Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

The Excess Dissipation of Energy in a Turbulent Boundary-Layer and its Departure from Log-Normality

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Wall dissipation exceeds the bulk and grows with Reynolds number, driven by intense events, while its statistics approach log-normality by a different route than the bulk cascade.

desk verdict Solid first simultaneous wall-bulk dissipation comparison; the fixed-ℓ* caveat is real but does not erase the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02974 v1 pith:AE2ZV2TO submitted 2026-07-03 physics.flu-dyn

Benjamin Musci , Sebastien Aumaitre , Enzo Francisco , Adam Cheminet , Berengere Dubrulle This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords turbulentdissipationboundarylayerlog-normalityDiffusingWaveSpectroscopyvonKarmanflowskinfrictionenergycascadeReynolds-numberscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper measures kinetic-energy dissipation simultaneously at the wall and in the bulk of a von Karman flow. Bulk dissipation saturates to a constant with rising Reynolds number, the classic dissipative anomaly. Wall dissipation, by contrast, is systematically higher and keeps rising; the excess is produced by a progressive transfer of the mean contribution toward rare events more than ten times the average. The same data yield a skin-friction coefficient that still falls with Reynolds number roughly as a classical power law. Probability distributions of wall dissipation start far from log-normal at low Re and become more nearly log-normal as the effective number of independent velocity-gradient contributions grows; bulk distributions remain near log-normal at all Re. The authors conclude that log-normal statistics can arise in two distinct ways: multiplicative cascade dynamics in the bulk versus persistent shear plus dimensional growth at the wall.

What carries the argument

Diffusing-wave spectroscopy that records the local strain-rate norm directly at the wall, combined with an intensity-band decomposition of the mean dissipation and comparison of centered log-dissipation PDFs and moments against log-normal and chi-squared distributions.

What would settle it

A measurement campaign that independently varies optical penetration depth or confirms viscous-sublayer thickness and shows that both the excess mean dissipation and the approach to log-normality vanish once the probe is guaranteed to remain inside the sublayer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Wall dissipation is in clear excess relative to both bulk and volumetric averages and grows with Reynolds number, mainly because high-intensity events (>10 times the mean) contribute an ever-larger fraction of the average; at the same time the wall PDF evolves from strong low-Re departures from log-normality (consistent with only a few gradient terms) toward higher-dimensional, more log-normal statistics, while the bulk stays near log-normal with slowly growing variance, indicating that the two regions produce log-normality by different mechanisms.

Load-bearing premise

The fixed optical probing depth of the wall sensor stays inside the viscous sublayer at every Reynolds number studied, so the measured signal is not progressively contaminated by bulk fluid as the boundary layer thins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Skin friction can be inferred from wall dissipation alone and continues to decline with Reynolds number even while mean wall dissipation rises.
  • Wall-stress and sub-grid models that simply import bulk cascade statistics will miss the growing contribution of intense near-wall events.
  • Log-normality of dissipation is not by itself evidence of a multiplicative cascade; it can also result from shear plus an increasing number of independent gradients.
  • Any unified theory of anomalous dissipation must treat bulk regularity and wall-gradient mechanisms as separate pathways.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If optical-depth contamination is negligible, smooth walls can still host a local dissipative excess that strengthens with Reynolds number.
  • The same intensity-band decomposition applied to rough walls or other closed flows would test whether the excess is universal or geometry-dependent.
  • The coexistence of falling skin friction and rising wall dissipation implies that near-wall velocity gradients amplify faster than the relative wall stress weakens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports simultaneous bulk and wall measurements of turbulent kinetic-energy dissipation in a von Kármán flow (Re ≈ 6 000–80 000). Bulk dissipation (torque meters and TPIV via a weak Kármán–Howarth–Monin estimate) saturates to a constant when normalized by U³/R, consistent with the dissipative anomaly. Wall dissipation measured by Diffusing-Wave Spectroscopy (DWS) is systematically larger and continues to rise with Re. Intensity-band decomposition attributes the rise mainly to progressive redistribution into events ≳10⟨ϵ⟩. From the wall data the authors infer a skin-friction coefficient that decreases with Re roughly as a classical power law. PDF and log-dissipation moments show bulk statistics remaining near log-normal (K62-like), while wall statistics evolve from strong low-Re departures (χ²-like with few degrees of freedom) toward higher-k/log-normal shapes, interpreted as an increase in the effective dimensionality of the near-wall gradient field driven by persistent shear plus superposition rather than a bulk cascade.

Significance. Direct, time-resolved wall dissipation statistics in the same facility that already has well-characterized bulk HIT-like behavior constitute a genuine experimental advance. The simultaneous observation of bulk anomaly and growing wall excess, the intensity-band decomposition of the mean, and the contrasting origins proposed for log-normality are of clear interest to both fundamental theory (wall versus bulk anomalous dissipation, Onsager-type questions) and modeling (SGS and wall-stress closures). The honest flagging of the fixed-ℓ* degeneracy and the multi-impeller Cf trends are strengths. If the optical-depth issue can be bounded more tightly, the work would supply useful constraints that integrated dissipation metrics alone cannot provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results §d / Supplemental Table 1] Results §d and the discussion of Supplemental Table 1: the central Re trends (rising wall ⟨ϵ⟩/ϵ_HIT, redistribution into B_{>10}, recovery of classical Cf, and the χ²(k) → higher-k/log-normal evolution) rest on the premise that the fixed optical depth ℓ* remains inside the viscous sublayer across the full Re range. The authors themselves state that the ratio of measurement volume to sublayer thickness grows with Re and that bulk contamination is “a degeneracy that cannot be fully evaluated at present.” This is load-bearing: progressive mixing of near-log-normal, anomaly-compliant bulk fluid would mimic every reported wall trend. A quantitative contamination bound, multi-ℓ* comparison, or explicit sensitivity test showing that the reported slopes survive plausible bulk fractions is required before the excess-dissipation and dimensionality claims can be accepted at face value.
  2. [Figure 3 / Results §c] Figure 3 and accompanying text: the interpretation of the wall PDF evolution as an increase from χ²(k≈2) to χ²(k≈30) “effective dimensionality” of independent gradient contributions is suggestive but under-supported. The authors correctly note that resolution, coarse-graining and averaging can inflate apparent k. Without a controlled test that separates genuine kinematic superposition from measurement-volume effects (or at least a clear statement of how large those effects would have to be to produce k≈30), the claim that wall log-normality has a distinct structural origin remains an attractive hypothesis rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [Eq. (1) / Figure 2b] Equation (1) and the subsequent Cf extraction (Cf ≈ 8√(⟨ϵ⟩R/U³ Re)): the dimensional relation ϵ_wall ≈ u_τ⁴/ν is standard for the wall, yet DWS reports a volume-averaged strain-rate norm over a finite optical depth. The quantitative accuracy of mapping that average onto the classical wall value, and the propagation of that uncertainty into the reported power-law exponents, is not assessed. Because the decreasing Cf trend is presented as a non-trivial coexistence with rising dissipation, the mapping assumptions and their Re dependence need explicit error bars or a short validation against known wall-stress scalings.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2b caption / text] The Blasius Cf = 0.3164 Re^{-1/4} line is drawn for illustration, but the von Kármán geometry is neither a pipe nor a flat plate; a brief caveat that the comparison is only qualitative would avoid over-reading the absolute level of the exponents.
  2. [Experiment and Diagnostic] Notation for the global torque-meter dissipation (⟨ϵ_V̄⟩) and the bulk TPIV estimate (⟨ϵ_B⟩) is introduced late and is easy to confuse with the wall ⟨ϵ⟩; a short symbol table or earlier definition would help.
  3. [Figure 5] Figure 5 band contributions for the bulk are shown only at the two Re extremes; adding one intermediate Re (or stating that intermediate values lie between the extremes) would make the claimed invariance more transparent.
  4. [Throughout / references] A few typographical inconsistencies appear (e.g., “trubulence”, “Forchg. Arb.”, mixed en-dashes). A careful copy-edit pass is warranted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; excess-dissipation, band, C_f and PDF claims rest on direct DWS/TPIV measurements plus classical dimensional conversion, not on self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper measures wall dissipation directly via DWS (auto-correlation of multiply-scattered light yielding the strain-rate norm, hence ϵ = 2ν ∑ S_ij²) and bulk dissipation via TPIV (weak Kármán–Howarth–Monin) plus torque meters. The excess ⟨ϵ⟩_wall / ϵ_HIT that grows with Re, the intensity-band decomposition B_a–b that attributes the growth to events >10⟨ϵ⟩, and the PDF evolution from χ²(k≈2)-like to higher-k/log-normal are therefore empirical outputs, not constructions. The only modelling step is the classical dimensional relation ϵ_wall ≈ u_τ⁴/ν used to convert the measured wall dissipation into a skin-friction coefficient C_f ≈ 8√(⟨ϵ⟩R/U³ Re); the subsequent power-law fits to those C_f values are post-hoc comparisons with Blasius, not inputs that force the excess claim. Bulk anomaly is simply reconfirmed by the same facility’s torque and prior TPIV data (self-citations that supply supporting measurements, not uniqueness theorems or load-bearing premises). No claimed prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, a self-defined quantity, or an author-only uniqueness result. The fixed-ℓ* contamination caveat flagged by the authors is an experimental-validity issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental claims rest on standard continuum definitions of dissipation and friction plus the unproved but conventional assumption that DWS auto-correlation faithfully reports the local strain-rate norm inside the viscous sublayer. Free parameters are limited to post-hoc power-law fits used only for comparison. No new physical entities are invented; the χ²(k) and log-normal models are interpretive overlays on measured PDFs.

free parameters (2)
  • C_f power-law exponent n (and prefactor) for each impeller
    Fitted to the three DWS-derived C_f(Re) curves in Fig. 2b solely for comparison with Blasius; not used to establish the excess-dissipation claim itself.
  • χ² degrees of freedom k (k=2 at low Re, k≈30 at high Re)
    Chosen by eye to match wall PDF shapes in Fig. 3; interpretive, not a free parameter of a predictive model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ϵ = 2ν Σ S_ij² for Newtonian fluid, with S_ij the strain-rate tensor
    Standard continuum definition used throughout to convert DWS strain-rate norm into dissipation.
  • domain assumption DWS temporal auto-correlation of multiply-scattered light encodes the local dissipation rate when tracers are ballistic and ℓ* is smaller than the smallest flow scales
    Core validity claim for the wall diagnostic; justified by reference to prior DWS papers and Supplemental criteria.
  • domain assumption Bulk dissipation estimated via scale-resolved weak Kármán–Howarth–Monin equation without direct velocity differentiation
    Method taken from prior TPIV work on the same facility; assumed accurate for the mid-plane shear layer.
  • domain assumption ϵ_wall ≈ u_τ⁴/ν and C_f = 8 τ_w / ρ U² allow inference of skin friction from measured wall dissipation
    Dimensional analysis and classical definitions used to produce Fig. 2b; standard but not derived from first principles here.
  • domain assumption Left-tail power-law exponent of the ϵ PDF reflects the number of active velocity-gradient components (≈0 for two terms, ≈1.5–2 for six terms)
    Taken from Gotoh et al. and Ruiz-Chavarria et al.; used to interpret wall vs bulk left tails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Excess Dissipation of Energy in a Turbulent Boundary-Layer and its Departure from Log-Normality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AE2ZV2TO

@misc{pith2026260702974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Excess Dissipation of Energy in a Turbulent Boundary-Layer and its Departure from Log-Normality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AE2ZV2TO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02974}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate turbulent dissipation in a von Karman flow using PIV and Diffusing Wave Spectroscopy measurements to directly compare bulk and wall dynamics. While bulk dissipation conforms to the dissipative anomaly, wall dissipation exhibits a clear excess that grows with Re, consistent with velocity-gradient dominated scaling. Decomposition into dissipation intensity bands reveals that this excess is mainly driven by progressive redistribution toward high-intensity events, larger than 10 x mean, as Re increases. From these measurements, we infer the skin-friction coefficient, finding a decreasing trend with Re fairly consistent with classical power-law behavior despite increasing dissipation. Statistically, the wall shows strong departures from log-normality at low Re that diminishes with increasing Re, reflecting an increase in the effective dimensionality of the near-wall gradient field with Re. In contrast, the bulk dissipation remains near log-normal across all Re with slowly growing log-dissipation variance, consistent with K62 refined similarity. These results suggest distinct origins of log-normal behavior which are multiplicative cascade dynamics in the bulk versus the combined effect of persistent shear and a superposition of an increasing number of independent gradient contributions at the wall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02974 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of experimental facility (not to scale): [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Measured values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. PDFs of normalized dissipation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 2nd-4th order statistical moments of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Contribution of intensity-banded events to the mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thus, wall log-normality at highRelikely reflects structural superposition at the boundary rather than any mechanism specific to the bulk’s inertial cas- cade

    and Dubrulle [20], which emphasizes that skin fric- tion increasingly depends on the specific velocity pro- file structure asReincreases, suggesting more struc- tures contribute to the near-wall velocity gradient at higherRe. Thus, wall log-normality at highRelikely reflects structural superposition at the boundary rather than any mechanism specific to th...

  2. [2]

    Table 1), these are only estimates and can not be confirmed with the present dataset. The observed trend toward log-normality at the wall may therefore reflect, at least in part, increasing bulk contamination of the DWS signal rather than purely structural evolution of the near- wall dissipation field; a degeneracy that cannot be fully evaluated at presen...

  3. [3]

    Meneveau and K

    C. Meneveau and K. R. Sreenivasan, The multifractal nature of turbulent energy dissipation, J. Fluid Mech224 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    Jim´ enez, Near-wall turbulence, Physics of Fluids25, 10.1063/1.4824988 (2013)

    J. Jim´ enez, Near-wall turbulence, Physics of Fluids25, 10.1063/1.4824988 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4824988 2013

  5. [5]

    Benzi, G

    R. Benzi, G. Amati, C. M. Casciola, F. Toschi, and R. Piva, Intermittency and scaling laws for wall bounded turbulence, Physics of Fluids1286, 1284 (1999)

    1999

  6. [6]

    P.-Y. Duan, X. Chen, and K. R. Sreenivasan, On how walls shape dissipation intermittency, arXiv (2025), arXiv:arXiv:2506.22917v2

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Kolmogorov, The local structure of trubulence in in- compressible viscous fluids for very large reynolds num- bers, Dokl

    A. Kolmogorov, The local structure of trubulence in in- compressible viscous fluids for very large reynolds num- bers, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR A30, 301 (1941)

    1941

  8. [8]

    Delafosse, M.-l

    A. Delafosse, M.-l. Collignon, M. Crine, and D. Toye, Es- timation of the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate from 2D-PIV measurements in a vessel stirred by an axial Mixel TTP impeller, Chemical Engineering Science66, 1728 (2011)

    2011

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    B.-K. Ahn, W. R. Graham, and S. A. Rizzi, A structure- based model for turbulent-boundary-layer wall pressures, J. Fluid Mech650, 443 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    S. T. Bose and G. I. Park, Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation for Complex Turbulent Flows, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 535 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Kakka and K

    P. Kakka and K. Anupindi, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer Assessment of subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation of a planar turbulent wall-jet with heat transfer, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer153, 119593 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    R. D. Moser, S. W. Haering, and G. R. Yalla, Statistical Properties of Subgrid-Scale Turbulence Models, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 255 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    W. S. Sarie, Gortler Vortices, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , 379 (1994)

    1994

  6. [14]

    Agostini, M

    L. Agostini, M. Leschziner, and D. Gaitonde, Skewness- induced asymmetric modulation of small-scale turbu- lence by large-scale structures, Physics of Fluids015110, 10.1063/1.4939718 (2016)

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    T. S. Lund, Large-eddy simulation of a boundary layer with concave streamwise curvature, Cenler for Turbu- lence Research Annual Research Briefs99, 185 (1994)

    1994

  8. [16]

    M. J. P. Hack and O. T. Schmidt, Dissipation events in wall-bounded turbulence, Center for Turbulence Re- search Annual Research Briefs , 237 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Schr¨ oder, T

    M. Schr¨ oder, T. B¨ atge, E. Bodenschatz, M. Wilczek, and G. Bagheri, Estimating the turbulent kinetic energy dissi- pation rate from one-dimensional velocity measurements in time, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques17, 627 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    T. D. Drivas and H. Q. Nguyen, Onsager’s conjecture and anomalous dissipation on domains with boundary, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis50(2018), arXiv:arXiv:1803.05416v3

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Eyink, Onsager’s ’ideal turbulence’ theory, Journal of Fluid Mechanics988, 1 (2024), arXiv:2404.10084

    G. Eyink, Onsager’s ’ideal turbulence’ theory, Journal of Fluid Mechanics988, 1 (2024), arXiv:2404.10084

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    K. P. Iyer, T. D. Drivas, G. L. Eyink, and K. R. Sreeni- vasan, Turbulence without Walls : Whither the Ze- roth Law of Turbulence ?, Physical Review Letters135, 134001 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    B. J. McKeon, M. V. Zagarola, and A. J. Smits, A new friction factor relationship for fully developed pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics538, 429 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    Dubrulle, Log at first sight, Journal of Fluid Mechan- ics1000, 1 (2024)

    B. Dubrulle, Log at first sight, Journal of Fluid Mechan- ics1000, 1 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kato, Remarks on zero viscosity limit for nonstation- ary Navier-Stokes flows with boundary., Seminar on non- linear partial differential equations , 85 (1984)

    T. Kato, Remarks on zero viscosity limit for nonstation- ary Navier-Stokes flows with boundary., Seminar on non- linear partial differential equations , 85 (1984)

    1984

  16. [24]

    J. P. Kelliher, On kato’s conditions for vanishing vis- cosity, Indiana University Mathematics Journal , 1711 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento Series 96, 279 (1949)

    L. Onsager, Statistical hydrodynamics, Il Nuovo Cimento Series 96, 279 (1949)

    1949

  18. [26]

    Francisco, V

    E. Francisco, V. Bouillaut, T. Wu, and S. Aumaˆ ıtre, Spatiotemporal boundary dissipation measurement in Taylor–Couette flow using diffusing-wave spectroscopy, Experiments in Fluids64, 10.1007/s00348-023-03693-w (2023), arXiv:2308.16693

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kuzzay, D

    D. Kuzzay, D. Faranda, and B. Dubrulle, Global vs lo- cal energy dissipation: The energy cycle of the tur- bulent von K´ arm´ an flow, Physics of Fluids075105, 10.1063/1.4923750 (2015)

    2015 doi

  20. [28]

    See Supplemental Material athttps:// link-to-supplemental-material.comfor the dissi- pation calculation methodology, DWS validity criteria, and impeller descriptions

  21. [29]

    Ravelet, L

    F. Ravelet, L. Mari´ e, A. Chiffaudel, and F. Daviaud, Mul- tistability and memory effect in a highly turbulent flow: Experimental evidence for a global bifurcation, Physical Review Letters93, 2 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    E. W. Saw, D. Kuzzay, D. Faranda, A. Guitton- neau, F. Daviaud, C. Wiertel-Gasquet, V. Padilla, and B. Dubrulle, Experimental characterization of extreme events of inertial dissipation in a turbulent swirling flow, Nature Communications7, 1 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Saint-Michel, B

    B. Saint-Michel, B. Dubrulle, L. Marie, F. Ravelet, and F. Daviaud, Evidence for Forcing-Dependent Steady States in a Turbulent Swirling Flow, Physical Review 8 Letters234502, 2 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Debue, V

    P. Debue, V. Shukla, D. Kuzzay, D. Faranda, E. Saw, F. Daviaud, and B. Dubrulle, Dissipation , intermittency, and singularities in incompressible turbulent flows, Phys- ical Review E053101, 1 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    E. Saw, P. Debue, D. Kuzzay, F. Daviaud, and B. Dubrulle, On the universality of anomalous scaling exponents of structure functions in turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech , 657 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Geneste, H

    D. Geneste, H. Faller, F. Nguyen, V. Shukla, J. P. Laval, F. Daviaud, E. W. Saw, and B. Dubrulle, About Uni- versality and Thermodynamics of Turbulence, Entropy 2019, Vol. 21, Page 32621, 326 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Debue, V

