1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb,bibnotes]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb,bibnotes]{revtex4}

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: \pdfoutput=1

6: \usepackage{bm}

7: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig,subfigure,afterpage,bm}

8: \usepackage{amsfonts}

9: %\usepackage{mcite}

10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

11: 

12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

14: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

15: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

16: \newcommand{\gdot}{\dot{\gamma}}

17: \newcommand{\gdotbar}{\overline{\dot{\gamma}}}

18: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.\/}}

19: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.\/}}

20: \newcommand{\etc}{{\it etc.\/}}

21: \newcommand{\versus}{{\it vs.\/}}

22: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\/}}

23: \newcommand{\bw}{\begin{widetext}}

24: \newcommand{\ew}{\end{widetext}}

25: \newcommand{\lae}{\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}}

26: \newcommand{\gae}{\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle\sim}}

27: 

28: \newcommand{\tmax}{t_{\rm max}}

29: \newcommand{\xhat}{\vecv{\hat{x}}}

30: \newcommand{\yhat}{\vecv{\hat{y}}}

31: \newcommand{\zhat}{\vecv{\hat{z}}}

32: 

33: %\newcommand{\vecv}[1]{\mathbf{{#1}}}

34: \newcommand{\vecv}[1]{\bm{{#1}}}

35: %\newcommand{\tens}[1]{\mathbf{{#1}}}

36: \newcommand{\tens}[1]{\bm{{#1}}}

37: \newcommand{\nablu}{{\bf \nabla}}

38: 

39: \newcommand{\vt}{\tilde{\vecv{v}}}

40: \newcommand{\st}{\tilde{\psi}}

41: \newcommand{\wt}{\tilde{\omega}}

42: \newcommand{\pt}{\tilde{\phi}}

43: 

44: \newcommand{\ldv}{L_{\rm DV}}

45: \newcommand{\lvi}{L_{\rm VI}}

46: 

47: \newcommand{\lke}{L_{\rm KE}}

48: \newcommand{\lpe}{L_{\rm PE}}

49: \newcommand{\lsm}{L_{\rm Sm}}

50: \newcommand{\lx}{L_{\rm x}}

51: \newcommand{\ly}{L_{\rm y}}

52: \newcommand{\lint}{L_{\rm INT}}

53: 

54: \newcommand{\Dx}{\delta_x}

55: \newcommand{\Dy}{\delta_y}

56: \newcommand{\Dt}{\delta_t}

57: 

58: 

59: \newcommand{\tdv}{T_{\rm DV}}

60: \newcommand{\tvi}{T_{\rm VI}}

61: 

62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

63: \begin{document}

64: 

65: \title{The need for inertia in nonequilibrium steady states of sheared binary fluids}

66: \author{Suzanne M. Fielding}

67: \email{suzanne.fielding@manchester.ac.uk}

68: \affiliation{School of Mathematics and Manchester Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom }

69: 

70: \date{\today}

71: \begin{abstract}

72:   We study numerically phase separation in a binary fluid subject to

73:   an applied shear flow in two dimensions, with full hydrodynamics.

74:   To do so, we introduce a mixed finite-differencing/spectral

75:   simulation technique, with a transformation to render trivial the

76:   implementation of Lees-Edwards sheared periodic boundary conditions.

77:   For systems with inertia, we reproduce the nonequilibrium steady

78:   states reported in a recent lattice Boltzmann study. The domain

79:   coarsening that would occur in zero shear is arrested by the applied

80:   shear flow, which restores a finite domain size set by the inverse

81:   shear rate. For inertialess systems, in contrast, we find no

82:   evidence of nonequilibrium steady states free of finite size

83:   effects: coarsening persists indefinitely until the typical domain

84:   size attains the system size, as in zero shear. We present an

85:   analytical argument that supports this observation, and that

86:   furthermore provides a possible explanation for a hitherto puzzling

87:   property of the nonequilibrium steady states with inertia.

88: \end{abstract}

89: \pacs{ {64.75.+g}, 

90: {47.11.Qr}.

91:      } 

92: \maketitle

93: 

94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

95: 

96: \section{Introduction}

97: \label{sec:intro}

98: 

99: When an initially homogeneous mixture of two incompressible fluids (A

100: and B) undergoes a deep temperature quench into the spinodal regime,

101: it becomes unstable with respect to spatial fluctuations in the

102: composition field $\phi(\vecv{x},t)$. The mixture then phase separates

103: into well defined domains of A-rich and B-rich fluid, which, after a

104: rapid initial transient, attain local equilibrium within each domain.

105: The system remains globally out of equilibrium on long timescales,

106: however, due to the excess energy that resides in the interfaces

107: between the domains.  Here we consider the maximally symmetric case of

108: a 50:50 mixture of two mutually phobic fluids with matched viscosities

109: and densities.

110: 

111: Following the initial transient of their formation, the domains slowly

112: coarsen in time through the action of the surface tension in the

113: interfaces that separate them.  (For reviews of phase ordering

114: kinetics, see

115: Refs.~\cite{hohenberg77,bray-aip-43-357-1994,cates-fd--1-1999}.)  In

116: this way, the excess interfacial energy of the system progressively

117: relaxes towards its minimal equilibrium value. This coarsening process

118: proceeds through three distinct regimes that are successively

119: dominated by diffusive, viscous and inertial dynamics.  In the limit

120: of an infinite system size $\Lambda\to\infty$ (taken first), the

121: typical domain size perpetually increases without bound: the system

122: never globally equilibrates, even in the limit of infinite time

123: $t\to\infty$ (taken second).  For any finite system size, coarsening

124: is in practice eventually cutoff once the typical domain size $L(t)$

125: attains the system size $\Lambda$.

126: 

127: Besides these systems that remain out of equilibrium as they slowly

128: relax towards a fully phase separated state, another class of systems

129: comprises those that are continuously driven out of equilibrium by the

130: external application of a steady shear flow. In this paper, we

131: consider systems that are {\em both} undergoing phase separation {\em

132:   and} simultaneously subject to an applied shear flow.  They thus

133: combine both of the nonequilbrium features just described. The main

134: question that we address is whether shear interrupts domain coarsening

135: and restores a nonequilibrium steady state with a typical domain size

136: $L(\gdot^{-1})$ set by the inverse of the applied shear rate $\gdot$;

137: or whether coarsening persists indefinitely, up to the system size, as

138: in zero shear.

139: 

140: Despite previous

141: experimental~\cite{hashimoto-jcp-88-5874-1988,takahashi-jr-38-699-1994,chan-pra-43-1826-1991,krall-prl-69-1963-1992,hashimoto-prl-74-126-1995,beysens-pra-28-2491-1983,chan-prl-61-412-1988,matsuzaka-prl-80-5441-1998,hobbie-pre-54-R5909-1996,qiu-pre-58-R1230-1998,lauger-prl-75-3576-1995},

142: numerical~\cite{shou-pre-61-R2200-2000,zhang-jcp-113-8348-2000,yamamoto-pre-59-3223-1999,corberi-prl-81-3852-1998,corberi-prl-83-4057-1999,corberi-pre-61-6621-2000,corberi-pre-62-8064-2000,rothman-prl-65-3305-1990,rothman-el-14-337-1991,chan-el-11-13-1990,qiu-jcp-108-9529-1998,padilla-jcp-106-2342-1997,ohta-jcp-93-2664-1990,wagner-pre-59-4366-1999,lamura-pamia-294-295-2001,lamura-epjb-24-251-2001,berthier-pre-6305--2001}

143: and

144: theoretical~\cite{onuki-jpm-9-6119-1997,lamura-pamia-294-295-2001,corberi-prl-81-3852-1998,corberi-prl-83-4057-1999,corberi-pre-61-6621-2000,corberi-pre-62-8064-2000,bray-ptrslsapes-361-781-2003,cavagna-pre-62-4702-2000,bray-jpag-33-L305-2000,Onuk97,doi-jcp-95-1242-1991}

145: work, this question remained open until the recent simulation studies

146: of Stansell et al. in Refs~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006,cates-3d-2007}.

147: Using Lattice Boltzmann techniques, they gave convincing evidence for

148: the formation of nonequilibrium steady states, with domains of a

149: finite size set by the inverse shear rate, independent of the system

150: size. The domain morphology inherits the anisotropy of the applied

151: shear flow, and is therefore characterised by two lengthscales

152: $L_{\|}$ and $L_\bot$, respectively describing the major and minor

153: domain axes. A remarkable achievement of

154: Refs.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006,cates-3d-2007} was the exploration,

155: by judicious parameter steering, of a range of inverse shear rates

156: spanning six decades on a scaling plot. For reasons discussed below

157: this range would, a priori, be expected to encompass two different

158: regimes, separately dominated by viscous and inertial dynamics.

159: Surprising, therefore, is the observation of an apparently single

160: scaling with shear rate for each of $L_{\|}$ and $L_\bot$, across all

161: six decades.

162: 

163: \begin{figure*}[tbp]

164:   \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{./domain.png}

165:   \caption{Flow geometries in the (a) unsheared and (b) sheared cases.

166:     The crossed connected by thin dotted lines show representative

167:     pairs of points connected by periodic boundary conditions.}

168: \label{fig:domain}

169: \end{figure*}

170: 

171: All the simulations reported in

172: Refs.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006,cates-3d-2007} have non zero fluid

173: inertia.  Indeed, even when attempting to access the limit of zero

174: inertia, a small but non-zero inertia remains a practical requirement

175: of the Lattice Boltzmann technique. In this paper, we investigate

176: phase separation under shear in systems that are strictly inertialess.

177: To do so, we apply a different simulation technique to this problem,

178: comprising finite differencing combined with Fourier spectral methods.

179: We also use a convenient transformation to render trivial the

180: implementation of sheared periodic boundary

181: conditions~\cite{onuki-jpsj-66-1836-1997}.

182: 

183: Our main numerical result will be that, in truly inertialess systems,

184: coarsening persists indefinitely, up to the system size, despite the

185: external shear flow. We will also present an analytical argument that

186: supports this observation. A simple extension to the same argument

187: provides a possible explanation for the existence of a single scaling

188: for each of $L_{\|}, L_\bot$ across all six decades of scaled shear

189: rate in the simulations of Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}, with

190: inertia.

191: 

192: We start by introducing the model equations, flow geometry and choice

193: of units in Secs.~\ref{sec:equations},~\ref{sec:geometry}

194: and~\ref{sec:units} respectively. In Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics} we

195: briefly outline our numerical method, of which further details are

196: given in the Appendices. The length and timescales that characterise

197: demixing are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:lengthscales}, leading to a

198: discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:parameters} of the choice of parameter

199: values in our simulations. In Sec.~\ref{sec:results} we present our

200: numerical results, starting in Sec.~\ref{sec:zeroShear} with the case

201: of coarsening in zero shear, before considering an applied shear flow

202: with and without inertia in Secs.~\ref{sec:inertia}

203: and~\ref{sec:noInertia} respectively.  Sec.~\ref{sec:link} contains a

204: linking discussion. The results in Sec.~\ref{sec:noInertia} are (we

205: believe) novel. In contrast, our aim in Secs.~\ref{sec:zeroShear}

206: and~\ref{sec:inertia} is simply to reproduce the behaviour seen in

207: previous lattice Boltzmann

208: studies~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998,kendon-jfm-440-147-2001,stansell-prl-96--2006},

209: thereby gaining confidence in our own simulation method. In

210: Sec.~\ref{sec:argument} we present an analytical argument that

211: supports our numerical observations, as well as those of

212: Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}.  Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions} contains

213: a summary and an outlook to future work.

214: 

215: \section{Governing equations}

216: \label{sec:equations}

217: 

218: The fluid velocity field $\vecv{v}(\vecv{x},t)$ and pressure

219: $p(\vecv{x},t)$ are governed by the Navier-Stokes equation

220: %

221: \be

222: \label{eqn:ns}

223: \rho\left(\partial_t\, \vecv{v} + \vecv{v}\cdot \nablu \, \vecv{v} \right)=\eta \nabla^2 \vecv{v} -\phi \nablu \mu - \nablu p

224: \ee

225: %

226: together with the incompressibility constraint

227: %

228: \be

229: \label{eqn:incomp}

230: \nablu\cdot \vecv{v}=0.

231: \ee

232: %

233: Here $\rho$ is the fluid density and $\eta$ the viscosity.

234: $p(\vecv{x},t)$ is the thermodynamic part of the pressure tensor and

235: $\mu(\vecv{x},t)$ is a chemical potential, defined below.  In what

236: follows, we shall consider two dimensional (2D) flow in the $x-y$

237: plane with velocity components $v_x,v_y$.

238: 

239: To eliminate the pressure, we take the curl of Eqn.~\ref{eqn:ns}. The

240: $z$ component of the resulting equation is

241: %

242: \be

243: \label{eqn:vorticity}

244: \rho\left(\partial_t\,\omega + \vecv{v}\cdot\nablu \, \omega\right)=\eta

245: \,\nabla^2 \omega - \left[\nablu \wedge \phi \nablu \mu\right]\cdot \zhat

246: \ee

247: %

248: in which the vorticity $\omega$ obeys

249: %

250: \be

251: \nabla\wedge \vecv{v}=\omega \zhat.

252: \ee

253: %

254: To ensure that the incompressibility constraint~(\ref{eqn:incomp}) is

255: automatically obeyed, we define a streamfunction $\psi$ via

256: %

257: \be

258: \label{eqn:stream}

259: \vecv{v}=\nablu\wedge \psi \zhat,

260: \ee

261: %

262: which is related to the vorticity as follows:

263: %

264: \be

265: \label{eqn:streamVort}

266: \omega=-\nabla^2\psi.

267: \ee

268: %

269: 

270: The dynamics of the compositional order parameter $\phi(\vecv{x},t)$

271: are prescribed by an advection-diffusion equation of Cahn-Hilliard

272: type (see Refs.~\cite{bray-aip-43-357-1994,swift-pre-54-5041-1996})

273: %

274: \be

275: \label{eqn:phi1}

276: \partial_t \phi + \vecv{v}\cdot \nablu \phi = M\, \nabla^2 \mu.

277: \ee

278: %

279: Here $M$ is the mobility, assumed constant, controlling the rate of

280: intermolecular diffusion. The chemical potential

281: %

282: \be

283: \label{eqn:mu1}

284: \mu= G\,\phi(\phi^2-1)-\kappa \nabla^2\phi,

285: \ee

286: %

287: in which $G$ is a positive constant with the dimensions of stress.

288: $\kappa$ is also a positive constant, controlling the characteristic

289: width $l$ of the interface between domains:

290: %

291: \be

292: l=\left(\frac{\kappa}{G}\right)^\frac{1}{2}.

293: \ee

294: %

295: The surface tension of the interface is given by

296: %

297: \be

298: \sigma=\frac{2\sqrt{2}lG}{3}.

299: \ee

300: %

301: 

302: \section{Flow geometry}

303: \label{sec:geometry}

304: 

305: In the absence of shear we consider a square domain of size

306: $\Lambda_x=\Lambda_y$ in the $x-y$ plane (Fig.~\ref{fig:domain}a). We

307: adopt periodic boundary conditions in each direction:

308: %

309: \bea

310: \phi(x=0,y)&=&\phi(x=\Lambda_x,y)\;\;\;\forall\;\;\;y,\\

311: \phi(x,y=0)&=&\phi(x,y=\Lambda_y)\;\;\;\forall\;\;\;x,

312: %v_\alpha(x=0,y)&=&v_\alpha(x=\Lambda_x,y) \;\;\;\forall\;\;\;y,

313: \eea

314: %

315: and similarly for $v_x,v_y,\psi$ and $\omega$.

316: 

317: To study shear, we consider a system that is rectangular with

318: $\Lambda_x=2 \Lambda_y$. Conceptually, a shear flow of rate $\gdot$ is

319: applied by moving the upper boundary to the right at a constant speed

320: $\gdot \Lambda_y$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:domain}b (left), so that

321: the velocity field then has a constant affine part $\gdot y\xhat$ and

322: an additive fluctuating contribution $\vt(\vecv{x},t)$. In practice,

323: this is implemented via Lees-Edwards sliding periodic boundary

324: conditions (Fig.~\ref{fig:domain}b, right), such that the system has

325: no physical borders but instead comprises an infinitely repeating

326: array of images arranged in horizontally sliding layers.  The boundary

327: conditions are then

328: %

329: \bea

330: \phi(x=0,y)&=&\phi(x=\Lambda_x,y)\;\;\;\forall\;\;\;y,\\

331: \phi(x,y=0)&=&\phi(x+\gdot

332: \Lambda_y t,y=\Lambda_y)\;\;\;\forall\;\;\;x.  \eea

333: %

334: These also apply to $\tilde{v}_x,\tilde{v}_y$, as well as the

335: corresponding fluctuating contribution to the streamfunction

336: $\tilde{\psi}$ and vorticity $\tilde{\omega}$.

337: 

338: \section{Choice of units}

339: \label{sec:units}

340: 

341: The model equations contain five parameters: $\rho, \eta, M, G$ and

342: $l$. (We must specify two of $G,l,\kappa$ and $\sigma$, and here have

343: chosen $G$ and $l$.) In addition, we must also specify the system's

344: dimensions $\Lambda_x,\Lambda_y$ and the applied shear rate $\gdot$,

345: making eight parameters in all. Three of these can be eliminated by

346: choosing appropriate units for length, time and stress. Accordingly,

347: we measure lengths in units of the vertical system size

348: $\Lambda_y\equiv 1$; stresses in units of $G\equiv 1$; and times in

349: units of the characteristic ``microscopic'' time for diffusion across

350: an interface,

351: %

352: \be

353: \tau_0=\frac{(\sqrt{2}l)^3}{3M\sigma}\equiv 1.

354: \ee

355: %

356: In these units, the governing equations comprise

357: Eqns.~\ref{eqn:vorticity},~\ref{eqn:stream} and~\ref{eqn:streamVort}

358: (unchanged) together with

359: %

360: \be

361: \label{eqn:phi}

362: \partial_t\, \phi + \vecv{v}\cdot \nablu \phi = l^2 \, \nabla^2 \mu

363: \ee

364: %

365: and

366: %

367: \be

368: \label{eqn:mu}

369: \mu= \phi(\phi^2-1)- l^2 \nabla^2\phi.

370: \ee

371: %

372: This leaves the rescaled density $\rho$, viscosity $\eta$, interfacial

373: width $l$, aspect ratio $\Lambda_x$ and applied shear rate $\gdot$ as

374: the five control parameters. In our numerical work we fix $\Lambda_x$

375: and $l$, varying $\rho,\eta$ and $\gdot$ between runs.

376: 

377: 

378: \section{Numerical method}

379: \label{sec:numerics}

380: 

381: In the laboratory frame, the numerical implementation of sheared

382: periodic boundary conditions is rather involved. We now discuss a

383: convenient transformation that renders it

384: trivial~\cite{onuki-jpsj-66-1836-1997}.  We do so here in outline

385: only, referring the interested reader to appendix~\ref{sec:appendix1}

386: for details.

387: 

388: The transformation comprises two steps. In the first, the velocity

389: field is expressed as the sum of a constant affine part and a

390: fluctuating contribution:

391: %

392: \be

393: \vecv{v}(\vecv{x},t)=\gdot y\xhat + \vt(\vecv{x},t).

394: \ee

395: %

396: In the second step, we transform to the cosheared frame

397: %

398: \be

399: (x,y,t)\to(x'=x-\gdot ty, y'=y,t'=t),

400: \ee

401: %

402: defining for convenience the cosheared gradient operator

403: %

404: \be

405: \label{eqn:coshearedGradient}

406: \nablu_c=\xhat\, \partial_{x'}+\yhat\,(-\gdot t\partial_{x'}+\partial_{y'}).

407: \ee

408: %

409: As shown in Appendix~\ref{sec:appendix1}, the final transformed

410: equation set, dropping the dashes for clarity, is then:

411: %

412: \be

413: \label{eqn:equation1}

414: {\omega}=-\nabla_c^2\,{\psi},

415: \ee

416: %

417: together with

418: %

419: \be

420: \label{eqn:equation2}

421: \rho\,\partial_{t}{\omega}+\rho\left(\partial_{y}{\psi}\partial_{x}{\omega}-\partial_{x}{\psi}\partial_{y}{\omega}\right)=\eta\,\nabla_c^2{\omega}-\left[\partial_{x}\phi\,\partial_{y} \mu-\partial_{y}\phi \,\partial_{x} \mu\right],

422: \ee

423: %

424: \be

425: \label{eqn:equation3}

426: \partial_{t}\phi+\left(\partial_{y}{\psi}\partial_{x}\phi-\partial_{x}{\psi}\partial_{y}\phi\right)=l^2\nabla_c^2\mu,

427: \ee

428: %

429: %

430: \be

431: \label{eqn:equation4}

432: \mu=\phi(\phi^2-1)-l^2\nabla_c^2\phi.

433: \ee

434: %

435: %

436: A priori, the bracketed expressions in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:equation2}

437: and~\ref{eqn:equation3} contain terms in the applied shear rate

438: $\gdot$. However in each bracket these are equal and opposite, and so

439: cancel. An equivalent statement is that the bracketed expressions are

440: invariant under shear.

441: 

442: This transformation considerably simplifies the implementation of an

443: applied shear flow. Indeed, looking at Eqns.~\ref{eqn:equation1}

444: to~\ref{eqn:equation4} we see that the only effect of shear is to

445: renormalise the gradient operator $\nabla\to\nabla_c$.  Furthermore,

446: the dynamical variables $\phi$, $\psi$ and $\omega$ are now subject to

447: {\em ordinary} periodic boundary conditions:

448: %

449: \bea

450: \phi(x=0,y)&=&\phi(x=\Lambda_x,y)\;\;\;\forall\;\;\;y,\nonumber\\

451: \phi(x,y=0)&=&\phi(x,y=\Lambda_y)\;\;\;\forall\;\;\;x,

452: \label{eqn:opbcs}

453: \eea

454: %

455: and similarly for $\psi$ and $\omega$.  This will allow us to use

456: Fourier transforms in our numerical algorithm, as described below.

457: 

458: 

459: Under the transformation described so far, the relative shear of the

460: laboratory and cosheared frames becomes large at long times, diverging

461: at a constant rate $\gdot$. This is clearly expected to give rise to

462: numerical instabilities. To circumvent this problem, once the relative

463: shear $s(t)$ attains $\Lambda_x/2 \Lambda_y$ we perform by hand an

464: instantaneous shift $s(t)\to s(t)-\Lambda_x/\Lambda_y$. In this way,

465: the function $s(t)$ is bounded between $s=-\Lambda_x/2 \Lambda_y$ and

466: $s=\Lambda_x/2 \Lambda_y$, comprising a sawtooth with sections of

467: constant slope $\gdot$ connected by negative step discontinuities of

468: height $\Lambda_x/\Lambda_y$ at equal time intervals $\Delta

469: t=\Lambda_x/\gdot\Lambda_y$. Because this shift involves moving the

470: upper wall by exactly one multiple of the system length, the periodic

471: boundary conditions (\ref{eqn:opbcs}) are unaffected. For times

472: between these shifts, the sole effect of this modification appears in

473: the cosheared gradient operator, which, in place of

474: (\ref{eqn:coshearedGradient}), is now

475: %

476: \be

477: \label{eqn:coshearedNabluFinal}

478: \nablu_c=\xhat\, \partial_{x}+\yhat\,(-s(t)\partial_{x}+\partial_{y}).

479: \ee

480: %

481: The special case of zero shear is trivially achieved by setting

482: $s(t)=0\;\forall\;t$.

483: 

484: In appendix~\ref{sec:appendix2}, we discuss the numerical algorithm

485: used to study the dynamical evolution of

486: $\phi(\vecv{x},t),\omega(\vecv{x},t)$ and $\psi(\vecv{x},t)$, as

487: specified by Eqns.~\ref{eqn:equation1} to~\ref{eqn:equation4}

488: and~\ref{eqn:coshearedNabluFinal}.  Readers who are not interested in

489: these issues can skip straight to Sec.~\ref{sec:lengthscales} without

490: loss of thread.

491: 

492: \section{Lengthscales and timescales}

493: \label{sec:lengthscales}

494: 

495: Following a deep temperature quench of an unsheared system into the

496: two phase regime, well defined domains of each phase form, separated

497: by sharp interfaces. See Fig.~\ref{fig:state_u}, for example, in which

498: the white (resp. black) patches are domains of A (resp.  B)-rich

499: fluid.  After a non-universal transient associated with their initial

500: formation, these domains progressively grow in size through the action

501: of surface tension, passing through regimes that are successively

502: dominated by diffusive, viscous and inertial dynamics.  During this

503: process of domain coarsening, the dynamical scaling

504: hypothesis~\cite{siggia,furukawa-aip-34-703-1985,bray-aip-43-357-1994} states that any structural

505: lengthscale $L(t)$ characterising the typical domain size ({\it e.g.},

506: as measured by some moment of the structure factor) should depend in

507: the same way on time $t$ as any other ({\it e.g.}, as measured by the

508: total amount of interface present in the system).  Within each regime,

509: dimensional analysis can be used to construct the functional form of

510: $L(t)$ out of the model parameters that are relevant to that

511: regime~\cite{siggia,furukawa-aip-34-703-1985}.

512: %

513: \begin{itemize}

514: \item In the diffusive regime, the system is unaware of the density

515:   $\rho$ and the viscosity $\eta$. Out of the remaining parameters

516:   $M,\sigma$, and the time $t$ we can construct only one lengthscale:

517: %

518: \be

519: \label{eqn:LD}

520: L_{\rm D}(t)=\left(M\sigma t\right)^{1/3}.

521: \ee

522: %

523: In our units $L_{\rm D}= \alpha\, l \,t^{1/3}$ with $\alpha=

524: (2\sqrt{2}/3)^{1/3}$.

525: 

526: \item In the viscous hydrodynamic regime, the system is unaware of $M$

527:   and $\rho$. From the remaining parameters $\eta,\sigma$ and $t$ we

528:   have

529: %

530: \be

531: \label{eqn:LV}

532: L_{\rm V}(t)=\frac{\sigma t}{\eta}.

533: \ee

534: %

535: In our units $L_{\rm V} = \alpha^3 l\, t/\eta$.

536: 

537: \item In the inertial hydrodynamic regime, the system is unaware of

538:   $M$ and $\eta$. From the remaining parameters $\rho,\sigma$ and

539:   $t$ we have

540: %

541: \be

542: \label{eqn:LI}

543: L_{\rm I}(t)=\left(\frac{\sigma t^2}{\rho}\right)^{1/3}.

544: \ee

545: %

546: In our units $L_{\rm I}= \alpha \left(l\, t^2/\rho\right)^{1/3}$.

547: 

548: \end{itemize}

549: %

550: By equating the growth laws $L_{\rm D} = L_{\rm V}$, we can construct

551: the characteristic lengthscale $\ldv$ at which we expect a crossover

552: from diffusive to viscous dynamics. Similarly by equating $L_{\rm

553: V}=L_{\rm I}$ we find the lengthscale $\lvi$ for crossover from

554: viscous to inertial dynamics.  Together with the ``microscopic''

555: interfacial width $l$ and the system size $\Lambda_x,\Lambda_y$, we

556: then have the following basic lengthscales

557: %

558: \begin{itemize}

559: \item The interfacial width $l$.

560: 

561: \item The characteristic lengthscale for crossover from diffusive to

562:   viscous hydrodynamic coarsening:

563: %

564: \be

565: \ldv=\sqrt{M \eta}.

566: \ee

567: %

568: In our units $\ldv=l \sqrt{\eta}$.

569: 

570: \item  The characteristic lengthscale for crossover from viscous

571: to inertial hydrodynamic coarsening:

572: %

573: \be

574: \lvi=\frac{\eta^2}{\rho \sigma}.

575: \ee

576: %

577: In our units $\lvi=3\eta^2/2\sqrt{2}\rho l$.

578: 

579: \item The system size $\Lambda_x,\Lambda_y$. In our units

580:   $\Lambda_y=1$ always.

581: \end{itemize}

582: 

583: Corresponding to these  are the following timescales

584: %

585: \begin{itemize}

586: 

587: \item The microscopic timescale for diffusion across

588: an interface

589: %

590: \be

591: \tau_0=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{l^3}{M\sigma}=1.

592: \ee

593: %

594: 

595: \item  The characteristic timescale for crossover from

596: diffusive to viscous hydrodynamic coarsening 

597: %

598: \be

599: \tdv=\frac{\sqrt{M \eta^3}}{\sigma}=\frac{3}{2\sqrt{2}}\eta^{3/2}.

600: \ee

601: %

602: 

603: \item The characteristic timescale for crossover from viscous to

604:   inertial hydrodynamic coarsening 

605: %

606: \be

607: \tvi=\frac{\eta^3}{\rho\sigma^2}=\frac{9}{8}\frac{\eta^3}{\rho l^2}.

608: \ee

609: %

610: 

611: \item The characteristic time at which the domain size attains the

612:   system size in coarsening 

613: %

614: \be

615: T_{\rm system}.

616: \ee

617: %

618: \end{itemize}

619: 

620: %\vspace{0.4cm}

621: %In shear,  we have a further timescale set by

622: %

623: %\begin{itemize}

624: %\item the reciprocal applied shear rate $\gdot^{-1}$.

625: %\end{itemize}

626: %

627: 

628: So far we have discussed the growing structural lengthscale $L(t)$ in

629: general terms, without any specific definition.  In fact, there exist

630: many possible measures of the characteristic domain size. In zero

631: shear we use the following one

632: %

633: \be

634: \label{eqn:L_structure}

635: L_s=\left(\frac{\int dq_x\int dq_y S(\vecv{q})}{\int dq_x\int dq_y |q|^{-1}S(\vecv{q})}\right)^{-1},

636: \ee

637: %

638: defined via the structure factor $S(\vecv{q})$, which, as usual, is

639: the 2D Fourier Transform of $\phi(x,y)$.

640: 

641: The discussion so far in this section has related to unsheared

642: systems. Under an applied shear flow the domain morphology becomes

643: anisotropic. See Fig.~\ref{fig:steadyStates}, for example.

644: Accordingly, we consider the following

645: matrix~\cite{wagner-pre-59-4366-1999,stansell-prl-96--2006}

646: %

647: \be

648: \label{eqn:L_matrix}

649: D_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{l\int dx \int dy \,\partial_\alpha \phi \partial_\beta\phi}{\int dx \int dy \,\phi^2},

650: \ee

651: %

652: the reciprocal eigenvalues of which give us two lengthscales

653: $L_{\|},L_{\bot}$ characterising the long and short principal axes of

654: the domain morphology.

655: 

656: \begin{table*}

657: \centering

658: \subtable[Zero applied shear. Viscous hydrodynamic to inertial hydrodynamic regime.]{

659: \begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}|p{1.4cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.2cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{2.0cm}|} \hline

660: Set  & $\eta$ & $\rho$ & $l$ & $\gdot$ & $\Lambda_x$ & $N_x$ & $N_y$ & $\Dt$ & $L_{\rm DV}$ & $L_{\rm VI}$  \\ \hline \hline

661: R028u & 0.111 & 136.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000519 & 0.0616  \\ 

662: R022u & 0.196 & 2510.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000690 & 0.0104  \\ 

663: R029u & 0.0467 & 893.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 &512 & 0.008 & 0.000337 & 0.00166  \\

664: R020u & 0.0785 & 16180.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000437 & 0.000259 \\

665: R030u & 0.0122 & 6250.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000172 & 0.0000162 \\

666: R019u & 0.00876 & 32814.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000146 & 0.00000159 \\

667: R032u & 0.00391 & 20067.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.0000975 & 0.000000518 \\

668: \hline

669: \end{tabular}

670: \label{tab:firsttable}

671: }

672: \qquad\qquad

673: \subtable[Zero applied shear. Diffusive to viscous hydrodynamic regime.]{        

674: \begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}|p{1.4cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.2cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{2.0cm}|} \hline

675: Set  & $\eta$ & $\rho$ & $l$ & $\gdot$ & $\Lambda_x$ & $N_x$ & $N_y$ & $\Dt$ & $L_{\rm DV}$ & $L_{\rm VI}$  \\ \hline \hline

676: %DV1u & 1000.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0791 & $\infty$ \\

677: %DV2u & 100.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0250 & $\infty$ \\

678: %DV3u & 10.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00791 & $\infty$ \\

679: %DV4u & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00250 & $\infty$ \\

680: %DV5u & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00137 & $\infty$ \\

681: %DV6u & 0.1 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 &512 & 0.016 & 0.000791 &  $\infty$ \\

682: DV1u & 1000.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0494 & $\infty$ \\

683: DV2u & 100.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0156 & $\infty$ \\

684: DV3u & 10.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00494 & $\infty$ \\

685: DV4u & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00156 & $\infty$ \\

686: DV5u & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.000855 & $\infty$ \\

687: DV6u & 0.1 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0 & 1.0 & 512 &512 & 0.016 & 0.000494 &  $\infty$ \\

688: \hline

689: \end{tabular}

690: \label{tab:secondtable}

691: }

692: \qquad\qquad

693: \subtable[Applied shear, with inertia.]{        

694: \begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}|p{1.4cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.2cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{2.0cm}|} \hline

695: Set  & $\eta$ & $\rho$ & $l$ & $\gdot$ & $\Lambda_x$ & $N_x$ & $N_y$ & $\Dt$ & $L_{\rm DV}$ & $L_{\rm VI}$  \\ \hline \hline

696: R028s & 0.111 & 136.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0765 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000519 & 0.0616  \\ 

697: R028bs & 0.444 & 8704.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0765 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.00104 & 0.0154  \\ 

698: R022s & 0.196 & 2510.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0205 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000690 & 0.0104  \\ 

699: R022bs & 0.339 & 22590.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0355 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000908 & 0.00349  \\ 

700: R029s & 0.0467 & 893.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0341 & 2.0 & 1024 &512 & 0.008 & 0.000337 & 0.00166  \\

701: R029bs & 0.0809 & 8037.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0591 & 2.0 & 1024 &512 & 0.008 & 0.000444 & 0.000554  \\

702: R020s & 0.0785 & 16180.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0256 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.008 & 0.000437 & 0.000259 \\

703: R030s & 0.0122 & 6250.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0410 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.004 & 0.000172 & 0.0000162 \\

704: R019s & 0.00876 & 32814.0 & 0.00156 & 0.0251 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.004 & 0.000146 & 0.00000159 \\

705: R032s & 0.00391 & 20067.0 & 0.00156 & 0.051 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.004 & 0.0000975 & 0.000000518 \\

706: \hline

707: \end{tabular}

708: \label{tab:thirdtable}

709: }

710: \qquad\qquad

711: \subtable[Applied shear, without inertia.]{        

712: \begin{tabular}{|p{1.3cm}|p{1.4cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.5cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.0cm}|p{1.2cm}|p{1.7cm}|p{2.0cm}|} \hline

713: Set  & $\eta$ & $\rho$ & $l$ & $\gdot$ & $\Lambda_x$ & $N_x$ & $N_y$ & $\Dt$ & $L_{\rm DV}$ & $L_{\rm VI}$  \\ \hline \hline

714: %DV1s & 1000.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0791 & $\infty$ \\

715: %DV2s & 100.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0250 & $\infty$ \\

716: %DV3s & 10.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00791 & $\infty$ \\

717: %DV4s & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.0025 &  0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00250 & $\infty$ \\

718: %DV5s & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.0025 & 0.01  & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00137 & $\infty$ \\

719: %DV6s & 0.1 & 0.0 & 0.0025 &  0.03 & 2.0 & 1024 &512 & 0.016 & 0.000791 &  $\infty$ \\

720: DV1s & 1000.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0494 & $\infty$ \\

721: DV2s & 100.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.0156 & $\infty$ \\

722: DV3s & 10.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00494 & $\infty$ \\

723: DV4s & 1.0 & 0.0 & 0.00156 &  0.01 & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.00156 & $\infty$ \\

724: DV5s & 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.00156 & 0.01  & 2.0 & 1024 & 512 & 0.016 & 0.000855 & $\infty$ \\

725: DV6s & 0.1 & 0.0 & 0.00156 &  0.03 & 2.0 & 1024 &512 & 0.016 & 0.000494 &  $\infty$ \\

726: \hline

727: \end{tabular}

728: \label{tab:fourthtable}

729: }

730: \caption{Parameter values used in simulation runs.}

731: \label{tab:master}

732: \end{table*}

733: 

734: \section{Parameter steering}

735: \label{sec:parameters}

736: 

737: As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:units}, the physical control parameters

738: that must be prescribed in any simulation run are the fluid density

739: $\rho$ and viscosity $\eta$, the interfacial width $l$, the applied

740: shear rate $\gdot$, and the system's aspect ratio $\Lambda_x$.

741: (Recall that we have set $\Lambda_y = 1$, $G = 1$ and $\tau_0 = 1$.)

742: We must also specify the number of numerical mesh points $N_x$ and

743: $N_y$, and the numerical timestep $\delta_t$.  We now discuss

744: appropriate choices of these parameter values that will allow us to

745: access the physical regimes of interest.

746: 

747: In the absence of an applied shear flow, $\gdot=0.0$, our aim is to

748: study coarsening of the isotropic domain morphology. See

749: Fig.~\ref{fig:state_u}, for example. In each of these runs, we

750: consider a square simulation box with $\Lambda_x=\Lambda_y =

751: \Lambda=1$, in our units.  In any given run, at any time $t$, our aim

752: is to ensure a separation of the four lengthscales

753: %

754: \be

755: \delta\ll l \ll L(t)\ll \Lambda.

756: \ee

757: %

758: Here $\delta=1/N$ is the mesh size, prescribed by the reciprocal of

759: the number $N=N_x=N_y$ of numerical mesh points in each spatial

760: dimension. Recall that $l$ is the width of the interface between

761: domains; $L(t)$ is the growing domain size; and $\Lambda\equiv 1$ the

762: system size.  We thereby restrict ourselves to physical lengthscales

763: $l$ and $L(t)$ that lie between the mesh and system size. To make this

764: window as large as possible, we take $\delta$ as small as possible,

765: using as many grid points $N^2=1/\delta^2$ as is numerically feasible.

766: The results presented below have $N=512$, checked for convergence to

767: the limit $N\to\infty$ at fixed $l$ against $N=1024$ (not shown). We

768: set the interfacial width $l$ to the minimum for which interfaces are

769: still fully resolved by this grid, taking $l=0.00156$, checked for

770: convergence to the limit $l/\Lambda

771: \to 0$ against $l=0.0025$ and $l=0.005$ (not shown).

772: 

773: In each simulation run, this leaves a window of approximate size $0.05

774: < L(t) < 0.25$ in which the domain size $L(t)$ is much larger than the

775: width $l$ of the interface between domains, and much smaller than the

776: system size $\Lambda=1$.  Accordingly, we are only able to study a

777: small piece of the full curve $L(t)$ in each run. In different runs,

778: therefore, we vary the viscosity $\eta$ and density $\rho$ to ensure

779: that we cover all regimes of interest.  As discussed in

780: Refs.~\cite{kendon-prl-83-576-1999,pagonabarraga-jsp-107-39-2002}, we

781: are then able to construct composite scaling curves $L(t)/\ldv$ and

782: $L(t)/\lvi$, each spanning several decades of scaled length and time.

783: 

784: Below we present results for two different series of runs.  In the

785: first, R028u to R032u in table~\ref{tab:firsttable}, we explore the

786: viscous and inertial hydrodynamic regimes, and the crossover between

787: them, by varying the crossover lengthscale $\lvi$. These are in fact

788: the parameter values used previously by Kendon and coworkers in their

789: lattice Boltzmann simulations~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}, converted

790: into our units.

791: %Note that $\ldv\ll l$ in each case,

792: %ensuring negligible diffusion on the lengthscale of a macroscopic

793: %domain.

794: 

795: In the second series of runs, DV1u to DV6u in

796: table~\ref{tab:secondtable}, we explore the diffusive and (again)

797: viscous hydrodynamic regimes, and the crossover between them.

798: Accordingly, we set $\rho=0$ such that $\lvi$ is infinite and the

799: inertial regime is never attained.  Across the different runs we vary

800: the predicted crossover lengthscale $\ldv=l\sqrt{\eta}$ by sweeping

801: the viscosity in the range $\eta=10^{-2}\cdots \eta=10^4$. For the

802: largest viscosity values, the system explores the diffusive regime.

803: For the smallest values, the system passes into the viscous regime as

804: soon as well defined domains have formed, without any identifiable

805: regime of diffusive domain growth.

806: 

807: %All the runs in table~\ref{tab:master} have an interfacial width set

808: %by $l=0.00156$, following Ref. However we found these to be only

809: %marginally converged with respect to mesh fineness, for the maximum

810: %number of mesh points feasible within present computational resources.

811: %We therefore repeated all the runs in the table for the larger value

812: %$l=0.0025$, maintaining {\em fixed values} of the physical ratios

813: %$\ldv/l, \lvi/l$. (This necessitated dividing the densities by the

814: %factor $(0.00250/0.00156)^2$.) Accordingly, each corresponding run

815: %should have the same basic physics, but now with greater resolution at

816: %the grid scale, and at the expense of finite size effects setting in

817: %earlier.  Performing the same comparison ($l=0.00156$ versus

818: %$l=0.0025$) in the case of an applied shear will allow us to comment

819: %on finite size scaling in our inertia-free runs, for which we find no

820: %steady state free of finite size effects.

821: 

822: To study the effect of an applied shear flow, we consider the same

823: sets of parameter values as in zero shear but now with non-zero values

824: of $\gdot$. In anticipation of the anisotropy that shear will induce,

825: we also double the length of cell in the flow direction, along with

826: $N_x$ to maintain a constant density of mesh points.  See

827: tables~\ref{tab:thirdtable} and~\ref{tab:fourthtable}: as just

828: discussed, the parameters of any sheared run (R032s, for example) are

829: the same as those of the corresponding unsheared run (R032u), apart

830: from the values of $\gdot, \Lambda_x$ and $N_x$. The parameters of

831: runs R028s, R022s, R029s, R020s, R030s, R019s and R032s are those used

832: in the lattice Boltzmann study of Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006},

833: converted into our units. The appearance of the new sets R028b, R022b

834: and R029b will be explained in Sec.~\ref{sec:inertia} below.

835: 

836: Assuming for the moment -- in some cases incorrectly, as we shall show

837: below -- that any sheared system will attain a steady state with a

838: typical domain size set by the reciprocal shear rate, our aim would

839: then be to construct scaling plots $L(1/\gdot)$ analogous to those of

840: $L(t)$ for the zero-shear coarsening regime in

841: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}.  To obtain as much information as in

842: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}, however, we would need to run for very many

843: values of the shear rate $\gdot$ to produce corresponding near

844: continuous segments of $L$ versus $1/\gdot$.  This is prohibitive

845: within available computing resources.  Accordingly, we ran for just

846: one shear rate for each set of (other) parameter values, marking the

847: scaled reciprocal shear rates recorded in tables~\ref{tab:thirdtable}

848: and~\ref{tab:fourthtable} with vertical arrows in

849: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}.

850: 

851: \section{Numerical results}

852: \label{sec:results}

853: 

854: We now present the results of our numerical simulations. We start in

855: Sec.~\ref{sec:zeroShear} with the case of coarsening in zero shear,

856: before considering an applied shear flow with and without inertia in

857: Secs.~\ref{sec:inertia} and~\ref{sec:noInertia} respectively.

858: Sec.~\ref{sec:link} contains a linking discussion. The results in

859: Sec.~\ref{sec:noInertia} are (we believe) novel. In contrast, our aim

860: in Secs.~\ref{sec:zeroShear} and~\ref{sec:inertia} is simply to

861: reproduce behaviour seen earlier in the literature by lattice

862: Boltzmann

863: techniques~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998,kendon-jfm-440-147-2001,stansell-prl-96--2006}.

864: The purpose of this comparative part of our study is threefold: First,

865: and foremost, to develop confidence in our own algorithm and the code

866: via which it is implemented; second, to demonstrate the method used

867: here, which is potentially simpler and faster than lattice Boltzmann,

868: to be equally capable of capturing the physics of demixing, in 2D

869: at least; and third, to provide an independent check of some recent

870: results concerning nonequilibrium steady states under

871: shear~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}.

872: 

873: In each run, we take as an initial condition at each grid point a

874: value of $\phi$ chosen at random from a flat probability distribution

875: between $-0.01$ and $+0.01$. We checked for independence with respect

876: to this initial condition (not shown) the statistical properties of

877: the domain morphologies presented below. This independence holds as

878: long as many domains are present, making the system self-averaging.

879: Accordingly, for each set of parameters we give results below for a

880: single simulation run only.

881: 

882: \subsection{Zero shear}

883: \label{sec:zeroShear}

884: 

885: Following a temperature quench into the two phase regime, domains of

886: each phase form.  These progressively coarsen in size through the

887: action of surface tension, passing through growth regimes that are

888: successively dominated by diffusive, viscous and inertial dynamics.

