1: \documentstyle[pre,aps,multicol,epsfig]{revtex}

2: %\documentstyle[preprint,pre,epsfig,aps,eqsecnum]{revtex}

3: %\pagestyle{plain}

4: 

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \draft

8: 

9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}

11: 

12: \title{Systematic weakly nonlinear analysis of interfacial instabilities in Hele--Shaw flows}

13: 

14: \author{

15: E. Alvarez--Lacalle, J. Casademunt and J. Ort\'{\i}n. }

16: \address{

17:  Departament d'Estructura i Constituents de la Mat\`eria\\

18: Universitat de Barcelona,

19: Av. Diagonal, 647, E-08028 Barcelona, Spain}

20: \date{\today}

21: \maketitle

22: 

23: 

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: We develop a systematic method to derive all orders of mode

27: couplings in a weakly nonlinear approach to the dynamics of the

28: interface between two immiscible viscous fluids in a Hele--Shaw

29: cell.  The method is completely general.  It includes both the

30: channel geometry driven by gravity and pressure, and the radial

31: geometry with arbitrary injection and centrifugal driving.  We

32: find the finite radius of convergence of the mode--coupling

33: expansion.  In the channel geometry we carry out the calculation

34: up to third--order couplings, which is necessary to account for

35: the time--dependent Saffman--Taylor finger solution and the case

36: of zero viscosity contrast.  Both in the channel and the radial

37: geometries, the explicit results provide relevant analytical

38: information about the role that the viscosity contrast and the

39: surface tension play in the dynamics.  We finally check the

40: quantitative validity of different orders of approximation against

41: a physically relevant, exact time--dependent solution.  The

42: agreement between the low order approximations and the exact

43: solution is excellent within the radius of convergence, and

44: reasonably good even beyond that.

45: \end{abstract}

46: 

47: \noindent PACS: 47.20.Ma, 47.20.Hw, 47.54.+r, 47.20.Ky

48: 

49: \section{Introduction}

50: 

51: The morphological instability of fluid interfaces in Hele--Shaw flows

52: \cite{Bensimon86,Saffman86} has become a paradigm of interfacial

53: pattern formation in nonequilibrium systems

54: \cite{Pelce88,LangerlesHouches,Kesslerkop88}.  As opposed to the most

55: commonly studied ``bulk'' pattern forming systems \cite{Crosshoh93},

56: the inherent difficulties of the free--boundary problems associated to

57: interfacial growth makes the latter even more elusive to analytical

58: treatment.  As a prototype of interfacial instabilities in

59: diffusion--limited growth problems (including for instance dendritic

60: growth, solidification of mixtures, chemical electrodeposition, flame

61: propagation, etc.) the Saffman--Taylor problem \cite{Saffman58} is a

62: relatively simple case, both theoretically and experimentally,

63: well suited to gain insight into generic dynamical features in the

64: broad context of nonlinear interface phenomena.

65: 

66: The intrinsic difficulty of free--boundary problems is manifest in

67: the fact that the interface dynamics is highly non--local.

68: Furthermore, the nature of the instability (except in some cases,

69: such as in directional solidification of binary alloys) usually

70: produces non--saturated growth, which inevitably results in a

71: highly nonlinear dynamics.  In bulk instabilities, when the

72: control parameter is near threshold, the traditional weakly

73: nonlinear techniques lead to a universal description of patterns

74: in terms of amplitude equations, based on center manifold

75: reduction \cite{Crosshoh93,Manneville90}.  These techniques,

76: however, are not so useful for interfacial problems in which

77: nonlinearities do not saturate the growth.  This is the case for

78: instance of viscous fingering.  In the case of the channel

79: geometry (Saffman--Taylor problem) \cite{Bensimon86,Saffman58} the

80: interface restabilizes in a nontrivial morphology (the

81: Saffman--Taylor finger) which keeps growing at a finite rate.  For

82: circular geometries \cite{Paterson81,JDChen89} the patterns do not

83: reach an equivalent steady state and the interplay of

84: tip--splitting events and screening effects may result in a

85: variety of complicated morphologies.  In these problems all the

86: weakly nonlinear techniques apply only to a transient in the early

87: nonlinear regime.  Nevertheless, compared to the more traditional

88: ones \cite{Crosshoh93,Manneville90}, the weakly nonlinear analysis

89: developed in this paper is not restricted to situations near the

90: instability threshold, where a separation of scales is exploited.

91: Instead, we expand on the amplitudes of the whole spectrum of

92: modes.

93: 

94: In this paper we will deal both with channel and radial geometry

95: Hele--Shaw flows.  In the traditional Saffman--Taylor problem

96: (channel geometry) the pressure-- and gravity--driven

97: instabilities can be formally mapped into each other in the

98: appropriate reference frames, so there is really no different

99: interface dynamics for the two physical situations.  The problem,

100: then, contains two independent dimensionless parameters, namely, a

101: dimensionless surface tension $B$ and the viscosity contrast or

102: Atwood ratio $A$ \cite{Trygvason83}.  In the radial geometry,

103: though, there is no such formal mapping.  We will see that the

104: injection and the centrifugal forcing are not equivalent and three

105: independent parameters must be considered.

106: 

107: The situation most commonly studied in the literature is the high

108: viscosity contrast limit, $A=1$, where one of the two fluids is

109: non--viscous \cite{Bensimon86} (typically air displacing a viscous

110: fluid).  The singular perturbation character of the surface

111: tension $B$ has received most of the attention as responsible for

112: the subtle mechanism of {\it steady--state selection}, namely the

113: fact that surface tension ``selects'' a single finger solution out

114: of a continuum of solutions for $B=0$

115: \cite{Hong86,Shraiman86,Combescot86}.  More recently, the crucial

116: role of surface tension in the \it dynamics \rm of fingering

117: patterns has been pointed out.  Siegel and Tanveer

118: \cite{Tanveer93,Siegelprl96,Siegeljfm96} have shown that the

119: exact, nonsingular time--dependent solutions known for the case

120: with $B=0$ may differ significantly from the corresponding ones

121: with $B \rightarrow 0^{+}$ after a time which is of order one

122: ($B^{0}$).  In practice, this implies that exact solutions of the

123: problem with $B=0$ (including those with no finite time

124: singularities) may lead to completely incorrect asymptotic

125: behaviour as compared to the regularized ones, with $B\ll 1$.  A

126: careful analysis of these questions may be found in

127: Ref.\cite{Magdaleno00}.  Notice however that such analysis

128: restricts to small $B$, while in many cases (for instance, for

129: fingers emerging naturally from the linear instability, with the

130: characteristic length scale of the linearly most unstable mode)

131: the effective dimensionless surface tension is necessarily $B \sim

132: 1$.  Understanding the dynamics of finger competition in typical

133: experimental conditions thus requires considering relatively large

134: values of $B$, for which the perturbative techniques of

135: \cite{Tanveer93,Siegelprl96,Siegeljfm96} fail.

136: 

137: On the other hand, an important role of viscosity contrast $A$

138: in the dynamics of finger competition has been observed both numerically

139: \cite{Trygvason83,Trygvason85} and experimentally

140: \cite{Maher85,Difranjima89,Difranjimb89}.  A careful characterization

141: of the interface evolution has shown that for $A=0$ the finger

142: competition process is ineffective, and that the system does not

143: approach the usual single finger Saffman--Taylor attractor

144: \cite{Casademunt91,Casademunt94}.  Although the nature or existence

145: of other attractors is still an open question, it seems that the

146: basin of attraction of the Saffman--Taylor solution does depend on

147: $A$, and is particularly sensitive to $A$ in the neighborhood of $A

148: \simeq 1$.  In any case, it is clear that the viscosity contrast

149: plays also a crucial role in the highly nonlinear regime, and that

150: tuning $A$ in its full range is necessary to elucidate some of the

151: important open questions.

152: 

153: Finally, an interesting interplay between $B$ and $A$ in

154: connection with the selection problem is apparent in that, despite

155: the fact that single finger stationary solutions of any width do

156: exist for $B=0$ regardless of viscosity contrast $A$, the only

157: single finger time dependent solution of the $A=1$ ($B=0$) problem

158: which is also a solution for any viscosity contrast $A$ is the one

159: that fills one half of the channel \cite{Francessos1,Folch00},

160: which is precisely the solution selected by surface tension in the

161: limit $B \rightarrow 0$.  Whether deeper consequences concerning

162: the selection problem can be drawn from this fact is also an

163: interesting open question.

164: 

165: In order to gain analytical insight into these dynamical questions we

166: propose here a systematic weakly nonlinear expansion of the problem of

167: viscous fingering in Hele--Shaw flows, including all traditional setups

168: and the most recent one of rotating flows \cite{Carrillo96}.  The basic

169: motivation is to be able to extract information which is nonperturbative

170: in any of the two basic parameters, which are taken as completely

171: arbitrary.  The expansion parameter will be basically the mode

172: amplitudes.

173: 

174: In this paper we will focus on unstably stratified flows, for which

175: the approach is necessarily restricted to the early evolution of the

176: interface.  Although some of the nontrivial dynamic effects mentioned

177: above are associated to the highly nonlinear regime, it may be useful to

178: know within a controlled approximation to what extent those or other

179: effects show up already at the early stages of nonlinear mode coupling.

180: 

181: For the stably stratified case the weakly nonlinear analysis is

182: obviously valid for long times since all mode amplitudes decay with

183: time.  Although this configuration may seem trivial, this is not the

184: case in some situations, for instance when some external source

185: systematically drives the interface out of its equilibrium state (planar

186: or circular).  An example of this is the presence of noise sources, such

187: as the quenched noise associated to a porous medium \cite{porous}.  In a

188: study of the long--wavelength, low--frequency scaling properties of the

189: interface fluctuations, the knowledge of the lowest order nonlinear

190: terms and their dependence on parameters such as viscosity contrast is

191: crucial.  In this context the weakly nonlinear expansion is the starting

192: point of any Renormalization Group analysis of the relevant terms and of

193: the fixed points of the problem.  This line of research is clearly

194: beyond the scope of this paper and will not be pursued here.

195: 

196: The basic ideas of weakly nonlinear analysis developed here were

197: first applied to viscous fingering by Miranda and Widom

198: \cite{Mirandac98,Mirandar98} to both channel and circular geometry

199: (with fluid injection).  The present work is in part an extension

200: of those previous contributions in several directions, and in part

201: a detailed study of selected particular situations to assess the

202: validity and limitations of the approach.

203: 

204: First of all, we provide a fully systematic methodology which may be

205: carried out to arbitrary order.  We explicitly calculate the results

206: up to third order to include important situations for which the

207: second order couplings, first discussed in

208: Refs.\cite{Mirandac98,Mirandar98}, vanish identically, such as for

209: $A=0$ or for configurations with up--down symmetry (which includes the

210: physically relevant time dependent single finger solution with width

211: one half).  We give the explicit predictions both in real and Fourier

212: space.

213: 

214: In our formulation we also address the case of centrifugal forcing

215: of Hele--Shaw flows \cite{Schwartz89}.  The experimental study of

216: rotating Hele--Shaw flows has revealed a rich variety of new

217: phenomena \cite{Carrillo96,Carrillo99,Carrillo00}.  From a

218: theoretical point of view, new classes of exact solutions with

219: $B=0$ have been found \cite{Entov96,Crowdy1}.  The role of

220: rotation in the possible suppression of finite time cusp

221: singularities in the absence of surface tension has been discussed

222: in \cite{Rocco00}.  From an experimental point of view, important

223: differences in pattern morphology and new dynamical effects have

224: been found for low viscosity contrasts \cite{Alvarez01}.  It seems

225: thus important to have this case included in the weakly nonlinear

226: formalism.

227: 

228: In addition, our study extends the earlier results of Miranda

229: and Widom \cite{Mirandac98,Mirandar98} with the discussion of the

230: convergence of the weakly nonlinear analysis.  We find the explicit

231: exact criterion to assure uniform convergence of the series.  Beyond

232: that condition the series is asymptotic and different resummation

233: schemes are also explored.  The different orders of approximation,

234: including possible resummations, are carefully compared to exact

235: solutions for the case of a single finger configuration.  We find that

236: in some cases the agreement even at relatively low orders is quite

237: remarkable.

238: 

239: The layout of the rest of the paper is as follows:  in Section

240: \ref{Sec:2} we introduce the formalism.  Section \ref{Sec:3} deals with

241: the derivation of the weakly nonlinear equations and their application

242: to Hele--Shaw flows in channel geometry.  The analysis of the radial

243: geometry is carried out in Section \ref{Sec:4}, and Section \ref{Sec:5}

244: presents a numerical analysis of exact and approximate solutions.  The

245: main results and the conclusions are summarized in Section

246: \ref{conclusions}.

247: 

248: 

249: \section{Vortex sheet formalism}

250: \label{Sec:2}

251: 

252: \subsection{Channel Geometry}

253: 

254: Let us first consider the Hele--Shaw problem in the channel

255: geometry.  We consider fluid 1 (viscosity $\mu_{1}$, density

256: $\rho_{1}$) below fluid 2 ($\mu_{2},\rho_{2}$) (Fig.\

257: \ref{Figcanal}).  The $\hat{z}$ axis is perpendicular to the cell.

258: A velocity $V_{\infty}$ is imposed at infinity in the $\hat{y}$

259: direction.  Gravity points from fluid 2 to fluid 1.  The width of

260: the cell is $L$, the gap between plates is $b$, and the surface

261: tension between the fluids is $\sigma$.

262: 

263: The equations of motion for the interface and the boundary

264: conditions are well known \cite{Saffman58}.  Here we will use the

265: formulation of Tryggvason and Aref \cite{Trygvason83}.  We

266: introduce the velocity $\vec{U}=(\vec{u}_{1} + \vec{u}_{2})/2 $ as

267: the mean of the two limiting values of the velocities from both

268: sides of the interface ($\vec{u}_{1}, \vec{u}_{2}$) at a given

269: point.  This velocity $\vec{U}$ can be expressed in terms of the

270: vortex sheet distribution $\gamma$ at the interface as:

271: \be

272: \vec{U}(s,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi} P \int  \frac{\hat{z} \times

273: \left( \vec{r}(s,t)-\vec{r}(s^{\prime},t) \right) }{\mid

274: \vec{r}(s,t) -  \vec{r}(s^{\prime},t) \mid ^{2}} \gamma (s^{\prime} ,

275: t) ds^{\prime},

276: \label{Tr1}

277: \ee

278: where:

279: \be

280: \gamma = 2A({\bf \hat{U} \cdot \hat{s}}) + 2C{\bf \hat{y} \cdot

281: \hat{s}} + 2D \kappa _{s}, \label{2}

282: \ee

283: with $s$ the arclength, $\kappa$ the curvature, and

284: \be

285: A = \frac{\mu_{2} - \mu_{1}}{\mu_{2} + \mu_{1}},  \ \ \ C=\frac{g

286: b^{2} (\rho_{2} - \rho_{1})}{12(\mu_{2} + \mu_{1})} + AV_{\infty},

287: \ \ \ D=\frac{ \sigma b^{2}}{12(\mu_{2} + \mu_{1})}, \ \ \ \gamma

288: = (\vec{u}_{1} - \vec{u}_{2})\cdot\hat{s}.  \label{cons} \ee For

289: the purposes of this work it is convenient to rewrite these

290: equations in terms of the interface height $h(x)$, following

291: \cite{Goldstein98}.  The equations read:

292: \be

293: \vec{U}(x,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi} P \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{(

294: h(x^{\prime}) -  h(x) , x - x^{\prime}  ) }{ (x - x^{\prime})^{2} +

295: ( h(x^{\prime})-h(x) )^{2} } \tilde{\gamma}(x^{\prime}) dx^{\prime},

296: \label{tot1}

297: \ee

298: \be

299: \tilde{\gamma} = 2D\kappa_{x} + 2C h_{x} + 2A \vec{U} \cdot ( 1 ,

300: h_{x} ), \label{gm} \ee where:

301: \be

302: \tilde{\gamma}= \gamma \sqrt{ 1 + h_{x}^2 }  , \qquad \kappa = \frac{

303: h_{xx}}{( 1 +  h_{x}^{2} ) ^{3/2} }.

304: \label{ka}

305: \ee

306: The dependence of $h$ and $\tilde{\gamma}$ on time is not written

307: explicitly.

308: 

309: To complete the definition of the moving boundary problem the

310: continuity of the normal velocity at the interface is required.

311: This means that the velocity in the $y$ direction, $dh/dt$,

312: projected along the normal direction, is equal to the normal

313: component of the average velocity of the interface, $\vec{U} \cdot

314: \hat{n}$:

315: \be

316: \frac{dh}{dt} = U_{\hat{y}} -  U_{\hat{x}} h_{x}.

317: \label{tot3}

318: \ee

319: In Section \ref{Sec:3} we will consider  the interface in the

320: comoving frame ($\overline{h}=0$) and will look for the equation of

321: evolution of $h(x,t)$.

322: 

323: 

324: \subsection{Radial geometry}

325: 

326: We proceed to write the corresponding equations for a circular

327: cell rotating with angular velocity $\Omega$.  The initial

328: condition is $ R=R_{0}$ (constant) and we label the outer (inner)

329: fluid as the fluid 1 (2) which have known viscosities $\mu_1$,

330: $\mu_2$ and densities $\rho_1$, $\rho_2$ (Fig.\ \ref{Figradial}).

331: 

332: If we perform a change to polar coordinates in (\ref{Tr1}), and

333: from arclength $s$ to angle $\phi$, we get for the mean velocity:

334: \be

335: U_{\hat{r}}=\vec{U}(\phi_{1},t) \cdot \hat{r}=\frac{1}{2\pi} P

336: \int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{r_2^2 \sin(\phi_2- \phi_1)}{r_1^2

337: +r_2^2-2r_1r_2 \cos(\phi_2-\phi_1)} \tilde{\gamma} (\phi_2) d\phi_2,

338: \label{imp}

339: \ee

340: \be

341: U_{\hat{\phi}}=\vec{U}(\phi_{1},t) \cdot \hat{\phi}=\frac{1}{2\pi} P

342: \int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{r_1r_2 - r_{2}^{2}\cos(\phi_2- \phi_1)}{r_1^2

343: +r_2^2-2r_1r_2 \cos(\phi_2-\phi_1)}\tilde{\gamma} (\phi_2)  d\phi_2,

344: \label{impd}

345: \ee

346: where $\tilde{\gamma} =

347: \sqrt{1+(r_{\phi}/r)^2} (\vec{u}_1-\vec{u}_2)\cdot\hat{s}$, and we have

348: used the notation $r(\phi_{1},t) \equiv r_1$,

349: $r(\phi_{2},t) \equiv r_2$.

350: 

351: In the presence of sinks or sources the velocities $\vec{u}_{1}$ and

352: $\vec{u}_{2}$ which define $\vec{U}$ include only the solenoidal

353: part of the total velocity field.  For this reason, in the

354: presence of injection ($Q>0$) or withdrawal ($Q<0$) of the inner

355: fluid, Eqs. (\ref{imp}) and (\ref{impd}) must be supplemented with

356: the corresponding irrotational part of the velocity field.

357: 

358: In order to obtain the expression for the vorticity as a function of

359: $\vec{u}_{i}$, we use the local equations known for this problem

360: \cite{Carrillo96,Schwartz89}:

361: \be

362: \vec{\nabla}p_i=-\frac{12\mu_i}{b^2} \left(\vec{u}_i + \frac{Q}{2\pi

363: r}\hat{r}\right) + \Omega ^2 \rho_i r \hat{r}, \qquad i=1,2

364: \ee

365: and the boundary conditions:

366: \be

367: p_2 - p_1 = \sigma \kappa, \qquad \qquad u_{\hat{n}}^{(1)} =

368: u_{\hat{n}}^{(2)}.

369: \ee

370: After some algebra, we can write an expression for the vorticity as a

371: function of $\vec{U}$:

372: \be

373: \tilde{\gamma}=\frac{b^2}{12}\frac{2\sigma}{r(\mu_1 +

374: \mu_2)}\kappa_{\phi} + 2A \vec{U}\cdot (\frac{r_{\phi}}{r} , 1 ) + 2A

375: \frac{Q}{2\pi r^2}r_{\phi} - \frac{b^2}{12} \frac{ 2 \Omega ^2(\rho_2

376: - \rho_1)}{\mu_1+\mu_2}r_{\phi}, \label{gmvip} \ee with

377: \be

378: \kappa

379: =\frac{(r^2+2r_{\phi}^2-rr_{\phi\phi})}{(r^2+r_{\phi}^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}},

380: \qquad  A=\frac{\mu_2-\mu_1}{\mu_1+\mu_2}.

381: \ee

382: 

383: The last step is to derive the equation of the continuity of the

384: normal velocity.  Now the projection of the radial velocity along

385: the normal direction $\hat{n}$ has two contributions: the

386: solenoidal part of the average velocity, $\vec{U}$,

387: projected along $\hat{n}$, and the irrotational part of the mean interface

388: velocity, $\vec{U}_{irrot}$:

389: \be

390: \frac{dr}{dt} \hat{r} \cdot \hat{n} = \vec{U} \cdot \hat{n} +

391: \vec{U}_{irrot} \cdot \hat{n}  \ \ \rightarrow \ \

392: \frac{dr}{dt}=U_{\hat{r}} - \frac{r_{\phi}}{r}U_{\hat{\phi}} +

393: \frac{Q}{2 \pi r}. \label{nvir} \ee

394: 

395: This completes the system of equations for the two

396: geometries considered.  For an interface with no overhangs, Eqs.

397: (\ref{tot1}), (\ref{gm}), and (\ref{tot3}) are the starting point

398: for the generalized weakly nonlinear analysis in the rectangular

399: cell. Equations (\ref{imp}), (\ref{impd}), (\ref{gmvip}), and

400: (\ref{nvir}) play the same role for the analysis in

401: the rotating circular cell.

402: 

403: \section{Systematic weakly nonlinear analysis.  Channel geometry}

404: \label{Sec:3}

405: 

406: Our goal in this section is to introduce a systematic method to

407: derive an evolution equation of the interface in real space to a

408: given order in nonlinear couplings, in the channel geometry.  The

409: different orders of mode couplings will be ordered as powers of a

410: ``book--keeping'' parameter $\varepsilon$, to be defined below.  The

411: evolution of the interface will thus take the form:

412: \be

413: \frac{dh}{dt} = F[h] + \varepsilon G[h] + \varepsilon ^{2} I[h] +

414: \ldots, \label{generity} \ee where $F[h], G[h], \ldots$ are

415: nonlocal operators on the function $h(x,t)$, including

416: nonlinearities of order $n+1$ in the term of order $\varepsilon

417: ^{n}$.  The small parameter $\varepsilon$ is defined as the ratio

418: of two lengths, $\varepsilon=w/L$.  We take $w$ as a measure of

419: the characteristic scale of variation of the interface $h(x)$,

420: while $L$ is either the width of the cell or, alternatively, the

421: characteristic scale of variation in the $x$ direction.  The

422: weakly nonlinear regime is defined by the condition $w \ll L$.

423: 

424: The order $\varepsilon^0$ in Eq.  (\ref{generity}) corresponds to

425: the linearized equation.  The order $\varepsilon^1$, when written

426: in Fourier space, corresponds to the result of Miranda and Widom

427: \cite{Mirandac98}.  Here we will perform the explicit calculation

428: to one order higher in $\varepsilon$ (up to $I[h]$) which is the

429: leading nonlinear contribution in several important cases, such as

430: the one discussed in Section \ref{subsecdit}.  The systematics is

431: presented in the channel geometry for simplicity.

432: 

433: 

434: \subsection{Dimensionless equations, expansion and convergence}

435: \label{SectionIIIA}

436: 

437: We scale the interface height with $w$, the coordinate $x$ with $L$,

438: and the time with $L/C$, where the velocity $C$ has been defined in

439: (\ref{cons}).

440: 

441: The equations (\ref{tot1}), (\ref{gm}), (\ref{ka}), and

442: (\ref{tot3}) become:

443: \be

444: \vec{U}(x,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi} P \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

445: \frac{(\varepsilon \left[h(x^{\prime}) -  h(x)\right] , x -

446: x^{\prime} ) }{ (x - x^{\prime})^{2} \left\{ 1 + \varepsilon^{2}

447: \left[\frac{  h(x^{\prime})-h(x)}{x^{\prime}-x}\right] ^2 \right\}}

448: \tilde{\gamma}(x^{\prime}) dx^{\prime}, \label{gete}

449: \ee

450: \be

451: \tilde{\gamma} = 2B\kappa_{x} + 2 \varepsilon h_{x} + 2A \vec{U}

452: \cdot ( 1 , \varepsilon h_{x} ), \label{gmvera}

453: \ee

454: where

455: \be

456: B =\frac{\sigma b^{2}}{12CL^{2}( \mu_1+\mu_2)}, \ \ \ \kappa =

457: \frac{\varepsilon h_{xx}}{( 1 + \varepsilon ^{2} h_{x}^{2} ) ^{3/2}

458: },

459: \ee

460: and

461: \be

462: \frac{dh}{dt} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon} U_{\hat{y}} - U_{\hat{x}}

463: h_{x}. \label{dhdt}

464: \ee

465: 

466: The starting point of our approach is an expansion of $\vec{U}$,

467: $\tilde{\gamma}$ and $\kappa$ in powers of $\varepsilon$.  Notice

468: that the term

469: $\left[ h(x^{\prime})-h(x) \right] ^2 \ \left[

470: x^{\prime}-x \right] ^2$ between curly

471: brackets in (\ref{gete}) is bounded provided that $h_x$ does not

472: diverge.  Equation (\ref{dhdt}) thus takes the form:

473: \be

474: \frac{dh}{dt} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon}U_{\hat{y}}^{(0)} +

475: U_{\hat{y}}^{(1)} -  h_{x} U_{\hat{x}}^{(0)} + \varepsilon

476: (U_{\hat{y}}^{(2)} -  h_{x} U_{\hat{x}}^{(1)}) + \cdots,

477: \label{devel}

478: \ee

479: 

480: Before pursuing the calculation in detail, let us point out that

481: the $\varepsilon$--expansion in Eq.(\ref{devel}) has a finite

482: radius of convergence.  This is guaranteed by the properties of

483: uniform convergence of both the expansion of the denominator in

484: Eq.(\ref{gete}) and the curvature.  These properties allow us

485: to commute the expansion with the integral in Eq.(\ref{gete}) and

486: yield a convergent series of the form (\ref{devel}).  The

487: radius of convergence of the expansion of the denominator of

488: Eq.(\ref{gete}) is given by the condition

489: $\varepsilon^2

490: \left[ h(x^{\prime})-h(x) \right] ^2 \ \left[

491: x^{\prime}-x \right] ^2 < 1$,

492: while the convergence of the curvature expansion is assured by the

493: condition $\varepsilon^2 h^2_x < 1$.  In the nonscaled original

494: variables, the two conditions for convergence coincide, and read

495: $MAX(|h_x|)<1$.  If $|h_x|<1$ in the whole domain of integration,

496: then the $\varepsilon$--expansion converges.  If the condition is

497: not fulfilled in some intervals, then Eq.(\ref{devel}) is an

498: asymptotic expansion.  Even in this case, the expansion contains

499: useful information about the original problem.

500: 

501: An interesting case is $A=0$ which makes the vorticity independent

502: of $\vec{U}$ in Eq.(\ref{gete}), so that Eq.(\ref{dhdt}) becomes a

503: closed equation for $h(x,t)$.  Then, in Eq.(\ref{devel}) it is

504: easy to show that $U_{\hat{y}}^{(n)}=0$ when $n$ is even and

505: $U_{\hat{x}}^{(n)}=0$ when $n$ is odd, a property that makes the

506: even power terms of the expansion in Eq.(\ref{devel}) to vanish.

507: 

508: 

509: \subsection{First and second order expansion ($\varepsilon ^0$ and

510: $\varepsilon ^1$)}

511: 

512: Following the scheme introduced in the previous section we obtain

513: from Eq.(\ref{gete}) that:

514: \be

515: U_{\hat{x}}^{(0)} = 0, \qquad U_{\hat{x}}^{(1)} = \frac{1}{2\pi} P

516: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{  h(x^{\prime}) -  h(x)  }{ (x -

517: x^{\prime})^{2}} \tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}(x^{\prime}) dx^{\prime},

518: \ee

519: \be

520: U_{\hat{y}}^{(0)} = \frac{1}{2\pi} P \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

521: \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}(x^{\prime})}{x - x^{\prime}}

522: dx^{\prime}, \qquad U_{\hat{y}}^{(1)} =  \frac{1}{2\pi} P

523: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{\tilde{\gamma}^{(1)}(x^{\prime})}{x

524: - x^{\prime}} dx^{\prime}.

525: \ee

526: Since $\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}=2B\kappa_{x}^{(0)} + 2AU_{\hat{x}}^{(0)}=0$

527: we get $U_{\hat{x}}^{(1)}=U_{\hat{y}}^{(0)}=0$.  With this result we can

528: study the first order term in the vorticity equation:

529: \be

530: \tilde{\gamma} ^{(1)}(x) =2B\kappa_{x}^{(1)} + 2h_{x} +

531: 2AU_{\hat{x}}^{(1)} + 2A h_{x}U_{\hat{y}}^{(0)}.

532: \ee

533: Taking into account the definition of the Hilbert Transform:

534: \be

535: H[f(x^{\prime})]= \frac{1}{\pi} P \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

536: \frac{f(x^{\prime})}{x^{\prime} - x} dx^{\prime}, \ee

537: Eq.(\ref{devel}) up to order $\varepsilon ^0$ reads:

538: \be

539: \frac{dh}{dt} =

540: - H[Bh_{x^{\prime}x^{\prime}x^{\prime}} +

541: h_{x^{\prime}}].  \label{deht}

542: \ee

543: The linear operator $F[h]$ in Eq.(\ref{generity}) thus reads explicitly:

544: \be

545: F[h] = \frac{1}{\pi} P \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

546: \frac{\left(h + Bh_{x^{\prime}x^{\prime}}\right)_{x^{\prime}} }{x -

547: x^{\prime}} dx^{\prime} .

548: \ee

549: 

550: Writing $h(x,t)$ as a superposition of Fourier

551: modes in Eq.(\ref{deht}) we recover the linear dispersion relation:

552: \be

553: \frac{\dot{\delta} _{k}(t)}{\delta _{k}(t)} = \lambda (k) = \mid k

554: \mid (1 - Bk^{2}).

555: \ee

556: We will take $k$ as an integer but we should

557: keep in mind that, upon restoring dimensions, $k$ should

558: become $(2 \pi/L)n$, with $n$ integer.

559: 

560: Let us pursue the systematics of the method by computing the

561: next order in $\varepsilon$ in Eq.(\ref{dhdt}):

562: \be

563: \frac{dh}{dt} = U_{\hat{y}}^{(1)} + \varepsilon  U_{\hat{y}}^{(2)}

564: = F[h] + \varepsilon G[h].

565: \ee

566: The computation of $U_{\hat{y}}^{(2)}$ requires an expression of

567: the vorticity up to second order.  This includes the

568: evaluation of $U_{\hat{x}}^{(2)}$, which must be computed from the

569: first order term of the vorticity.  We get:

570: \be

571: U_{\hat{x}}^{(2)}= H\left[ \left(h(x^{\prime})

572: f(x^{\prime})\right)_{x^{\prime}}\right] -

573: h(x)H[f_{x^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})], \label{unavez}

574: \ee

575: with $f(x) \equiv (Bh_{xx} +h)_{x}=\tilde{\gamma}^{(1)}(x)/2$, and:

576: \be

577: U_{\hat{y}}^{(2)} = A \left\{ H \left[h_{x^{\prime}}

578: H[f(x^{\prime\prime})]\right] + H \left[ h(x^{\prime})

579: H[f_{x^{\prime\prime}}(x^{\prime\prime})]\right] +

580: (hf)_{x}\right\}.

581: \ee

582: Taking the Fourier transform, we obtain:

583: \be

584: \dot{\delta}_k  = \lambda (k) \delta_k  + \varepsilon A \mid k

585: \mid \sum_{s=-\infty}^{+\infty}\left[1 - \mbox{sgn}(ks) \right]

586: \lambda (s) \delta_s (t) \delta_{k-s} (t),

587: \label{secmod}

588: \ee

589: which coincides with the result of Miranda and Widom in Ref.

590: \cite{Mirandac98}.

591: 

592: 

593: \subsection{Third order expansion ($\varepsilon ^2$)}

594: 

595: The expansion to order $\varepsilon^2$ is necessary to account for

596: the lowest order nonlinearities in the case of zero viscosity

597: contrast, and for other relevant situations such as the time

598: dependent Saffman--Taylor finger solutions (section

599: \ref{subsecdit}).  We now have:

600: \be

601: \frac{dh}{dt} = {\cal{O}}(\varepsilon^0) +

602: {\cal{O}}(\varepsilon^1) + \varepsilon ^2 (U_{\hat{y}}^{(3)} -

603: h_xU_{\hat{x}}^{(2)} ) + \cdots \ee We have already computed

604: $U_{\hat{x}}^{(2)}$ in Eq. (\ref{unavez}).  On the other hand:

605: \be

606: U_{\hat{y}}^{(3)}= - \frac{1}{2} H[

607: \tilde{\gamma}^{(3)}(x^{\prime})] + \frac{1}{2 \pi} P

608: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \frac{ \left[h(x^{\prime}) -

609: h(x)\right]^2 }{ ( x^{\prime}-x)^{3}} \tilde{\gamma}

610: ^{(1)}(x^{\prime}) dx^{\prime}. \label{uyt} \ee Integrating twice

611: by parts, the last integral can also be written as a Hilbert

612: Transform.  After some algebra we obtain the explicit form of the

613: operator $I[h]$ containing the cubic nonlinearities in

614: Eq.(\ref{generity}), which reads:

615: \be

616: \begin{array}{ll}

617: I[h] = & \frac{3}{2}H[ g(x^{\prime})]  +

618: \frac{1}{2}H \left[ \left( f(x^{\prime}) [ h(x)-h(x^{\prime})]^2

619: \right) _{x^{\prime}x^{\prime}}\right] \\

620: & -h_x H\left[\left( f(x^{\prime}) [h(x^{\prime}) - h(x)]

621: \right) _{x^{\prime}}\right] + V[h,A]

622: \end{array}

623: \ee

624: with:

625: \be

626: V[h,A]=A^2 H \left[h(x^{\prime})H

627: [\tau_{x^{\prime\prime}}(x^{\prime\prime})] +

628: h_{x^{\prime}}(x^{\prime})H[\tau(x^{\prime\prime})]\right] + A^2

629: (h\tau)_{x},

630: \ee

631: and:

632: \be

633: g(x)=B\left(h_{xx}h_x^2\right)_x, \qquad \tau(x)=U_{\hat{x}}^{(2)} +

634: h_xU_{\hat{y}}^{(1)}=\frac {\tilde {\gamma}^{(2)}(x)} {2A}.

635: \ee

636: 

637: The same result in Fourier space takes the form:

638: \be

639: \dot{\delta} _{k}(t)= {\cal{O}}(1,\varepsilon) + \varepsilon^2

640: \sum_{s,l=-\infty}^{+\infty} \delta_{l} \delta_{s-l}\delta_{k-s}

641: \left[A^2 T(k,s,l) - \frac{3}{2}B Y(k,s,l) + W(k,s,l)\right],

642: \label{triorder}

643: \ee

644: with:

645: \be

646: T(k,s,l)=\mid k \mid \mid s \mid \lambda (l) \left[1 -

647: \mbox{sgn}(ks)\right] \left[1 - \mbox{sgn}(ls)\right],

648: \ee

649: \be

650: Y(k,s,l)=\mid k \mid l^2(s-l)(k-s),

651: \ee

652: \be

653: W(k,s,l)=\left[l\left(\frac{l}{2}+k-s\right) -s k \mbox{ sgn}(ls) +

654: \frac{k^2}{2}  \mbox{ sgn}(kl)\right] \lambda(l).

655: \ee

656: 

657: It is clear that the viscosity contrast in Eq.(\ref{triorder})

658: appears squared because of the reflection symmetry  (the

659: simultaneous change $A \rightarrow -A$ and $h \rightarrow -h$ is a

660: dynamical symmetry of the problem).  Symmetry reasons alone,

661: however, do not allow to discard a three mode coupling

662: contribution when $A=0$.  We see from our calculation that

663: a three mode coupling is indeed present independently of $A$.

664: 

665: Following this scheme, the fourth order will carry a contribution

666: proportional to $A$, and another proportional to $A^{3}$, for

667: symmetry reasons.  The fifth order will carry a contribution

668: independent of $A$ and two others, proportional to $A^2$ and

669: $A^4$, respectively.  This scheme will continue for subsequent

670: orders.

671: 

672: 

673: \subsection{Analysis of the time dependent single finger solution}

674: \label{subsecdit}

675: 

676: In this section we perform a detailed analysis of the weakly nonlinear

677: expansion in cases where exact solutions are known, namely single finger

678: configurations with $B=0$.  This allows to study how exact properties of

679: solutions show up at the different orders, particularly concerning the

680: role of viscosity contrast $A$.

681: 

682: At this point it is worth recalling that the case $A=1$ allows for

683: a continuum of Saffman--Taylor finger solutions corresponding to

684: different finger widths.  A continuum of time dependent exact

685: solutions, leading to those stationary states, is also known for

686: $A=1$.  However, for $A \neq 1$ only the one of width

687: $\lambda=\frac{1}{2}$ remains a solution, $\lambda$ being the

688: ratio of the finger width to the width of the channel.  This

689: result, which has been recently addressed in Ref.\cite{Folch00}

690: although it was first discovered in Ref.\cite{Francessos1}, points

691: out an intriguing connection between the width selection problem

692: and the dynamical role of viscosity contrast.  Here we will

693: analyze the interplay between $A$ and $\lambda$ in the early

694: nonlinear regime, and elucidate at what stage of the nonlinear

695: dynamics does the viscosity contrast $A \neq 1$ prevents the

696: possibility of having $\lambda\neq 1/2$.

697: 

698: From now on we consider $L=2\pi$, $B=0$, $C=1$, and we take as

699: scaling velocity $(1 - \lambda) C = (1 -

700: \lambda)\equiv\frac{\eta}{2}$.  Conformal mapping techniques

701: enable us to write the single finger solution of this problem in

702: the form \cite{Francessos1,Folch00}:

703: \be

704: f(w,t)=- \ln w + d(t) + \eta \ln (1 - \alpha(t) w), \label{mappi}

705: \ee where $f(w,t) = y + ix$, is an analytic function inside the

706: unit disk in the $w$--complex plane, which maps that disk into the

707: physical region occupied by the more viscous fluid.  The interface

708: is obtained in a parametric form by setting $w=e^{i \theta }$.

709: The functions $\alpha (t)$, $d(t)$ verify:

710: \be

711: \dot{d}(t)=\frac{\eta}{2-\eta}\left(\frac{\eta}{2} -

712: \frac{\dot{\alpha}(t)}{\alpha (t)}\right), \label{setun}

713: \ee

714: \be

715: \frac{\dot{\alpha}(t)}{\alpha (t)} = \frac{\eta} { 2 +

716: \eta(\eta-2) + \eta(2-\eta)\frac{1+\alpha^2(t)}{1-\alpha^2(t)} }.

717: \label{setdos}

718: \ee

719: To obtain an expression for $h(x)$ in the weakly nonlinear regime of

720: the evolution, $\alpha(t)$ and $d(t)$ are expanded in powers of a

721: small parameter $\nu$:

722: \be

723: d(t) = d^{(0)}(t) + \nu d^{(1)}(t) + \nu ^2 d^{(2)}(t)+ \cdots \ \

724: , \qquad \alpha (t) = \nu \alpha^{(0)} (t) + \nu ^2 \alpha ^{(1)}

725: (t).

726: \ee

727: Introducing these expansions in Eqs.(\ref{setun}) and

728: (\ref{setdos}) we obtain:

729: \be

730: \dot{d}^{(0)}=\dot{d}^{(1)}=0 , \qquad \dot{d}^{(2)}=

731: \frac{\eta^3}{2} (\alpha^{(0)})^2(t), \qquad \dot{d}^{(3)}= \eta

732: ^3 \alpha^{(0)}\alpha^{(1)}, \ \ \cdots

733: \ee

734: \be

735: \dot{\alpha}^{(0)}=\frac{\eta}{2}\alpha^{(0)}, \qquad

736: \dot{\alpha}^{(1)}=\frac{\eta}{2}\alpha^{(1)}, \qquad

737: \dot{\alpha}^{(2)}=\frac{\eta}{2}\left(\alpha^{(2)} -\eta (2 -

738: \eta)(\alpha^{(0)})^3\right), \ \ \cdots \label{alfas} \ee which

739: will be useful later.  From (\ref{mappi}) and (\ref{setun}) we

740: obtain:

741: \be

742: \begin{array}{ll}

743:  y=h= &  -\nu \eta \alpha^{(0)} \cos \theta -

744: \nu^2 \left( \eta \alpha^{(1)} \cos \theta +

745: \frac{\eta}{2}(\alpha^{(0)})^2 \cos 2\theta - d^{(2)} \right) \\ & -

746: \nu ^3 \left( \eta \alpha^{(2)}\cos\theta + \eta

747: \alpha^{(0)}\alpha^{(1)}\cos 2\theta + \frac{\eta}{3}

748: (\alpha^{(0)})^3 \cos 3\theta -d^{(3)} \right)+ {\rm \cal{O}}(\nu^4)

749: , \label{hexp}

750: \end{array}

751: \ee

752: \be

753: x= -\theta -\nu \eta \alpha^{(0)} \sin \theta - \nu^2 \left( \eta

754: \alpha^{(1)} \sin \theta + \frac{\eta}{2}(\alpha^{(0)})^2 \sin 2

755: \theta \right) + {\rm \cal{O}}(\nu^3).

756: \ee

757: This last equation can be inverted in a systematic way to get:

758:  \be

759: \theta = -x + \nu \eta \alpha^{(0)} \sin x + \nu^2 \left( \eta

760: \alpha^{(1)} \sin x + \frac{\eta}{2} (1-\eta)(\alpha^{(0)})^2 \sin

761: 2x \right) + {\rm \cal{O}}(\nu^3).

762: \ee

763: The relation between $\theta$ and $x$ can be inverted in Eq.(\ref{hexp})

764: and the cosine functions expanded.  We obtain in this way the following

765: expression for $h(x,t)$:

766: \be

767: \begin{array}{ll}

768: h(x,t)= & - \nu \eta \alpha^{(0)} \cos x - \nu^2 \eta\left( \alpha^{(1)}

769: \cos x + \frac{1-\eta}{2} (\alpha^{(0)})^2 \cos 2x\right) + \\

770: & \nu^3 \eta \left\{ (\eta-1) \alpha^{(0)} \alpha^{(1)} \cos 2x +

771: \left(\frac{3\eta}{8}(\eta-2)(\alpha^{(0)})^3 -

772: \alpha^{(2)}\right) \cos x + \right. \\

773: & \left. \left( \frac{3\eta}{8}(2-\eta) -

774: \frac{1}{3} \right) (\alpha^{(0)})^3 \cos 3x\right\} + {\rm

775: \cal{O}}(\nu^4) . \label{hexpan}

776: \end{array}

777: \ee

778: 

779: In order to follow the scheme developed in the previous section,

780: we must measure $h(x,t)$ in units of its characteristic amplitude

781: $\nu$.  In this way, the previous equation (\ref{hexpan}) takes

782: the form:

783: \be

784: h=h^{(0)} + \nu h^{(1)}+ \nu^2 h^{(2)} + {\rm \cal{O}}(\nu^3),

785: \label{simexp}

786: \ee

787: where $h(x,t)$ represents now $h(x,t)/ \nu$,

788: and the small parameter $\nu$ is directly comparable to the small

789: parameter $\varepsilon$ of the previous section.  The expression

790: for $h(x,t)$ can be regarded as a series of modes of decreasing

791: amplitude in our expansion (\ref{generity}) (written in the units

792: of this problem), and matching the corresponding powers in either

793: $\varepsilon$ or $\nu$ we obtain:

794: \be

795: \frac{dh^{(0)}}{dt}=\frac{\eta}{2}F[h^{(0)}]

796: \ee

797: to order $\varepsilon ^{0}$.

798: 

799: This identity can be verified (independently of $A$) by

800: substituting the expression of $h^{(0)}$ and using

801: Eqs.(\ref{alfas}) and (\ref{deht}) for the left and right hand

802: side respectively.  At order $\varepsilon$ we have:

803: \be

804: \frac{dh^{(1)}}{dt}=\frac{\eta}{2}\left(F[h^{(1)}] +

805: G[h^{(0)},h^{(0)}]\right) .

806: \ee

807: The second term of the right hand side gives no contribution, and we

808: obtain an interesting result:

809: the equation at order $\varepsilon$ is verified independently of

810: $\eta$ and $A$.  Hence, we cannot establish the difference between

811: $A=1$ (compatible with any $\eta$) and $A \neq 1$ (compatible only

812: with $\eta=1$) at this order.

813: 

814: The difference between these two situations arises at order

815: $\varepsilon^2$:

816: \be

817: \frac{dh^{(2)}}{dt}= \frac{\eta}{2} \left(F[h^{(2)}] +

818: G[h^{(0)},h^{(1)}] + L[h^{(0)},h^{(0)},h^{(0)}]\right).

819: \ee

820: Since the left hand side of the equation involves only the modes $\cos

821: x$, $\cos 2x$, and $\cos 3x$, the right hand side of the equation

822: must include these same modes with the same coefficients.  The

823: coefficients for $\cos 2x$ and $\cos 3x$ are easily matched.  For

824: $\cos x$ the left hand side reads:

825: \be

826: \left(\frac{\eta^3(\eta-2)}{16}(\alpha^{(0)})^3 -

827: \frac{\eta^2}{2}\alpha^{(2)}\right) \cos x,

828: \ee

829: where we have used Eq. (\ref{alfas}), and the right hand side reads:

830: \be

831: \left(\frac{3\eta^3(\eta-2)}{16}(\alpha^{(0)})^3

832: -\frac{\eta^2}{2}\alpha^{(2)}\right) \cos x +

833: A\frac{\eta^3(1-\eta)}{4}(\alpha^{(0)})^3 \cos x +

834: \frac{\eta^4}{8}(\alpha^{(0)})^3 \cos x.

835: \ee

836: Hence, the requirement for matching the coefficients on both sides is:

837: \be

838: \frac{\eta^3}{4}(1-\eta)=A \frac{\eta^3}{4}(1-\eta),

839: \ee

840: which is always true if $\eta=1$ ($\lambda=1/2$), but for $\eta \neq 1$

841: ($\lambda \neq 1/2$) it requires $A=1$.  This result shows that

842: the nontrivial relationship between $A$ and $\lambda$ which is

843: known from exact solutions is already manifest at

844: the early nonlinear stages of the dynamics.  This clearly illustrates

845: the potential usefulness of the weakly nonlinear expansion at a purely

846: analytical level, in that a dynamical property

847: of the problem which must be satisfied at all orders (in this case the

848: incompatibility of $A \neq 1$ and $\lambda \neq 1/2$) may be

849: detected at a low order in the expansion, without having to know the

850: exact solution to all orders.

851: 

852: If we pursue the expansion to higher orders,

853: the general expression for $h^{(n)}$ takes the form:

854: \be

855: h^{(n)}=\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} \beta_{k}^{(n)} (t) \cos(kx),

856: \label{eshden} \ee where each coefficient is a function of $\alpha

857: (t)$.  The even modes of the solution with $\eta=1$ have zero

858: coefficients because they must remain invariant under a change of

859: sign and translation by $\pi$.

860: 

861: So far in this section we have restricted ourselves to

862: $B=0$ in order to compare with exact results.  However, we can carry out

863: the analysis also for $B \neq 0$.  It can be shown that the structure of

864: the expression (\ref{eshden}) is preserved in this case.  The

865: coefficients $\beta_{k}^{(n)} (t)$ are obtained as solutions of a set

866: of differential equations which contain the surface tension $B$.  For

867: instance, to third order we have:

868: \be

869: h(x,t) = \left(\beta_1^{(0)} + \varepsilon \beta_1^{(1)} +

870: \varepsilon^2 \beta_1^{(2)}\right) \cos x + \left( \varepsilon

871: \beta_2^{(1)} + \varepsilon^2 \beta_2^{(2)}\right) \cos 2x +

872: \varepsilon^2 \beta_3^{(2)} \cos 3x,

873: \label{generalo}

874: \ee

875: which, introduced in Eq.(\ref{generity}), leads to the following

876: equations:

877: \be

878: \begin{array}{c}

879:  \dot{\beta}_1^{(0)}= V_0(1-B)\beta_1^{(0)}, \qquad

880: \dot{\beta}_1^{(1)}= V_0(1-B)\beta_1^{(1)}, \qquad

881: \dot{\beta}_2^{(1)}= 2V_0(1-4B)\beta_2^{(1)},  \\ \displaystyle{

882: \dot{\beta}_2^{(2)}= 2V_0(1-4B)\beta_2^{(2)}, \qquad

883: \dot{\beta}_3^{(2)}= 3V_0(1-9B) \beta_3^{(2)} -

884: \frac{9BV_0}{8}(\beta_1^{(0)})^3, } \\

885: \displaystyle{\dot{\beta}_1^{(2)}= V_0(1-B)\beta_1^{(2)} + A

886: V_0(1-B)\beta_2^{(1)}\beta_1^{(0)} - \frac{V_0}{8}(2-5B)

887: (\beta_1^{(0)})^3,}  \label{eqbet}

888: \end{array}

889: \ee once the dimensions are reintroduced.  In this way we can also

890: see how surface tension perturbs the dynamics at the weakly

891: nonlinear regime.  Clearly, at these early stages of the nonlinear

892: evolution there is no sign of the singular perturbation character

893: of surface tension, which, at the late stages of the evolution

894: will be responsible for the selection of the steady

895: state\cite{Bensimon86}.

896: 

897: 

898: \section{Application of the method to the rotating Hele--Shaw cell}

899: \label{Sec:4}

900: 

901: \subsection{Dimensionless equations in the radial geometry}

902: \label{dimeq-in-rad}

903: 

904: The $\varepsilon$ expansion in the channel geometry originated in

905: the different scaling of lengths in the $x$ and $y$ directions.

906: To perform an equivalent expansion in the radial geometry we first

907: split the function $r(\phi,t)$ in two parts, namely the radius of

908: the unperturbed circle and the departure from this circle:

909: \be

910: r(\phi,t) \qquad \rightarrow \qquad \sqrt{R_0^2 + \frac{Qt}{\pi}}

911: + r(\phi,t) = R(t) + r(\phi,t).

912: \ee

913: The largest length scale in the problem is given by $R(t)$, which is

914: only a constant in the

915: absence of injection.  For finite injection rate, $R(t)$ defines an

916: evolving (unstable) solution.  The proper scaling of

917: $r(\phi, t)$, which will define the weakly

918: nonlinear dynamics now, is not the naive extension of the scaling

919: defined in the channel geometry (namely $\varepsilon = w/R$, $w$ being

920: the typical departure from circularity).  In fact, this scaling would

921: mix different orders of the weakly nonlinear analysis.  The reason

922: for this was already pointed out by Miranda and

923: Widom \cite{Mirandar98}: in the radial geometry, mass

924: conservation implies that the zero mode (which in the channel geometry

925: is decoupled from the rest and drops out of the formulation)

926: has a higher order nonzero amplitude, since it must

927: satisfy a mass conservation relation which, to lowest order, reads:

928: \be

929: \delta_0 = - \frac{1}{2R} \sum_{k \neq 0} \mid \delta_k  \mid ^2.

930: \label{deze}

931: \ee

932: 

933: Following this observation, we split the deviation from $R$

934: in two terms, so that the radial function reads $r = R + \tilde{r} +

935: r_{0}$, where $r_0$ represents the zero mode (an expansion or

936: contraction of the circle), and $\tilde{r}$ the other modes.  We

937: scale them in the form $\tilde{r} \rightarrow w\tilde{r}$,

938: $r_{0} \rightarrow (w^2/R)r_{0}$, and write the position of the

939: interface $r(\phi)$ as:

940: \be

941: r(\phi) \rightarrow R( 1 + \varepsilon r(\phi) ),

942: \label{esca}

943: \ee

944: where:

945: \be

946: r(\phi)=\tilde{r}(\phi) +\varepsilon r_{0}.

947: \label{esco}

948: \ee

949: To simplify the notation, we have dropped out the time dependence.

950: 

951: The velocities will be scaled by:

952: \be

953: V_0 = \frac{1}{\mu_2 + \mu_1} \left(\frac{ Q (\mu_2 -\mu_1) }{2

954: \pi R} - \frac{b^2}{12} \Omega^2 (\rho_2 - \rho_1) R \right),

955: \ee

956: implying that time will be scaled by $R/V_0$.

957: Once equations (\ref{imp}), (\ref{impd}), (\ref{gmvip}), and

958: (\ref{nvir}) are made dimensionless, we have:

959: \be

960: \tilde{\gamma} = 2B\frac{\kappa_{\phi}}{1+\varepsilon r} + 2A\vec{U}

961: \cdot (\frac{\varepsilon r_{\phi}}{1+\varepsilon r} , 1 ) +

962: 2\varepsilon \left(\frac{C}{(1+\varepsilon r)^{2}} - D \right)

963: r_{\phi},

964: \label{qp3}

965: \ee

966: for the vorticity, where:

967: \be

968: \begin{array}{c}

969:  \displaystyle{ B=\frac{b^2}{12} \frac{\sigma}{(\mu_1 + \mu_2) V_0 R^2}, \qquad

970: C=\frac{QA}{2 \pi R V_0}, \qquad  D=\frac{b^2}{12} \frac{ \Omega

971: ^2 \triangle \rho R}{(\mu_1 + \mu_2) V_0},} \vspace{0.5cm} \\

972: \displaystyle{ \kappa=\frac{(1+\varepsilon r)^2 + 2 \varepsilon ^2

973: r_{\phi}^2 -\varepsilon (1+\varepsilon r)r_{\phi \phi}}{\left[

974: (1+\varepsilon r)^2 + \varepsilon ^2 r_{\phi}^2\right]

975: ^{\frac{3}{2}}} , \qquad

976: A=\frac{\mu_{2}-\mu_{1}}{\mu_{2}+\mu_{1}}, \qquad \triangle \rho =

977: \rho_2- \rho_1.} \label{kappa}

978: \end{array}

979: \ee

980: For the integrals:

981: \be

982: U_{\hat{r}}(\phi) = \frac{1}{4 \pi} P \int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{1 +

983: 2\varepsilon r_2 + \varepsilon^2r_2^2}{\tan \left(\frac{\phi_2 -

984: \phi_1}{2}\right) \left[1 + \varepsilon f(\phi_1,\phi_2) +

985: \varepsilon^2 g(\phi_1,\phi_2)\right]}\tilde{\gamma} (\phi_2 , t)

986: d\phi_2,\label{qp1}

987: \ee

988: \be

989: U_{\hat{\phi}}(\phi) = \frac{1}{4 \pi} P \int_{0}^{2\pi} \frac{1 +

990: \varepsilon f(\phi_1,\phi_2) + \varepsilon ^2 r_1 r_2 - (1+

991: 2\varepsilon r_2 + \varepsilon ^2r_2 ^2) \cos (\phi_2 - \phi_1) }{2

992: \sin ^2 \left(\frac{\phi_2 -\phi_1}{2}\right) \left[1 + \varepsilon

993: f(\phi_1,\phi_2) + \varepsilon^2

994: g(\phi_1,\phi_2)\right]}\tilde{\gamma} (\phi_2) d\phi_2, \label{qp2}

995: \ee

996: with:

997: \be

998: f(\phi_1,\phi_2) = r_1 + r_2, \qquad  g(\phi_1,\phi_2)= \frac{(r_1 -

999: r_2)^2}{4 \sin^2 \left(\frac{ \phi_2 -\phi_1 }{2}\right)} + r_1r_2,

1000: \ee

1001: and for the evolution of the deviation from $R(t)$:

1002: \be

1003: \varepsilon \frac {d\tilde{r}}{dt} + \varepsilon^2 \frac{dr_{0}}{dt}=

1004: U_{\hat{r}} - \varepsilon \frac{r_{\phi} U_{\hat{\phi}}}{1 +

1005: \varepsilon r}  + \frac{Q}{2 \pi R V_0} \left[ \frac{1}{1 +

1006: \varepsilon r} - ( 1 - \varepsilon^2 r_{0})\right]. \label{popoito}

1007: \ee

1008: 

1009: Eq.(\ref{popoito}) above is the only one which is sensitive to the

1010: different possible scalings of the deviation from circularity,

1011: due to the time derivatives.  The choice

1012: we propose is the only one which is truly systematic.  Other

1013: possibilities are not incorrect but will mix different orders of the

1014: weakly nonlinear expansion at a given order in $\varepsilon$.

1015: 

1016: 

1017: \subsection{The linear dispersion relation}

1018: 

1019: Our goal now is to obtain the linear dispersion relation and the

1020: leading weakly nonlinear corrections, in both real and Fourier

1021: space, and to discuss the interplay between rotation and injection

1022: at the early stages of the instability.

1023: 

1024: We will use the following definitions for the average of a function

1025: and for the Hilbert transform in the unit circle:

1026: \be

1027: \overline{f}  = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} f(\phi) d\phi, \qquad

1028: H[f(\phi^{\prime})] = \frac{1}{2\pi} P \int_{0}^{2\pi}

1029: f(\phi^{\prime}) \cot \left(\frac{\phi^{\prime} - \phi}{2}\right)

1030: d\phi^{\prime}.

1031: \ee

1032: The zero order of the vorticity and the two

1033: components of the velocity are:

1034: \be

1035: \tilde{\gamma}^{(0)} = 2AU_{\hat{\phi}}^{(0)},  \qquad

1036: U_{\hat{\phi}}^{(0)}=\frac{\overline{\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}}}{2},

1037:  \qquad U_{\hat{r}}^{(0)}= \frac{1}{2} H

1038: [\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}(\phi^{\prime})],

1039: \ee

1040: and thus:

1041: \be

1042: \tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}= A \overline{\tilde{\gamma}^{0}}.

1043: \ee

1044: This is different from its counterpart in the channel geometry.  Here

1045: the equations for the vorticity at consecutive orders require the

1046: knowledge of the average vorticity.  The

1047: equations are solved by averaging on both sides.  For example, at zero order,

1048: $A\neq1$ will lead to $\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}=0$, but for $A=1$,

1049: $\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}$ can be any constant.  The presence of an

1050: arbitrary constant is not a problem, since it is eliminated at

1051: each order in the equation for the evolution of the interface.

1052: 

1053: Expanding the equations up to first order, and using

1054: $\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}=0$, the linearized equation for the evolution

1055: of the interface deviation reads:

1056: \be

1057: \frac{d\tilde{r}}{dt}=U_{\hat{r}}^{(1)} - \frac{Q}{2\pi R

1058: V_0}\tilde{r}= \frac{1}{2}H[\tilde{\gamma}^{(1)}] - \frac{Q}{2\pi R

1059: V_0}\tilde{r},

1060: \ee

1061: with:

1062: \be

1063: \tilde{\gamma}^{(1)}= -2B(\tilde{r}+\tilde{r}_{\phi\phi})_{\phi} +

1064: 2(C-D)\tilde{r}_{\phi}.

1065: \ee

1066: We can now perform a Fourier transform of the equations and, after

1067: reintroducing the adequate dimensions, we find:

1068: \be

1069: \lambda (n)= \left(\frac{b^2}{12}\frac{\Omega^2 \triangle \rho}{\mu_1

1070: + \mu_2} - \frac{Q A}{2 \pi R^2}\right)\mid n \mid - \frac{b^2}{12

1071: R^3}\frac{\sigma}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}\mid n \mid (n^2-1) - \frac{Q}{2\pi

1072: R^2} \label{lrr}.

1073: \ee

1074: This is the linear dispersion relation found in

1075: \cite{Carrillo96}.

1076: 

1077: We now return to the question of the different

1078: scaling alternatives introduced at the end of Section

1079: \ref{dimeq-in-rad}.  Had we used the scaling $\varepsilon=w/R^2(t)$, the

1080: term $Q/(2 \pi R^2)$ in (\ref{lrr}) would have disappeared before

1081: reintroducing the dimensions.  On the contrary, for $\varepsilon=w$ this

1082: term becomes multiplied by a factor $2$.  These changes in the

1083: dimensionless linear dispersion relation come from the fact that a mode

1084: $\delta_{n}$ in the scaling adopted in (\ref{esca}) and (\ref{esco})

1085: becomes $\delta_{n}/R$ in the first of the scaling alternatives above.

1086: 

1087: The term $Q/(2 \pi R^2)$ at the end of Eq.  (\ref{lrr}) is

1088: stabilizing for positive injection rate ($Q>0$) and destabilizing

1089: for $Q<0$.  In a sense this is a purely geometric effect, which

1090: contributes to the growth or decay of modes due to the expansion

1091: or contraction of the base state.  As pointed out in

1092: \cite{Rocco00} the term $Q/(2 \pi R^2)$, which can be scaled out,

1093: must be distinguished from the rest, which do describe the

1094: intrinsic instability of the problem.  Disregarding that last

1095: term, it is then clear that injection and rotation ($CV_{0}$ and

1096: $DV_{0}$ respectively) play an equivalent role in the linear

1097: dispersion relation, since both appear multiplying $n$.  By

1098: choosing the proper viscosity and density contrasts, they can

1099: produce exactly the same stabilizing or destabilizing effect.

1100: This is the counterpart, in the radial geometry, of the

1101: equivalence between the roles of injection and gravity in the

1102: channel geometry.  In the channel geometry, however, the

1103: equivalence is exact and can thus be extended to all the nonlinear

1104: evolution (in the appropriate reference frame).  This is not the

1105: case in radial geometry, as shown in the next section.

1106: 

1107: 

1108: \subsection{Weakly nonlinear theory with rotation}

1109: 

1110: The purpose of this section is to derive the leading order

1111: nonlinear contributions for the general problem with both rotation

1112: and injection.  We first recall that mass conservation related the

1113: zero mode to the other modes.  In the original nonscaled variables

1114: this reads:

1115: \be

1116: \dot{\delta}_0 = - \frac{Q}{2 \pi R^2}\delta_0 - \frac{1}{R}\sum_{k

1117: \neq 0} \mid \delta_k \mid ^2 \lambda(k). \label{delzero}

1118: \ee

1119: To reproduce this result and the nonlinear couplings for the

1120: other modes we start with the equation for the interface at order

1121: $\varepsilon^2$:

1122: \be

1123: \frac{d\tilde{r}}{dt} + \varepsilon \frac{dr_{o}}{dt}= {\rm \cal{

1124: O}}(\varepsilon^{0}) + \varepsilon \left(U_{\hat{r}}^{(2)} +

1125: \frac{Q}{2\pi R V_0}\tilde{r}^2\right),

1126: \label{newman}

1127: \ee

1128: where we have used that $U_{\hat{\phi}}^{(1)}= U_{\hat{\phi}}^{(0)} =

1129: U_{\hat{r}}^{(0)} = \tilde{\gamma}^{(0)} =

1130: \overline{\tilde{\gamma}^{(0)}} = 0$.  The velocity

1131: $U_{\hat{r}}^{(2)}$ can be obtained from the expansion of

1132: $U_{\hat{r}}$:

1133: \be

1134: U_{\hat{r}}^{(2)} = \frac{1}{2}H[

1135: \tilde{\gamma}^{(2)}(\phi^{\prime})] +\frac{1}{2} H[(\tilde{r}(\phi

1136: ^{\prime}) - \tilde{r}(\phi))\tilde{\gamma}^{(1)} (\phi^{\prime})],

1137: \label{vrdos}

1138: \ee

1139: where:

1140: \be

1141: \tilde{\gamma}^{(2)} = 2B\kappa ^{(2)} - 2B\tilde{r}\kappa^{(1)} +

1142: 2A \tilde{r}_{\phi}U_{\hat{r}}^{(1)} + 2 AU_{\hat{\phi}}^{(2)}

1143: -4C\tilde{r}\tilde{r}_{\phi}.

1144: \ee

1145: $\kappa ^{(2)}$ and $U_{\hat{\phi}}^{(2)}$  can be computed from

1146: (\ref{kappa}) and (\ref{qp2}) respectively.  The latter involves only

1147: $\tilde{\gamma}^{(1)}$.  We obtain finally:

1148: \be

1149: \begin{array}{cc}\displaystyle{  \frac{d\tilde{r}}{dt} + \varepsilon

1150: \frac{dr_{o}}{dt} = {\rm \cal{O}} (\varepsilon^0) +  \varepsilon } &

1151:  \left( H \left[ B \kappa_{\phi^{\prime}}^{(2)} -

1152: \frac{C+D}{2} (\tilde{r}^2)_{\phi^{\prime}} \right]  +

1153: \tilde{r}H[s_{\phi^{\prime}}] + A H[H

1154: [(\tilde{r}s_{\phi^{\prime\prime}})_{ \phi^{\prime\prime}}]] \right.

1155: \\ & -  \left. A H \left[\tilde{r}(\phi^{\prime}) H[s_{\phi^{\prime\prime}

1156: \phi^{\prime\prime}}] +

1157: \tilde{r}_{\phi^{\prime}}H[s_{\phi^{\prime\prime}}] \right]

1158: +\frac{Q}{2 \pi R V_0} \tilde{r}^2 \right),  \label{urdos}

1159: \end{array}

1160: \ee

1161: with:

1162: \be

1163: \kappa^{(2)}= \tilde{r}^2 + \frac{\tilde{r}_{\phi}^2}{2}

1164: +2\tilde{r}\tilde{r}_{\phi\phi}, \qquad s_{\phi}=\left( B(\tilde{r}

1165: +\tilde{r}_{\phi\phi}) + (D-C)\tilde{r} \right)_{\phi}.

1166: \ee

1167: 

1168: By introducing a superposition of Fourier modes in $\tilde{r}$ we

1169: directly recover Eq.(\ref{delzero}).  For the other modes ($k \neq

1170: 0$) we get the result:

1171: \be

1172: \label{wnlrot}

1173: \dot{\delta}_n = \lambda(n)\delta_n + \sum_{k \neq 0,n} \delta_{k}

1174: \delta_{n-k}(F(k,n) + S(k,n) + \lambda(k) J(k,n)),

1175: \ee

1176: where:

1177: \be

1178: F(k,n) = \frac{\mid n \mid}{R} \left[ - \frac{Q A}{2 \pi R^2}

1179: \left(\frac{1}{2} - \mbox{sgn}(kn)\right)  +

1180: \frac{b^2}{24}\frac{\Omega^2 \triangle \rho}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}

1181: \right],

1182: \ee

1183: \be

1184: S(k,n)= \frac{\mid n \mid}{R} \left[ \frac{b^2}{12

1185: R^3}\frac{\sigma}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}\left(1 - \frac{k}{2}(n +

1186: 3k)\right) \right],

1187: \ee

1188: \be

1189: J(k,n) =-\frac{1}{R}\left[A\mid n \mid(1 - \mbox{

1190: sgn}(kn))+1\right]. \ee For the particular case $\Omega = 0$, the

1191: expression above reproduces the result of Miranda and Widom

1192: \cite{Mirandar98}.  We find that the presence of rotation does not

1193: change the formal structure of the equations, but introduces new

1194: terms.

1195: 

1196: To emphasize the roles of injection and rotation, we define the

1197: quantity $H(k,n)$ as the part of the coupling matrix in the r.h.s.

1198: of Eq.(\ref{wnlrot}) which contains $Q$ and/or $\Omega$.  This

1199: quantity reads:

1200: \be

1201: H(k,n)=\frac{\mid n \mid}{2R} \left( \frac{Q A}{2 \pi R^2}+

1202: \frac{b^2}{12}\frac{\Omega^2 \triangle \rho}{\mu_1 + \mu_2}\right) +

1203: J(k,n)\mid k \mid \left(\frac{b^2}{12} \frac{\Omega^2\triangle

1204: \rho}{\mu_1 + \mu_2} - \frac{QA}{2 \pi R^2}\right) + \frac{Q}{2 \pi

1205: R^3}.

1206: \ee

1207: We observe that experimental parameters occur only in two groups,

1208: namely:

1209: \be

1210: \tilde{\Omega}=\frac{b^2}{12} \frac{\Omega^2\triangle \rho}{\mu_1

1211: + \mu_2}, \qquad \tilde{Q}=\frac{QA}{2 \pi R^2}. \ee Both of them

1212: turn out to multiply the same functions of the wave numbers,

1213: except for changes in sign.  However, notice that the relative

1214: sign of $\tilde{\Omega}$ and $\tilde{Q}$ is different in the

1215: linear part and in the leading nonlinear part of the dynamics.

1216: This clearly shows that the effects of injection and rotation

1217: cannot be interchanged by simple changes in parameters, and that

1218: the intrinsic new dimensionless parameter related to rotation

1219: already shows up at the early nonlinear regime.

1220: 

1221: It is also remarkable that, for $Q \neq 0$, $R(t)$ is time dependent,

1222: and the relative weight of $\tilde{\Omega}$ and $\tilde{Q}$ changes with

1223: time.  This may have remarkable consequences in the highly nonlinear

1224: regime.  For instance, rotation can prevent the formation of finite time

1225: singularities in the case with zero surface tension \cite{Rocco00}.

1226: 

1227: Finally, notice that at nonlinear order there is also a

1228: geometrical term, $Q/(2 \pi R^3)$, independent of $n$.  This

1229: term cannot be scaled out by the same procedure that eliminated its

1230: counterpart at linear order.

1231: 

1232: 

1233: \section{Numerical study of an exact solution and its weakly nonlinear

1234: approximation} \label{Sec:5}

1235: 

1236: The purpose of this section is to put the weakly nonlinear analysis to

1237: the test, as a quantitative approximation.  We will check it against an

1238: exact time dependent solution of the case $B=0$ which evolves towards

1239: the Saffman--Taylor finger of width $\lambda=1/2$ in the channel

1240: geometry.  This will allow us to check how fast is the convergence of

1241: the expansion and how accurate it may be even beyond its radius of

1242: convergence, when it becomes an asymptotic series.

1243: 

1244: We define $F$ as the ratio between the maximum height of the interface

1245: (at the finger tip) and half the width of the cell (in our case

1246: $L=2\pi$).  $F$ is a dimensionless amplitude which is proportional to

1247: $\varepsilon$ and thus measures how deep the system is into the

1248: nonlinear regime.  Furhermore, since the system is described by the

1249: evolution of a curve, it may also be convenient to have a more global

1250: characterization of its configuration in order to compare the exact

1251: result and the different approximations.  We propose the use of the flux

1252: $\Phi$, defined as the total amount of fluid 1 per unit length and unit

1253: time flowing across the horizontal line located at the mean interface

1254: position \cite{Magdaleno00}).

1255: 

1256: 

1257: \subsection{The time dependent exact solution with $B=0$

1258: and $\lambda=1/2$}

1259: 

1260: An explicit solution of the problem without surface tension

1261: ($B=0$) and valid for any viscosity contrast $A$, describing the

1262: growth of a single finger which asymptotically fills half

1263: of the channel ($\lambda=1/2$), can be obtained from

1264: Eqs.(\ref{mappi}), (\ref{setun}), and (\ref{setdos}).  This reads:

1265: \be

1266: f(w,t)= -\ln w +  V_{o}t + a(0) + \ln \left[\sqrt{1+

1267: (b(0)^2-1)\exp(2V_{o}t)} +w\right],

1268: \label{fwt}

1269: \ee

1270: with $a(0)$ and $b(0)$ as initial constants, and $b(0)\gg 1$.  Since

1271: this solution is valid for any $A$, particularly $A=0$, all terms of

1272: the weakly nonlinear equation (\ref{generity}) depending on $A$

1273: will necessarily have no contribution.

1274: 

1275: We will take the following values for the parameters:

1276: \be

1277: V_{o}=\frac{1}{2}, \qquad b(0)=\frac{1}{\nu}=1000, \qquad a(0)= \ln

1278: \nu +\frac{\nu^2}{2}.

1279: \ee

1280: Fig.\ \ref{FigEx1} shows the evolution of the interface for this

1281: solution.  When $F\simeq1$ the finger shape is indistinguishable

1282: from the stationary Saffman--Taylor solution

1283: (Fig.\ \ref{FigEx2}),

1284: except near the points $x=\pi/2$ and $x=3\pi/2$

1285: when the asymptotes of the finger must develop at infinite

1286: time.  When $F = 1/\pi$, the slope of the interface

1287: becomes $1$ at these two points and the series (\ref{generity})

1288: loses its convergence, according to the discussion of Section

1289: \ref{SectionIIIA}.

1290: 

1291: In Fig.\ \ref{FigEx3} we present the amplitude of the Fourier

1292: modes of the exact solution.  It is clear that relatively few

1293: modes suffice to accurately reproduce the stationary finger shape

1294: in the tip region.

1295: 

1296: \subsection{Expansion of the exact solution}

1297: 

1298: In Section \ref{subsecdit} we expanded the exact solution

1299: (\ref{mappi}) in a small parameter $\nu$.  This expansion revealed

1300: a hierarchy of amplitudes of the different modes

1301: for an initial condition close

1302: to the planar interface.  The

1303: solution (\ref{fwt}) can be expanded similarly and yields:

1304: \be

1305: \nu = \frac{1}{b(0)}, \ \ \ \alpha (t) = - \frac{\nu}{b(t)}, \ \ \

1306:   d(t)=V_{o}t + \ln b(t), \ \ \ b(t)= \sqrt{ \nu^2 + (1 -

1307: \nu^2) \exp(2V_{o}t)}.

1308: \ee

1309: In agreement with (\ref{hexpan}), and using

1310: the same parameters as in the previous section, we obtain up to third

1311: order:

1312: \be

1313: h(x,t)=\nu e^{t/2} \cos x  + \nu ^3

1314: \left[\left(\frac{1}{2} e^{t/2} - \frac{1}{8}

1315: e^{3t/2}\right)\cos x - \frac{1}{24} e^{3t/2} \cos 3x \right].

1316: \ee

1317: The exact flux $\Phi$ can be easily computed from

1318: the stream function, which in its turn can be related to the form of

1319: the mapping Eq.(\ref{fwt}) (see for instance

1320: Ref.\cite{Magdaleno00}).  In Fig.\ \ref{FigFp1} we compare the

1321: flux $\Phi$ of the approximate result above with the exact result

1322: coming from (\ref{fwt}).  We clearly observe that the first

1323: correction to the linear regime improves the flux (to a 5 \%

1324: accuracy) from $ F \simeq 0.12 $ to $ F \simeq 0.17$.  The

1325: amplitude of the mode $k=1$ (Fig.\ \ref{FigFp3}) is fairly

1326: well reproduced

1327: by the linear approximation up to $F \simeq 0.20$, and the correction

1328: of order $\nu^3$ gives a value for the mode $k=3$ reasonably good

1329: up to $F \simeq 0.20$ (Fig.\ \ref{FigFp4}) and improves the mode $k=1$

1330: almost until $F \simeq 0.25 $.  Above these values of $F$ the

1331: deviation from the exact interface is exponential.

1332: 

1333: Notice that the expansion up to $\nu^3$ considered here does not

1334: account for the complete three mode coupling of

1335: Eq.(\ref{triorder}) which contains part of the higher orders in

1336: $\nu$.  This explains why going from order $\nu$ (linear) to order

1337: $\nu^3$ improves only slightly the shape of the finger, the flux $\Phi$,

1338: and the amplitude of the mode $k=1$.

1339: 

1340: 

1341: \subsection{Weakly nonlinear expansion}

1342: 

1343: In this section we study the mode coupling equation

1344: (\ref{triorder}).  We solve this equation in cases where only

1345: modes $k=1$ and $k=1,3$ are present, and compare the result with

1346: both the exact solution and the approximation to order $\nu^3$

1347: introduced in the two previous sections.

1348: 

1349: We consider the initial condition $\beta

1350: _{1}(0)=\varepsilon=0.001$ for the first mode and zero for the

1351: rest of modes.  We use Eq.\ (\ref{triorder}) recalling that, since

1352: $\beta _{i}$ represent the amplitudes of the cosine functions,

1353: $\delta_{i} = \beta_{i}/2$.  The result is that the modes

1354: $k\neq 1$ remain zero and:

1355: \be

1356: \beta _{1} (t)=\frac{\varepsilon \exp(0.5t)}{\sqrt{1+ 0.25

1357: \varepsilon ^2 (\exp(t) -1)}}, \ee where we see that the mode

1358: $k=1$ saturates to a finite value as $t \to \infty$.  Returning to

1359: Fig.\ \ref{FigFp1} and \ref{FigFp2}, we see that the flux $\Phi$

1360: approximates the exact value to a 5 \% uncertainty) until $F

1361: \simeq 0.23$.  Fig.\ \ref{FigFp3} shows that the amplitude of the

1362: first mode starts deviating significantly from the exact solution

1363: around $F \simeq 0.40$.

1364: 

1365: Next, we add the third mode to the equation (\ref{triorder}) with

1366: the initial condition $ \beta_{1}= \varepsilon + 3 \varepsilon

1367: ^3/8$ and $\beta_{3}= \varepsilon ^3/24$.  The set of equations

1368: to be solved numerically is:

1369: \be

1370: && \dot{\beta}_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\beta_{1} - \frac{1}{8}\beta_{1}^3 -

1371: \frac{5}{4} \beta_{3}^2 \beta_{1} + \frac{1}{4} \beta_{1}^2

1372: \beta_{3},

1373: \\ && \dot{\beta}_{3}=\frac{3}{2} \beta_{3} - \frac{3}{4} \beta_{1}^2

1374: \beta_{3} - \frac{27}{8} \beta_{3}^3. \label{system} \ee As shown

1375: in Figs.\ \ref{FigFp1} and \ref{FigFp4} the flux does not improve

1376: significantly, while the amplitude of the mode $k=3$ remains

1377: acceptable almost until $F\simeq 0.25$, and improves the previous

1378: result by more than a 50 \% almost until $F\simeq 0.33$.  Beyond

1379: this value of $F$ the third mode falls to zero due to the second

1380: term in the r.h.s. of Eq.(\ref{system}), proportional to

1381: $\beta_{1}^2 \beta_{3}$ but negative.  This is a signature that

1382: higher order terms, for instance of order $\beta_{1}^4 \beta_{3}$,

1383: become important when $\beta_{1}$ is of order one.

1384: 

1385: From this study we can conclude that using only two modes and the lowest

1386: order nonlinear correction for this case (involving three mode

1387: couplings), both the shape of the interface and the total flux are

1388: reasonably well described within the whole range of convergence of the

1389: series (up to $F \simeq 1/\pi$).  This indicates that the weakly

1390: nonlinear description of the problem works remarkably well at the

1391: quantitative level, at least in some physically relevant cases.  To what

1392: extent this conclusion holds for more complicated situations, for

1393: instance those involving competition of different fingers, remains an

1394: open question.

1395: 

1396: 

1397: \subsection{Partial resummation}

1398: 

1399: According to Eq. (\ref{triorder}), we can write a closed equation for

1400: the mode $k=1$ which is correct up to third order couplings, of the

1401: form:

1402: \be

1403: \dot{\beta}_{1} = \frac{1}{2} \beta_{1} - \frac{1}{4} \beta_{1}^2

1404: \dot{\beta}_{1},

1405: \label{laderiva}

1406: \ee

1407: where the mode $k=3$ has been set initially to zero.

1408: 

1409: The presence of $\dot{\beta}_{1}$ in the right hand side gives

1410: rise to terms of order higher than $\beta_{1}^3$.  Thus, solving

1411: this equation amounts to doing a partial resummation of these

1412: higher order terms.  This kind of closed differential equation was

1413: already obtained in Ref.\cite{Mirandac98}.  In our

1414: approach this differential equation is obtained in a systematic way by

1415: identifying the terms $\lambda(n) \beta_{n}$ and replacing them

1416: for $\dot{\beta}_{n}$.  For example, in Eq. (\ref{triorder}) the

1417: term $T(k,s,l)$ could have been partially resummated in the

1418: two mode coupling differential equation.

1419: 

1420: The solution of Eq.(\ref{laderiva}) yields the transcendental

1421: form:

1422: \be

1423: t = 2 \ln \left(\frac{\beta_{1}}{\varepsilon}\right)

1424: +\frac{1}{4}(\beta_{1}^2-\varepsilon^2).

1425: \ee

1426: A numerical computation of the flux based on this equation shows a

1427: dramatic improvement up to $F \simeq 1/\pi$.  It is

1428: surprising and remarkable that the equation for a single mode,

1429: including the resummation suggested by the first nonlinear

1430: correction, reproduces the exact solution to a great accuracy in

1431: the full range of convergence and defines an excellent

1432: approximation further inside the nonlinear regime.  This suggests

1433: that this kind of resummation is not arbitrary, and might have a deeper

1434: physical justification.

1435: 

1436: In addition, we obtain an amplitude for the mode $k=1$ within 10 \%

1437: accuracy up to $F \simeq 0.8$, and it is still quite good until

1438: $F=1$.  Although the exact spectrum shows the increasing

1439: importance of the mode $k=3$ at these values of $F$, the agreement

1440: between the exact result and this approximation for a single mode

1441: $k=1$ is quite remarkable.

1442: 

1443: We recall that the series converges up to $F \simeq

1444: 1/ \pi$. Beyond this value of $F$, increasing the order of

1445: mode coupling in Eq. (\ref{laderiva}) does not guarantee that the

1446: approximation improves.  Accordingly, there is an optimal finite

1447: order of approximation for a given value of $\varepsilon$, as

1448: usual in asymptotic series.  In this sense, our results above seem

1449: to indicate that Eq.(\ref{laderiva}) is the optimal approximation

1450: for the mode $k=1$ in the asymptotic (nonconvergent) region (i.e.,

1451: for moderately long times).

1452: 

1453: In the same spirit of Eq. (\ref{laderiva}), we can  also derive a

1454: closed system of differential equations which includes third order

1455: couplings for the modes $k=1,3$.  Its solution shows no

1456: qualitative differences with the case of the single mode $k=1$

1457: above, as far as the flux and the amplitude of the first mode are

1458: concerned.  The improvement in the amplitude of the third mode and

1459: consequently in the shape of the finger does not reach the high

1460: values of $F$ that the first mode reaches ($F \simeq 0.8$), as we

1461: can see in Fig.\ \ref{FigFp4}.  In a short range of $F$ the mode

1462: $k=3$ is better than the case shown in the previous section, but

1463: deviates from the exact solution much earlier than the mode $k=1$

1464: for the same reasons than in the previous section.  Specifically

1465: the mode $k=3$ is extremely good until $F \simeq 0.25$, starts

1466: deviating by more than a 10 \% at $F \simeq 0.33$ and is

1467: about 50 \% of the value at $F \simeq 0.40$.

1468: 

1469: We conclude that the weakly nonlinear formalism, apart from its nominal

1470: range of validity for very small amplitudes where it converges very fast

1471: to the exact dynamics, can describe regimes beyond those

1472: expected in principle with reasonable accuracy.  In the case of the

1473: growth of a single finger,

1474: for instance, we have explicitly seen that simply two modes together

1475: with an appropriate partial resummation, yields a remarkably good

1476: approximation in the full range of convergence of the expansion ($F <

1477: 1/\pi$).

1478: 

1479: 

1480: \section{Conclusion and perspectives}

1481: \label{conclusions}

1482: 

1483: We have developed a systematic scheme to derive the successive orders of

1484: mode couplings in a weakly nonlinear regime, adapted to the study of

1485: interfacial dynamics in Hele--Shaw flows.  This has been done with full

1486: generality, including both the channel geometry driven by gravity and

1487: pressure, and the radial geometry with arbitrary injection and

1488: centrifugal driving, which includes the case of a rotating Hele--Shaw

1489: cell.  The method could also be applied to even more general

1490: (position dependent) drivings.  The formulation in real space has

1491: enabled us to address the issue of convergence of the mode coupling

1492: expansion.  We have found that the exact condition for convergence in

1493: the channel geometry is $| h_x | < 1$ in every point of the interface.

1494: 

1495: We have carried out the explicit derivation of nonlinear couplings up to

1496: third order in the case of channel geometry, in order to obtain the

1497: leading nonlinear contributions in cases where the second order

1498: contribution vanishes.  These include the case of zero viscosity

1499: contrast and the time dependent single finger solution of width

1500: $\lambda=1/2$.

1501: 

1502: On the analytical side, we have also illustrated the usefulness of

1503: the weakly nonlinear analysis in elucidating the role of the

1504: different parameters on the dynamics, in some examples.  In the

1505: case of single finger solutions growing in a channel, we have

1506: shown how an exact nontrivial property of the problem (the

1507: relationship between $\lambda$ and viscosity contrast $A$ for zero

1508: surface tension) can be extracted from an analysis order by order,

1509: without really knowing the exact solution.  In the case of

1510: rotating Hele--Shaw flows, we have discussed the asymmetry between

1511: the roles of injection and rotation at the lowest nonlinear order,

1512: as opposed to what happens in the channel geometry, where the

1513: equivalence between gravity and injection driving is exact.

1514: 

1515: On the numerical side we have checked the predictions of the

1516: weakly nonlinear analysis, at different orders, against exact

1517: solutions.  We have found that the convergence is quite fast for

1518: small amplitudes.  Furthermore, in the case of a single finger

1519: growing in a channel we have explicitly seen that the analysis to

1520: low orders (up to three mode couplings) yields a good description

1521: of the interface dynamics even close to the radius of convergence.

1522: With an appropriate resummation scheme, the prediction is

1523: relatively good even beyond that point.

1524: 

1525: Some of the most interesting applications of the systematic weakly

1526: nonlinear approach have not been developed here since they deserve

1527: a separate, in--depth analysis.  One of them is the study of the

1528: scaling properties of fluctuations in stably stratified Hele--Shaw

1529: flows with external noise \cite{porous}.  A more direct

1530: application of our formalism which also deserves a separate

1531: analysis is the derivation of amplitude equations for the region

1532: near the instability threshold through a center manifold

1533: reduction.  This would made contact with what is most commonly

1534: referred to as ``weakly nonlinear'' approach in the literature of

1535: pattern formation.  A detailed study of this point with a careful

1536: discussion of the nature of the bifurcation and its implications

1537: will be presented elsewhere \cite{Alvarez02}.

1538: 

1539: 

1540: \section{Acknowledgements}

1541: We acknowledge financial support from the Direcci\'on General de

1542: Ense\~{n}anza Superior (Spain) under Projects PB96-1001-C02-02 and

1543: PB97-0906, E. Alvarez--Lacalle also acknowledges a grant from the

1544: Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca of the Generalitat de

1545: Catalunya.  The work was also supported by the European Commission

1546: Project ERB FMRX-CT96-0085 (Training and Mobility of Researchers).

1547: 

1548: \begin{references}

1549: 

1550: \bibitem{Bensimon86}

1551: D. Bensimon, L. Kadanoff, S. Liang, B.I. Shraiman, and C. Tang, Rev.

1552: Mod. Phys. {\bf 58}, 977 (1986).

1553: 

1554: \bibitem{Saffman86}

1555: P. G. Saffman, J. Fluid. Mech. {\bf 173}, 73 (1986).

1556: 

1557: \bibitem{Pelce88}

1558: P. Pelc\'e, {\it Dynamics of curved fronts} (Perspectives in Physics,

1559: Academic Press, San Diego, 1988).

1560: 

1561: \bibitem{LangerlesHouches}

1562: J. S. Langer, {\it Lectures in the theory of pattern formation} (ed:

1563: J. Souletie, J. Vannimenus, R. Stora in Chance and Matter, Les

1564: Houches, 1986, North--Holland, Amsterdam, 1987).

1565: 

1566: \bibitem{Kesslerkop88}

1567: D. Kessler, J. Koplik, and H. Levine, Adv. Phys. {\bf 37}, 255

1568: (1988).

1569: 

1570: \bibitem{Crosshoh93}

1571: M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 65}, 851

1572: (1993).

1573: 

1574: \bibitem{Saffman58}

1575: P. G. Saffman and G. I. Taylor, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A \bf

1576: 245\rm, 312 (1958)

1577: 

1578: \bibitem{Manneville90}

1579: P. Manneville, {\it Dissipative structures} (Springer--Verlag, Berlin,

1580: 1990).

1581: 

1582: \bibitem{Paterson81}

1583: L. Paterson, J. Fluid. Mech. {\bf 113}, 513 (1981).

1584: 

1585: \bibitem{JDChen89}

1586: J. D. Chen, J. Fluid. Mech. {\bf 201}, 223 (1989).

1587: 

1588: \bibitem{Trygvason83}

1589: G. Tryggvason and H. Aref, J. Fluid Mech. \bf136\rm, 1 (1983).

1590: 

1591: \bibitem{Hong86}

1592: D. C. Hong and J.S. Langer, Phys. Rev. Lett. \bf56\rm, 2032 (1986).

1593: 

1594: \bibitem{Shraiman86}

1595: B. I. Shraiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. \bf56\rm, 2028 (1986).

1596: 

1597: \bibitem{Combescot86}

1598: R. Combescot, T. Dombre, V. Hakim, Y. Pomeau, and A. Pumir, Phys.

1599: Rev. Lett. \bf56\rm, 2036 (1986).

1600: 

1601: \bibitem{Tanveer93}

1602: S. Tanveer, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A {\bf 343}, 155 (1993).

1603: 

1604: \bibitem{Siegelprl96}

1605: M. Siegel and S. Tanveer, Phys. Rev. Lett. \bf76\rm, 419 (1996).

1606: 

1607: \bibitem{Siegeljfm96}

1608: M. Siegel, S. Tanveer, and W. S. Dai, J. Fluid. Mech. \bf323\rm, 201

1609: (1996).

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{Magdaleno00}

1612: J. Casademunt and F. X. Magdaleno , Phys. Rep. \bf337\rm, 1 (2000)

1613: 

1614: \bibitem{Trygvason85}

1615: G. Tryggvason and H. Aref, J. Fluid Mech. \bf154\rm, 287 (1985).

1616: 

1617: \bibitem{Maher85}

1618: J. V. Maher, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf54}, 1498 (1985).

1619: 

1620: \bibitem{Difranjima89}

1621: M. W. Difranceso and J. V. Maher, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 39}, 4709 (1989).

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{Difranjimb89}

1624: M. W. Difranceso and J. V. Maher, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 40}, 295 (1989).

1625: 

1626: \bibitem{Casademunt91}

1627: J. Casademunt and D. Jasnow, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67}, 3677 (1991).

1628: 

1629: \bibitem{Casademunt94}

1630: J. Casademunt and D. Jasnow, Physica D {\bf 79}, 387 (1994).

1631: 

1632: \bibitem{Francessos1}

1633: P. Jacquar and P. S\'eguer, J. de M\'ecanique \bf1\rm, 367 (1962).

1634: 

1635: \bibitem{Folch00}

1636: R. Folch, E. Paun\'e, and J. Casademunt (unpublished).

1637: 

1638: \bibitem{Carrillo96}

1639: Ll. Carrillo, F.X. Magdaleno, J. Casademunt, and J. Ort\' {\i}n,

1640: Phys. Rev. E {\bf54}, 6260 (1996).

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{porous}

1643: A controlled experiment of quenched noise in a Hele--Shaw cell with

1644: stably stratified flow has been recently proposed by A.

1645: Hern\'andez--Machado, J. Soriano, A. M. Lacasta, M. \'A.

1646: Rodr\'{\i}guez, L. Ram\'{\i}rez--Piscina, and J. Ort\'{\i}n

1647: (unpublished).

1648: 

1649: \bibitem{Mirandac98}

1650: J. A. Miranda and M. Widom, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B {\bf 12}, 931

1651: (1998).

1652: 

1653: \bibitem{Mirandar98}

1654: J. A. Miranda and M. Widom, Physica D {\bf 120}, 315 (1998).

1655: 

1656: \bibitem{Schwartz89}

1657: L. W. Schwartz, Phys. Fluids A {\bf 1}, 167 (1989).

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{Carrillo99}

1660: Ll. Carrillo, J. Soriano, and J. Ort\'{\i}n, Phys. Fluids {\bf 11},

1661: 778 (1999).

1662: 

1663: \bibitem{Carrillo00}

1664: Ll. Carrillo, J. Soriano, and J. Ort\'{\i}n, Phys. Fluids {\bf 12},

1665: 1685 (2000).

1666: 

1667: \bibitem{Entov96}

1668: V. M. Entov, P. I. Etingof, and D. Ya. Kleinbock, Euro. J. Appl.

1669: Math. {\bf 6}, 399 (1995).

1670: 

1671: \bibitem{Crowdy1}

1672: D. G. Crowdy, Q. Appl. Maths. (2000), in press.

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{Rocco00}

1675: F. X. Magdaleno, A. Rocco and J. Casademunt, Phys. Rev. E {\bf

1676: 62}, R5887 (2000).

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{Alvarez01}

1679: E. Alvarez--Lacalle, J. Ort\'{\i}n, and J. Casademunt (unpublished).

1680: 

1681: \bibitem{Goldstein98}

1682: R. E. Goldstein, A. I. Pesci, and M. J. Shelley, Phys. Fluids {\bf

1683: 10}, 2701 (1998).

1684: 

1685: \bibitem{Alvarez02}

1686: E. Alvarez--Lacalle et al. (unpublished).

1687: 

1688: \end{references}

1689: 

1690: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1691: \newpage

1692: 

1693: \begin{figure}

1694: \begin{center}

1695: \epsfig{file=Figure1.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.1cm} \caption{Sketch

1696: of the Hele-Shaw cell in channel geometry.} \label{Figcanal}

1697: \end{center}

1698: \end{figure}

1699: \begin{figure}

1700: 

1701: 

1702: \begin{center}

1703: \epsfig{file=Figure2.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm} \caption{Sketch

1704: of the Hele-Shaw cell in circular geometry.} \label{Figradial}

1705: \end{center}

1706: \end{figure}

1707: 

1708: 

1709: \begin{figure}

1710: \begin{center}

1711: \epsfig{file=Figure3.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.1cm}

1712: \caption{Evolution of the interface at different values of $\pi

1713: F$.} \label{FigEx1}

1714: \end{center}

1715: \end{figure}

1716: \begin{figure}

1717: 

1718: 

1719: \begin{center}

1720: \epsfig{file=Figure4.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm}

1721: \caption{Comparison of the exact solution

1722: (Eq.(\protect{\ref{fwt}})) at $F=1$ (thin line) and the

1723: Saffman-Taylor stationary finger (thick line).} \label{FigEx2}

1724: \end{center}

1725: \end{figure}

1726: 

1727: 

1728: \begin{figure}

1729: \begin{center}

1730: \epsfig{file=Figure5.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm}

1731: \caption{Amplitude of the Fourier modes of the exact solution at

1732: consecutive values of $F$.} \label{FigEx3}

1733: \end{center}

1734: \end{figure}

1735: 

1736: 

1737: 

1738: 

1739: \begin{figure}

1740: \begin{center}

1741: \epsfig{file=Figure6.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm} \caption{Flux

1742: $\Phi$ as a function of the factor F for different approximations

1743: (see text for details).} \label{FigFp1}

1744: \end{center}

1745: \end{figure}

1746: 

1747: \newpage

1748: \begin{figure}

1749: \begin{center}

1750: \epsfig{file=Figure7.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm}

1751: \caption{Relative error of the flux $\Phi$ as a function of the

1752: factor F for different approximations (see text for details).}

1753: \label{FigFp2}

1754: \end{center}

1755: \end{figure}

1756: 

1757: 

1758: \begin{figure}

1759: \begin{center}

1760: \epsfig{file=Figure8.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm} \caption{The

1761: first mode amplitude as a function of the factor F for different

1762: approximations (see text for details).} \label{FigFp3}

1763: \end{center}

1764: \end{figure}

1765: 

1766: 

1767: \begin{figure}

1768: \begin{center}

1769: \epsfig{file=Figure9.eps,width=6cm} \vspace{0.5cm} \caption{The

1770: third mode amplitude as a function of the factor F for different

1771: approximations (see text for details).} \label{FigFp4}

1772: \end{center}

1773: \end{figure}

1774: 

1775: 

1776: 

1777: \end{document}

1778: