Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
On the addition of polymers to the turbulent fluid we obtain a reduction in the energy dissipation
rate, a significant modification of the fluid energy spectrum especially in the deep-dissipation range,
a suppression of small-scale intermittency, and a decrease in small-scale vorticity filaments.
The dramatic reduction of drag by the addition of iments [18, 21]: In particular, DR increases with c (upto
small concentrations of polymers to a turbulent fluid con- 25% in one of our simulations). For small values of c
tinues to engage the attention of engineers and physicists. the energy spectrum of the fluid is modified appreciably
Significant advances have been made in understanding only in the dissipation range; however, this suffices to
drag reduction both experimentally [1, 2, 3] and theo- yield significant drag reduction. We show that vorticity
retically [4, 5, 6, 7] in channel flows or the Kolmogorov filaments and intermittency are reduced at small spatial
flow [8]. However, the existence of drag-reduction-type scales and that the extension of the polymers decreases
phenomena in turbulent flows that are homogeneous and as c increases.
isotropic [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] remains The NS and FENE-P (henceforth NSP) equations are
controversial. Some experimental [15, 16, 17, 18], numer- µ
ical [11, 12, 13, 14], and theoretical [9, 10] studies have Dt u = ν∇2 u + ∇.[f (rP )C] − ∇p; (1)
τP
suggested that drag reduction should occur even in ho-
f (rP )C − I
mogeneous, isotropic turbulence; but other studies have Dt C = C.(∇u) + (∇u)T .C − . (2)
refuted this claim [19]. τP
To settle this controversy we have initiated an exten- Here u(x, t) is the fluid velocity at point x and time t,
sive direct numerical simulation (DNS) of decaying, ho- incompressibility is enforced by ∇.u = 0, Dt = ∂t + u.∇,
mogeneous, isotropic turbulence in the presence of poly- ν is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid, µ the viscos-
mer additives. We monitor the decay of turbulence from ity parameter for the solute (FENE-P), τP the polymer
initial states in which the kinetic energy of the fluid is relaxation time, ρ the solvent density (set to 1), p the
concentrated at small wave vectors; this energy then cas- pressure, (∇u)T the transpose of (∇u), Cαβ ≡ hRα Rβ i
cades down to large wave vectors where it is dissipated the elements of the polymer-conformation tensor C (an-
by viscous effects; the energy-dissipation rate ǫ attains gular brackets indicate an average over polymer con-
a maximum at tm , roughly the time at which the cas- figurations), I the identity tensor with elements δαβ ,
cade is completed. A recent shell-model study [13] has f (rP ) ≡ (L2 − 3)/(L2 − rP2 ) the FENE-P
p potential that
suggested that this peak in ǫ can be used to quantify ensures finite extensibility, rP ≡ T r(C) and L the
drag reduction by polymer additives. Since shell mod- length and the maximum possible extension, respectively,
els are far too simple to capture the complexities of real of the polymers, and c ≡ µ/(ν + µ) a dimensionless mea-
flows, we have studied decaying turbulence in the Navier- sure of the polymer concentration [22]. c = 0.1 corre-
Stokes (NS) equation coupled to the Finitely Extensible sponds, roughly, to 100ppm for polyethylene oxide [1].
Nonlinear Elastic Peterlin (FENE-P) model [20] for poly- We consider homogeneous, isotropic, turbulence, so we
mers. Our study, designed specifically to uncover drag- use periodic boundary conditions and solve Eq. (1) by
reduction-type phenomena, shows that the position of using a massively parallel pseudospectral code [23] with
the maximum in ǫ depends only mildly on the polymer N 3 collocation points in a cubic domain (side L = 2π).
concentration c; however, the value of ǫ at this maxi- We eliminate aliasing errors [23] by the 2/3 rule, to
mum falls as c increases. We use this decrease of ǫ to de- obtain reliable data at small length scales, and use a
fine the percentage drag (or dissipation) reduction DR in second-order, slaved Adams-Bashforth scheme for time
decaying homogeneous, isotropic turbulence; we also ex- marching. For Eq. (2) we use an explicit sixth-order
plore other accompanying physical effects and show that central-finite-difference scheme in space and a second-
they are in qualitative accord with drag-reduction exper- order Adams-Bashforth method for temporal evolution.