889: Within these regimes, dimensional analysis predicts a functional

890: dependence of the characteristic domain size upon time of $L_{\rm

891:   D}\propto t^{1/3}$, $L_{\rm V} \propto t$ and $L_{\rm I}\propto

892: t^{2/3}$ respectively, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:lengthscales}.

893: Our aim in this section is to investigate this behaviour numerically,

894: as done previously by lattice Boltzmann

895: methods~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998,kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}.

896: 

897: \begin{figure}[tb]

898: \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./DVu.png}}

899: % Diffusive to viscous regime without shear.

900: % results/noShear/DVsets/DV{1,2,3,4,5,6}u_l0.00156_Dt0.0*_CG22

901: % Processed by scripts/domainSize with option 2, y, 2. Lower time

902: % cutoff 50.0. Upper domain cutoff (by this measure of structure

903: % factor) 0.015. Tdv for sets DV{1,2,3,4,5,6}u are respectively 33541,

904: % 1061, 33.54, 1.061, 0.174, 0.03354.  t_int/Tdv for sets

905: % DV{1,2,3,4,5,6}u are respectively 0.0003, 0.003, 0.17, 20.0, 180.0,

906: % ??  1/(gdot*Tdv) for sets DV{1,2,3,4,5,6}u are respectively 0.00298,

907: % 0.0943, 2.98, 94.3, 575, 994.

908: \hspace{0.4cm}

909: \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./VIu.png}}

910: % Viscous to inertial regimes without shear. results files

911: % results/noShear/R0sets/R0*l0.00156*22. Processed by

912: % scripts/domainSize.pl with option 2, y, 2. Lower time cutoff of

913: % 40.0. Upper domain cutoff (by this measure of structure factor)

914: % 0.02. 

915: \caption{ a) Scaled domain size versus scaled time for coarsening

916:   in zero shear in the diffusive and viscous hydrodynamic regimes.

917:   Segments from left to right correspond to runs DV1u ... DV6u. The

918:   vertical arrows show the values of scaled reciprocal shear rate used

919:   in each corresponding run DV1s ... DV6s.  Circles show the times of

920:   the top two snapshots of Fig.~\ref{fig:state_u} below.

921:   \\\hspace{0.4cm} b) Scaled domain size versus scaled time for

922:   coarsening in zero shear in the viscous and inertial hydrodynamic

923:   regimes.  Segments from left to right correspond to runs R028u,

924:   R022u, R029u, R020u, R030u, R019u, R032u.  The vertical arrows show

925:   the values of scaled reciprocal shear rate used in each

926:   corresponding run R028s ...  R032s. Circles show the times of the

927:   bottom two snapshots of Fig.~\ref{fig:state_u} below.}

928: \label{fig:domain_u}

929: \end{figure}

930: 

931: 

932: \begin{figure}[tb]

933: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{./stateD.png}

934: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{./stateV1.png}

935: \vspace{0.05cm}

936: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{./stateV2.png}

937: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{./stateI.png}

938: \caption{Snapshots of domain morphology during coarsening in zero

939:   shear at the times shown by circles in Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}. Top

940:   left: diffusive regime run DV1u at $t=1052$. Top right: viscous

941:   hydrodynamic regime run DV5u at $t=131$. Bottom left: viscous

942:   hydrodynamic regime run R022 at $t=78.9$. Bottom right: inertial

943:   hydrodynamic regime run R019 at $t=78.9$.}

944: % Diffusive:

945: % results/noShear/DVsets/states/DV1u_l0.00156_Dt0.016_CG22_state.

946: % State at time 1052. (t-tint)/tdv is then 0.029 Viscous 1:

947: % results/noShear/DVsets/states/DV5u_l0.00156_Dt0.016_CG22_state State

948: % at time 131.6. (t-tint)/tdv is then 572.  Viscous 2:

949: % results/noShear/R0sets/states/R022_l0.00156_*22_state,

950: % state at time 78.96. At this time L=0.00775. For this set

951: % Lvi=0.0104. So L/Lvi=0.745.

952: % Inertial:

953: % results/noShear/R0sets/states/R019_l0.00156_*22_state,

954: % state at time 78.96. At this time L=0.0757. For this set

955: % Lvi=0.00000159. So L/Lvi=4761

956: \label{fig:state_u}

957: \end{figure}

958: 

959: 

960: As noted in Sec.~\ref{sec:parameters}, only a small segment of the

961: full coarsening curve $L(t)$ can be explored in any simulation run.

962: Accordingly, in different runs we vary the viscosity $\eta$ and

963: density $\rho$. In this way we correspondingly vary the crossover

964: length scales $\ldv$ and $\lvi$. We then combine the data sets from

965: the different runs into composite scaling curves of $L/\ldv$ and

966: $L/\lvi$, each spanning several decades in scaled length and time. We

967: choose as our measure of $L$ the one defined in

968: Eqn.~\ref{eqn:L_structure} via the structure factor.

969: 

970: To explore the diffusive and viscous hydrodynamic regimes, and the

971: crossover between them, we performed a single simulation run for each

972: set of parameter values of table~\ref{tab:secondtable}. The composite

973: curve of $L/\ldv$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}a).  For each

974: segment of the curve, three manipulations were performed. (i) The

975: first $t=0-40$ time units were discarded to allow for transient

976: dynamics during the initial process of domain formation. (ii) A

977: time-offset $t_{\rm int}$ was subtracted from the time $t$ to allow

978: for these non-universal dynamics during the initial transient. In each

979: case this subtraction was performed by eye.  The appropriate $t_{\rm

980:   int}$ was chosen as that which gives the most convincing straight

981: line on a log-log plot, without any known power present to bias the

982: eye during this process. (iii) The data set was cutoff at long times

983: once the typical domain size approaches the system size. For this

984: measure of the domain size, we used $L<0.02$ as a very conservative

985: criterion ensuring this. The same manipulations were performed for

986: runs in table~\ref{tab:firsttable}, to be described below.

987: 

988: For small values of $L/\ldv$, in the diffusive regime, we recover the

989: power $L_{\rm D} \propto t^{1/3}$ predicted by dimensional analysis.

990: This was confirmed previously by lattice Boltzmann

991: simulations~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}. For large values of

992: $L/\ldv$, in the viscous hydrodynamic regime, dimensional analysis

993: predicts the growth law $L_{\rm V}\propto t$. We instead find $L

994: \propto t^{2/3}$ for each run.  This anomalous scaling been observed

995: previously, by lattice Boltzmann simulations. It is believed to stem

996: from a breakdown of scale invariance in this regime in 2D, due to the

997: formation of disconnected droplets~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}.  As

998: a result of this breakdown, different measures of $L$ depend

999: differently on time (not shown here).  In 3D (not studied here) scale

1000: invariance is recovered, along with the $2/3$ growth

1001: exponent~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}.

1002: 

1003: To study the inertial hydrodynamic regime and (again) the viscous

1004: hydrodynamic regime, and the crossover between them, we use the

1005: parameter values of table~\ref{tab:firsttable}. The composite curve of

1006: $L/\lvi$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b). For large values of

1007: $L/\lvi$, in the inertial regime, we clearly recover the predicted

1008: power $L_{\rm I} \propto t^{2/3}$. This has been seen before, in three

1009: dimensions, by lattice Boltzmann

1010: simulations~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}.  For small values of

1011: $L/\lvi$, in the viscous hydrodynamic regime, we again find the

1012: anomalous power $L \propto t^{2/3}$ for each run. This is consistent

1013: with the breakdown of scale invariance in 2D, and its attendant

1014: departure from the predictions of dimensional

1015: analysis~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}.  Because of this breakdown,

1016: segments R028, R022, R029 and R029 are not colinear: we do not have a

1017: single composite scaling curve in this regime.  The fact that each

1018: segment follows a $t^{2/3}$ power, apparently the same as in the

1019: inertial regime, is a coincidence resulting from having chosen the

1020: particular measure of domain size given by Eqn.~\ref{eqn:L_structure}.

1021: As already noted, the lack of scaling in this regime results in

1022: different power laws for different measures of the domain

1023: size~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}.

1024: 

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \subsection{Under shear, with inertia}

1028: \label{sec:inertia}

1029: 

1030: 

1031: We now turn to phase separation in the presence of an applied shear

1032: flow. The main question of interest here is whether shear arrests

1033: coarsening and restores a nonequilibrium steady state with a finite

1034: domain size set by the reciprocal shear rate, independent of the

1035: system size; or whether coarsening persists indefinitely, up to the

1036: system size, even under shear.

1037: 

1038: Despite previous

1039: experimental~\cite{hashimoto-jcp-88-5874-1988,takahashi-jr-38-699-1994,chan-pra-43-1826-1991,krall-prl-69-1963-1992,hashimoto-prl-74-126-1995,beysens-pra-28-2491-1983,chan-prl-61-412-1988,matsuzaka-prl-80-5441-1998,hobbie-pre-54-R5909-1996,qiu-pre-58-R1230-1998,lauger-prl-75-3576-1995},

1040: numerical~\cite{shou-pre-61-R2200-2000,zhang-jcp-113-8348-2000,yamamoto-pre-59-3223-1999,corberi-prl-81-3852-1998,corberi-prl-83-4057-1999,corberi-pre-61-6621-2000,corberi-pre-62-8064-2000,rothman-prl-65-3305-1990,rothman-el-14-337-1991,chan-el-11-13-1990,qiu-jcp-108-9529-1998,padilla-jcp-106-2342-1997,ohta-jcp-93-2664-1990,wagner-pre-59-4366-1999,lamura-pamia-294-295-2001,lamura-epjb-24-251-2001,berthier-pre-6305--2001}

1041: and

1042: theoretical~\cite{onuki-jpm-9-6119-1997,lamura-pamia-294-295-2001,corberi-prl-81-3852-1998,corberi-prl-83-4057-1999,corberi-pre-61-6621-2000,corberi-pre-62-8064-2000,bray-ptrslsapes-361-781-2003,cavagna-pre-62-4702-2000,bray-jpag-33-L305-2000,Onuk97,doi-jcp-95-1242-1991}

1043: work, this question remained open until the recent simulation study of

1044: Stansell et al. in Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}.  Using lattice

1045: Boltzmann techniques, they found nonequilibrium steady states of the

1046: type reproduced by our own simulations in Fig.~\ref{fig:steadyStates}

1047: (discussed below).  As expected under shear, the domain morphology is

1048: anisotropic.  Accordingly, two length scales are needed to

1049: characterise it.  The domain lengths $L_x$ and $L_y$ for the steady

1050: states were extracted in Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006} via the

1051: curvature tensor of Eqn.~\ref{eqn:L_matrix}, and scaling plots of

1052: $L_{\{x,y\}}/\lvi$ versus $1/\gdot \tvi$ were constructed. These

1053: suggested apparent scaling exponents $L_x \sim \gdot^{-2/3}$ and

1054: $L_y\sim \gdot^{-3/4}$, sustained over six decades. The same scalings

1055: $L_{\|}\sim \gdot^{-2/3}$ and $L_{\bot}\sim \gdot^{-3/4}$ were

1056: suggested for the major and minor principal lengths of the domains.

1057: Slightly different scalings, discussed below, were obtained by the

1058: same group in a more recent 3D study~\cite{cates-3d-2007}.

1059: 

1060: In this section we aim to show that our simulations, which are in 2D

1061: throughout, reproduce these results to good approximation. We will

1062: thereby gain confidence in our technique, before proceeding to the

1063: novel contribution of this work in Sec.~\ref{sec:noInertia} below.

1064: Accordingly, we perform a single simulation run for each set of

1065: parameter values used in Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}, converted

1066: into our units. See R028, R022, R029, R020, R030, R019 and R032 in

1067: table~\ref{tab:thirdtable}.  The small discrepancy in the imposed

1068: values of $1/\gdot \tvi$, evident in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}, stems

1069: from a slightly different definition adopted for the interfacial

1070: width, realised by this author only at a late stage of the present

1071: study.

1072: 

1073: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1074: % results/shear/R0sets/R0{28b,22b,29b,30,20,19,32}*l0.00156*22 processed using scripts/domainSize.pl, with options 3 0 3 {l,s}

1075: \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./larger.png}}

1076: \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./smaller.png}}

1077: \caption{Top: larger domain length {\it vs.} strain $\gdot t$.  Data sets for

1078:   decreasing values of long term temporal average correspond to R020s,

1079:   R030s, R028b, R029bs, R022bs, R019s, R032s.  Bottom: smaller domain

1080:   length {\it vs.} strain.  Data sets for decreasing values of long

1081:   term temporal average correspond to R020s, R030s, R019s, R029bs,

1082:   R032s, R022bs, R028b. Colour online.}

1083: \label{fig:timeSeries}

1084: \end{figure}

1085: 

1086: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1087: % results/shear/R0sets/R0{28b,22b,29b,30,20,19,32}*l0.00156*22 processed using scripts/scalingDomainPlot.pl, with options 3 2 b and lower strain cutoff of 75

1088: \subfigure{ \includegraphics[scale=0.38]{./scalingPlot.png}}

1089:   \caption{Dimensionless scaling plot of lengths {\it vs.}  shear

1090:     rate.  Solid symbols: average of time series of

1091:     Fig.~\ref{fig:timeSeries} for $L_{\|}, L_{\bot}$ for strains

1092:     $\gdot t>100$.  Symbols from left to right correspond to R028bs,

1093:     R022bs, R029bs, R020s, R030s, R019s, R032s. Errors bars show the

1094:     standard deviation.  Solid lines: power law fits to the solid

1095:     symbols, suggesting $L_{\|} \sim \gdot^{-0.619}$ and $L_{\bot}\sim

1096:     \gdot^{-0.693}$. Upper set of crosses shows the scaled system size

1097:     $\Lambda_y/\lvi$; lower set shows the scaled interfacial width

1098:     $l/\lvi$.  Open symbols: data from

1099:     Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006} for $L_{\|}, L_{\bot}$,

1100:     reproduced here for comparison by kind permission of the authors

1101:     of that study.}

1102: \label{fig:scalingPlot}

1103: \end{figure}

1104: 

1105: A typical run took one to two weeks of wall-clock time on a Linux box,

1106: given exclusive use of a single 3.4GHz Intel Xeon CPU with 2Mb cache

1107: and 400MHz DDR2 memory. Approximately $70\%$ of the runtime appears to

1108: be used switching back and forth between real and reciprocal space at

1109: each timestep.

1110: 

1111: In each run, we monitored as a function of time the characteristic

1112: domain sizes $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$ extracted from the tensor of

1113: Eqn.~\ref{eqn:L_matrix}. For each of R020, R030, R019 and R032 we

1114: found $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$ to saturate at long times, showing

1115: temporal fluctuations about constant mean values

1116: (Fig.~\ref{fig:timeSeries}).  For the remainder of this section we

1117: focus only on these statistically steady states, neglecting the first

1118: $\gdot t=100$ strain units of each run.  (This cutoff was chosen by a

1119: simple visual inspection of Fig.~\ref{fig:timeSeries}.) In each case,

1120: finite size effects appear under control, as seen in the order

1121: parameter snapshots of Fig.~\ref{fig:steadyStates}.  The mean values

1122: of the time series are shown on the scaling plot of $L/\lvi$ versus

1123: $1/\gdot\tvi$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}, with error bars showing

1124: the standard deviation. A snapshot of the order parameter for run R032

1125: is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:steadyStates} (bottom).

