arXiv:2108.10833v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 24 Aug 2021
Resolvent analysis of pressure fluctuations in turbulent channel flows
Filipe R. Amaral1† and André V. G. Cavalieri1
1Divisão de Engenharia Aeronáutica, Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos, SP 12228-900, Brazil
(Received xx; revised xx; accepted xx)
We study pressure fluctuations in direct numerical simulations (DNS) of turbulent chan- nel flows at friction Reynolds numbers of approximately 180 and 550, by a comparison between analysis of DNS data and resolvent analysis considering a linearization around the mean turbulent profile. Dominant structures are extracted from the DNS data using wavenumber and frequency spectra, and spectral peaks, which comprise near- wall, large-scale and spanwise-coherent structures, are further analyzed using spectral proper orthogonal decomposition (SPOD). SPOD analysis, employing a pressure inner product, show a strong dominance of the leading mode, highlighting low-rank behaviour of pressure fluctuations. The leading resolvent mode, considering pressure as output, agrees closely with the first SPOD mode, providing support to recent studies that showed better performance of resolvent-based estimators when predicting pressure fluctuations compared to velocity structures (Amaral et al. arXiv:2011.06525, 2021). However, non- linear terms extracted from the DNS data, corresponding to forcing in resolvent analysis, also display low-rank behavior, with dominant modes that differ from optimal forcings from resolvent analysis. The dominant mechanisms of analyzed modes are seen to be the generation of streamwise or spanwise vortices, with pressure fluctuations appearing close to vortex centers. A study on the nonlinear terms individual contributions to the pressure output reveals that each forcing component plays a constructive role to the input-output formulation, which simplifies modeling of forcing color. The present results further encourage the use of simplified linear models to study wall turbulence, especially if pressure fluctuations are of primary interest.
Key words:Authors should not enter keywords on the manuscript, as these must be cho- sen by the author during the online submission process and will then be added during the typesetting process (see http://journals.cambridge.org/data/relatedlink/jfm-keywords.pdf for the full list)
1. Introduction
The understanding of pressure fluctuations in wall-bounded turbulent flows is of funda- mental importance for many practical applications such as sound radiation and struc-
† Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
tural vibration. With the world community appeal for “greener by design” vehicles and technologies, lower sound emission is one of the goals that have been pursued towards diminishing environmental pollution, as noise is also a concern regarding human and wild life health issues. This problem is even more serious in large urban areas, as airports, urban rail transits (e.g. subway, tram and passenger trains) and roads that are encrusted within densely-populated neighborhoods, leading to higher rates of stress and heart-related illnesses (Haines et al. 2001; Huss et al. 2010). Aircraft cabin noise that originates from pressure fluctuations on the aircraft fuselage boundary-layer is of interest to aircraft manufacturers and airlines regarding the comfort of passengers and crew. On the other hand, fluid-structure interactions are of concern for structural integrity. Structural vibrations can also trigger receptivity mechanisms that may lead to flow transition and enhancement of viscous drag or, on the contrary, delay flow transition and decrease viscous drag, hence saving energy (Bushnell et al. 1977; Kim & Choi 2014).
Although the last few decades have experienced great advances in both computational fluid dynamics and experimental fields, the study of pressure fluctuations in wall-bounded turbulent flows has received less attention than the analysis of velocity fluctuations. Re- garding experiments, most of the studies were focused on the analysis of wall pressure mea- surements (Willmarth 1975; Farabee & Casarella 1991; Bull 1996). Microphones are usu- ally mounted in arrays flush to the test model wall (Klewicki et al. 2008; Arguillat et al.
2010). Such arrays have limited aperture and a finite number of sensors, which, among other issues, limits the measurement resolution. Test facilities also suffer from background noise that can contaminate the measurements (Gravante et al. 1998), especially at low Reynolds numbers (Tsuji et al. 2007).
High-fidelity numerical simulations have the advantage of obtaining the entire flow field and the measurements are not limited to the wall. Kim et al. (1987) conducted a direct numerical simulation (DNS) of a channel flow with friction Reynolds number (Reτ) of 180 and their turbulence statistics results were validated with experimental databases. To obtain the pressure field, Kim et al. (1987) employed the Poisson equation for incompressible flows. Choi & Moin (1990) used the database by Kim et al. (1987) and computed the wall pressure spectra. When comparing their frequency spectra with experimental data at different Reynolds numbers, the authors obtained different scaling laws for the low- and high-frequency ranges. The lower frequencies better collapsed with outer variables, whereas inner variables better fitted the higher frequencies. This result agrees with the experimental data by Farabee & Casarella (1991), who studied wall pressure fluctuations in boundary layers. Choi & Moin (1990) also identified a small region with -5 power law decay rate for both frequency and streamwise wavenumber spectra, i.e. for ων/uτ2> 1, where ω is the angular frequency, ν is the fluid kinematic viscosity and uτ is the friction velocity, and for α+ = αν/uτ > 0.1, where α is the streamwise wavenumber. Such decay rate ws also found in later studies (Hu et al. 2006;
Anantharamu & Mahesh 2020; Yang et al. 2021). For even higher frequencies, the spectra decay at higher rates. Another observation by Choi & Moin (1990) regards the effect of the Reynolds number on the wall pressure spectra. Increasing the Reynolds number leads to increased power at the high-frequency band when outer scaling is considered, whereas the low-frequency band increases the power with Reynolds number for inner scaling.
Kim (1989) also explored the Reτ=180 database by Kim et al. (1987), focusing on the pressure fluctuations. The author decomposed the pressure fluctuations into rapid (linear) and slow (nonlinear) components, where the distinction between linear and nonlinear is related to the velocity in the source term in the Poisson equation. The rapid part, which
contains the mean velocity gradient, responds immediately to any change imposed to the flow field, whereas the slow part reacts through nonlinear interactions. The results obtained by Kim (1989) show that the slow component is dominant over the rapid component, i.e. the nonlinear source terms in the Poisson equation play a major role in the pressure fluctuations behavior. Another relevant finding by Kim (1989) was obtained through the modeling of the wall fluctuations by a Green’s function, i.e. the pressure was written as a convolution of a Green’s function with a source term. The author showed the instantaneous pressure at one of the channel walls is affected by source terms that are present at the opposite wall, highlighting that pressure fluctuations comprise large spatial scales and have a non-local nature.
Hu et al. (2006) conducted a series of numerical simulations of channel flows up to Reτ= 1440 in order to examine the power spectra of wall pressure and shear stress. The authors compared their results with spectra of channel, pipe and boundary-layer flows at several Reynolds numbers. The wall pressure spectrum showed a reasonable collapse for Reτ ≥ 360 and use of inner scaling for the higher frequencies and outer scaling for the lower frequencies, as previously observed by Choi & Moin (1990). The premultiplied frequency spectra exhibited a peak at ω+ ≈ 0.3. This peak frequency is in agreement with the results obtained by Anantharamu & Mahesh (2020), which conducted DNS of channel flow at Reτ =180 and 400 aiming at exploring the source of wall pressure fluctuations.
