Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Lagrangian stochastic modeling of acceleration in turbulent wall-bounded flows

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-variable stochastic model reproduces acceleration statistics in wall-bounded turbulence.

desk verdict A credible generalization of the Sawford/Pope acceleration model to wall-bounded flows, but its quantitative predictions rest on an unverified order-one coefficient for the acceleration timescale. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03437 v1 pith:36J7ZJD6 submitted 2019-08-09 physics.flu-dyn

Alessio Innocenti , Nicolas Mordant , Nick Stelzenmuller , Sergio Chibbaro This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyn
keywords Lagrangianstochasticmodelfluidparticleaccelerationturbulentchannelflowwall-boundedturbulenceintermittencyanisotropyRANS-PDFcouplingOrnstein-Uhlenbeckprocess
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 proposes a Lagrangian stochastic model of turbulent fluid motion in which each fluid particle carries position, velocity, and acceleration as dynamical variables, instead of only position and velocity. The model's coefficients are fixed from Kolmogorov scaling and from the requirement that it reduce to the standard generalized Langevin velocity model when the acceleration decorrelates quickly. Coupled to a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes mean field for a channel flow at friction Reynolds number about 1440, the model reproduces the measured mean and fluctuating acceleration, the anisotropy among streamwise, wall-normal, and spanwise components, the acceleration decorrelation times, and the strongly non-Gaussian tails of the acceleration probability distributions. A reader interested in wall-bounded turbulence would care because this provides a relatively simple, self-contained route to near-wall statistics that velocity-only Lagrangian models miss.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the stochastic differential system (2.1)-(2.3): position $x_i$ and velocity $U_i$ evolve with a drift that returns the velocity toward its mean with a matrix $D_{ij}$ taken from the generalized Langevin model, while the acceleration $a_i$ follows an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process $da_i = -\beta a_i\,dt + \sqrt{B}\,dW_i$. The key identity is the closure $\beta = 1/\tau_\eta$ and $B = (C_0\langle\epsilon\rangle/\tau_\eta)(1/\tau_\eta + 1/T_L)$, obtained by matching the moment equations for $\langle u_i a_j\rangle$ and $\langle a_i a_j\rangle$ to the velocity-based Langevin model in the limit $\tau_\eta \to 0$. This colored-noise construction replaces the white noise of velocity-only models, and the finite memory time $\beta^{-1}$ is what produces the finite acceleration correlation time, the viscous near-wall acceleration signal, and the modified Reynolds-stress balance.

What would settle it

Measure the Lagrangian acceleration autocorrelation function for fluid particles in a DNS of a channel flow at $\mathrm{Re}_\tau \approx 1440$ at several wall-normal positions, and compare the initial decay time of the correlation to $\tau_\eta = \sqrt{\nu/\langle\epsilon\rangle}$; if the ratio differs from one by more than the statistical uncertainty, the assumed $\beta = 1/\tau_\eta$ fails and the model's acceleration predictions for that wall distance cannot be correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a diffusion process on position, velocity, and acceleration with the closure $\beta = 1/\tau_\eta$ and $B = (C_0\langle\epsilon\rangle/\tau_\eta)(1/\tau_\eta + 1/T_L)$ is enough to capture the statistical signature of fluid-particle acceleration in an inhomogeneous wall-bounded flow. The diffusion coefficient $B$ is fixed by requiring the velocity-acceleration covariance equations to reduce to the standard Langevin model in the limit $\tau_\eta \to 0$, while the acceleration memory rate $\beta$ is set to the local Kolmogorov time scale. Without low-Reynolds-number corrections and without multiplicative noise, the model gives the correct mean streamwise acceleration near the wall, the anisotropy of the acceleration variance, wall-distance-dependent decorrelation, and heavy-tailed probability distributions consistent with experiments and direct numerical simulation. The authors attribute the heavy tails to inhomogeneity: the spatially varying dissipation rate that enters $B$ along particle trajectories creates the extreme events, a mechanism they note is absent in homogeneous-turbulence models.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the acceleration memory time is exactly the local viscous time scale $\tau_\eta$, with no adjustable factor; if the real ratio differs, the predicted acceleration variance and correlation shape shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard velocity-only Langevin description is insufficient near walls: the acceleration variable is what brings in the near-wall mean acceleration, the anisotropy, and the intermittent tails without extra low-Reynolds-number terms.
  • The same closed model, with the same $\beta$ and $B$ formulas, can be coupled to any available RANS mean field in a different inhomogeneous flow; the channel test suggests no flow-specific tuning beyond the choice of $C_0$.
  • The model supplies explicit transport equations for the velocity-acceleration correlations and the acceleration variance, so the near-wall budget of these correlations can be inspected in the same framework.
  • Heavy-tailed acceleration probability distributions in wall turbulence can be generated by spatial inhomogeneity of the mean dissipation alone, without modeling the fluctuations of $\epsilon$; the paper argues this is what the channel data show.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the heavy tails are attributed to inhomogeneity rather than to fluctuating dissipation, a natural test is to run the same closure in homogeneous turbulence; the model would predict much weaker tails, isolating the inhomogeneity mechanism.
  • Beyond the paper: the proportionality constant in $\beta = 1/\tau_\eta$ is the model's main free ratio; a direct measurement of the Lagrangian acceleration correlation time at several wall distances would either confirm the value one or supply a spatial correction function that could be inserted without changing the model's structure.
  • Beyond the paper: the same colored-noise construction can be iterated to include higher velocity derivatives, such as jerk, using the Kolmogorov scaling of derivative correlations that the paper derives; the second-order form in Appendix B shows the extension path.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stochastic Lagrangian model that includes fluid particle position, velocity, and acceleration as dynamical variables for inhomogeneous turbulent flows. The acceleration is modeled as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, and the coefficients are fixed by Kolmogorov scaling (β = 1/τη) and by requiring consistency with the standard velocity-only Langevin model in the limit τη → 0, which fixes B via Eq. (2.8) and C0 from the Rotta constant. The closed model is applied to a channel flow at Reτ ≈ 1440 using a hybrid RANS/PDF approach with the Durbin elliptic-relaxation Reynolds-stress model. Predictions for the mean and variance of acceleration, Lagrangian autocorrelations, and acceleration PDFs are compared with experiments and DNS, and the paper claims good agreement including anisotropy and strong intermittency. The model is shown to reduce to Sawford's isotropic model and to the generalized Langevin model in appropriate limits.

Significance. If the results hold, the model provides a relatively simple, theoretically motivated way to include acceleration as a dynamical variable in inhomogeneous wall-bounded flows, with potential applications to dispersion, mixing, and inertial-particle modeling. A clear strength is that the acceleration statistics are not used to calibrate the model: B is fixed by consistency with the velocity-only Langevin model, and C0 is inherited from the Rotta constant, so the acceleration variance, correlations, and PDFs are genuine outputs of the model rather than fits. The numerical scheme in Appendix A is explicitly given, and the comparisons with experiments and DNS are valuable. The main weakness is that the acceleration timescale β−1 is fixed by an unverified proportionality constant, and the validation is largely qualitative, so the quantitative agreement claimed is conditional on that assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, paragraph following the dimensional analysis of the acceleration correlation (β = 1/τη)] The choice β = 1/τη, made 'assuming a constant of proportionality of one', is not derived from Kolmogorov theory, not measured, and not independently tested. This is load-bearing because β enters every acceleration statistic. From Eq. (2.3), the stationary acceleration variance is B/(2β), and with Eq. (2.8) this gives ⟨a_i²⟩ = C0⟨ε⟩/(2τη) per component, so a factor c in β = c/τη multiplies all variance profiles by c (after re-imposing consistency through Eq. 2.8). The acceleration autocorrelation is exp(−βτ), so the decorrelation times shown in Fig. 3 scale as 1/c, and the velocity–acceleration correlation in Eq. (2.6) also changes with β. The statement that results are insensitive to C0 ∈ [0.2, 1.5] does not probe c independently, because for the variance C0 and c are partly degenerate. A sensitivity analysis on c, or an independent determination of c from DNS/experiment, is required before the quantitative agreement in Figs. 2–4 can be asserted.
  2. [Section 4, Figs. 2–4] The validation is essentially qualitative. The text explicitly concedes 'qualitative overall agreement' for the acceleration variances and 'satisfactory' for the correlations, and the PDF tails in Fig. 4 are compared down to 10⁻⁵ without any quantification of the sampling error (the paper states that statistical error is significant but gives no estimate). Since the central claim is that the model reproduces the acceleration statistics, quantitative measures are needed: relative errors for the variance peaks, integral timescales extracted from the correlations, and moment-based statistics such as flatness or kurtosis of the PDFs, together with confidence intervals. This is particularly important for the extreme tails, which are used to support the conclusion that inhomogeneity alone generates the observed intermittency.
  3. [Section 3, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.3)] The paper describes the hybrid RANS/PDF approach as 'self-consistent', but the stochastic model is not shown to satisfy the well-mixed condition with respect to the prescribed RANS Eulerian fields. With G^a_ij = 0, the stationary velocity statistics of the stochastic particles will generally differ from the RANS Reynolds stresses that determine the model coefficients. Consequently, the spatial distribution of particles, and hence the sampled Lagrangian acceleration statistics (especially the correlations and PDFs that depend on particle paths), may be distorted. The authors should either demonstrate that the model's one-point velocity statistics are consistent with the RANS fields used in the coefficients, or discuss the sensitivity of the acceleration results to this mismatch.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (2.8) and surrounding text] The typeset expression 'B 2τη(1/τη + 1/TL)⁻¹' is ambiguous; it should read (B τη/2)(1/τη + 1/TL)⁻¹. The subsequent limit and the final expression for B are consistent with this reading, but the notation should be cleaned up to avoid confusion.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to 'stochastic model simulations (squares)', but the figure legend appears to use continuous 'model' lines; please harmonize the caption with the actual symbols.
  3. [Figure 3] The DNS curve is shown for only one wall distance, with no explanation of which y₀⁺ it corresponds to or why only one case is given; please specify or add DNS data for the other positions.
  4. [Section 2, text near Eq. (2.5)] There is a typo: 'responsable' should be 'responsible'.
  5. [Introduction and Section 5] The claim that the model 'generalises both the acceleration-based models for homogeneous flows' appears overstated: the homogeneous limit of Eq. (2.3) is a linear Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, which does not include the conditional cubic-Gaussian model of Lamorgese et al. (2007) cited earlier. Please clarify the intended sense of 'generalise'.
  6. [Section 2, after Eq. (2.8)] The statement that 'results do not change qualitatively in the range C0 ∈ [0.2, 1.5]' is not supported by any figure or table; please provide a sensitivity plot or a reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: acceleration statistics are genuine outputs; the quantitative agreement is conditional on the unverified β=1/τη assumption, which is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The model (2.1)-(2.3) has free coefficients β and B. β is set dimensionally to the Kolmogorov rate in Section 2 after Eq. (2.7): 'On the basis of these estimates, the fluid particle acceleration timescale β−1 is taken proportional to the local Kolmogorov timescale, assuming a constant of proportionality of one we get β−1 = τη.' B is fixed separately by Eq. (2.8), B = C0⟨ε⟩/τη (1/τη + 1/TL) ≈ C0⟨ε⟩/τη^2, from the requirement that the colored-noise model reduce to the standard Langevin velocity model in the fast limit (2.5)-(2.6). This consistency condition imports C0 = 0.35 from the Rotta constant used in the RANS field, not from acceleration data. The stationary acceleration variance then follows from Eqs. (2.3)/(2.7): ⟨ai^2⟩ = B/(2β) = C0⟨ε⟩/(2τη), and the acceleration correlation is exp(−βτ). These are genuine model outputs, algebraically derived from the stated coefficients; neither β nor B is fitted to the acceleration statistics in Figs. 2-4. The comparison with the channel-flow experiments and DNS of Stelzenmuller et al. (2017) is therefore a real test of the closure, and the self-citation to that dataset is not load-bearing to the coefficient choice. The principal caveat is the unverified proportionality constant unity in β=1/τη: it controls the magnitude and shape of all acceleration predictions and is not measured or derived, so the quantitative agreement is conditional on that order-one assumption. That is a robustness/correctness limitation, not an input-output equivalence; no equation reduces to itself and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Score 2 reflects a minor, non-circular assumption and a self-cited benchmark rather than any circular reduction.

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

The model rests on two hand-set constants, the acceleration timescale ratio and C0, and on inherited closures: Kolmogorov similarity, the Markovian diffusion assumption for (x,U,a), the tau_eta -> 0 consistency limit that fixes B, the Durbin RANS fields, and the simplifying choice G^a_ij = 0. No new physical entities are introduced; the acceleration variable is a measured physical quantity used as a state variable.

free parameters (2)
  • C0 = 0.35
    Sets the magnitude of the stochastic forcing in Eqs. (2.3) and (2.8) and the Langevin timescale T_L; chosen to match the Rotta constant used in the RANS model, not derived from first principles or fitted to acceleration data.
  • acceleration timescale proportionality constant = 1
    In Eq. (2.3), beta^{-1} = tau_eta assumes the acceleration decorrelation time equals the Kolmogorov time with constant of proportionality 1; this is an order-of-magnitude choice, not a measured or derived ratio.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kolmogorov similarity hypotheses for structure functions and derivative correlations, including universal functions zeta(x), alpha_n(x) and A^2 = K nu^{-1/2} <epsilon>^{3/2}
    Used in Section 2 to set the acceleration time scale and to argue that acceleration is a fast process; exact constants are not derived.
  • domain assumption The three-state vector (x, U, a) is Markovian and a is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process driven by white noise, so all higher-order derivatives beyond acceleration are negligible
    This is the modeling premise of Eqs. (2.1)-(2.3); near the wall where scale separation is poor, this Markovian assumption is exactly what is being tested, not proven.
  • domain assumption In the limit tau_eta -> 0 the new model must reduce to the generalized Langevin velocity model (Eq. 2.4), which fixes B through the limit calculation leading to Eq. (2.8)
    The diffusion coefficient is not independently measured; it is inherited from the earlier velocity-only model through this consistency requirement.
  • domain assumption The Durbin elliptic-relaxation RANS model, with parameters from Durbin (1993), supplies accurate mean velocity, pressure, k, and dissipation fields for the hybrid coupling
    All stochastic coefficients depend on these averaged fields; errors in RANS propagate into the Lagrangian predictions.
  • ad hoc to paper The velocity redistribution matrix G^a_ij is set to zero for simplicity
    Section 2 states that G^a_ij = 0 is chosen to isolate the effect of acceleration, even though full consistency with the Reynolds-stress model would require a nonzero value; this weakens the generality of the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lagrangian stochastic modeling of acceleration in turbulent wall-bounded flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/36J7ZJD6

@misc{pith2026190803437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lagrangian stochastic modeling of acceleration in turbulent wall-bounded flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/36J7ZJD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03437}
}
read the original abstract

The Lagrangian approach is natural to study issues of turbulent dispersion and mixing. We propose in this work a general Lagrangian stochastic model including velocity and acceleration as dynamical variables for inhomogeneous turbulent flows. The model takes the form of a diffusion process and the coefficients of the model are determined via Kolmogorov theory and the requirement of consistency with the velocity-based models. It is shown that the present model generalises both the acceleration-based models for homogeneous flows and the generalised Langevin models for the velocity. The resulting closed model is applied to a channel flow at high Reynolds number and compared to experiments as well as direct numerical simulations. A hybrid approach coupling the stochastic model with a Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) is used to obtain a self-consistent model, as commonly used in probability density function methods. Results highlight that most of the acceleration features are well represented, notably the anisotropy and the strong intermittency. These results are valuable, since the model allows to improve the modelling of boundary layers yet remaining relatively simple. It sheds also some light on the statistical mechanisms at play in the near-wall region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mean (a) and variance velocity profiles (b). Comparison between experiments (points) and the present model (lines). All quantities are normalized in wall units. 3. Numerical method We study the turbulent flow in a channel between two parallel walls separated by a distance 2h using the same Reynolds number (Reτ = uτ h ν ≈ 1440) chosen in a recent campaign of experiments and DNS (Stelzenmuller et al. 2017), where uτ i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean and variance acceleration profiles. Comparison between experiments (points), stochastic model simulations (squares) and DNS (lines). 0 10 20 30 τ + 0 1 2 3 Correlation Experiments Model DNS 0 10 20 30 τ + -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Correlation Experiments Model DNS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Lagrangian auto-correlations of wall-normal (ρyy, left) and spanwise (ρzz, right) particle acceleration. Correlations are computed as: ρij (τ, y0) = ha 0 i (t0,y0)a 0 j (t0+τ,y0)i ha 02 i (t0,y0)i 1/2ha 02 j (t0+τ,y0)i 1/2 . Experiments crossed blue lines, model red lines. Curves are shifted vertically by increments of 0.5 for clarity. From bottom to top, the curves correspond to particles located initially at y + 0… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the probability distribution function (PDF) of the three acceleration components. All curves present very long tails corresponding to extremely high accel￾eration events usually associated to intermittency (Mordant et al. (2002)). Once again, the model reproduces…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    International Journal of Multiphase Flow 37 (3), 293--297

    Chibbaro, S & Minier, JP 2011 A note on the consistency of hybrid eulerian/lagrangian approach to multiphase flows . International Journal of Multiphase Flow 37 (3), 293--297

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Springer

    Chibbaro, S & Minier, JP 2014 Stochastic methods in fluid mechanics\/ . Springer

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Dreeben, T. D. & Pope, S. B. 1998 Probability density function/ M onte C arlo simulation of near-wall turbulent flows . J. Fluid Mech. 357 , 141

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 249 , 465--498

    Durbin, PA 1993 A reynolds stress model for near-wall turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 249 , 465--498

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    damping functions

    Durbin, PA 1991 Near-wall turbulence closure modeling without “damping functions” . Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 3 (1), 1--13

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Cambridge Univ

    Fox, RO 2003 Computational models for turbulent reacting flows\/ . Cambridge Univ. Press

    work page 2003

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Gardiner, CW & others 1985 Handbook of stochastic methods\/ , , vol. 3 . springer Berlin

    1985

  2. [10]

    Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 193 (1-4), 231--244

    Gotoh, T & Kraichnan, RH 2004 Turbulence and tsallis statistics . Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 193 (1-4), 231--244

    2004

  3. [11]

    Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 2 (1), 123--146

    Krasnoff, E & Peskin, RL 1971 The langevin model for turbulent diffusion . Geophysical & Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics 2 (1), 123--146

    1971

  4. [12]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 582 , 423--448

    Lamorgese, AG , Pope, SB , Yeung, PK & Sawford, BL 2007 A conditionally cubic-gaussian stochastic lagrangian model for acceleration in isotropic turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 582 , 423--448

    2007

  5. [13]

    Physical review letters 92 (14), 144502

    Lee, C , Yeo, K & Choi, J 2004 Intermittent nature of acceleration in near wall turbulence . Physical review letters 92 (14), 144502

    2004

  6. [14]

    Physics reports 461 (4-6), 111--195

    Marconi, UMB , Puglisi, A , Rondoni, L & Vulpiani, A 2008 Fluctuation--dissipation: response theory in statistical physics . Physics reports 461 (4-6), 111--195

    2008

  7. [15]

    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 43 , 219--245

    Meneveau, C 2011 Lagrangian dynamics and models of the velocity gradient tensor in turbulent flows . Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 43 , 219--245

    2011

  8. [16]

    Physics Reports 665 , 1--122

    Minier, JP 2016 Statistical descriptions of polydisperse turbulent two-phase flows . Physics Reports 665 , 1--122

    2016

  9. [17]

    Physics of Fluids 26 (11), 113303

    Minier, JP , Chibbaro, S & Pope, SB 2014 Guidelines for the formulation of lagrangian stochastic models for particle simulations of single-phase and dispersed two-phase turbulent flows . Physics of Fluids 26 (11), 113303

    2014

  10. [18]

    & Peirano, E

    Minier, J.-P. & Peirano, E. 2001 The PDF approach to turbulent and polydispersed two-phase flows . Phys. Rep. 352 (1-3), 1--214

    2001

  11. [19]

    Monin, AS & Yaglom, AM 2013 Statistical fluid mechanics . Dover

    2013

  12. [20]

    Physical review letters 89 (25), 254502

    Mordant, N , Delour, J , L \'e veque, E , Arn \'e odo, A & Pinton, J-F 2002 Long time correlations in lagrangian dynamics: a key to intermittency in turbulence . Physical review letters 89 (25), 254502

    2002

  13. [21]

    New Journal of Physics 6 (1), 116

    Mordant, N , L \'e v \^e que, E & Pinton, JF 2004 Experimental and numerical study of the lagrangian dynamics of high reynolds turbulence . New Journal of Physics 6 (1), 116

    2004

  14. [22]

    Physical Review Letters 87 (21), 214501

    Mordant, N , Metz, P , Michel, O & Pinton, JF 2001 Measurement of Lagrangian velocity in fully developed turbulence . Physical Review Letters 87 (21), 214501

    2001

  15. [23]

    Physical Review 91 (6), 1505

    Onsager, L & Machlup, S 1953 Fluctuations and irreversible processes . Physical Review 91 (6), 1505

    1953

  16. [24]

    , Chibbaro, S

    Peirano, E. , Chibbaro, S. , Pozorski, J. & Minier, J.-P. 2006 Mean-field/ PDF numerical approach for polydispersed turbulent two-phase flows . Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 32 (3), 315--371

    2006

  17. [25]

    Pope, S. B. 1985 Pdf methods for turbulent reactive flows . Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 11 , 119--192

    1985

  18. [26]

    Pope, S. B. 1994 Lagrangian pdf methods for turbulent reactive flows . Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 26 , 23--63

    1994

  19. [27]

    Pope, S. B. 2000 Turbulent Flows\/ . Cambridge University Press

    2000

  20. [28]

    Pope, S. B. 2002 Stochastic L agrangian models of velocity in homogeneous turbulent shear flow . Phys. Fluids 14 (5), 1696--1702

    2002

  21. [29]

    Pope, S. B. 2014 The determination of turbulence-model statistics from the velocity--acceleration correlation . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 757

    2014

  22. [30]

    Pope, S. B. & Chen, Y. L. 1990 The velocity-dissipation probability density function model for turbulent flows . Phys. Fluids A 2 , 1437

    1990

  23. [31]

    Physics Of Fluids 15 (1), L1--L4

    Reynolds, A M 2003 On the application of nonextensive statistics to Lagrangian turbulence . Physics Of Fluids 15 (1), L1--L4

    2003

  24. [32]

    Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics 3 (6), 1577--1586

    Sawford, BL 1991 Reynolds number effects in lagrangian stochastic models of turbulent dispersion . Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics 3 (6), 1577--1586

    1991

  25. [33]

    Physical Review Fluids 2 (5), 054602

    Stelzenmuller, N , Polanco, JI , Vignal, L , Vinkovic, I & Mordant, N 2017 Lagrangian acceleration statistics in a turbulent channel flow . Physical Review Fluids 2 (5), 054602

    2017

  26. [34]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 469 , 121--160

    Voth, G A , la Porta, A , Crawford, A M , Alexander, J & Bodenschatz, E 2002 Measurement of particle accelerations in fully developed turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 469 , 121--160

    2002

  27. [35]

    Physics of Fluids 10 (9), 2268--2280

    Voth, G A , Satyanarayan, K & Bodenschatz, E 1998 Lagrangian acceleration measurements at large reynolds numbers . Physics of Fluids 10 (9), 2268--2280

    1998

  28. [36]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 867 , 438--481

    Watteaux, R , Sardina, G , Brandt, Luca & Iudicone, D 2019 On the time scales and structure of lagrangian intermittency in homogeneous isotropic turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 867 , 438--481

    2019

  29. [37]

    Wilson, J D & Sawford, BL 1996 Review of lagrangian stochastic models for trajectories in the turbulent atmosphere

    1996

  30. [38]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 207 , 531--586

    Yeung, PK & Pope, SB 1989 Lagrangian statistics from direct numerical simulations of isotropic turbulence . Journal of Fluid Mechanics 207 , 531--586

    1989

  31. [39]

    Journal Of Turbulence 11 , N30

    Zamansky, R , Vinkovic, I & Gorokhovski, M 2010 LES approach coupled with stochastic forcing of subgrid acceleration in a high-Reynolds-number channel flow . Journal Of Turbulence 11 , N30

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.