Evolution of Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence under vorticity and strain-rate control

Dongxiao Zhao; Gaojin Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Evolution of Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence under vorticity and strain-rate control

T0 review · 2 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 Selectively damping the most intense vorticity or strain-rate regions in Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence suppresses mixing, preserves coherent vertical bubbles and spikes, and increases anisotropy; when the control threshold falls below the…

desk verdict A competent DNS transfer of smart drag control to Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence with a genuinely interesting vorticity-versus-strain comparison, but the central causal reading needs a sham-mask control and a missing 1/ρ in Eq. (10) should be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07012 v1 pith:WOWS6G53 submitted 2025-06-08 physics.flu-dyn

Dongxiao Zhao , Gaojin Li This is my paper

classification physics.flu-dyn MSC 76E1776F2576F65

keywords Rayleigh-Taylorinstabilityturbulencesuppressionvorticitycontrolstrain-ratemixinganisotropysmall-scalestructuresdrag

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 claims that the most intense small-scale swirling and stretching motions in Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence are not passive by-products but active drivers of mixing, energy transfer, and isotropy. By adding a drag force only where vorticity or strain rate exceeds a threshold, the authors find that the flow reorganises into regular, vertically aligned bubbles and spikes; mixing drops, horizontal motion is suppressed, and anisotropy persists at all scales. The key threshold result is that when the control level is set so the drag acts on everything above the spatial mean of vorticity or strain rate, turbulence is largely extinguished. If correct, the work turns a control technique into a causal probe: it identifies the intense small-scale structures as the agents that keep Rayleigh-Taylor flow turbulent and well mixed.

What carries the argument

The paper's central object is a smart local drag control, $f_c = c(x,t)\rho u$, with coefficient $c(x,t) = A_c\{1+\tanh(|\omega|-\omega_p)\}/2$ for vorticity control and the same form with $|S|$ and $S_p$ for strain-rate control, where $\omega_p = p\max|\omega|$, $S_p = p\max|S|$, and $A_c = \sqrt{Ag/L_c}$. This term acts as a sink in the kinetic-energy, enstrophy, and squared-strain budgets, preferentially removing the extreme tail of the small-scale fields. The argument is carried by comparing controlled simulations against baseline and uniformly lower-Reynolds-number simulations, together with budget decompositions, filtering spectra, alignment statistics, and joint PDFs of the velocity-gradient invariants $Q$ and $R$.

What would settle it

Run the same simulations with the drag law of the strongest vorticity-controlled case applied to randomly chosen subdomains matched in volume fraction to the automatically selected high-vorticity regions; if the mixing width, anisotropy, and overlap measure $\Phi$ reproduce the controlled results, the reorganisation is an artifact of drag rather than evidence that extreme vorticity drives Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that intense small-scale vorticity and strain-rate structures carry the cascade and maintain isotropy in Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence. In simulations with a drag term $f_c = c(x,t)\rho u$ active only where $|\omega|$ or $|S|$ exceeds $p\max|\omega|$ or $p\max|S|$, flows with $p=0.2$ (threshold below the spatial mean) show delayed mixing-width growth, asymptotic mixedness reduced from about 0.8 to about 0.723, kinetic energy mostly vertical (over 85%), and scale-by-scale anisotropy instead of the baseline pattern of large-scale anisotropy with small-scale isotropy. Vorticity and scalar-gradient alignments with the strain-rate eigenframe shift in a way that weakens the downscale flux of kinetic energy and scalar variance. At the same control level, vorticity control suppresses turbulence more effectively than strain-rate control. The authors conclude that extreme vorticity and strain events are causally important for mixing, the cascade, and isotropization in Rayleigh-Taylor flows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a drag force applied exactly where vorticity or strain rate is large is a faithful probe of what those small-scale structures do, rather than an artificial disturbance that creates the very ordering it is used to explain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Setting the control threshold below the mean vorticity or strain-rate value ($p=0.2$ here) suppresses Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence: mixing-width growth slows and the asymptotic mixedness parameter falls from about 0.8 to about 0.723.
Suppressing the extreme small-scale tails eliminates Kelvin-Helmholtz roll-up at the interface, so bubbles and spikes stay coherent and vertically aligned; in the strongest vorticity-controlled case more than 85% of kinetic energy is vertical.
Vorticity control outperforms strain-rate control at the same threshold even though the strain-rate control injects a larger cumulative drag, indicating that vortex stretching and nonlinear scale interactions are the primary targeted mechanism.
Flow control strengthens the alignment of vorticity with the intermediate strain eigenvector and weakens the alignment of the scalar gradient with the smallest eigenvector, reducing the downscale cascade of kinetic energy and scalar variance.
Extreme vorticity and strain regions become spatially overlapping in controlled flows ($\Phi \approx 0.5$ versus about 0.3 in the baseline), a signature of coherent shear layers rather than chaotic turbulence.
Preferential control is more effective at suppressing turbulence than uniformly increasing viscosity, even when the uniformly viscous case has a lower Reynolds number.

Reading between the lines

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

If the causal reading transfers to other settings, rotating or magnetized Rayleigh-Taylor flows should show the same fingerprints before full suppression: vertically coherent bubble-spike structures, a high fraction of vertical kinetic energy, and overlapping high-vorticity and high-strain regions; existing simulation data on those flows could be checked for these signatures.
The threshold-below-the-mean criterion offers a cheap predictor for when an external stabilizing mechanism begins to laminarize Rayleigh-Taylor mixing: once effective small-scale activity is pushed below its own spatial mean, turbulence should abruptly reorganize rather than gradually weaken.
The comparison with the uniformly viscous low-Reynolds case suggests that targeted dissipation at extreme events, rather than global viscosity, is the efficient route to relaminarization; this may inform actuator or additive-based drag-reduction designs, though the drag law used here is idealized.
A direct measurement of the scalar-variance flux in physical space would test whether the altered scalar-gradient alignment indeed lowers mixing efficiency; the paper infers this from spectra and alignment statistics.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline: this is a solid, competent DNS study that transfers Buzzicotti et al.'s smart drag control to Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence and uses it to ask which small-scale structures matter for mixing, cascade, and isotropization. The comparison between vorticity-targeted and strain-targeted control, plus the budget and alignment analysis, is genuinely new relative to the cited literature. But the central causal reading is only partly earned: the drag acts in the very regions whose importance it claims to test, and the paper never runs a sham control (random mask or fixed mask at equal power). That doesn't sink the paper, but it caps how strongly the conclusions can be stated.

What's actually new and good: applying the control to inhomogeneous anisotropic RT flow, deriving the enstrophy and strain-rate budget terms including control, showing that vorticity control outperforms strain control at the same p, the scale-dependent anisotropy changes, and the altered alignment PDFs. The lowRe comparison in Fig. A2 is a nice check: it rules out the trivial explanation that the results simply reflect lower Reynolds number. The diagnostics are multiple and mutually consistent, and the qualitative claims are supported by spectra, budgets, and visualizations.

Soft spots. First, circularity. Because c(x,t) is built from the same field being tested and updated from the instantaneous global maximum, the mask is not an inert scale filter. The control term actively creates enstrophy via -∇×(cu)/ρ in Eq. (11), and Fig. 13(c) shows the active volume fraction grows with h for W02/S02, with Fig. 11(d) showing the control term comparable to the viscous term. A strong localized drag that happens to suppress horizontal motions at bubble and spike sides could produce the observed coherence and vertical alignment on its own, without telling us about the role of small-scale vorticity in the uncontrolled cascade. A run with the same drag power applied to a random or passive mask would isolate this. As written, the claim that damping intense small-scale structures causally reduces the cascade and isotropization is plausible but not fully demonstrated.

Second, Eq. (10) appears to have a missing 1/ρ on the control term. As written, u·f_c = cρ|u|², while the analog terms in Eqs. (11)-(12) divide by ρ. The cumulative KE control in Eq. (13) inherits this, so Fig. 4(d) weights dense-fluid regions differently and could affect the W02-vs-S02 efficiency comparison. Minor fix, but it should be corrected and the conclusion checked.

Third, the results rest on single realizations at 256³, with no controlled run at the higher resolution. That is normal for this kind of study, but it is a reason to keep the claims moderate.

Who this is for: people working on RT turbulence, mixing, and flow-control diagnostics. It deserves a serious referee. The flaws I list are fixable, and the core idea is worth airing. I would send it to review with the expectation that the circularity issue is at least discussed and Eq. (10) is fixed.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper uses direct numerical simulations of three-dimensional Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instability with a preferential drag control applied in regions of high vorticity (p = 0.5, 0.35, 0.2) or high strain rate (p = 0.2), comparing with baseline, higher-resolution, and lower-Reynolds-number runs. It reports that stronger control produces more vertically coherent bubble/spike structures, lower mixedness (Theta), enhanced anisotropy across scales, altered alignment of vorticity and scalar gradients with the strain-rate eigenframe, reduced downscale kinetic-energy and scalar-variance flux, and near-complete turbulence suppression when the threshold p*max(|omega|) drops below the mean value. The authors interpret these effects as evidence that intense small-scale vorticity and strain-rate structures drive mixing, isotropization, and the cascade in RT turbulence, and suggest implications for RT flows under magnetic fields or rotation.

Significance. If the causal interpretation is valid, the paper offers a novel diagnostic route to the role of small-scale structures in RT turbulence and could inform MHD and rotational analogues. The manuscript is strong on diagnostics: it presents well-defined control terms in the kinetic-energy, enstrophy, and strain-rate budgets (Eqs. (10)-(12)), filtering spectra, alignment PDFs, and joint Q-R statistics, and it includes a useful comparison showing that targeted control differs from a uniform viscosity increase. The paper does not include machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, but the numerical setup is clearly specified. The main weakness is that the control is not a neutral probe; the causal claims require additional control experiments or a careful reformulation.

major comments (2)

[II, Eqs. (5) and (8); Figs. 11(d) and 13(c)] The central causal claim is that damping intense small-scale vorticity or strain-rate regions reveals the dynamical role of these structures in driving mixing, isotropization, and the cascade. This reading is not uniquely supported because the control mask is constructed from the very field being tested: c(x,t) is a function of |omega| (or |S|) and of p*max(|omega|), and the drag -c rho u acts in exactly those regions. A strong localized drag can mechanically produce the reported effects--vertical elongation of bubbles and spikes, reduced horizontal motion, lower mixedness, and enhanced anisotropy--without implying that the targeted structures are causally important in the uncontrolled RT cascade. Fig. 13(c) shows that for W02 and S02 the active volume fraction is not small (of order 0.2 and growing with h), and Fig. 11(d) shows the control term is comparable in magnitude to the viscous and stretching terms, so the control is not a weak or surgical probe. No sham, random-mask, or passive-field-mask control with matched total drag is presented. I recommend adding such control runs (for example, a random fixed mask with the same volume fraction and drag amplitude, or a mask based on the vorticity of a frozen or decoupled field) and/or explicitly reframing the conclusions as the effects of this particular drag control. This is required to support the paper's diagnostic interpretation.
[III.D, Fig. 13(c)-(d); Section IV] The claim that turbulence is "significantly suppressed" when the control threshold falls below the spatial mean is partly written into the threshold definition: since omega_p = p*max(|omega|), any p below mean/max implies the drag is active over a large portion of the domain (Fig. 13(d)). The quantitative degree of suppression is still informative, but the framing as a discovered critical threshold should be tested, for example by comparing with a random mask having the same active volume fraction and drag amplitude, or by checking whether the suppression changes discontinuously as p crosses the mean value. Similarly, the W02 versus S02 comparison (Section III.A and Fig. 4) is not matched by active volume fraction: Fig. 13(c) shows that the W02 and S02 masks occupy different volume fractions, so the conclusion that vorticity control is more effective than strain-rate control may be confounded by the different spatial extents of the two controls. Matching the volume fraction or the cumulative drag power between the two control types would make that comparison quantitative.

minor comments (4)