1126: 

1127: For runs R028, R022 and R029, in contrast, we found the domains to

1128: wrap completely round the system in the flow direction, eventually

1129: comprising trivial horizontal stripes connected at the edges of the

1130: cell by the periodic boundary conditions. We believe this to be due to

1131: the horizontal system size $\Lambda_x$ being dangerously close to the

1132: expected values of $L_{\|}$ for these runs, leading eventually to

1133: nucleation of these stripes.  

1134: 

1135: To eliminate this effect, we performed new runs R028b, R022b and R029b

1136: at the same prescribed values of $1/\gdot \tvi$ as for R028, R022 and

1137: R029, but now for larger values of the scaled system size

1138: $\Lambda_x/\lvi$.  This was achieved by adjusting $\lvi$ at fixed

1139: $\Lambda_x, \gdot\tvi$. Effectively, the left three sets of crosses in

1140: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} have been slightly shifted upward with

1141: respect to those in Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006} These new runs

1142: produced nonequilibrium steady states, as seen in the time series of

1143: Fig.~\ref{fig:timeSeries}. The long term time averages of these series

1144: are shown in the scaling plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}. A

1145: snapshot of the order parameter for run R022b is shown in

1146: Fig.~\ref{fig:steadyStates} (top).

1147: 

1148: Of course we cannot rule out eventual nucleation of system-wrapped

1149: stripes at times exceeding those accessed numerically. The same

1150: comment applies to runs R028, R029 and R022 of

1151: Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}. Conversely, the system-wrapped

1152: stripes seen in the corresponding runs in the recent 3D lattice

1153: Boltzmann study~\cite{cates-3d-2007} might well be eliminated by

1154: adjusting the scaled system size as done here.

1155: 

1156: % Reasonable quantitative agreement is found with the data of Ref. for

1157: % $L_x$ and $L_y$. Complete agreement is not expected, since we

1158: % instead give $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$. 

1159: 

1160: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1161: \subfigure{ \includegraphics[scale=0.56]{./R022bs_l0p00156_Dt0p008_CG22_state_time03157p92_phi.png}}

1162: \subfigure{ \includegraphics[scale=0.56]{./R032s_l0p00156_Dt0p004_CG22_state_time03157p896_phi.png}}

1163: \caption{Snapshots of the steady state order parameter for R022b at strain $\gdot t=112$ (top) and R032 at strain $\gdot t=161$ (bottom).}

1164: \label{fig:steadyStates}

1165: \end{figure}

1166: 

1167: 

1168: 

1169: 

1170: Power law fits to our data in the scaling plot of

1171: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} suggest exponents $L_{\|}\sim

1172: \gdot^{-0.619\pm 0.01}$ and $L_{\bot}\sim ^{-0.693\pm 0.007}$. The

1173: quoted uncertainties are the standard deviations given by the

1174: automated regression package, and do not include systematic errors in

1175: the simulations. In contrast Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006} found

1176: exponents for $L_{\|}, L_{\bot}$ of $-0.678\pm 0.039$ and $-0.756\pm

1177: 0.03$, by fitting to the open symbols that are reproduced by kind

1178: permission in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} for comparison with our data.

1179: It also quoted exponents for $L_{x}, L_{y}$ of $-0.678\pm 0.042$ and

1180: $-0.759\pm 0.029$.  The more recent 3D study~\cite{cates-3d-2007} by

1181: the same group found exponents for $L_{\|}, L_{\bot}$ of $-0.64\pm

1182: 0.06$ and $-0.67\pm 0.03$, with $-0.53\pm0.04$ in the third dimension.

1183: Within their $O(10\%)$ margins of error, these agree with the

1184: exponents for $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$ found in the 2D study of the

1185: present work.

1186: 

1187: \subsection{Discussion}

1188: \label{sec:link}

1189: 

1190: In this section, we will discuss in more detail the shape of the

1191: scaling plot of $L/\lvi$ versus $1/\gdot \tvi$ in

1192: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}.  In doing so, we will motivate the further

1193: numerical study of Sec.~\ref{sec:noInertia} below.

1194: 

1195: Translated into equivalent scaled times $t/\tvi$, the range of scaled

1196: shear rates $1/\gdot\tvi$ explored in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} would

1197: span the viscous and inertial hydrodynamic regimes in the coarsening

1198: plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b).  One possibility for the shape of

1199: the scaling curve $L/\lvi$ versus $1/\gdot\tvi$ under shear is that it

1200: should be the same as that of the corresponding coarsening plot of

1201: $L/\lvi$ versus $t/\tvi$ in zero shear, given the simple substitution

1202: $t=\gdot^{-1}$. In view of this, it is instructive to compare

1203: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} with Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b) in some

1204: detail.

1205: 

1206: In the coarsening case (Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b), two distinct

1207: regimes are apparent. The inertial hydrodynamic regime, on the right

1208: side, shows the $t^{2/3}$ exponent predicted by dimensional analysis.

1209: Each segment neatly lines up with the next, consistent with dynamical

1210: scaling.  In contrast, in the viscous hydrodynamic regime on the left

1211: hand side the segments do not align.  Furthermore, each departs from

1212: the predicted $t^1$ power.  As noted above, these anomalous features

1213: stem from non-scaling effects that arise in 2D. In 3D these are

1214: suppressed and the predicted $t^1$ power law is recovered.  The

1215: counterpart of Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b) for 3D systems thus comprises

1216: a clean $t^1$ in the viscous regime on the left hand side, and

1217: $t^{2/3}$ in the inertial regime on the right hand side, with a rather

1218: slow crossover in between.  See Fig.  9 of

1219: Ref.~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}.  An applied shear flow is also

1220: anticipated to suppress these non-scaling effects.  Accordingly, the

1221: 2D results of Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} are expected capture the

1222: basic physics and, indeed, compare favourably with the recent 3D

1223: sheared study of Ref.~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}.

1224: 

1225: With these remarks in mind, it is now clear that we should in fact

1226: compare Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} for sheared systems with Fig. 9 of

1227: Ref.~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001} for coarsening systems.  As noted

1228: above, one might naively expect the two plots to have the same shape,

1229: up to the substitution $t=\gdot^{-1}$.

1230: 

1231: Instead, two differences are clearly apparent.  First,

1232: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} has two characteristic lengths, in contrast

1233: to the single length that characterises unsheared systems in

1234: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b).  With hindsight this is obvious: the domain

1235: morphology is anisotropic in sheared systems, and so characterised by

1236: two lengths. 

1237: 

1238: %The slightly different scaling with shear rate of $L_{\|}$ and

1239: %$L_{\bot}$ suggests that these two lengthscales will eventually merge

1240: %for large values of $1/\gdot\tvi$, and separate in the limit $1/\gdot

1241: %\tvi \to 0$. In principle, this separation would lead to a crisis in

1242: %which the domains assume an infinite aspect ratio.  This possibility

1243: %is to be treated with some caution, however, because systematic

1244: %uncertainties not accounted for in our data analysis do not rule out a

1245: %common scaling for both lengths; and because a crisis-avoiding

1246: %crossover might occur for values of $1/\gdot\tvi$ smaller than those

1247: %accessed in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}.

1248: 

1249: The second, and more subtle, difference is that sheared systems

1250: apparently lack a distinction between viscous and inertial regimes,

1251: with a single power law spanning all six decades in

1252: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}. A possible explanation for this is that

1253: the range of scaled shear rates in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} actually

1254: occupies a window of extremely slow crossover between a true viscous

1255: regime at smaller $1/\gdot\tvi$ and a true inertial regime at larger

1256: $1/\gdot\tvi$, reminiscent of the slow crossover seen in the

1257: coarsening plot in Ref.~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}. Another is

1258: that the value of $1/\gdot \tvi$ at which the crossover occurs in the

1259: sheared case is much smaller than the corresponding crossover value of

1260: $t/\tvi$ in the unsheared case, which is formally $O(1)$ but in

1261: practice lies around $10^4$. The results in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}

1262: would then all lie in the inertial regime, to the right of this

1263: crossover.

1264: 

1265: To test these ideas, in the next section we perform simulations at

1266: strictly zero Reynolds number, $\rho=0$. We thereby take the limit

1267: $\gdot \tvi \to \infty$ at the outset and perform simulations for

1268: several finite values of $1/\gdot \tdv$. When converted into

1269: equivalent scaled times $t/\tdv$ these span the diffusive and viscous

1270: hydrodynamic regimes, as shown by the vertical arrows in

1271: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}a).  By analogy with the fact that the 3D

1272: counterpart of the viscous regime of Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}a) would

1273: be expected in the limit $t/\tdv \to\infty$ to match into that of the

1274: viscous regime in Fig. 9 of Ref.~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001} in the

1275: limit $t/\tvi\to 0$, we might then expect to access, for large

1276: $1/\gdot \tdv \to\infty$, the scalings that $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$

1277: would attain in the limit $1/\gdot\tvi \to 0$ at the extreme left of

1278: an enlarged Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}.  

1279: 

1280: %Any discrepancy between these

1281: %scalings and the scalings $L_{\|}\sim \gdot^{-0.619}, L_{\bot}\sim

1282: %^{-0.693}$ already observed might indeed point to a slow crossover in

1283: %Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}; or alternatively to a much smaller

1284: %crossover value of $1/\gdot\tvi$ for sheared systems than of $t/\tvi$

1285: %in the unsheared case.

1286: 

1287: Instead, however, we will find no evidence for non equilibrium steady

1288: states in inertialess systems. In contrast, coarsening appears to

1289: persist indefinitely, up to the system size, despite the applied shear

1290: flow.  Given the existence of non equilibrium steady states for values

1291: of $1/\gdot\tvi$ at the left hand edge of Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot},

1292: where the effects of inertia are non-zero but likely to be small, this

1293: suggests that inertia plays the role of a singular perturbation in

1294: this problem. Indeed, we will argue in Sec.~\ref{sec:argument} below

1295: that the single scaling seen for each of $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$

1296: across Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} results from a {\em mixed}

1297: visco-inertial regime across the entire plot. The crisis of infinite

1298: aspect ratio $L_{\|}/L_{\bot}\to \infty$ in the limit $1/\gdot/\tvi\to

1299: 0$, suggested by the data in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}, is consistent

1300: with our suggestion that inertia plays a singular role.

1301: 

1302: 

1303: \begin{figure}[tbp]

1304: \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./larger_zero_inertia.png}}

1305: \subfigure{\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./smaller_zero_inertia.png}}

1306: \caption{Top: larger domain length $L_{\|}$ {\it vs.} strain $\gdot

1307:   t$.  Bottom: smaller domain length $L_{\bot}$ {\it vs.} strain

1308:   $\gdot t$. In each case, decreasing values of $L$ at fixed $\gdot

1309:   t=15$ correspond to runs DV5s, DV6s, DV4s, DV3s, DV2s, DV1s.}

1310: \label{fig:timeSeries_zero_inertia}

1311: \end{figure}

1312: 

1313: \begin{figure*}[tbp]

1314: \subfigure[DV1s, $\gdot t=78.9$]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./DV1s_l0p00156_Dt0p008_CG22_state_time07894p8_phi.png}}

1315: \subfigure[DV2s, $\gdot t=78.9$]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./DV2s_l0p00156_Dt0p008_CG22_state_time07894p8_phi.png}}

1316: \subfigure[DV3s, $\gdot t=78.9$]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./DV3s_l0p00156_Dt0p008_CG22_state_time07894p8_phi.png}}

1317: \subfigure[DV4s, $\gdot t=63.2$]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./DV4s_l0p00156_Dt0p004_CG22_state_time06315p808_phi.png}}

1318: \subfigure[DV5s, $\gdot t=55.3$]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./DV5s_l0p00156_Dt0p004_CG22_state_time05526p332_phi.png}}

1319: \subfigure[DV6s, $\gdot t=47.4$]{\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./DV6s_l0p00156_Dt0p002_CG22_state_time01578p948_phi.png}}

1320: \caption{Snapshot domain morphologies after many strain units $S=\gdot

1321:   t$ for reciprocal shear rates that, as equivalent times $\gdot^{-1}$,

1322:   would be shown by the arrows in Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}a).

1323:   These runs have zero inertia, $\rho=0$.}

1324: \label{fig:spanning}

1325: \end{figure*}

1326: 

1327: \subsection{Under shear, without inertia}

1328: \label{sec:noInertia}

1329: 

1330: Motivated by the discussion of the previous section we now consider

1331: phase separation under shear in inertialess systems, setting $\rho=0$.

1332: As just discussed, by studying the limit $t/\tdv\to\infty$ we might

1333: then, a priori, have expected to gain some insight into the far left

1334: hand side of an enlarged Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}, $1/\gdot \tvi \to

1335: 0$.  Accordingly, we perform a single simulation run for each of the

1336: parameter sets DV1s to DV6s in table~\ref{tab:fourthtable}. The values

1337: of the scaled reciprocal shear rates $1/\gdot \tdv$ are marked as

1338: corresponding scaled times $t/\tdv$ on the coarsening plot of

1339: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}a), where they are seen to span both the

1340: diffusive and viscous hydrodynamic regimes.

1341: 

1342: In each run we monitored the characteristic domain sizes $L_{\|}$ and

1343: $L_{\bot}$ as a function of time.  As can be seen in

1344: Fig.~\ref{fig:timeSeries_zero_inertia}, in each case the larger length

1345: $L_{\|}$ grows without bound until it attains the system size $O(1)$.

1346: Correspondingly, a snapshot of the order parameter after many strain

1347: units reveals system-wrapped domains, with pronounced finite-size

1348: effects. See Fig.~\ref{fig:spanning}.  The snapshots for DV1s to DV3s

1349: strongly resemble those reported in

1350: Ref.~\cite{berthier-pre-6305--2001} for model B, which lacks

1351: hydrodynamics. This is consistent with the fact that these runs occupy

1352: the diffusive regime when marked as equivalent scaled times in

1353: Fig.~\ref{fig:domain_u}b).

1354: 

1355: Beyond the parameter sets of table~\ref{tab:fourthtable}, we

1356: furthermore performed runs for shear rates $\gdot=0.1, 0.03, 0.01,

1357: 0.003$ at each value of the viscosity $\eta=1000.0, 100.0, 10.0, 1.0,

1358: 0.3, 0.1$, thereby covering a complete rectangle in

1359: $(\eta,\gdot)$-space, in contrast to the single slice taken by DV1s to

1360: DV6s.  (For historical reasons these runs had a slightly larger value

1361: $l=0.0025$ for the interfacial width, but we do not expect this to

1362: make a qualitative difference.)  We found no evidence in any run for a

1363: nonequilibrium steady state, unlimited by finite-size effects.

1364: 

1365: These results clearly suggest that the limit $1/\gdot\tdv\to\infty$,

1366: which is approximated by runs DV5s and DV6s, does not match the limit

1367: $1/\gdot\tvi\to 0$, which is approximated by runs R028b, R022b.  In

1368: the next section, we propose that this is because the limit

1369: $1/\gdot\tdv\to\infty$ corresponds to a pure viscous regime in which

1370: no steady state exists; while the limit $1/\gdot\tvi\to 0$ corresponds to a

1371: mixed visco-inertial regime in which a steady state does exist.

