Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 288

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Turbulent boundary layers at moderate Reynolds numbers: inflow length and tripping effects

Schlatter, Philipp, Örlü, Ramis·2012·Journal of Fluid Mechanics

Abstract

A recent assessment of available direct numerical simulation (DNS) data from turbulent boundary layer flows (Schlatter & Örlü,J. Fluid Mech., vol. 659, 2010, pp. 116–126) showed surprisingly large differences not only in the skin friction coefficient or shape factor, but also in their predictions of mean and fluctuation profiles far into the sublayer. While such differences are expected at very low Reynolds numbers and/or the immediate vicinity of the inflow or tripping region, it remains unclear whether inflow and tripping effects explain the differences observed even at moderate Reynolds numbers. This question is systematically addressed by re-simulating the DNS of a zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer flow by Schlatter et al. (Phys. Fluids, vol. 21, 2009, art. 051702). The previous DNS serves as the baseline simulation, and the new DNS with a range of physically different inflow conditions and tripping effects are carefully compared. The downstream evolution of integral quantities as well as mean and fluctuation profiles is analysed, and the results show that different inflow conditions and tripping effects do indeed explain most of the differences observed when comparing available DNS at low Reynolds number. It is further found that, if transition is initiated inside the boundary layer at a low enough Reynolds number (based on the momentum-loss thickness)${\mathit{Re}}_{\theta } \lt 300$, all quantities agree well for both inner and outer layer for${\mathit{Re}}_{\theta } \gt 2000$. This result gives a lower limit for meaningful comparisons between numerical and/or wind tunnel experiments, assuming that the flow was not severely over- or understimulated. It is further shown that even profiles of the wall-normal velocity fluctuations and Reynolds shear stress collapse for higher${\mathit{Re}}_{\theta } $irrespective of the upstream conditions. In addition, the overshoot in the total shear stress within the sublayer observed in the DNS of Wu & Moin (Phys. Fluids, vol. 22, 2010, art. 085105) has been identified as a feature of transitional boundary layers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/jfm.2012.324

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 288

Metadata

Authors
Schlatter, P., & Örlü, R.
Venue
Journal of Fluid Mechanics
Published
2012-08-21
Volume
710
Pages
5-34
ISSN
  • 0022-1120 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7645
OpenAlex
W2059084955
Cited by
288
References
17
FWCI
14.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Turbulent boundary layers at moderate Reynolds numbers: inflow length and tripping effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/jfm.2012.324
The paper
Schlatter, P., & Örlü, R. (2012). Turbulent boundary layers at moderate Reynolds numbers: inflow length and tripping effects. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2012.324

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.