[II, Eq. (10) and Fig. 4(d)] In Eq. (10), the control contribution is written as -u dot f_c, whereas Eqs. (11) and (12) use -omega dot curl(f_c/rho) and -S : grad(f_c/rho). For the per-mass kinetic energy budget, the term should be -u dot (f_c/rho) = -c |u|^2, not -u dot f_c. Please correct the equation and the corresponding definition in Eq. (13) and Fig. 4(d), or explicitly state the convention used.
[III.C, Fig. 9(b)] In the discussion near Fig. 9(b), the expression "|cos(nabla Y, e_alpha)| approx |cos(nabla Y, e_gamma) approx 0.7" has a missing parenthesis and appears to conflate two equalities; it should read "|cos(nabla Y, e_alpha)| approx |cos(nabla Y, e_gamma)| approx 0.7" or similar, and the typo "respectivly" in Section III.C should be corrected.
[Table I and Section III] Each case in Table I is a single realization; although the domain is large and the Refine case supports resolution, the quantitative comparisons (such as Theta approx 0.723 for W02 and the ratios in Figs. 3 and 7) carry no uncertainty estimates. Please state whether initial-condition sensitivity was assessed, or temper the quantitative precision of these statements.
[Introduction and Conclusions] The stated implications for RT flows under magnetic fields or rotation are speculative, since no MHD or rotating calculations are reported. Suggest presenting these connections as open questions or adding a direct test, to avoid overstating the analogy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the controlled RT simulations use an externally introduced drag law, and the reported effects are measured DNS outputs, not consequences derived from the definitions.

full rationale

This paper is a numerical intervention study, not a derivation chain. The control law fc = c rho u, with c = Ac{1 + tanh(|omega| - omega_p)}/2 or the analogous strain-rate form, is adopted explicitly from Ref. [1] (Buzzicotti, Biferale, and Toschi), which is external to the present authors. No load-bearing premise is justified by a self-citation: the self-citations to Refs. [20], [21], [24], [29], and [32]-[34] are methodological or supportive references for the numerical scheme, filtering-spectrum diagnostics, and previous RT results, and they do not supply the central claim. The central observations — organized bubble/spike structures, reduced mixedness, enhanced anisotropy, altered alignment statistics, the vorticity-versus-strain asymmetry, and the increased overlap ratio Phi — are computed from the simulated fields and are not algebraic consequences of the control definition. The statement that turbulent motion is significantly suppressed when the control threshold falls below the mean is an empirical threshold observed in the measured response (Fig. 13), not an equation that reduces to the definition of p. While the active volume fraction naturally grows when p max|omega| falls below the mean, the paper measures the resulting suppression, energy budgets, and structural changes rather than asserting them by construction. The absence of a random-mask or sham-control run is a possible confound for the causal interpretation of the forcing, and the magnetic/rotational analogy is asserted rather than tested, but these are validity and correctness concerns, not circularity in the derivation chain. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen simulation setup parameters, chiefly the control threshold p and amplitude Ac, and on modeling assumptions that the drag control is diagnostic rather than artifactual, that low-Mach single-realization DNS is representative, and that the scheme analogizes to magnetic and rotational suppression. No new physical entities are introduced; the control forcing is borrowed from Buzzicotti et al. (2020).

free parameters (5)

Control threshold fraction p = 0.5, 0.35, 0.2 reported; 0.7 and 0.85 tested and excluded
Defines the fraction of the maximum vorticity or strain-rate magnitude used as the control threshold; the central suppression results depend on this parameter.
Control amplitude Ac = 1.97 (defined as sqrt(Ag/Lc))
Sets the overall drag magnitude; fixed by hand across all cases and directly controls the strength of the forcing.
Atwood number A = 0.15
Single density contrast selected for all simulations; results are not tested at other Atwood numbers.
Inverse static Reynolds number 1/ReS = 2.5e-5 for base and controlled cases, 1.0e-5 for Refine, 3.75e-5 for lowRe
Sets the viscosity level; affects turbulence intensity and the comparison between control and uniform viscosity increase.
Initial perturbation spectral band = k in [16,32]
Single initial velocity perturbation is used for all cases; no sensitivity study over initial conditions is reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The low-Mach compressible Navier-Stokes equations (3)-(6) with ideal-gas closure are a valid model for the Rayleigh-Taylor flows studied here.
The paper states the flows are nearly incompressible and low Mach, but all conclusions are drawn from this one regime.
domain assumption A single initial perturbation realization is representative of Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence statistics.
All cases share one initial condition and no ensemble averaging is performed, so statistical generality is assumed rather than demonstrated.
ad hoc to paper The selective drag term is a faithful diagnostic of the causal role of small-scale structures and a valid analogue of magnetic-field or rotational suppression.
This is the motivating assumption of the paper and its weakest point; no magnetohydrodynamic or rotating Rayleigh-Taylor comparison is provided.
standard math Filtering spectra and budget decompositions from Refs. [20,21,29] are valid tools for inhomogeneous Rayleigh-Taylor flows.
The paper relies on these techniques without deriving them, treating them as accepted background methods.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence under vorticity and strain-rate control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WOWS6G53

@misc{pith2026250607012,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence under vorticity and strain-rate control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WOWS6G53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07012}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate the role of small-scale structures in turbulent Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) flows through the application of preferential flow control targeting high vorticity or high strain-rate regions (Buzzicotti et al. 2020). Through numerical simulations, we analyze the effects of flow control on RT statistics, mixing, and anisotropy behavior. Our results reveal that eliminating intense small-scale motion leads to the formation of more organized and coherent flow structures, with reduced mixing and enhanced anisotropy. The alignment of vorticity and scalar gradient with the strain-rate eigen-frame is also altered by the flow control, reducing the downscale cascade of kinetic energy and the scalar variance. When the control threshold is set below the spatial mean of the vorticity or strain-rate field, turbulent motion in RT is significantly suppressed. Moreover, flow control eliminates regions of extreme vorticity and strain-rate, leading to overlapped high vorticity and high strain-rate regions with reduced turbulence intensity and more coherent structures. These findings provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental mechanisms played by small-scale structures in RT flows and their modulation through flow control. This work has broader implications for realistic scenarios, such as RT flows under magnetic fields or rotation, where suppression of small-scale motions plays a critical role.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07012 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (a) Time evolution of the mixing width for the cases illustrated in Fig. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (a) Total interface area as a function of the mixing width. An auxiliary line [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (13 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Evolution of mean kinetic energy (a), squared vorticity (b), and squared strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: The mean cumulative budgets in enstrophy (panels (a)-(c)) and squared-strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Filtering spectra of mass fraction (a), normalized velocity (b), and normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Evolution of the ratio of the mean vertical component of (a) velocity, (b) vorticity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Evolution of the spectra ratio between vertical and horizontal components: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Alignment statistics between the eigenvectors of the strain-rate tensor and (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: The alignment between the three strain rate eigenvectors and the terms on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: The temporal evolution of the average mean magnitude of the vorticity budgets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12: The temporal evolution of the average mean magnitude of the scalar gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: The PDFs of the vorticity magnitude (a) and the strain-rate magnitude (b) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14: The joint PDFs of the normalized second and third velocity gradient invariants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_14.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15: The joint PDFs between the squared magnitudes of strain-rate and vorticity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png]

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16: (a) and (b) Visualizations of the vorticity (red) and strain-rate (green) isosurfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[1]

Statistical properties of turbulence in the presence of a smart small-scale control.Physical Review Letters, 124(8):084504, 2020

Michele Buzzicotti, Luca Biferale, and Federico Toschi. Statistical properties of turbulence in the presence of a smart small-scale control.Physical Review Letters, 124(8):084504, 2020

work page 2020
[2]

Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing

Ye Zhou. Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. i.Physics Reports, 720:1–136, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing

Ye Zhou. Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. ii.Physics Reports, 723:1–160, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Incompressible rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 49:119–143, 2017

Guido Boffetta and Andrea Mazzino. Incompressible rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 49:119–143, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Turbulence with large thermal and compositional density variations.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 52:309–341, 2020

Daniel Livescu. Turbulence with large thermal and compositional density variations.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 52:309–341, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Rayleigh– 34 taylor and richtmyer-meshkov instabilities: A journey through scales.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, page 132838, 2021

Ye Zhou, Robin JR Williams, Praveen Ramaprabhu, Michael Groom, Ben Thornber, Andrew Hillier, Wouter Mostert, Bertrand Rollin, S Balachandar, Phillip D Powell, et al. Rayleigh– 34 taylor and richtmyer-meshkov instabilities: A journey through scales.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, page 132838, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Type ia supernova explosion models.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 38(1):191–230, 2000

Wolfgang Hillebrandt and Jens C Niemeyer. Type ia supernova explosion models.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 38(1):191–230, 2000

work page 2000
[8]

Instabilities and clumping in type ia supernova remnants.The Astrophysical Journal, 549(2):1119, 2001

Chih-Yueh Wang and Roger A Chevalier. Instabilities and clumping in type ia supernova remnants.The Astrophysical Journal, 549(2):1119, 2001

work page 2001

Show all 47 references

[10]

Inertial-confinement fusion with lasers.Nature Physics, 12(5):435, 2016

R Betti and OA Hurricane. Inertial-confinement fusion with lasers.Nature Physics, 12(5):435, 2016

2016
[11]

Nonlinear excitation of the ablative rayleigh-taylor instability for all wave numbers.Physical Review E, 97(1):011203, 2018

H Zhang, R Betti, V Gopalaswamy, R Yan, and H Aluie. Nonlinear excitation of the ablative rayleigh-taylor instability for all wave numbers.Physical Review E, 97(1):011203, 2018

2018
[12]

Direct-drive laser fusion: status, plans and future.Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2189):20200011, 2021

EM Campbell, TC Sangster, VN Goncharov, JD Zuegel, SFB Morse, C Sorce, GW Collins, MS Wei, R Betti, SP Regan, et al. Direct-drive laser fusion: status, plans and future.Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 379(2189):20200011, 2021

2021
[13]

Flame propagation along a vortex: the baroclinic push.Combustion Science and Technology, 112(1):175–185, 1996

Wm T Ashurst. Flame propagation along a vortex: the baroclinic push.Combustion Science and Technology, 112(1):175–185, 1996

1996
[14]

J. J. Keenan, D. V. Makarov, and V. V. Molkov. Rayleigh–taylor instability: Modelling and effect on coherent deflagrations.Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 39(35):20467–20473, 2014

2014
[15]

J. P. Sykes, T. P. Gallagher, and B. A. Rankin. Effects of rayleigh-taylor instabilities on turbulent premixed flames in a curved rectangular duct.Proc. Combust. Inst., 38(4):6059– 6066, 2021

2021
[16]

Cambridge University Press, 2024

Ye Zhou.Hydrodynamic Instabilities and Turbulence: Rayleigh–Taylor, Richtmyer–Meshkov, and Kelvin–Helmholtz Mixing. Cambridge University Press, 2024

2024
[17]

H. Qi, Z. He, A. Xu, and Y. Zhang. The vortex structure and enstrophy of the mixing transition induced by rayleigh–taylor instability.Phys. Fluids, 36(11), 2024

2024
[18]

R. Stanway. Smart fluids: current and future developments.Materials Science and Technology, 20(8):931–939, 2004

2004
[19]

Dissipated power within a turbulent flow forced homogeneously by magnetic particles.Phys

Eric Falcon, Jean-Claude Bacri, and Claude Laroche. Dissipated power within a turbulent flow forced homogeneously by magnetic particles.Phys. Rev. Fluids, 2:102601, Oct 2017. 35

2017
[20]

Scale interactions and anisotropy in rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 930:A29, 2022

Dongxiao Zhao, Riccardo Betti, and Hussein Aluie. Scale interactions and anisotropy in rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 930:A29, 2022

2022
[21]

Multi-scale dynamics in rayleigh-taylor turbu- lent mixing.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 802:395–436, 2025

Dongxiao Zhao, Hussein Aluie, and Gaojin Li. Multi-scale dynamics in rayleigh-taylor turbu- lent mixing.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 802:395–436, 2025

2025
[22]

University of Washing- ton, 1995

Donald Leon Sandoval.The dynamics of variable-density turbulence. University of Washing- ton, 1995

1995
[23]

Lagrangian statistics from direct numerical simulations of isotropic turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 207:531–586, 1989

Pui-Kuen Yeung and Stephen B Pope. Lagrangian statistics from direct numerical simulations of isotropic turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 207:531–586, 1989

1989
[24]

Revisiting the late-time growth of single-mode rayleigh–taylor instability and the role of vorticity.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 403:132250, 2020

Xin Bian, Hussein Aluie, Dongxiao Zhao, Huasen Zhang, and Daniel Livescu. Revisiting the late-time growth of single-mode rayleigh–taylor instability and the role of vorticity.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 403:132250, 2020

2020
[25]

The mixing transition in rayleigh–taylor instability.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 511:333–362, 2004

Andrew W Cook, William Cabot, and Paul L Miller. The mixing transition in rayleigh–taylor instability.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 511:333–362, 2004

2004
[26]

3d simulations to investigate initial condition effects on the growth of rayleigh–taylor mixing.International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 52(17-18):3906–3917, 2009

Arindam Banerjee and Malcolm J Andrews. 3d simulations to investigate initial condition effects on the growth of rayleigh–taylor mixing.International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 52(17-18):3906–3917, 2009

2009
[27]

Reynolds number effects on rayleigh–taylor instability with possible implications for type ia supernovae.Nature Physics, 2(8):562–568, 2006

William H Cabot and Andrew W Cook. Reynolds number effects on rayleigh–taylor instability with possible implications for type ia supernovae.Nature Physics, 2(8):562–568, 2006

2006
[28]

Lorensen and Harvey E

William E. Lorensen and Harvey E. Cline. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface construction algorithm. InProceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graph- ics and Interactive Techniques, SIGGRAPH ’87, page 163–169, New York, NY, USA, 1987. Association for Com...

1987
[29]

Extracting the spectrum of a flow by spatial filtering

Mahmoud Sadek and Hussein Aluie. Extracting the spectrum of a flow by spatial filtering. Physical Review Fluids, 3(12):124610, 2018

2018
[30]

Subgrid-scale backscatter in turbulent and transitional flows.Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 3(7):1766–1771, 1991

Ugo Piomelli, William H Cabot, Parviz Moin, and Sangsan Lee. Subgrid-scale backscatter in turbulent and transitional flows.Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 3(7):1766–1771, 1991

1991
[31]

Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

Volker John.Large eddy simulation of turbulent incompressible flows: analytical and numerical results for a class of LES models, volume 34. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

2003
[32]

Inviscid criterion for decomposing scales.Physical Review Fluids, 3(5):054603, 2018

Dongxiao Zhao and Hussein Aluie. Inviscid criterion for decomposing scales.Physical Review Fluids, 3(5):054603, 2018. 36

2018
[33]

Calculating spectra by sequential filtering.Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 17(1):013303, 01 2025

Dongxiao Zhao and Hussein Aluie. Calculating spectra by sequential filtering.Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 17(1):013303, 01 2025

2025
[34]

Measuring scale-dependent shape anisotropy by coarse- graining: Application to inhomogeneous rayleigh-taylor turbulence.Physical Review Fluids, 8(11):114601, 2023

Dongxiao Zhao and Hussein Aluie. Measuring scale-dependent shape anisotropy by coarse- graining: Application to inhomogeneous rayleigh-taylor turbulence.Physical Review Fluids, 8(11):114601, 2023

2023
[35]

Rayleigh–taylor turbulence: self-similar analysis and direct numerical simulations.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 507:213–253, 2004

JR Ristorcelli and TT Clark. Rayleigh–taylor turbulence: self-similar analysis and direct numerical simulations.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 507:213–253, 2004

2004
[36]

High-reynolds number rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Journal of Turbulence, (10):N13, 2009

Daniel Livescu, JR Ristorcelli, RA Gore, SH Dean, WH Cabot, and A W Cook. High-reynolds number rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Journal of Turbulence, (10):N13, 2009

2009
[37]

New phenomena in variable-density rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Physica Scripta, 2010(T142):014015, 2010

D Livescu, JR Ristorcelli, MR Petersen, and RA Gore. New phenomena in variable-density rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Physica Scripta, 2010(T142):014015, 2010

2010
[38]

Statistical measurements of scaling and anisotropy of turbulent flows induced by rayleigh-taylor instability.Physics of Fluids, 25(1):015107, 2013

W Cabot and Ye Zhou. Statistical measurements of scaling and anisotropy of turbulent flows induced by rayleigh-taylor instability.Physics of Fluids, 25(1):015107, 2013

2013
[39]

Vorticity and mixing in rayleigh–taylor boussinesq turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 802:395–436, 2016

Nicolas Schneider and Serge Gauthier. Vorticity and mixing in rayleigh–taylor boussinesq turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 802:395–436, 2016

2016
[40]

Alignment of vorticity and scalar gra- dient with strain rate in simulated navier–stokes turbulence.The Physics of fluids, 30(8):2343– 2353, 1987

Wm T Ashurst, AR Kerstein, RM Kerr, and CH Gibson. Alignment of vorticity and scalar gra- dient with strain rate in simulated navier–stokes turbulence.The Physics of fluids, 30(8):2343– 2353, 1987

1987
[41]

Rayleigh–taylor instability with gravity reversal

Daniel Livescu, Tie Wei, and Peter T Brady. Rayleigh–taylor instability with gravity reversal. Physica D: nonlinear phenomena, 417:132832, 2021

2021
[42]

The structure and dynamics of vorticity and rate of strain in incompressible homogeneous turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 377:65–97, 1998

Keiko K Nomura and Gary K Post. The structure and dynamics of vorticity and rate of strain in incompressible homogeneous turbulence.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 377:65–97, 1998

1998
[43]

Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in tur- bulent flows.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 43:219–245, 2011

Charles Meneveau. Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in tur- bulent flows.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 43:219–245, 2011

2011
[44]

Multiscale velocity gradients in turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 56(1):463–490, 2024

Perry L Johnson and Michael Wilczek. Multiscale velocity gradients in turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 56(1):463–490, 2024

2024
[45]

Mechanics and prediction of turbulent drag reduction with polymer additives.Annu

Christopher M White and M Godfrey Mungal. Mechanics and prediction of turbulent drag reduction with polymer additives.Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 40(1):235–256, 2008

2008
[46]

Colloquium: Theory of drag reduction by polymers in wall-bounded turbulence.Reviews of Modern Physics, 80(1):225–247, 2008

Itamar Procaccia, Victor S L’vov, and Roberto Benzi. Colloquium: Theory of drag reduction by polymers in wall-bounded turbulence.Reviews of Modern Physics, 80(1):225–247, 2008. 37

2008
[47]

Turbulent drag reduction by polymer additives: Fundamentals and recent advances

Li Xi. Turbulent drag reduction by polymer additives: Fundamentals and recent advances. Physics of Fluids, 31(12), 2019

2019
[48]

Wall-sheared thermal convection: heat transfer enhancement and turbulence relaminarization.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 960:A2, 2023

Ao Xu, Ben-Rui Xu, and Heng-Dong Xi. Wall-sheared thermal convection: heat transfer enhancement and turbulence relaminarization.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 960:A2, 2023. 38

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Statistical properties of turbulence in the presence of a smart small-scale control.Physical Review Letters, 124(8):084504, 2020

Michele Buzzicotti, Luca Biferale, and Federico Toschi. Statistical properties of turbulence in the presence of a smart small-scale control.Physical Review Letters, 124(8):084504, 2020

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing

Ye Zhou. Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. i.Physics Reports, 720:1–136, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing

Ye Zhou. Rayleigh–taylor and richtmyer–meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. ii.Physics Reports, 723:1–160, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Incompressible rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 49:119–143, 2017

Guido Boffetta and Andrea Mazzino. Incompressible rayleigh–taylor turbulence.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 49:119–143, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Turbulence with large thermal and compositional density variations.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 52:309–341, 2020

Daniel Livescu. Turbulence with large thermal and compositional density variations.Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 52:309–341, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Rayleigh– 34 taylor and richtmyer-meshkov instabilities: A journey through scales.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, page 132838, 2021

Ye Zhou, Robin JR Williams, Praveen Ramaprabhu, Michael Groom, Ben Thornber, Andrew Hillier, Wouter Mostert, Bertrand Rollin, S Balachandar, Phillip D Powell, et al. Rayleigh– 34 taylor and richtmyer-meshkov instabilities: A journey through scales.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, page 132838, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Type ia supernova explosion models.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 38(1):191–230, 2000

Wolfgang Hillebrandt and Jens C Niemeyer. Type ia supernova explosion models.Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 38(1):191–230, 2000

work page 2000

[8] [8]

Instabilities and clumping in type ia supernova remnants.The Astrophysical Journal, 549(2):1119, 2001

Chih-Yueh Wang and Roger A Chevalier. Instabilities and clumping in type ia supernova remnants.The Astrophysical Journal, 549(2):1119, 2001

work page 2001