1372: 

1373: \section{Absence of nonequilibrium steady states in inertialess

1374:   systems}

1375: \label{sec:argument}

1376: 

1377: We now present an analytical argument in support of the above

1378: numerical observation: that nonequilibrium steady states are not

1379: attained in inertialess systems.  As we shall find, a closely related

1380: argument supports the existence of a single power law for each of

1381: $L_{\|}, L_{\bot}$ across the whole of Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}, as

1382: seen first in Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}.  Recall that, a

1383: priori, we might have expected this plot to comprise separate viscous

1384: and inertial regimes.

1385: 

1386: As a preliminary step, we recall the case of domain coarsening in an

1387: unsheared system. As discussed above, as time proceeds the system

1388: passes through regimes that are successively dominated by diffusive,

1389: viscous and inertial dynamics. In each regime, the system is aware of

1390: the surface tension $\sigma$; the time $t$; and either the mobility

1391: $M$ (diffusive regime), the viscosity $\eta$ (viscous regime) or the

1392: density $\rho$ (inertial regime). In each case, there exists only one

1393: possible combination of these relevant parameters that has the

1394: dimensions of a length. Thus we have the following predicted growth

1395: laws for the characteristic domain size:

1396: %

1397: \be

1398: \label{eqn:coarsening}

1399: L_{\rm D}=(M\sigma t)^{1/3},\;L_{\rm V}=\frac{\sigma t}{\eta},\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;L_{\rm I}=\left(\frac{\sigma t^2}{\rho}\right)^{1/3}.

1400: \ee

1401: %

1402: 

1403: Consider next a nonequilibrium steady state under shear. Neglecting

1404: fluctuations, the time $t$ is now irrelevant. In its place, however,

1405: we gain the reciprocal shear rate as a relevant parameter.  If

1406: ``pure'' diffusive, viscous and inertial regimes were still to exist,

1407: then we could again only construct a {\em single} length scale to

1408: characterise each:

1409: %

1410: \be

1411: L_{\rm Ds}=(M\sigma \gdot^{-1})^{1/3},\;\;\;L_{\rm Vs}=\frac{\sigma \gdot^{-1}}{\eta},\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;L_{\rm Is}=\left(\frac{\sigma \gdot^{-2}}{\rho}\right)^{1/3},

1412: \ee

1413: %

1414: by direct comparison with (\ref{eqn:coarsening}).

1415: 

1416: In contrast, however, our numerical results clearly show the domain

1417: morphology to be anisotropic, as expected in a sheared system.  It is

1418: therefore characterised by {\em two} lengths, which (according to

1419: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}) scale differently with the applied shear

1420: rate. A steady state under shear therefore cannot exist in a ``pure''

1421: diffusive, viscous or inertial regime, because in each there are

1422: insufficient parameters out of which to construct the two lengthscales

1423: needed to characterise it.

1424: 

1425: How can we retain enough parameters, out of the candidates $\sigma,

1426: \gdot, M, \rho, \eta$ and $t$, to construct the two lengthscales

1427: needed to characterise an anisotropic domain morphology under shear?

1428: Assuming that $\sigma$ and $\gdot$ are always relevant, two options

1429: are as follows.

1430: 

1431: \begin{enumerate}

1432: 

1433: \item 

1434: 

1435:   If the system is to exist in a {\em pure diffusive, viscous or

1436:     inertial regime}, with knowledge of just one of $M, \eta$ or

1437:   $\rho$ (as well as $\sigma$ and $\gdot$), it must retain dependence

1438:   on time $t$.  Therefore, it must {\em fail to attain a steady

1439:     state}.  

1440: 

1441: Assuming power laws,  a purely diffusive regime would then have 

1442: %

1443: \be

1444: L_{\rm Ds}=(M \sigma t)^{1/3}(\gdot t)^a,

1445: \ee

1446: %

1447: in which $a$ assumes two different values, which would be prescribed

1448: by more detailed physics than is contained in the present argument.

1449: Likewise, a purely viscous regime would have

1450: %

1451: \be

1452: L_{\rm Vs}=\frac{\sigma t}{\eta}(\gdot t)^b,

1453: \ee

1454: %

1455: again with two different values for $b$.

1456: 

1457: 

1458: \item 

1459: 

1460:   If the system is to attain a {\em steady state}, thereby losing

1461:   knowledge of the time $t$, it must retain dependence upon at least

1462:   two of $M,\eta$ and $\rho$.  For example, a shear-induced steady

1463:   state that is free of diffusion on the lengthscale of domains (no

1464:   $M$) must exist in a {\em mixed viscous-inertial regime} with

1465:   knowledge of both viscosity $\eta$ and density $\rho$:

1466: %

1467: \be

1468: L_{\rm VIs}=\left(\rho^{-c-1}\eta^{c}\sigma \gdot^{-2-c}\right)^{\frac{1}{2c+3}},

1469: \ee

1470: %

1471: with two different values for $c$.  

1472: 

1473: \end{enumerate}

1474: 

1475: We propose that both of these cases are seen in our numerical

1476: simulations.  When inertia is present, for finite values of $\rho$

1477: (however small), the system exists in a mixed visco-inertial steady

1478: state, as discussed in option 2. This is consistent with the

1479: observation of a single power law scaling for each of $L_{\|}$ and

1480: $L_{\bot}$ across all six decades in the plot of $L/\lvi$ versus

1481: $1/\gdot\tvi$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot} and in

1482: Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}.  In contrast, when inertia is

1483: strictly absent ($\rho=0$, infinite $\gdot\tvi$), the system exists in

1484: a pure diffusive or viscous regime and never attains a steady state,

1485: as in option 1.

1486: 

1487: To summarise: we suggest that the limit $1/\gdot\tdv\to\infty$

1488: corresponds to a pure viscous regime with no steady state, while the

1489: limit $1/\gdot\tvi\to 0$ corresponds to a mixed visco-inertial steady

1490: state.  Thus we propose finally that inertia provides the role of a

1491: singular perturbation in this problem.

1492: 

1493: \section{Summary and outlook}

1494: \label{sec:conclusions}

1495: 

1496: We have studied numerically phase separation in binary fluids with

1497: full hydrodynamics in two dimensions, considering both (1) unsheared

1498: and (2) sheared systems, both (a) with and (b) without inertia.  Of

1499: these, cases (1a), (1b) and (2a) have been studied by previous authors

1500: using Lattice Boltzmann (LB)

1501: methods~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998,wagner-pre-59-4366-1999,stansell-prl-96--2006,kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}.

1502: In this paper, we have introduced an alternative simulation technique

1503: that uses finite-differencing and spectral methods. We have also used

1504: a convenient transformation to render trivial the implementation of

1505: Lees-Edwards sheared periodic boundary

1506: conditions~\cite{onuki-jpsj-66-1836-1997}.

1507: 

1508: In unsheared systems, phase separation occurs via a process of domain

1509: coarsening.  Our simulation method successfully recovers results

1510: obtained previously by LB for this process, both with and without

1511: inertia (1a, 1b above).  In particular, it finds the familiar power

1512: law $L_{\rm D}\sim t^{1/3}$ characterising the growth of the typical

1513: domain size in the diffusive regime~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}. It

1514: also recovers $L_{\rm I}\sim t^{2/3}$ in the inertial hydrodynamic

1515: regime~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}. In the viscous hydrodynamic

1516: regime it finds the anomalous power $L \sim t^{2/3}$, compared to the

1517: predicted one of $L_{\rm v}\sim t^1$. As noted by previous authors,

1518: this is due to subtle non scaling effects that arise in 2D from the

1519: formation of disconnected droplets, also seen in LB

1520: studies~\cite{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}.  Such effects are eliminated

1521: in 3D~\cite{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001} and also seem suppressed under

1522: shear\cite{wagner-pre-59-4366-1999,stansell-prl-96--2006}.

1523: 

1524: We have also successfully reproduced the observations of existing LB

1525: studies for sheared systems that have non-zero inertia (case 2a

1526: above)~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}.  Here, an applied shear flow

1527: arrests domain coarsening and restores a nonequilibrium steady state

1528: with domains of a finite size set by the inverse shear rate.  The

1529: domain morphology is anisotropic, characterised by two lengthscales

1530: $L_{\|}, L_{\bot}$. Scaling exponents $L_{\|}\sim \gdot^{-0.619}$ and

1531: $L_{\bot}\sim \gdot^{-0.693}$ found here agree with those of LB, to

1532: within margins of error.  An outstanding puzzle, however, is why these

1533: 2D exponents agree better with the exponents $L_{\|}\sim

1534: \gdot^{-0.64}, L_\bot \sim \gdot^{-0.67}$ of the 3D LB

1535: study~\cite{cates-3d-2007}, than those of the 2D LB

1536: study~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}, $L_{\|}\sim \gdot^{-0.678}$ and

1537: $L_\bot\sim\gdot^{-0.756}$.  To investigate this, it would be

1538: interesting to study the role of systematic errors in our simulations;

1539: to consider the possible eventual nucleation of system wrapping

1540: stripes in the 2D LB study of Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006} for the

1541: smaller values of $1/\gdot\tvi$; and to extend the present

1542: finite-differencing work to 3D.

1543: 

1544: Our successful recovery of these important existing results in regimes

1545: (1a, 1b, 2a) provides some confidence in our simulation method.

1546: Beyond thereby having demonstrated this method to be capable of

1547: capturing the physics of demixing, the other main contribution of this

1548: paper has been a novel study of phase separation in sheared systems

1549: that are strictly inertialess (case 2b).  Here we found no evidence of

1550: nonequilibrium steady states, free of pronounced finite size effects.

1551: Instead coarsening appears to persist indefinitely until the typical

1552: domain size attains the system size, as in zero shear.

1553: 

1554: To support this observation, we have suggested by means of a simple

1555: analytical argument that sheared inertialess systems adopt either a

1556: pure diffusive or pure viscous regime, in each of which there are

1557: insufficient parameters out of which to construct the two lengthscales

1558: needed to characterise an anisotropic domain morphology in steady

1559: state. By extending this argument slightly, we have also suggested

1560: that sheared systems with any amount of inertia, however small, exist

1561: in a mixed visco-inertial steady state.  This provides a possible

1562: explanation for the observation of a single scaling with shear rate

1563: for each of $L_{\|}$ and $L_{\bot}$ across all six decades in

1564: Fig.~\ref{fig:scalingPlot}, and in the corresponding plot of

1565: Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006}

1566: 

1567: If this suggestion is correct, it remains unclear why the viscous and

1568: inertial regimes should mix to yield a steady state, while the

1569: diffusive and viscous regimes apparently remain separate, precluding

1570: nonequilibrium steady states in truly inertialess systems. A possible

1571: explanation lies in the more severe nonlinearity (in $\vecv{v}$) of

1572: the inertial terms in the equation of motion. 

1573: 

1574: In future work, we aim to investigate whether the absence of

1575: nonequilibrium steady states in inertialess systems persists in 3D.

1576: In extending our method to 3D, several challenges are to be faced.  Of

1577: these, the main ones appear to be contained in the basic Navier-Stokes

1578: equations of incompressible fluid flow, and are not complicated

1579: significantly by any additional order parameters~\cite{mixedLB}:

1580: $\phi$ in this model.  However, relatively standard methods do exist

1581: for finite-differencing the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in

1582: 3D, as discussed in Ref.~\cite{Pozrikidis}.  At each timestep these

1583: involve updating the vorticity via a slightly modified equation of

1584: motion $\partial_t \omega=\cdots$; then updating the velocity field

1585: either in the velocity-vorticity formulation (as effectively done here

1586: in 2D via the intermediate of the streamfunction) or in the vector

1587: potential-vorticity formulation.  In neither case does the pressure

1588: field need to be calculated directly.  An outstanding issue before any

1589: such algorithm could be run efficiently concerns its scaling with

1590: system size, and its corresponding ease of parallelisation.  The same

1591: question is also relevant in 2D, and a direct comparison of our

1592: algorithm with that of Ref.~\cite{stansell-prl-96--2006} would clearly

1593: be interesting.  In the longer term, the outcome of such studies might

1594: help determine whether finite differencing can emerge as a useful tool

1595: in such problems, alongside the already tested and reliable LB

1596: methods.

1597: 

1598: Other open questions concern the role of initial conditions in sheared

1599: systems. All the simulations reported here consider a temperature

1600: quench performed in the presence of a shear flow. Future work should

1601: consider an already demixed system, with either a flat interface or a

1602: minimal-surface droplet, subsequently subject to a sudden shear

1603: startup. We also aim to address demixing in complex macromolecular

1604: fluids, focusing on the role of viscoelasticity.

1605: 

1606: \section*{Acknowledgements} 

1607: 

1608: The author thanks Prof. Alan Bray, Prof. Mike Cates and Prof. Peter

1609: Sollich for helpful discussions and feedback, and the UK's EPSRC

1610: GR/S29560/02 for funding.

1611: 

1612: \appendix

1613: 

1614: \bw

1615: 

1616: \section{Transformation to the cosheared frame}

1617: \label{sec:appendix1}

1618: 

1619: Here we give details of the transformation to the cosheared

1620: frame~\cite{onuki-jpsj-66-1836-1997}. As discussed in

1621: Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics} above, this is performed in order to render

1622: trivial the numerical implementation of sheared periodic boundary

1623: conditions. As a first step, we separate the velocity field into a

1624: constant affine contribution $\gdot y\xhat$ and a fluctuating part

1625: $\vt$

1626: %

1627: \be

1628: \vecv{v}(\vecv{x},t)=\gdot y\xhat + \vt(\vecv{x},t).

1629: \ee

1630: %

1631: Noting that $\gdot y \xhat$ automatically satisfies the

1632: incompressibility condition, we define the fluctuating parts of the

1633: streamfunction and vorticity via

1634: %

1635: \be

1636: \label{eqn:streamT}

1637: \vt=\nablu\wedge \st \zhat,

1638: \ee

1639: %

1640: and

1641: %

1642: \be

1643: \label{eqn:streamVortT}

1644: \wt=-\nabla^2\st.

1645: \ee

1646: %

1647: Our equation set then comprises (\ref{eqn:streamT}) and

1648: (\ref{eqn:streamVortT}) together with

1649: %

1650: \be

1651: \label{eqn:vorticityT}

1652: \rho\left(\partial_t\,\wt+\vt.\nablu\,\wt\right)+\rho \gdot y\, \partial_x\wt=\eta\nabla^2\wt-\left[\nablu\wedge\phi\nablu\mu\right]\cdot\zhat,

1653: \ee

1654: %

1655: from Eqn.~\ref{eqn:vorticity},

1656: %

1657: \be

1658: \label{eqn:phiT}

1659: \partial_t\,\phi + \vt.\nablu\,\phi +\gdot y\,\partial_x\phi=l^2\nabla^2\mu,

1660: \ee

1661: %

1662: from Eqn.~\ref{eqn:phi1}, and

1663: %

1664: %

1665: \be

1666: \label{eqn:muAppendix}

1667: \mu= \phi(\phi^2-1)- l^2 \nabla^2\phi,

1668: \ee

1669: %

1670: from Eqn.~\ref{eqn:mu1}, unchanged.

1671: 

1672: 

1673: We then make a transformation to the cosheared frame

1674: %

1675: \be

1676: \label{eqn:trans1}

1677: (x,y,t)\to(x'=x-\gdot t y, y'=y,t'=t).

1678: \ee

1679: %

1680: %

1681: The various partial derivatives then become

1682: %

1683: \be

1684: (\partial_x,\partial_y,\partial_t) = (\partial_{x'},-\gdot t\partial_{x'}+\partial_{y'},-\gdot y\partial_{x'}+\partial_{t'}).

1685: \ee

1686: %

1687: Accordingly, we define the cosheared 2D gradient operator

1688: %

1689: \be

1690: \nablu_c=\xhat\, \partial_{x'}+\yhat\,(-\gdot t\partial_{x'}+\partial_{y'}).

1691: \ee

1692: %

1693: Finally, for any function $a$ we write

1694: %

1695: \be

1696: \label{eqn:trans4}

1697: a(x,y,t)=A(x',y',t').

1698: \ee

1699: %

1700: Throughout we continue to work with velocity components

1701: $\tilde{v}_x,\tilde{v}_y$ and not $\tilde{v}_{x'},\tilde{v}_{y'}$.

1702: 

1703: Inserting Eqn.~\ref{eqn:streamT} into the $\vt\cdot\nablu$ terms on

1704: the LHS of Eqns.~\ref{eqn:vorticityT} and~\ref{eqn:phiT}, and

1705: performing the transformation (\ref{eqn:trans1}) to (\ref{eqn:trans4})

1706: on Eqns.~\ref{eqn:streamVortT} to~\ref{eqn:muAppendix}, we get the

1707: equation set

1708: %

1709: \be

1710: \tilde{\Omega}=-\nabla_c^2\tilde{\Psi},

1711: \ee

1712: %

1713: together with

1714: %

1715: \be

1716: \label{eqn:T2}

1717: \rho\,\partial_{t'}\tilde{\Omega}+\rho\left(\partial_{y'}\tilde{\Psi}\partial_{x'}\tilde{\Omega}-\partial_{x'}\tilde{\Psi}\partial_{y'}\tilde{\Omega}\right)=\eta\,\nabla_c^2\tilde{\Omega}-\left[\partial_{x'}\Phi\partial_{y'} M-\partial_{y'}\Phi \partial_{x'} M\right],

1718: \ee

1719: %

1720: \be

1721: \label{eqn:T3}

1722: \partial_{t'}\Phi+\left(\partial_{y'}\tilde{\Psi}\partial_{x'}\Phi-\partial_{x'}\tilde{\Psi}\partial_{y'}\Phi\right)=l^2\nabla_c^2M,

1723: \ee

1724: %

1725: and

1726: %

1727: \be

1728: M=\Phi(\Phi^2-1)-l^2\nabla_c^2\Phi.

1729: \ee

1730: %

1731: %

1732: In these $M$ represents upper case $\mu$, not mobility. A priori, the

1733: bracketed expressions in Eqns.~\ref{eqn:T2} and~\ref{eqn:T3} contain

1734: terms in the applied shear rate $\gdot$. However in each bracket these

1735: are equal and opposite, and so cancel. For clarity we finally drop the

1736: tildes and dashes, and revert from upper to lower case. The final

1737: governing equations are then as summarised in Sec.~\ref{sec:numerics}

1738: above.

1739: 

1740: \section{Numerical method}

1741: \label{sec:appendix2}

1742: 

1743: Here we discuss the numerical algorithm used to study the dynamical

1744: evolution of $\phi(\vecv{x},t),\omega(\vecv{x},t)$ and

1745: $\psi(\vecv{x},t)$, as specified by Eqns.~\ref{eqn:equation1}

1746: to~\ref{eqn:equation4} and~\ref{eqn:coshearedNabluFinal}.  Our basic

1747: strategy is to step along a grid of time values $t^n=n\Delta t$ for

1748: $n=1,2,3\cdots$.  Discretization with respect to time of any quantity

1749: $f$ is denoted $f(t^n)=f^n$, or sometimes by $f|^n$. At each timestep,

1750: we update $\phi^n, \psi^n, \omega^n \to \phi^{n+1}, \psi^{n+1},

1751: \omega^{n+1}$ in three separate stages.  First, we update the

1752: compositional order parameter $\phi^n \to \phi^{n+1}$ according to

1753: Eqns.~\ref{eqn:equation3} and~\ref{eqn:equation4} with fixed, old

1754: values of the stream-function $\psi^n$. We then update $\omega^n \to

1755: \omega^{n+1}$ using Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation2} at fixed

1756: $\phi^{n+1},\psi^n$.  Finally we update the streamfunction

1757: $\psi^n\to\psi^{n+1}$ using Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation1} at fixed

1758: $\omega^{n+1}$.

1759: 

1760: \begin{enumerate}

1761: 

1762: \item The update $\phi^n\to\phi^{n+1}$ using Eqns.~\ref{eqn:equation3}

1763:   and~\ref{eqn:equation4} is performed in two successive partial

1764:   updates. In the first we implement the advective term in

1765:   Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation3} to give $\phi^n \to \phi^{n+1/2}$. In the

1766:   second we implement the diffusive term to give $\phi^{n+1/2} \to

1767:   \phi^{n+1}$. The advective term is handled using an explicit Euler

1768:   algorithm~\cite{PreTeuVetFla92}. Temporarily setting aside the issue

1769:   of spatial discretization, this can be written

1770: %

1771: \be

1772: \label{eqn:advective}

1773: \phi^{n+1/2}(x,y)=\phi^n - \Delta t \; \left(\partial_{y}{\psi}^n\partial_{x}\phi^n-\partial_{x}{\psi}^n\partial_{y}\phi^n\right).  

1774: \ee

1775: %

1776: This is then spatially discretized on a rectangular grid of

1777: $(\Lambda_x N/\Lambda_y) \times N$ mesh points in real space $(x-y)$,

1778: with constant mesh intervals $\Dx=\Dy=\Lambda_y/N$. Using indices

1779: $i=1\cdots \Lambda_x N/\Lambda_y$ and $j=1\cdots N$, we denote any

1780: discretized function $f(x_i,y_j)=f_{ij}$, or sometimes $f|_{ij}$.

1781: Periodic boundary conditions are imposed by setting

1782: $f_{i(-1)}=f_{i({N}-1)}$, $f_{i0}=f_{iN}$, $f_{i(N+1)}=f_{i1}$,

1783: $f_{i({N}+2})=f_{i2}$, and similarly in the $x$ direction. The

1784: derivatives of $\psi$ in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:advective} are discretized as

1785: follows:

1786: %

1787: \be

1788: \label{eqn:p1y}

1789: \partial_x\psi|_{ij}^n=\frac{1}{2\Dx}\left[\psi_{(i+1)j}-\psi_{(i-1)j}\right],

1790: \ee

1791: %

1792: with

1793: %

1794: \be

1795: \partial_y\psi|_{ij}^n=\frac{1}{2\Dy}\left\{\left(1-\frac{s}{2}\right)\left(\psi_{i(j+1)}-\psi_{i(j-1)}\right) + \frac{s}{2}\left(\psi_{(i-2)(j+1)}-\psi_{(i+2)(j-1)}\right)\right\}\;\;\textrm{if}\;\;\; s\ge 0, 

1796: \ee

1797: %

1798: and

1799: %

1800: \be

1801: \partial_y\psi|_{ij}^n=\frac{1}{2\Dy}\left\{\left(1+\frac{s}{2}\right)\left(\psi_{i(j+1)}-\psi_{i(j-1)}\right) - \frac{s}{2}\left(\psi_{(i+2)(j+1)}-\psi_{(i-2)(j-1)}\right)\right\}\;\;\textrm{if}\;\;\; s<0. 

1802: \ee

1803: %

1804: The derivatives of $\phi$ in Eqn.~\ref{eqn:advective} are discretized

1805: in the same way.

1806: 

1807: %We verified

1808: %that this gives the same results as using more sophisticated

1809: %third-order upwinding~\cite{Pozrikidis}:

1810: %%

1811: %\be

1812: %\partial_y\phi_{ij}^n=\frac{1}{6\Dy}\left[\phi^n_{i(j-2)} -6 \phi^n_{i(j-1)} +3

1813: %  \phi^n_{ij} +2 \phi^n_{i(j+1)}

1814: %\right]\;\;\;\textrm{if}\;\;\; v_y|^n_{ij}>0,

1815: %\ee

1816: %

1817: %while

1818: %

1819: %\be

1820: %\partial_y\phi_{ij}^n=\frac{1}{6\Dy}\left[-\phi^n_{i(j+2)} +6 \phi^n_{i(j+1)} -3

1821: %  \phi^n_{ij} -2 \phi^n_{i(j-1)}

1822: %\right]\;\;\;\textrm{if}\;\;\; v_y|^n_{ij}<0,

1823: %\ee

1824: %

1825: %with analogous expressions for the derivative of $\phi$ with

1826: %respect to $x$.

1827: 

1828: 

1829: It then remains to implement the diffusive part of Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation3}:

1830: %

1831: \be

1832: \partial_t\phi=-l^2\,\nabla_c^2\phi-l^4\,\nabla_c^4\phi+l^2\,\nabla_c^2 f

1833: \ee

1834: %

1835: with $f=\phi^3$. After calculating $f$ on our rectangular grid in real

1836: space, this equation is handled in reciprocal space by taking fast

1837: Fourier transforms $x\to q_x$ and $y\to q_y$ using a standard NAG

1838: routine~\cite{NAG}. The transformation in each dimension generates a

1839: real and an imaginary part, so for each mode $\vecv{q}=(q_x,q_y)$ we

1840: need to consider a vector of the (transposed) form

1841: $\vecv{\phi}^T=(\phi_{\rm rr}, \phi_{\rm ir}, \phi_{\rm ri}, \phi_{\rm

1842:   ii})$ where subscript ``r'' denotes real part, and ``i'' imaginary.

1843: The respective transforms $\tens{D}_2$ and $\tens{D}_4$ of the

1844: operators $l^2\,\nabla_c^2$ and $l^4\,\nabla_c^4$ can easily be found

1845: analytically:

1846: %

1847: \be

1848: \tens{D}_2=l^2\left(

1849: \begin{array}{cccc}

1850: D & 0 & 0 & -\Delta \\

1851: 0 & D & \Delta & 0 \\

1852: 0 & \Delta & D & 0 \\

1853: -\Delta & 0 & 0 & D 

1854: \end{array}

1855: \right)

1856: \;\;\;\;\textrm{and}\;\;\;\;

1857: \tens{D}_4=l^4\left(

1858: \begin{array}{cccc}

1859: D^2+\Delta^2 & 0 & 0 & -2D\Delta \\

1860: 0 & D^2+\Delta^2  & 2D\Delta & 0 \\

1861: 0 & 2D\Delta & D^2+\Delta^2 & 0 \\

1862: -2D\Delta & 0 & 0 &  D^2+\Delta^2

1863: \end{array}

1864: \right),

1865: \ee

1866: %

1867: in which 

1868: %

1869: \vspace{-0.4cm}

1870: \be

1871: D=-(aq_x^2+q_y^2),\;\;\;\Delta=bq_xq_y\;\;\;\textrm{with}\;\;\;a=1+[s(t)]^2,\;\;\;b=2s(t).

1872: \ee

1873: %

1874: For each $\vecv{q}$-mode, we then have

1875: %

1876: \be

1877: \partial_t\vecv{\phi}=-\tens{D}_2\cdot\vecv{\phi}-\tens{D}_4\cdot\vecv{\phi}+\tens{D}_2\cdot\vecv{f}.

1878: \ee

1879: %

1880: To evolve this in time, we use an explicit Euler algorithm for the

1881: first and third terms, and a semi-implicit Crank-Nicolson

1882: algorithm for the second term. Thus we have

1883: %

1884: \be

1885: \vecv{\phi}^{n+1}-\vecv{\phi}^{n+1/2}=-\tilde{\tens{D}}_2\cdot\vecv{\phi}^{n+1/2}-\tfrac{1}{2}\tilde{\tens{D}}_4\cdot(\vecv{\phi}^{n+1}+\vecv{\phi}^{n+1/2})+\tilde{\tens{D}}_2\cdot\vecv{f}^n,

1886: \ee

1887: %

1888: in which $\tilde{\tens{D}}_m=\Dt\,\tens{D}_m$ for $m=2,4$. Rearranging gives finally

1889: %

1890: \be

1891: \vecv{\phi}^{n+1}=\vecv{\phi}^{n+1/2} + (\tens{\delta}+\tfrac{1}{2}\tilde{\tens{D}}_4)^{-1}\cdot\left( - \tilde{\tens{D}}_2\cdot\vecv{\phi}^{n+1/2} - \tilde{\tens{D}}_4 \cdot\vecv{\phi}^{n+1/2} +\tilde{\tens{D}}_2\cdot\vecv{f}^n\right).

1892: \ee

1893: %

1894: 

1895: \item We now update $\omega^n \to \omega^{n+1}$ using

1896:   Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation2} at fixed $\phi^{n+1},\psi^n$.  The

1897:   advective term on the LHS is updated in the same way as its

1898:   counterpart in the $\phi$ equation above. To avoid inefficient

1899:   multiple switching between real and Fourier space, this is in fact

1900:   done at the same time as the corresponding update of $\phi$ in 1.

1901:   above. (This reordering leaves the algorithm exactly unchanged.)

1902:   We then update the RHS of Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation2}.  Divided across

1903:   by $\rho$, this reads:

1904: %

1905: \be

1906: \label{eqn:vortNum}

1907: \partial_t\,\omega=\nu\,\nabla_c^2 \omega+ g,

1908: \ee

1909: %

1910: in which $\nu=\eta/\rho$ and

1911: %

1912: \be

1913: \label{eqn:G}

1914: g=-\frac{1}{\rho}\left[\partial_{x}\phi\,\partial_{y} \mu-\partial_{y}\phi \,\partial_{x} \mu\right].

1915: \ee

1916: %

1917: As a first step, we calculate $g(x,y)$ using the newly updated

1918: $\phi^{n+1}$ from 1. To do so, we first calculate

1919: %

1920: \be

1921: \mu=\phi(\phi^2-1)-l^2(1+[s(t)]^2)\partial_x^2\phi - l^2\partial_y^2\phi + 2l^2s\partial_x\partial_y\phi.

1922: \ee

1923: %

1924: At each grid point $i,j$, we spatially discretize the derivatives in

1925: this expression according to

1926: %

1927: \be

1928: \partial^2_x\phi|_{ij}=\frac{1}{(\Dx)^2}\left[\phi_{(i+1)j}-2\phi_{ij}+\phi_{(i-1)j}\right],

1929: \ee

1930: %

1931: similarly for $\partial^2_y\phi$, and

1932: %

1933: \be

1934: \partial_x\partial_y\phi|_{ij}=\frac{1}{4 \Dx\Dy}\left[\phi_{(i+1)(j+1)}-\phi_{(i+1)(j-1)}-\phi_{(i-1)(j+1)}+\phi_{(i-1)(j-1)}\right].

1935: \ee

1936: %

1937: The first order derivatives of $\phi$ and $\mu$ with respect to $x$

1938: and $y$ in~(\ref{eqn:G}) are then discretized as

1939: in~(\ref{eqn:p1y}). 

