Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Attached Decelerating Turbulent Boundary Layers over Riblets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Riblets reduce drag by 45-250 percent in attached decelerating turbulent boundary layers.

desk verdict Strong APGs can make riblets dramatically more effective — even producing mean thrust — but the 45–250% numbers rest on an unverified fixed-x comparison and mechanism evidence that is still qualitative. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16962 v1 pith:QYWUO5CJ submitted 2025-05-22 physics.flu-dyn

Benjamin S. Savino , Amirreza Rouhi , Wen Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords turbulentboundarylayeradversepressuregradientribletsdragreductionKelvin-Helmholtzrollersdirectnumericalsimulationskinfrictionforwardforce
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

The paper seeks to establish that streamwise riblets reduce skin-friction drag far more in attached, decelerating turbulent boundary layers than in zero-pressure-gradient flows. In direct numerical simulations of two adverse-pressure-gradient strengths and three riblet sizes, drag reduction reaches 45 to 250 percent, and for the largest riblets under the stronger gradient the wall shear stress reverses, producing a net upstream force. The authors attribute this to Kelvin-Helmholtz roller vortices near the riblet crests, which grow in size, strength, and frequency during deceleration and create a mean reverse flow inside the grooves. The results imply that standard viscous-scaled riblet metrics developed for zero-pressure-gradient flows will not predict drag modification when the pressure gradient is non-negligible.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by direct numerical simulations of a spatially developing boundary layer in which a hyperbolic-tangent freestream deceleration imposes a strong, growing adverse pressure gradient, with sinusoidal riblets enforced by an immersed boundary method. The central quantity is the drag curve, a plot of percentage wall-shear change against the viscous-scaled groove size $\ell_g^+ = \ell_g u_\tau/\nu$, where $\ell_g$ is the square root of the groove cross-sectional area; in zero-pressure-gradient flows this curve collapses riblet performance across geometries. The physical mechanism proposed is the Kelvin-Helmholtz roller: spanwise-coherent vortices that roll up from the shear layer at the riblet crest, whose lower halves induce local reverse flow. The paper argues that the adverse pressure gradient strengthens this shear layer, so the rollers grow and persist even as $\ell_g^+$ falls below the zero-pressure-gradient threshold, and their time-averaged passage produces a sustained mean reverse flow in the grooves.