    P. Debue, V. Valori, C. Cuvier, F. Daviaud, J. M. Fou- caut, J. P. Laval, C. Wiertel, V. Padilla, and B. Dubrulle, Three-dimensional analysis of precursors to non-viscous dissipation in an experimental turbulent flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics914, 1 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Musci, B

    B. Musci, B. Dubrulle, J. LeBris, D. Geneste, P. Bra- ganca, J. M. Foucaut, C. Cuvier, and A. Cheminet, Ex- perimental measurement of the vorticity-strain alignment around extreme energy transfer events, Journal of Fluid Mechanics1016, 1 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Mari´ e and F

    L. Mari´ e and F. Daviaud, Experimental measurement of the scale-by-scale momentum transport budget in a tur- bulent shear flow, Physics of Fluids16, 457 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Dubrulle, Beyond Kolmogorov cascades, Journal of Fluid Mechanics867, 1 (2019)

    B. Dubrulle, Beyond Kolmogorov cascades, Journal of Fluid Mechanics867, 1 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Dubrulle, F

    B. Dubrulle, F. Daviaud, D. Faranda, L. Mari´ e, and B. Saint-Michel, How many modes are needed to pre- dict climate bifurcations? Lessons from an experiment, Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics29, 17 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Saint-Michel, E

    B. Saint-Michel, E. Herbert, J. Salort, C. Baudet, M. Bon Mardion, P. Bonnay, M. Bourgoin, B. Castaing, L. Chevillard, F. Daviaud, P. Diribarne, B. Dubrulle, Y. Gagne, M. Gibert, A. Girard, B. H´ ebral, T. Lehner, and B. Rousset, Probing quantum and classical tur- bulence anal...

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Yao and F

    J. Yao and F. Hussain, On singularity formation via vis- cous vortexA reconnection, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 888, 1 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    G. L. Eyink and K. R. Sreenivasan, Onsager and the theory of hydrodynamic turbulence, Reviews of Modern Physics78, 87 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Francisco, J

    E. Francisco, J. Lambret, and S. Aumaitre, Spatiotem- poral statistics of the dissipation rate at the boundary of a turbulent flow using Diffusing-Wave Spectroscopy, Physics Review Fluids10, 3 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    F. M. White and J. Majdalani,Viscous Fluid Flow, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Schlichting and K

    H. Schlichting and K. Gersten,Boundary-layer Theory (Springer, 2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Blasius, Das Ahnlichkeitsgesetz bei Reibungsvorgan- gen in Flussigkeiten, Forchg

    H. Blasius, Das Ahnlichkeitsgesetz bei Reibungsvorgan- gen in Flussigkeiten, Forchg. Arb. Ing.-Wes (1913)

    1913

  39. [47]

    Cadot, Y

    O. Cadot, Y. Couder, A. Daerr, S. Douady, and A. Tsi- nober, Energy injection in closed turbulent flows: Stir- ring through boundary layers versus inertial stirring, Physcial Review E56, 427 (1997)

    1997

  40. [48]

    Gotoh, T

    T. Gotoh, T. Watanabe, and I. Saito, Kinematic Effects on Probability Density Functions of Energy Dissipation Rate and Enstrophy in Turbulence, Physical Review Let- ters130, 254001 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    G. E. Elsinga, T. Ishihara, and J. C. Hunt, Intermittency across Reynolds numbers - the influence of large-scale shear layers on the scaling of the enstrophy and dissipa- tion in homogenous isotropic turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics974, 1 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    A. Kolmogorov, A refinement of previous hypotheses con- cerning the local structure of turbulence in a viscous in- compressible fluid at high Reynolds number., Journal of Fluid Mechanics13, 82 (1962)

    1962

  43. [51]

    Ruiz-Chavarria, S

    G. Ruiz-Chavarria, S. Ciliberto, C. Baudet, and E. L´ evˆ eque, Scaling properties of the streamwise compo- nent of velocity in a turbulent boundary layer, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena141, 183 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    P. K. Yeung, X. M. Zhai, and K. R. Sreenivasan, Extreme events in computational turbulence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 12633 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.