1: \documentclass[notitlepage,pre,11pt,showkeys,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: %\documentclass[notitlepage,aps,12pt,tightenlines]{revtex4}

3: 

4: % This package handles embedded postscript figures.

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \graphicspath{{figs/}}

7: % The amsmath and amssymb packages provide some extra commands/fonts.

8: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

9: \usepackage{bm}

10: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

11: 

12: \bibliographystyle{elsart-num}

13: 

14: %

15: % Definitions

16: %

17: 

18: %\newcommand{\comment}[1]{}

19: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{({\it *** #1 ***})}

20: 

21: \newcommand{\ie}{\textit{i.e.}}

22: \newcommand{\etal}{\textit{et~al.}}

23: \newcommand{\eg}{\textit{e.g.}}

24: 

25: \newcommand{\mathnotation}[2]{\newcommand{#1}{\ensuremath{#2}}}

26: 

27: % gradient

28: \newcommand{\grad}{\nabla}

29: % Laplacian

30: \newcommand{\lapl}{\Delta}

31: \renewcommand{\l}{\left} % \left

32: \renewcommand{\r}{\right} % \right

33: \mathnotation{\ldef}{\mathrel{\raisebox{.069ex}{:}\!\!=}}% Left define

34: \mathnotation{\rdef}{\mathrel{=\!\!\raisebox{.069ex}{:}}}% Right define

35: % Partial derivative

36: \def\pd{\partial}

37: % Real numbers

38: \def\reals{{\mathbb R}}

39: % 1st partial derivative

40: \newcommand {\pdd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

41: % 2nd partial derivative

42: \newcommand {\pdTwo}[2]{\frac{\partial^{2} #1}{\partial #2^{2}}}

43: % reference style

44: %\newcommand {\nref}[1]{~(\ref{#1})}

45: \newcommand {\nref}[1]{~\ref{#1}}

46: % unit vector notation

47: \newcommand {\unitv}[1]{\bm{\hat{#1}}}

48: % the subscript for the horizontal component

49: \newcommand {\horiz}{_{_{H}}}

50: % the symbol for the velocity

51: \newcommand {\vel}{\bm{u}}

52: % the symbol for the horizontal velocity

53: \newcommand {\uh}{\vel\horiz}

54: % the symbol for the vertical unit vector

55: \newcommand {\khat}{\unitv{k}}

56: % the symbol for the unit vector in th y direction

57: \newcommand {\jhat}{\unitv{j}}

58: % the symbol for the unit vector in the direction \hnabla h

59: \newcommand {\nhat}{\unitv{n}}

60: % the symbol for the horizontal nabla

61: \newcommand {\hnabla}{\nabla\!\horiz}

62: % the symbol for the horizontal laplacian

63: \newcommand {\hlap}{\hnabla^{\,2}}

64: % the subscript denoting top

65: \newcommand {\up}{_{_{T}}}

66: % the subscript denoting bottom

67: \newcommand {\down}{_{_{B}}}

68: % degree symbol

69: \newcommand {\degree} {^{\circ}}

70: % Cross product

71: \def\cross{\times}

72: 

73: \newcommand{\Perm}{\rm{Pe}}

74: \newcommand{\Pe}{\mathrm{Pe}}

75: \newcommand{\Pec}{{{\mathcal{P}}e}}

76: \mathnotation{\ks}{k_s}

77: \mathnotation{\ku}{k_u}

78: \newcommand{\fracs}[2]{#1/#2}

79: 

80: \begin{document}

81: 

82: \title{Stirring up trouble:\\

83: Multi-scale mixing measures for steady scalar sources\\

84: }

85: \author{Tiffany A. Shaw}

86: \email{tshaw@physics.utoronto.ca}

87: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Toronto,

88: Toronto, M5S 1A7, Canada}

89: \author{Jean-Luc Thiffeault}

90: \email{jeanluc@imperial.ac.uk}

91: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Imperial College

92:   London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom}

93: \author{Charles R. Doering}

94: \email{doering@umich.edu}

95: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics and Michigan Center

96: for Theoretical Physics\\

97: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043, USA}

98: 

99: 

100: \begin{abstract}

101: The mixing efficiency of a flow advecting a passive scalar sustained by steady

102: sources and sinks is naturally defined in terms of the suppression of

103: bulk scalar variance in the presence of stirring, relative to the

104: variance in the absence of stirring.  These variances can be weighted at

105: various spatial scales, leading to a family of multi-scale mixing measures and

106: efficiencies.  We derive {\it a priori} estimates on these efficiencies from

107: the advection--diffusion partial differential equation, focusing on a broad

108: class of statistically homogeneous and isotropic incompressible flows.  The

109: analysis produces bounds on the mixing efficiencies in terms of the P\'eclet

110: number, a measure the strength of the stirring relative to molecular

111: diffusion.  We show by example that the estimates are sharp for particular

112: source, sink and flow combinations.  In general the high-P\'eclet number

113: behavior of the bounds (scaling exponents as well as prefactors) depends on

114: the structure and smoothness properties of, and length scales in, the scalar

115: source and sink distribution.  The fundamental model of the stirring of a

116: monochromatic source/sink combination by the random sine flow is investigated

117: in detail via direct numerical simulation and analysis.  The large-scale

118: mixing efficiency follows the upper bound scaling (within a logarithm) at high

119: P\'eclet number but the intermediate and small-scale efficiencies are

120: qualitatively less than optimal.  The P\'eclet number scaling exponents of the

121: efficiencies observed in the simulations are deduced theoretically from the

122: asymptotic solution of an internal layer problem arising in a quasi-static

123: model.

124: \end{abstract}

125: 

126: \keywords{stirring, mixing, advection, diffusion, eddy diffusion, turbulent diffusion}

127: \pacs{47.27.Qb, 92.10.Lq, 92.60.Ek, 94.10.Lf }

128: 

129: \maketitle

130: 

131: \section{Introduction}

132: \label{sec:intro}

133: 

134: Mixing processes in fluids play a key role in a wide variety of engineering

135: applications and for natural systems such as the ocean and atmosphere.  Their

136: theoretical study has been a major focus of research, as indicated by the

137: large number of review articles~\cite{Ottino1990,Majda1999,Warhaft2000,%

138: Shraiman2000,Sawford2001,Falkovich2001,Aref2002,Wiggins2004}.  At the smallest

139: scales mixing is achieved by molecular diffusion processes, but it may be

140: facilitated greatly by stirring.  The result of stirring is usually to enhance

141: the effect of molecular diffusion and increase the mixing

142: rate~\cite{Batchelor1949,Batchelor1952a,Batchelor1959,Kraichnan1968,%

143: Kraichnan1974}.  Quantitative understanding of the fundamental features of

144: stirring and its influence on mixing processes is important for the effective

145: modeling, simulation and design or control of these systems.

146: 

147: The ``efficiency'' of mixing means different things in different contexts.

148: For example the dispersion of an initial distribution by an imposed flow is a

149: transient problem where the temporal approach to the final fully mixed state,

150: rather than the final state itself, is of central interest.  Consider for

151: definiteness the homogeneous advection--diffusion equation for a passive

152: scalar field $\theta(\bm{x},t)$ stirred by a divergence-free velocity field

153: $\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)$,

154: \begin{equation}

155:   \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} + \bm{u} \cdot \nabla \theta = \kappa

156:   \lapl \theta

157:   \label{eq:ADhomo}

158: \end{equation}

159: where $\kappa$ is the molecular diffusivity.  If this equation is supplied

160: with initial concentration $\theta(\bm{x},0)$ and applied in an appropriate

161: domain without sources, sinks or scalar flux at the boundaries, then the

162: integral of $\theta$ is conserved, so without loss of generality it may be

163: taken to vanish from the start.  But the $L_{2}$-norm

164: $\|\theta(\cdot,t)\|_{2}$, proportional to the scalar variance in finite

165: volume domains, decreases with time.  Indeed, multiplying (\ref{eq:ADhomo}) by

166: $\theta$ and integrating by parts,

167: \begin{equation}

168:   \frac{d}{dt}  \|\theta\|_{2}^{2} = - 2 \kappa\|\nabla \theta\|_{2}^{2},

169:   \label{eq:ADhomodecay}

170: \end{equation}

171: indicating an inexorable decay of the variance.  Efficient mixing in this

172: transient decay problem means faster decay of the scalar variance.  The mixing

173: efficiency of a particular flow could be defined, for example, in terms of its

174: ability to reduce the variance from the initial value to a prescribed value

175: within a specific period of time~\cite{Constantin2005}.  Because the

176: right-hand side of (\ref{eq:ADhomodecay}) is proportional to $\kappa$, it is

177: evident that molecular processes are ultimately responsible for mixing by this

178: criterion.  Even though the stirring field does not appear explicitly in

179: (\ref{eq:ADhomodecay}), the conventional intuition is that material line

180: stretching in the flow can amplify scalar gradients thereby enhancing the

181: molecular mixing rate.  Indeed, the velocity's rate-of-strain matrix serves as

182: the local growth rate of the scalar gradient field. These issues are of extreme interest for both theory and

183: applications, but in this paper we are interested in a distinct scenario where

184: different effects are at work.  

185: 

186: Mixing a scalar field whose fluctuations are constantly replenished by steady

187: but spatially inhomogeneous sources and sinks is a problem with a long

188: history.  Early on, Townsend~\cite{Townsend1951,Townsend1954} was concerned

189: with the effect of turbulence and molecular diffusion on a line-source of

190: temperature, a heated filament.  The spatial localization of the source,

191: imposed by experimental constraints, enhanced the role of molecular

192: diffusivity.  Saffman~\cite{Saffman1960} also found that molecular diffusion

193: and turbulent diffusion were not simply additive and that higher-order

194: corrections were needed.  Durbin~\cite{Durbin1980} and

195: Drummond~\cite{Drummond1982} introduced stochastic particle models to

196: turbulence modeling, and these allowed more detailed studies of the effect of

197: the source on diffusion.  Sawford and Hunt~\cite{Sawford1986} pointed out that

198: small sources, such as heated filaments, lead to an explicit dependence of the

199: variance on molecular diffusivity.  Many refinements to these models followed,

200: see for instance~\cite{Thomson1990,Borgas1994} and the review by

201: Sawford~\cite{Sawford2001}.  Chertkov

202: \etal~\cite{Chertkov1995,Chertkov1995b,Chertkov1997,Chertkov1997b,%

203: Chertkov1998} and Balkovsky \& Fouxon~\cite{Balkovsky1999} treated the case of

204: a random, statistically-steady source.  Our goal in the present paper is to

205: make the source-dependence of the concentration variance more precise by

206: working directly from the advection--diffusion equation, without specifying

207: the underlying turbulent statistics other than basic stationarity and

208: homogeneity assumptions.

209: 

210: %\section{Advection--Diffusion with a Source}

211: %\label{eq:ADS}

212: 

213: When a source of scalar concentration is present, the transient kinetics are

214: of less immediate interest and instead the properties of the (statistical)

215: steady state are of greater relevance.  As will be seen, this sustained

216: steady-state dynamics highlights other features of stirring and mixing

217: processes.  In comparing the steady-state problem to the transient problem

218: defined by Eq.~\eqref{eq:ADhomodecay}, it is important to remember that the

219: long-time asymptotic behavior of the decaying problem is usually irrelevant

220: to the corresponding long-time behavior of the steady-state problem.  This is

221: because the continuous replenishing of concentration overwhelms

222: small-amplitude effects observed for long-time decay, such as the `strange

223: eigenmode'~\cite{%

224: Pierrehumbert1994,Antonsen1996,Rothstein1999,Fereday2002,Sukhatme2002,%

225: Wonhas2002,Pikovsky2003,Thiffeault2003d,Thiffeault2004b,Schekochihin2004,%

226: Vanneste2005,Gilbert2006}.

227: 

228: In this paper we consider the stirring and mixing of a passive scalar

229: sustained by a steady source-sink function~$s(\bm{x})$.  Given a prescribed

230: divergence-free velocity field $\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)$ and a molecular

231: diffusivity~$\kappa$, the scalar concentration $\theta(\bm{x},t)$ obeys the

232: inhomogeneous advection--diffusion equation

233: \begin{equation}

234:   \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} + \bm{u} \cdot \nabla \theta =

235:   \kappa \lapl \theta + s(\bm{x})

236:   \label{eq:AD}

237: \end{equation}

238: supplemented with initial concentration field $\theta(\bm{x},0)$.  We consider

239: a domain without any net scalar flux at the boundaries: the

240: periodic box of size $L$, i.e., $\bm{x} \in \mathbb{T}^d$, the $d$-dimensional

241: torus of volume $L^{d}$.  The spatial mean of $\theta$ is computed

242: immediately,

243: \begin{equation}

244:    \frac{1}{L^{d}} \int \theta(\bm{x},t) \, d^{d}x \ = \

245:    \frac{1}{L^{d}} \int \theta(\bm{x},0) \, d^{d}x \ + \

246:    t \times \frac{1}{L^{d}} \int s(\bm{x}) \, d^{d}x \, ,

247: \end{equation}

248: and deviations from the spatial mean satisfy (\ref{eq:AD}) with

249: $s(\bm{x})$ replaced by $s(\bm{x}) - L^{-d} \int s \, d^{d}y$.  So to study

250: the fluctuations we may assume without loss of generality that

251: $\theta(\bm{x},0)$ and $s(\bm{x})$, and thus also

252: $\theta(\bm{x},t)$ have spatial mean zero.

253: 

254: Fluctuations in the scalar concentration are natually measured in terms of the

255: steady-state variance $\langle \theta^2 \rangle$, where we introduce the

256: space-time average.  The two averaging operations we use are the time average

257: \begin{equation}

258:   \overline{F}(\bm{x})\ldef\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}

259:   \frac{1}{t} \int_0^t F(\bm{x},t') \, dt',

260: \end{equation}

261: assuming as necessary that the limit exists, and the space-time average

262: \begin{equation}

263:   \langle F \rangle \ldef \frac{1}{L^{d}} \int \overline{F}(\bm{x})

264:   \, d^{d}x \, .