Anantharamu & Mahesh (2020) also found that the wall pressure fluctuation peak for the premultiplied wavenumber spectra corresponds to a streamwise wavelength λx+ ≈200, where λx+=2π/α+, for fluctuations in the buffer layer for y+≈15, where y+ is the wall- normal coordinate in inner (wall/viscous) units. A pressure premultiplied spectrum peak in the range λx+ ≈200 to 300 was also reported by Panton et al. (2017), who studied several DNS databases of channel flow for Reτ up to 5186, and zero pressure gradient boundary-layer flows for Reτ up to 1271. In addition, Panton et al. (2017) proposed scaling laws for the pressure statistics at the wall, inner and outer layers.
Most of the studies regarding the pressure component in wall-bounded flows aim at obtaining statistics as power spectra and scaling laws. On the other hand, in recent years there has been substantial effort in modeling coherent structures in wall turbu- lence (Sharma & McKeon 2013; Cossu & Hwang 2017; Symon et al. 2021). The efforts towards this direction include the study of linearized models and modal decomposition of databases (Bagheri et al. 2009; Moarref et al. 2013; Zare et al. 2017; Towne et al. 2020;
Scherl et al. 2020). The problem is written in the input-output format in the frequency domain and the nonlinear terms of the Navier-Stokes (N-S) system are treated as an external forcing that generates a response through the resolvent operator, obtained by inversion of the linearized N-S operator considering the mean profile as a base flow (McKeon & Sharma 2010; Hwang & Cossu 2010; Beneddine et al. 2016; Taira et al. 2017;
Cavalieri et al. 2019). In this framework, the inputs correspond to the forcing terms, whereas the outputs denote the flow state. Resolvent analysis permits the elucidation of the role played by the nonlinear terms of the N-S system (Nogueira et al. 2021;
Morra et al. 2021). Application of singular value decomposition (SVD) of the resolvent operator provides the most amplified forcing and response modes. Resolvent modes also display an hierarchical character, ranked from high to low gain. It should be emphasized that in order to obtain the resolvent operator and hence the resolvent modes, only the mean flow and the boundary conditions are needed. As the resolvent analysis employs a linearization over a mean flow, it may reveal the dominant amplification mechanisms.
This is in contrast with the use of the Poisson equation for pressure fluctuations, where no assumption is made about the base flow, and a normal linear operator (the Laplacian)
does not display gain separations as significant as the ones obtained with the linearized Navier-Stokes system (LNS).
Response modes obtained from resolvent analysis may be compared to appropriate modal decompositions of data, and a suitable approach is spectral proper orthogonal decomposi- tion (SPOD). SPOD extracts a set of orthogonal modes from flow realizations in frequency domain that are optimal according to an appropriate inner product (Towne et al. 2018;
Schmidt & Towne 2019). The modes are ranked according to their energetic content, i.e.
the first mode is the most to energetic one and the subsequent modes contain the same or fewer energy than the previous mode. The response modes are equivalent to the SPOD modes when the flow is forced by stochastic white-noise (Towne et al. 2018). Moreover, if the resolvent has a gain separation, i.e. σ1 ≫ σ2,3,⋯,n, the optimal flow response is expected to be dominant, and is thus similar to the most energetic SPOD mode. In this case, even a white-noise assumption for the forcing terms in the resolvent framework leads to reasonable agreement between SPOD and resolvent analysis. In this case, resolvent analysis becomes a powerful method to predict dominant coherent structures in turbulent flows.
SPOD and resolvent analysis applied to study coherent structures in wall-bounded flows normally focus on the velocity components, and the literature lacks information on the pressure component. Early works by McKeon & Sharma (2010) and Hwang & Cossu (2010) investigated pipe and channel flows, respectively, for a wide range of Reynolds numbers using resolvent analysis targeting the most amplified velocity responses.
McKeon & Sharma (2010) verified that the small structures near the pipe wall show inner scaling, whereas outer scaling is observed in the flow interior. In the channel flow problem studied by Hwang & Cossu (2010), the authors showed the most amplified structures are streamwise streaks which are forced by streamwise vortices. More recently, Abreu et al. (2020a) studied DNS channel flow databases at Reτ ≈ 180 and 550. The authors employed SPOD and resolvent analysis to identify and model the near-wall coherent structures for several combinations of wavenumbers and frequencies. The authors verified, through the SPOD analysis, that streaks and streamwise vortices were the most energetic structures in the near-wall region, as expected from the literature of wall-bounded turbulent flows (Jiménez 2013). Note that only the outputs (responses) regarding the velocity state components were considered in their study. The leading SPOD and resolvent modes are in close agreement when the lift up mechanism is active, similarly to a turbulent pipe flow study by the same group (Abreu et al. 2020b). The results obtained by Abreu et al. (2020a,b) are encouraging, as they show the resolvent analysis can provide a reduced-order model for wall-bounded flows.
Morra et al. (2021) also employed SPOD and resolvent analysis to investigate turbulent channel flow at Reτ ≈ 180 and 550 obtained through DNS. However, the authors focused extracting the nonlinear forcing terms from the database in order to show how such terms affect the resolvent outputs. As in Abreu et al. (2020a,b), the only outputs considered were the velocity components. In the frequency domain, the input (forcing terms) and outputs (velocity components) are written as two-point space-time statistics, i.e. cross-spectral densities (CSD), and are accurately computed directly from snapshots of DNS data. Morra et al. (2021) compared the power spectral density (PSD) of the state components, evaluated through the resolvent input-output formulation when employing the full forcing CSD, with the state components for most energetic structures in the buffer layer and large-scale structures. As expected, there is close agreement with the DNS statistics when the full forcing is used. The authors also verified that a rank-2
approximation of the forcing, containing only the two most energetic SPOD modes, is a sufficient approximation of the nonlinear terms, leading to a response with reasonable accuracy when comparing with DNS data. A recent study by the authors (Amaral et al.
2020) employed a resolvent-based methodology to build transfer functions in order to estimate the flow field (velocity and pressure components) from wall measurements (wall shear stress and/or pressure). Channel flow databases at friction Reynolds numbers of 180, 550 and 1000 were employed in the study. To build the estimator, one needs to model the CSD of the forcing components, and the explored choices were the full forcing CSD (obtained from the DNS) and white noise in the linearized system without and with the inclusion of an eddy viscosity. The results obtained by Amaral et al. (2020) show the pressure estimates are less sensitive to forcing CSD definition than the velocity components.