2
P
The numerical error in rP must be controlled by choosing total kinetic energy E(t)P≡ k E(k, t), the energy-
a small time step δt, otherwise rP can become larger than dissipation-rate ǫ(t) ≡ ν k k 2 E(k, t), the cumulative
L, which leads to a numerical instability; this time step probability distribution of scaled polymer extensions
is much smaller than what is necessary for a pseudospec- P C (rP2 /L2 ), and the hyperflatness F6 (r) ≡ S6 (r)/S23 (r),
tral DNS of the NS equation alone. Table I lists the where Sp (r) ≡ h{[u(x + r) − u(x)] · r/r}p i is the order-p
parameters we use. We preserve the symmetric-positive- longitudinal velocity structure function and the angular
definite (SPD) nature of C at all times by using[22] the brackets denote an average over our simulation domain
following Cholesky-decomposition scheme: If we define at tm . For notational convenience, we do not display the
J ≡ f (rP )C, Eq. (2) becomes dependence on c explicitly.
Figure (1a) shows that ǫ first increases with time,
Dt J = J .(∇u) + (∇u)T .J − s(J − I) + qJ , (3)
reaches a peak, and then decreases; for c = 0 this peak
where s = (L2 − 3 + j 2 )/(τP L2 ), q = [d/(L2 − 3) − (L2 − occurs at t = tm . The position of this peak changes
3 + j 2 )(j 2 − 3)/(τP L2 (L2 − 3))], j 2 ≡ T r(J ), and d = mildly with c but its height goes down significantly as
T r[J .(∇u) + (∇u)T .J ]. Since C and hence J are SPD c increases. This suggests the following natural defini-
matrices, we can write J = LLT , where L is a lower- tion [13] of the percentage drag or dissipation reduction
triangular matrix with elements ℓij , such that ℓij = 0 for for decaying homogeneous, isotropic turbulence:
j > i. Thus Eq.(3) now yields (1 ≤ i ≤ 3 and Γij = ∂i uj ) f,m
ǫ − ǫp,m
DR ≡ × 100; (5)
X 1h sℓi1 i ǫf,m
Dt ℓi1 = Γki ℓk1 + (q − s)ℓi1 + (−1)(i mod 1) 2
2 ℓ11 here (and henceforth) the superscripts f and p stand, re-
k
ℓi2 X spectively, for the fluid without and with polymers and
+ (δi3 + δi2 ) Γm1 ℓm2 the superscript m indicates the time tm . Figure (1b)
ℓ11 m>1
shows plots of p DR versus c, for the Weissenberg num-
ℓ233 ber W e ≡ τP ǫf,m /ν ≃ 0.35, and versus W e, for
+ δi3 Γi1 , for i ≥ 1;
ℓ11 c = 1/11 ≃ 0.1. DR increases with c in qualitative accord
X ℓi1 X with experiments on channel flows (where DR is defined
Dt ℓi2 = Γmi ℓm2 − Γm1 ℓm2
ℓ11 via a normalized pressure difference); but it drops gently
m>2 m>2
as W e increases, in contrast to the behavior seen in chan-
1h (i+2) ℓi2
ℓ221 i nel flows (in which τP is varied by changing the polymer).
+ (q − s)ℓi2 + (−1) s 2 1+ 2
2 ℓ22 ℓ11 In decaying turbulence, the total kinetic energy E(t)
h ℓ2 ℓ21 ℓ21 ℓ31 i of the fluid falls as t increases; the rate at which it falls
+ δi3 33 Γ32 − Γ31 +s 2 , for i ≥ 2; increases with c [Fig. (1c)], which suggests that the ad-
ℓ22 ℓ11 ℓ11 ℓ22
hX Γ ℓ i Γ ℓ ℓ ℓ dition of polymers increases the effective viscosity of the
3m 3m 31 32 21 33
Dt ℓ33 = Γ33 ℓ33 − ℓ33 + solution. This is not at odds with the decrease of ǫ with
ℓmm ℓ11 ℓ22
m<3 increasing c since the effective viscosity because of poly-
ℓ21 ℓ31 ℓ32 1h mers turns out to be scale-dependent. We confirm this
−s 2 + (q − s)ℓ33
ℓ11 ℓ22 ℓ33 2 by obtaining the kinetic-energy spectrum E p,m (k) for the
s X ℓ2 sℓ221 ℓ232 i fluid in the presence of polymers at t = tm . For small
3m
+ 1+ + . (4) concentrations (c ≃ 0.1) the spectra with and without
ℓ33 m<3 mm
ℓ2 ℓ211 ℓ222 ℓ33
polymers differ substantially only in the deep dissipa-
The SPD nature of C is preserved by Eq.(4) if ℓii > 0, tion range, where E f,m (k) ≪ E p,m (k). As c increases,
which we enforce explicitly [22] by considering the evolu- to say c ≃ 0.4, E p,m (k) is reduced relative to E f,m (k)
tion of ln(ℓii ) instead of ℓii . at intermediate values of k [Fig. (2a)]; however, deep in
We use the following initial conditions (superscript the dissipation range E f,m (k) ≪ E p,m (k). We now de-
0): Cmn 0
(x) = δmn for all x; and u0m (k) = fine [12] the effective scale-dependent
P viscosity νe (k) ≡
0
Pmn (k)vn (k) exp(iθn (k)), with m, n = x, y, z, Pmn = ν + ∆ν(k), with ∆ν(k) ≡ −µ k−1/2<k′ ≤k+1/2 uk′ · (∇ ·
2 ′ 2 p,m ′
(δmn − km kn /k ) the transverse projection operator, k J )−k′ /[τP k E (k )], where (∇ · J )k is the Fourier
the wave-vector with components km = (−N/2, −N/2 + transform of ∇ · J . The inset of Fig. (2a) shows that
1, . . . , N/2), k = |k|, θn (k) random numbers distributed ∆ν(k) > 0 for k < 15, but ∆ν(k) < 0 around k =
uniformly between 0 and 2π, and vn0 (k) chosen such 20. This explains why E p,m (k) is suppressed relative to
that the initial kinetic-energy spectra are either of type E f,m (k) at small k, rises above it in the deep-dissipation
I 2 4
I, with E (k) = k exp(−2k ), or of type II, with range, and crosses over from its small-k to large-k be-
E II (k) = k 4 exp(−2k 2 ). haviors around the value of k where ∆ν(k) goes through
In addition to u(x, t), its Fourier transform uk (t), and zero.
C(x, t) we monitor the vorticity ω ≡ ∇ × u, the kinetic- Given the resolution of our DNS, inertial-range inter-
energy spectrum E(k, t) ≡ k−1/2<k′ ≤k+1/2 |u2k′ (t)|, the
P
mittency can be studied only by using extended self sim-
3
−4
x 10
4.8
(a) 25 (c)
5 4.4 (b) 0.06
DR
4
20
4 3.6
0.1 0.8 0.05
DR
We
E
ǫ
15
3
10 0.04
2
5 0.03
0.5 1 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
c t/τ
t/τ
(a) (b) (c )
E p,m (k) or E f,m (k)
200
−10 −2
10 10
P C (rP2 /L2 )
−4 150
F6 (r)
x 10
8
−4
10
∆ν(k)
−20 5
10 100
2
−1 −6
−30 20 40 60
50 10
10 k
0 1 −3 −2
0.5 1 1.5 2 10
10
k
10 r rP2 /L2 10
FIG. 2: (Color online) (a) Plots of the energy spectra E p,m (k) or E f,m (k) versus k (run NSP-192) for c = 0.1(−−) and
c = 0.4(solid line) [E p,m (k) is unchanged if we use N = 256, with all other parameters the same (run NSP-256A)]; inset:
polymer contribution to the scale-dependent viscosity ∆ν(k) versus k for c = 0.1(−−); ∆ν(k) = 0 (solid line) is also shown
for reference; (b) the hyper-flatness F6 (r) as a function of r (run NSP-256) and concentration c = 0.4(solid line). In (a) and
(b) the corresponding plots with c = 0 (o−) are shown for comparison. (c) The cumulative PDF P C (rP2 /L2 ) versus rP2 /L2 for
c = 0.1(−−) and c = 0.4(solid line) (run NSP-256).