A framework for assessing the Reynolds analogy in turbulent forced convection over rough walls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces a novel approach to investigate the Reynolds analogy in complex flow scenarios. It is shown that the total mechanical energy $\mathit {B}$ , viz. the sum of kinetic energy and pressure work, and the field $\Gamma =\theta ^2/2$ (where $\theta$ is the transported passive scalar) are governed by two equations that are similar in form, when time-averaged for statistically stationary flows. For fully developed channel flows the integral energy balance links the mean bulk velocity and scalar with the volume averages of the respective dissipation rates, allowing the assessment of the Reynolds analogy in terms of the dissipation fields. This approach is tested on direct numerical simulation data of rough-wall turbulent channel flow at two different roughness Reynolds numbers, namely $k^+=15$ and $k^+=90$ . For a unit Prandtl number, the same qualitative behaviour is observed for the mean wall-normal distributions of the budget-equation terms of $B$ and $\Gamma$ , the latter being larger than the corresponding terms in the mechanical-energy budget. The Reynolds decomposition of the flow into temporal mean and stochastic parts reveals that roughness primarily affects the mean-flow dissipation. For the $k^+=90$ case, the analysis shows that attached-flow and high-shear regions dominate the integral mean scalar and momentum transfer and exhibit the greatest differences between the mean mechanical and scalar dissipation rates. In contrast, well-mixed regions, sheltered by large roughness elements, contribute similarly and minimally to the integral scalar and momentum transfer.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".