The present study explores the DNS databases of turbulent channel flow at Reτ ≈180 and 550 also used in previous works by our group (Abreu et al. 2020a; Morra et al. 2021;
Amaral et al. 2020). Differently from the earlier work, focus is directed to the pressure fluctuations, including the analysis of SPOD and resolvent modes obtained with an adequate inner product. The objective is to examine the accuracy of input-output analysis to pressure fluctuations, and the role of nonlinear forcing statistics in constructing the flow response, in order to provide knowledge on the dynamics of pressure structures in wall turbulence. As previously mentioned, pressure fluctuations may be obtained from the velocity using the Poisson equation; however, the use of the Navier-Stokes operator linearized around the mean flow, which is intrinsically non-normal, gives rise to amplification mechanisms that may predict the structure of pressure fluctuations, and this is investigated here.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. After this introduction, §2 addresses the methodology, including details of the DNS databases and the tools (SPOD and resolvent analysis) employed to analyze the data. The energy spectra results as a function of the streamwise and spanwise wavenumbers, as well as the angular frequency, for wall- normal distances corresponding to the near-wall and large-scale structures are reported in
§3. Comparisons between SPOD and resolvent modes, with and without the inclusion of an eddy viscosity model on the linear operator, employing a pressure inner product for the state components and an L2inner product for the forcing components, are discussed in §4.
Low-rank approximations, including a limited number of SPOD forcing modes (input) to evaluate the pressure state component PSD (output), as well as models affording a few number of resolvent modes are also pursued in §4. In §5 we employ the input- output formulation to elucidated the role of the forcing terms through the study of the effect of each forcing component (input) on the pressure component (output). Finally, §6 summarizes the conclusions.
2. Methodology
2.1. Numerical simulations
The ChannelFlow pseudo-spectral code (Gibson et al. 2019) was employed to conduct the DNS of incompressible turbulent channel flow for friction Reynolds numbers of Reτ≈180 and 550. The pressure field was evaluated for the given velocity fields through the Poisson equation, with the rotational form of the nonlinear term. In Cartesian coordinates, with half height used for normalization, the boxes dimensions were 4π×2×2π in the streamwise (Lx), wall-normal (Ly) and spanwise (Lz) directions, respectively, for the Reτ ≈ 180
Reτ Re Nx Ny Nz ∆x+ ∆z+ ∆ymin
+ ∆ymax
+ Nt ∆t+ Nf f t Nb
180 (179) 2800 192 129 192 11.71 5.86 5.39 × 10−2 4.39 4797 5.72 256 34 550 (543) 10000 384 257 384 8.89 4.44 4.09 × 10−2 6.66 3000 2.95 256 43 Table 1: DNS parameters of the two channel flow cases addressed in the present study.
simulation, and 2π × 2 × π for the Reτ ≈ 550 case. For the streamwise and spanwise directions, periodic boundary conditions are used. Chebyshev polynomials were employed for the discretization of the wall-normal direction (y), whereas the streamwise (x) and spanwise (z) directions were discretized using Fourier modes; the collocation points in the streamwise and spanwise directions were expanded by a 3/2 factor for de-aliasing purposes (Kim et al. 1987). Table 1 shows the simulation main parameters, including the bulk Reynolds numbers Re and the friction Reynolds numbers Reτ, the number of mesh points (Nx, Ny and Nz) and mesh discretization (∆x+, ∆z+, ∆ymin+and ∆ymax+).
The first column of the table contains the canonical values for the friction Reynolds number and, between parenthesis, their actual value from the simulations. The plus superscript indicates non-dimensional quantities using inner (viscous) scaling. Table 1 also includes information on the number of snapshots (Nt) and the time steps based on inner units (∆t+), as well as the block-size (Nf f t) and number-of-blocks (Nb) employed to evaluate CSDs and PSDs. The computation of power spectra, CSDs and PSDs of the flow state and forcing were perfomed using Welch’s method (Welch 1967) with a Hann window and 75% overlap. These parameters are the same ones used in our previous work (Amaral et al. 2020).
The works by Martini et al. (2020) and Morra et al. (2021) contain the present DNS validation results for the mean velocity profile and root-mean-square (rms) values of velocity components; the former paper for Reτ ≈ 180 and the later for Reτ ≈ 550.
Results from earlier simulations by Del Álamo & Jiménez (2003) were employed for the validation. However, pressure statistics validation results were not addressed by Martini et al. (2020) and Morra et al. (2021). Therefore, figure 1 displays the root-mean- square of the pressure component for the present database (continuous lines) and for the data obtained from Del Álamo & Jiménez (2003) (symbols), which show good agreement.
To further validate the present DNS databases, figure 2 displays one-sided wall-pressure spectra scaled in inner units as a function of streamwise (left frame) and spanwise (right frame) wavenumbers. Comparisons among the results of the present simulations with other obtained in the literature (Choi & Moin 1990; Anantharamu & Mahesh 2020) are displayed in the figure. Notice that the Reτ≈550 database has a higher friction Reynolds number than the one used by Anantharamu & Mahesh (2020), which is 400. Regarding the streamwise wavenumber spectra (left frame), good agreement is achieved for the energy containing part of the spectrum, at low wavenumbers. Differences with respect to the Reτ = 400 case in Anantharamu & Mahesh (2020) may be attributed to the different Reynolds numbers of the simulations. The high wavenumber content of the present simulation has a faster decay than earlier results. This may be related to the use of the rotational form of the nonlinear terms in the present simulation, as different choices for the nonlinear terms may affect results (Zang 1991). As the present analysis focuses on larger pressure structures, the present agreement at lower wavenumbers and rms profiles was considered sufficient. Further verification of results will be presented
(a) Reτ≈ 180 (b) Reτ ≈ 550
Figure 1: Comparison between the pressure component rms for the present simulations (continuous lines) and those by Del Álamo & Jiménez (2003) (symbols).
Figure 2: Comparison among wall-pressure fluctuation streamwise wavenumber spectra for the present Reτ ≈ 180 (gray thick continuous line) and 550 (black thin continuous line) simulations and the results by Anantharamu & Mahesh (2020) at Reτ ≈180 (red thick dashed line) and 400 (blue thin dashed line), and by Choi & Moin (1990) at Reτ≈180 (green thick dash-dotted line). Left frame: spectra as a function of streamwise wavenumber in inner units. Right frame: spectra as a function of spanwise wavenumber in inner units. A -5 slope curve (orange thick dotted line) is also plotted in the left frame.
later, in §5, with the input-output analysis reconstructing pressure fluctuations from the nonlinear terms.
The physical problem is governed by the incompressible N-S system in the absence of external body forces. The discretized flow state vector is given by q =[u v w p]T ∈ C4Ny, where u, v and w are the streamwise, wall-normal and spanwise velocity components, pis the pressure component, and T denotes transpose. The nonlinear terms of the N-S system, interpreted as an external forcing (McKeon & Sharma 2010), are given by the vector f =[fx fy fz]T ∈ C3Ny, where fx, fy and fz are the streamwise, wall-normal and spanwise forcing components, respectively. Appendix A contains the expressions for the three forcing components. The state and forcing components were stored for each
snapshot t, wall-normal distance y and streamwise and spanwise wavenumbers, α and β, respectively, i.e. q = q(α, y, β, t) and f = f (α, y, β, t). A Reynolds decomposition was employed over the flow state components, i.e. q = ¯q+ q′, were ¯q is the mean flow and q′is the fluctuation. For the present study, the mean flow at the streamwise direction is employed to construct the linearized Navier-Stokes system, e.g. ¯q=[¯u(y) z z z]T ∈ C4Ny, where z ∈ CNy is the zeros vector. The mean pressure gradient to drive the channel flow has no contribution for the linearised Navier-Stokes system for non-zero frequency and wavenumber, as discussed by Morra et al. (2021), and hence is not considered here.
In the present simulations, the wall-normal direction domain is contained within y ∈[0,2]
domain. The channel flow has statistical symmetry around the y = 1 plane. Taking advantage of this symmetry, the fluctuations were split into even and odd parts according to the expressions
φeven=φ(1 + y) + φ(1 − y)
2 , (2.1a)
φodd=φ(1 + y) − φ(1 − y)
2 , (2.1b)
where φ denotes a generic state or forcing components, and 1 + y and 1 − y represent the wall-normal direction above and below the symmetry plane y = 1, respectively.
The momentum and continuity equations must be satisfied; thus, for odd streamwise (u′) and spanwise (w′) velocity fluctuations, the wall-normal (v′) velocity fluctuation
should be even, the pressure (p′) fluctuation, streamwise (fx
′) and spanwise (fz
′) forcing fluctuations should be odd, and the wall-normal (fy
′) forcing fluctuations should be even.
The inverse logic must be applied if one considers the even parts of u′and w′. For most results in this study, we considered the odd part of u′ and w′, with the corresponding parts for the other state and forcing components, as in Abreu et al. (2020a).
2.2. SPOD
Spectral proper orthogonal decomposition (SPOD) is a data-driven technique that de- composes a set of snapshots into an orthonormal, optimal basis in the frequency domain (Berkooz et al. 1993; Taira et al. 2017; Towne et al. 2018). The obtained modes represent structures that maximize the mean square energy of the analyzed flow field for a given inner product (Picard & Delville 2000).
The SPOD can be evaluated by taking the eigenvalue decomposition of the CSD of the state (or forcing) for a triplet(α, β, ω) and an appropriate weight or inner product. In discrete form, the generalized problem can be written as
DW Ψ = ΛΨ, (2.2)
where D is the CSD of interest, e.g. state (Q) or forcing (F ), W accounts for both the integration weights and the numerical quadrature on the discrete grid, Ψ denotes the SPOD modes and Λ the corresponding eigenvalues. The dimensions of W , Ψ and Λ depend on the dimension of D. If D = Q ∈ C4Ny×4Ny, then W ∈ C4Ny×4Ny, Ψ ∈ C4Ny×Nq, where Nq is the number of state-SPOD modes, and Λ ∈ RNq×Nq. On the other hand, if D = F ∈ C3Ny×3Ny, one has W ∈ C3Ny×3Ny, Ψ ∈ C3Ny×Nf, where Nf is the number of forcing-SPOD modes, and Λ ∈ RNf×Nf.
The SPOD modes are an orthonormal basis that optimally represent the CSD of interest for a given wavenumber-frequency combination, i.e. in the present case the pressure fluctu- ations. The contribution of each SPOD mode (eigenfunction) to the CSD representation
is given by its associated eigenvalue, ranked according to energetic content, i.e. from the most to the least energetic, λ1≥ λ2≥ ⋯λN.
The choice of inner product determines which feature of the flow field, in terms of maximization of energy, will be represented. In the present study we are interested in the pressure component. Hence, for the state CSD a weight matrix Wp is defined as
Wp=
⎡⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎣
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
Z Z Z K
⎤⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎥⎥
⎦
, (2.3)
where Z ∈ RNy×Ny is the zeros matrix and K ∈ RNy×Ny is a diagonal matrix containing Clenshaw-Curtis quadrature weights (Trefethen 2000). The choice of (2.3) extracts only the pressure component from the state CSD, such that SPOD modes form an optimal low- rank representation of the pressure CSD. However, velocity components can nonetheless be recovered with the SPOD modes, as will be described next. On the other hand, when the forcing CSD is considered, an L2 norm accounting for the three forcing components is employed, i.e.
Wf =⎡⎢⎢⎢
⎢⎢⎣
K Z Z
Z K Z
Z Z K
⎤⎥⎥⎥
⎥⎥⎦
. (2.4)
To extract the SPOD modes, we followed the procedures described by Towne et al. (2018);
Schmidt & Towne (2019). The snapshots data were split into Nbblocks of Nf f tsnapshots each, according to Table 1. Therefore, we have not solved (2.2) but an equivalent problem that contains the same non-zero eigenvalues, given by
ˆE†W ˆE Θ = Θ ˜Λ, (2.5a)
Ψ˜= ˆEΘ ˜Λ−1/2, (2.5b)
where ˆE ∈ C4Ny×Nbis a matrix containing the state (or forcing) Fourier transforms of each data block, Θ ∈ CNb×Nb denotes the eigenvectors, ˜Λ∈ RNb×Nb stands for the eigenvalues and ˜Ψ∈ C4Ny×Nb contains the SPOD modes. The total number of non-zero eigenvalues is Nb, i.e. the same as the number of blocks.
When expressions (2.5a) and (2.5b) are used with Wp defined by (2.3), it is possible to recover SPOD modes that involve the three velocity components and the pressure, since all state components are used in the reconstruction of (2.5b). This amounts to an extended POD (EPOD) (Borée 2003), here taken in its spectral version, or ESPOD, similar to what is done by Sano et al. (2019) or Karban et al. (2021). SPOD modes so defined are optimal orthonormal bases for the pressure, but recover nonetheless velocity fluctuations that are coherent with the pressure of the SPOD mode. This allows a more complete reconstruction of coherent structures associated with the largest pressure fluctuations.
2.3. Resolvent analysis
Resolvent analysis is a technique in which the governing equations are linearized over a base flow and written in the input-output format. The inputs refer to the forcing terms and the outputs are the flow responses (Jovanović & Bamieh 2005; McKeon & Sharma 2010; Hwang & Cossu 2010). The linearized Navier-Stokes (LNS) operator includes ad- equate boundary conditions, e.g. for the channel flow the no-slip conditions at the top
and bottom walls and the base flow velocity profile. For a discretized domain, one has Mdq(t)
dt = Aq(t) + Bf, (2.6a)
y(t) = Cq(t), (2.6b)
where M ∈ C4Ny×4Ny is a diagonal matrix whose entries are set to one and zero for the momentum and continuity equations, respectively, A ∈ C4Ny×4Ny is the linear operator, assumed as stable, B ∈ C4Ny×3Ny is the input matrix that restricts the forcing terms to appear only in the momentum equation, and C ∈ CNs×4Ny is a matrix that selects a relevant output y, where Ns is the number of sensors or observations. Setting C = I, where I is the identity matrix, recover the full state q. Thorough this study, C restricts the observations to the pressure fluctuations. To simplify notations, dependence on wavenumbers α and β and wall-normal distance y was dropped in (2.6) and in the next expressions, unless otherwise stated.
In the resolvent framework, the nonlinear terms of the Navier-Stokes system are treated as forcing terms (inputs) (Jovanović & Bamieh 2005; McKeon & Sharma 2010;
Hwang & Cossu 2010). Appendix A provides the expressions for the three forcing components in the Cartesian coordinate system as a function of a wavenumber-frequency combination and wall-normal distance. Expression (2.6) is exact provided that the forcing terms, expression (A 3), are computed from the DNS data, following the same procedures as Martini et al. (2020); Morra et al. (2021); Amaral et al. (2020).
Equation (2.6) can be written in frequency domain as ˆ
y(ω) = [C (−iωM − A(ω))−1B] ˆf(ω), (2.7) where
ˆ y(ω) =
∞
∫
−∞
y(t)eiωtdt (2.8)
is the Fourier transform of y, with analogous expression for other variables. Hats indicate variables in the frequency domain, ω is the temporal frequency and i =√−1. From this point on, dependency on frequency ω will be dropped for the sake of readability. In expression (2.7), between brackets one has H = CRB, where R = L−1and L =(−iωM − A).
Lis the linearized Navier-Stokes operator, whereas R denotes the resolvent operator and H is the resolvent operator including, through operators C and B, the observation and forcing restrictions, respectively. The linear operator can include an eddy viscosity model (Pujals et al. 2009; Reynolds & Tiederman 1967), which may lead to better agreement between DNS and resolvent analysis if the forcing terms are unknown (Illingworth et al.
2018; Morra et al. 2019; Towne et al. 2020; Amaral et al. 2020). Appendix B contains the expressions for the discrete operators L, B and C. Hence, the input-output formulation is given by
yˆ= H ˆf. (2.9)
The application of singular-value decomposition (SVD) on the resolvent operator account- ing for the integration weights leads to
Wp1/2
HWf−1/2
= ˜UΣ ˜V†, (2.10a)
V = Wf−1/2V˜, (2.10b)
U = RBV, (2.10c)
where the columns of U ∈ CNs×Ns and V ∈ C3Ny×3Ny form orthonormal bases, Nr is the number of resolvent modes, Σ ∈ RNs×3Ny is the a rectangular diagonal matrix of singular values and † denotes the Hermitian. Note that U†WpU = I and V†WfV = I. The tilde notation indicates quantities biased by the integration weights, with the Cholesky decom- position denoted by Wp1/2 and Wf1/2 regarding the pressure and forcing components, respectively. The gain matrix Σ is diagonal, with real, positive and decreasing values, i.e. σ1 ≥ σ2 ≥ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ≥ σn, where n ∈[1,Nr]. U = [U1 U2 . . . Un] and V = [V1 V2 . . . Vn] can be interpreted as the optimal output (forcing) and input (response or resolvent) modes, respectively. Hence, a harmonic forcing ˆf = Vi leads to a flow response ˆq= σiUi. For n = 1, the pair (U1,V1) provides the optimal, or most amplified, forcing and its associated response (Cavalieri et al. 2019). If σ1≫ σ2, the first response mode tends to dominate the flow.
Considering stochastic forcing, one has
Q =⟨ˆqˆq†⟩ , (2.11a)
F =⟨ ˆf ˆf†⟩, (2.11b)
where Q and F are the CSDs of the state and forcing components as a function of (α, β, ω) and symbol ⟨... ⟩ denote the expected-value operator. It is possible to obtain the flow response to an stochastic process employing the resolvent operator (Towne et al.
2018; Lesshafft et al. 2019; Cavalieri et al. 2019), i.e.
S = HFH†. (2.12)
Moreover, the observation CSD can be obtained as
Y = CQC†. (2.13)
Expression (2.12) is the input-output relation between the forcing and response CSDs and, by construction, if the full statistics of F are employed to evaluate (2.12), the equality S = Q is satisfied when C = I, or S = I for a more general observation matrix C. Thus, knowledge of the full forcing statistics F allows the recovery of the full response statistics Q or Y with the resolvent operator. Another option is to model the forcing CSD as white noise, i.e. F = I and hence S = HH†. In practical applications, typically the forcing CSD terms are unknown and model them as white noise is an interesting possibility. Yet, one may include an eddy viscosity model in the linear operator formulation to somehow account for the forcing terms maintaining the forcing CSD as white noise.
Resolvent and SPOD modes are identical when the forcing CSD is considered white in space, with the SPOD eigenvalues equal to the square of the resolvent modes (Towne et al.
2018; Cavalieri et al. 2019; Abreu et al. 2020b). Although the hypothesis of white-noise forcing CSD is not verified for many applications, if the resolvent gain σ1 ≫ σ2, the equivalent amplified response (U1) tends to dominate the flow field, regardless of the forcing CSD. In this case, the most amplified response mode may be similar to the leading SPOD mode (Beneddine et al. 2016).
3. Wavenumber and frequency spectra of pressure fluctuations
We start by evaluating wavenumber and frequency spectra for the pressure in order to select energetic values for further analysis using SPOD and resolvent analysis. Spectra without and with premultiplication will be used, since, as will be shown, coherent
Figure 3: Premultiplied energy spectra for Reτ ≈ 180 simulation. Left frame: y = 0 (channel wall). Right frame: y ≈ 0.5.
energetic spanwise-coherent pressure structures appear in the spectrum without premul- tiplication, but are not represented by construction in premultiplied spectrum.
3.1. Reτ≈180
The pressure component spectra at the channel wall (y = 0) and at y ≈ 0.5, a height characteristic of large-scale structures (Del Álamo & Jiménez 2003), are shown in figures 3 and 4 for the Reτ≈180 channel, evaluated with and without premultiplication. Minor differences between wall and buffer-layer spectra, at a distance of y ≈ 15, were observed and hence we decided to show only the results on the channel wall. Differently from the streamwise velocity component premultiplied spectrum for the near-wall structures, which peaks at (λx+
, λz+) ≈ (1000, 100) (Abreu et al. 2020a; Morra et al. 2021), where λx+ and λz+ are the streamwise and spanwise wavelengths in inner (wall or viscous) units, respectively, the pressure component premultiplied spectrum peaks at(λx+
, λz+) ≈ (204, 161) for the channel wall (left frame of figure 3). The λx+ peak value agrees with previous studies (Panton et al. 2017; Anantharamu & Mahesh 2020). At a distance characteristic of large-scale motions (right frame of figure 3), the peak is located at the slightly larger value of(λx, λz) ≈ (1.40, 2.09), where λx and λz are the streamwise and spanwise wavelengths in outer units. Such values are in contrast with those obtained for the premultiplied spectrum of the streamwise velocity component, i.e. (λx, λz) ≈ (4.19, 1.26) for Reτ≈180 (Morra et al. 2021).
Figure 4 shows the spectra without premultiplication as a function of streamwise and spanwise wavenumbers, α and β, respectively, for the same wall planes as those of figure 3. Interestingly, at both the wall and y ≈ 0.5, the spectra peaks at (α, β) = (0.5, 0), suggesting the presence of large spanwise elongated structures extending throughout the channel. A peak of the pressure spectrum for β → 0 was also observed by Yang et al.
(2021).
The peak wavenumbers in figures 3 and 4 will be further analyzed using SPOD and resolvent analysis. To determine frequencies of interest for such wavenumbers, similarly to what is done by Morra et al. (2019, 2021), the pressure component PSD (power spectrum density) for near-wall and large-scale structures are exhibited in the top frames of figure 5. In the figure, the PSD is plotted as a function of the wall-normal distance and phase speed c+= ω+/α+, where ω+ is the angular frequency scaled in inner units. The bottom frames correspond to the PSD of the streamwise forcing component. The figure also show
Figure 4: Energy spectra for Reτ ≈180 simulation. Left frame: y = 0 (channel wall). Right frame: y ≈ 0.5.
the critical layer (U+ = c+) in dashed lines. For the near-wall structures, the pressure component PSD peaks at c+ ≈ 14 (ω+ ≈ 0.43), with spatial support around y+ ≈ 35, whereas for large-structures, such peak is located at c+ ≈16 (ω ≈ 4.60), corresponding to y ≈ 0.3. These peaks arise along the critical layer, shown in the plots with dashed lines. The ω+ peak value is roughly in agreement with previous results (Hu et al. 2006;
Anantharamu & Mahesh 2020). Regarding the streamwise forcing component PSD, both near-wall and large-scale structures peak at c+≈12, which is equivalent to ω+≈0.37 and ω ≈3.45, with support close to the wall, at y+≈10. Such near-wall nature of the peak forcing, even for large-scale structures, was reported by Morra et al. (2021).
Figure 6 shows the pressure (right frame) and streamwise forcing (left frame) components PSDs for the peak at (α, β) = (0.5, 0), which is present for the power spectra without premultiplication (figure 4). Hereinafter, the power spectra without premultiplication peak will be refereed to as PSP. Both PSDs peak at c+≈12.5 (ω+≈0.03 and ω ≈ 0.40), although for the pressure component the peak has support at y+ ≈40, whereas for the streamwise forcing component the support is much closer to the wall, at y+≈5.
3.2. Reτ≈550
Results for the Reτ ≈ 550 are addressed in the following. Figures 7 and 8 show the pressure component power spectra with and without premultiplication. Similarly to the Reτ ≈ 180 case (figure 3), the wall premultiplied spectrum peak at (λx+
, λz+) ≈ (227, 155) and, once again, the λx+ peak value is in agreement with previous studies (Panton et al. 2017; Anantharamu & Mahesh 2020) On the other hand, the y ≈ 0.5 plane premultilied spectra peaks at(λx, λz) ≈ (0.90, 1.57). Morra et al. (2021) show the streamwise velocity component premultiplied spectra for Reτ≈550 and y ≈ 0.5 peaks at (λx, λz) ≈ (6.28, 1.57). Thus, similarly to velocity structures (Morra et al. 2021), pressure fluctuations peak at larger wavelengths as the Reynolds number is increased; notice that these wavelengths in inner units correspond to (λx+, λz+) ≈ (490, 850). The Reτ ≈550 pressure spectra without premultiplication, shown in figure 8, peaks at (α, β) = (3, 0) for both the wall and y ≈ 0.5, showing again spanwise elongated pressure structures. This peak wavenumber matches the results of Yang et al. (2021).
Figure 9 shows the PSDs of pressure and streamwise forcing components for near-wall and large-scale structures, respectively, as a function of wall-normal distance and phase speed. The critical layer is exhibited with a dashed line. The pressure component PSDs
Figure 5: PSDs for Reτ≈180 simulation. Left frames: near-wall structures,(λx+
, λz+) ≈ (204, 161). Right frames: large-scale structures, (λx, λz) ≈ (1.40, 2.09). Top frames:
pressure component (spp). Bottom frames: streamwise forcing component (fxx). Dashed lines denote the critical layer.
Figure 6: PSDs for Reτ ≈ 180 simulation and (α, β) ≈ (0.5, 0). Right frame: pressure component (spp). Left frame: streamwise forcing component (fxx). Dashed lines denote the critical layer.
peak at c+≈13 (ω+≈0.36) with support at y+≈30 and c+≈18 (ω ≈ 6.84) with support at y ≈ 0.35) for the near-wall and large-scale structures, respectively. The ω+ peak value is in agreement with previous results (Hu et al. 2006; Anantharamu & Mahesh 2020).
For the forcing streamwise component, the PSDs peak at c+≈12, which is equivalent to
Figure 7: Premultiplied energy spectra for Reτ ≈ 550 simulation. Left frame: y = 0 (channel wall). Right frame: y ≈ 0.5.
Figure 8: Energy spectra for Reτ ≈550 simulation. Left frame: y = 0 (channel wall). Right frame: y ≈ 0.5.
ω+≈0.33 and ω ≈ 4.56, for both near-wall and large-scale structures. Both peaks have support around y+≈10, similar to the Reτ≈180 channel flow (figure 6).
The PSDs are shown in figure 10 for the pressure (right frame) and streamwise forcing (left frame) components for the spanwise coherent structures with (α, β) = (3, 0). The pressure component PSD peaks at c+≈18 (ω ≈ 2.93) with support at y+≈190, following the critical layer, whereas the streamwise forcing component PSD peaks at c+ ≈ 15 (ω ≈ 2.44) and has support around y+≈10.
3.3. Summary of peak wavenumbers and frequencies selected for further study Table 2 summarizes the results of the preceding analysis of spectra. The spectral peaks are given in terms of spanwise and streamwise wavenumbers and wavelengths (in inner and outer units), phase speeds, angular frequencies (in inner and outer units) and wall- normal distance of the peak (in inner and outer units), for both Reynolds numbers.
Results for the pressure and streamwise forcing spectra are shown in the table, and when the latter peak location values are different from the former ones, such values are provided between parenthesis. The wall pressure spectra for both Reynolds numbers show similar peak location when considering inner scaling, i.e. (λx+
, λz+) ≈ (200, 160) and (c+, ω+) ≈ (13, 0.4), with support at y+ ≈30, whereas for the streamwise forcing
Figure 9: PSDs for Reτ≈550 simulation. Left frames: near-wall structures,(λx+
, λz+) ≈ (227, 155). Right frames: large-scale structures, (λx, λz) ≈ (0.90, 1.57). Top frames:
pressure component (spp). Bottom frames: streamwise forcing component (fxx). Dashed lines denote the critical layer.
Figure 10: PSDs for Reτ ≈ 550 simulation and (α, β) ≈ (3, 0). Right frame: pressure component (spp). Left frame: streamwise forcing component (fxx). Dashed lines denote the critical layer.
component one has(c+, ω+) ≈ (12, 0.35). Such scaling must be taken with care, since only two moderate Reynolds numbers are considered in the present study. For completeness, results for the wall-normal distance of y+ ≈ 15 are also provided in the table and it is verified that the spectral characteristics at this wall-normal distance are very similar to those obtained at the wall. For the large-scale structures (y ≈ 0.5), no obvious scaling
λx+
λz+
λx λz α β c+ ω+ ω y+ y
w/ pm, y = 0, Reτ≈ 180 204 161 1.14 0.90 5.5 7 14 (12) 0.43 (0.37) 4.92 (4.22) 35 (10) 0.20 (0.06) w/ pm, y+= 15, Reτ≈ 180 225 125 1.26 0.70 5 9 14 (12.5) 0.39 (0.35) 4.47 (3.99) 30 (10) 0.17 (0.06) w/ pm, y ≈ 0.5, Reτ≈ 180 250 375 1.40 2.09 4.5 3 16 (12) 0.40 (0.30) 4.60 (3.45) 52 (10) 0.30 (0.06) w/o pm, Reτ≈ 180 749 ∞ 3.14 ∞ 0.5 0 12.5 0.03 0.40 40 (5) 0.23 (0.03) w/ pm, y = 0, Reτ≈ 550 227 155 0.42 0.29 15 22 13 (12) 0.36 (0.33) 10.59 (9.77) 30 (10) 0.05 (0.02) w/ pm, y+= 15, Reτ≈ 550 227 131 0.42 0.24 15 26 12 (14) 0.33 (0.39) 9.77 (11.40) 20 (10) 0.04 (0.02) w/ pm, y ≈ 0.5, Reτ≈ 550 490 850 0.90 1.57 7 4 18 (12) 0.23 (0.15) 6.84 (4.56) 214 (10) 0.40 (0.02) w/o pm, Reτ≈ 550 1000 ∞ 2 ∞ 3 0 18 (15) 0.10 (0.08) 2.93 (2.44) 188 (5) 0.35 (0.01)
Table 2: Spectral peaks for wall, near-wall, large-scale and PSP structures for the two Reynolds numbers studied. w/ pm denotes spectra with premultiplication, whereas w/o pm indicates spectra without premultiplication. When the streamwise forcing component peak location differs from those of the pressure component, the values of the forcing peak are given between parenthesis.
with either inner or outer units is observed, although it can be inferred that the structures at such a wall-normal distance are of larger size than those obtained after the channel wall. Regarding the spectra without premultiplication, large structures that are infinitely long in the spanwise direction and with peak at y+≈5 for both Reynolds numbers and forcing spectra.
4. Comparison between SPOD and resolvent modes
Coherent structures for the peak wavenumbers and frequencies described in the previous section, and summarized in Table 2, are further analyzed using SPOD and resolvent in this section for both friction Reynolds numbers, i.e. Reτ ≈ 180 and 550. The results include the SPOD eigenvalues, resolvent gains and comparison between SPOD and resolvent modes. Regarding the resolvent analysis, results without (ν-) and with (νT- ) the eddy viscosity model are addressed.
4.1. Reτ≈180
The SPOD eigenvalues employing the pressure and forcing inner products are shown in figure 11 for the Reτ ≈ 180 simulation. The top frames correspond to the SPOD eigenvalues evaluated with the pressure inner product, whereas the bottom frames display the SPOD eigenvalues with the forcing inner product. Left, middle and right frames correspond to the near-wall, large-scale and spanwise-coherent structures, respectively.
For all structures and both pressure and forcing, the first eigenvalue is significantly more energetic than the higher-order ones, which indicates a strong dominance of the leading coherent structure for each wavenumber-frequency combination. Regarding the pressure, the first eigenvalue correspond to approximately 81%, 80% and 90% of the total energy, for the near-wall, large scale and spanwise-coherent structures, respectively.
Such dominance of the leading pressure SPOD mode is similar than what is observed for velocity; Abreu et al. (2020a) report a first eigenvalue corresponding to about 81% and 72% of the total energy for thenear-wall and large-scale structures, respectively. For the forcing, the dominance of the leading mode is weaker, and the first mode contribution to the total forcing energy is 44%, 53% and 56% for the near-wall, large scale and spanwise-
Figure 11: SPOD eigenvalues employing the pressure (top frames) and forcing (bottom frames) inner products for the Reτ ≈180 simulation. Left frames: near-wall structures, (λx+, λz+
, ω+) ≈ (204, 161, 0.43). Middle frames: large-scale structure, (λx, λz, ω) ≈ (1.40, 2.09, 4.61). Right frames: spanwise-coherent structures, (α, β, ω) ≈ (0.5, 0, 0.39).
Figure 12: Resolvent gains employing the pressure weighing for the Reτ≈180 simulation.
Black circles: linear operator without eddy viscosity model. Red squares: linear operator with eddy viscosity model. See the comments in the caption of figure 11.
coherent structures, respectively. If the second forcing eigenvalue is also considered, such values raise to 60%, 65% and 75%.
Resolvent gains employing the pressure weighing for the Reτ ≈ 180 simulation are exhibited in figure 12. Black circle markers indicate the linear operator without the eddy viscosity model (hereinafter refereed to as ν-resolvent gains), and red square markers account for the eddy viscosity model in the linear operator formulation (hereinafter refereed to as νT-gains). The frames, from left to right, denote the near-wall, large-scale and spanwise-coherent structures, respectively. As observed for the SPOD eigenvalues, the ν-resolvent gains clearly display a low-rank behavior. The ratio between the first and second resolvent gains, i.e. σ1/σ2, is of approximately 4.28, 6.87 and 4.34 for the near- wall, large scale and spanwise-coherent structures, respectively. Hence, the most amplified forcing and response modes tend to dominate the flow behavior. On the other hand, for the νT-gains, only the spanwise-coherent structures display a low-rank behavior.
Figure 13 shows the first SPOD and resolvent modes for the near-wall (left frames) and large-scale (right frames) structures for the Reτ ≈ 180 simulation. The SPOD modes
Figure 13: First SPOD, ν- and νT-resolvent modes for the Reτ ≈180 simulation. Left frames: near-wall structures, (λx+, λz+
, ω+) ≈ (204, 161, 0.43). Right frames: large- scale structures,(λx, λz, ω) ≈ (1.40, 2.09, 4.61). Contours correspond to the streamwise velocity component SPOD mode (first row), pressure component SPOD mode (second row), pressure component ν- (third row) and νT- (fourth row) resolvent modes. Arrows denote wall-normal and spanwise velocity components.
are shown for the streamwise velocity (first row) and pressure (second row) components in the contours. Results for the resolvent modes without (third row) and with the use of the eddy viscosity model (fourth row), hereinafter refereed to as ν- and νT-resolvent modes, respectively, are exhibited in the figure and the pressure component is depicted in the frames contours. Regarding the colormap scale, blue color denotes negative values, whereas the red color indicates positive values. In all frames, the arrows correspond to the wall-normal and spanwise velocity components.
The near-wall SPOD mode for the streamwise velocity component (top-left frame of figure 13) exhibit a pattern of low- (blue color) and high-speed streaks (red color), accompanying quasi-streamwise vortices (arrows), which characterizes the well-known lift- up mechanism (Ellingsen & Palm 1975; Landahl 1980; Hwang & Cossu 2010). This mode is similar to that shown by Abreu et al. (2020a), who employed an L2norm accounting for the three velocity components (kinetic energy norm) to extract the SPOD and resolvent modes at(λx+
, λz+, λt+) ≈ (1000, 100, 100), which is the wavenumber-frequency of the premultiplied spectrum peak for the near-wall structures. Here the velocity structures are those coherent with pressure fluctuations, as discussed in section 2.2. The present structures are larger, peaking at y ≈ 0.25, being much larger than those obtained with the kinetic energy norm, with support at y+ ≈ 15 (Abreu et al. 2020a). The present pressure structures are are slightly detached from the wall and inclined towards the right direction; if the spanwise wavenumber is taken with a negative sign, the same structures are obtained, but inclined towards the left. The large-scale SPOD mode (top-right frame of figure 13) also exhibit patterns of streaks, although even larger than the near-wall SPOD mode, spanning the channel half-height and with peak at y ≈ 0.5. Regarding the pressure component of the SPOD first mode (left column and second row of figure 13), for
the near-wall structures there are regions alternating low- (blue) and high- (red) pressure with support at y ≈ 0.25 and attached to the wall. Pressure peaks are associated with the centers of quasi-streamwise vortices, and it is observed that streamwise vortices have clockwise rotation at low-pressure regions and counter-clockwise rotation at high-pressure regions. Similar trends are observed for the large-scale SPOD mode (right column and second row of figure 13), with pressure structures larger than those observed at the near- wall premultiplied spectra peak, spanning the channel half-height, and inclined towards the right direction.
The pressure fluctuations of near-wall and large-scale ν-resolvent modes are very similar to the SPOD modes. A difference is nonetheless observed, with the pressure structures aligned normal to the channel wall and peaking at a slightly lower height (y ≈ 0.15).
For the ν-resolvent modes, the streamwise vortices are much more concentrated at the peak regions of low- and high-pressure regions in comparison to the SPOD modes for models without and with an eddy viscosity. Near the wall and above to y ≈ 0.4, for the near-wall modes, and above y ≈ 0.6, for the large-scale modes, the spanwise and wall- normal velocity components are approximately zero. This behavior is characteristic of a critical layer, with velocity fluctuations peaking at the location where the local velocity equals the phase speed (McKeon & Sharma 2010), and it is known that resolvent modes without inclusion of an eddy viscosity tend to be more concentrated around the critical layer than what is observed in data (Morra et al. 2019). The scenario is slightly different when analyzing the νT-resolvent modes. Although the regions of low- and high-pressure are very similar to those observed for the ν-resolvent modes, near the wall the pressure structures are inclined towards the right direction, similarly to the SPOD modes. The νT-streamwise vortices position also differ from the those of the resolvent mode, i.e. the vortices support is located to the right of the intersection between regions of low- and high-pressure. In this case, the νT-vortices do not display the correct phase with respect to the pressure fluctuations of the SPOD modes, which peak at vortex centers.
Figure 14 exhibit the first SPOD (left frame), ν- (middle frame) and νT-resolvent (right frame) modes for the spanwise-coherent structure for Reτ ≈180. The contours denote the pressure component, whereas the arrows correspond to the wall-normal and streamwise velocity components. Good agreement is observed among the pressure structures for the SPOD, ν- and νT-resolvent modes. The large pressure structures span the channel half-height, with peak at y ≈ 0.3, and are attached to the channel wall. The spanwise vortices peak approximately at the channel half-height (y ≈ 1). Notice that since the modes studied here are odd (resp. even) for u and p (resp. v), the spanwise vortices depicted in figure 14 extend from wall to wall, generating pressure structures in phase opposition between the two sides of the channel. Clockwise rotation is associated with low-pressure regions, whereas counter-clockwise rotation is associated with high-pressure regions. Although both ν- and νT-resolvent modes display similar responses for pressure fluctuations, both matching the SPOD mode, the νT-resolvent modes have a mismatch of the phase of spanwise vortices, with centers appearing between pressure peaks.
Figure 15 shows the first forcing modes of the near-wall (left frames) and large-scale (right frames) structures for the Reτ ≈ 180 channel flow. The top frames correspond to the SPOD-forcing modes, whereas the middle and bottom frames denote the forcing modes for the resolvent operator without and with the eddy viscosity model, respectively.
Hereinafter, the forcing modes that contain the eddy viscosity model in the formulation of the linear operator will be refereed to as νT-forcing modes. Contours correspond to the streamwise forcing component (blue color for negative forcing and red color for positive
