
-<p align="righy">
+Lift coefficient at 5.5deg AoA
+<p align="left">
 <img src="/vandv_files/30p30n/lift.png" alt="Lift coefficient at 5.5deg AoA" />
 </p>
-Lift coefficient at 5.5deg AoA
 
 ### Maximum lift
 
 Roe + van Albada and JST agree well on the maximum lift, and again match the results of other codes.
 However JST predicts the flow to remain attached at significantly higher angle-of-attach than expected.
 
-<p align="right">
+Lift coefficient on the fine grid level
+<p align="left">
 <img src="/vandv_files/30p30n/max_lift.png" alt="Lift coefficient on the fine grid level" />
 </p>
-Lift coefficient on the fine grid level
 
-<p align="right">
+Drag coefficient on the fine grid level
+<p align="left">
 <img src="/vandv_files/30p30n/max_drag.png" alt="Drag coefficient on the fine grid level" />
 </p>
-Drag coefficient on the fine grid level
 
 ### Discussion
 
@@ -88,13 +88,13 @@ However, JST predicts significantly higher skin friction coefficient (Cf) on the
 Away from this critical point the lift and drag characteristics are dominated by the pressure distribution and thus the two schemes agree well.
 The only significant differences in Cf between the van Albada and Venkatakrishnan limiters are at the trailing-edges.
 
-<p align="right">
+Pressure coefficient distribution at 5.5deg AoA on fine grid level
+<p align="left">
 <img src="/vandv_files/30p30n/cp.png" alt="Pressure coefficient distribution at 5.5deg AoA on fine grid level" />
 </p>
-Pressure coefficient distribution at 5.5deg AoA on fine grid level
 
-<p align="right">
+Skin friction coefficient distribution at 5.5deg AoA on fine grid level
+<p align="left">
 <img src="/vandv_files/30p30n/cf.png" alt="Skin friction coefficient distribution at 5.5deg AoA on fine grid level" />
 </p>
-Skin friction coefficient distribution at 5.5deg AoA on fine grid level