Modelling high Reynolds number wall–turbulence interactions in laboratory experiments using large-scale free-stream turbulence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A turbulent boundary layer subjected to free-stream turbulence is investigated in order to ascertain the scale interactions that dominate the near-wall region. The results are discussed in relation to a canonical high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layer because previous studies have reported considerable similarities between these two flows. Measurements were acquired simultaneously from four hot wires mounted to a rake which was traversed through the boundary layer. Particular focus is given to two main features of both canonical high Reynolds number boundary layers and boundary layers subjected to free-stream turbulence: (i) the footprint of the large scales in the logarithmic region on the near-wall small scales, specifically the modulating interaction between these scales, and (ii) the phase difference in amplitude modulation. The potential for a turbulent boundary layer subjected to free-stream turbulence to 'simulate' high Reynolds number wall-turbulence interactions is discussed. The results of this study have encouraging implications for future investigations of the fundamental scale interactions that take place in high Reynolds number flows as it demonstrates that these can be achieved at typical laboratory scales.This article is part of the themed issue 'Toward the development of high-fidelity models of wall turbulence at large Reynolds number'.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".