World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

D-Index
38
Citations
6784
World Ranking
2235
National Ranking
812

Matthew J. Churchfield publication distribution in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Matthew J. Churchfield sits on this spectrum.

47–56 publications: 10 scientists 57–66 publications: 23 scientists 67–76 publications: 32 scientists 77–86 publications: 62 scientists 87–96 publications: 67 scientists 97–106 publications: 91 scientists 107–116 publications: 113 scientists 117–126 publications: 115 scientists 127–136 publications: 130 scientists 137–146 publications: 140 scientists 147–156 publications: 155 scientists 157–166 publications: 132 scientists 167–176 publications: 133 scientists 177–186 publications: 130 scientists 187–196 publications: 140 scientists 197–206 publications: 115 scientists 207–216 publications: 125 scientists 217–226 publications: 117 scientists 227–236 publications: 99 scientists 237–246 publications: 92 scientists 247–256 publications: 100 scientists 257–266 publications: 95 scientists 267–276 publications: 88 scientists 277–286 publications: 77 scientists 287–296 publications: 74 scientists 297–306 publications: 74 scientists 307–316 publications: 62 scientists 317–326 publications: 70 scientists 327–336 publications: 59 scientists 337–346 publications: 58 scientists 347–356 publications: 45 scientists 357–366 publications: 44 scientists 367–376 publications: 36 scientists 377–386 publications: 41 scientists 387–396 publications: 32 scientists 397–406 publications: 23 scientists 407–416 publications: 28 scientists 417–426 publications: 27 scientists 427–436 publications: 25 scientists 437–446 publications: 23 scientists 447–456 publications: 23 scientists 457–466 publications: 20 scientists 467–476 publications: 12 scientists 477–486 publications: 24 scientists 487–496 publications: 18 scientists 497–506 publications: 12 scientists 507–516 publications: 13 scientists 517–526 publications: 21 scientists 527–536 publications: 12 scientists 537–546 publications: 8 scientists 547–556 publications: 16 scientists 557–566 publications: 3 scientists 567–576 publications: 11 scientists 577–586 publications: 6 scientists 587–596 publications: 5 scientists 597–606 publications: 6 scientists 607–616 publications: 7 scientists 617–626 publications: 7 scientists 627–636 publications: 10 scientists 637–646 publications: 4 scientists 647–656 publications: 3 scientists 657–658 publications: 2 scientists 659+ publications: 100 scientists
47 publications 659+

This scientist: 156 publications — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 659 publications or more.

Matthew J. Churchfield D-index placement in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Matthew J. Churchfield sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 83 scientists 31 D-Index: 113 scientists 32 D-Index: 144 scientists 33 D-Index: 153 scientists 34 D-Index: 189 scientists 35 D-Index: 158 scientists 36 D-Index: 139 scientists 37 D-Index: 127 scientists 38 D-Index: 130 scientists 39 D-Index: 126 scientists 40 D-Index: 104 scientists 41 D-Index: 100 scientists 42 D-Index: 107 scientists 43 D-Index: 101 scientists 44 D-Index: 103 scientists 45 D-Index: 79 scientists 46 D-Index: 88 scientists 47 D-Index: 70 scientists 48 D-Index: 83 scientists 49 D-Index: 44 scientists 50 D-Index: 64 scientists 51 D-Index: 56 scientists 52 D-Index: 50 scientists 53 D-Index: 48 scientists 54 D-Index: 58 scientists 55 D-Index: 52 scientists 56 D-Index: 48 scientists 57 D-Index: 42 scientists 58 D-Index: 34 scientists 59 D-Index: 42 scientists 60 D-Index: 37 scientists 61 D-Index: 42 scientists 62 D-Index: 44 scientists 63 D-Index: 22 scientists 64 D-Index: 33 scientists 65 D-Index: 29 scientists 66 D-Index: 23 scientists 67 D-Index: 29 scientists 68 D-Index: 24 scientists 69 D-Index: 19 scientists 70 D-Index: 34 scientists 71 D-Index: 26 scientists 72 D-Index: 19 scientists 73 D-Index: 18 scientists 74 D-Index: 19 scientists 75 D-Index: 14 scientists 76 D-Index: 19 scientists 77 D-Index: 8 scientists 78 D-Index: 18 scientists 79 D-Index: 16 scientists 80 D-Index: 12 scientists 81 D-Index: 17 scientists 82 D-Index: 11 scientists 83 D-Index: 16 scientists 84 D-Index: 7 scientists 85 D-Index: 9 scientists 86 D-Index: 8 scientists 87 D-Index: 6 scientists 88 D-Index: 6 scientists 89 D-Index: 7 scientists 90 D-Index: 10 scientists 91 D-Index: 4 scientists 92 D-Index: 4 scientists 93+ D-Index: 100 scientists
30 D-Index 93+

This scientist: 38 D-Index — 36th percentile

36% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 93 D-Index or more.

Best Publications

  • A numerical study of the effects of atmospheric and wake turbulence on wind turbine dynamics

    Matthew J. Churchfield;Sang Lee;John Michalakes;Patrick J. Moriarty

  • Evaluating techniques for redirecting turbine wakes using SOWFA

    Paul A. Fleming;Pieter M.O. Gebraad;Sang Lee;Jan-Willem van Wingerden

  • A large-eddy simulation of wind-plant aerodynamics

    Matthew J. Churchfield;Sang Lee;Patrick J. Moriarty;Luis A. Martínez

  • Simulation comparison of wake mitigation control strategies for a two-turbine case

    Paul Fleming;Pieter M.O. Gebraad;Sang Lee;Jan-Willem van Wingerden

  • A tutorial of wind turbine control for supporting grid frequency through active power control

    Jacob Aho;Andrew Buckspan;Jason Laks;Paul Fleming

  • Large eddy simulations of the flow past wind turbines: actuator line and disk modeling

    Luis A. Martínez-Tossas;Matthew J. Churchfield;Stefano Leonardi

  • A large-eddy simulation study of wake propagation and power production in an array of tidal-current turbines

    Matthew J. Churchfield;Ye Li;Patrick J. Moriarty

  • The aerodynamics of the curled wake: a simplified model in view of flow control

    Luis A. Martínez-Tossas;Jennifer Annoni;Paul A. Fleming;Matthew J. Churchfield

  • Guidelines for Volume Force Distributions Within Actuator Line Modeling of Wind Turbines on Large-Eddy Simulation-Type Grids

    Pankaj K. Jha;Matthew J. Churchfield;Patrick J. Moriarty;Sven Schmitz

  • A Comparison of Actuator Disk and Actuator Line Wind Turbine Models and Best Practices for Their Use

    Luis A. Martínez;Stefano Leonardi;Matthew J. Churchfield;Patrick J. Moriarty

  • Optimal smoothing length scale for actuator line models of wind turbine blades based on Gaussian body force distribution

    L. A. Martínez‐Tossas;M. J. Churchfield;C. Meneveau

  • Quantifying error of lidar and sodar Doppler beam swinging measurements of wind turbine wakes using computational fluid dynamics

    J. K. Lundquist;J. K. Lundquist;M. J. Churchfield;S. Lee;A. Clifton

  • An Advanced Actuator Line Method for Wind Energy Applications and Beyond: Preprint

    Matthew Churchfield;Scott Schreck;Luis A. Martinez-Tossas;Charles Meneveau

  • A simulation study demonstrating the importance of large-scale trailing vortices in wake steering

    Paul Fleming;Jennifer Annoni;Matthew Churchfield;Luis A. Martinez-Tossas

  • Mesoscale to microscale wind farm flow modeling and evaluation

    Javier Sanz Rodrigo;Roberto Aurelio Chávez Arroyo;Patrick Moriarty;Matthew Churchfield

  • On Bridging A Modeling Scale Gap: Mesoscale to Microscale Coupling for Wind Energy

    Sue Ellen Haupt;Branko Kosovic;William Shaw;Larry K. Berg

  • Atmospheric and Wake Turbulence Impacts on Wind Turbine Fatigue Loading: Preprint

    Sang Lee;Matthew Churchfield;Patrick Moriarty;J Jonkman

  • SOWFA Super-Controller: A High-Fidelity Tool for Evaluating Wind Plant Control Approaches

    P. Fleming;P. Gebraad;J. W. van Wingerden;S. Lee

  • On atmospheric stability in the dynamic wake meandering model

    Rolf-Erik Keck;Rolf-Erik Keck;Martin Tobias de Mare;Martin Tobias de Mare;Matthew J. Churchfield;Sang Lee

  • Evaluation of different wind fields for the investigation of the dynamic response of offshore wind turbines

    Unknown

Frequent Co-Authors

Patrick Moriarty
Patrick Moriarty National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Paul Fleming
Paul Fleming National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Julie K. Lundquist
Julie K. Lundquist University of Colorado Boulder
Charles Meneveau
Charles Meneveau Johns Hopkins University
Matthew A. Lackner
Matthew A. Lackner University of Massachusetts Amherst
Stefano Leonardi
Stefano Leonardi Sapienza University of Rome
David P. Schmidt
David P. Schmidt University of Massachusetts Amherst
William J. Shaw
William J. Shaw Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Jason Jonkman
Jason Jonkman National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Lucy Y. Pao
Lucy Y. Pao University of Colorado Boulder

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For students interested in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, exploring related online degrees can broaden career opportunities. One option is pursuing an accelerated ABA program, which allows you to specialize in applied behavior analysis, an emerging field with diverse applications beyond traditional engineering roles.

When considering alternative health-related fields like speech language pathology, it's important to understand the admissions landscape. Resources discussing how hard is it to get into SLP grad school offer valuable insights for planning a smooth graduate path.

For those weighing flexibility and accessibility, researching the easiest speech pathology programs to get into can help identify the right fit based on acceptance rates and program requirements.

Cost is another key consideration. Understanding online speech pathology degree programs cost can aid in budgeting and selecting a program that balances affordability with quality education, which is a factor also relevant to engineering degrees.

Best Scientists Citing Matthew J. Churchfield

Recently Published Articles