What would settle it

Compute a matched-history variant in which the smooth and riblet boundary layers are forced to share the same streamwise displacement-thickness or momentum-thickness development, then measure the wall-shear difference; if the 45-250 percent reduction and negative wall shear do not survive the matching, the claim that riblets alone produce the forward force would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in attached, decelerating turbulent boundary layers, riblets reduce drag far beyond the zero-pressure-gradient benchmark: the drag reduction ranges from 45 to 250 percent, and for the largest riblets under the stronger adverse pressure gradient the wall shear stress reverses sign, so the riblet surface produces a forward force. The paper argues that this is caused by Kelvin-Helmholtz roller vortices forming near the riblet crest. The adverse pressure gradient augments the rollers' size, strength, and frequency, and because the lower halves of the rollers move upstream, their time-averaged passage creates a mean reverse flow inside the grooves. Even though the flow at the riblet crest remains attached, this reverse flow cancels the positive shear from the crest, which is why drag reduction can exceed 100 percent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smooth-wall and riblet cases can be compared at the same streamwise station because their momentum-thickness Reynolds numbers are nearly equal; if the deceleration alters the two boundary layers' histories differently, part of the measured drag gap could reflect comparing different flow states rather than the riblets' effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing zero-pressure-gradient drag-prediction metrics, based only on viscous-scaled riblet size, systematically underpredict drag reduction once an adverse pressure gradient is strong enough; a pressure-gradient-dependent correction is needed.
  • A riblet surface can produce a net upstream force while the outer boundary layer remains attached, opening a passive-thrust regime for decelerating flows over airfoils, diffusers, and other expanding geometries.
  • Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers, usually a sign of riblet drag penalty in zero-pressure-gradient flows, become drag reducers in strong adverse pressure gradients once they are intense enough to sustain a mean reverse flow inside the grooves.
  • Drag reduction in adverse-pressure-gradient riblet flows grows with riblet size and with pressure-gradient strength, opposite to what the zero-pressure-gradient drag curve predicts as $\ell_g^+$ decreases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adverse-pressure-gradient-sustained shear layer is the controlling mechanism, a more robust design rule for non-equilibrium flows would use local pressure-gradient or shear-layer parameters rather than $\ell_g^+$ alone; varying the freestream deceleration shape while holding riblet geometry fixed would test this directly.
  • The forward-force regime suggests riblets might be placed selectively on the decelerating portions of wings or nacelles, but real geometries add sweep and spanwise pressure gradients, so the mechanism would need to survive three-dimensionality.
  • The mean reverse flow inside the grooves means a riblet-covered wall in an adverse pressure gradient behaves somewhat like a partially separated surface, which could affect noise and heat transfer, not just drag, in downstream applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports direct numerical simulations of spatially developing turbulent boundary layers over sinusoidal riblets subjected to two adverse pressure gradients (maximum Clauser parameter roughly 5 and 10), with three riblet sizes selected to span the drag-reducing, Kelvin-Helmholtz-roller, and drag-increasing regimes at a ZPG reference plane. The central claims are that riblets reduce drag substantially more under APG than in ZPG flows, with reported reductions of roughly 45-250 percent; that for the largest riblets under the stronger APG the wall shear stress reverses, producing a forward force; and that the mechanism is intensified Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers that generate a mean reverse flow within the grooves. The paper is explicitly a preliminary draft for a conference paper, with detailed statistical analysis deferred to a future 'full paper.'

Significance. If the result survives a matched-state comparison and a convergence check, it would be significant: it would show that ZPG-based riblet scaling laws (the l+ drag curve and the KH-roller thresholds) fail substantially in strong APGs, and it would identify a new forward-force regime with practical implications for drag-reduction applications. The paper's strengths are its clean parametric matrix, direct computation of wall stress by integration of the IBM force, stated grid resolution in wall units, and careful placement of the results against the established ZPG drag curve. The interpretation is, however, presently supported mainly by visualizations rather than by quantitative state matching or uncertainty quantification.

major comments (3)
  1. [III.B, Eq. (5) and III.A] The drag-reduction metric compares wall shear stress at the same streamwise coordinate, justified by the statement that Re_delta is nearly equal between smooth and riblet cases 'in most cases.' No quantitative evidence is provided: Re_delta is not plotted or tabulated for the two walls, and Re_theta is not reported at all. Moreover, Section III.A itself restricts the claim: negligible increases in Re_delta are stated only for 'all moderate-APG cases and the high-APG cases with small or medium riblets,' which excludes exactly cases ⌫05;40, ⌫10;20, and ⌫10;40 - the cases that produce negative wall shear and enter the forward-force regime. If the APG drives the riblet and smooth boundary layers along different histories, a substantial part of the reported 45-250 percent reduction, and especially the δτ_w < -100 percent range, could reflect comparison of unlike flow states rather than the intrinsic drag modification by riblets. Please provide quantitative matching of boundary-layer state parameters (e.g., Re_theta(x), Re_delta(x), and shape factor H(x) for both walls) and either restrict the claims to matched cases or adjust the metric accordingly.
  2. [II.C, III.B] The paper states that statistics are collected after the flow reaches a statistically steady state, but it gives no averaging time, sample count, or convergence measure. For quantitative claims that include a mean negative wall shear stress whose magnitude is small relative to the smooth-wall baseline, statistical convergence is load-bearing: without it, the reported 45-250 percent range and the forward-force regime are not fully verified. Please add running means or confidence intervals for τ_w (or δτ_w) at representative streamwise stations, and report the averaging period in outer time units.
  3. [III.D, III.E] The causal statement that the enhanced drag reduction is 'a product of' Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers is supported only by instantaneous flow visualizations (Figs. 7 and 8). There is no spectral analysis, no roller convection velocity or passage frequency, and no conditional or phase-averaged link between roller passage and instantaneous wall shear. The manuscript itself defers such analysis to 'the full paper.' As written, the mechanism claim is plausible but not demonstrated; either provide quantitative evidence for the roller interpretation and its connection to the mean reverse groove flow, or soften the causal language to an explicitly stated hypothesis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Typographical errors should be corrected: Ref. [22] has 'rilets' instead of 'riblets', Ref. [24] has 'turbuelnt' instead of 'turbulent', and Section III.B contains 'fows' instead of 'flows'.
  2. [Figure 3] The contour plot has no colorbar, and the caption mentions that blue and red regions are saturated at different magnitudes; please add a colorbar or otherwise quantify the contour levels.
  3. [II.C, III.A] The notation for the Reynolds number, written as 'Re_delta = X*4/a', is difficult to parse; please define Δ* and U_e explicitly in one place and consistently distinguish Re_delta from Re_theta.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] For δτ_w < -100 percent the surface produces thrust, not a reduction of drag; consider using wording such as 'drag reduction and thrust production' consistently rather than referring to the entire range as drag reduction.
  5. [II.B] The fixed height-to-spacing ratio h/s = 3/π (if that is the intended value) is not motivated; please specify the rationale for this choice and how it relates to the sinusoid shape.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the drag-reduction numbers are direct DNS measurements, and the fixed-x comparison caveat is a physical-validity concern rather than an equation-level reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are obtained from direct numerical simulation of the Navier-Stokes equations with prescribed freestream deceleration and riblet geometry. The drag modification in Eq. (5) is a post-processing comparison of computed wall shear stresses, not a fitted quantity; the riblet sizes and APG strengths are design parameters, and no parameter is tuned to reproduce the reported 45-250% drag reduction or the forward-force regime. The ZPG drag curve is used as an external baseline, and the paper's claim is precisely that the APG results deviate from that baseline, so the comparison is not circular. The mechanistic explanation involving Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers is an interpretation of the simulated instantaneous fields, not an input to the simulation. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [40,41] for the DNS code, Ref. [47] for roughness-layer reverse flow near separation, Ref. [49] for riblet-generated KH rollers) support numerical methodology and prior observations but do not by themselves force the present conclusions. The paper's own caveat in Section III.B that Re_theta remains nearly equal between smooth and riblet cases 'in most cases' is a legitimate limitation: a quantitative matched-state check would strengthen the physical interpretation, but this is a validity concern about comparing at fixed x, not a circular derivation. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The key numbers in the paper are not fitted to the target result; drag reduction is computed from simulated wall stress. The hand-selected APG strengths and riblet sizes are independent variables. The load-bearing assumptions are the IBM wall-stress mapping, the validity of the prescribed-freestream APG, the convergence of statistics, and the fairness of the fixed-x smooth versus riblet comparison. None of these is independently verified in this draft, which is why the paper is conditional.

free parameters (3)
  • APG strength = Peak Clauser parameter beta ~5 and ~10 (smooth wall)
    Two deceleration levels were hand-selected to create strong adverse pressure gradients while keeping the smooth-wall flow attached. All quantitative claims are demonstrated for only these two levels.
  • Viscous-scaled riblet size at reference plane = l_g+_ref approx 11, 18, 41
    Riblets were sized at the reference plane to place cases in drag-reducing, KH-onset, and drag-augmenting regimes of the ZPG drag curve. Only three sizes are tested at one Reynolds number.
  • Riblet height-to-spacing ratio = h/s = 3/pi
    The sinusoidal riblet shape with h/s = 3/pi is a fixed geometry choice. The claim that the mechanism is independent of riblet shape is not established, so shape is a hidden design parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with no-slip at the riblet surface and the prescribed freestream velocity describe the flow.
    Section II.C, Eq. (3). DNS is used, but resolution and numerical accuracy are not demonstrated beyond the stated grid spacings.
  • domain assumption The immersed-boundary force integrated over the wall-normal direction equals the total wall stress on the riblet surface.
    Section II.C. The negative-drag result depends on this mapping, invoked from Refs. [37,38].
  • domain assumption The top-boundary hyperbolic-tangent freestream velocity produces an attached APG boundary layer without significant blockage.
    Section II.A. No sensitivity study to domain height or profile shape is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Statistics gathered after 'statistically steady state' are converged.
    Section III.D. Sampling duration and convergence checks are not reported, so sampling artifacts cannot be excluded for the mean reverse flow.
  • ad hoc to paper Smooth and riblet cases can be compared at the same streamwise position because Re_theta is nearly equal.
    Section III.B. This is asserted rather than quantitatively enforced, and it is the weakest assumption for interpreting the drag reduction percentages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attached Decelerating Turbulent Boundary Layers over Riblets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYWUO5CJ

@misc{pith2026250516962,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attached Decelerating Turbulent Boundary Layers over Riblets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYWUO5CJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16962}
}
read the original abstract

Turbulent boundary layers over riblets subjected to adverse pressure gradients (APGs) are investigated by direct numerical simulation. Multiple APG strengths and riblet sizes are examined, permitting evaluation of drag modification by riblets, and associated physical mechanisms, in various regimes established for zero-pressure-gradient (ZPG) riblet flows. The APG strengths are selected such that the flow remains attached. It is found that during APGs, riblets reduce drag beyond what has been achieved in ZPG flows. In extreme cases, an upstream force (i.e., negative drag) is attained. The significant drag reduction is found to be a product of Kelvin-Helmholtz roller vortices forming near the riblet crest, which are augmented in size, strength, and frequency during the APG. The preliminary results reported here indicate the need to modify existing metrics to predict drag reduction and the onset of KH rollers by riblets when the pressure gradient is non-negligible. Further analysis will be documented in the final paper.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Leveraging unstructured grids for direct numerical simulations of wall turbulence

    physics.flu-dyn 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The η-grid sets Δy+ and Δz+ proportional to local Kolmogorov scale η, delivering <1% error versus Cartesian grids but with grid count scaling as Re_τ^2.5 (smooth) or Re_τ^2.0 (riblets) instead of Re_τ^3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T urbulent flows past boundaries with small streamwise fins,

    Kennedy, J. F., Hsu, S.-T., and Lin, J.-T., “T urbulent flows past boundaries with small streamwise fins,”J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE, Vol. 99, No. 4, 1973, pp. 605–616. 12 This draft was prepared for AIAA SciTech Forum 2026

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Drag characteristics of V-groove and transverse curvature riblets,

    Walsh, M. J., “Drag characteristics of V-groove and transverse curvature riblets,” Viscous Flow Drag Reduction, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 72, edited by G. R. Hough, AIAA, 1980, pp. 168–184

    work page 1980

  3. [3]

    J., Turbulent boundary layer drag reduction using riblets , AIAA, 1982, pp

    Walsh, M. J., Turbulent boundary layer drag reduction using riblets , AIAA, 1982, pp. 82–0169

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Riblets as a viscous drag reduction technique,

    Walsh, M. J., “Riblets as a viscous drag reduction technique,” AIAA J., Vol. 21, 1982, pp. 485–486

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

    A., and Thomas, A

    Gallagher, J. A., and Thomas, A. S. W ., Turbulent boundary layer characteristics over streamwise grooves, AIAA, 1984

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    The effect of turbulent skin friction of surfaces with streamwise grooves,

    Sawyer, W . G., and Winter, K. G., “The effect of turbulent skin friction of surfaces with streamwise grooves,”European Meeting on Turbulent Drag Reduction, 1986

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Near-wall structure of a turbulent boundary layer with riblets,

    Choi, K.-S., “Near-wall structure of a turbulent boundary layer with riblets,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 208, 1989, pp. 417–458

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Resistance of a grooved surface to parallel flow and cross-flow,

    Luchini, P ., Manzo, F., and Pozzi, A., “Resistance of a grooved surface to parallel flow and cross-flow,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 228, 1991, pp. 87–109

    work page 1991

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow over riblets,

    Choi, H., Moin, P ., and Kim, J., “Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow over riblets,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 255, 1993, pp. 503–539

    1993

  2. [10]

    Turbulent drag reduction mechanism above a riblet surface,

    Suzuki, Y ., and Kasagi, N., “Turbulent drag reduction mechanism above a riblet surface,” AIAA J., Vol. 32, No. 9, 1994, pp. 1781–1790

    1994

  3. [11]

    Direct numerical simuilation of turbulent flow over a modelled riblet covered surface,

    Goldstein, D., Handler, R., and Sirovich, L., “Direct numerical simuilation of turbulent flow over a modelled riblet covered surface,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 302, 1995, pp. 333–376

    1995

  4. [12]

    Flow field analysis of a turbulent boundary layer over a riblet surface,

    Lee, S.-J., and Lee, S.-H., “Flow field analysis of a turbulent boundary layer over a riblet surface,” Exp. Fluids, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2001, pp. 153–166

    2001

  5. [13]

    Drag reduction by riblets,

    García-Mayoral, R., and Jiménez, J., “Drag reduction by riblets,”Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, Vol. 369, 2011, pp. 1412–1427

    2011

  6. [14]

    Hydrodynamic stability and breakdown of the viscous regime over riblets,

    García-Mayoral, R., and Jiménez, J., “Hydrodynamic stability and breakdown of the viscous regime over riblets,”J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 678, 2011, pp. 317–347

    2011

  7. [15]

    Dispersive stresses in turbulent flow over riblets,

    Modesti, D., Endrikat, S., Hutchins, N., and Chung, D., “Dispersive stresses in turbulent flow over riblets,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 917, 2021, p. A55

    2021

  8. [16]

    Aeroshark – Drag Reduction Using Riblet Film on Commercial Aircraft,

    Kuntzagk, S., “Aeroshark – Drag Reduction Using Riblet Film on Commercial Aircraft,” Hamburg Aerospace Lecture Series, AreoLectures, 2024. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11214244

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Effects of pressure gradient on evolution of the velocity-gradient tensor invariant dynamics on a controlled-diffusion aerofoil at '42 = 150000,

    Wu, H., Moreau, S., and Sandberg, R. D., “Effects of pressure gradient on evolution of the velocity-gradient tensor invariant dynamics on a controlled-diffusion aerofoil at '42 = 150000,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 868, 2019, pp. 584–610

    2019

  10. [18]

    Adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer on convex wall,

    Pargal, S., Wu, H., Yuan, J., and Moreau, S., “Adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer on convex wall,”Phys. Fluids, Vol. 34, 2022, p. 035107

    2022

  11. [19]

    Model-based design of riblets for turbulent drag reduction,

    Ran, W ., Zare, A., and Jovanović, M. R., “Model-based design of riblets for turbulent drag reduction,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 906, 2021, p. A7

    2021

  12. [20]

    RANS Turbulence Model for Drag Reducing Riblets and Its Predictions for Aerodynamic Applications,

    Smith, B. R., and Y agle, P ., “RANS Turbulence Model for Drag Reducing Riblets and Its Predictions for Aerodynamic Applications,” AIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum, AIAA, 2025, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-0044

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Effects of longitudinal pressure gradients on turbulent drag reduction with riblets,

    Choi, K.-S., “Effects of longitudinal pressure gradients on turbulent drag reduction with riblets,” Turbulence Control by Passive Means, edited by E. Coustols, 1990, pp. 109–121

    1990

  14. [22]

    The reduction of skin friction by rilets under the influence of an adverse pressure gradient,

    Nieuwstadt, F. T. M., Wolthers, W., Leijdens, H., Krishna Prasad, K., and Schwarz-van Manen, A., “The reduction of skin friction by rilets under the influence of an adverse pressure gradient,” Exp. Fluids., Vol. 15, 1993, pp. 17–26

    1993

  15. [23]

    T urbulent boundary layer in an adverse pressure gradient: Effectiveness of riblets,

    Debisschop, J. R., and Nieuwstadt, F. T. M., “T urbulent boundary layer in an adverse pressure gradient: Effectiveness of riblets,” AIAA. J., Vol. 34, No. 5, 1996, pp. 932–937

    1996

  16. [24]

    Riblets in a turbuelnt adverse-pressure gradient boundary layer,

    Klumpp, S., Guldner, T., Meinke, M., and Schröder, W ., “Riblets in a turbuelnt adverse-pressure gradient boundary layer,” 5th Flow Control Conference, AIAA, 2010, pp. 1–11

    2010

  17. [25]

    Riblet drag reduction in mild adverse pressure gradients: A numerical investigation,

    Boomsma, A., and Sotiropoulos, F., “Riblet drag reduction in mild adverse pressure gradients: A numerical investigation,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Fl. , Vol. 56, 2015, pp. 251–260. 13 This draft was prepared for AIAA SciTech Forum 2026

    2015

  18. [26]

    T urbulent boundary layers around wing sections up to Rec=1,000,000,

    Vinuesa, R., Negi, P . S., Atzori, M., Hanifi, A., Henningson, D. S., and Schlatter, P ., “T urbulent boundary layers around wing sections up to Rec=1,000,000,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Fl. , Vol. 72, 2018, pp. 86–99

    2018

  19. [27]

    Effect of adverse pressure gradients on turbulent wing boundary layers,

    Tanarro, Á., Vinuesa, R., and Schlatter, P ., “Effect of adverse pressure gradients on turbulent wing boundary layers,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 883, 2020, p. A8

    2020

  20. [28]

    History effects and near equilbrium in adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers,

    Bobke, A., Vinuesa, R., Örlü, R., and Schlatter, P ., “History effects and near equilbrium in adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 820, 2017, pp. 667–692

    2017

  21. [29]

    Direct numerical simulation of a self-similar adverse pressure gradient turbulent boundary layer at the verge of separation,

    Kitsios, V ., Sekimoto, A., Atkinson, C., Sillero, J. A., Borrell, G., Gungor, A. G., Jiménez, J., and Soria, J., “Direct numerical simulation of a self-similar adverse pressure gradient turbulent boundary layer at the verge of separation,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 829, 2017, pp. 392–419

    2017

  22. [30]

    An adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer with nearly constant V ' 1.4 up to '4 \ ' 8700,

    Pozuelo, R., Li, Q., Schlatter, P ., and Vinuesa, R., “An adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer with nearly constant V ' 1.4 up to '4 \ ' 8700,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 939, 2022, p. A34

    2022

  23. [31]

    Generation of inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations,

    Lund, T. S., Wu, X., and Squires, K. D., “Generation of inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 140, 1998, pp. 233–258

    1998

  24. [32]

    General method for determining the boundary layer thickness in nonequilibrium flows,

    Griffin, K. P ., Fu, L., and Moin, P ., “General method for determining the boundary layer thickness in nonequilibrium flows,” Phys. Ref. Fluids, Vol. 6, 2021, p. 024608

    2021

  25. [33]

    Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flow over various riblet shapes in minimal-span channels,

    Endrikat, S., Modesti, D., MacDonald, M., García-Mayoral, R., Hutchins, N., and Chung, D., “Direct numerical simulations of turbulent flow over various riblet shapes in minimal-span channels,” Flow Turbul. Combust, Vol. 107, 2021, pp. 1–29

    2021

  26. [34]

    Scaling of turbulent structures in riblet channels up to '4 g ⇡ 550,

    García-Mayoral, R., and Jiménez, J., “Scaling of turbulent structures in riblet channels up to '4 g ⇡ 550,” Phys. Fluids, Vol. 24, No. 10, 2012, p. 105101

    2012

  27. [35]

    Flow patterns around heart valves: a numerical method,

    Peskin, C. S., “Flow patterns around heart valves: a numerical method,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 10, 1972, pp. 552–271

    1972

  28. [36]

    Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flows with boundary roughened with virtual sandpaper,

    Scotti, A., “Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flows with boundary roughened with virtual sandpaper,” Phys. Fluids, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2006, p. 031701

    2006

  29. [37]

    Numerical simulations of sink-flow boundary layers over rough surfaces,

    Yuan, J., and Piomelli, U., “Numerical simulations of sink-flow boundary layers over rough surfaces,” Phys. Fluids, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2014, p. 015113

    2014

  30. [38]

    Roughness effects on the Reynolds stress budgets in near-wall turbulence,

    Yuan, J., and Piomelli, U., “Roughness effects on the Reynolds stress budgets in near-wall turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 760, 2014, p. R1

    2014

  31. [39]

    Large-eddy simulation of heat transfer downstream of a backward-facing step,

    Keating, A., Piomelli, U., Bremhorst, K., and Nešić, S., “Large-eddy simulation of heat transfer downstream of a backward-facing step,”J. Turbul., Vol. 5, 2004, pp. N20 1–27

    2004

  32. [40]

    Thrust generation by shark denticles,

    Savino, B. S., and Wu, W ., “Thrust generation by shark denticles,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 1000, 2024, p. A80

    2024

  33. [41]

    Impact of spanwise rotation on flow separation and recovery behind a bulge in channel flows,

    Savino, B. S., and Wu, W., “Impact of spanwise rotation on flow separation and recovery behind a bulge in channel flows,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 999, 2024, p. A51

    2024

  34. [42]

    Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations,

    Kim, J., and Moin, P ., “Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations,” J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 59, 1985, pp. 303–323

    1985

  35. [43]

    Moin, P .,Fundamentals of Engineering Numerical Analysis , Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Rough-wall boundary layers,

    Raupach, M. R., Antonia, R. A., and Rajagopalan, S., “Rough-wall boundary layers,” App. Mech. Rev., Vol. 44, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1–25

    1991

  37. [45]

    Double-averaging concept for rough-bed open-channel and overland flows: Theoretical background,

    Nikora, V ., McEwan, I., McLean, S., , Coleman, S., Pokrajac, D., and Walters, R., “Double-averaging concept for rough-bed open-channel and overland flows: Theoretical background,” J. Hydraul. Eng., Vol. 133, No. 8, 2007, pp. 873–883

    2007

  38. [46]

    Double-averaging analysis and local flow characterization of near-bed turbulence in gravel-bed channel flows,

    Mignot, E., Barthelemy, E., and Hurther, D., “Double-averaging analysis and local flow characterization of near-bed turbulence in gravel-bed channel flows,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 618, 2009, pp. 279–303

    2009

  39. [47]

    Effects of surface roughness on a separating turbulent boundary layer,

    Wu, W., and Piomelli, U., “Effects of surface roughness on a separating turbulent boundary layer,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 841, 2018, pp. 552–580

    2018

  40. [48]

    Influence of riblet shapes on the occurrence of Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers,

    Endrikat, S., Modesti, D., García-Mayoral, R., Hutchins, N., and Chung, D., “Influence of riblet shapes on the occurrence of Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 913, 2021, p. A37. 14 This draft was prepared for AIAA SciTech Forum 2026

    2021

  41. [49]

    Riblet-generated flow mechanisms that lead to local breaking of the Reynolds analogy,

    Rouhi, A., Endrikat, S., Modesti, D., Sandberg, R. D., Oda, T., Tanimoto, K., Hutchins, N., and Chung, D., “Riblet-generated flow mechanisms that lead to local breaking of the Reynolds analogy,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 951, 2022, p. A45

    2022

  42. [50]

    Experimental characterisation of Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers over riblet surfaces,

    Abu Rowin, W., Deshpande, R., Wang, S., Kozul, M., Chung, D., Sandberg, R. D., and Hutchins, N., “Experimental characterisation of Kelvin-Helmholtz rollers over riblet surfaces,” J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 1009, 2025, p. A65. 15

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.