1940: 

1941: Having calculated $g(x,y)$ in real space, we then Fourier transform

1942: Eqn.~\ref{eqn:vortNum} to get

1943: %

1944: \be

1945: \partial_t\,\vecv{\omega}=\tens{C}\cdot\vecv{\omega}+\vecv{g},

1946: \ee

1947: %

1948: in which we have used the same vector/matrix notation as in 1 above,

1949: with $\tens{C}=\nu \tens{D}_2/l^2$. To evolve this in time, we use a

1950: semi-implicit Crank-Nicolson algorithm for the first term on the RHS

1951: to get

1952: %

1953: \be

1954: \label{eqn:forOmega}

1955: \vecv{\omega}^{n+1}-\vecv{\omega}^n=\tfrac{1}{2}\tilde{\tens{C}}\cdot(\vecv{\omega}^n+\vecv{\omega}^{n+1})+\tilde{\vecv{g}}^{n+1}

1956: \ee

1957: %

1958: with $\tilde{\tens{C}}=\Dt\, \tens{C}$ and $\tilde{\vecv{g}}=\Dt\,

1959: \vecv{g}$. The superscript $n+1$ on the last term (\ref{eqn:forOmega})

1960: serves to remind us that $g$ was calculated using the new $\phi^{n+1}$

1961: from part 1. Rearranging, we get finally

1962: %

1963: \be

1964: \vecv{\omega}^{n+1}=\vecv{\omega}^n+(\tens{\delta}-\tfrac{1}{2}\tilde{\tens{C}})^{-1}\cdot(\tilde{\tens{C}}\cdot\vecv{\omega}^n+\tilde{\vecv{g}}^{n+1}).

1965: \ee

1966: %

1967: 

1968: \item We finally update the streamfunction $\psi^n\to\psi^{n+1}$ using

1969:   Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation1} at fixed $\omega^{n+1}$. For each

1970:   $\vecv{q}-$mode, we have

1971: %

1972: \be

1973: \vecv{\psi}^{n+1}=-\tens{E}\cdot\vecv{\omega}^{n+1}\;\;\;\textrm{in which}\;\;\;\tens{E}=\frac{1}{D^2-\Delta^2}\left(

1974: \begin{array}{cccc}

1975: D & 0 & 0 & \Delta \\

1976: 0 & D & -\Delta & 0 \\

1977: 0 & -\Delta & D & 0 \\

1978: \Delta & 0 & 0 & D 

1979: \end{array}

1980: \right).

1981: \ee

1982: %

1983: \end{enumerate}

1984: %

1985: Finally, we transform all functions back to real space and return to

1986: step 1 to start the next timestep.

1987: 

1988: \vspace{-0.4cm}

1989: 

1990: \subsection*{Algorithm at zero Reynolds number}

1991: 

1992: \vspace{-0.2cm}

1993: 

1994: The algorithm discussed so far is suited to non-zero values of the

1995: fluid density $\rho$. At zero Reynolds number, with $\rho=0$,

1996: Eqn.~\ref{eqn:equation1} and~\ref{eqn:equation2} of our basic equation

1997: set combine to give the simpler equation

1998: %

1999: \be

2000: \label{eqn:equationNew}

2001: 0=-\eta\,\nabla_c^4{\psi}-\left[\partial_{x}\phi\,\partial_{y} \mu-\partial_{y}\phi \,\partial_{x} \mu\right],

2002: \ee

2003: %

2004: and we need no longer consider the vorticity field $\omega$.

2005: Equations~\ref{eqn:equation3} and~\ref{eqn:equation4} remain

2006: unchanged. Correspondingly, step 1 of our algorithm is also

2007: unchanged. Steps 2 and 3 now combine to give

2008: %

2009: \be

2010: \vecv{\psi}^{n+1}=\tens{E}.\vecv{g}^{n+1},

2011: \ee

2012: %

2013: As above, we calculate $g$ in real space then take a Fourier transform. 

2014: In Fourier space

2015: %

2016: \be

2017: \tens{E}=\frac{1}{(D^2+\Delta^2)^2-(2D\Delta)^2}\left(

2018: \begin{array}{cccc}

2019: D^2+\Delta^2 & 0 & 0 & 2D\Delta \\

2020: 0 & D^2+\Delta^2  & -2D\Delta & 0 \\

2021: 0 & -2D\Delta & D^2+\Delta^2 & 0 \\

2022: 2D\Delta & 0 & 0 &  D^2+\Delta^2

2023: \end{array}

2024: \right).

2025: \ee

2026: %

2027: After calculating $\psi$, we revert to real space to start the next

2028: timestep.

2029: 

2030: \ew

2031: 

2032: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2033: %\bibliographystyle{prsty}

2034: %\bibliography{ackerson,actin,ajdari,articles,banding,barham,Berret,berrportdecruppe,berthier,books,bray,callaghan,cates,chandcits,cook,crystal,crystal_theory,Decruppe,deGennes,demixing,dhont,dnatheory,elasticTurbulence,fielding,fischer,Fischer,flowcryst,fredrickson,furukawa,gelbart,gonnella,goveas,graham,Groisman,head,hebraud,helfrich,HinchRallison,hsiao,Kadoma,larson,LCtheory,leal,lerougeDecruppe,lifshitz,likhtman,line_tension,maffettone,malkus,master,mccoy,membs,Mexican,modelH,noirez,notes,olmsted,onions,onuki,otherRelated,pagonabarraga,phanThien,phd1,phd,pine,PineHu,pomeau,poon,pratt,psolutions,ramaswamy,recent,rheochaos,rheofolks,ryan,salmon,SalmonManneville,savedrecs.txt,schoot,semenov,sgrband,shaqfeh,sood,sriram,stein,sureshkumar,tanaka,vansaarloos,vorticity,Wang,warren,weitz,wilson,worms2,worms3,worms,yeomans,yuan,zubarev}

2035: 

2036: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2037: 

2038: \bibitem{hohenberg77}

2039: P.~C. Hohenberg and B.~I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 49},  435  (1977).

2040: 

2041: \bibitem{bray-aip-43-357-1994}

2042: A.~J. Bray, Adv. In Phys. {\bf 43},  357  (1994).

2043: 

2044: \bibitem{cates-fd--1-1999}

2045: M.~E. Cates, V.~M. Kendon, P. Bladon, and J.~C. Desplat, Faraday Discussions

2046:   {\bf 112},  1  (1999).

2047: 

2048: \bibitem{hashimoto-jcp-88-5874-1988}

2049: T. Hashimoto, T. Takebe, and S. Suehiro, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 88},  5874

2050:   (1988).

2051: 

2052: \bibitem{takahashi-jr-38-699-1994}

2053: Y. Takahashi, N. Kurashima, I. Noda, and M. Doi, J. Rheology {\bf 38},  699

2054:   (1994).

2055: 

2056: \bibitem{chan-pra-43-1826-1991}

2057: C.~K. Chan, F. Perrot, and D. Beysens, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 43},  1826  (1991).

2058: 

2059: \bibitem{krall-prl-69-1963-1992}

2060: A.~H. Krall, J.~V. Sengers, and K. Hamano, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69},  1963

2061:   (1992).

2062: 

2063: \bibitem{hashimoto-prl-74-126-1995}

2064: T. Hashimoto, K. Matsuzaka, E. Moses, and A. Onuki, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74},

2065:   126  (1995).

2066: 

2067: \bibitem{beysens-pra-28-2491-1983}

2068: D. Beysens, M. Gbadamassi, and B. Moncefbouanz, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 28},  2491

2069:   (1983).

2070: 

2071: \bibitem{chan-prl-61-412-1988}

2072: C.~K. Chan, F. Perrot, and D. Beysens, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 61},  412  (1988).

2073: 

2074: \bibitem{matsuzaka-prl-80-5441-1998}

2075: K. Matsuzaka, T. Koga, and T. Hashimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80},  5441

2076:   (1998).

2077: 

2078: \bibitem{hobbie-pre-54-R5909-1996}

2079: E.~K. Hobbie, S.~H. Kim, and C.~C. Han, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54},  R5909  (1996).

2080: 

2081: \bibitem{qiu-pre-58-R1230-1998}

2082: F. Qiu, J.~D. Ding, and Y.~L. Yang, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58},  R1230  (1998).

2083: 

2084: \bibitem{lauger-prl-75-3576-1995}

2085: J. Lauger, C. Laubner, and W. Gronski, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75},  3576

2086:   (1995).

2087: 

2088: \bibitem{shou-pre-61-R2200-2000}

2089: Z.~Y. Shou and A. Chakrabarti, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},  R2200  (2000).

2090: 

2091: \bibitem{zhang-jcp-113-8348-2000}

2092: Z.~L. Zhang, H.~D. Zhang, and Y.~L. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 113},  8348

2093:   (2000).

2094: 

2095: \bibitem{yamamoto-pre-59-3223-1999}

2096: R. Yamamoto and X.~C. Zeng, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59},  3223  (1999).

2097: 

2098: \bibitem{corberi-prl-81-3852-1998}

2099: F. Corberi, G. Gonnella, and A. Lamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81},  3852

2100:   (1998).

2101: 

2102: \bibitem{corberi-prl-83-4057-1999}

2103: F. Corberi, G. Gonnella, and A. Lamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83},  4057

2104:   (1999).

2105: 

2106: \bibitem{corberi-pre-61-6621-2000}

2107: F. Corberi, G. Gonnella, and A. Lamura, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61},  6621  (2000).

2108: 

2109: \bibitem{corberi-pre-62-8064-2000}

2110: F. Corberi, G. Gonnella, and A. Lamura, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},  8064  (2000).

2111: 

2112: \bibitem{rothman-prl-65-3305-1990}

2113: D.~H. Rothman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65},  3305  (1990).

2114: 

2115: \bibitem{rothman-el-14-337-1991}

2116: D.~H. Rothman, Europhysics Lett. {\bf 14},  337  (1991).

2117: 

2118: \bibitem{chan-el-11-13-1990}

2119: C.~K. Chan and L. Lin, Europhysics Lett. {\bf 11},  13  (1990).

2120: 

2121: \bibitem{qiu-jcp-108-9529-1998}

2122: F. Qiu, H.~D. Zhang, and Y.~L. Yang, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 108},  9529  (1998).

2123: 

2124: \bibitem{padilla-jcp-106-2342-1997}

2125: P. Padilla and S. Toxvaerd, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 106},  2342  (1997).

2126: 

2127: \bibitem{ohta-jcp-93-2664-1990}

2128: T. Ohta, H. Nozaki, and M. Doi, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 93},  2664  (1990).

2129: 

2130: \bibitem{wagner-pre-59-4366-1999}

2131: A.~J. Wagner and J.~M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59},  4366  (1999).

2132: 

2133: \bibitem{lamura-pamia-294-295-2001}

2134: A. Lamura and G. Gonnella, Physica A-statistical Mechanics Its Applications

2135:   {\bf 294},  295  (2001).

2136: 

2137: \bibitem{lamura-epjb-24-251-2001}

2138: A. Lamura, G. Gonnella, and F. Corberi, European Phys. J. B {\bf 24},  251

2139:   (2001).

2140: 

2141: \bibitem{berthier-pre-6305--2001}

2142: L. Berthier, L.~F. Cugliandolo, and J.~L. Iguain, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 6305},

2143:   (2001).

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{onuki-jpm-9-6119-1997}

2146: A. Onuki, J. Physics-condensed Matter {\bf 9},  6119  (1997).

2147: 

2148: \bibitem{bray-ptrslsapes-361-781-2003}

2149: A.~J. Bray, Philosophical Transactions Royal Soc. London Series A-mathematical

2150:   Phys. Engineering Sciences {\bf 361},  781  (2003).

2151: 

2152: \bibitem{cavagna-pre-62-4702-2000}

2153: A. Cavagna, A.~J. Bray, and R.~D.~M. Travasso, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62},  4702

2154:   (2000).

2155: 

2156: \bibitem{bray-jpag-33-L305-2000}

2157: A.~J. Bray and A. Cavagna, J. Phys. A-mathematical General {\bf 33},  L305

2158:   (2000).

2159: 

2160: \bibitem{Onuk97}

2161: A. Onuki, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. {\bf 9},  6119  (1997).

2162: 

2163: \bibitem{doi-jcp-95-1242-1991}

2164: M. Doi and T. Ohta, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 95},  1242  (1991).

2165: 

2166: \bibitem{stansell-prl-96--2006}

2167: P. Stansell, K. Stratford, J.~C. Desplat, R. Adhikari, and M.~E. Cates, Phys.

2168:   Rev. Lett. {\bf 96},    (2006).

2169: 

2170: \bibitem{cates-3d-2007}

2171: K. Stratford, J.-C. Desplat, P. Stansell, and M.~E. Cates, Phys. Rev. E {\bf

2172:   76},  030501  (2007).

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{onuki-jpsj-66-1836-1997}

2175: A. Onuki, J. Phys. Soc. Japan {\bf 66},  1836  (1997).

2176: 

2177: \bibitem{wagner-prl-80-1429-1998}

2178: A.~J. Wagner and J.~M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80},  1429  (1998).

2179: 

2180: \bibitem{kendon-jfm-440-147-2001}

2181: V.~M. Kendon, M.~E. Cates, I. Pagonabarraga, J.~C. Desplat, and P. Bladon, J.

2182:   Fluid Mechanics {\bf 440},  147  (2001).

2183: 

2184: \bibitem{swift-pre-54-5041-1996}

2185: M.~R. Swift, E. Orlandini, W.~R. Osborn, and J.~M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. E {\bf

2186:   54},  5041  (1996).

2187: 

2188: \bibitem{siggia}

2189: E.~D. Siggia, Phys.~Rev. {\bf A20},  595  (1979).

2190: 

2191: \bibitem{furukawa-aip-34-703-1985}

2192: H. Furukawa, Adv. In Phys. {\bf 34},  703  (1985).

2193: 

2194: \bibitem{kendon-prl-83-576-1999}

2195: V.~M. Kendon, J.~C. Desplat, P. Bladon, and M.~E. Cates, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf

2196:   83},  576  (1999).

2197: 

2198: \bibitem{pagonabarraga-jsp-107-39-2002}

2199: I. Pagonabarraga, A.~J. Wagner, and M.~E. Cates, J. Statistical Phys. {\bf

2200:   107},  39  (2002).

2201: 

2202: \bibitem{mixedLB} 

2203: D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, M.~E. Cates and J.~M.

2204:   Yeomans, preprint arXiv:0708.2062 (2007).

2205: 

2206: \bibitem{Pozrikidis}

2207: C. Pozrikidis, {\em Introduction to Theoretical and Computation Fluid Dynamics}

2208:   (Oxford University Press, New York, 1997).

2209: 

2210: \bibitem{PreTeuVetFla92}

2211: W.~H. Press, S.~A. Teukolsky, W.~T. Vetterling, and B.~P. Flannery, {\em

2212:   Numerical Recipes in C (2nd ed.)} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

2213:   1992).

2214: 

2215: \bibitem{NAG}

2216: Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd., Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford, OX2

2217:   8DR, UK.

2218: 

2219: \end{thebibliography}

2220: 

2221: 

2222: \end{document}

2223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2224: 

2225: