Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Structure functions and flatness of streamwise velocity in a turbulent channel flow

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Near a wall, turbulence skips Kolmogorov scaling and follows two log-law regimes.

desk verdict A useful first map of near-wall structure functions, but the two-regime model rests on thin statistics and inconsistent formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05436 v1 pith:Y5U6Y6YO submitted 2025-06-05 physics.flu-dyn physics.data-an

Carlos Granero-Belinchon (ODYSSEY , IMT Atlantique - MEE , Lab-STICC_OSE) , Stéphane G. Roux (Phys-ENS) , Nicolas B. Garnier (Phys-ENS) This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dynphysics.data-an
keywords turbulentchannelflowstructurefunctionsflatnessnear-wallturbulencelogarithmicscalingshear-dominatedintermittencyKolmogorov
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 tries to establish that the streamwise velocity in a turbulent channel flow behaves differently in the near-wall layers than the classical picture assumes. Using direct numerical simulation data at friction Reynolds number 5200, it studies structure functions and flatness across the viscous, buffer, logarithmic, and outer layers. The paper claims that in the viscous and buffer layers the inertial range splits at a scale $d$ equal to three times the combined thickness of those layers into two shear-dominated logarithmic regimes: $S_p(l)=(E_p+D_p\log(l/d))^{p/2}$ below $d$ and $S_p(l)=(K_p+L_p\log(l/d))^{p/4}$ above $d$. In the viscous layer the flatness plateaus at $\log F = 0.41$ instead of returning to the Gaussian value 0, so velocity increments are non-Gaussian at every scale. If these scalings hold, near-wall turbulence is shear-controlled at all inertial scales and no single logarithmic model describes the structure functions.

What carries the argument

The organizing object is the flatness $F(l)=S_4(l)/(3S_2(l)^2)$ built from the second and fourth order structure functions of the streamwise velocity at fixed wall distance. The load-bearing device is a piecewise logarithmic ansatz for the structure functions in the near-wall layers: below $d$, $S_p(l)=(E_p+D_p\log(l/d))^{p/2}$; above $d$ up to $\delta$, $S_p(l)=(K_p+L_p\log(l/d))^{p/4}$. These forms correspond to an energy density scaling as $l^{-1}$ below $d$ and as $l^{-1}/\sqrt{\log l}$ above $d$. The crossover scale $d$ carries the argument: the same $d$ must collapse curves for all wall distances in the viscous and buffer regions and mark where the fourth-order structure function becomes linear in $\log(l/d)$.

What would settle it

Recompute the second and fourth order structure functions from the same DNS while varying the normalization scale $d$ over a range around three times the combined viscous-plus-buffer thickness: if the curves no longer collapse or the crossover moves away from $l=d$, the two-regime model is an artifact of the normalization. The predicted energy-density change, from $l^{-1}$ below $d$ to $l^{-1}/\sqrt{\log l}$ above $d$, also gives a spectral signature that can be checked independently from the streamwise spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an empirical scaling law for streamwise velocity increments in the viscous and buffer regions of a turbulent channel flow. For wall distances $\tilde{y}$ in these layers, the second and fourth order structure functions obey two consecutive logarithmic forms separated by one scale $d$: $S_p(l)=(E_p+D_p\log(l/d))^{p/2}$ for $\eta<l<d$, and $S_p(l)=(K_p+L_p\log(l/d))^{p/4}$ for $d<l<\delta$, with $d$ equal to three times the combined thickness of the viscous and buffer layers. The paper reports no $l^{p/3}$ Kolmogorov branch in these layers. It reports that the flatness in the viscous region approaches $\log F=0.41$ rather than 0, meaning that large-scale velocity increments keep heavy-tailed, non-Gaussian statistics, and that the flatness in the buffer region returns to Gaussian at large scales. In the logarithmic layer, the paper recovers the established structure-function behavior but finds the flatness better described by one linear log-normal law of slope $-0.1$ over the whole inertial domain.

Load-bearing premise

The whole near-wall result rests on one number: the transition scale $d$, fixed at three times the combined thickness of the viscous and buffer layers, which is assumed to collapse the structure functions for every wall distance in those layers and to mark the boundary between the two regimes; the paper assumes this scale rather than deriving it from the equations of motion or from an independent measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near-wall structure function models for the viscous and buffer layers should use the two-logarithm piecewise form rather than Kolmogorov scaling at any inertial scale.
  • In the viscous layer, the flatness plateau at $\log F=0.41$ rules out Gaussian large-scale statistics; any model of that layer must accommodate heavy-tailed velocity increments at all scales.
  • In the logarithmic layer, the flatness data favor a single linear intermittency law, which lets the intermittency parameter be read directly from a slope of $-0.1$ across the inertial range.
  • The crossover scale $d$ provides a normalization that collapses structure functions for different wall distances in the near-wall region, if $d$ is universal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Replotting the same data with $d$ varied by roughly $\pm 20\%$ would test whether the two-branch collapse is intrinsic or a consequence of the chosen normalization; the paper does not perform this sensitivity check.
  • The same two-regime law could be sought in boundary layers and pipe flows at matched $y^+$; the present analysis covers a single channel geometry and Reynolds number.
  • The plateau at $\log F=0.41$ suggests the viscous-layer increment distribution is a compound of a Gaussian core with strong dissipative events; conditioning the flatness on local dissipation would test that interpretation directly.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes second- and fourth-order structure functions and flatness of streamwise velocity in a turbulent channel flow, using a single spanwise transect of the JHU Channel5200 DNS database. It reports standard Kolmogorov/log-normal behavior in the outer layer and, in the logarithmic region, a structure-function behavior consistent with the Davidson et al. logarithmic law. The central new claim concerns the viscous and buffer regions: the paper proposes that the inertial range is split at a scale d into two shear-dominated subdomains, with S_p(l) = (E_p + D_p log(l/d))^{p/2} for eta < l < d and S_p(l) = (K_p + L_p log(l/d))^{p/4} for d < l < delta (Eqs. 24-25). It further claims that the viscous-layer flatness does not return to the Gaussian value but plateaus at log F = 0.41, indicating non-Gaussian fluctuations at all scales. The paper concludes that near-wall turbulence does not display Kolmogorov scaling at any scale in the viscous and buffer layers.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper would provide a useful quantitative description of near-wall structure functions and would challenge the expectation of a K41 inertial subrange close to the wall. The manuscript uses a public DNS dataset and successfully recovers known results in the outer and logarithmic regions, which serves as a useful sanity check. The proposed functional forms in Eqs. (24)-(25) are explicit and could in principle be tested against independent simulations. However, the new claims rest almost entirely on a single two-dimensional snapshot, on constants fitted to the same data used for validation, and on a transition scale d that is chosen rather than measured; the current evidence is therefore suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II; Figs. 3-4] The analysis is based on one instantaneous two-dimensional transect, and the structure functions are estimated by spatial averages only. At scales approaching the channel half-width delta, the streamwise domain of length 8pi contains only about 25 statistically independent increments, and the fourth-order moment is dominated by rare events; nevertheless, no error bars, confidence intervals, or bootstrap estimates are reported. The gray per-y curves in Fig. 4 visibly scatter, so the kink at l=d and the claimed viscous plateau at log F=0.41 cannot be distinguished from sampling fluctuations or from a single-regime model with noise without a statistical test. Please provide uncertainty estimates for S2, S4, and F, and compare the two-regime model against null hypotheses such as a single logarithmic region or K41 scaling with noise.
  2. [Table I; Eqs. (24)-(25); Figs. 3-4] All constants E_p, D_p, K_p, and L_p in Table I are fitted to the same DNS curves that are then displayed as the 'theoretical' model curves in Figs. 3-4. The agreement shown is therefore by construction and does not independently validate the model. The manuscript should specify the fitting procedure, report goodness-of-fit statistics, and include an out-of-sample test, for example by fitting on one portion of the streamwise domain and validating on another portion, or by using a different spanwise position or a different time snapshot.
  3. [Section III; definition of d] The transition scale d is introduced as three times the thickness of the viscous and buffer regions, following Ref. [7], but no measurement, equation, or fitting procedure establishes d as the scale at which the scaling actually changes. Since the abscissa is normalized by d and d controls the location of the kink in Eqs. (24)-(25), the claimed two-subdomain structure is not independent of the chosen normalization. Please estimate d from the data, for example by a breakpoint fit for each wall distance, report its uncertainty, and show that the two-regime model is statistically preferred over a single-regime description.
  4. [Abstract; Section IV; Fig. 4] The viscous plateau is reported inconsistently: the abstract states 'F(l)=0.41,' while Section IV and the caption of Fig. 4 state 'log F(l)=0.41.' With the flatness defined in Eq. (2) so that a Gaussian distribution has flatness 1, these two statements are very different (F about 1.51 versus 0.41), and the heavy-tail interpretation depends on which value is correct. Please state the plateau value consistently and give its uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] In the last row of Table I, the label in the second column reads 'L2,' but it should be 'L4' to match the K4 row above it.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption describes the dissipative-domain behavior as an 'exponential decrease l^p'; since l^p is a power law, this wording is misleading and should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (3) and Section II] The relation between the coordinate y and the wall distance \tilde y is not defined explicitly; please state that \tilde y is the distance to the nearest wall and clarify that the spatial average is taken at fixed \tilde y.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The flatness definition in Eq. (2) includes the factor 3, so the Gaussian value is 1 rather than 3; this convention is correct but should be stated explicitly in the text and in the caption of Fig. 4 to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-regime near-wall model is explicitly fit to the DNS data and is not presented as an independent first-principles prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central near-wall claims are empirical modeling statements, not disguised predictions. The structure-function model (Eqs. 24-25) is introduced with the phrase 'From figures 3 (2.) and 3 (1.), we propose the following model,' and the constants in Table I are described as 'obtained'/'measured' from the same DNS transect. This is transparent curve fitting rather than a circular derivation: the paper does not claim that the constants were fit to one subset and then used to predict an independent subset or a separate physical quantity. The flatness expressions (Eqs. 28-29) are algebraically derived from the fitted structure-function forms via the definition F = S4/(3 S2^2), and the text is appropriately cautious where they fail, e.g. 'the flatness from eq.(28) is plotted in cyan for this region but it does not correctly model the observed flatness.' No self-citation is load-bearing: the single self-citation [21] is used alongside [15,16,20] only to support the standard log-normal intermittency coefficient c2 used in the outer-layer and log-layer benchmarks, which are compared against well-established literature behavior. The transition scale d is justified by an external citation to Jimenez [7], not by a self-citation chain or by an equation that assumes the conclusion. Statistical concerns about the single 2D transect, lack of error bars, and small effective sample at large l are robustness/correctness issues and do not amount to circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central new claims depend on the fitted constants in Table I, the chosen normalization scale d, and the assumed validity of the DNS and literature benchmarks. The paper does not introduce new physical entities.

free parameters (8)
  • E2, D2 (logarithmic region) = 0.67, 0.44
    Fitted to S2(l) in the log-layer via Eq. (16).
  • E4, D4 (logarithmic region) = 1.31, 0.69
    Fitted to S4(l) in the log-layer via Eq. (16).
  • E2, D2, E4, D4 (buffer region) = 1.22, 0.50, 2.20, 0.80
    Fitted to S2 and S4 via Eq. (24) for the buffer region.
  • K2, L2, K4, L4 (buffer region) = 1.35, 0.80, 4.50, 2.10
    Fitted to S2 and S4 via Eq. (25) for the buffer region; L4 is mislabeled as L2 in Table I.
  • E2, D2, E4, D4 (viscous region) = 1.55, 0.65, 3.80, 1.40
    Fitted to S2 and S4 via Eq. (24) for the viscous region.
  • K2, L2, K4, L4 (viscous region) = 2.62, 0.42, 12.00, 1.90
    Fitted to S2 and S4 via Eq. (25) for the viscous region; L4 is mislabeled as L2 in Table I.
  • transition scale d = 0.057 (3 times the combined buffer+viscous thickness)
    Chosen ad hoc as the scale that collapses the near-wall structure functions; no independent derivation is given.
  • exponent p/4 in Eq. (25) = p/4
    Hand-chosen to make S4 linear in log(l/d) for d<l<delta; not derived from theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The JHU DNS Channel5200 dataset accurately represents a fully developed turbulent channel flow at Re_tau=5200.
    The paper assumes the public DNS data is trustworthy and converged for structure function estimation.
  • domain assumption A single 2D transect at z=3*pi/2 provides sufficient spatial samples for converged S2, S4, and flatness at all scales.
    No convergence tests or error bars are shown; ergodicity of one transect is assumed.
  • domain assumption The log-normal model with c2=0.025 is the correct intermittency benchmark for the outer layer.
    Taken from prior experimental fits [15,16,20,21]; used to interpret flatness slopes.
  • domain assumption The Davidson et al. logarithmic structure function law (Eq. 16) is the correct model for the logarithmic layer.
    Used as the benchmark for S2 and S4 in the log region; constants are refit here.
  • ad hoc to paper The near-wall region has a single characteristic scale, justifying normalization by d.
    Cited to Jimenez [7], but the specific value d=3 times the viscous+buffer thickness is chosen by the authors to make data collapse.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy density in the near-wall inertial subdomains scales as l^{-1} and l^{-1}/sqrt(log(l/d)).
    This is inferred from the fitted structure function forms, not measured or derived independently.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure functions and flatness of streamwise velocity in a turbulent channel flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5U6Y6YO

@misc{pith2026250605436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure functions and flatness of streamwise velocity in a turbulent channel flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5U6Y6YO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05436}
}
read the original abstract

In this article, we present a multiscale characterization of the streamwise velocity of a turbulent channel flow. We study the 2nd and 4th order structure functions and the flatness for scales ranging from the dissipative to the integral domains and for a wide range of distances to the walls spanning four distinct regions of the channel. We characterize the impact of the shear stress induced by the walls on these statistics. Far from the walls, in the outer layer, the impact of the boundaries on the flow is negligible and the flow statistics follow the Kolmogorov-Obukhov theory. In the viscous, buffer and logarithmic regions, the inertial domain can be split in two subdomains of scales with two different statistical behaviors. In the logarithmic region, the scaling of the structure functions agrees with the model of Davidson et al. 2006 but the scaling of the flatness seems to better correspond to the characterization of intermittency proposed by Kolmogorov and Obukhov in 1962. The structure functions and flatness of the streamwise velocity in the buffer and viscous regions are studied for the first time. We show the strong non-Gaussianity of the velocity flow at any scale in the viscous layer with strong intermittent events that may correspond to high shear-induced dissipation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Two-dimensional transect of streamwise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mean streamwise velocity profile in function of the logarithm log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Jimenez, Near-wall turbulence, Physics of Fluids 25 (2013) 101302

    J. Jimenez, Near-wall turbulence, Physics of Fluids 25 (2013) 101302

    work page 2013

  2. [1]

    L. F. Richardson, Some measurements of atmospheric turbulence, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Containing papers of a mathematical or physical character 221 (1921) 1–28

    work page 1921

  3. [2]

    Frisch, Turbulence: the legacy of A.N

    U. Frisch, Turbulence: the legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov, Cambridge University Press, 1995

    work page 1995

  4. [3]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large Reynolds numbers, Proceedings: Mathematical and Physical Sciences 434 (1890) (1991) 9–13

    work page 1991

  5. [4]

    R. J. Adrian, C. D. Meinhart, C. D. Tomkins, Vortex organization in the outer region of the turbulent boundary layer, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 422 (2000) 1–54

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    Marusic, J

    I. Marusic, J. P. Monty, Attached eddy model of wall turbulence, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 51 (2019) 49–74

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Hwang, H

    J. Hwang, H. J. Sung, Wall-attached structures of velocity fluctuations in a turbulent boundary layer, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 856 (2018) 958–983

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    S. G. Saddoughi, S. V. Veeravali, Local isotropy in turbulent boundary layers at high Reynolds number, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 268 (1994) 333–372

    work page 1994

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Jimenez, How linear is wall-bounded turbulence?, Physics of Fluids 25 (2013) 110814

    J. Jimenez, How linear is wall-bounded turbulence?, Physics of Fluids 25 (2013) 110814

    2013

  2. [10]

    Samie, I

    M. Samie, I. Marusic, N. Hutchins, M. K. Fu, Y. Fan, M. Hultmark, A. J. Smits, Fully resolved measurements of turbulent boundary layer flows up to Reτ = 20000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 851 (2018) 391–415

    2018

  3. [11]

    Hutchins, I

    N. Hutchins, I. Marusic, Evidence of very long meandering features in the logarithmic region of turbulent boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 579 (2007) 1–28

    2007

  4. [12]

    Theodorsen, Mechanism of turbulence, in: Proceedings of the Midwestern Conference on Fluid Mechanics, 1952

    T. Theodorsen, Mechanism of turbulence, in: Proceedings of the Midwestern Conference on Fluid Mechanics, 1952

    1952

  5. [13]

    R. J. Adrian, Hairpin vortex organization in wall turbulence, Physics of Fluids 19 (2007) 0413101

    2007

  6. [14]

    Cantwell, D

    B. Cantwell, D. Coles, P. Dimotakis, Structure and entrainment in the plane of symmetry of a turbulent spot, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 87 (4) (1978) 641–672

    1978

  7. [15]

    Dubrulle, Beyond Kolmogorov cascades, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 867 (2019) P1

    B. Dubrulle, Beyond Kolmogorov cascades, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 867 (2019) P1

    2019

  8. [16]

    Paladin, A

    G. Paladin, A. Vulpiani, Anomalous scaling laws in multifractal objects, Physics Reports 156 (4) (1987) 147–225

    1987

  9. [17]

    Delour, J

    J. Delour, J. Muzy, A. Arn´ eodo, Intermittency of 1d velocity spatial profiles in turbulence: a magnitude cumulant analysis, The European Physical Journal B 23 (2) (2001) 243–248

    2001

  10. [18]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, A refinement of previous hypotheses concerning the local structure of turbulence in a viscous incom- pressible fluid at high Reynolds number, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 13 (1962) 82–85

    1962

  11. [19]

    A. M. Obukhov, Some specific features of atmospheric turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 13 (1962) 77–81

    1962

  12. [20]

    Chevillard, B

    L. Chevillard, B. Castaing, A. Arneodo, E. L´ evˆ eque, J. Pinton, S. Roux, A phenomenological theory of eulerian and lagrangian velocity fluctuations in turbulent flows, Comptes Rendus Physique 13 (9) (2012) 899 – 928

    2012

  13. [21]

    Granero-Belinchon, S

    C. Granero-Belinchon, S. G. Roux, N. B. Garnier, Kullback-Leibler divergence measure of intermittency: Application to turbulence, Physical Review E 97 (2018) 013107

    2018

  14. [22]

    Z.-S. She, E. Leveque, Universal scaling laws in fully developed turbulence, Physics Review Letters 72 (1994) 336–339

    1994

  15. [23]

    G. K. Bachelor, Pressure fluctuations in isotropic turbulence, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 47 (1951) 359–374

    1951

  16. [24]

    Chevillard, B

    L. Chevillard, B. Castaing, E. L´ evˆ eque, On the rapid increase of intermittency in the near-dissipationrange of fully developed turbulence, The European Physical Journal B 45 (2005) 561–567

    2005

  17. [25]

    C. B. Millikan, A critical discussion of turbulent flows in channels and circular tubes, in: Wiley (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Applied Mechanics, 1938, pp. 386–392

    1938

  18. [26]

    Tennekes, J

    H. Tennekes, J. L. Lumley, A first course in turbulence, MIT press, 1972

    1972

  19. [27]

    A. A. Townsend, Equilibrium layers and wall turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 11 (1961) 97–120. 10

    1961

  20. [28]

    G. J. Kunkel, I. Marusic, Study of the near-wall turbulent region of the high-Reynolds-number boundary layer using atmospheric data, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 548 (2006) 375–402

    2006

  21. [29]

    Hultmark, M

    M. Hultmark, M. Vallikivi, S. C. C. Bailey, A. J. Smits, Turbulent pipe flow at extreme Reynolds numbers, Physical Review Letters 108 (2012) 094501

    2012

  22. [30]

    Marusic, J

    I. Marusic, J. P. Monty, M. Hultmark, A. J. Smits, On the logarithmic region in wall turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 716 (2013) R3

    2013

  23. [31]

    C. M. de Silva, I. Marusic, J. D. Woodcock, C. Meneveau, Scaling of second-and higher-order structure functions in turbulent boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 769 (2015) 654–686

    2015

  24. [32]

    Dubrulle, Log at first sight, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1000 (2024) F6

    B. Dubrulle, Log at first sight, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1000 (2024) F6

    2024

  25. [33]

    Toschi, G

    F. Toschi, G. Amati, S. Succi, R. Benzi, R. Piva, Intermittency and structure functions in channel flow turbulence, Physical Review Letters 82 (25) (1999) 5044–5047

    1999

  26. [34]

    P. A. Davidson, T. B. Nickels, P. A. Krogstad, The logarithmic structure function law in wall-layer turbulence, Journal of Fluid Mechanics (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    P. A. Davidson, P. A. Krogstad, A universal scaling for low-order structure functions in the log-law region of smooth- and rough-wall boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 752 (2014) 140–156

    2014

  28. [36]

    M. Lee, R. D. Moser, Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Re τ = 5200, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 774 (2015) 395–415

    2015

  29. [37]

    P. A. Davidson, P. A. Krogstad, T. B. Nickels, A refined interpretation of the logarithmic structure function law in wall layer turbulence, Physics of Fluids 18 (6) (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    P. A. Davidson, P. A. Krogstad, A simple model for the streamwise fluctuations in the log-law region of a boundary layer, Physics of Fluids 21 (5) (2009) 055105

    2009

  31. [39]

    A. A. R. Townsend, The structure of turbulent shear flow, Cambridge University Press, 1976

    1976

  32. [40]

    Marusic, R

    I. Marusic, R. J. Adrian, Ten Chapters in Turbulence, Cambridge University Press, 2013, Ch. The Eddies and Scales of Wall Turbulence, pp. 176–220

    2013

Pith tools

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