Energy transfer mechanisms in adverse pressure gradient turbulent boundary layers: production and inter-component redistribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production and inter-component redistribution of turbulence in adverse pressure gradient (APG) turbulent boundary layers (TBLs) with small and large velocity defects are investigated, along with the structures playing a role in these energy transfer mechanisms. We examine the wall-normal and spectral distributions of energy, production and pressure-strain in APG TBLs, and compare these distributions with those in canonical flows. It is found that the spectral distributions of production and pressure-strain are not affected profoundly by an increase of the velocity defect, although the energy spectra change drastically in the inner layer of the large-defect APG TBL. In the latter, the signature of the inner-layer streaks is absent from the energy spectra. In the outer layer, energetic, production and pressure-strain structures appear to change from wall-attached to wall-detached structures with increasing velocity defect. Despite this, the two-dimensional spectral distributions have similar shapes and wavelength aspect ratios of the peaks in all these flows. Therefore, the conclusion is that the mechanisms responsible for turbulence production and inter-component energy transfer may remain the same within each layer in all these flows. It is the intensity of these mechanisms within one layer that changes with velocity defect, because of the local mean shear variation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".