Reynolds number effects in the outer layer of the turbulent flow in a

channel with rough walls

Ole Martin Bakken, Per-Åge Krogstad, Alireza Ashrafian, and Helge I. Andersson

Citation: Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 (2005); doi: 10.1063/1.1900146

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1900146
View Table of Contents: http://pof.aip.org/resource/1/PHFLE6/v17/i6
Published by the American Institute of Physics.

Related Articles
Simulation of the flow around an upstream transversely oscillating cylinder and a stationary cylinder in tandem
Phys. Fluids 24, 023603 (2012)
Stability and breakup of confined threads
Phys. Fluids 24, 012102 (2012)
Sedimentation of a charged colloidal sphere in a charged cavity
J. Chem. Phys. 135, 214706 (2011)
Non-axisymmetric impact creates pineapple-shaped cavity
Phys. Fluids 23, 091106 (2011)
Effect of central slotted screen with a high solidity ratio on the secondary resonance phenomenon for liquid
sloshing in a rectangular tank
Phys. Fluids 23, 062106 (2011)

Additional information on Phys. Fluids

Journal Homepage: http://pof.aip.org/
Journal Information: http://pof.aip.org/about/about_the_journal
Top downloads: http://pof.aip.org/features/most_downloaded
Information for Authors: http://pof.aip.org/authors

Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
 PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 17, 065101 共2005兲

Reynolds number effects in the outer layer of the turbulent flow

in a channel with rough walls
Ole Martin Bakkena兲
Department of Mechanical Equipment, Statoil ASA, N-4035 Stavanger, Norway
Per-Åge Krogstad,b兲 Alireza Ashrafian,c兲 and Helge I. Anderssond兲
Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Kolbjoern Hejes vei 2, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway
共Received 12 April 2004; accepted 21 February 2005; published online 12 May 2005兲
Turbulent channel flow measurements for two different rough surfaces have been compared with a
smooth reference case. A range of Reynolds numbers, Re␶ 苸 具360,6000典, has been investigated using
hot-wire anemometry. Reynolds stresses and third-order moments are shown to be very little
affected by the substantially different wall conditions outside 5k, where k is the characteristic length
scale of the roughness. In this region, a reasonably good collapse with Reynolds number is
demonstrated when scaling with friction velocity is used. This contrasts some of the rough-wall
investigations previously published for boundary layers and channels with only one rough wall. It
is believed that the differences observed are due to the differences in boundary conditions and that
symmetrically roughened channel flows and flows in rough-wall pipes may be better candidates for
the Townsend’s wall similarity hypothesis than asymmetrical flows. © 2005 American Institute of
Physics. 关DOI: 10.1063/1.1900146兴

I. INTRODUCTION
Due to its engineering significance, flows over rough
surfaces have received considerable attention over the years.
Experiments have traditionally formed the basis of this re-
search, since a sufficiently detailed description of the rough-
ness geometry to allow exact prediction of the flow within
the roughness layer has until now been impossible. The ex-
periments have therefore formed the basis for simple predic-
tion models with the primary aim to reproduce the effects of
surface roughness on the mean velocity profiles above the
elements. Since considerable information was available for
flows over surfaces covered by sieved sand quite early,1 it
became common in the CFD community to link the flows
over arbitrary roughness geometries to an equivalent flow
over a wall covered by sand roughness 共originally suggested
by Schlichting2兲, thereby ignoring any possible dependency
in the turbulent flow structure on the specific surface geom-
etry. Implicit in this treatment of surface roughness is the
assumption that the flow, only a short distance away from the
roughness elements, becomes universal and looses the char-
acteristic footprints of the surface geometry that must exist
for the flow between the individual roughness elements. This
school of thoughts forms the basis for the “wall similarity
hypothesis,” originally proposed by Townsend,3 and later ex-
tended by Perry and Abell.4 If k is a characteristic length
scale for the rough surface, a sublayer is assumed to exist up
to about 5k, where the flow is uniquely dependent on the
actual geometry of the roughness elements. Outside this
a兲
b兲
Electronic mail: olbak@statoil.com
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail:
per.a.krogstad@ntnu.no
c兲
Electronic mail: alireza.ashrafian@ntnu.no
d兲
Electronic mail: helge.i.andersson@ntnu.no
layer it is assumed that the flow does not know how the
turbulence was generated and, suitably scaled, will collapse
for all types of surfaces. Hence Townsend’s3 hypothesis im-
plies that the flow over smooth and rough surfaces are simi-
lar outside the roughness sublayer.
In an experimental investigation of a turbulent boundary
layer over a mesh roughened surface, Krogstad et al.5
claimed that if the boundary layer is constantly fed by infor-
mation from the wall region which is uniquely connected to
the surface geometry, this information will eventually affect
the outer layer to such a degree that the flow will be modified
compared to the flow over a smooth surface. Differences
were found in the strength of the outer layer wake, in the
spectra and in the contributions to the shear stresses revealed
by quadrant analysis. These results were followed up by an
investigation where the turbulent stresses in the outer layer
of the boundary layer were shown to depend strongly on the
surface geometry.6 Hence, both investigations challenge
Townsend’s hypothesis. Unfortunately, boundary layer inves-
tigations over rough surfaces are considerably more compli-
cated to perform than for smooth walls since the exact loca-
tion of the virtual wall is unknown and the wall shear stress
is very difficult to estimate. Therefore, rough-wall boundary
layer data are generally less reliable than those taken over a
smooth surface.
In order to reduce the uncertainty in the wall stress, the
experiments have therefore been repeated here in a fully de-
veloped channel flow. Then the friction velocity, u␶ = 冑␶w / ␳
共␶w is the wall shear stress and ␳ is the density兲, can be
deduced directly from the mean pressure gradient dP / dx,
i.e., u␶2 = h / ␳共dP / dx兲 共h is the channel half-height兲, or from
the shear stress distribution in the outer region, which has an
exact analytical solution. However, it is not obvious that the

1070-6631/2005/17共6兲/065101/16/$22.50 17, 065101-1 © 2005 American Institute of Physics

Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
065101-2 Bakken et al.
outer layer of the channel flow will be sensitive to surface
roughness in the same way as a boundary layer. The most
obvious reason for this is the differences in the outer bound-
ary conditions. The boundary layer is allowed to expand,
which means that the rate of entrainment into the outer layer
produces a much more dominant wake region than is found
for channel flows. The growth rate of this region is dictated
by the wall shear stress and therefore the amount of surface
roughness, as may be seen from the von Karman momentum
equation. Also the ratio of the boundary layer thickness to
the relevant roughness length scale increases with stream-
wise distance. This is not the case for a channel flow where
all length scales are independent of streamwise position.
Therefore the channel flow reaches an equilibrium condition
which is never achieved in a boundary layer.
In addition to the improved accuracy in determining ␶w,
another reason for choosing to study roughness effects in a
channel flow is that it is much more suited for direct numeri-
cal simulations 共DNS兲 than a boundary layer due to its peri-
odicity. In recent years some rough-wall DNS have been
published.7–9 Due to grid resolution problems, most of these
simulations have had roughness elements on only one sur-
face and the evolving flow is therefore asymmetric. Some
support for the outer layer effects observed in the boundary
layer by Krogstad et al.5 have been provided in these simu-
lations 共e.g., by Leonardi et al.10兲. However, it is unclear
whether these observations are due to the rather large rough-
ness elements used 共of the order of 20% of the channel half-
height兲 or the asymmetry of the flow. Therefore, in this in-
vestigation much smaller elements were used and the
roughness geometry was the same on both surfaces. Two
different roughness geometries were investigated, a rod
roughness and a mesh roughness 共see Sec. III兲. In a compan-
ion DNS to the rod roughness experiment, the flow was also
investigated numerically. These results have been published
by Ashrafian et al.11 and will be included here for
comparison.
The mean velocity distribution U共y兲 can be divided into
an outer and inner region. For the inner layer, the appropriate
velocity scale is u␶. The proper length scale is the viscous
length scale ␯ / u␶ 共␯ is the kinematic viscosity兲 in the
smooth-wall case and/or the roughness length scale k in the
rough-wall case.5 For an arbitrary rough surface, k will not
be well defined by only one length scale. However, for the
particular surface geometries in this study, k is taken to be
the thickness of the rods or the plate.12 This implies that the
inner region is limited by y = 5k or y / h 艋 0.15– 0.17 and what
is outside this limit is taken to be the outer region. In the
fully rough case, the mean velocity profile in the logarithmic
overlap region may be written as
1 ⫻ 104 共Re⬅ Ubh / ␯兲, which overlaps that of Zagarola and
U+ = ln y + + B − ⌬U+
␬ Smits13 in the lower end. The gradient of the linear fit 共solid
using ␯ / u␶ as length scale or
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
1
U+ = ln
␬ k
y
+C 冉冊 共2兲
using k. The constants ␬ ⯝ 0.41 and B ⯝ 5.5 were determined
experimentally in the smooth-wall case. The roughness func-
tion ⌬U+ causes a downward shift in the log law due to the
change in boundary conditions. The constant C is dependent
on the specific type of roughness; for sand-grain roughness it
is about 8.5. Combining Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲 gives the following
dependency of ⌬U+ on k+ = ku␶ / ␯, the roughness Reynolds
number:
1
⌬U+ = ln k+ + B − C. 共3兲
␬
Surface geometries that produce flows that follow this shift
are known as k-type roughnesses. The equivalent sand-grain
roughness Reynolds number, ks+, is calculated using B − C
= −3.0. For ks+ ⬍ 70, the flow is transitionally rough and for
ks+ ⬎ 70 the roughness elements extend into the logarithmic
region, so the smooth-wall viscous sublayer is assumed to
have been completely destroyed and the surface is consid-
ered to be fully rough.
In this paper the following similarity definitions will be
used. Surface similarity is the collapse of profiles from dif-
ferent surfaces at the same Reynolds number. Reynolds num-
ber similarity is the collapse of profiles from different Rey-
nolds numbers and complete similarity will be used for the
simultaneous surface and Reynolds number similarity.
II. SCALING CONSIDERATIONS
Scaling in the outer layer is dependent on the global
properties of the flow. In a channel flow, the only obvious
outer length scale is the channel half-height h. A proper ve-
locity scale is more difficult to define and various proposi-
tions will be considered here. The friction velocity u␶ is the
most commonly used quantity. Zagarola and Smits13 have
argued that the mass flux deficit, UCl − Ub, is a true outer
velocity scale, where UCl is the centerline velocity and Ub is
the bulk velocity. It should be noted that both u␶ and UCl
− Ub are frame invariant.14 Results from their measurements
in the “Superpipe” facility at Princeton University show that
UCl − Ub = ⌫ ⫻ u␶, where ⌫ is constant for high and varies for
low Reynolds number. In the low Reynolds number range,
scaling with UCl − Ub is shown to improve the collapse of the
velocity defect and the streamwise stress compared to using
u␶. Recent results from the same facility14 show that for the
second and higher order moments of the streamwise velocity,
UCl − Ub is a better velocity scale for y / R ⬎ 0.35 than u␶, but
along two distinct distributions, one when Red ⬍ 6 ⫻ 104, the
other when Red ⬎ 7 ⫻ 104 共Red is based on the pipe
diameter兲.
Figure 1 shows UCl − Ub vs u␶ from the present study for
all three surfaces for the range 6.0⫻ 103 艋 Re艋 7.6
共1兲
line兲 is ⌫ = 2.64 with 4.3% rms error and a correlation coef-
ficient of Rc = 0.9993. It is apparent that within experimental
uncertainty, no Reynolds number dependence may be ob-
065101-3 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
served. The implication of the data, all falling onto a straight
line, is that there is no advantage in scaling with UCl − Ub,
compared to using u␶, for the present study. A possible dif-
ference between boundary layers and channel flow is sug-
gested in the Introduction. The apparent inconsistency with
the Superpipe results suggests that there may be differences
also between pipe and channel flows, as suggested by
Nieuwstadt and Bradshaw.15
In relation to the streamwise velocity component for a
boundary layer, DeGraaf and Eaton16 have suggested an em-
pirical mixed scaling 共u␶UCl兲共1/2兲. This improves the collapse
of u2 data for y / ␦ ⬎ 0.15 in the range 600⬍ Re␶ ⬍ 10 000,
where ␦ is the boundary layer thickness. Additionally, a scal-
ing with UCl has been proposed17,18 and it has been shown
that very good collapse could be obtained in the range 600
⬍ Re␶ ⬍ 6000 for u2 / UCl2
vs y / ␪, where ␪ is the boundary
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
FIG. 1. UCl − Ub vs u␶ . 䊊 Smooth; 䊐 rods; 䉭 mesh,
solid line, linear fit.
layer momentum thickness.18 For internal flows, Wosnik et
al.19 have proposed to use the bulk velocity Ub. Morrison et
al.14 remark that there is a problem with frame dependency
choosing a velocity scale involving any mean velocity. Their
results also suggest that the rate of energy transfer from the
outer part of the boundary layer to the inner region, which is
a possible justification for the mixed scaling, scales with u3␶
rather than u2␶ UCl as proposed by DeGraaf and Eaton.16 In
addition, DeGraaf and Eaton16 do not explain why the geo-
metrical mean of u␶ and UCl is to be used. This implies that
even though the results are convincing, the physical basis for
scaling with 共u␶UCl兲共1/2兲 is somewhat weakened.
Figure 2 shows UCl vs u␶ for the present study. The
correlation coefficient is better than Rc = 0.999 for all the
three linear regressions. Thus, the linear relationship between
UCl and u␶ is clear for all three surfaces. However, the gra-
FIG. 2. UCl vs u␶ . 䊊 Smooth; 䊐 rods; 䉭 mesh.
065101-4 Bakken et al. Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲

TABLE I. Parameters for the three surfaces. The symbols used for the plots
have similar outer patterns for similar surfaces and similar inner patterns for
similar Re␶. For the mesh roughness k / h = 0.03 and for the rod roughness
k / h = 0.034.

Surface type Re Re␶ k+ Symbol

Smooth 6 300 360 䊊

Smooth 12 800 670 쎲
Smooth 33 000 1550 丢
FIG. 3. Geometry of the rod experiment setup.
Smooth 76 000 3300 䉺
Mesh 6 200 450 15 䉭
Mesh 11 600 950 32 䉱
Mesh 31 000 2500 83 䊗 performed at Re␶ ⬅ u␶h / ␯ = 400 共for details, see Ref. 11兲. Fig-
Mesh 68 000 5600 187 䉭
⫹ ure 3 shows the geometry of the rod roughness experiment.
Rod 6 000 600 20 䊏 In the case of the second rough surface, 1.5 mm thick
Rod 11 500 1200 40  perforated plates 共mesh surface兲 were used. This corresponds
Rod 30 000 3200 107 ⱓ to k / h = 0.03. The perforation consisted of 10⫻ 10 mm2
Rod 56 000 6000 200
square holes arrayed in a squared pattern with a center spac-
Smooth, DNSa 5 400 395 … ing of 12 mm giving an openness ratio of about 69%. For the
Smooth, DNSa 10 700 590 — rough surfaces, all the measurements were taken above the
Rod, DNSb 4 100 400 14 --- crest of the roughness elements to avoid the regions of very
a
Moser et al. 共Ref. 26兲. high turbulence intensity and reversed flow over the cavities.
b
Ashrafian et al. 共Ref. 11兲. This geometry is shown in Fig. 4.
The hot wires used were in-house made single- and
X-wire probes, partly etched from 2.5 ␮m Wollaston
dients are very different. A qualitatively similar trend is seen Pt-10%Rh wire with an active length lw of about 0.5 mm.
for Ub vs u␶ 共not shown兲. This is related to the very different The length-to-diameter ratio was close to 200 and the sepa-
C f = 2共u␶ / Ub兲2 for the various surfaces 共Fig. 7兲. Conse- ration between the wires was also ⬇0.5 mm. The included
quently, for each of the three separate surfaces, the Reynolds angle of the two wires was nominally 100°. The apex angle
number similarity will be equally good using either of the has been made larger than 90°, as suggested by the works of
above mentioned scalings as using u␶. However, Fig. 2 indi- Perry et al.22 and Krogstad et al.,5 because the rough surfaces
cates that the surface similarity properties of the various scal- need a larger apex angle than the smooth surface to capture
ing quantities suggested will be quite different. This will be the increased turbulence intensity near the wall. This is sup-
discussed further in the subsequent sections. ported by probability density functions of the angular distri-
bution 共not shown兲. It may be argued 共see, e.g., Tagawa et
III. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS al.23兲 that the increased angle reduces the sensitivity to the v
fluctuations and therefore increases the measurement uncer-
Measurements were performed in a closed return wind tainty, but comparisons with other smooth-wall channel flow
tunnel with a working section consisting of a rectangular data using an apex angle of 90° have only shown differences
channel. The test section is 5 m long, with an inlet area of within experimental uncertainty.
1.35⫻ 0.10 m2. Measurements of velocity profiles at several For the low-velocity cases 共Ub ⬍ 5 m / s兲, a low-velocity
spanwise locations were performed to verify that the aspect
calibration jet was applied for the calibration of the hot
ratio 共⬇14兲 was sufficiently large for the mean flow to be
wires. The calibration rig was positioned on top of the chan-
two dimensional. The bulk Reynolds number 共Re⬅ Ubh / ␯兲 nel and adjusted so that the jet flow was coaxial to the chan-
can be varied by a factor of 10 共see Table I兲. The measure- nel flow. A high precision computer controlled traversing
ment station was about 5 cm upstream of the channel exit. system was used for calibration and measurements. This sys-
The flow along the ceiling and floor was tripped at the tem also enabled movement of the probes between the cali-
inlet using a 3 mm diameter circular rod followed by a 12 cm bration rig and the channel flow, so that the probes were
strip of No. 40 grit sandpaper, both spanning the width of the
section. In the case of rough surfaces, both the ceiling and
floor were covered. In the first rough case, square rods mea-
suring 1.7⫻ 1.7 mm2 were used, giving k / h = 0.034. The rods
spanned the entire width of the section. The center-to-center
rod spacing was eight times the width. According to experi-
ments by Furuya et al.20 in a boundary layer, this roughness
spacing creates the largest shift in the mean velocity profile
and hence the largest effective hydrodynamic roughness. Re-
cently, this has been verified for channel flows with rough-
ness on one side using DNS 共Ref. 7兲 and LES.21 For com-
parison with the rod roughness experiment, a DNS has been FIG. 4. Geometry of the mesh experiment setup.

Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
065101-5 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
never removed or disconnected between calibration and
measurement.
The X wires were calibrated using a velocity dependent
effective angle method. The method has the same benefits as
a full velocity vs yaw-angle calibration routine, but requires
considerably less effort. The velocity calibration involves fit-
ting a least-squares fourth order polynomial to the velocity
vs voltage data obtained when the flow is directed along the
probe axis. For angular response a cosine law is assumed
using an “effective” rather than the geometrical angle. The
effective angle has been found to be strongly dependent on
the streamwise velocity in the low-velocity range. A power
law is thus fitted to the effective angle vs velocity data de-
termined for the full range of velocities in the experiment.
During data reduction the velocity dependent effective angle
is determined on a sample-by-sample basis and the system of
equations must be solved iteratively. Further details of this
method may be found in Bakken and Krogstad.24
The hot wires were operated using in-house made con-
stant temperature anemometers at an overheat ratio of 1.5.
The filter frequencies of the low-pass filters were adjusted to
match the highest Kolmogorov frequency in the flow, after a
preliminary spectral survey had been made. The frequency
response of the hot wires was always better than the cutoff
frequency. Sampling to a PC was performed using a National
Instruments 16 bit A/D converter at sampling frequencies
twice the cutoff frequency.
In a study of the measurement uncertainty based on an
estimate of errors traceable back to the calibration equipment
used and a repeatability study of the measured quantities in
the outer layer of the channel, the uncertainties for
U , u2 , v2 , w2, and uv were estimated to be ±1.5% ,
± 4 % , ± 10% , ± 8%, and ±8%, respectively. Uncertainties
near the wall are somewhat higher. For the third order mo-
ments presented we have no good estimates, but the uncer-
tainties will be increased compared to the second order mo-
ments. It was found that the inaccuracy increased rapidly
with the power of v, so that v3 is expected to have the high-
est uncertainty.
The temperatures in the calibration facility and in the
wind tunnel were constantly monitored with thermocouples.
The effect of temperature drift was corrected for using the
method of Bearman.25
For the determination of u␶, three different methods were
used. Method 共i兲: Measurement of the static pressure gradi-
ent in the streamwise direction dP / dx. For measurements of
dP / dx, the test section is fitted with pressure taps along the
centerline of the sidewalls to eliminate disturbances from the
roughness elements. Additional taps are fitted along the cen-
terline of the floor as a verification. This method was used
for the higher Re␶ investigated. For the lower Re␶ the pres-
sure drop was too low to obtain reliable estimates of dP / dx.
Method 共ii兲: Calculation of u␶ from a least-squares fit of the
Reynolds shear stress, −u+v+, to the estimated outer layer
turbulent shear stress. In a fully developed channel flow, the
total shear stress, ␶total
+
= 1 − 共y + / h+兲 = 共dU+ / dy +兲 − u+v+ is a
+ +
straight line; dU / dy is the mean velocity gradient, and su-
perscript + denotes normalization with viscous wall units u␶
or ␯ / u␶. For the high Re␶ data, methods 共i兲 and 共ii兲 compared
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
to within 1%. The latter method was therefore believed to be
accurate also for the lower Re␶ data. Using this method in the
smooth-wall case, mean velocity profiles compared with re-
sults from DNS 共Ref. 26兲 to within 2%. For single- and
UW-wire smooth-wall measurements, the confirmation of u␶
was therefore done by inspecting the mean velocity profiles.
Because of the shift in the mean velocity profile in the rough-
wall case, another method had to be used in the low Re␶
rough cases for single- and UW-wire measurements. Method
共iii兲: Results from the smooth case showed very good col-
2
lapse of the u+ profiles for y / h ⬎ 0.2 for all probes. This
result was therefore used to estimate u␶ for the rough case
low Re␶ single- and UW-wire measurements. After determin-
ing u␶ from the shear stress profile measured by the UV
2
probe, the corresponding u+ profile was used to find u␶ for
the single- and UW-wire measurements.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Streamwise mean velocity
Mean velocity profiles are shown in inner coordinates in
Fig. 5. For the smooth surface there is good agreement with
DNS of Moser et al.26 Approaching the wall, the usual over-
prediction of the hot wire caused by convection to the wall
can be observed. For the rough surfaces, the error in origin
was determined through a fitting procedure of the mean ve-
locity profile to the log law.27 Towards the wall, the low Re␶
profiles have the same downward dip as the DNS of Ashra-
fian et al.11 The rough-wall profiles also exhibit the expected
downward shift ⌬U+, which is found to follow the charac-
teristic logarithmic dependency with respect to k+. This is
consistent with a k-type behavior 关Fig. 6; Eq. 共3兲兴. The data
for the lowest Re␶ for the mesh surface sit slightly lower than
the logarithmic line. Calculations of the equivalent sand
roughness ks+ show that this case is in the transitional regime.
The same is the case for the rod roughness DNS data.11 In
the fully rough regime, the ratio ks / k is about 7.8 and 3.3 for
the rod and mesh roughness, respectively, indicating a much
stronger roughness effect from the rod roughness than from
the mesh surface.
The variation of the friction factor, C f = 2共u␶ / Ub兲2, with
Re is shown in Fig. 7. Comparison is made in the smooth
case with the empirical correlation of Dean,28 C f
−0.025
= 0.073 Re2h . The rough-wall data show a constant C f in
the region of fully rough flow and displays a downward dip
in the transitionally rough regime as expected 共see, e.g.,
Pope29兲.
Scaling with u␶ in the outer layer results in the velocity
defect law
UCl − U 1
u␶
= ln
␬ h
y
+ D, 冉冊 共4兲
where D is a constant. The smooth-wall profiles for Re␶
⯝ 360 and Re␶ ⯝ 670 共Fig. 8兲 are seen to follow the corre-
sponding lines from DNS 共Ref. 26兲 at Re␶ = 395 and 590,
respectively, down to y / h = 0.01. Both rough surfaces col-
lapse with the smooth wall results all the way down to the
065101-6 Bakken et al. Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲

FIG. 5. Mean velocity U+ in inner coordinates. For the

smooth surface, only data for Re␶ ⯝ 360 and ⯝3300 are
included. Symbols in Table I.

top of the roughness elements. This is a first indication that
the outer layer flow is unaffected by the surface roughness.
B. Reynolds stresses
1. Streamwise normal stress
2 attenuated peak value down to about 4.2–4.4. The location of
The streamwise stress, u+ was measured with single
wires. The spatial resolution in the wall region is adequate,
as indicated by the close agreement with the DNS. However,
rough surfaces, only the data from the lowest Reynolds num-
bers capture the near-wall peak. These are the data of the
mesh surface at k+ ⯝ 15 共ks+ ⯝ 30, Re␶ = 450兲 and the DNS
data11 of the rod roughness at k+ ⯝ 14 共ks+ ⯝ 60, Re␶ = 400兲.
Compared to the smooth-wall data, both of these have an
the peak is shifted to y peak +
⯝ 30, which corresponds roughly
to y peak ⯝ y peak,smooth + k . The profiles of the next higher Re␶
+ + +

for the highest smooth-wall Reynolds number 共Re␶ = 3300, both reside in the fully rough regime 共ks,rod +
⯝ 130, k+ ⯝ 40,
lw+ ⬇ 33兲, spatial resolution starts to affect the data,30 which Re␶ = 600 and ks,mesh ⯝ 100, k ⯝ 32, Re␶ = 950兲. For these
+ +

are slightly attenuated near the peak 关Fig. 9共a兲兴. The average profiles the near-wall peaks are even more attenuated down
peak value is 7.27± 3%, which is similar to what was found to about 3–3.5 and have moved out to y peak +
⯝ y peak,smooth
+

by Mochizuki and Nieuwstadt30 in a large survey of both + k ⯝ 50– 60; y / h ⯝ 0.06– 0.09.
+
2
experimental and numerical data 共7.29± 6.5% 兲. This is In the inner region, the peak value of u+ is seen to
somewhat lower than the DNS of Moser et al.26 For the gradually decrease with increasing k+ 共or ks+兲 from the high

FIG. 6. Shift in mean velocity ⌬U vs k+. The lines are

fitted to the fully rough data using Eq. 共3兲. 䊐 Rods,
experiments; 䊏 rods, DNS; 䉭 mesh.

Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
065101-7 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
level of the smooth-wall data to a much lower level for the
fully rough data. The peak in the smooth-wall case is mainly
due to viscous effects. In the rough-wall cases, the position
of the peak is moved outwards from the smooth wall
+
y peak,smooth ⯝ 15 by a value corresponding approximately to
+ In the outer part of Fig. 9共a兲, the magnitude of u+ over
k . In the wall region, there is a transition from a strong
effect of viscous forces for low k+ to a dominance of pressure
forces caused by the drag on the roughness elements when k+
increases.31 At low k+, the y + value of the top of the rough-
ness elements is lower than the outer limit of the buffer layer.
However, for increasing k+, the pressure forces are increas-
ingly important and in the fully rough regime, ks+ ⬎ 70, vis-
cous forces are expected to be negligible.
Very close to the wall, there is a small local peak for all
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
FIG. 7. Friction factor C f . 䊐 Rods; 䉭 mesh; 䊊 smooth;
solid line, Dean’s correlation: C f = 0.073 Re−0.025
2h .
the rough-wall profiles discussed above. This is caused by a
small region of local separation at the top of the roughness
elements and is obviously a speciality of these kinds of
roughness geometries.
2
the smooth wall increases with increasing Re␶. For all the
rough-wall profiles with Re␶ ⬎ 1000, the inner region peak is
absent, and the magnitude of the peak in the outer region is
increasing with increasing Re␶ and k+, which is consistent
with the smooth-wall behavior. However, the outer region
peak is always inside y = 5k. The difference in peak values
for the two rough surfaces at approximately similar Re␶ or k+
is therefore as expected. In contrast to the low Re␶ profiles
+
FIG. 8. Velocity defect UCl − U+ vs y / h. Symbols in
Table I.
065101-8 Bakken et al.
over the rough surfaces, all the high Re␶ profiles have a
downward dip towards the wall, indicating that the near-wall
structure over rough surfaces is very different from those
found over smooth walls.
It has been suggested that for smooth surfaces, large
Reynolds stresses and turbulence production in the viscous
wall region are associated with highly organized streamwise
vortices.32 In the present study the integral length scale in the
streamwise direction was found to be shorter than for the
smooth surface near the wall for both types of roughnesses,33
indicating a break-up of the near-wall streamwise vortices
over the rough walls. This is supported by means of the ␭2
vortex criterion in the companion DNS study.11 At the same
time, a quadrant analysis shows that the ejection/sweep pro-
cesses are very similar for the three surfaces.12 This mecha-
nism is known to be important in the turbulence production
and in the wall region it is connected to the large-scale
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
2
FIG. 9. Streamwise normal stress u+ vs y + and y / h.
Symbols in Table I.
vortices.34 From the present data it seems plausible that there
is a link between the gradually decreasing influence of vis-
cous forces and the increasing isotropization of the large-
scale vortices in the wall region. At the same time, these
structures are moved outwards a distance corresponding ap-
proximately to the roughness height. Even though the near-
wall production mechanisms for the rough surface may have
been significantly modified compared to the smooth-wall
2
flow, the outer layer u+ level appears to be little affected.
2
Figure 9共b兲 shows u+ vs y / h. For similar Re␶ the data
from the different surfaces collapse outside y / h
⯝ 0.12– 0.15. There is, however, a distinct difference be-
tween the lower 共400⬍ Re␶ ⬍ 1500兲 and the higher 共2500
⬍ Re␶ ⬍ 6000兲 Re␶ profiles for 0.15⬍ y / h ⬍ 0.5, which is
outside of the log region. For y / h ⬎ 0.5, there are no system-
atic differences between the profiles.
065101-9 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
The Re␶-dependent high and low levels of u2 when scal-
ing with u␶, are consistent with observations in a smooth-
wall boundary layer.16 This has also been observed in a
smooth-wall pipe flow when scaling with UCl − Ub.14 The re-
sults of Fig. 1 show that the same effect would be obtained if
UCl − Ub was chosen for scaling. Since surface similarity is
well demonstrated when scaling with either u␶ or UCl − Ub,
the results of Sec. II and Fig. 2, in particular, imply that there
is no possibility of surface similarity using either of the ve-
locity scales UCl, 共u␶UCl兲共1/2兲, or Ub. However, the Reynolds
number similarity of each separate surface will be just as
good as in Fig. 9共b兲, but it will not be improved.
The lack of collapse of the u2 profiles scaling with u␶ has
been suggested by Townsend3 to be due to the “inactive”
motion, which is described as a large-scale swirling motion
in planes parallel to the wall. It has no vertical motion and
2 2
therefore only contributes to u+ and w+ . Results from pipe
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
2
FIG. 10. Wall-normal normal stress v+ vs y + and y / h.
Symbols in Table I.
flow14,35 suggest that a good collapse when scaling with u␶ is
obtained only in the region y / h ⬎ 0.4. Our results thus cor-
roborate earlier findings for smooth-wall internal flows. The
present results extend these findings to be valid also for
rough-wall channel flows.
2. Wall-normal normal stress
The fluctuating velocity component in the wall-normal
direction v is important in the diffusion of turbulent energy
across the channel. Differences in v between the different
surfaces may therefore indicate different transport mecha-
nisms. The data points closest to the wall have been dis-
carded, since they were obviously affected by measurement
errors. Following the discussion in the previous sections, the
scaling velocity used for v2 will be u␶2.
065101-10 Bakken et al.
2
The peak value of v+ in smooth-wall flows is found in
the logarithmic region and is therefore little affected by vis-
cous forces. There seems to be a general agreement about a
Re␶ dependency of the peak value for Re␶ below
1000.16,26,36,37 At higher Re␶, this dependency is at least less
important if not nonexistent.16,38 An implication of these re-
sults is that the “active” motion is Re␶ dependent at low
Re␶.37 However, the amount of Re␶ dependency appears not
to be settled. In the outer region of a smooth-wall boundary
layer, the collapse has been shown to be very good in outer
coordinates for Re␶ 艌 1000.16,39 In contrast to these results
are those of Krogstad et al.5 in a boundary layer with circular
2
rods and mesh roughness. They found that v+ was generally
much higher over both types of roughnesses than over the
smooth surface. However, other results obtained for internal
2
flows suggest that v+ is attenuated for the entire cross sec-
tion by the surface roughness.40,41
2
Results for v+ are shown in Figs. 10共a兲 and 10共b兲 in
inner and outer coordinates, respectively. The attenuation of
the peak value is considerable for Re␶ 艋 450 关Fig. 10共a兲兴.
This is particularly distinct for the smooth 共Re␶ = 360兲 and
rod-roughened 共DNS,11 Re␶ = 400兲 surfaces. The peak for the
mesh surface at Re␶ = 450 is much less influenced; there is a
fairly small difference between the Re␶ ⯝ 450 and Re␶
2
⯝ 950 profiles. The peak values of v+ for both the smooth
and the mesh surfaces increase to a constant value for Re␶
⬎ 2500. For the rod-roughened surface the peak value is con-
stant for Re␶ ⬎ 630. In the outer region 关Fig. 10共b兲兴, there is
good agreement with the smooth-wall Re␶ = 590 DNS data26
for all surfaces outside y / h ⯝ 0.1– 0.15 for Re␶ ⯝ 600– 1200.
For the smooth and mesh surfaces, there is a general increase
in the level from the low Re␶ data to the data for Re␶
⬎ 2500 for the entire cross section. However, the trend for
the rod roughness is different from the other flows, as the
peak level appears to be independent of Re␶.
2
It appears that the peak value and the level of v+ in the
outer layer is much more connected to Reynolds number
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
2
FIG. 11. Spanwise normal stress w+ vs y / h. Symbols
in Table I.
effects than to the boundary condition. This is a strong indi-
cation of similar transport mechanisms in the smooth- and
rough-wall cases. 共It should, however, be pointed out that
except for the lowest Reynolds number smooth-wall data, all
profiles irrespective of Re and surface condition, lie in a
rather narrow band with a spread of less than ±10%. This is
about the same order of magnitude as the expected uncer-
tainty in v2 when using hot-wire anemometry, so consider-
able caution should be shown in making too definitive con-
clusions about the effects of surface roughness on v2 in the
outer layer.兲
3. Spanwise normal stress
Measurements of the spanwise stress component w are
scarce and the uncertainties associated with near-wall data of
w2 from hot wires are larger than for v. Consequently, data of
w2 will be shown in outer variables only. The velocity scale
used is still u2␶ .
For low Reynolds numbers 共Re␶ 艋 590兲, DNS for
smooth-wall channel flow26 show a strong Re␶ dependency
2
of the peak value of w+ . The Re␶ dependency primarily ap-
plies to the near-wall region and the level outside y / h ⯝ 0.2
is fairly constant for Re␶ = 395 and 590. This is consistent
with results from boundary layers for 1100⬍ Re␪ ⬍ 4400.38
2
For rough-wall internal flows, it has been found that w+ was
attenuated for the entire cross section.40,41
2
Figure 11 shows the distributions of w+ . In the outer
layer, there seems to be fairly good agreement between the
different surfaces and Reynolds numbers, except the high
Re␶ data for the rod roughness, which are somewhat higher
towards the center of the channel. This is believed to be an
artifact, since it is hard to accept that the largest differences
between the various surfaces reside in the region outside
y / h ⯝ 0.4. 共As for the v2 data, the difference in level is
within the expected measurement uncertainty for w2.兲
065101-11 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
4. Shear stress
In the smooth-wall case, −uv may be calculated from the
streamwise mean momentum equation and the measured
mean velocity profile directly. The nondimensional shear
stress can then be expressed as
y + ⳵ U+
− u +v + = 1 − − .
h+ ⳵ y +
This equation is also valid for a rough-wall case with random
roughness. There is an additional contribution in the present
wavy rough cases from the U+V+ correlation,42 which is dif-
ficult to quantify experimentally using hot-wire anemometry,
since V is very small relative to U. From the rod roughness
DNS 共Ref. 11兲 共Re␶ = 400兲, the plane averaged contribution
of UV has been estimated to be 0.08 uv at the wall distance
corresponding to the crest of the rods. Above the roughness
element the contribution is considerably higher. In this re-
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
FIG. 12. Shear stress −u+v+ vs y + and y / h. Symbols in
Table I. 共a兲 The two lines added for Re␶ ⯝ 3000 are
calculated from Eq. 共5兲, solid line for smooth wall and
dash-dotted line for rods.
gion the viscous term 关last term of Eq. 共5兲兴 becomes negli-
gible compared to U+V+. The major contribution to U+V+
comes from the acceleration of the fluid just ahead of and
above the roughness element. A relatively long cavity will
therefore diminish the plane-averaged effect. A consequence
of this for the present investigation is that the shear stress
共5兲 profile measured above the rough surface will reach a peak
level that is reduced compared to the smooth-wall
distribution.
The measured shear stresses are shown in Figs. 12共a兲
and 12共b兲 in inner and outer variables, respectively. To avoid
crowding in Fig. 12共a兲, only a few data sets are included to
show the trend. The two lines added for the smooth and
rod-roughened surfaces for Re␶ ⯝ 3000 in Fig. 12共a兲 are
−u+v+ calculated from Eq. 共5兲 共without the U+V+ term兲. The
almost complete collapse of the two calculated profiles is a
confirmation of the similarity of the gradients in the mean
065101-12 Bakken et al. Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲

3
FIG. 13. Third order streamwise moment u+ vs y + and
y / h. Symbols in Table I.

velocity profiles. For the outer region, the calculated and
measured profiles are seen to follow each other closely,
which is encouraging for the accuracy of the estimates of u␶.
This is also seen in Fig. 12共b兲 where all profiles follow the
straight line 1 − y + / h+ in the outer region. For the smooth-
wall profiles, the effect of viscosity is seen as a drop towards
the wall. In the measurements only the lower Reynolds num-
ber data exhibit this feature 关Fig. 12共a兲兴, since for the high
Re␶ spatial resolution limitations prevented measurements
down to the viscous region. For the rough wall, all the pro-
files, independent of Re␶, have a dip towards the wall. Fol-
lowing the discussion above, this is due to the effect of the
U+V+ term. The peak values at the same Re␶ are only slightly
higher for the smooth-wall profiles than for the rough. There
is, however, a trend for all the surfaces that the peak value is
increasing with increasing Re␶. This is consistent with Eq.
共5兲, as well as with data from both smooth-wall boundary
layers16 and channel flow.43
C. Third order moments
Figures 13–16 show the third order moments
+3 2 2 3 3
u , u+ v+ , u+v+ , and v+ . Except for in the u+ vs y + plot
关Fig. 13共a兲兴, some of the data sets are omitted in this section
3
to avoid crowding in the figures. Note that u+ is measured
with single wires, so the near-wall resolution and accuracy of
this moment is expected to be considerably better than for
the other moments. For the mixed moments, no comparison
is made with smooth-wall DNS, since these are not part of
the database of Moser et al.26

Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
065101-13 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
Since the ejection and sweep events are significantly
stronger than the outward and inward interaction terms over
both the smooth and rough walls, the sign of the streamwise
turbulent transport of u2 关Figs. 13共a兲 and 13共b兲兴 can be
loosely related to ejection and sweep events.12 Very close to
3
the wall, u+ on the smooth surface is positive and therefore
characterized by a domination of sweep type motions. Out-
3
side y + ⯝ 15, there is a dominance of negative u+ events
throughout most of the layer, indicating strong ejections of
low speed fluid away from the wall. This is expected, since
there is a general energy transport away from the location of
maximum turbulence production. Both the transitional
roughness data sets 关mesh roughness Re␶ = 450 and rod
roughness DNS 共Ref. 11兲 Re␶ = 400兴 follow each other quite
well. The positive near-wall peak is reduced and moved out-
wards roughly by k+ and the negative peak has practically
vanished because of the partial break-up of the streamwise
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
2
FIG. 14. Third order mixed moment u+ v+. Symbols in
Table I.
vortices. Thus, in the transitional rough cases there are indi-
cations of a similar type of organization as over the smooth
wall, suggesting that viscosity is still having an important
influence in these flows. The strength of these structures does
however appear to have been reduced by the interaction of
the roughness elements as conjectured by Krogstad et al.5
The fully rough profiles become positive further from
the wall. This is consistent with the quadrant analysis, which
shows that sweep type events are much more important to-
wards the wall over the fully rough surfaces than over the
smooth surface.12 This is believed to be caused by a reduced
damping of the wall-normal part of the sweeping motion
over the rough surfaces, due to the open nature of the sur-
face. The zero crossing point at y / h ⯝ 0.15 关Fig. 13共b兲兴
seems to be independent of Re␶ for the fully rough flows,
supporting the concept of a Re␶-independent near-wall layer
that is affected by the surface roughness. Outside y / h
FIG. 15. Third order mixed moment u+v+2. Symbols in
Table I.
065101-14 Bakken et al.
⯝ 0.2– 0.25, the smooth- and rough-wall profiles follow each
other for similar Re␶, indicating negligible structural differ-
ences in the outer part, again consistent with the quadrant
3
analysis.12 In the outer layer, u+ is clearly more negatively
skewed with increasing Re␶, corresponding to the increase in
2
inactive motion observed for u+ .
2
The vertical turbulent flux of u2 , u+ v+, represents most
of the outward diffusion of turbulent energy 共Fig. 14兲. The
significant positive peak which is seen for the smooth-wall
Re␶ = 670 profile is attenuated and moved outwards for the
3 that of a smooth surface. The measurements have been per-
transitional roughness profiles, as found for u+ . The fully
rough profiles are much less skewed near the wall supporting
the findings of Krogstad and Antonia6 that surface roughness
reduces anisotropy. The different surfaces show the same
trends for y / h ⬎ 0.2– 0.3. In the outer region there seems to
be a tendency towards more positively skewed profiles for
3 In the fully rough regime, the roughness function ⌬U+,
increasing Re␶. This supports the findings from the u+
profiles.
The wall-normal turbulent flux of −uv and v2, i.e., the
2 3
profiles of u+v+ and v+ , respectively, are shown in Figs. 15
and 16. The uncertainty in the estimates close to the wall is
growing with increasing powers of v. Thus, no conclusions
are made for this region. In the outer region, the same sort of
3
similarity as observed for the u+ profiles is seen, except for
the Reynolds number trend, which is much less pronounced,
3
especially for v+ . These results compare well with the find-
ings of Raupach et al.44 in rough-wall boundary layers. Other
investigations from boundary layers, where differences in
Reynolds stresses between smooth and rough surfaces are
found to be important, have also found large differences for
the third order moments.6,45
As is observed for the Reynolds stresses, it may there-
fore be concluded that the turbulent transport terms are
modified by the surface roughness in the inner region. The
wall-normal extent of this modification is moderate for the
transitional roughness. For the fully rough profiles it extends
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
3
FIG. 16. Third order moment v+ . Symbols in Table I.
somewhat further out than for the Reynolds stresses. The
Reynolds number dependency in the outer region is increas-
ing with the power of u, indicating that this primarily affects
the inactive motion.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The turbulent flows in a two-dimensional channel where
the surface has been roughened by two-dimensional rods or
three-dimensional mesh roughness have been compared with
formed with hot-wire anemometry. The results indicate that
the boundary conditions have little influence on the turbulent
properties in the outer region, y / h ⬎ 0.15– 0.17. Different
scaling velocities have been examined and the best collapse
is achieved when scaling with u␶.
the vertical shift in the log law, displays the characteristic
logarithmic dependency on the roughness Reynolds number,
k+. The velocity defect plots indicate a high degree of simi-
larity in the outer layer.
For the streamwise normal Reynolds stress there is a
substantial sensitivity to the wall condition in the roughness
sublayer, y ⬍ 5k. As k+ increases, there is a transfer from a
domination of viscous forces to drag induced pressure forces,
which causes a decrease in the magnitude of the near-wall
peak. In the outer layer, the effect of surface roughness is
small, supporting the Townsend wall similarity hypothesis.3
There is, however, a Reynolds number dependence common
to all three surfaces at low Reynolds numbers. For the other
stresses the collapse between the data from the different sur-
face geometries is good, but it is difficult to conclude about
the Reynolds number dependency.
Transport properties, as reflected by the third order mo-
ments, are very similar outside y ⯝ 7k – 8k for the three sur-
3
face geometries. Observations of u+ confirm the conclusions
drawn from a quadrant analysis of the same flows.12 Ap-
065101-15 Reynolds number effects in the outer layer
proaching the wall, sweeps are enhanced over the rough sur-
faces because of the reduced damping of the wall-normal
motion.
Previous investigations of flows in channels which have
been roughened on one side only, and of rough-wall bound-
ary layers, have suggested strong roughness effects in the
outer layer. This strong interaction between the inner and
outer layers has been found to mainly cause an increase in
2
v+ . This was not found to be the case in the present inves-
tigation. We believe the main reason for this to be due to the
differences in boundary conditions. In the boundary layer the
increased growth rate over rough surfaces will cause in-
creased entrainment which will affect the outer layer diffu-
sion and therefore also to some extent the stress profiles. For
flows in channels with only one rough surface, the difference
in drag between the rough and the smooth surfaces causes an
asymmetry that offsets the outer layer towards the smooth
side. It appears reasonable that this asymmetry will affect the
outer layer structure. As a concluding remark, the symmetri-
cally roughened channel flow and flows in rough-wall pipes
appear to be better candidates for the wall similarity hypoth-
esis of Townsend3 than, e.g., boundary layers, suggesting
that outer layer roughness effects may depend on the flow
type.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Financial support by the Norwegian Research Council
for A.A. is greatly acknowledged.
1
J. Nikuradse, “Strömungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren,” VDI-Forsch. 361
共1933兲 共English translation, “Laws of flow in rough pipes,” NACA TM
1292, 1950兲.
2
H. Schlichting, Boundary Layer Theory, 6th ed. 共McGraw-Hill, New York,
1968兲.
3
A. A. Townsend, The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow 共Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, 1976兲.
4 30
A. E. Perry and C. J. Abell, “Asymptotic similarity of turbulence struc-
tures in smooth- and rough-walled pipes,” J. Fluid Mech. 79, 785 共1977兲.
5
P.-Å. Krogstad, R. A. Antonia, and L. W. B. Browne, “Comparison be-
tween rough- and smooth-wall turbulent boundary layers,” J. Fluid Mech.
245, 599 共1992兲.
6 32
P.-Å. Krogstad and R. A. Antonia, “Surface roughness effects in turbulent
boundary layers,” Exp. Fluids 27, 450 共1999兲.
7 33
S. Leonardi, P. Orlandi, R. J. Smalley, L. Djenidi, and R. A. Antonia,
“Direct numerical simulations of turbulent channel flow with transverse
square bars on one wall,” J. Fluid Mech. 491, 229 共2003兲.
8 Barcelona, 2004兲, pp. 401–404.
Y. Miyake, K. Tsujimoto, and M. Nakaji, “Direct numerical simulation of
rough-wall heat transfer in a turbulent channel flow,” Int. J. Heat Fluid
Flow 22, 1237 共2001兲.
9 35
Y. Nagano, H. Hattori, S. Yasui, and T. Houra, “DNS of velocity and
thermal fields in turbulent channel flow with transverse rib roughness,”
Proceedings of Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena—3, edited by N.
Kasagi, J. K. Eaton, R. Friedrich, J. A. C. Humphrey, M. A. Leschziner,
and T. Miyauchi 共Sendai, Japan, 2003兲, Vol. 3, pp. 1055–1060.
10
S. Leonardi, P. Orlandi, L. Djenidi, and R. A. Antonia, “Structure of
turbulent channel flow with square bars on one wall,” Proceedings of
Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena—3, edited by N. Kasagi, J. K.
Eaton, R. Friedrich, J. A. C. Humphrey, M. A. Leschziner, and T. Miyau-
chi 共Sendai, Japan, 2001兲, Vol. 1, pp. 123–128.
11
A. Ashrafian, H. I. Andersson, and M. Manhart, “DNS of turbulent flow in
a rod-roughened channel,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 25, 373 共2004兲.
12
O. M. Bakken and P.-Å. Krogstad, “Stress measurements in a rough wall
channel flow using a variable angle method of calibration for X-probes,”
Proceedings of Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena—3, edited by N.
Kasagi, J. K. Eaton, R. Friedrich, J. A. C. Humphrey, M. A. Leschziner,
and T. Miyauchi 共Sendai, Japan, 2003兲, Vol. 1, pp. 105–110.
Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions
Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲
13
M. V. Zagarola and A. J. Smits, “Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe
flow,” J. Fluid Mech. 373, 33 共1998兲.
14
J. F. Morrison, W. Jiang, B. J. McKeon, and A. J. Smits, “Scaling of the
streamwise velocity component in turbulent pipe flow,” J. Fluid Mech.
508, 99 共2004兲.
15
F. T. M. Nieuwstadt and P. Bradshaw, “Similarities and differences of
turbulent boundary layer, pipe and channel flow,” in Boundary-Layer
Separation in Aircraft Aerodynamics, edited by R. A. W. M. Henkes and P.
G. Bakker 共Delft University Press, Delft, 1997兲.
16
D. B. DeGraaf and J. K. Eaton, “Reynolds-number scaling of the flat-plate
turbulent boundary layer,” J. Fluid Mech. 422, 319 共2000兲.
17
W. K. George and L. Castillo, “Zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary
layer,” Appl. Mech. Rev. 50, 689 共1997兲.
18
D. B. DeGraaf, D. R. Webster, and J. K. Eaton, “The effect of Reynolds
number on boundary layer turbulence,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 18, 341
共1999兲.
19
M. Wosnik, L. Castillo, and W. K. George, “A theory for turbulent pipe
and channel flows,” J. Fluid Mech. 421, 115 共2000兲.
20
Y. Furuya, M. Miyata, and H. Fujita, “Turbulent boundary layer and flow
resistance on plates roughened by wires,” J. Fluids Eng. 98, 635 共1976兲.
21
J. Cui, V. C. Patel, and C.-L. Lin, “Large-eddy simulation of turbulent
flow in a channel with rib roughness,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 372
共2003兲.
22
A. E. Perry, K. L. Lim, and S. M. Henbest, “An experimental study of the
turbulence structure in smooth- and rough-wall boundary layers,” J. Fluid
Mech. 177, 437 共1987兲.
23
M. Tagawa, T. Tsuji, and Y. Nagano, “Evaluation of x-probe response to
wire separation for wall turbulence measurements,” Exp. Fluids 12, 413
共1992兲.
24
O. M. Bakken and P.-Å. Krogstad, “A velocity dependent effective angle
method for calibration of X-probes at low velocities,” Exp. Fluids 37, 146
共2004兲.
25
P. W. Bearman, “Corrections for the effect of ambient temperature drift on
hot-wire measurements in incompressible flow,” DISA Inf. 11, 25 共1971兲.
26
R. D. Moser, J. Kim, and N. N. Mansour, “Direct numerical simulation of
turbulent channel flow up to Re␶ = 590,” Phys. Fluids 11, 943 共1999兲.
27
L. F. Moore, “An experimental investigation of the boundary layer devel-
opment along a rough surface,” Ph.D. thesis, State University of Iowa,
1951.
28
R. B. Dean, “Reynolds number dependence of skin friction and other bulk
flow variables in two-dimensional rectangular duct flow,” J. Fluids Eng.
100, 215 共1978兲.
29
S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows 共Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2000兲.
S. Mochizuki and F. T. M. Nieuwstadt, “Reynolds-number-dependence of
the maximum in the streamwise velocity fluctuations in wall turbulence,”
Exp. Fluids 21, 218 共1996兲.
31
P. M. Ligrani and R. J. Moffat, “Structure of transitionally rough and fully
rough turbulent boundary layers,” J. Fluid Mech. 162, 69 共1986兲.
J. Jimenez and P. Moin, “The minimal flow unit in near wall turbulence,”
J. Fluid Mech. 225, 221 共1991兲.
O. M. Bakken and P.-Å. Krogstad, “Small-scale intermittency in a turbu-
lent channel flow and the effect of boundary conditions,” in Advances in
Turbulence X, edited by H. I. Andersson and P.-Å. Krogstad 共CIMNE,
34
J. Jeong, F. Hussain, W. Schoppa, and J. Kim, “Coherent structures near
the wall in a turbulent channel flow,” J. Fluid Mech. 332, 185 共1997兲.
A. E. Perry and C. J. Abell, “Scaling laws for pipe-flow turbulence,” J.
Fluid Mech. 67, 257 共1975兲.
36
L. P. Erm, “Low-Reynolds-number turbulent boundary layers,” Ph.D. the-
sis, University of Melbourne, Australia, 1988.
37
R. A. Antonia, M. Teitel, J. Kim, and L. W. B. Browne, “Low-Reynolds-
number effects in a fully developed turbulent channel flow,” J. Fluid
Mech. 236, 579 共1992兲.
38
A. E. Perry and J. D. Li, “Experimental support for the attached-eddy
hypothesis in zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers,” J. Fluid
Mech. 218, 405 共1990兲.
39
H. H. Fernholz and P. J. Finley, “The incompressible zero-pressure-
gradient turbulent boundary layer: An assessment of the data,” Prog.
Aerosp. Sci. 32, 245 共1996兲.
40
J. Sabot, I. Saleh, and G. Compte-Bellot, “Effects of roughness on the
intermittent maintenance of Reynolds shear stress in pipe flow,” Phys.
Fluids 20, S150 共1977兲.
41
A. Mazouz, L. Labraga, and C. Tournier, “Anisotropy invariants of Rey-
065101-16 Bakken et al. Phys. Fluids 17, 065101 共2005兲

nolds stress tensor in a duct flow and turbulent boundary layer,” J. Fluids
Eng. 120, 280 共1998兲.
42
L. Djenidi, R. Elavarasan, and R. A. Antonia, “The turbulent boundary
layer over transverse cavities,” J. Fluid Mech. 395, 271 共1999兲.
43
T. Wei and W. W. Willmarth, “Reynolds-number effects on the structure of
a turbulent channel flow,” J. Fluid Mech. 204, 57 共1989兲.
44
M. R. Raupach, R. A. Antonia, and S. Rajagopalan, “Rough-wall turbulent
boundary layers,” Appl. Mech. Rev. 44, 1 共1991兲.
45
L. Keirsbulck, L. Labraga, A. Mazouz, and C. Tournier, “Surface rough-
ness effects on turbulent boundary layer structures,” J. Fluids Eng. 124,
127 共2002兲.

Downloaded 10 May 2012 to 193.194.76.5. Redistribution subject to AIP license or copyright; see http://pof.aip.org/about/rights_and_permissions