1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % SUBMIT TO APJ : Axisymmetric Magnetorotational Instability in Viscous Accretion Disks %
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
5: %\documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}
6: %\documentclass[10pt,preprint]{aastex}
7: \documentclass{emulateapj}
8: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
9: \usepackage{amsmath}
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%------------------------- NEW COMMAND ------------------------ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: \newcommand{\myemail}{masada@asiaa.sinica.edu.tw}
12: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{#1}}}
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%------------------------ DATA OF THE PAPER ---------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \slugcomment{\scriptsize{Submitted to ApJ, Preprint typeset using \LaTeX style}}
15: %\slugcomment{accepted for publication in ApJ}
16: %\received{}
17: %\accepted{}
18: \shorttitle{Axisymmetric MRI in Viscous Accretion Disks}
19: \shortauthors{MASADA AND SANO}
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%------------------------- BEGIN DOCUMENTS ---------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \begin{document}
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-------------------------- TITLE & AUTHORS ---------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: \title{Axisymmetric Magnetorotational Instability in Viscous Accretion Disks}
24: \author{Youhei Masada\altaffilmark{1,2}, and Takayoshi Sano\altaffilmark{3}}
25: \altaffiltext{1}{Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and Theoretical Institute for Advanced Research in Astrophysics,
26: Academia Sinica, Taipei 10617, Taiwan, R.O.C; masada@asiaa.sinica.edu.tw}
27: \altaffiltext{2}{Kwasan and Hida Observatories, and Department of Astronomy, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan; masada@kusastro.kyoto-u.ac.jp}
28: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Laser Engineering, Osaka University, Osaka 560-8502, Japan}
29: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%------------------------ ABSTRACT ------------------------------ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
30: \begin{abstract}
31: Axisymmetric magnetorotational instability (MRI) in viscous accretion disks is investigated by linear analysis and two-dimensional nonlinear simulations.
32: The linear growth of the viscous MRI is characterized by the Reynolds number defined as $R_{\rm MRI} \equiv v_A^2/\nu\Omega $, where $v_A$
33: is the Alfv{\'e}n velocity, $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity, and $\Omega$ is the angular velocity of the disk. Although the linear growth rate is suppressed
34: considerably as the Reynolds number decreases, the nonlinear behavior is found to be almost independent of $R_{\rm MRI}$.
35: At the nonlinear evolutionary stage, a two-channel flow continues growing and the Maxwell stress increases until the end of calculations
36: even though the Reynolds number is much smaller than unity. A large portion of the injected energy to the system is converted to the magnetic energy.
37: The gain rate of the thermal energy, on the other hand, is found to be much larger than the viscous heating rate. Nonlinear behavior of the MRI
38: in the viscous regime and its difference from that in the highly resistive regime can be explained schematically by using the characteristics of
39: the linear dispersion relation. Applying our results to the case with both the viscosity and resistivity, it is anticipated that the critical value
40: of the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI} \equiv v_A^2/\eta\Omega$ for active turbulence depends on the magnetic Prandtl number
41: $S_{{\rm MRI},c} \propto Pm^{1/2}$ in the regime of $Pm \gg 1$ and remains constant when $Pm \ll 1$,
42: where $Pm \equiv S_{\rm MRI}/R_{\rm MRI} = \nu/\eta$ and $\eta$ is the magnetic diffusivity.
43: \end{abstract}
44: \keywords{accretion, accretion disks --- MHD --- turbulence---methods: numerical }
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- BODY OF THE PAPER ------------------------ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%----------------------- S1 INTRODUCTION ------------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: \section{Introduction}
48: Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence is the most promising candidate for angular momentum transport in astrophysical disk systems.
49: Nonlinear behaviors of the magnetorotational instability (MRI) are actively investigated as a driving mechanism of MHD turbulence
50: over the last decades (Balbus \& Hawley 1991, 1998). The central issue in MRI research is its nonlinear properties, in particular,
51: the saturation amplitude of the instability. Although the key processes governing the nonlinear saturation are scoped by global and local numerical studies,
52: it is not fully explained yet (Hawley \& Balbus 1992; Hawley et al. 1995, 1996; Brandenburg et al. 1995; Matsumoto \& Tajima 1995;
53: Stone et al. 1996; Hawley 2000; Machida et al. 2000; Arlt \& R\"udiger 2001; Balbus 2003).
54: Recently, Lesur \& Ogilvie (2008) argue that, in the shearing box context with zero-net vertical flux,
55: MHD turbulence is sustained through nonlinear classical dynamo activity once the MRI is operated.
56: It would be necessary and significative to study the saturation process from the microscopic viewpoint of
57: the physical sustaining mechanism for MHD turbulence as they have done.
58:
59: Ohmic dissipation is one of the crucial processes that determine the saturation amplitude of the MRI. Linear growth rate of the MRI can be reduced
60: significantly because of the suppression by ohmic dissipation. Two- and three-dimensional local shearing box simulations (Sano et al. 1998, 2004; Sano \& Stone 2002)
61: have shown that physical properties of the saturated turbulence depend on the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI } \equiv v_A^2/\eta\Omega $,
62: where $v_A$ is the Alfv\'en velocity, $\Omega $ is the angular velocity, and $\eta $ is the magnetic diffusivity (see also Fleming et al. 2000;
63: Ziegler \& R\"udiger 2001; Liu et al. 2006). Particularly, when $S_{\rm MRI} \ll 1$, the size of the saturated stress decreases with the decrease of $S_{\rm MRI} $
64: (Sano \& Stone 2002; Pessah et al. 2007). It is also pointed out that magnetic reconnection plays an important role in the energy dissipation of
65: MRI driven turbulence (Sano \& Inutsuka 2001).
66:
67: Numerical issues are one of the main reasons why the saturation physics of the MRI is remained to be understood.
68: Fromang \& Papaloizou (2007) demonstrate the efficiency of angular momentum transport decreases linearly with the grid spacing as the resolution increases.
69: Although it is very difficult to distinguish between the numerical and physical factors working as the saturation mechanism (King et al. 2007; Silvers 2007),
70: current researches of the MRI pay much attention to the numerical factors with the greatest care. Pessah et al. (2007) derive a scaling law of the saturated
71: stress from past wide variety of numerical results by analytically eliminating the numerical factors such as box size and resolutions.
72:
73: More straightforward way for decontaminating the numerical factors is to bring explicitly the physical diffusivities much larger than the numerical one
74: into the computational study. Lesur \& Longaretti (2007) have performed first systematic study of the MRI in the presence of both viscous and magnetic
75: dissipations, which are larger than the numerical diffusivities. For the cases with nonzero net flux of the vertical field, the transport property
76: in the saturated state depends on the magnetic Prandtl number $Pm \equiv \nu/\eta $, where $\nu $ is the kinematic viscosity.
77: Fromang et al. (2007) have reported that in zero magnetic flux cases the turbulent activity is an increasing function of the magnetic Prandtl number $Pm$.
78: Linear behaviors of the MRI in the presence of both the viscosity and resistivity are analytically studied by Pessah \& Chan (2008) comprehensively.
79:
80: The magnetic Prandtl number $Pm$ takes a wide range of values in astrophysical disk systems.
81: In protoplanetary disks surrounding young stellar objects, the magnetic Prandtl number is much smaller than unity
82: because of their low ionization degree (Nakano 1984; Umebayashi \& Nakano 1988; Sano et al. 2000).
83: In accretion disks of compact X-ray sources and active galactic nuclei, the magnetic Prandtl number ranges from $\simeq 10^{-3}$ to $10^{3}$ depending
84: on the distance from the central object (Balbus \& Henri 2008). In collapsar disks which is known as the central engine of gamma-ray bursts (Woosley 1993),
85: the physical state with high magnetic Prandtl number of $Pm \gtrsim 10^{10}$ is expected to be realized in their evolutionary stage as a result of the
86: large neutrino viscosity (Masada et al. 2007). Therefore, more systematic and deeper study on the MRI in the presence of both the viscosity and resistivity
87: is quite important for understanding the accretion process triggered by the MRI in various disk systems.
88:
89: One important unsettled matter, in these situations, is the role of the kinematic viscosity at the nonlinear stage of the MRI.
90: In general, the viscosity as well as the magnetic resistivity can suppress the growth of the MRI. However the dependence of nonlinear outcome
91: on the Prandtl number indicates that the role of the viscosity in MRI turbulence could be different from that of the resistivity.
92: Then, the main purpose of this paper is to reveal nonlinear features of the MRI in viscous accretion disks. As is described in what follows,
93: linear growth of the MRI is characterized by the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI} \equiv v_A^2/\nu\Omega $ in the viscous fluid, and
94: by the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI} \equiv v_A^2/\eta\Omega $ in the resistive fluid. Focusing on these two non-dimensional parameters,
95: we clarify the difference in nonlinear behaviors of the MRI between the viscous and resistive systems.
96:
97: Our paper is organized as follows. In \S~2, linear features of the MRI in the viscous fluid are presented. In \S~3, nonlinear behavior of the MRI
98: is investigated by two-dimensional MHD simulations taking account of the viscous terms. The differences between the effect of the viscosity and resistivity
99: are also clarified in \S~3. Finally we make an physical explanation for our nonlinear results with the help of the linear dispersion relation. Applying our results to
100: double diffusive systems, we predict a condition for sustaining active MRI turbulence in the presence of both the viscosity and resistivity in \S~4.
101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- S2 LINEAR ANALYSIS ------------------------ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: \section{Linear Analysis}
105: First, we provide the linear features of the MRI in a viscous accretion disk threaded by a uniform vertical field $B_z$.
106: Plane-wave perturbation theory, with WKB spatial and temporal dependence $\propto \exp (i k_z z + \gamma t )$, gives a local
107: axisymmetric dispersion equation for the MRI,
108: \begin{eqnarray}
109: \tilde{\gamma}^4 + \frac{2}{R_{\rm MRI}}\tilde{k}_z^2\tilde{\gamma}^3 + \left[ \frac{1}{R_{\rm MRI}^2}\tilde{k}_z^4 + 2\tilde{k}_z^2
110: + \tilde{\kappa}^2 \right]\tilde{\gamma }^2 && \nonumber \\ + \frac{2}{R_{\rm MRI}}\tilde{k}_z^4\tilde{\gamma}
111: + (\tilde{k}_z^4 - 2q\tilde{k}_z^2) = 0 && \;, \label{eq1}
112: \end{eqnarray}
113: (Menou et al. 2006; Masada et al. 2007; Pessah \& Chan 2008), where $\tilde{\gamma} = \gamma/\Omega$ is the growth rate normalized by angular velocity $\Omega$, and $\tilde{k}_z = k_z v_{A}/\Omega$ is the vertical wavenumber normalized by $\Omega/v_{A}$. The epicyclic frequency, normalized by the angular velocity, can be expressed as $\tilde{\kappa} = [2(2 - q)]^{1/2} $ by using the shear parameter $q \equiv - {\rm d} \ln \Omega / {\rm d} \ln r$. The Reynolds number for the MRI
114: is defined as $R_{\rm MRI} = VL/\nu \equiv v_A^2/\nu\Omega$. Here the
115: characteristic velocity and length are $V = v_A$ and $L = v_A/\Omega
116: $, respectively. In this paper, we focus on the MRI in Keplerian
117: disks where the epicyclic frequency is equal to the angular velocity
118: ($q = 3/2$).
119:
120: The dispersion equation~(\ref{eq1}) is characterized by the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$.
121: The linear growth rate of the MRI is shown as a function of the vertical wavenumber for the cases $R_{\rm MRI} = 0.1$, $1.0$, $10.0$ and $\infty $ in Figure~\ref{fig1}. When the kinematic viscosity is negligible ($R_{\rm MRI} \gg 1$), the dispersion relation is identical to that of the ideal MHD case.
122: If the Reynolds number is less than unity, the growth of the MRI is suppressed and the maximum growth rate is reduced significantly.
123: The most unstable wavenumber decreases with decreasing $R_{\rm MRI}$, because the viscous damping becomes more efficient
124: for shorter wavelength perturbations. However, it is interesting that the critical wavenumber for the instability, $\tilde{k}_{z, {\rm crit}} = \sqrt{2q}$,
125: remains unchanged in spite of the size of $R_{\rm MRI}$.
126:
127: Figures~\ref{fig2}a and \ref{fig2}b show the growth rate and wavenumber of the fastest growing mode as a function of the Reynolds number.
128: These figures indicate that $\tilde{\gamma}_{\rm max}$ and $\tilde{k}_{z,{\rm max}}$ are proportional to $R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$
129: when $R_{\rm MRI} \ll 1$ (Pessah \& Chan 2008).
130: In the regime of $R_{\rm MRI} \ll 1$, the dispersion equation~(\ref{eq1}) can be simplified and reduced to
131: \begin{equation}
132: [K^4 + 2(2 - q) ]\ G^2 - 2q K^2 = 0 \;, \label{eq2}
133: \end{equation}
134: where $G \equiv \tilde{\gamma}/R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$ and $K \equiv \tilde{k}/R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$.
135: The fastest growing wavelength and the maximum growth rate are obtained analytically from this equation;
136: \begin{eqnarray}
137: \tilde{k}_{z,{\rm max}} & \equiv & \left( \frac{k_{z,{\rm max}} v_A}{\Omega }\right) = [2(2 - q)]^{1/4}\ R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2} \;, \label{eq3} \\
138: \tilde{\gamma}_{\rm max} & \equiv & \left( \frac{\gamma_{\rm max}}{\Omega} \right) = \left[ \frac{q^2}{2(2-q)} \right]^{1/4} \ R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}\;. \label {eq4}
139: \end{eqnarray}
140:
141: Qualitative features of the fastest growing mode can be explained as follows: Keplerian shear flow is a key ingredient of the unstable growth of the MRI.
142: The viscous dissipation affects the growth of the MRI when the damping rate is comparable to the shear rate for a perturbation.
143: Then the viscous damping rate of the unstable mode would be balanced with the shear rate in the viscous regime,
144: $k_{z}^2\nu \simeq | {\rm d}\Omega/{\rm d}\ln r| \simeq \Omega $. This relation gives the most unstable wavenumber $k_{z,{\rm max}} \simeq (\Omega / \nu)^{1/2}$,
145: and thus $\tilde{k}_{z,{\rm max}} \propto R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$. Since the maximum growth rate of the MRI is equal to the Alfv\'en frequency of the fastest growing mode,
146: it corresponds to $\gamma_{\max} \simeq k_{z,{\rm max}} v_A$, or $\tilde{\gamma}_{\rm max} \propto R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$. This is why the normalized wavenumber
147: and growth rate of the fastest growing mode are proportional to the $R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$ in the presence of large viscous dissipation.
148:
149: Note that the $R_{\rm MRI}$-dependence of the fastest growing mode is slightly different from that on the Lundquist number
150: ($S_{\rm MRI} \equiv v_A^2/\eta\Omega $) in the presence of ohmic dissipation (Sano \& Miyama 1999), where $\eta $ is the magnetic diffusivity.
151: Based on the linear analysis, the resistivity can suppress the MRI more efficiently compared to the viscosity. In the resistive regime, the ohmic dissipation
152: can suppress the MRI when the dissipation time of the unstable mode is comparable to the Alfv\'en time, $\lambda_{\rm max}^2/\eta \simeq \lambda_{\rm max}/v_A$,
153: Thus the most unstable wavelength is given by $\lambda_{\max} \simeq \eta / v_A$. The growth rate of the fastest growing mode is given by
154: $\gamma_{\rm max} \simeq v_A / \lambda_{\max} \simeq v_A^2 / \eta$. Then we can obtain the relations $\tilde{k}_{z,{\rm max}} \propto S_{\rm MRI}$
155: and $\tilde{\gamma}_{\rm max} \propto S_{\rm MRI}$. It is stressed that the critical wavenumber $k_{z,{\rm crit}}$ in the resistive regime is also
156: proportional to the Lundquist number, $\tilde{k}_{z,{\rm crit}} \propto S_{\rm MRI}$.
157: Unstable wavelength and growth rate of the MRI for ideal MHD, resistive, and viscous cases are summarized in Table~\ref{table1}.
158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-------------------- S3 NONLINEAR ANALYSIS ----------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
161: \section{Nonlinear Analysis}
162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
163: \subsection{Numerical Setting}
164: For elucidating the nonlinear features of the MRI, viscous MHD equations are solved with a finite-differencing code
165: which was developed by Sano et al. (1998). The hydrodynamic module of our scheme is based on the second-order Godunov scheme
166: (van Leer 1979), which consists of Lagrangian and remap steps. The Riemann solver is modified for accounting the effect of tangential
167: magnetic fields. The field evolution is calculated with the Consistent MoC-CT method (Clarke 1996).
168: The energy equation is solved in the conservative form and the viscous terms are calculated in the Lagrangian step.
169: The advantages of our scheme are its robustness for strong shocks and the satisfaction of the divergence-free
170: constraint of magnetic fields (Evans \& Hawley 1988; Stone \& Norman 1992).
