1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % This is the final submitted version 26/08/2002
4: %
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,epsfig,amssymb]{revtex}
7: \documentclass[10pt,epsfig]{article}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: % Questo lo vogliono quelli di jsp
10: %
11: \setlength{\textheight}{43pc}
12: \setlength{\textwidth}{27pc}
13: %\textheight =43pc
14: %\textwidth =27pc
15:
16: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\bfi}{\begin{figure}}
21: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
22: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
23: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\efi}{\end{figure}}
25: \newcommand{\dV}{\delta u}
26: \newcommand{\T}{\theta}
27: \newcommand{\lp}{\left(}
28: \newcommand{\rp}{\right)}
29: \newcommand{\ra}{\right\rangle}
30: \newcommand{\la}{\left\langle}
31: %\newcommand{\Onecol}{\begin{widetext}\onecolumngrid}
32: %\newcommand{\Twocol}{\end{widetext}\twocolumngrid}
33: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{.5}
34: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35:
36: \begin{document}
37: %\baselikeskip 4ex
38:
39: % Title page
40: \title{Intermittency in Turbulence: Multiplicative random process in space and time}
41: \author{Roberto Benzi$^{1,2}$, Luca Biferale$^{1,2}$ and Federico Toschi$^{2,3}$\footnote{Corresponding author: Dr. Federico Toschi, IAC "Mauro Picone" (C.N.R.), Viale del Policlinico 137, 00161, Rome (ITALY), Phone: +39 06 88470262, Fax: +39 06 4404306.}\\
42: {\small $^1$ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a ``Tor Vergata'',}\\
43: {\small Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, I-00133 Roma, Italy}\\
44: {\small $^2$ INFM, Sezione di Roma ``Tor Vergata'',}\\
45: {\small Via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, I-00133 Roma, Italy}\\
46: {\small $^3$ Istituto per le Applicazioni del Calcolo, CNR,}\\
47: {\small Viale del Policlinico 137, I-00161, Roma, Italy}}
48:
49: %\pacs{47.27-i, 47.27.Nz, 47.27.Ak}
50: \maketitle
51: \pagestyle{myheadings}
52: \markboth{Intermittency in Turbulence: Multiplicative random process in space and time}{R. Benzi, L. Biferale and F. Toschi\hfill Intermittency in Turbulence\dots}
53: \begin{abstract}
54: %\baselineskip 8ex
55: We present a simple stochastic algorithm for generating multiplicative processes
56: with multiscaling both in space and in time. With this algorithm we are
57: able to reproduce a synthetic signal with the same space and time
58: correlation as the one coming from shell models for turbulence and the
59: one coming from a turbulent velocity field in a quasi-Lagrangian reference frame.
60: \vskip 0.2cm
61: \end{abstract}
62: \clearpage
63: %\baselineskip 8ex
64:
65: \section{Introduction}
66: The multifractal language for turbulent flows has been introduced about 20 years ago in order to
67: describe the anomalous scaling properties of turbulence at large Reynolds numbers \cite{pf84,uriel}. Beside any particular interpretation, the multifractal formalism
68: exploit the scale invariance of the Navier-Stokes equation by taking into account fluctuations of the scaling exponents. To be more quantitative
69: let us consider the Navier-Stokes equations:
70: \be
71: \partial_t \vec u + \vec u \cdot \vec \nabla \vec u = - \frac{1}{\rho} \vec \nabla p + \nu \Delta \vec u
72: \ee
73: where $ \vec u $ is the velocity field describing a (homogeneous and isotropic) turbulent flow. For $\nu=0$ the Navier-Stokes equations
74: are invariant with respect to the scale transformation:
75: \be
76: \label{h}
77: r \rightarrow \lambda r \;\;\;\; u \rightarrow \lambda^h u \;\;\;\; t \rightarrow \lambda t^{1-h}
78: \ee
79: Then, following Kolmogorov, it is assumed that at large Reynolds numbers ($\nu \rightarrow 0$) the rate of energy dissipation is constant. As a consequence,
80: $h = 1/3$, if no fluctuation on $h$ are present.
81: The above reinterpretation of the Kolmogorov theory naturally opens the way to describe intermittent fluctuations in turbulent flows.
82: Following the original idea by Parisi and Frisch, many possible values of $h$ are allowed in turbulent flows. Each {\it fluctuation} $h$
83: at {\it scale} $r$ is weighted with a probability distribution $P_h(r) \sim r^{3-D(h)}$. \\
84: Since its first formulation, the multifractal model of intermittency have been applied to explain many statistical features of intermittency in a
85: unified approach. The final goal of many theoretical investigation is to compute the function
86: $D(h)$ starting by the equation of motions. In some simple although highly non trivial case such a goal has been recently reached for the case of
87: the Kraichnan model of a passive scalar \cite{rev}. \\
88: One of the key issue in the multifractal language of turbulence is to understand in a more constructive way what is a multifractal field and how the
89: fluctuations of $h$ are related to the dynamics of the system. In order to develop any systematic theory for computing $D(h)$
90: starting from the equation of motions, one has to handle a complex non linear problem: the way in which a perturbative scheme may be
91: developed strongly depend on a reasonable ansatz on the time-space properties of the probability distribution. It is therefore crucial to understand
92: how we can formulate the most general form of multifractal random field which is consistent with the time and space scaling properties of the
93: Navier-Stokes equations. \\
94: One possible interpretation of the multifractal formalism is to observe that
95: for any $r < R$, the multifractal theory predicts:
96: \be
97: \delta u(r) = W(r,R) \delta u(R) \;\;\;\; \delta u(r) = u(x+r)-u(x)
98: \ee
99: Then, according to the scaling properties of $u$, the quantity $W(r,R)$ is a random quantity proportional to $(\frac{r}{R})^h$. It turns out that
100: for $r_1 < r_2 < r_3$ we have
101: \be
102: W(r_1,r_3) = W(r_1,r_2) \cdot W(r_2,r_3)
103: \label{procmolt}
104: \ee
105: Equation (\ref{procmolt}) tells us that one possible interpretation of multifractal field is to assume that fluctuations at scale $r$ are described
106: by a random multiplicative process. The random
107: multiplicative process is also somehow a simple way to mimic the energy cascade in turbulence. Actually, a general formulation of multifractal random
108: fields based on random multiplicative process was first presented in \cite{physicad,pre} by using a wavelet decomposition of the field. \\
109: One obvious limitation of random multiplicative process is the absence of any time dynamics in the field, as one can immediately highlight by considering
110: space-time correlations. Space-time scaling is a crucial and delicate issue when considering multifractal fields for the Navier-Stokes equations \cite{proc1,bbct}. It is the aim of this paper to understand how one can exhibits a multifractal field whose space and time scaling
111: is consistent with the scaling constraints imposed by the Navier-Stokes equations. In Section 2 we introduce the technical problem shortly reviewed in this
112: introduction by using a rather simplified language. In Section 3 we discuss several implications of the results obtained in Section 2, with a particular
113: emphasis on the consequences for the fusion rules as introduced in \cite{eyink,procaccia_fr}. In Section 4 we outline our conclusions and we discuss future
114: extensions of our research.
115: \section{Multi-scale and multi-time stochastic signals}
116: \label{section2}
117: To simplify even further our argument we can concentrate an a typical fluctuation at a given scale, i.e. disregarding space position.
118: We introduce the scale hierarchy
119: $ l_n = l_0 \cdot \lambda^{-n} $, in terms of the scale separation $\lambda > 1$, and the velocity differences $w_n = v(x+l_n)-v(x)$.
120: We assume that the scaling properties of $w_n$ are consistent with the dimensional constraints imposes by the Navier-Stokes equations, i.e.
121: \be
122: \partial_t w_n \sim l_n^{-1} w_n^2
123: \label{nscale}
124: \ee
125: If $w_n$ shows multifractal scaling, we may write:
126: \be
127: \la w_n^p \ra \sim \la w_0\ra_0^p \lp {{l_n} \over {l_0}}\rp^{\zeta(p)}
128: \label{zetap}
129: \ee
130: where $\zeta(p)$ is a non linear function of $p$ and $\la\dots\ra_0$ is an
131: average over the large scale statistics. Following Parisi and Frisch, we know that
132: the multifractal scaling (\ref{zetap}) can be derived by assuming that $w_n \sim l_n^h$ with probability
133: $l_n^{3-D(h)}$, i.e.
134: \be
135: \la w_n^p\ra \sim \int dh \;l_n^{ph + 3 - D(h)}
136: \ee
137: Indeed by means of a saddle point evaluation of the previous integral, one obtain the explicit expression for $\zeta_p$ in terms of $D(h)$:
138: \be
139: \zeta(p) = \inf_h \left[ph+3-D(h)\right]
140: \ee
141: Supposing one wants to keep into account also the time correlations, the constraint (\ref{nscale}) implies that
142: \be
143: C_{p,q}(\tau) = \la w_n(t)^p w_n(0)^q\ra \sim \int dh l_n^{h(p+q)+3-D(h)} f_{p,q}(\tau/\tau_n) \;\;\; \tau_n = l_n/w_n
144: \label{time}
145: \ee
146: where $\tau_n$ is a random time (the eddy turnover time) and the functions $f_{p,q}$ are dictated by the dynamic equations.
147: Expression (\ref{time}) has been introduced in \cite{proc1} and analyzed in details in \cite{bbct}.
148: We underline that, as a consequence of (\ref{time}), we can predict the
149: scaling properties of quantities like $\frac{d^m C_{p,q}(\tau)}{d\tau^m}$.
150: We now want to understand how to define a random process satisfying both multiscaling in space (\ref{zetap}) and multiscaling in time (\ref{time}).
151: In a more general way, we would like to exhibit random multifractal fields with prescribed dynamical scaling.
152: It is known that the multifractal scaling (\ref{zetap}) can be observed for random multiplicative process. Let us introduce the (positive) random variable
153: $A_n$ and let us indicate with $P(A_n)$ the probability distribution of $A_n$. Then, by defining $w_n = \lp\prod_{i=1}^{n} A_i\rp w_0$ and by assuming that
154: the random variables $A_i$ are independent, one obtains:
155: \be
156: \la w_n^p \ra \sim \int{\lp\prod_{i=1}^{n} A_i\rp^p \prod_{i=1}^{n} P(A_i) dA_i} = \la A^p\ra^n = l_n^{\zeta_0(p)} \;\;\; \zeta_0(p) = \log(\la A^p\ra)/\log{\lambda}
157: \label{rpm}
158: \ee
159: We want to generalize expression (\ref{rpm}) in order to satisfy the dynamical constrain (\ref{nscale}). At each scale $l_n$ we introduce the
160: random time $\tau_n = l_n/w_n$.
161:
162: The generation of our signal proceeds as follows, we extract $A_n$
163: with probability $P(A_n)$ and keep it constant for a time interval
164: $[t,t+\tau_n]$. Thus, for each scale $l_n$, we introduce a time
165: dependent random process $A_n(t)$ which is piece-wise constant for a
166: random time intervals $[t_n^{(k)},t_n^{(k)}+\tau_n]$, if $t_n^{(k)}$
167: is the time
168: of the $k$th jump at scale $n$. The corresponding
169: velocity field at scale $n$, in the time
170: interval $t_n^{(k)} < t < t_n^{(k)}+\tau_n$,
171: is given by the simple multiplicative rule:
172: $$ w_n(t)= A_n(t)w_{n-1}(t_n^{(k)})$$
173: What is important to notice is that at each jumping time,
174: $t_n^{(1)},t_n^{(2)},..,t_n^{(k)}..$
175: only the local velocity field is updated, i.e. information
176: across different scales propagates with a finite speed.
177: This is one possible and relatively simple way to take into
178: account the constraint (\ref{nscale}).
179:
180: To give a visual idea of how the algorithm works we show in Figure \ref{fig0} the time behaviour of the regeneration times for several scales.
181: It is evident that there are short time-lag where the chain of multipliers is not given by an exact multiplicative process
182: (this happens every time a small scale has
183: to be regenerated but the ancestors are not yet dead).
184:
185: In Figure \ref{fig1} we show the scaling behaviour of the third order structure functions
186: $S_3(l_n) = \la w_n^3 \ra $ obtained by a numerical simulation of a time dependent random multiplicative
187: process with $P(A) = p_a\delta(A-A_a) + p_b\delta(A-A_b)$,
188: where $A_a = 0.2$, $A_b=0.6$, $p_b= 1-p_a$ and $p_a$ has been chosen such that $\zeta(3) = 1$. Although $S_3$ shows a very well defined scaling,
189: the value of $\zeta(3)$ is greater than what is predicted by (\ref{rpm}) (in Figure \ref{fig1} the slope $-1$ is shown for comparison).
190: This effect shows that the ``real space'' scaling $\la w_n^p\ra$ is renormalized by the presence of the non trivial time dynamics of the multipliers.
191:
192:
193: In order to understand why (\ref{rpm}) cannot be used to predict the scaling exponents,
194: let us understand which is the effect of the time dynamics for a given scale $l_n$ by assuming that at scale $l_{n-1}$ the
195: variable $w_{n-1}$ is kept constant.
196: Let $T$ be the time used for time-averaged quantities and let $N_a$ and $N_b$ be the number of events where the random variable $A$ is equal
197: to $A_a$ and $A_b$ respectively. We next introduce the quantities
198: $\tau_a = l_n/(A_aw_{n-1})$ and $\tau_b = l_n/(A_bw_{n-1})$,
199: the times associated
200: to $A_a$ and $A_b$. By using our definition we can write: $N_a \tau_a + N_b \tau_b = T, \;\;\; N_a = p_a N, \;\;\; N_b = p_b N, \;\;\; N_a + N_b = N.$
201: It then follows:
202: \be
203: \la w_n^p\ra = \la w_{n-1}^p\ra \frac{1}{T}\int dt A(t)^p = \la w_{n-1}^p\ra \frac{1}{T} (\tau_a N_a A_a^p + \tau_b N_b A_b^p)
204: \label{intermedia}
205: \ee
206: The above expression can be further simplified and we finally obtain:
207: \be
208: \la w_n^p\ra=
209: \la w_{n-1}^p\ra \frac{p_a A_a^{p-1}+p_b A_b^{p-1}}{p_a A_a^{-1} + p_b A_b^{-1}}
210: \label{renorm}
211: \ee
212: The consequence of (\ref{renorm}) is that the scaling exponents $\zeta(p)$ are renormalized according to the expression:
213: \be
214: \zeta_R(p) = \zeta_0(p-1) -\zeta_0(-1)
215: \label{nzp}
216: \ee
217: where the number $\zeta_0(p)$ are the ``bare'' scaling exponents, i.e. those computed by using $P(A)$ according to (\ref{rpm}).
218:
219: Expression (\ref{nzp}) have been obtained by using the simplified assumption $w_{n-1} = const$. In the general case, i.e. all variables $w_n$ are
220: fluctuating, one needs to generalize the above discussion. A possible way is to write:
221: \be
222: \zeta_R(p) = \zeta_0(p-\alpha) -\zeta_0(-\alpha)
223: \label{newzp}
224: \ee
225: where the number $\alpha$ (not necessarily integer) depends on the details of $P(A)$.
226:
227:
228: We have checked expression (\ref{newzp}) for a number of different choices of $P(A)$. Here we present the results for $P(A)$ being a log-normal
229: distribution, i.e. for
230: \be
231: \zeta_0(p) = p h_0 - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 p^2
232: \label{lg0}
233: \ee
234: By using (\ref{newzp}) we obtain:
235: \be
236: \zeta_R(p) = p(h_0+\alpha\sigma^2) - \frac{1}{2} \sigma^2 p^2
237: \label{lg1}
238: \ee
239: In Figure (\ref{fig2a}) we show $\zeta_R(3)$ obtained by a set of numerical simulations
240: for different values of $\sigma$ and $h_0$ chosen in such a way that $\zeta_0(3) = 1$. In this case (\ref{lg1}) can be written as
241: $\zeta_R(3) = 1+3\alpha\sigma^2$.
242: As one can easily observe, the prediction of (\ref{lg1}) is verified with very good accuracy with a value of $\alpha$ close to $2$.
243: In Figure (\ref{fig2b}) we show the value of $\zeta_R(p)$ for $p = 2,..,6$ as obtained by direct numerical simulation for $\sigma = 0.03$.
244: The dashed line represent the estimate (\ref{lg1}) with $\alpha = 2$: a very good agreement is observed.
245:
246:
247: The above discussion can be generalized for multifractal fields and for any particular choice of $P(A)$. In all cases, a re-normalization of the
248: scaling exponents, as predicted by (\ref{lg1}), should be expected. At the same time, a non trivial time correlation is introduced for the variables
249: $w_n$. In Figure (\ref{fig6a2}) we show $\la w_n(\tau)w_n(0)\ra$ and $\la w_{n+6}(\tau)w_n(0)\ra$ for $n=3$, obtained by a numerical simulation of
250: the time dependent random multiplicative process with a log-normal distribution with parameters $\sigma= 0.03$, $\zeta_R(3) = 1$. As expected, the correlation
251: $\la w_{n+6}(\tau)w_n(0)\ra$
252: increases for small $\tau$ and then goes to $0$. The pick at a time lag larger than zero is due to the presence of a non trivial time dynamics, i.e.
253: multipliers at different scales need some time to realize that their ancestor have changed their status. This is meant to mimic the
254: non-trivial time dynamics of the turbulent energy transfer. This behaviour is also observed in the numerical simulation of deterministic shell models as reported in \cite{bbct}.
255:
256:
257: Finally let us check whether the quantities $w_n$ satisfies the scaling constrain imposed by (\ref{nscale}). We first observe that the correlation function
258: $\la w_n(t+\tau) w_n(t) \ra$ goes as $\exp{(-B|\tau|)}$. This is due to the fact $w_n$ as a function of time is not differentiable. In order to check whether
259: (\ref{nscale}) is satisfied, we observe that $B \sim k_n w_n^3 \sim const$ if $\zeta_R(3) = 1$. In Figure (\ref{B}) we plot the timescale $B$ as a function
260: of $n$ obtained by a time dependent random multiplicative process, using a log normal distribution with $\sigma = 0.03$, $\zeta_0(3) = 0.83$ and $\zeta_R(3)=1$. As one can see, $B$ is fairly constant in the inertial range.
261:
262:
263:
264:
265:
266: \section{Numerical results}
267: The re-normalization effects discussed in the previous Section can be further investigated by considering the case of a passive scalar.
268: In this case the constraint (\ref{nscale}) should be written as:
269: \be
270: \partial \theta_n \sim \theta_n \frac{w_n}{l_n}
271: \label{nscalep}
272: \ee
273: where $\theta_n = \theta(x+l_n) - \theta(x)$ in analogy with the definition of $w_n$. We assume that
274: $\la \theta_n^p\ra \sim l_n^{H(p)}$.
275: Let us assume that a suitable representation of $\theta_n$ is
276: given by a time dependent random multiplicative process as described in Section \ref{section2}. In this case, however, the random time $\tau_n$ is not correlated
277: with the value of $\theta_n$ or the related random multiplicative variables. Therefore, we should not expect any re-normalization for the scaling exponents
278: $H(p)$. This is indeed the case as shown in
279: Figure (\ref{fig4}), where we plot the scaling of $\la \theta_n^3\ra$ for a log-normal random multiplicative process with $\sigma = 0.03$ and $h_0$ such that
280: $H(3) = 1$. The updating times have been chosen with an independent random distribution mimicking the velocity fluctuations, $\tau_n \sim l_n/w_n$
281: The dashed line corresponds to a slope $-1$.
282:
283:
284: Our definition of time dependent random multiplicative process can be very useful in investigating the behaviour of the so called fusion rules for the
285: quantities like $\la w_{n+m}^pw_n^q \ra$. Following \cite{eyink,procaccia_fr,prl}, we can write:
286: \be
287: \la w_{n+m}^pw_n^q \ra = C_{p,q}(m) \frac{\la w_{m+n}^p\ra}{\la w_n^p\ra} \la w_n^{p+q}\ra
288: \label{fusion}
289: \ee
290: where $C_{p,q}$ is a constant for large $m$. Actually a direct measurements of $\la w_{n+m}^p w_n^q \ra$
291: in turbulent flows at high Reynolds numbers and in direct numerical simulations, confirm the validity of (\ref{fusion}) with $C_{p,q}<1$ for
292: large $m$ \cite{prl}.
293: It is interesting to observe that our time dependent random multiplicative process satisfies fusion rules with $C_{p,q}<1$. It is indeed possible
294: to show this result by the following argument.
295: Let us consider two scales $l_n$ and $l_{n+m}$. For fixed time,
296: the quantity $w_n$ and
297: $w_{n+m}$ are not necessary product of the same random variables. They
298: will {\it feel} the same chain of multipliers only for some larger
299: scale $l_{n'}$ with $n'<n$, while for smaller scales both chain of multipliers
300: leading to the instantaneous value of $w_n$ and $w_{n+m}$ may have changed.
301: Thus we should have:
302: \be
303: \la w_n^qw_{n+m}^p\ra = \la \prod_{k=1}^{n'} A_k^{q+p}\ra \la\prod_{k=n'}^{n}A_k^q\ra \la \prod_{k=n'}^{n+m}A_k^p\ra
304: \ee
305: where $A_k$ is the random multiplier acting between scale $k-1$ and scale $k$, i.e. $w_{k+1} = A_k w_k$. The above
306: expression gives the following result for the compensated fusion rules:
307: \be
308: {{\la w_n^qw_{n+m}^p\ra \la w_n^p\ra} \over {\la w_{n+m}^p\ra \la w_n^{p+q}\ra}} \sim
309: {\la A^{q+p}\ra^{n'} \la A^q\ra^{n-n'}\la A^p\ra^{m+n-n'} \la A^p\ra^n \over \la A^p\ra^{n+m} \la A^{p+q}\ra^n}
310: \ee
311: that is:
312: \be
313: {{\la w_n^q w_{n+m}^p\ra \la w_n^p\ra} \over {\la w_{n+m}^p\ra \la w_n^{p+q}\ra}} = \left( {{\la A^{q+p}\ra} \over {\la A^q\ra}{\la A^p\ra}}\right)^{n'-n} \le 1
314: \label{cpq}
315: \ee
316: Let us notice that for $n'=n$, which corresponds to random multiplicative process without time dynamics, the r.h.s of the above expression
317: is just $1$. The above equation should be considered as a qualitative prediction. In general we expect $n'$ to be a function
318: of both $p$ and $q$.
319:
320:
321: We have checked our prediction by several simulations for different choices of $P(A)$. In Figure (\ref{fig6a1}) we show the quantity
322: $C_{2,2}(m)$ defined as in (\ref{fusion}) for $n=3$ and for
323: $m=-1,..11$. As expected $C_{2,2}(m)=1$ for $m=0$ and for $m>0$
324: is a slowing decaying
325: function of $m$ which reaches a plateau only for very large $m$.
326:
327:
328: As a consequence of our analysis, we can also predict that the quantity $C_{p,q}(t)$, defined through:
329: $$
330: \la w_{n+m}(t)^pw_n(0)^q\ra = C_{p,q}(t) \frac{\la w_{m+n}^p\ra}{\la w_n^p\ra} \la w_n^{p+q}\ra \;\;\; m \gg 1
331: $$
332: should increase with $t$. This is indeed the case as one can observe in Figure (\ref{fig6a3}).
333:
334:
335:
336: According to (\ref{cpq}),
337: the asymptotic value of $C_{p,q}(m)$ for large $m$ is a function of the intermittency, i.e. $C_{p,q}(\infty)$ becomes smaller for larger value of the anomaly
338: $\zeta_R(p)+\zeta_R(q)-\zeta_R(p+q)$.
339: The qualitative prediction of (\ref{cpq}) has been checked against numerical simulations of time dependent random multiplicative
340: process. In Figure (\ref{fig6b}) we plot the asymptotic
341: value of $C_{2,2}(\infty) =
342: lim_{m \rightarrow \infty}C_{2,2}(m) $ for a log normal $P(A)$ as
343: a function of $\zeta_R(4) -2\zeta_R(2)$. As one can see
344: the qualitative prediction is confirmed.
345:
346:
347:
348: A further inspection of the numerical simulations reveals that $C_{p,q}$ can be written as
349: \be
350: C_{p,q}(m) = 1 - \Delta_{p,q} f(m)
351: \ee
352: where $f(0) = 0$ and $ f(\infty) = 1 $. While $ \Delta_{p,q} $ is a function of $\zeta_R(p)+\zeta_R(q)-\zeta_R(p+q)$, we
353: may wonder whether the function $f(m)$ is somehow universal. Although a definite conclusion cannot be reached by looking at the numerical simulations,
354: still our results seem to indicate that $f(m)$ is either universal or is a function weakly dependent on intermittency.
355: This can be seen from Figure (\ref{fig6f(m)})
356: where we plot $f(m)$ for different values of $\zeta_R(4)-2\zeta_R(2)$ .
357:
358:
359: We already observed at the beginning of this Section that a time dependent multiplicative process for a passive scalar does not
360: show a re-normalization of the scaling exponents $H(p)$. However, the argument used to derive (\ref{cpq}) can be applied even if the random times
361: $\tau_n$ are not correlated to the multiplicative process, as in the case of the passive scalar.
362: In Figure (\ref{passivo2}), we show the quantity $G(m)$ defined by the relation:
363: \be
364: \la \theta_3^2 \theta_{3+m}^2 \ra = G(m) \frac{\la \theta_{3+m}^2 \ra}{\la \theta_3^2 \ra} \la \theta_3^2 \ra
365: \ee
366: for the passive scalar and $m=-1..11$.
367: As expected, the fusion rules are satisfied only asymptotically with prefactors $G(m)< 1$.
368:
369:
370: Let us also notice that the coefficients $C_{p,q}$ of the fusion rules are not fully defined, in terms of the time dependent random multiplicative process.
371: Let us consider the variable
372: $$
373: u_n = g_n w_n
374: $$
375: where $g_n$ is a random variable, independent of $n$, with the same probability distribution for any $n$,
376: i.e. $\la g_{n_1}g_{n_2}..g_{n_k}\ra=\la g_{n_1}\ra \la g_{n_2}\ra..\la g_{n_k}\ra$ and $P(g_n)$ does not depend on $n$. It follows that
377: the fusion rules for $u_n$ satisfy:
378: $$ \la u_{n+m}^pu_n^q\ra = \la g^p\ra \la g^q\ra \la w_{n+m}^pw_n^q\ra $$
379: which gives
380: $$
381: \la u_{n+m}^pu_n^q\ra=
382: \la g^p\ra \la g^q\ra C_{p,q} \frac{\la u_{m+n}^p\ra}{\la u_n^p\ra} \la u_n^{p+q}\ra \frac{1}{\la g^{p+q}\ra}
383: $$
384: Note that, for each $n$, $w_n$ is the time dependent multiplicative process and that the scaling properties of $u_n$ and $w_n$ are
385: the same. The above equation implies that the fusion rules coefficients
386: $C_{p,q}$ for $u_n$ becomes:
387: \be
388: C_{p,q} \rightarrow C_{p,q} \frac{\la g^p\ra \la g^q\ra}{\la g^{p+q}\ra} \;\;\; w_n \rightarrow g_n w_n
389: \label{fusiong}
390: \ee
391: Equation (\ref{fusiong}) implies that the asymptotic value of
392: $C_{p,q}$ for large $m$ is fixed up to a number (less than $1$) linked to a scale invariant probability distribution function.
393:
394: Before closing this Section we would like to notice that the renormalized exponents $\zeta_R(p)$ are associated to a less intermittent
395: field with respect to the bare exponents $\zeta_0(p)$. This can easily be deduced by using equation (\ref{newzp}). Thus we can predict that
396: whenever the random times $\tau_n$ are not correlated to $w_n$ we should observe (for a given $P(A)$) an increase of intermittency.
397: One may wonder whether this qualitative prediction may have any experimental evidence. This is indeed the case. Let us consider
398: a shear flow. It has been noted that whenever the mean shear ${\cal S}$ is large enough intermittency increases. For large scale the characteristic time
399: scale of the dynamics should be dominated by the shear effect and we would expect the characteristic time scale independent on the scale \cite{toschi1,toschi2,piva}.
400: In this case, therefore, if we describe intermittency as a random multiplicative process, time dynamics does not lead to a re-normalization
401: of the scaling exponents, i.e. we should observe the scaling exponents $\zeta_0(p)<\zeta_R(p)$. It is suggestive to think that the
402: increase of intermittency in shear dominated flows may be understood in terms of the absence of re-normalization in time dependent multiplicative process.
403:
404: \section{Conclusions and discussions}
405: We have introduced a simple multiplicative process
406: which embeds intermittency both in time and in space.
407: This allow us to generate a signal which respect the constraint (imposed by the Navier-Stokes equations) given by equation (\ref{nscale}): $\partial_t w_n \sim l_n^{-1} w_n^2$.
408: This models is a generalization of the multiplicative process (\ref{rpm}) and
409: a practical implementation of a signal satisfying the multifractal representation (\ref{time}).
410: Studying the numerical process we found a ``re-normalization'' of the scaling exponents in space due the non-trivial interplay between multipliers re-generation and time evolution.
411: We have shown that in the case of a passive scalar this effect is not present.
412: Furthermore, we have clearly connected the asymptotic gap, observed on fusion rules, with the intermittent scaling exponents.
413: This finding will be exploited in a forthcoming paper \cite{bbt2}
414: to build up a stochastic closure to compute anomalous scaling exponents for shell models of turbulence.
415:
416: We acknowledge G. Boffetta and A. Celani for many discussion in a early stage of this work.
417:
418: \clearpage
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
421: \bibitem{pf84} G.~Parisi, U.~Frisch, ``On the singularity structure of fully developed turbulence'', in
422: {\it Turbulence and predictability of geophysical fluid dynamics}, Ed. by M. Ghil, R. Benzi and G. Parisi, (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), 84.
423: \bibitem{uriel} U.~Frisch, {\it Turbulence: the legacy of A.~N.~Kolmogorov},
424: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995).
425: \bibitem{rev} G. Falkovich, K. Gavedzki and M. Vergassola, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 73} 913 (2001).
426: \bibitem{physicad} R. Benzi, L. Biferale, A. Crisanti, G. Paladin, M. Vergassola and A. Vulpiani {\it Physica D} {\bf 65} 352 (1993).
427: \bibitem{pre} L. Biferale, G. Boffetta, A. Celani, A. Crisanti and A. Vulpiani {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 57} R6261 (1998).
428: \bibitem{eyink} G. Eyink, {\it Phys. Lett. A} {\bf 172} 355 (1993).
429: \bibitem{procaccia_fr} V.S. L'vov and I. Procaccia, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 76} 2898 (1996).
430: \bibitem{proc1} V. S. L'vov, E. Podivilov, and I. Procaccia, {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 55}, (1997) 7030-7035.
431: \bibitem{bbct} L. Biferale, G. Boffetta, A. Celani, F. Toschi, {\em Physica D} {\bf 127} (1999) 187-197.
432: \bibitem{toschi1} F. Toschi, E. Leveque, G. Ruiz-Chavarria, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85} (2000) 1436.
433: \bibitem{toschi2} F. Toschi, G. Amati, S. Succi, R. Benzi and R. Piva, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82} (1999) 5044.
434:
435: \bibitem{piva} P. Gualtieri, C. M. Casciola, R. Benzi, G. Amati, R. Piva, {\em Phys. Fluids} {\bf 14} (2002) 583.
436:
437: \bibitem{prl} R. Benzi, L. Biferale and F. Toschi, {\it Phys. Rev,. Lett.} {\bf 80} 3244 (1998).
438: \bibitem{bbt2} R. Benzi, L. Biferale and F. Toschi, ``A stochastic closure for shell models of turbulence'', in preparation.
439: \end{thebibliography}
440:
441:
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443: %%
444: %% Figures
445: %%
446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
447: \clearpage
448:
449: \begin{figure}
450: \begin{center}
451: \epsfig{file=fig0.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
452: \caption{Time behaviour of $w_n$ for $n=2,4,6$}
453: \label{fig0}
454: \end{center}
455: \end{figure}
456:
457: \clearpage
458:
459: \begin{figure}
460: \begin{center}
461: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
462: \caption{Log-log plot of measured scaling of $S_3(n)$ vs. $n$ for a time dependent binomial random multiplicative process.
463: The slope fitted slope $\zeta_3\simeq -1.36$ is ``renormalized'' with respect to the ``bare'' value $\zeta_3=1$.}
464: \label{fig1}
465: \end{center}
466: \end{figure}
467:
468: \clearpage
469:
470: \begin{figure}
471: \begin{center}
472: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio}
473: \caption{Behaviour of renormalized $\zeta_R(3)$ for log-normal distribution as a function of $\sigma^2$ (see text).}
474: \label{fig2a}
475: \end{center}
476: \end{figure}
477:
478: \clearpage
479:
480: \begin{figure}
481: \begin{center}
482: \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio}
483: \caption{Behaviour of $\zeta_R(p)$ for $\sigma=0.03$ ($\times$) as compared to bare exponents $\zeta_0(p)$ ($+$). Dashed line is the prediction (\ref{lg1}).}
484: \label{fig2b}
485: \end{center}
486: \end{figure}
487:
488: \clearpage
489:
490: \begin{figure}
491: \begin{center}
492: \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio}
493: \caption{Time correlations at the same scale, $\la w_3(\tau) w_3(0)\ra$, and at different scale,$\la w_9(\tau) w_3(0)\ra$, as a function of the time lag $\tau$.}
494: \label{fig6a2}
495: \end{center}
496: \end{figure}
497:
498: \clearpage
499:
500: \begin{figure}
501: \begin{center}
502: \epsfig{file= fig4bis.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio}
503: \caption{The time scale $B$, computed by the expression $\la w_n(t+\tau)w_n(t) \ra \sim \exp{(-B|\tau|)}$, for different value of $n$. The scaling constrain
504: (\ref{nscale}) should correspond to $B\sim const$ as observed.}
505: \label{B}
506: \end{center}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509: \clearpage
510:
511: \begin{figure}
512: \begin{center}
513: \epsfig{file= fig5.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
514: \caption{Log-log plot of $\la \theta_n^3\ra$ vs $n$, for the passive scalar as compared to the theoretical prediction with slope $-1$.}
515: \label{fig4}
516: \end{center}
517: \end{figure}
518:
519: \clearpage
520:
521: \begin{figure}
522: \begin{center}
523: \epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
524: \caption{Behaviour of $C_{2,2}(m) = \frac{\la w_{3+m}^2w_3^2 \ra \la w_3^2 \ra}{ \la w_{3+m}^2 \ra \la w_3^4\ra}$, defined by using (\ref{fusion}) for $n=3$, as a function of $m=-1,0,1,...$, for the log-normal probability.
525: For $m=0$ $C_{2,2}(0) = 1$ while for large and positive $m$ $C_{2,2}$ reaches a plateau smaller than $1$.}
526: \label{fig6a1}
527: \end{center}
528: \end{figure}
529:
530: \clearpage
531:
532: \begin{figure}
533: \begin{center}
534: \epsfig{file=fig7.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
535: \caption{Behaviour of $C_{9,3}(t)$ as a function of time.}
536: \label{fig6a3}
537: \end{center}
538: \end{figure}
539:
540: \clearpage
541:
542: \begin{figure}
543: \begin{center}
544: \epsfig{file= fig8.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
545: \caption{Behaviour of $C_{2,2}(\infty)$ vs. $\zeta_R(4)-2\zeta_R(2)$.}
546: \label{fig6b}
547: \end{center}
548: \end{figure}
549:
550: \clearpage
551:
552: \begin{figure}
553: \begin{center}
554: \epsfig{file=fig9.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
555: \caption{Behaviour of $f(m)$ as a function of $m$ for a log-normal distribution and two different values of $\sigma$,
556: namely $\sigma = 0.03$ (crosses) and $\sigma = 0.05$ (full line).}
557: \label{fig6f(m)}
558: \end{center}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561: \clearpage
562:
563: \begin{figure}
564: \begin{center}
565: \epsfig{file=fig10.eps,width=\hsize,keepaspectratio,clip}
566: \caption{Plot of the fusion rule coefficient $G(m)$ , as defined in the text, for the passive scalar and for $m=-1,..11$.}
567: \label{passivo2}
568: \end{center}
569: \end{figure}
570: \end{document}
571: