Scaling of Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows

September 8, 2010

1 Scaling of Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows

with Zero Pressure Gradient
Self-similarity is an important concept in fluid dynamics in general and tur-
bulent flows in particular. Self-similarity is achieved, if for a given geometry,
various turbulence statistics (mean, rms, Reynolds stresses, etc...) measured
at different Reynolds numbers and in different facilities collapse to a universal
profile when scaled by proper length and velocity scales. This is illustrated
in figure 1. Self-similarity is important because it allows to extrapolate the
lower Reynolds number laboratory results to real world high Reynolds num-
ber applications. In general, equations for a turbulent boundary layer are
given as,

∂U ∂U −1 dP ∂ 2U ∂ 0 0
U +V = +ν 2 − (u v ) (1)
∂x ∂y ρ dx ∂y ∂y
and the continuity equation,
∂U ∂V
+ =0 (2)
∂x ∂y
Boundary conditions are U = V = 0 at y = 0 and U → Ue as y →
∞, where Ue is the freestream velocity at the edge of the boundary layer.
Capital letters correspond to mean quantities and lower case letters with
a prime denote fluctuations. Several analytical attempts were made in the
past to find self-similar solutions for equations (1) and (2) for turbulent wall-
bounded flows with adverse pressure gradient. These solutions should result
in self-similarity, which means that flow equations should be independent
of the streamwise coordinate. A scaling approach searches for coordinate
transformation to collapse the data of mean velocity profiles, Reynolds shear
stress, Reynolds normal stresses, etc. By trying to collapse the data to a

1
 2

single curve, we are trying are go from partial differential equations of (1)
and (2) to an ordinary differential equation. A flow usually needs two scales
to be described universally,i.e. velocity and length. In unsteady flows, a time
scale may also be necessary. Apart from length and velocity, scalings have
also been sought for statistics like correlations, spectra etc. Despite several
attempts so far, we still do not have a universal scaling for turbulent flows
which can represent all of the known experimental data.

Figure 1: General purpose of scaling. Adopted from Gersten & Herwig

(1992).

Earlier research into self-similarity and equilibrium boundary layers by

Clauser (1954b) and Rotta (1962) assumed the friction velocity uτ as veloc-
ity scale for the whole boundary layer, which was later contested by many
researchers. They assumed a self-similarity of the following form:

Ue − U y −u0 v 0 y
= f ( ), 2
= g12 ( )
uτ ∆ uτ ∆

u0 2 y v02 y
2
= g11 ( ), 2
= g22 ( )
uτ ∆ uτ ∆

Here ∆ = (δ ∗ Ue /uτ ) whereas f , g12 , g11 and g22 represent the functional
dependence of velocity defect, Reynolds shear, streamwise and wall-normal
stresses respectively. For velocity and Reynolds stresses, uτ has classically
been used as internal scale and Ue as external scale because all wall-bounded
flows have distinct inner and outer regions. Here uτ is the friction velocity
 3

p
defined as τw /ρ and Ue is the local freestream flow velocity. Near sepa-
ration, uτ becomes zero and thus the wall-unit scaling becomes difficult to
implement. In most cases, the inner velocity scaling based on uτ was unable
to collapse the velocity and Reynolds stress profiles in the outer layer and
thus an effect of Reynolds number was evident in the normalised profiles.
For length, the classical inner scaling has been uτ /ν and the bound-
ary layer thickness δ as outer scale. Owing to the difficulty of precisely
measuring boundary layer thickness, especially over curved surfaces, many
researchers have instead preferred to use boundary layer momentum thick-
ness θ or displacement thickness δ ∗ as length scales because these are in-
tegral quantites and relatively easy to compute. Clauser (1954b) originally
proposed ∆ = (δ ∗ Ue /uτ ) as the length scale but it was largely replaced
by boundary layer thickness δ. The usual length scales for fully-developed
channel, pipe flows and bumps/humps/ramps are the half-channel height H,
diameter D and maximum height h respectively. According to Pope (2000),
a flow is fully-developed when the velocity statistics no longer change with
the streamwise coordinate.
Castillo & George (2001) reconsidered the similarity analysis of the tur-
bulent boundary layer and suggested outer velocity scales as Ue , Ue2 and
Ue2 dδ/dx for the velocity defect, Reynolds normal stress and Reynolds shear
stress respectively. Thus their similarity analysis took the following form:

Ue − U y −u0 v 0 y
= f ( ), dδ
= g 12 ( ),
Ue δ Ue2 ( dx ) δ

u0 2 y v02 y
2
= g11 ( ), 2
= g22 ( )
Ue δ Ue δ
The validity of Ue , Ue2 and Ue2 dδ/dx as outer velocity scales was put in
question by Maciel et al. (2006a) for flows with strong streamwise pressure
gradients. They pointed out that Reynolds stresses scaled with Ue2 can grow
by an order of magnitude for a flow experiencing a strong favorable pressure
gradient and then a strong adverse pressure gradient like on the suction side
of an airfoil.
Zagarola & Smits (1998) proposed Uc − Ub as the outer velocity scale for
turbulent pipe flow, where Uc is the centreline velocity and Ub is the bulk
mean velocity. They showed that Uc − Ub is better than uτ for collapsing
the velocity defect profiles. For turbulent boundary layers, they proposed
an equivalent scale Uzs = Ue δ ∗ /δ, which proved to be a valid scale for the
outer layer. Their scale not only removed Reynolds number effects but also
 4

the upstream condition effects were noted to disappear. Later Maciel et al.
2
(2006b) showed that Uzs is a valid scale for Reynolds stresses. To complement
the Zagarola & Smits (1998) velocity scale Uzs , Maciel et al. (2006a) replaced
uτ by Uzs to get ∆zs = Ue δ ∗ /Uzs , which is the same as boundary layer
thickness δ.
DeGraaff & Eaton (2000) proposed a mixed scaling uτ Ue for the Reynolds
stresses but scaling was found not to be universal in the outer region of the
boundary layer. They did notice however the disappearance of Reynolds
number effects with the mixed scaling.
Stanislas et al. (2008) carried out stereo PIV experiments of flat plate
turbulent boundary layer over a range of Reynolds number Reθ from 7800
to 15000. They argued that if Kolmogorov scales determines the friction
at the wall and if they are more representative of dissipation than , then
they should replace the viscosity ν as a scale. The viscosity shall then be-
come a kind of ‘turbulence thermodynamic’ quantity by contributing towards
Kolmogorov scale (η). They found that very near to the wall, the ratio of
Kolmogorov scales to the integral scales is of order 1 and thus near the wall
the Kolmogorov scale η should be used as a length scale. They plotted the
mean velocity U/Ue as a function of y/η and obtained a good collapse near
the wall. However, a good collapse was not observed in the outer layer and
to use δ as the outer length scale, they defined a new length scale η ∗ in form:
 
∗ δ
η = min η, . (3)
A
Here A is of the order of 1000. The function was designed such that δ
shall take over as a length scale if Kolmogorov scale η is greater than δ/1000.
Therefore, as summarised above, the existence of a plethora of velocity,
length and stress scales proves that we are still far from having a single
universally accepted set of scales for turbulent wall-bounded flows.

2 Scaling of Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows

with Adverse Pressure Gradient
Turbulent boundary layers undergoing adverse pressure gradients and go-
ing towards separation do not scale with uτ because the wall shear stress
decreases to zero and changes sign. Several alternate scalings have been
proposed for adverse pressure gradient boundary layers. Stratford (1959)
performed measurements of an turbulent boundary layer close to separation
and for the case of zero wall shear stress, τw = 0, he proposed a new scale
 5

for collapsing the mean velocity profiles based on a “pressure” velocity (see
??):
ν dP 1/3
up = ( ) . (4)
ρ dx
Mellor & Gibson (1966) proposed another pressure velocity scale up for
flows near separation,
s
δ ∗ dp
up = uτ β 1/2 = . (5)
ρ dx
Perry & Shofield (1973) proposed a different velocity scale us , which is
given as,
 3/2 s
us umτ δ ∗
= 13.53 (6)
Ue Ue ym
where umτ = (τmax /ρ)1/2 and ym is y at τmax . They claimed that all
velocity scales based upon the local pressure gradient are not appropriate
and instead proposed a velocity scale us which explicitly depends on the
maximum shear-stress. It was determined by a fit to the velocity profile in
the same manner as uτ was determined by a fit to the Clauser plot. When
u0 v 0 + max was greater than or equal to 1.5, then uτ was supposed to be replaced
by us . They also proposed a new length scale ∆ps = 2.86δ ∗ Ue /us . Angele &
Muhammad-Klingmann (2005) found that up and us scaled their data both
before and after separation.
Elsberry et al. (2000) performed experimental studies on a turbulent
boundary layer on the verge of separation (thus undergoing strong adverse
pressure gradient) and showed that the traditional outer layer scaling Ue
did not collapse the stress profiles, although it did collapse the mean veloc-
ity profile. They proposed Ue Uemax as an outer layer scaling for Reynolds
shear stress and Ue 2max for the Reynolds normal stresses, where Uemax is the
maximum freestream velocity,

u02 y v 02 y u0 v 0 y
= g11 ( 0.2
), = g22 ( 0.2
), = g12 ( ).
Ue2 max θReθ 2
Ue max θReθ Ue Uemax θReθ0.2

This scaling was thought to account for the non-equilibrium nature of the
outer layer. They also introduced a new length scale θRe0.2θ , based on the
momentum thickness θ and Reynolds number Reθ = (Ue θ/ν). The new set
of scalings were found to achieve a good collapse of the Reynolds stresses.
 6

Song & Eaton (2004) performed experimental studies on a separating,

reattaching and recovering turbulent boundary layer over a range of Reθ
between 1100 and 20100 and proposed new length and velocity scales. To
collapse the peaks of both normal stresses and shear stress, a scaling of
y/yinf lection was used where yinf lection is the location of inflection point in the
mean flow. For the streamwise normal stress, they proposed an empirically
2
determined scale Uinf lection , where Uinf lection is the velocity of the mean flow
at inflection point. The wall-normal stress was found to scale with u2τ,ref .
The reference location for uτ had been taken in the boundary layer prior to
the start of adverse pressure gradient.
Aubertine & Eaton (2006) carried out Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA)
studies in a turbulent boundary layer with a mild adverse pressure gradient.
They proposed u2τ (1 − 0.5Π2ref ) as a scaling for streamwise normal stress for
the inner layer and u2τ ,ref (1 − 0.5Π2ref ) for outer layer. Πref is the wake
parameter evaluated at a reference location upstream. The wake function
Πref was calculated as,
κ 2 1 δuτ,ref
Πref = (p − B − ln( )) (7)
2 Cf,ref κ ν
The scale u2τ (1 − 0.5Π2ref ) was found to collapse the streamwise normal
stress in the inner region. The scale for the outer layer, u2τ ,ref (1 − 0.5Π2ref ),
was tested on the data of Samuel & Joubert (1974) but failed to achieve a
good collapse. They proposed a fixed scaling u2τ ,ref for wall-normal Reynold
stress, arguing that wall-normal stress is unaffected by the changing pressure-
gradient whereas the streamwise stress is affected by the presence of a chang-
ing pressure gradient.
Maciel et al. (2006a) performed PIV experiments on turbulent boundary
layer subjected to a strong adverse pressure gradient and showed that the
Reynolds normal and shear stress did not scale with local freestream velocity
Ue2 , friction velocity uτ and the mixed scalings Ue uτ and even those proposed
by Mellor & Gibson (1966) or Perry & Shofield (1973). They applied the
scalings of Zagarola & Smits (1998) to their flow and achieved an overall
good collapse of Reynolds stresses. They concluded that Zagarola & Smits
(1998) scaling, Uzs = Ue δ ∗ /δ, is valid even for turbulent boundary layers
with adverse pressure gradient. Uzs was originally proposed for zero pressure
gradient cases and this makes it more universal than other scalings. The
similarity analysis of Maciel et al. (2006a) took the following form:
 7

Ue − U y −u0 v 0 y
= f ( ), 2
= g12 ( )
Uzs ∆ Uzs ∆

u0 2 y v02 y
2
= g11 ( ), 2
= g22 ( )
Uzs ∆ Uzs ∆

It is evident that scalings proposed by various researchers for adverse pres-

sure gradient turbulent flows are more complicated than scalings for canonical
flows like flat plate boundary layers, channel and pipe flows. The variety of
scalings proposed shows that a continuous effort is made to find universal
scalings for adverse pressure gradient flows.
In the present work, two new empirically-determined velocity scales uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2
and Ue β 0.1 for the velocity defect profiles (Ue − u), rms velocity fluctuation
u0rms and Reynolds stresses u0i u0j of the attached turbulent boundary lay-
ers undergoing adverse pressure gradient are proposed. Here uτ is the wall
friction velocity, δ ∗ the boundary layer momentum thickness, δ the bound-
ary layer thickness, Ue the freestream velocity and β is the non-dimensional
pressure gradient parameter. Present study is limited to application of the
proposed scalings to the mean flow velocity and streamwise component of
rms velocity fluctuations.
 8

3 New Velocity Scales for Wall-bounded Tur-

bulent Flows
Ten data-sets (numerical and experimental) with different experimental tech-
niques, Reynolds numbers and pressure gradients were chosen to test the
validity and universality of the proposed scaling. These selected data-sets
pertain to turbulent boundary layers subjected to adverse pressure gradient.
All cases pertain to incompressible isothermal turbulent boundary layers de-
veloping over solid and smooth surfaces. For all cases, APG has been created
by the divergent portion of the flow geometry. Boundary layer studied is
the one that develops on the bottom wall of the diverging part. The data-
sets consist of Newman (1951), Clauser (1954b), Clauser (1954a), Bradshaw
& Ferriss (1965), Bradshaw (1966), Bradshaw (1967), Nagano et al. (1993),
Spalart & Watmuff (1993), Skåre & Krogstad (1994) and Aubertine & Eaton
(2005).
Table 1 lists some important global parameters, like the nature of the
data-set, Reynolds number based on momentum thickness Reθ , inlet veloc-
ity Uin and the maximum of the non-dimensional pressure gradient param-
∗
eter β = τδw dP
dx
. In the table 1, PT stands for Pitot Tube, HWA stands for
Hot-Wire Anemometry, DNS for Direct Numerical Simulation and LDA for
Laser-Doppler Anemometry. For all data-sets, only the streamwise locations
undergoing adverse pressure gradient have been included. The data-sets were
selected such as to include both classical equilibrium and non-equilibrium
turbulent boundary layers (Clauser-Townsend sense). The non-dimensional
pressure gradient parameter β remains almost constant for classical equilib-
rium turbulent boundary layers.

3.1 The Velocity Scale Ue β 0.1

Figures 2 through 9 show the velocity defect (Ue −u) profiles for the data-sets
of Newman (1951), Bradshaw (1966), Bradshaw & Ferriss (1965) and Brad-
shaw (1967), Skåre & Krogstad (1994), Spalart & Watmuff (1993), Aubertine
& Eaton (2005) and Nagano et al. (1993) respectively with the proposed ve-
locity scale Ue β 0.1 . A better collapse of the velocity defect profiles is achieved
as compared to traditional wall friction velocity uτ and freestream velocity
Ue . Therefore, the present scale seems to be valid for the outer region (y/δ >
0.2) of the turbulent boundary layers undergoing adverse pressure gradient.
Figures 10 to 13 show the rms velocity fluctuations scaled by Ue β 0.1 for the
data-sets of Aubertine & Eaton (2005), Spalart & Watmuff (1993), Skåre &
Krogstad (1994) and Nagano et al. (1993) respectively. The profiles of ve-
 9

Case Nature Reθ Uref (m/s) βmax

Newman(1951) HWA 5509-26129 36.5 182

Clauser(1954a) PT 5637-17404 2.34
Clauser(1954b) PT 8032-31017 16.28
Bradshaw(1965) HWA 14492-36669 33.5 5.40
Bradshaw(1966) HWA 10061-22578 33.5 0.915
Bradshaw(1967) HWA 8592-22582 36.5 2.94
Nagano(1993) HWA 1290-3350 10.8 4.66
Spalart(1993) DNS 600-1600 6.5 2.0
Skåre(1994) HWA 25400-53970 - 21
Aubertine(2005) LDA 3350-6320 20.5 2.31

Table 1: Global characteristics of the selected data-sets.

locity fluctuations start to collapse in the outer layer at y/δ > 0.2, although
for some data-sets, the collapse is not as good as the mean velocity profiles.

The flows like Skåre & Krogstad (1994), which are in equilibrium (Clauser-
Townsend sense) show self-similarity with the new scale too. But self-similarity
in mean velocity have also been showed by those flows (Aubertine & Eaton
(2005) and Spalart & Watmuff (1993)) which are not in classical equilibrium
(Clauser-Townsend sense). The collapse of the rms velocity fluctuations is
not as good as traditional equilibrium flows but is better than other tradi-
tional velocity scales like uτ , Ue or mixed scalings uτ Ue . This corroborates
the proposition of Maciel et al Maciel et al. (2006a), “a flow can be in equilib-
rium even if a particular similarity theory would define it as non-equilibrium
flow. Conversely, if a flow is found to be in equilibrium according to a given
similarity analysis then it is in equilibrium regardless of the similarity as-
sumptions”.
 10

0.9
x= 2.00’
x= 2.75’
0.8 x= 3.50’
x= 4.00’
x= 4.50’
0.7 x= 4.75’
x= 4.92’

0.6
(Ue-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 2: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Newman (1951).

1.2
x= 2.0’
x= 4.0’
x= 5.5’
x= 7.0’
1

0.8
(Ue-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 3: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Bradshaw (1966).

 11

0.9
x= 2.0’
x= 4.0’
0.8 x= 5.5’
x= 7.0’

0.7

0.6
(Ue-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 4: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Bradshaw & Ferriss
(1965).
1.2
x= 2.0’
x= 2.5’
x= 3.0’
x= 3.5’
1 x= 4.0’
x= 5.0’

0.8
(Ue-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 5: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Bradshaw (1967).

 12

0.8
x= 4.0
x= 4.2
x= 4.4
0.7 x= 4.6
x= 4.8
0.6

0.5
(Ue-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 6: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Skåre & Krogstad
(1994).
1.6
x=0.60
x=0.65
x=0.70
1.4 x=0.75
x=0.80
x=0.85
1.2

1
(U∞-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 7: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Spalart & Watmuff
(1993).
 13

0.7
x’= 0.00
x’= 0.25
x’= 0.33
0.6 x’= 0.50
x’= 0.75

0.5
(U∞-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
y/δ

Figure 8: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Aubertine & Eaton
(2005).
1
x=523
x=723
0.9 x=925
x=1121
0.8

0.7

0.6
(Ue-u)/Ueβ0.1

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
y/δ

Figure 9: Velocity defect profiles scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Nagano et al. (1993).
 14

0.11
x’= 0.25
x’= 0.33
x’= 0.50
0.1 x’= 0.75

0.09

0.08
u’/Ueβ0.1

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 10: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Auber-
tine & Eaton (2005).
0.2
x=0.60
x=0.65
0.18 x=0.70
x=0.75
x=0.80
0.16 x=0.85
x=0.90
0.14 x=0.95
x=1.00

0.12
u’/Ueβ0.1

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 11: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Spalart
& Watmuff (1993).
 15

0.1
x= 4.0
x= 4.2
0.09 x= 4.4
x= 4.6
x= 4.8
0.08 x= 5.0
x= 5.2
0.07

0.06
u’/Ueβ0.1

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 12: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Skåre &
Krogstad (1994).
0.12
x=523
x=723
x=925
x=1121
0.1

0.08
u’/Ueβ0.1

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
y/δ

Figure 13: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by Ue β 0.1 for Nagano
et al. (1993).
 16

3.2 The Velocity Scale uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2

Figures 14 through 20 show the velocity defect profiles for the data-sets
of Clauser (1954b), Clauser (1954a), Bradshaw (1966), Bradshaw & Ferriss
(1965), Spalart & Watmuff (1993), Aubertine & Eaton (2005) and Skåre &
Krogstad (1994) respectively with the proposed scaling ui = uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 . The
mean velocity profiles show a good collapse. Figures 21,22 and 23 show the
streamwise rms velocity fluctuations with the proposed scaling. The data-
sets of Clauser (1954b) and Clauser (1954a) are those in which equilibrium
turbulent boundary layers were invented. The data-sets of Spalart & Wat-
muff (1993) and Aubertine & Eaton (2005) are non-equilibrium flows in the
sense of Clauser-Townsend whereas Bradshaw & Ferriss (1965), Bradshaw
(1966) and Skåre & Krogstad (1994) are equilibrium flows with almost a
constant value of the non-dimensional pressure gradient parameter β.

The boundary layer flows that were defined as being non-equilibrium ac-
cording to the classical similarity theory show self-similarity with the new
scaling. This implies that other formulations of similarity analysis and hence
equilibrium exist and a flow can be in equilibrium even if a particular simi-
larity theory does not apply. For Spalart & Watmuff (1993) and Aubertine &
Eaton (2005), which are non-equilibium (Clauser-Townsend sense) flows, the
velocity defect profiles show a good collpase and rms velocity fluctuations
show a collapse of profiles in the outer region (y/δ = 0.2). On the other
hand, Skåre & Krogstad (1994) is an equilibrium turbulent boundary layer
and self-similarity in rms velocity fluctuations is achieved along the whole
boundary layer thickness although the collapse is better in the outer region.
The scale seems to be valid for the outer region (y/δ > 0.2) of the turbulent
boundary layers with adverse pressure gradient developing over flat surfaces
(without curvature). As the scale involves the wall friction velocity uτ in its
formulation, it can not be used for the separated turbulent boundary layers.
 17

80
x= 6.92’
x= 11.00’
x= 12.75’
70 x= 18.58’
x= 23.83’
x= 26.92’
60 x= 29.75’
x= 32.25’

50
(Ue-u)/ui

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 14: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Clauser (1954b).
90
x= 7.50’
x= 9.00’
80 x= 11.00’
x= 12.67’
x= 16.17’
70 x= 19.17’

60

50
(Ue-u)/ui

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 15: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Clauser (1954a).
 18

80
x= 2.0’
x= 4.0’
x= 5.5’
70 x= 7.0’

60

50
(Ue-u)/ui

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 16: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Bradshaw (1966).
80
x= 2.0’
x= 4.0’
x= 5.5’
70 x= 7.0’

60

50
(Ue-u)/ui

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 17: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Bradshaw &
Ferriss (1965).
 19

140
x=0.65
x=0.70
x=0.75
120 x=0.80
x=0.85

100

80
(Ue-u)/ui

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 18: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Spalart & Wat-
muff (1993).
45
x’= 0.25
x’= 0.33
40 x’= 0.50
x’= 0.75

35

30
(Ue-u)/ui

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
y/δ

Figure 19: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Aubertine &
Eaton (2005).
 20

35
x= 4.0
x= 4.2
x= 4.4
30 x= 4.6
x= 4.8
x= 5.0
25 x= 5.2

20
(Ue-u)/ui

15

10

-5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 20: Velocity defect profiles scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for Skåre & Krogstad
(1994).
20
x=0.60
x=0.65
18 x=0.70
x=0.75
x=0.80
16 x=0.85
x=0.90
14 x=0.95
x=1.00

12
u’/ui

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 21: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for

Spalart & Watmuff (1993).
 21

8
x’= 0.00
x’= 0.25
x’= 0.33
x’= 0.50
7 x’= 0.75

6
u’/ui

2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
y/δ

Figure 22: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for

Aubertine & Eaton (2005).
14
x= 4.0
x= 4.2
x= 4.4
12 x= 4.6
x= 4.8
x= 5.0
x= 5.2
10

8
u’/ui

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
y/δ

Figure 23: Streamwise rms velocity fluctuations scaled by uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 for

Skåre & Krogstad (1994).
 22

4 Conclusions
New empirically-determined velocity scales Ue β 0.1 and uτ (δ ∗ /δ)1/2 are pro-
posed for the velocity defect (Ue − u), rms velocity fluctuations u0rms and
Reynolds stresses ui uj of the attached turbulent boundary layers undergo-
ing adverse pressure gradient. The validity and universality of the proposed
scale is tested by applying it to seven (numerical and experimental) data-
sets with different experimental techniques, Reynolds number ranges, flow
geometries and pressure gradients. The proposed scales achieve a better col-
lapse of the velocity defect and streamwise rms velocity fluctuation profiles
as compared to the traditional scalings of uτ and Ue in the outer region of
the attached turbulent boundary layers (y/δ > 0.2) undergoing adverse pres-
sure gradient. As expected, the equilibrium turbulent boundary layers show
self-similarity with the new set of scalings too. The self-similarity shown by
classicaly non-equilibrium turbulent boundary layers implies that a flow may
be in equilibrium even if a particular similarity theory does not apply.

References
Angele, K. & Muhammad-Klingmann, B., 2005 Effect of streamwise
vortices on the turbulence structure of a separating boundary layer. Eur.J.
Mech. B/Fluids 24, 539–554.

Aubertine, C. D. & Eaton, J. K., 2005 Turbulence development in a non-

equilibrium turbulent boundary layer with mild adverse pressure gradient.
J. Fluid. Mech. 532, 345–364.

Aubertine, C. D. & Eaton, J. K., 2006 Reynolds number scaling in

a non-equilibrium turbulent boundary layer with mild adverse pressure
gradient. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 27, 566–575.

Bradshaw, P., 1966 The turbulence structure of equilibrium boundary

layers. Technical report, NPL Aero. Report 1184.

Bradshaw, P., 1967 The response of a constant pressure turbulent bound-

ary layer to the sudden application of an adverse pressure gradient. Tech-
nical report, NPL Aero. Report 1219.

Bradshaw, P. & Ferriss, D., 1965 The response of a retarded equilib-

rium turbulent boundary layer to the sudden removal of pressure gradient.
Technical report, NPL Aero. Report 1145.
 23

Castillo, L. & George, W., 2001 Similarity analysis for turbulent bound-
ary layers with pressure gradient: Outer flow. AIAA J. 39, 41–47.

Clauser, F., 1954a Turbulent boundary layers in adverse pressure gradi-

ents. J. Aero. Sci. 21(2), 91–108.

Clauser, F. H., 1954b The turbulent boundary layer. Advances Applied

Mechanics 4, 1–51.

DeGraaff, D. B. & Eaton, J. K., 2000 Reynolds-number scaling of the

flat-plate turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 422, 319–346.

Elsberry, K., Loeffler, J., Zhou, M. & Wygnanski, I., 2000 An

experimental study of a boundary layer that is maintained on the verge of
separation. J. Fluid Mech. 423, 227–261.

Gersten, K. & Herwig, H., 1992 Strmungmechanik. Verlag Vieweg, Wies-

baden, Germany.

Maciel, Y., Rossignol, K.-S. & Lemay, J., 2006a Similarity in the
outer region of adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers. AIAA
Journal 44 (11), 2450–2464.

Maciel, Y., Rossignol, K.-S. & Lemay, J., 2006b A study of a turbu-
lent boundary layer in stalled-airfoil-type flow conditions. Experiments in
Fluids 41, 573–590.

Mellor, G. & Gibson, D., 1966 Equilibrium turbulent boundary layers.

J. Fluid Mech 24, 225–253.

Nagano, Y., Tagawa, M. & Tsuji, T., 1993 Effects of adverse pressure
gradient on mean flows and turbulence statistics in a boundary layer. In
Turbulent Shear Flows 8. F. Durst et al.(eds.),. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
pages 7–21.

Newman, B., 1951 Some contributions to the study of the turbulent bound-
ary layer near separation. Technical report, Aust. Departement Supply
Rept.ACA-53.

Perry, A. & Shofield, W., 1973 Mean velocity and shear stress distribu-
tion in turbulent boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 113, 2068–2074.

Pope, S. B., 2000 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge Univ. Press.

 24

Rotta, J., 1962 Turbulent boundary layers in incompressible flow. Progress

in Aerospace Sciences. 2, 1–95.

Samuel, A. & Joubert, P., 1974 A boundary layer developing in an in-

creasingly adverse pressure gradient. J. Fluid Mech. 61, 481–505.

Skåre, P. E. & Krogstad, P.-Å., 1994 A turbulent boundary layer near

separation. J. Fluid Mech. 272, 319–348.

Song, S. & Eaton, J., 2004 Reynolds number effects on a turbulent bound-
ary layer with separation, reattachment, and recovery. Exp. Fluids. 36,
246–258.

Spalart, P. R. & Watmuff, J. H., 1993 Experimental and numerical

investigation of a turbulent boundary layer with pressure gradients. J.
Fluid Mech. 249, 337–371.

Stanislas, M., Perret, L. & Foucaut, J. M., 2008 Vortical structures

in the turbulent boundary layer: a possible route to a universal represen-
tation. J. Fluid Mech. 602, 327–382.

Stratford, B., 1959 The prediction of separation of turbulent boundary

layer. J. Fluid Mech. 5, 1–16.

Zagarola, M. & Smits, A. J., 1998 Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe

flow. J. Fluid Mech 373, 33–79.