171:
172: We use a local shearing box model (Hawley et al. 1995). In this approximation, equations of viscous MHD are
173: written in a local Cartesian frame of reference corotating with the disk at the angular velocity $\Omega $ corresponding to a fiducial radius $R$.
174: Then the coordinates are presented as $x = r - R $, $y = R\phi - \Omega t$, and $z$. The fundamental equations are written in terms of
175: these coordinates within a small region surrounding the fiducial radius, in $\Delta r \ll R $,
176: \begin{eqnarray}
177: & & \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot (\rho \bi{v}) = 0 \;, \label{eq7} \\
178: \frac{{\partial }\bi{v}}{ \partial t} + \bi{v}\cdot \nabla \bi{v} & = & - \frac{1}{\rho} \nabla P_{\rm eff}+ \frac{(\bi{B}\cdot \nabla)\bi{B}}{4\pi\rho } \nonumber \\
179: && - 2\Omega\times \bi{v} + 2q\Omega^2 x {\tilde{\bi{x}}} + \bi{R} \;, \label{eq8} \\
180: \frac{\partial \epsilon }{\partial t} + (\bi{v}\cdot\nabla) \epsilon & = & - \frac{P}{\rho} \nabla\cdot \bi{v} + \Phi \;, \label{eq9}
181: \end{eqnarray}
182: \begin{equation}
183: \frac{\partial \bi{B} }{\partial t} = \nabla \times (\bi{v} \times \bi{B} ) \;, \label{eq10}
184: \end{equation}
185: where
186: \begin{eqnarray}
187: P_{\rm eff} & = & P + \frac{| \bi{B}|^2}{8\pi} - \rho \xi(\nabla\cdot\bi{v}) \;, \label{eq11} \\
188: R_{ij} & = & \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}\left[\rho\nu \left(\frac{\partial v_{i} }{\partial x_{j} } +
189: \frac{\partial v_{j}}{\partial x_{i}} \right)\right] \;, \label{eq12} \\
190: \Phi_{ij} & = & \xi (\nabla\cdot {\boldmath v})^2
191: + \frac{\nu}{2} \left( \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial v_j}{\partial x_i} \right)^2 \;. \label{eq13}
192: \end{eqnarray}
193: where $\epsilon $ is the specific internal energy, $\xi \equiv \chi - 2\nu /3$, and $\chi$ is the bulk viscosity.
194: In the following, the effect of the bulk viscosity is neglected ($\chi \ll \nu $). The term $2q\Omega^2 x$ in the momentum equation
195: is the tidal expansion of the effective potential. Assuming the ideal gas, the pressure is given by $P = (\gamma -1)\rho \epsilon $.
196: The spatially uniform kinematic viscosity and a constant ratio of specific heats ($\gamma = 5/3$) are considered.
197:
198: Since we focus on the local properties of the instability, we employ a numerical grid representing a small section of the disk interior for a local disk model.
199: Adopting the Keplerian shear flow as unperturbed state, the azimuthal velocity is given by $v_y = -q\Omega x$ in the frame corotating with the velocity $R\Omega$.
200: The initial field geometry is a weak uniform field in the vertical direction $B_z = B_0$. The radial force balance at the initial state is thus realized between
201: the Coriolis force and the tidal force.
202:
203: Two-dimensional calculation is performed in the radial-vertical plane with a volume bounded by $x = z = \pm H/2$,
204: where $H\equiv (2/\gamma )^{1/2} c_s/\Omega $ is the scale height of the disk. We use a uniform grid of $128\times 128$ zones.
205: A periodic boundary condition is applied in the vertical direction. For the radial boundary condition, we adopt a sheared periodic boundary condition
206: (Hawley et al. 1995). In this model, the vertical component of gravity can be ignored. Except for the shear velocity,
207: the physical quantities are thus assumed to be spatially uniform; $\rho = \rho_0$ and $P = P_0$ where $\rho_0$ and $P_0$ are constant values.
208: We choose normalizations with $\rho_0 = 1$, $H=1$, $\Omega = 10^{-3}$, and $P_0 = 5\times 10^{-7} $.
209: Initial perturbations are introduced as spatially uncorrelated velocity and adiabatic pressure fluctuations.
210: These fluctuations have a zero mean value with a maximum amplitude of $| \delta P|/P_0 = 10^{-2} $ and $|\delta \bi{v}|/c_s = 10^{-2}$.
211:
212: Our local disk model is characterized by non-dimensional parameters, which are the plasma beta of the initial field strength $\beta_0 = 8\pi P_0/B_0^2$
213: and the initial Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$. In this paper, we show the results focusing on the effects of the Reynolds number.
214: In what follows, we fix the initial field strength as $\beta_0 = 10^4$ in all our models. In the case $R_{\rm MRI} \ll 1$,
215: the fastest growing wavelength of the local disk system $\tilde{\lambda}_{\rm vis}$ can be defined from equation~(\ref{eq3}),
216: \begin{equation}
217: \tilde{\lambda}_{\rm vis} \equiv \frac{\lambda_{\rm max} }{H} = \frac{2\pi}{H} \left( \frac{\nu }{\Omega} \right)^{1/2} = \frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{\beta R_{\rm MRI}}} \;, \label{eq14}
218: \end{equation}
219: where $\lambda_{{\rm max} }$ is the fastest growing wavelength expected by the linear analysis for viscous MHD case.
220: To capture the most unstable mode in the computational domain, $\tilde{\lambda}_{\rm vis} \lesssim 1$, the Reynolds number must be $R_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 0.004$.
221: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
222: \subsection{Results}
223: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
224: \subsubsection{Growth Rate at the Linear Phase}
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226: We investigate the growth rate at the early linear phase in order to confirm the accuracy of our numerical scheme. All the simulations
227: begin with random perturbation of very small amplitude so that any
228: growing modes should be well described by a linear analysis during
229: the first few orbits
230: of the evolution. The time history of each mode is followed through a two-dimensional Fourier decomposition carried out
231: at frequent time intervals. We define the Fourier coefficient $a_k$ of the radial velocity $v_x$ as
232: \begin{equation}
233: a_k (t) = \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\int\int v_x (x,z,t) e^{ik_z z} dxdz \;. \label{eq15}
234: \end{equation}
235: Here we select the modes with $k_x = 0$ because they are the most unstable.
236:
237: The numerical growth rates in early linear phase are plotted over the analytic dispersion relation in Figure~\ref{fig1}. The growth rate at
238: $\tilde{k}_z = 0.32$, $0.64$, $0.97$, and $1.28$ are shown as representative cases, which are obviously reproducing the analytic results for all the cases.
239: Thus our numerical scheme has ability to simulate correctly the unstable growth of perturbations excited by the MRI in the presence of the viscous dissipation.
240: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
241: \subsubsection{Dependence on the Reynolds Number}
242: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
243: The efficiency of angular momentum transport is given by the $x$-$y$ component of the stress tensor,
244: \begin{equation}
245: w_{xy} = w_{M} + w_{R} = - \frac{ B_x B_y }{ 4\pi} + \rho v_x \delta v_y \;, \label{eq16}
246: \end{equation}
247: where $w_{M} $ and $w_{R}$ are Maxwell and Reynolds stresses, respectively. This is related to the $\alpha$ parameter of Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973)
248: by $\alpha \equiv w_{xy}/P = (w_{M} + w_{R})/P$. The Maxwell stress is proportional to the magnetic energy and usually dominates over the Reynolds stress
249: in MRI driven turbulence.
250:
251: To demonstrate the nonlinear features of the MRI, the time-evolutions of volume-averaged Reynolds and Maxwell stresses,
252: $\langle \alpha_{R} \rangle \equiv \langle w_R \rangle / \langle P \rangle$ and $\langle \alpha_{M} \rangle \equiv \langle w_M \rangle / \langle P \rangle$,
253: are depicted in Figure~\ref{fig3} for the cases with different Reynolds numbers $R_{\rm MRI} = 0.01$, $0.1$, $1.0$, and $10.0$. The single bracket indicates
254: a volume average of physical quantities. The horizontal axis is the time normalized by the rotation time $t_{\rm rot} \equiv 2\pi/\Omega $.
255: The kinematic viscosity in those models is equivalent to the $\alpha$ parameter of the size $\alpha_{\nu} \simeq (R_{\rm MRI} \beta_0)^{-1} \lesssim 0.01$.
256:
257: The linear growth rate decreases as the Reynolds number decreases. After the linear growth of the MRI, a two-channel flow appears for the ideal MHD cases
258: (Hawley \& Balbus 1992). The two-channel flow is an axisymmetric MRI mode whose vertical wavelength fits the vertical box size.
259: This linearly unstable mode is also an exact solution of nonlinear MHD equations, so that the magnetic field can be amplified exponentially
260: even at the nonlinear regime (Goodman \& Xu 1994). Similar behavior is found in all the viscous models even though the Reynolds number is much
261: smaller than unity. The magnetic energy continues growing and is not saturated even at the nonlinear regime. The Maxwell stress increases until
262: the end of calculations for all the models. The Reynolds stress, on the other hand, approaches a constant value at the nonlinear stage.
263:
264: The time evolution of $\langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle$, which is the sum of $\langle \alpha_{R} \rangle $ and $\langle \alpha_{M} \rangle $, is shown
265: in Figure~\ref{fig4}a. The nonlinear behavior of the MRI in viscous fluid is quite different from that in the models taking account of the magnetic diffusivity
266: (Sano et al. 1998, 2004; Fleming et al. 2000; Sano \& Inutsuka 2001). For the purpose of comparison, Figure~\ref{fig4}b shows $\langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle$
267: in the resistive MHD runs with different Lundquist numbers $S_{\rm MRI}$. The initial conditions are the same as the viscous models except for the
268: dissipation terms. When the dissipation processes can be negligible ($R_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 1$ and $S_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 1$), the evolution is quite similar to
269: that of ideal MHD. The viscous dissipation cannot damp MRI driven turbulence in the nonlinear regime even though $R_{\rm MRI} \ll 1$.
270: In contrast, the MRI saturates and MHD turbulence dies away at the nonlinear regime for the case with $S_{\rm MRI} \lesssim 1$.
271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
272: \subsubsection{Energy Injection into the Local System}
273: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
274: The total energy within the shearing box is defined as $\Gamma \equiv \int {\rm d} V [ \rho(v^2/2 + \epsilon +\phi) + B^2/8\pi ] $, where
275: $\phi = -q\Omega^2x^2$ is the tidal expansion of the effective potential (Hawley et al. 1995). Using the evolution equations for viscous MHD system
276: [eqs.~(\ref{eq7})--(\ref{eq13})], the time derivative of the total energy gives
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: \frac{{\rm d} \Gamma }{{\rm d} t} & = & q\Omega L_x \int_x {\rm d} A
279: \left[ \left( \rho v_x \delta v_y - \frac{B_xB_y}{4\pi} \right) - \rho\nu \frac{\partial v_y}{\partial x} \right] \nonumber \\
280: & \simeq & q\Omega L_x \left( \int_x {\rm d}A\ w_{xy} + \nu q \Omega \int_x {\rm d}A\ \rho \right) \;, \label{eq17}
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: where d$A$ is the surface element and the integral is taken over either of the radial boundaries. We can derive the last term of above
283: equation by assuming that the radial gradient of the perturbed azimuthal velocity is negligible, that is $\partial v_y /\partial x \simeq - q \Omega$.
284: The energy injection rate through the radial boundary is proportional to the kinematic viscous stress as well as the turbulent stress $w_{xy}$ at the boundary.
285:
286: Using the volume-averaged values instead of the surface-averaged ones at the radial boundary,
287: the volume average of the total energy changing rate $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm tot} \rangle $ is given by
288: \begin{equation}
289: \langle \dot{E}_{\rm tot} \rangle = \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle + \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},v} \rangle \;, \label{eq18}
290: \end{equation}
291: where $\langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle \equiv q\Omega \langle w_{xy} \rangle $ is the energy injection rate caused by the turbulent stress
292: (Sano \& Inutsuka 2001), and $\langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},v} \rangle \equiv \nu q^2\Omega^2 \langle \rho \rangle $ is done by the kinematic viscous stress.
293: The second term is always positive. When the turbulent stress is positive, the total energy of the system must increase. The source of the input energy
294: is the background shear motion. In realistic disk systems, positive stresses lead to inward mass accretion, bringing a loss of gravitational energy.
295: The gain in total energy in the shearing box represents this energy release.
296:
297: The energy budget in our simulations can be satisfying the relation~(\ref{eq18}), because our numerical scheme solves the energy equation
298: in terms of the total energy. Figure~\ref{fig5} shows the time evolution of $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm tot} \rangle $, $\langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle $
299: and $\langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},v} \rangle $ for the case with $R_{\rm MRI} = 0.01$. The vertical axis is given in the unit of $E_{\rm th0}/t_{\rm rot}$,
300: where $E_{\rm th0} = P_0/(\gamma -1)$ is the initial thermal energy. During the early linear phase until about 15 orbits, the kinematic viscous stress
301: takes a major role in the energy injection. In contrast, the turbulent stress becomes predominant after the MRI grows sufficiently.
302: The sum of these contributions is exactly identical to the energy gain of the system in our simulations.
303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
304: \subsubsection{Energy Dissipation at the Nonlinear Stage}
305: The role of dissipation processes in the energy conversion is investigated in this subsection.
306: The injected energy $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm in} \rangle = \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle + \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in}, v} \rangle $ should be balanced
307: with the increase of the sum of $ {E}_{\rm th} = P/(\gamma -1)$, ${E}_{\rm m} = B^2/8\pi $, and $ {E}_{\rm k} = \rho v^2/2$. Figure~\ref{fig6}a depicts the
308: time evolution of $ \langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle $, $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm m} \rangle $, and $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm k} \rangle $ for the case with $R_{\rm MRI} = 0.01$.
309: The viscous heating rate $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm vis} \rangle$ is also shown in this figure, which is defined as
310: \begin{equation}
311: \dot{E}_{\rm vis} = \Phi_{ij} = \xi (\nabla\cdot {\boldmath v})^2 + \frac{\nu}{2} \left( \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial v_j}{\partial x_i} \right)^2 \;, \label{eq19}
312: \end{equation}
313: where $\Phi_{ij}$ is the same definition that is used in the energy equation~(\ref{eq13}).
314:
315: The sum of the components perfectly coincides with the energy gain of the system.
316: Using the time- and volume-averaged values, which are indicated by double brackets, the gain rates of each energy component are
317: $\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle\rangle / \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm in } \rangle\rangle = 0.233$,
318: $\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm m} \rangle\rangle / \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm in} \rangle\rangle = 0.757$, and
319: $\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm k} \rangle\rangle / \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm in} \rangle\rangle \lesssim 0.01$.
320: Here the time average is taken at $18 \le t/t_{\rm rot} \le 25$. This indicates that a large portion of the injected energy
321: is converted into the magnetic energy of the system.
322:
323: Because the system is almost incompressible, the dominant heating
324: mechanism in our simulations should be
325: the kinematic viscous heating. However the thermal energy gain is much larger than the viscous heating rate (see Fig.~\ref{fig6}a).
326: The ratio of these components is evaluated as $\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm vis} \rangle\rangle/\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle\rangle = 0.36$
327: in the range $18 \le t/t_{\rm rot} \le 25$. This fraction becomes smaller and smaller for the cases with larger Reynolds number.
328: The rest of the heating is caused by the numerical magnetic dissipation. Then our results suggest that the magnetic dissipation
329: is the dominant mechanism of heating at the nonlinear phase of the MRI and might play an essential role for the suppression of MRI driven turbulence.
330:
331: Actually in the resistive MHD cases, the heating of the system is controlled by the joule heating almost completely (Sano \& Inutsuka 2001).
332: The energy changing rates in a very resistive model with the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI} = 0.1$ is demonstrated in Figure~\ref{fig6}b.
333: This is a typical case in which the channel flow is disrupted and MHD turbulence is damped at the nonlinear stage (see Fig.~\ref{fig4}a).
334: The ratio of the total energy gain and the thermal energy gain is $\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle\rangle / \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm in } \rangle\rangle = 0.99$
335: in the range $20 \le t/t_{\rm rot} \le 25$. We find that the joule heating takes a major role in the thermal energy gain of the system, that is
336: $\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm jou} \rangle\rangle / \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th } \rangle\rangle = 0.93$.
337: In the resistive system, the magnetic energy amplified by the MRI is transformed into the thermal energy via joule heating or
338: magnetic reconnection throughout the nonlinear evolution.
339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
340: \subsubsection{Stress at the Nonlinear Stage}
341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
342: Finally, the time- and volume-averaged $\alpha_{\rm tot} $ at the nonlinear stage is depicted as a function of the
343: initial Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$ and Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI}$ in Figure~\ref{fig7}. We take the average of $\langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle $ over
344: 5 orbits just after the time when the ratio $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle / \langle \dot{E}_{\rm m} \rangle $ begins to rise and the nonlinear evolution is started.
345: Diamond-shape shows the results in the viscous fluid and cross-shape is that in the resistive one. Note that these are not the saturated values.
346: Upward arrow over-plotted on the symbols denotes that the value is the lower limit, because $\langle\langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle\rangle $
347: is still increasing with time. The downward arrow stands for decaying models and thus the stress is the upper limit.
348:
349: The stress at the nonlinear stage are almost the same when the diffusion is weak ($R_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 1$ or $\ S_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 1$).
350: However, a huge difference can be seen in the highly diffusive regime. In the presence of the ohmic dissipation, the stress rapidly decreases with decreasing
351: $S_{\rm MRI}$. For the models with the kinematic viscosity, on the other hand, it increases with the decrease of $R_{\rm MRI}$.
352: The origin of this difference between viscous and ohmic dissipative systems is discussed later in \S~4.1.
353:
354: The inverse correlation between $\langle \langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle \rangle $ and $R_{\rm MRI}$ for the cases with large viscosity could be originated
355: from stable growth of a channel flow. This is because the large viscosity can suppress the growth of any other modes than the two-channel flow,
356: and thus the channel mode can evolve up to highly nonlinear amplitude. The viscosity may enhance the saturation amplitude of the MRI.
357: However, our results are restricted in two-dimensional simulations. The nonlinear evolution of the MRI in three-dimension must be quite different,
358: because the channel flow is known to be unstable to the nonaxisymmetric parasitic instability (Goodman \& Xu 1994).
359: We are planning to perform three-dimensional study of the MRI for verifying these nonlinear properties in the viscous accretion disks.
360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- S4 DISCUSSION ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
361: \section{Discussion}
362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
363: \subsection{Nonlinear Behavior in the Single Diffusive Systems}
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365: To give a physical explanation for the nonlinear behavior of the axisymmetric MRI, we focus on the critical wavelength obtained from the linear theory in this section.
366: The diagrams of Figures~\ref{fig8}a and \ref{fig8}b indicate the critical and the fastest growing wavelengths of the MRI as a function of the Lundquist number
367: $S_{\rm MRI}$ and the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$, respectively (see also Table~\ref{table1}).
368: Note that the vertical axes are normalized by $2\pi (\eta/\Omega)^{1/2} $ in Figure~\ref{fig8}a and by $2\pi (\nu/\Omega)^{1/2}$ in Figure~\ref{fig8}b.
369: Shaded area denotes the linearly unstable regions for the MRI. Assuming fixed diffusivities, $S_{\rm MRI}$ and $R_{\rm MRI}$ increase as the instability
370: grows because they are proportional to the squared Alfv\'en velocity.
371: Then the horizontal axis in Figure~\ref{fig8} can be regarded as the time direction in terms of the evolution of the MRI.
372:
373: First, we consider the resistive case shown by Figure~\ref{fig8}a. For the case of $S_{\rm MRI} \lesssim 1$, the critical wavelength is
374: described as $\lambda_{\rm crit} \simeq \eta/v_A$. At the nonlinear stage of the two-dimensional MRI, MHD turbulence decays and it saturates only when
375: $S_{\rm MRI} \lesssim 1$ (see Figs.~\ref{fig4}b and \ref{fig7}). This behavior can be interpreted schematically using the $\lambda_{\rm crit}$-$S_{\rm MRI}$ diagram
376: (Sano \& Miyama 1999). As the MRI grows and amplifies the magnetic field, the critical wavelength shifts to the shorter length-scale. Then, many smaller scale
377: fluctuations can become unstable. Those structures enhance the efficiency of ohmic dissipation in the turbulent state. In other words,
378: the system evolves toward a more dissipative state, and could be saturated at a critical point around $S_{\rm MRI} \simeq 1$,
379: at which the critical wavelength reaches the shortest value and the ohmic dissipation is the most efficient. In this way, MHD turbulence
380: can decay if $S_{\rm MRI} \lesssim 1$.
381:
382: When $S_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 1$, on the other hand, the critical wavelength is given by $\lambda_{\rm crit} \simeq v_A/\Omega $. Two-dimensional calculations
383: of the MRI suggests that the unstable growth cannot saturate if $S_{\rm MRI} \gtrsim 1$. The nonlinear behavior in these cases can be explained
384: by Figure~\ref{fig8}a analogously as follows: At the linear evolutionary stage, the critical wavelength in the radial direction becomes longer due to the
385: exponential growth of the radial field component, while the vertical
386: field grows slower than exponentially. The wavevectors of the unstable modes thus become
387: parallel to the vertical axis. This channel flow mode is the exact solution of the nonlinear MHD equations (Goodman \& Xu 1994). As the field strength becomes
388: larger, the critical wavelength shifts to the longer one. The dissipation can be much less effective, and thus the channel solution continues to grow without saturation.
389:
390: Next, let us consider the viscous case shown in Figure~\ref{fig8}b. In the viscous fluid, the critical wavelength is given by $\lambda_{\rm crit} \simeq v_A/\Omega $ despite the size of the Reynolds number (see Figure~\ref{fig1}). Even if $R_{\rm MRI} $ is much smaller than unity, the critical wavelength
391: thus shifts to larger scale as the instability grows. Then the system always evolves toward a less dissipative state and is not saturated.
392: This interpretation is consistent with our numerical results shown in Figure~\ref{fig7}.
393:
394: These results indicates that the saturation process of the MRI would be changed dramatically at the critical point at which the
395: critical wavelength switches from the decreasing function of the field strength to the increasing one. The differences in the nonlinear behavior of the MRI
396: between the viscous and resistive systems would be originated from whether the critical point exists or not.
397: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
398: \subsection{MRI in the Doubly Diffusive System}
399: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
400: In this subsection, we apply the discussion above to the doubly diffusive system that includes both the viscosity and resistivity.
401: The saturation behavior of the axisymmetric MRI can be anticipated by
402: the dependence of the critical wavelength on the field strength derived from the linear theory.
403: With the same framework used in \S~2, a local axisymmetric dispersion equation of the MRI in the presence of both viscous and ohmic dissipations is given by
404: \begin{equation}
405: a_4 \tilde{\gamma}^4 + a_3 \tilde{\gamma}^3 + a_2 \tilde{\gamma}^2 + a_1 \tilde{\gamma} + a_0 = 0 \;, \label{eq20}
406: \end{equation}
407: where
408: \begin{eqnarray}
409: a_4 & = & 1\;, \ \ \ \ a_3 = 2 \left( \frac{1}{R_{\rm MRI}} + \frac{1}{S_{\rm MRI}} \right) \tilde{k}_z^2 \;, \nonumber \\
410: a_2 & = & \left( \frac{1}{R_{\rm MRI}^2 } + \frac{1}{S_{\rm MRI}^2 } + \frac{4}{R_{\rm MRI}S_{\rm MRI} } \right) \tilde{k}_z^4+ 2\tilde{k}_z^2 + \tilde{\kappa}^2 \;, \nonumber \\
411: a_1 & = & \left( \frac{1}{R_{\rm MRI} } + \frac{1}{S_{\rm MRI} } \right)\frac{2}{R_{\rm MRI}S_{\rm MRI} } \tilde{k}_z^6 \nonumber \\
412: && + 2\left( \frac{1}{R_{\rm MRI}} + \frac{1}{S_{\rm MRI}}\right) \tilde{k}_z^4 + \frac{2}{S_{\rm MRI}} \tilde{k}_z^2\tilde{\kappa}^2 \;, \nonumber \\
413: a_0 & = & \frac{1}{R_{\rm MRI}^2 S_{\rm MRI}^2} \tilde{k}_z^8 + \frac{2}{R_{\rm MRI}S_{\rm MRI} }\tilde{k}_z^6 \nonumber \\
414: && + \left( \frac{1}{S_{\rm MRI}^2 } \tilde{\kappa }^2 + 1 \right) \tilde{k}_z^4 + ( \tilde{\kappa}^2 - 4) \tilde{k}_z^2 \;, \nonumber
415: \end{eqnarray}
416: (Menou et al. 2006; Masada et al. 2007; Lesur \& Longaretti 2007; Pessah \& Chan 2008).
417: This equation is, as expected, characterized by $R_{\rm MRI }$ and $S_{\rm MRI}$.
418:
419: Here we focus on the system with a constant magnetic Prandtl number ($Pm \equiv S_{\rm MRI}/R_{\rm MRI} = \nu/\eta $).
420: Figure~\ref{fig9} demonstrates the critical wavelength of the MRI as a
421: function of $S_{\rm MRI}$ for various values of $Pm$ obtained by
422: solving the dispersion equation (18).
423: The $S_{\rm MRI}$-dependence of the critical wavelength varies with
424: the size of $Pm$. When $Pm \ll 1$, the linear growth of the MRI is
425: independent of the magnetic Prandtl number, and the critical
426: wavelength is almost
427: identical to the pure resistive case ($Pm =0$). However, if the viscosity effects is added sufficiently, then the critical wavelength is enlarged
428: by the suppression due to the viscosity in the middle range of $S_{\rm MRI}$. For the cases of $Pm \gg 1$, the critical wavelength around $S_{\rm MRI} \simeq 1$
429: is given by $\tilde{k}^{-1}_{\rm crit} \propto (S_{\rm MRI}R_{\rm MRI})^{-1/3} \propto (S_{\rm MRI}^2 / Pm)^{-1/3}$ (Pessah \& Chan 2008).
430:
431: Although the critical wavelength shifts to longer length-scales as the magnetic Prandtl number increases,
432: the critical wavelength has a minimum value for all the cases. This implies that the MRI turbulence could be suppressed if the Lundquist number
433: is less than a critical value. This diagram suggests that the critical Lundquist number $S_{{\rm MRI},c}$ depends on $Pm$.
434: The critical Lundquist number $S_{{\rm MRI},c}$ is plotted as a function of $Pm$ in Figure~\ref{fig10}a.
435: In the regime of $Pm \gg 1$, it is proportional to the square root of the magnetic Prandtl number, that is $S_{{\rm crit},c} \propto Pm^{1/2}$.
436: In contrast, it remains to be constant in the range $Pm \ll 1$.
437: %masa%These results indicate that the saturation properties of the MRI would be affected by the magnetic Prandtl number in the doubly diffusive system.
438:
439: %masada%%%%
440: Since the critical Reynolds number is given by $R_{{\rm MRI},c} = S_{{\rm MRI},c}/Pm$, we can also obtain the relation between $Pm$ and
441: $R_{{\rm MRI},c}$, and which is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig10}b. Nonlinear growth of the MRI can be expected in the parameter region
442: above this critical curve. The magnetic Prandtl number is proportional to $R_{{\rm MRI},c}^{-2}$ in the regime of $Pm \gg 1$ and
443: $Pm \propto R_{{\rm MRI},c}^{-1}$ when $Pm \ll 1$. This curve is reminiscent of the critical curve for MHD turbulence sketched
444: from nonlinear simulations of MRI (Fromang et al. 2007). The Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$ in their models are at most a few
445: tens\footnote{The definition of the Reynolds number $Re$ in Fromang et al. (2007) is different from $R_{\rm MRI}$ in this paper.
446: The relation between these two is $R_{\rm MRI} \approx \alpha_{M} Re$, where $\alpha_M$ is the Maxwell stress normalized by the (initial)
447: pressure.}, and the critical magnetic Prandtl number is around unity. Thus our prediction is roughly consistent with nonlinear results even
448: quantitatively. Note that the critical curve shown by Figure~\ref{fig10} is obtained by using only the features of the linear dispersion relation of MRI.
449: This implies that the linear growth of the MRI is very important even at the nonlinear saturated phase to sustain MHD turbulence.
450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
451: %Recently, Lesur \& Ogilvie (2008) interestingly argue that, in the shearing box context with zero-net vertical flux,
452: %the MHD turbulence is sustained through nonlinear classical dynamo activity once the MRI is operated.
453: %Although they refer a little to the Prandtl number dependence of MHD turbulence, it would be necessary and useful
454: %to verify our prediction from the microscopic viewpoint of the physical sustaining mechanism for MHD turbulence as they have discussed.
455: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
456:
457: The discussion in this paper is based only on two-dimensional simulations of the MRI.
458: For the understanding the saturation mechanism of the MRI, it is quite important to perform the systematic
459: three-dimensional analysis of the MRI in the presence of multiple diffusivities.
460: Furthermore, the assumption of the local shearing box could affect the nonlinear evolution of
461: the viscous MRI. The necessary ingredients of the unstable growth of the MRI are the velocity shear and the magnetic field.
462: In the numerical setting of the local shearing box, the velocity profile of the background shear flow cannot disappear by the role of
463: the kinematic viscosity, but is imposed by the boundary conditions. It would be very interesting to use global disk models to investigate
464: the MRI in highly viscous disks. These are our next tasks.
465:
466: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- S4 DISCUSSION ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
467: \section{Summary}
468: Axisymmetric MRI in viscous accretion disks is investigated by linear
469: and nonlinear analyses. A local shearing box threaded by a uniform
470: vertical
471: magnetic field is used for our nonlinear simulations. The nonlinear results of the viscous MRI are compared with the resistive case focusing on
472: two non-dimensional parameters, the Reynolds number for the MRI $R_{\rm MRI}$ and the Lundquist number for the MRI $S_{\rm MRI}$.
473: Our main findings are summarized as follows.
474:
475: 1. In axisymmetric two-dimensional simulations, the MRI continues growing regardless of the size of the Reynolds number.
476: When $R_{\rm MRI} \lesssim 1$, the stress in its nonlinear stage is inversely correlated with $R_{\rm MRI}$, and thus can be larger than
477: that in the ideal MHD run. In the highly resistive fluid, on the other hand, the growth of the MRI is saturated and MHD turbulence dies away.
478: When the Lundquist number is less than unity, the saturated stress decreases dramatically with decreasing $S_{\rm MRI}$.
479:
480: 2. At the nonlinear stage of the MRI, a large portion of the injected energy is converted to the magnetic energy in the viscous system
481: ($\langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm m} \rangle\rangle \gg \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle\rangle \gg \langle\langle \dot{E}_{\rm k} \rangle\rangle $).
482: The thermal energy gain is much larger than the viscous heating rate. In contrast, for the case of the resistive system,
483: the thermal energy is converted from the magnetic energy through the joule heating. This difference in the energy dissipation efficiency
484: may affect the saturation process of the MRI.
485:
486: 3. Nonlinear behavior of the MRI in the single diffusive system can be understood with the help of the local dispersion relation.
487: The key characteristic is the dependence of the critical wavelength on
488: the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$ and the Lundquist number $S_{\rm
489: MRI}$.
490: Applying this interpretation to the doubly diffusive system with both
491: the viscous and ohmic dissipations, a condition for sustaining MRI
492: driven turbulence is obtained as a function of $R_{\rm MRI}$ and
493: $S_{\rm MRI}$.
494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
495: \acknowledgments
496: We thank Neal Turner for his careful reading of the manuscript.
497: We also thank Jim Stone, Sebastien Fromang, and Shu-ichiro Inutsuka for useful discussions.
498: Y.M thanks Ronald Taam and Kazunari Shibata for helpful and encouraging comments on our paper.
499: A part of our simulations were carried out on VPP5000 at the National Astronomical Observatory
500: of Japan and SX8 at the Institute of Laser Engineering, Osaka University.
501: We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments.
502: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- BODY OF THE PAPER ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
503: \begin{thebibliography}{}
504: \bibitem[Arlt \& R\"udiger(2001)]{2001A&A...374.1035A} Arlt, R., \& R\"udiger, G.\ 2001, \aap, 374, 1035
505: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1991)]{1991ApJ...376..214B} Balbus, S.~A., \& Hawley, J.~F.\ 1991, \apj, 376, 214
506: \bibitem[Balbus \& Hawley(1998)]{1998RvMP...70....1B} Balbus, S.~A., \& Hawley, J.~F.\ 1998, Reviews of Modern Physics, 70, 1
507: \bibitem[Balbus(2003)]{2003ARA&A..41..555B} Balbus, S.~A.\ 2003, \araa, 41, 555
508: \bibitem[Balbus \& Henri(2008)]{2008ApJ...674..408B} Balbus, S.~A., \& Henri, P.\ 2008, \apj, 674, 408
509: \bibitem[Brandenburg et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...446..741B} Brandenburg, A., Nordlund, A., Stein, R.~F., \& Torkelsson, U.\ 1995, \apj, 446, 741
510: \bibitem[Clarke(1996)]{1996ApJ...457..291C} Clarke, D.~A.\ 1996, \apj, 457, 291
511: \bibitem[Evans \& Hawley(1988)]{1988ApJ...332..659E} Evans, C.~R., \& Hawley, J.~F.\ 1988, \apj, 332, 659
512: \bibitem[Fleming et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...530..464F} Fleming, T.~P., Stone, J.~M., \& Hawley, J.~F.\ 2000, \apj, 530, 464
513: \bibitem[Fromang \& Papaloizou(2007)]{2007A&A...476.1113F} Fromang, S., \& Papaloizou, J.\ 2007, \aap, 476, 1113
514: \bibitem[Fromang et al.(2007)]{2007A&A...476.1123F} Fromang, S., Papaloizou, J., Lesur, G., \& Heinemann, T.\ 2007, \aap, 476, 1123
515: \bibitem[Goodman \& Xu(1994)]{1994ApJ...432..213G} Goodman, J., \& Xu, G.\ 1994, \apj, 432, 213
516: \bibitem[Hawley \& Balbus(1992)]{1992ApJ...400..595H} Hawley, J.~F., \& Balbus, S.~A.\ 1992, \apj, 400, 595
517: \bibitem[Hawley et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...440..742H} Hawley, J.~F., Gammie, C.~F., \& Balbus, S.~A.\ 1995, \apj, 440, 742
518: \bibitem[Hawley et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...464..690H} Hawley, J.~F., Gammie, C.~F., \& Balbus, S.~A.\ 1996, \apj, 464, 690
519: \bibitem[Hawley(2000)]{2000ApJ...528..462H} Hawley, J.~F.\ 2000, \apj, 528, 462
520: %\bibitem[Iskakov et al.(2007)]{2007PhRvL..98t8501I} Iskakov, A.~B., Schekochihin, A.~A., Cowley, S.~C., McWilliams, J.~C., \& Proctor, M.~R.~E.\ 2007, Physical Review Letters, 98, 208501
521: \bibitem[King et al.(2007)]{2007MNRAS.376.1740K} King, A.~R., Pringle, J.~E., \& Livio, M.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 1740
522: %\bibitem[Lesaffre \& Balbus(2007)]{2007MNRAS.381..319L} Lesaffre, P., \& Balbus, S.~A.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 319
523: \bibitem[Lesur \& Longaretti(2007)]{2007MNRAS.378.1471L} Lesur, G., \& Longaretti, P.-Y.\ 2007, \mnras, 378, 1471
524: \bibitem[Lesur \& Ogilvie(2008)]{2008arXiv0807.1703L} Lesur, G., \& Ogilvie, G.~I.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 807, arXiv:0807.1703
525: \bibitem[Liu et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...643..306L} Liu, W., Goodman, J., \& Ji, H.\ 2006, \apj, 643, 306
526: \bibitem[Machida et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...532L..67M} Machida, M., Hayashi, M.~R., \& Matsumoto, R.\ 2000, \apjl, 532, L67
527: \bibitem[Masada et al.(2007)]{2006astro.ph.10023M} Masada, Y., Sano, T., \& Shibata, K.\ 2007, \apj, 655, 447
528: \bibitem[Masada et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...663..437M} Masada, Y., Kawanaka, N., Sano, T., \& Shibata, K.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 437
529: \bibitem[Matsumoto \& Tajima(1995)]{1995ApJ...445..767M} Matsumoto, R., \& Tajima, T.\ 1995, \apj, 445, 767
530: \bibitem[Menou et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...607..564M} Menou, K., Balbus, S.~A., \& Spruit, H.~C.\ 2004, \apj, 607, 564
531: \bibitem[Nakano(1984)]{1984FCPh....9..139N} Nakano, T.\ 1984, Fundamentals of Cosmic Physics, 9, 139
532: \bibitem[Pessah et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...668L..51P} Pessah, M.~E., Chan, C.-k., \& Psaltis, D.\ 2007, \apjl, 668, L51
533: \bibitem[Pessah \& Chan(2008)]{2008arXiv0801.4570P} Pessah, M.~E., \& Chan, C.-k.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.4570
534: \bibitem[Sano et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...506L..57S} Sano, T., Inutsuka, S., \& Miyama, S.~M.\ 1998, \apjl, 506, L57
535: \bibitem[Sano \& Miyama(1999)]{1999ApJ...515..776S} Sano, T., \& Miyama, S.~M.\ 1999, \apj, 515, 776
536: %\bibitem[Sano et al.(1999)]{1999ASSL..240..383S} Sano, T., Inutsuka, S., \& Miyama, S.~M.\ 1999, Numerical Astrophysics, 240, 383
537: \bibitem[Sano et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...543..486S} Sano, T., Miyama, S.~M., Umebayashi, T., \& Nakano, T.\ 2000, \apj, 543, 486
538: \bibitem[Sano \& Inutsuka(2001)]{2001ApJ...561L.179S} Sano, T., \& Inutsuka, S.-i.\ 2001, \apjl, 561, L179
539: \bibitem[Sano \& Stone(2002)]{2002ApJ...577..534S} Sano, T., \& Stone,J.~M.\ 2002, \apj, 577, 534
540: \bibitem[Sano et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...605..321S} Sano, T., Inutsuka, S., Turner, N.~J., \& Stone, J.~M.\ 2004, \apj, 605, 321
541: \bibitem[Shakura \& Sunyaev(1973)]{1973AAP...24..337} Shakura, N. I., \& Sunyaev, R. A.\ 1973, \aap, 24, 337
542: \bibitem[Silvers(2007)]{2007arXiv0712.4343S} Silvers, L.~J.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 712, arXiv:0712.4343
543: \bibitem[Stone \& Norman(1992)]{1992ApJS...80..791S} Stone, J.~M., \& Norman, M.~L.\ 1992, \apjs, 80, 791
544: \bibitem[Stone et al.(1996)]{1996ApJ...463..656S} Stone, J.~M., Hawley, J.~F., Gammie, C.~F., \& Balbus, S.~A.\ 1996, \apj, 463, 656
545: \bibitem[Umebayashi \& Nakano(1988)]{1988PThPS..96..151U} Umebayashi, T., \& Nakano, T.\ 1988, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 96, 151
546: \bibitem[van Leer(1979)]{1979JCoPh..32..101V} van Leer, B.\ 1979, Journal of Computational Physics, 32, 101
547: \bibitem[Woosley(1993)]{1993ApJ...405..273W} Woosley, S.~E.\ 1993, \apj, 405, 273
548: \bibitem[Ziegler \& R\"udiger(2001)]{2001A&A...378..668Z} Ziegler, U., \& R\"udiger, G.\ 2001, \aap, 378, 668
549: \end{thebibliography}
550: \clearpage
551: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-----------------TABLE AND FIGURE----------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
552: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- TABLE 1 -----------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
553: \begin{table}
554: \begin{center}
555: %\rotatebox{-90}{
556: \begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc}\hline\hline
557: & Ideal MHD & Resistive Case & Viscous Case \\
558: \hline\hline
559: Balancing Rate & Alfv\'en frequency \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & Alfv\'en frequency \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ & Shear rate \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
560: &= Rotation frequency& = Dissipation rate & = Dissipation rate \\
561: & $[k v_A \simeq \Omega]$ & $[ k v_A \simeq k^2 \eta] $ & $[ \Omega \simeq k^2 \nu]$ \\ \hline
562: Unstable Wavelength $[\lambda = k^{-1}]$ & $\lambda = v_A/\Omega $ & $\lambda = \eta/v_A $ & $\lambda = (\nu/\Omega)^{1/2}$ \\
563: Growth Rate $[\gamma = v_A / \lambda]$ & $\gamma = \Omega$ & $\gamma = v_A^2/\eta $ & $\gamma = (v_A^2\Omega/\nu)^{1/2}$ \\
564: \hline\hline
565: \end{tabular}
566: %}
567: \caption{Unstable wavelength and growth rate of the MRI for ideal MHD, resistive, and viscous cases. }
568: \label{table1}
569: \end{center}
570: \end{table}
571: \clearpage
572: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 1 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
573: \begin{figure}
574: \begin{center}
575: \scalebox{2.0}{\rotatebox{0}{\includegraphics{f1.eps}}} \\
576: \caption{Linear growth rate of the MRI as a function of the wavenumber. The cases with different Reynolds numbers for MRI
577: $R_{\rm MRI} \equiv v_A^2/\nu\Omega = \infty$, $10$, $1.0$ and $0.1$ are depicted. Normalization of the vertical and horizontal axes are
578: the angular velocity $\Omega$ and the typical wavenumber of the MRI $v_A/\Omega$, respectively.
579: The symbols plotted over the analytical dispersion relation are numerical growth rates calculated by our numerical scheme. }
580: \label{fig1}
581: \end{center}
582: \end{figure}
583: \clearpage
584: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 2 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
585: \begin{figure}
586: \begin{center}
587: \rotatebox{-90}{
588: \begin{tabular}{cc}
589: \scalebox{1.3}{{\includegraphics{f2a.eps}}} &
590: \scalebox{1.3}{{\includegraphics{f2b.eps}}}
591: \end{tabular}
592: }
593: \caption{(a) The maximum growth rate normalized by the angular velocity $\Omega $ and (b) the fastest growing wavenumber normalized by $v_A/\Omega $
594: are shown as functions of the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$. In the
595: range $R_{\rm MRI} \ll 1$, both quantities are proportional to the
596: square root of the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}^{1/2}$. }
597: \label{fig2}
598: \end{center}
599: \end{figure}
600: \clearpage
601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 3 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
602: \begin{figure}
603: \begin{center}
604: \rotatebox{-90}{
605: \begin{tabular}{cc}
606: \scalebox{1.3}{{\includegraphics{f3a.eps}}} &
607: \scalebox{1.3}{{\includegraphics{f3b.eps}}}
608: \end{tabular}}
609: \caption{Time evolution of the volume-averaged (a) Reynolds stress $\langle \alpha_{R} \rangle \equiv \langle w_R \rangle / \langle P \rangle$ and
610: (b) Maxwell stress $\langle \alpha_{M} \rangle \equiv \langle w_M \rangle / \langle P \rangle$ for the cases with different Reynolds number
611: $R_{\rm MRI} = 10.0$, $1.0$, $0.1$ and $0.01$. The horizontal axis is normalized by the disk rotation time $t_{\rm rot} = 2\pi/\Omega $. }
612: \label{fig3}
613: \end{center}
614: \end{figure}
615: \clearpage
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 4 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: \begin{figure}
618: \begin{center}
619: \rotatebox{-90}{
620: \begin{tabular}{cc}
621: \scalebox{1.3}{{\includegraphics{f4a.eps}}} &
622: \scalebox{1.3}{{\includegraphics{f4b.eps}}}
623: \end{tabular}
624: }
625: \caption{Panel~(a): Time evolution of the volume-averaged $\alpha$ parameter of Shakura \& Sunyaev (1973) in the viscous fluid for the cases with
626: different Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI} = 10.0$, $1.0$, $0.1$ and
627: $0.01$. Panel~(b): The $\alpha$ parameter in the resistive fluid for the cases with different
628: Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI} = 100.0$, $10.0$, $1.0$, $0.3$ and $0.1$. Normalization of the horizontal axis is the same as Figure~\ref{fig3}. }
629: \label{fig4}
630: \end{center}
631: \end{figure}
632: \clearpage
633: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 5 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
634: \begin{figure}
635: \begin{center}
636: \scalebox{2.0}{{\includegraphics{f5.eps}}}
637: \caption{Time evolution of the volume-averaged time derivative of the total energy
638: $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm tot} \rangle \equiv \langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle + \langle \dot{E}_{m} \rangle + \langle \dot{E}_k \rangle $
639: and the input energies due to the turbulent stress $\langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle$ and the kinematic
640: viscous stress $\langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},v} \rangle $. These quantities should satisfy the energy conservation
641: $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm tot} \rangle = \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle + \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},v} \rangle $.
642: This is for the case with $R_{\rm MRI} = 0.01$. The vertical axis is given in the unit of $E_{\rm th0}/t_{\rm rot}$
643: where $E_{\rm th0} = P_0/(\gamma -1)$ is the initial thermal energy.}
644: \label{fig5}
645: \end{center}
646: \end{figure}
647: \clearpage
648: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 6 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
649: \begin{figure}
650: \begin{center}
651: \rotatebox{-90}{
652: \begin{tabular}{cc}
653: \scalebox{1.2}{{\includegraphics{f6a.eps}}} &
654: \scalebox{1.2}{{\includegraphics{f6b.eps}}}
655: \end{tabular}
656: }
657: \caption{Time evolution of the volume-averaged time derivative of the input energy $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm in} \rangle = \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},w} \rangle +
658: \langle \dot{E}_{{\rm in},v} \rangle$, thermal energy $\langle \dot{E}_{\rm th} \rangle$, magnetic energy $\langle \dot{E}_{m} \rangle $, kinetic energy
659: $\langle \dot{E}_{k} \rangle$. Panel~(a) shows the result of the viscous case with $R_{\rm MRI} = 0.01$ in the period $16 \le t/t_{\rm rot} \le 25$.
660: The volume-averaged viscous heating rate $ \langle \dot{E}_{\rm vis} \rangle$ is shown in this figure.
661: Panel~(b) depicts that of the resistive case with $S_{\rm MRI} = 0.1$ in the period $20 \le t/t_{\rm rot} \le 25$.
662: The volume-averaged joule heating rate $ \langle \dot{E}_{\rm jou} \rangle$ is shown in this figure.
663: Normalizations of each axis are the same as those in Figure~\ref{fig4}. }
664: \label{fig6}
665: \end{center}
666: \end{figure}
667: \clearpage
668: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 7 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
669: \begin{figure}
670: \begin{center}
671: \scalebox{1.8}{{\includegraphics{f7.eps}}}
672: \caption{ Time- and volume-averaged $\alpha_{\rm tot} $ at the nonlinear stage as a function of the initial Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$
673: and Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI}$. We take the time-average of $\langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle $ over 5 orbits at the nonlinear regime.
674: Diamonds are the results in the viscous fluid and crosses are those in the resistive one. Note that these are not the saturated values.
675: The upward arrow denotes models in which $\langle\langle \alpha_{\rm tot} \rangle\rangle$ is still increasing with time and
676: the downward arrow stands for decaying models. }
677: \label{fig7}
678: \end{center}
679: \end{figure}
680: \clearpage
681: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 8 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
682: \begin{figure}
683: \begin{center}
684: \rotatebox{-90}{
685: \begin{tabular}{cc}
686: \scalebox{1.1}{{\includegraphics{f8a.eps}}} &
687: \scalebox{1.1}{{\includegraphics{f8b.eps}}}
688: \end{tabular}
689: }
690: \caption{Characteristic wavelengths of the MRI for (a) the resistive case and (b) the viscous case. The horizontal axis in each panel
691: is (a) the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI}$ and (b) the Reynolds number $R_{\rm MRI}$.
692: %The normalization of the vertical axis in each panel is (a) $2\pi
693: %(\eta/\Omega)^{1/2}$ and (b) $2\pi (\nu/\Omega)^{1/2}$.
694: Shaded area denotes the unstable regions for the MRI expected from the linear theory.
695: The critical wavelength in the resistive case takes a minimum value, while it monotonically increases in the viscous case.
696: The difference in the nonlinear regime between the resistive and viscous models can be explained by this feature in the critical wavelength of the MRI.}
697: \label{fig8}
698: \end{center}
699: \end{figure}
700: \clearpage
701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 9 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
702: \begin{figure}
703: \begin{center}
704: \scalebox{1.7}{{\includegraphics{f9.eps}}}
705: \caption{Schematic picture of the critical wavelength of the MRI as a function of the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI}$ for different values of
706: the magnetic Prandtl number. Thick black curve represents the critical wavelength for the cases with $Pm \ll 1$. The models with $Pm \gg 1$
707: are depicted by yellow ($Pm = 10$), blue ($Pm = 10^3$), green ($Pm = 10^5$), and orange ($Pm = 10^7$) curves. Since the diffusive parameters are fixed,
708: the Lundquist number $S_{\rm MRI}$ is a function of the field strength. Shaded area denotes the unstable regions for the MRI
709: expected from the linear theory at small Prandtl numbers. The critical point and critical Lundquist number are marked by the filled red and black circles, respectively. }
710: \label{fig9}
711: \end{center}
712: \end{figure}
713: \clearpage
714: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- Figure 10 ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
715: \begin{figure}
716: %\begin{center}
717: %\scalebox{1.5}{{\includegraphics{f10.eps}}}
718: \begin{center}
719: \rotatebox{-90}{
720: \begin{tabular}{cc}
721: \scalebox{1.2}{{\includegraphics{f10a.eps}}} &
722: \scalebox{1.2}{{\includegraphics{f10b.eps}}}
723: \end{tabular}
724: }
725: \caption{(a) The critical Lundquist number as a function of the magnetic Prandtl number $Pm$. (b) The magnetic Prandtl number as a function of
726: the critical Reynolds number. These relations are derived by solving the dispersion equation~(\ref{eq20}). The parameter region above the critical curve
727: denotes where the nonlinear growth of the MRI can be expected and MRI driven turbulence will be sustained.}
728: \label{fig10}
729: \end{center}
730: \end{figure}
731: \clearpage
732: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%---------------------- END OF PAPER ------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
733: \end{document}
734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
735: