Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-xh428 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-12T09:36:37.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modulation of the velocity gradient tensor by concurrent large-scale velocity fluctuations in a turbulent mixing layer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2015

O. R. H. Buxton Open the ORCID record for O. R. H. Buxton [Opens in a new window]
O. R. H. Buxton*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: o.buxton@imperial.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modulation of small-scale velocity and velocity gradient quantities by concurrent large-scale velocity fluctuations is observed by consideration of the Kullback–Leibler divergence. This is a measure that quantifies the loss of information in modelling a statistical distribution of small-scale quantities conditioned on concurrent positive large-scale fluctuations by that conditioned on negative large-scale fluctuations. It is observed that the small-scale turbulence is appreciably ‘rougher’ when the concurrent large-scale fluctuation is positive in the low-speed side of a fully developed turbulent mixing layer, which gives further evidence to the convective scale modulation argument of Buxton & Ganapathisubramani (Phys. Fluids, vol. 26, 2014, 125106, 1–19). The definition of the small scales is varied, and regardless of whether the small-scale fluctuations are dominated by dissipation or have the characteristic features of inertial range turbulence they are shown to be modulated by the concurrent large-scale fluctuations. The modulation is observed to persist even when there is a large gap in wavenumber space between the small and large scales, although local maxima are observed at intermediate length scales that are significantly larger than the predefined small scales. Finally, it is observed that the modulation of small-scale dissipation is greater than that for enstrophy with the modulation of the vortex stretching term, indicative of the interaction between strain rate and rotation, being intermediate between the two.

JFM classification

Turbulent Flows: Shear layer turbulence Turbulent Flows: Turbulent Flows

Information

Type
Rapids
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 777 , 25 August 2015 , R1
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2015 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atkinson, C., Chumakov, S., Bermejo-Moreno, I. & Soria, J. 2012 Lagrangian evolution of the invariants of the velocity gradient tensor in a turbulent boundary layer. Phys. Fluids 24, 105104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, P. & Hussain, A. 1984 The coupling between scales in shear flows. Phys. Fluids 27 (9), 2221–2228.Google Scholar
Buxton, O. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2010 Amplification of enstrophy in the far field of an axisymmetric turbulent jet. J. Fluid Mech. 651, 483–502.Google Scholar
Buxton, O., Laizet, S. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2011 The interaction between strain-rate and rotation in shear flow turbulence from inertial range to dissipative length scales. Phys. Fluids 23, 061704.Google Scholar
Buxton, O. R. H. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2014 Concurrent scale interactions in the far-field of a turbulent mixing layer. Phys. Fluids 26, 125106.Google Scholar
Chong, M., Perry, A. & Cantwell, B. 1990 A general classification of three-dimensional flow fields. Phys. Fluids A 2 (5), 765–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eguchi, S. & Copas, J. 2006 Interpreting Kullback–Leibler divergence with the Neyman–Pearson lemma. J. Multivariate Anal. 97 (9), 2034–2040.Google Scholar
Elsinga, G., Poelma, C., Schröder, A., Geisler, R., Scarano, F. & Westerweel, J. 2012 Tracking of vortices in a turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 697, 273–295.Google Scholar
Gomes-Fernandes, R., Ganapathisubramani, B. & Vassilicos, J. 2014 Evolution of the velocity-gradient tensor in a spatially developing turbulent flow. J. Fluid Mech. 756, 252–292.Google Scholar
Hutchins, N. & Marusic, I. 2007 Large-scale influences in near-wall turbulence. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 365, 647–664.Google Scholar
von Kármán, T. 1937 The fundamentals of the statistical theory of turbulence. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 4 (4), 131–138.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. 1985 Higher-order derivative correlations and the alignment of small-scale structures in isotropic numerical turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 153, 31–58.Google Scholar
Kullback, S. & Leibler, R. A. 1951 On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Statist. 22 (1), 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laizet, S. & Lamballais, E. 2009 High-order compact schemes for incompressible flows: a simple and efficient method with quasi-spectral accuracy. J. Comput. Phys. 228 (16), 5989–6015.Google Scholar
Mathis, R., Marusic, I., Chernyshenko, S. & Hutchins, N. 2013 Estimating wall-shear-stress fluctuations given an outer region input. J. Fluid Mech. 715, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meneveau, C. 1994 Statistics of turbulence subgridscale stresses: necessary conditions and experimental tests. Phys. Fluids 6 (2), 815–833.Google Scholar
O’Neil, J. & Meneveau, C. 1997 Subgrid-scale stresses and their modelling in a turbulent plane wake. J. Fluid Mech. 349, 253–293.Google Scholar
Perry, A. & Chong, M. 1994 Topology of flow patterns in vortex motions and turbulence. Appl. Sci. Res. 53, 357–374.Google Scholar
Rao, K., Narasimha, R. & Narayanan, M. 1971 The ‘bursting’ phenomenon in a turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 48, 339–352.Google Scholar
Vieillefosse, P. 1982 Local interaction between vorticity and shear in a perfect incompressible fluid. J. Phys. (Paris) 43 (6), 837–842.Google Scholar