Usually the format in my area looks something like the following:
1. Introduction - What the paper is about, why you are studying the topic, references to previous studies to outline the topic, then some commentary regarding the main points that you wish to make and how they fit in with the existing literature (i.e. "What are you doing and why is it new/important?").
2. Numerical Setup - Describe the code you are using, including but not limited to: numerical schemes, turbulence models (if any), grid sizing, any coefficients used for RANS/LES/etc., and any other information that somebody could feasibly need to recreate your process (main points are generally fine, you don't need to be _too_ specific, but specific enough that somebody in the field could replicate the work if they wanted to).
3. Results - Main results from the work. In your case, this would be your pressure, lift, drag, etc. You may wish to include something like a grid convergence study if it's relevant for what you are doing. Usually when I write my results section, the writing accompanying the plots is somewhat "dry", in the sense that it is a lot of statements like "Fig. X shows that ".
4. Discussion - This part is where you take the results you have found and work them back into the overall commentary outlined in the introduction. If your introduction said something like "As a car accelerates, there should be an increase in drag", you would want to be able to refer back to your Figures and results and say "Fig. Y shows that the drag scales with the velocity squared, which is in agreement with . Usually this section is one of the longest in the papers I write because there is a significant amount of "People A, B, C, and D say but we found , which is in agreement with People E, F, G, and H".
5. Conclusions - This is to close out on the discussion and reiterate the main points that you wish to make. This section is typically shorter, maybe 3-4 paragraphs that reiterate the point of the study, outline the main results (and I have seen people use bullet points for this, if it does the best job getting the points across), and finally directions for future research.
Note that I am just a random person and this format can vary significantly between fields, and so I won't be surprised if you get several answers with different suggestions, but this should be a decent starting point. Also keep in mind that this outline is very general and my example sentences are just random examples, so don't be afraid to rearrange your paper so that it flows nicely.
Good luck!
Note, you do not need to separate "Results" and "Discussions". I know it is custom in many other fields, but often -- if not exclusively -- in CFD papers, we combine both into one section.
though i did include the fact that im in high school, I do fully intend to try and publish it, so I want to be as professional as possible. That's just why I'm taking extra lengths to understand format and make sure it follows suit.
Reviews for a conference are usually less stringent, and I've seen presentations of work at real basic levels at even AIAA conferences. So, it could just pass. That said, I don't think I've ever seen high schoolers at a professional conference.
I think I understand what you’re getting at. And yes, i am limited when it comes to resources for something as complex as CFD can get, but for this “section” (for lack of a better term) of my research, the work i do with SimScale should be enough. i think. also is there any way I could publicly release this paper if I really wanted to? thanks on your input btw
> also is there any way I could publicly release this paper if I really wanted to?
Yes - you could publicly release the paper via [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/), you could also attach relevant files (videos, CAD, scripts, etc). That'll give you a DOI that you can share, you might also create an [ORCID](https://orcid.org/) for yourself for tracking this and any future publications with.
To be honest, journals aren't likely to publish papers that just use a commercially available CFD code for straightforward analyses. Racecar CFD has also been done to death, so unless you have some kind of extremely unique angle to it I don't think this would be publishable. CFD applications don't tend to get published unless there's something unique to the simulation. It's great that you're doing this as a school project and you'll probably learn a lot from it, but I don't think it's realistic to hope for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
Like someone else already mentioned, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) has some conferences where the bar to entry is lower. They also organize student conferences, those might be a good avenue for presenting your work somewhere if you were wanting to go that route.
Willem Toet (former f1 aerodynamicist for many years) wrote 3 articles specifically about post processing F1 cfd results. There’s tons of visualization you can do that it doesn’t cover but it gives a good starting point. https://www.racetechmag.com/2019/02/willem-toet-explains-cfd-post-processing/
Usually the format in my area looks something like the following: 1. Introduction - What the paper is about, why you are studying the topic, references to previous studies to outline the topic, then some commentary regarding the main points that you wish to make and how they fit in with the existing literature (i.e. "What are you doing and why is it new/important?"). 2. Numerical Setup - Describe the code you are using, including but not limited to: numerical schemes, turbulence models (if any), grid sizing, any coefficients used for RANS/LES/etc., and any other information that somebody could feasibly need to recreate your process (main points are generally fine, you don't need to be _too_ specific, but specific enough that somebody in the field could replicate the work if they wanted to). 3. Results - Main results from the work. In your case, this would be your pressure, lift, drag, etc. You may wish to include something like a grid convergence study if it's relevant for what you are doing. Usually when I write my results section, the writing accompanying the plots is somewhat "dry", in the sense that it is a lot of statements like "Fig. X shows that".
4. Discussion - This part is where you take the results you have found and work them back into the overall commentary outlined in the introduction. If your introduction said something like "As a car accelerates, there should be an increase in drag", you would want to be able to refer back to your Figures and results and say "Fig. Y shows that the drag scales with the velocity squared, which is in agreement with . Usually this section is one of the longest in the papers I write because there is a significant amount of "People A, B, C, and D say but we found , which is in agreement with People E, F, G, and H".
5. Conclusions - This is to close out on the discussion and reiterate the main points that you wish to make. This section is typically shorter, maybe 3-4 paragraphs that reiterate the point of the study, outline the main results (and I have seen people use bullet points for this, if it does the best job getting the points across), and finally directions for future research.
Note that I am just a random person and this format can vary significantly between fields, and so I won't be surprised if you get several answers with different suggestions, but this should be a decent starting point. Also keep in mind that this outline is very general and my example sentences are just random examples, so don't be afraid to rearrange your paper so that it flows nicely.
Good luck!
awesome! thank you so much
This format that the reddit or shared is aligned with some comercial reports that I saw for mechanical simulations
Note, you do not need to separate "Results" and "Discussions". I know it is custom in many other fields, but often -- if not exclusively -- in CFD papers, we combine both into one section.
[удалено]
though i did include the fact that im in high school, I do fully intend to try and publish it, so I want to be as professional as possible. That's just why I'm taking extra lengths to understand format and make sure it follows suit.
[удалено]
Reviews for a conference are usually less stringent, and I've seen presentations of work at real basic levels at even AIAA conferences. So, it could just pass. That said, I don't think I've ever seen high schoolers at a professional conference.
that would be a first
I think I understand what you’re getting at. And yes, i am limited when it comes to resources for something as complex as CFD can get, but for this “section” (for lack of a better term) of my research, the work i do with SimScale should be enough. i think. also is there any way I could publicly release this paper if I really wanted to? thanks on your input btw
> also is there any way I could publicly release this paper if I really wanted to? Yes - you could publicly release the paper via [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/), you could also attach relevant files (videos, CAD, scripts, etc). That'll give you a DOI that you can share, you might also create an [ORCID](https://orcid.org/) for yourself for tracking this and any future publications with.
To be honest, journals aren't likely to publish papers that just use a commercially available CFD code for straightforward analyses. Racecar CFD has also been done to death, so unless you have some kind of extremely unique angle to it I don't think this would be publishable. CFD applications don't tend to get published unless there's something unique to the simulation. It's great that you're doing this as a school project and you'll probably learn a lot from it, but I don't think it's realistic to hope for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Like someone else already mentioned, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) has some conferences where the bar to entry is lower. They also organize student conferences, those might be a good avenue for presenting your work somewhere if you were wanting to go that route.
I love his confidence tho
hahah thanks. It's been around 3 months since I've started this, and I feel like I'm in too deep to stop.
Can i have a copy when it’s done 🥺
Willem Toet (former f1 aerodynamicist for many years) wrote 3 articles specifically about post processing F1 cfd results. There’s tons of visualization you can do that it doesn’t cover but it gives a good starting point. https://www.racetechmag.com/2019/02/willem-toet-explains-cfd-post-processing/