265: \end{equation}

266: Effective stirring makes the scalar field more spatially uniform, lowering the

267: variance, and this is the basic mixing effect that we set out to study.  Many

268: investigations have been concerned with other statistical properties of the

269: scalar field for this kind of model, such as details of the tails of the

270: probability distribution of $\theta$~\cite{Majda1999, Falkovich2001}.  While

271: these studies present fascinating mathematical and physical issues, in terms

272: of applications they are most likely to be of ultimate use in designing

273: closure approximations, i.e., models of the model, in order to accurately

274: estimate bulk measures of mixing like variance reduction.  In this work we

275: focus directly on the supression of the scalar fluctuations as a primary

276: indicator of mixing.

277: 

278: In terms of the Fourier decomposition of the scalar field,

279: \begin{equation}

280:   \hat{\theta}_{\bm{k}}(t) = \frac{1}{L^d}

281:   \int \theta({\bm{x}},t)\,e^{-i\bm{k}\cdot \bm{x}}\,

282:   d^{d}x

283: \end{equation}

284: where ${\bm{k}}=(2\pi/L){\bm{n}}$ for ${\bm{n}}=(n_1,\ldots,n_d)

285: \in \mathbb{Z}^d$, the steady-state variance is

286: \begin{equation}

287:    \langle \theta^2 \rangle = \sum_{\bm{k}}

288:    \overline{|\hat{\theta}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}.

289: \end{equation}

290: The magnitude $k$ of the wavenumbers naturally index spatial scales, so

291: information about the fluctuations at different scales may be obtained

292: by weighting the sums of the Fourier coefficients~\cite{Mathew2005}.  The

293: simplest indicators of the fluctuations on small and large scales are,

294: respectively,

295: \begin{equation}

296:    \langle |\nabla \theta|^2 \rangle = \sum_{\bm{k}} k^{2}

297:    \overline{|\hat{\theta}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}

298: \end{equation}

299: and 

300: \begin{equation}

301:    \langle |\nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle = \sum_{\bm{k}} 

302:    \overline{|\hat{\theta}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}/k^{2}

303: \end{equation}

304: where the inverse gradient $\nabla^{-1}$ is defined in Fourier space as

305: multiplication by $- i {\bm k}/k^{2}$, a well-defined operator on these

306: functions with spatial mean zero.  For the purposes of this study the

307: effectiveness of stirring on mixing at relatively small and large scales

308: will be gauged in terms of these norms.  Efficient stirring decreases the

309: variances on all scales, although it can be expected that any particular

310: stirring may be more effective on some scales than on others.

311: 

312: It is appropriate here to point out a fundamental and elementary distinction

313: between transient and steady-state stirring.  For efficient transient mixing

314: the goal is to decrease the scalar variance $\sim \|\theta(\cdot,t)\|_{2}^{2}$

315: as quickly as possible by {\it increasing} the gradient variance $\sim

316: \|\nabla \theta(\cdot,t)\|_{2}^{2}$ via stirring.  However in the steady-state

317: problem stirring can only {\it reduce} the mean scalar gradient variance---and

318: thus the mean rate of variance decay---from its purely diffusive value in the

319: absence of stirring.

320: 

321: The proof of this (perhaps unexpected) fact is easy.

322: Multiplying (\ref{eq:AD}) by $\theta$ and averaging over space and time

323: with appropriate integrations by parts produces the well-known balance

324: \begin{equation}

325:    \kappa \langle |\nabla \theta|^2 \rangle = 

326:    \langle \theta s \rangle.

327:    \label{elphaba}

328: \end{equation}

329: Inserting the gradient and its inverse on the right-hand side, integrating by

330: parts again, and then employing the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality yields

331: \begin{equation}

332:    \kappa \langle |\nabla \theta|^2 \rangle \ = \

333:    \langle \theta  \nabla \cdot \nabla^{-1}s \rangle \ = \

334:    - \langle \nabla \theta \cdot \nabla^{-1}s \rangle \ \le \

335:    \langle |\nabla \theta|^{2}\rangle^{1/2}

336:    \langle |\nabla^{-1}s| \rangle^{1/2}.

337:    \label{glinda}

338: \end{equation}

339: 

340: Note that the long-time solution of (\ref{eq:AD}) in the absence of stirring

341: is the steady-state solution $\theta_{0}(\bm{x})$ of the diffusion equation

342: with source $s(\bm{x})$,

343: \begin{equation}

344:   \theta_{0} \ = \ - \frac{1}{\kappa} \lapl^{-1} s \, ,

345:   \label{zero}

346: \end{equation}

347: where the inverse Laplacian is multiplication by $-k^{-2}$ in Fourier space.

348: Solving for the steady-state scalar gradient variance in (\ref{glinda}) and

349: noting that $\nabla \theta_{0} = -\kappa^{-1} \nabla^{-1} s$, we conclude that

350: \begin{equation}

351:   \langle |\nabla \theta|^2 \rangle \le 

352:   \langle |\nabla \theta_{0}|^2 \rangle.

353:   \label{boc}

354: \end{equation}

355: 

356: This relationship is uniform in the advecting velocity field

357: $\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)$ implying that no clever stirring on any scales can increase

358: the mean scalar gradient variance over its baseline unstirred value.  In light

359: of this observation we may anticipate that stirring strategies designed to

360: maximize mixing efficiency in the sustained source problem are likely to be

361: different from those employed in the transient decay scenario.

362: 

363: The variances $\langle |\nabla^{p} \theta_{0}|^2 \rangle$, defined above for

364: $p \in \{-1,0,1\}$, are both dimensional and dimensionally distinct quantities.

365: In order to compare them with each other or to compare different

366: physical systems we need sensible nondimensional measures.

367: Hence we define the dimensionless {\it multi-scale mixing efficiencies}, denoted

368: ${\cal E}_{p}$ for $p \in \{-1,0,1\}$, via

369: \begin{equation}

370:   {\cal E}_{p}^{2} = \frac {\langle |\nabla^{p} \theta_{0}|^2 \rangle}

371:   {\langle |\nabla^{p} \theta|^2 \rangle}

372: \end{equation}

373: where $\theta_{0}$ is the steady solution of the unstirred problem defined in

374: (\ref{zero}).  Effective stirring decreases scalar variances relative to those

375: due to diffusion alone, increasing these mixing efficiences.  The calculation

376: resulting in (\ref{boc}) has established that ${\cal E}_{1} \ge 1$.

377: 

378: Intensifying the stirring often increases the mixing efficiencies and it is

379: important to characterize this property in terms of the forcefulness of the

380: flow.  The simplest bulk measure of the vigor of the velocity field is its

381: mean kinetic energy, or equivalently the {\it rms} speed $U$ defined by

382: \begin{equation}

383:   U^{2} = \langle \lvert\bm{u}\rvert^2 \rangle.

384: \end{equation}

385: The nondimensional measure of the strength of the stirring relative to the

386: effect of molecular viscosity is the P\'eclet number $\Pe$ that we define as

387: \begin{equation}

388:   \Pe = \frac{UL}{\kappa}

389: \end{equation}

390: using the domain length scale $L$ for simplicity here.  It will become

391: apparent that this domain length scale may not be the most appropriate one for

392: this purpose; determining the relevant length scales is one of the central

393: points of this study.

394: 

395: For many applications it is useful to know how fluctuations at various length

396: scales may be suppressed as functions of $\kappa$, $U$, and other features of

397: the problem such as details of the flow and source-sink structures.  Toward

398: this end it is desirable to know how the multi-scale mixing efficiencies depend

399: on the P\'eclet number, and the notion of ``eddy diffusivity'' provides a

400: conceptual benchmark for this dependence.

401: 

402: A flow with velocity scale $U$ and ``persistence length'', ``mixing length''

403: or ``eddy size" $\ell$ that characterizes the typical distance a particle

404: travels before changing direction can disperse particles diffusively on

405: appropriate space and/or time scales.  This suggests that when advection

406: dominates molecular diffusion, an effective diffusion with coefficient

407: $\kappa_{\mathrm{eff}} \sim U\ell$ might replace the advection to determine

408: some gross statistical features of the scalar field.\footnote{Indeed, the

409: situation where $\ell$ is much smaller than any length scales in the initial

410: data $\theta(\bm{x},0)$ or the source $s(\bm{x})$ is the setting for

411: homogenization theory.}  If this is so, then the steady-state scalar variances

412: are all $\sim \kappa_{\mathrm{eff}}^{-2}$ and the efficiencies are all $\sim

413: \kappa_{\mathrm{eff}}/\kappa$.  According to this argument

414: \begin{equation}

415:    {\cal E}_{p} \sim \frac{U\ell}{\kappa} = \frac{\ell}{L} \times \Pe.

416: \end{equation}

417: 

418: The linear scaling ${\cal E}_{p} \sim \Pe$ at high P\'eclet numbers, which we

419: will refer to as the ``classical'' scaling, provides a baseline reference for

420: the multi-scale mixing efficiencies.  Flows that generate this classical

421: scaling asymptotically as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$ produce a truly effective

422: ``residual" molecular-like diffusion as far as the suppresion of variances at

423: the various spatial scales is concerned, even in the singular $\kappa

424: \rightarrow 0$ limit of vanishing molecular diffusivity.  And as this

425: discussion suggests, if the efficiency scales classically then the prefactor

426: provides a precise prediction of the length scale with which an eddy

427: diffusivity might be meaningfully identified.

428: 

429: The principal purpose of this paper is to determine limits on the mixing

430: efficiencies, i.e., to derive {\it a priori} bounds on ${\cal E}_{p}$ as a

431: function of $\Pe$, and to investigate what sort of flows might realize those

432: limits.  Upper bounds on ${\cal E}_{p}(\Pe)$ are of particular interest

433: because they characterize the most efficient stirring strategies that can

434: possibly be hoped for.  If the bounds are to be useful then they should be

435: realizable or approachable, or at the very least indicative of the kind of

436: behavior that is possible---such as a scaling like ${\cal E}_{p} \sim

437: \Pe^{\alpha}$ at high P\'eclet numbers.

438: 

439: Upper bounds on the mixing efficiencies follow from lower bounds on the

440: variances and the first study in this direction was apparently by Thiffeault,

441: Doering, and Gibbon \cite{Thiffeault2004} who focused on estimates and

442: simulations for ${\cal E}_{0}$.  They adapted an approach that had been used

443: to bound turbulent dissipation in the Navier--Stokes equations

444: \cite{Doering2002,Doering2003} for application to inhomogeneous

445: advection--diffusion equations.  For the steady source model of interest here

446: they showed that if $\langle \theta_{0}^{2} \rangle < \infty$ then ${\cal

447: E}_{0} \le a + b \Pe$ where the coefficients $a$ and $b$ are homogeneous scale

448: invariant functionals of the source $s$, i.e., invariant under the

449: transformation $s({\bm x}) \rightarrow c s({c' \bm x})$ for any constants $c$,

450: and $c' \ne 0$.

451: 

452: That result showed that very generally the classical scaling is an upper limit

453: to the mixing efficiency in this most basic sense.  Moreover, the coefficient

454: in the high P\'eclet number scaling ${\cal E}_{0} \lesssim b \, \Pe$ puts a

455: limit on any reasonable value for a mixing length: $\ell \lesssim b L$.  It is

456: especially notable that this rigorous estimate of $\ell$ (really of the

457: prefactor $b$) is uniform in the stirring field $\bm{u}$ and independent of

458: any length scales it exhibits.  It also is independent of $\kappa$.  It

459: emerges as a length scale in the source-sink distribution, which is seen to

460: play a more important role in the mixing process than the conventional eddy

461: diffusion picture anticipates.  When the relevant length scale in the

462: sustaining source and sink is small then the variance suppression by advection

463: is necessarily limited by this no matter what spectrum of scales is present in

464: the stirring process.

465: 

466: These observations serve as the starting point for this study.  Here we carry

467: forward the investigation of stirring and variance suppression by extending

468: the analysis to multi-scale mixing measures while focusing on a broad but

469: specific class of statistically stationary homogeneous and isotropic flows.

470: The restriction to this class of flows---a class that includes but is not

471: limited to homogeneous isotropic high Reynolds number turbulence---allows

472: for the exact solution of some variational problems for bounds on the mixing

473: efficiencies.  For certain sources and sinks these bounds yield anomalous

474: sub-classical exponents for the $\Pe$ scaling of some of the ${\cal E}_{p}$.

475: Thus anomalous scaling is inevitable for some source-sink distributions.

476: In those cases it cannot be avoided by manipulating details of the flow or

477: the spectrum of the stirring.

478: We study the case of a monochromatic source 

479: $s({\bm x}) \sim \sin({\bm k}_{s} \cdot {\bm x})$ in detail.  

480: The estimates are particularly simple in this case and they are

481: sharp: we will exhibit a statistically stationary homogeneous and

482: isotropic stirring strategy that saturates the upper bounds.

483: 

484: The rest of this paper is organized as follows.  We introduce the relevant

485: class of statistically stationary, homogeneous and isotropic flows in

486: Section~\ref{sec:SHIF}, and present some specific examples.  We formulate

487: variational problems for bounds on the mixing efficiencies in

488: Section~\ref{sec:BOUNDS}, and derive general estimates.  In

489: Section~\ref{sec:saturation} we evaluate the bounds explicitly for some

490: particular sources and sinks and show that classical scaling estimates may

491: be sharp.  In Section~\ref{sec:SARSAS} we focus on the high-$\Pe$ behavior of

492: the mixing efficiency bounds for a variety of source-sink distributions,

493: and show that anomalous sub-classical scaling is sometimes unavoidable.

494: 

495: In Section~\ref{sec:SSSSSF} we are concerned with the fundamental example of a

496: monochromatic source stirred by a flow with a single length scale, the

497: so-called random sine flow, a type of renewing flow.  Measuring the mixing

498: efficiencies in direct numerical simulations, we find that the large-scale

499: efficiency ${\cal E}_{-1}$ scales (nearly) classically with respect to $\Pe$,

500: like its upper bound, but the intermediate and small-scale efficiencies ${\cal

501: E}_{0}$ and ${\cal E}_{1}$ scale sub-classically, i.e., with powers of $\Pe$

502: less than 1.  We show that the anomalous exponents for ${\cal E}_{0}$ and

503: ${\cal E}_{1}$ can be deduced from the asymptotic analysis of a static flow

504: problem.  The concluding Section~\ref{sec:SandD} contains a summary of the

505: results along with a discussion of open problems and compelling future

506: challenges.  Some technical details are relegated to appendices.

507: 

508: 

509: \section{Statistically Stationary Homogeneous Isotropic Flows}

510: \label{sec:SHIF}

511: 

512: Our approach to estimating mixing efficiencies is kinematic: the stirring

513: vector field ${\bm u}({\bm x},t)$ is assumed to be given.  It could be a

514: solution of the Navier--Stokes equations, or it could be a stochastic process

515: with convenient or interesting spectral properties, or it could be a regular

516: time-periodic field.  The mixing efficiency bounds obtained in this paper will

517: apply so long as a few generic statistical conditions are satisfied.  Of

518: course not every stirring field satisfying these conditions will saturate the

519: bounds, but they are all limited by them.

520: 

521: This analysis in this paper is concerned with velocity fields that satisfy the

522: following three conditions:

523: \begin{itemize}

524: \item{The field is divergence free, $\nabla \cdot {\bm u} = 0$,

525: everywhere and at all times.

526: %We want to consider incompressible volume-preserving flows.

527: }

528: \item{The field has finite mean kinetic energy, $U^{2} = \langle |{\bm u}|^{2}

529: \rangle < \infty$, so that the P\'eclet number $\Pe = UL/\kappa$ is finite.

530: We will also presume more regularity for the velocity whenever necessary to

531: carry out formal calculations.  This will be apparent in the course of the

532: applications if the ultimate estimates depend on other norms of the field.}

533: \item{The velocity field is statistically stationary, homogeneous and

534: isotropic.  For the purposes of this work these qualities are defined by the

535: one- and two-point equal time statistics (presuming that these time averages

536: exist pointwise in space)

537: \begin{equation}

538:  \overline{u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)} = 0

539:  \label{mean1}

540: \end{equation}

541: \begin{equation}

542:   \overline{u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)u_j(\bm{y},\cdot)} \ = \ C_{ij}(\bm{x}-\bm{y})

543:   \ = \ \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} \frac{\hat{C}(k)}{d-1}

544:   \ \l(\delta_{ij} - \frac{k_{i}k_{j}}{k^{2}}\r)

545:   \ e^{i\bm{k}\cdot(\bm{x}-\bm{y})} \ + \ \frac{\hat{C}(0)}{d}\delta_{ij}

546:   \label{eq:SHIT}

547: \end{equation}

548: where $\hat{C}(k)$ depends only on the magnitude $k$ of the wavenumber

549: $\bm{k}$.  }

550: \end{itemize}

551: The conditions of finite energy and incompressiblity are familiar and

552: straightforward.  In the remainder of this section we discuss these

553: stationarity, homogeneity and isotropy conditions and their relevant

554: implications for the calculation of bounds on the various multi-scale mixing

555: efficiencies.  We also provide explicit examples, i.e., we describe several

556: flows with these properties that will be useful for considerations

557: in subsequent sections.

558: 

559: First, setting $\bm{x} = \bm{y}$ in (\ref{eq:SHIT}) produces the single point

560: component-by-component covariance

561: \begin{equation}

562:   \overline{u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)u_j(\bm{x},\cdot)} \ = \ C_{ij}(0)

563:   \ = \ \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} \frac{\hat{C}(k)}{d-1}

564:   \ \l(\delta_{ij} - \frac{k_{i}k_{j}}{k^{2}}\r)

565:   \ + \ \frac{\hat{C}(0)}{d}\delta_{ij}.

566: \end{equation}

567: Note that because $\hat{C}(k)$ depends only on the magnitude of the wavenumber,

568: \begin{equation}

569: \sum_{\bm{k \ne 0}} \hat{C}(k) \ \frac{k_{i}k_{j}}{k^{2}}

570:  \ = \ \frac{1}{d} \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} \hat{C}(k) \delta_{ij}.

571: \end{equation}

572: Thus

573: \begin{equation}

574:   \overline{u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)u_j(\bm{x},\cdot)} \ = \ 

575:   \frac{1}{d} \, \sum_{\text{all} \ \bm{k}} \hat{C}(k) \ \delta_{ij} \ = \

576:   \frac{U^2}{d} \delta_{ij}

577:   \label{eq:HIT1}

578: \end{equation}

579: where we identify the mean square velocity $U^{2} = \langle |{\bm u}|^{2}

580: \rangle = \sum \hat{C}(k)$.

581: 

582: Then if the velocity field is sufficiently regular (or equivalently if

583: $\hat{C}(k)$ decays sufficiently fast as $k \rightarrow \infty$) we may also

584: deduce some correlations of the derivatives of ${\bm u}$.  For example

585: differentiating $C_{ij}(\bm{x}-\bm{y})$ in (\ref{eq:SHIT}) by $x_{k}$ and

586: setting $\bm{y}=\bm{x}$ leads to

587: \begin{equation}

588:  \overline{\frac{\partial u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)}

589:  {\partial x_k}u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)} \ = \ 

590:  \sum_{\bm{k \ne 0}} \frac{i \,\hat{C}(k)}{d-1}

591:   \ \l(\delta_{ij} k_{k} \,  - \frac{k_{i}k_{j} k_{k}}{k^{2}}\r)

592:  \ = \ 0

593:  \label{eq:HIT2}

594: \end{equation}

595: because $\hat{C}(k)$ summed against an odd number of orthogonal components

596: vanishes when the sum is absolutely convergent.  Differentiating

597: $C_{ij}(\bm{x}-\bm{y})$ by $x_{k}$ and $y_{l}$, setting $\bm{y}=\bm{x}$, and

598: subsequently contracting over $k$ and $l$ gives

599: \begin{equation}

600:    \overline{ \frac{u_i(\bm{x},\cdot)}{\partial x_k}\frac{\partial u_j(\bm{x},\cdot)}

601:    {\partial x_k}} \ = \

602:    \frac{1}{d} \, \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} k^{2}\, \hat{C}(k) \, \delta_{ij}

603:    \ = \

604:    \frac{\Omega^2}{d} \delta_{ij}

605:    \label{eq:HIT3}

606: \end{equation}

607: where we identify the enstrophy 

608: $\Omega^{2} \ldef \langle |\nabla {\bm u}|^{2} \rangle = \sum k^{2}\hat{C}(k)$.

609: In the context of statistical turbulence theory the ratio

610: $\lambda = U/\Omega$ is (proportional to) the Taylor microscale. 

611: 

612: An example of such a statistically stationary homogeneous isotropic flow is

613: the solution ${\bm u}({\bm x},t)$ of the incompressible Navier-Stokes

614: equations

615: \begin{equation}

616:    \frac{\partial \bm u}{\partial t} + {\bm u} \cdot \nabla {\bm u} + \nabla p

617:    \ = \ \nu \Delta {\bm u} + {\bm f}({\bm x},t)\, , \quad 

618:    \nabla \cdot {\bm u} \ = \ 0,

619:      \label{eq:NS}

620: \end{equation}

621: where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity and ${\bm f}({\bm x},t)$ is a spatially

622: periodic body force applied to maintain a statistical steady state.  Of course

623: the forcing would have to be capable of producing the homogeneous and isotropic

624: statistics described above, not an altogether trivial task.  

625: This approach would be taken to study mixing properties of high-Reynolds 

626: number turbulent flows.

627: 

628: Other flows may be easier and more convenient to implement in simulations or

629: to utilize in the analysis of specific models.  Some features of the

630: stirring---for instance a stationary energy spectrum consistent with developed

631: turbulence---can be realized by specifying the modal amplitudes $\hat{{\bm

632: u}}_{\bm{k}}(t)$ as mean-zero stochastic processes with $\bm{k} \cdot

633: \hat{{\bm u}}_{\bm{k}}(t) = 0$ and appropriately uncorrelated for distinct

634: wavenumbers, to produce any desired energy spectrum $\hat{C}(k) =

635: \overline{|\hat{{\bm u}}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}$.  This is possible

636: when $\overline{|\hat{{\bm u}}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}$ depends only on the magnitude

637: $k$ of the wavenumber $\bm{k}$. 

638: 

639: One model of interest is a flow involving just a single wavenumber $k \ne 0$,

640: the random sine flow, a.k.a.\ the renewing wave

641: flow~\cite{Pierrehumbert1994,Antonsen1996,Thiffeault2004,Tsang2005}.  (The

642: term `renewing' or `renovating' has been used to refer to flows that are

643: piecewise-constant in time but change randomly at regular

644: intervals~\cite{Dittrich1984,Zeldovich1984,Gilbert1992}.

645: Zeldovich~\cite{Zeldovich1982} introduced a similar single-mode flow, but it

646: was oscillatory rather than renewing and thus had poor mixing properties.)  In

647: this example the velocity vector field switches periodically among steady

648: shearing flows of the form

649: \begin{equation}

650:   \bm{u}(\bm{x}) \ = \ \sqrt{2} \, \bm{U} \,

651:   \sin{(\bm{k}\cdot\bm{x} + \varphi)}

652:    \label{eq:ZSF}

653: \end{equation}

654: where $\bm{k}\cdot\bm{U}=0$, $|\bm{U}| = U$ and the phase $\varphi$ is

655: selected independently and uniformly from $[0,2\pi)$ upon each switch.

656: The switching may be strictly periodic or random in time, and

657: in either case the characteristic persistence $\tau$

658: is another parameter of this flow.

659: Of course an appropriate selection of the directions for $\bm{k}$ and

660: $\bm{U}$ must be made in order to realize statistical homogeneity

661: and isotropy by the definition used here.

662: 

663: The kinetically simplest possible example of a statistically homogeneous and

664: isotropic flow is one where only $\hat{C}(0) \ne 0$.  At each instant of time

665: the flow is then spatially uniform, a steady wind $\bm{u}(\bm{x}) = \bm{U}$

666: with the direction switching periodically or randomly in time so that the time

667: average of $\bm{u}$ vanishes and the component-component correlation satisfies

668: $\overline{u_{i}u_{j}} \sim \delta_{ij}$.  This wind could sample many

669: directions, or as few as $2 \times d$ in the $\pm$ directions along an

670: orthogonal set of coordinate axes.

671: 

672: 

673: %===================================================

674: 

675: \section{Bounds on the Mixing Efficiencies}

676: \label{sec:BOUNDS}

677: 

678: In this section we derive bounds on the multi-scale mixing efficiencies ${\cal

679: E}_{p}$ for~$p=0,1,-1$, corresponding to intermediate, small, and large

680: scales, respectively, for flows that satisfy the statistical homogeneity and

681: isotropy conditions in \eqref{eq:HIT1} and \eqref{eq:HIT2}.  We first briefly

682: address lower bounds, but focus for the most part on upper estimates.  The

683: variational formulation and solution for upper bounds on intermediate and

684: large length scales proceeds along similar lines, so we shall treat the

685: variance in detail and give a more brisk derivations for the large-scale

686: mixing measure.  Two different lower estimates on the small-scale variance,

687: corresponding to upper bounds on the mixing efficiency at small scales, are

688: derived.  One of these small-scale results depends on the spectral

689: distribution of energy in the stirring field while the other depends only on

690: the total bulk energy.

691: 

692: \subsection{Lower bounds on the mixing efficiencies}

693: \label{sec:bound_{lower}}

694: 

695: Lower bounds on the mixing efficiencies follow from upper bounds on the

696: corresponding variances.  We already derived a lower bound for 

697: the small-scale mixing efficiency ${\cal E}_{1}$ in the introduction by

698: considering the

699: steady-state variance dissipation-production balance in (\ref{elphaba}),

700: \begin{equation}

701: \kappa \langle |\nabla \theta|^{2} \rangle = 

702: \langle s \theta \rangle.

703: \label{elphaba2}

704: \end{equation}

705: The subsequent result in (\ref{boc}), valid for any incompressible flow even

706: without invoking any statistical assumptions, is precisely the statement that

707: ${\cal E}_{1} \ge 1$.

708: 

709: We expect that this estimate can be sharp in the sense that there may exist a

710: flow field with arbitrary P\'eclet number that may realize it.  Certainly this

711: is true in $2d$: given the source-sink function $s(\bm{x})$ with unstirred

712: scalar distribution $\theta_{0}(\bm{x})$, just define a flow field with stream

713: function $\psi(\bm{x}) \sim \theta_{0}(\bm{x})$.  The streamlines of such a

714: flow are along level sets of $\theta_{0}$ so the flow has no effect.  Indeed,

715: for this flow $\bm{u}\cdot \nabla \theta_{0} = 0$ no matter what the magnitude

716: of $U$ is, so $\theta_{0}$ is the stationary solution of the

717: advection--diffusion equation for any value of $\Pe$.  However, this perfectly

718: ``non-mixing'' flow is not statistically stationary, homogeneous and

719: isotropic, and it is not clear whether further constraints derived from the

720: full advection--diffusion equation might be implemented to raise this lower

721: estimate for such fluctuating flows.  We leave that question for a future

722: study.

723: 

724: We can follow the same line of reasoning to derive lower estimates on the

725: other mixing efficiencies, although perhaps with less satisfaction.  A lower

726: bound on ${\cal E}_{0}$ requires an upper estimate on $\langle \theta^{2}

727: \rangle$.  Starting from (\ref{elphaba2}), recalling that $\theta$ has spatial

728: mean zero and invoking Poincar\'e's inequality on the left and Cauchy--Schwarz

729: on the right,

730: \begin{equation}

731: \kappa \frac{2\pi}{L} \langle \theta^{2} \rangle^{1/2}

732: \langle |\nabla \theta|^{2} \rangle^{1/2} \le

733: \kappa \langle |\nabla \theta|^{2} \rangle = \langle s \theta \rangle

734: \le \langle |\nabla^{-1}s|^{2} \rangle^{1/2} \langle |\nabla \theta|^{2}

735: \rangle^{1/2}.

736: \label{elphaba3}

737: \end{equation}

738: Hence we deduce the upper estimate on the scalar variance,

739: \begin{equation}

740: \langle \theta^{2} \rangle \le

741: \frac{L^{2}}{4 \pi^{2} \kappa^{2}} \langle |\nabla^{-1}s|^{2} \rangle.

742: \label{elphaba4}

743: \end{equation}

744: The unstirred variance is

745: \begin{equation}

746: \langle \theta_{0}^{2} \rangle =

747: \frac{1}{\kappa^{2}} \langle (\Delta^{-1} s)^{2} \rangle,

748: \label{elphaba5}

749: \end{equation}

750: so we have the lower estimate

751: \begin{equation}

752: {\cal E}_{0}^{2} =

753: \frac{\langle \theta_{0}^{2} \rangle}{\langle \theta^{2} \rangle} \ge

754: \frac{4 \pi^{2}}{L^{2}}

755: \frac{\langle (\Delta^{-1} s)^{2} \rangle}{\langle |\nabla^{-1}s|^{2} \rangle}

756: = \frac{\sum_{{\bm{k}}} (Lk/2\pi)^{-4}|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}

757: {\sum_{{\bm{k}}} (Lk/2\pi)^{-2}|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}.

758: \label{elphaba6}

759: \end{equation}

760: This lower estimate is strictly positive but because $Lk/2\pi \ge 1$ it is

761: $\le 1$.  Hence it does not rule out the existence of flows that might {\it

762: increase} scalar variance.  Note as well that this estimate depends

763: explicitly on the functional ``shape'' of the source-sink distribution, a

764: feature that we will find for many estimates---upper and lower---on the mixing

765: efficiencies.

766: 

767: The result can in principle be sharpened by solving the variational problem

768: \begin{equation}

769: \langle \theta^{2} \rangle \le \max_{\vartheta} \,

770: \{ \langle \vartheta^{2} \rangle \, | \,

771: \kappa \langle |\nabla \vartheta|^{2} \rangle = 

772: \langle s \vartheta \rangle

773: \}

774: \label{elphaba7}

775: \end{equation}

776: where the maximization is performed over all $\vartheta(\bm{x})$ satisfying

777: the (periodic) boundary conditions on the domain.

778: The Euler-Lagrange equation for the maximizer $\vartheta_{*}(\bf{x})$ is

779: \begin{equation}

780: 0 = 2 \vartheta_{*} - 2\mu \kappa \Delta \vartheta_{*} - \mu s(\bf{x})

781: \label{elphaba8}

782: \end{equation}

783: where $\mu$ is the Lagrange multiplier enforcing the constraint

784: (\ref{elphaba2}).  In terms of the Fourier coefficients the solution of

785: (\ref{elphaba8}) is straightforward,

786: \begin{equation}

787: \hat{\vartheta_{*}}_{\bm{k}} = \frac{\mu}{2} \, \frac{\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}}

788: {\mu \kappa k^{2} + 1},

789: \label{elphaba9}

790: \end{equation}

791: but $\mu$ is the solution of 

792: \begin{equation}

793: \frac{1}{2} \sum_{{\bm{k}}} \frac{\mu \kappa k^{2}

794: |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}{(\mu \kappa k^{2}+ 1)^{2}} =

795: \sum_{{\bm{k}}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}{\mu \kappa k^{2}+ 1}.

796: \label{elphaba10}

797: \end{equation}

798: In general it is difficult to solve (\ref{elphaba10}) for $\mu$,

799: but there is one case where it is easy: if the source is 

800: ``monochromatic'', i.e., involves only a single

801: wavenumber of amplitude $k_{s}$, then $\mu = -2/\kappa k_{s}^{2}$ so

802: \begin{equation}

803: {\cal E}_{0}^{2} \ge \frac{\sum_{{\bm{k}}} |\hat{\theta}_{0\bm{k}}|^{2}}

804: {\sum_{{\bm{k}}} |\hat{\theta}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}

805: = \frac{4\sum_{{\bm{k}}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}/(\mu \kappa k^{2})^{2}}

806: {\sum_{{\bm{k}}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}/(\mu \kappa k^{2}+ 1)}

807: = 1.

808: \label{elphaba11}

809: \end{equation}

810: Hence stirring a monochromatic source can never increase the variance.

811: However if the source-sink distribution involves even just two distinct

812: wavenumbers, then the solution of (\ref{elphaba10})---which must be performed

813: numerically---yields a value for $\mu$ that produces a lower bound for

814: ${\cal E}_{0}$ that is strictly less than 1~\cite{ShawGFD2005}.  

815: Further details are relegated to Appendix A; this analysis does not 

816: prove that there actually is some stirring that can

817: increase the scalar variance for such sources, but it leaves open the

818: possibility.  For the purposes of this study we will settle for this lower

819: bound as far as its P\'eclet number scaling is concerned.  That is,

820: \begin{equation}

821: {\cal E}_{0} \ge c \, \Pe^{0},

822: \label{elphaba12}

823: \end{equation}

824: where the positive coefficient $c$ may depend on the source-sink

825: distribution, and we cannot rule out that it might be less than 1.

826: 

827: A lower bound on the large-scale mixing efficiency follows from the constraint

828: (\ref{elphaba2}) via Poincar\'e's and the Cauchy--Schwarz inequalities as well.

829: It follows from (\ref{elphaba4}) that

830: \begin{equation}

831: \frac{16\pi^{4}}{L^{4}} \langle |\nabla^{-1}\theta|^{2} \rangle \le

832: \frac {\langle |\nabla^{-1} s|^{2} \rangle} {\kappa^{2}}

833: \label{elphaba13}

834: \end{equation}

835: so that

836: \begin{equation}

837: {\cal E}_{-1}^{2} \ = \

838: \frac{\langle |\nabla^{-1}\theta_{0}|^{2} \rangle}{\langle |\nabla^{-1}\theta|^{2} \rangle}

839: \ge \frac{16 \pi^{4}}{L^{4}} \frac{\langle |\nabla^{-3} s|^{2} \rangle}{ \langle |\nabla^{-1} s|^{2} \rangle}

840: \ = \ \frac{\sum_{{\bm{k}}} (Lk/2\pi)^{-6}|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}}

841: {\sum_{{\bm{k}}} (Lk/2\pi)^{-2}|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}} \ \le \ 1.

842: \label{elphaba14}

843: \end{equation}

844: We note again that for the special case of a monochromatic source, a

845: variational formulation as in (\ref{elphaba7}) yields the improved lower bound

846: ${\cal E}_{-1} \ge 1$.

847: It remains an open problem to determine if these lower estimates $\sim \Pe^{0}$

848: are sharp for arbitrary sources and sinks stirred by some statistically homogeneous 

849: and isotropic flow.  (We will show that they are sharp in some particular cases.)

850: Certainly it will be necessary to use more than just (\ref{elphaba2}) to answer

851: this question in general.

852: 

853: \subsection{Upper bounds on ${\cal E}_{0}$}

854: \label{sec:bound0}

855: 

856: This analysis begins by multiplying the advection--diffusion equation

857: \eqref{eq:AD} by a smooth, time-independent, spatially periodic ``projector

858: function'' $\varphi(\bm{x})$ and taking the space-time average and integrating

859: by parts to obtain

860: \begin{equation}

861:   0 \ = \ \langle \theta (\bm{u}\cdot \nabla + \kappa \lapl)\varphi \rangle

862:   +\langle \varphi s \rangle.

863:   \label{eq:firststep}

864: \end{equation}

865: Because this constraint holds for all~$\varphi$, a lower bound on the variance

866: is

867: \begin{equation}

868:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \ \geq \ \max_{\varphi} \min_{\vartheta}

869:   \{ \langle \vartheta^2 \rangle~|~0 = \langle \vartheta

870:    (\bm{u} \cdot \nabla \varphi + \kappa \lapl \varphi) \rangle +

871:    \langle \varphi s \rangle \}

872: \label{lbvar}

873: \end{equation}

874: where $\vartheta(\bm{x},t)$ varies over all spatially periodic function with

875: unconstrained dependence.\footnote{Previously, Thiffeault, Doering

876: \& Gibbon~\cite{Thiffeault2004} derived a

877: bound on this variance without optimizing over $\varphi$.}  

878: This min-max variational formulation is equivalent to

879:  \begin{equation}

880:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \ \geq \ \min_{\vartheta }

881:   \{ \langle \vartheta^2 \rangle~|~ 

882:   \overline{\bm{u} \cdot \nabla \vartheta } = 

883:   \kappa \lapl \overline{\vartheta} + s\}.

884:  \label{glinda1}

885: \end{equation}

886: The multiplier function $\varphi(\bm{x})$ plays the role of a Lagrange

887: multiplier to impose the ``Reynolds averaged'' advection--diffusion equation

888: $\overline{\bm{u} \cdot \nabla \vartheta } = \kappa \lapl \overline{\vartheta}

889: + s$ as a constraint.  The formulation of the bound as a min-max 

890: problem in (\ref{lbvar}) is, as we will see, convenient for its solution.

891: 

892: The minimization over $\vartheta$ in (\ref{lbvar}) is equivalent to an

893: application of the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality to \eqref{eq:firststep}:

894: \begin{equation}

895:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \geq \max_{\varphi} \frac{ \langle \varphi s

896:   \rangle^2}{\langle (\bm{u}\cdot \nabla \varphi+ \kappa \lapl\varphi)^2

897:   \rangle} = \max_{\varphi} \frac{ \langle \varphi s \rangle^2}{\langle

898:   \varphi\, \overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger} \varphi \rangle}\,,

899:   \label{eq:varb}

900: \end{equation}

901: where we defined the advection--diffusion operator~$\cal{L}$ and its

902: adjoint~${\cal{L}}^\dagger$,

903: \begin{equation}

904:   {\cal{L}}\ldef \bm{u}\cdot \nabla -\kappa

905:   \lapl \qquad \text{and} \qquad

906:   {\cal{L}}^\dagger\ldef -\bm{u}\cdot \nabla -\kappa

907:   \lapl\,.

908: \end{equation}

909: We explicitly indicate the time average in the denominator

910: of~\eqref{eq:varb} remembering that~$\varphi$ is time-independent.  

911: An important point here is that we can average the time-dependent

912: self-adjoint operator ${\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger$ before

913: carrying out the maximization over~$\varphi$.

914: 

915: Maximizing~\eqref{eq:varb} over $\varphi$ is equivalent to minimizing its

916: denominator.  Without loss of generality, since the functional~\eqref{eq:varb}

917: is homogeneous in~$\varphi$, we constrain $\varphi$ to have unit projection

918: onto the source.  Thus we must minimize the functional

919: \begin{equation}

920:   {\cal{F}}\ldef\left \langle \tfrac{1}{2} \varphi\,

921:   \overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger} \varphi -\mu (\varphi s -1) \right

922:   \rangle,

923: \end{equation}

924: leading to the Euler--Lagrange equation

925: \begin{equation}

926:   0 = \frac{\delta{\cal{F}}}{\delta \varphi}=

927:   \overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger}\, \varphi - \mu s

928: \end{equation}

929: where $\mu$ is a Lagrange multiplier to enforce the constraint $\langle \varphi s \rangle = 1$.  

930: The minimizer is then

931: \begin{equation}

932:   \varphi = \frac{(\overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger})^{-1} s}

933:   {\langle s (\overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger})^{-1} s \rangle}.

934:   \label{eq:phiopt0}

935: \end{equation}

936: Inserting~\eqref{eq:phiopt0} into~\eqref{eq:varb}, we obtain the lower bound

937: \begin{equation}

938:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \geq \langle s

939:   (\overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger})^{-1} s \rangle =

940:   \langle s \,\{ \kappa^2 \lapl^2 - \nabla

941:   \cdot(\overline{\bm{u}\bm{u} })+\kappa(2 \nabla

942:   \overline{\bm{u}}:\nabla \nabla + \lapl \overline{\bm{u}} \cdot

943:   \nabla) \}^{-1} s\rangle.

944:   \label{eq:sM0s}

945: \end{equation}

946: Interestingly, this estimate depends only on the mean and equal-point

947: correlation of the stirring.

948: 

949: Specializing to flows satisfying the assumptions of statistical homogeneity

950: and isotropy in (\ref{mean1}) and (\ref{eq:SHIT})---actually we just use

951: (\ref{mean1}) and (\ref{eq:HIT1}) here---we can carry out the time average in

952: \eqref{eq:sM0s}, yielding

953: \begin{equation}

954:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \geq

955:   \langle s(\overline{{\cal{L}}{\cal{L}}^\dagger})^{-1}s \rangle

956:   = \langle s\, \{ \kappa^2 \lapl^2 -

957:   (U^2/d)\lapl \}^{-1} s\rangle

958:   = \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}{\kappa^{2} k^4 +U^2 k^2/d}.

959:   \label{eq:var0HITbound}

960: \end{equation}

961: Using $\theta_{0} = (-\kappa \Delta)^{-1}s$ we express this result as an upper

962: bound on the mixing efficiency ${\cal E}_{0}$:

963: \begin{equation}

964: {\cal E}_{0}^2 = \frac{\langle \theta_{0}^{2} \rangle}{\langle \theta^{2} \rangle}

965: \leq \frac{\langle s\, \lapl^{-2}\,s \rangle} 

966: {\langle s\, (\lapl^2 - (\Pe^2/L^2 d)\,\lapl)^{-1}\,s \rangle}

967: = \frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^4}

968: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^4 +k^2 \Pe^2 / L^{2}d)}

969: \label{eq:varlubound}

970: \end{equation}

971: where the dimensionless P\'eclet number $\Pe = UL/\kappa$ has been inserted.

972: We observe that like the lower estimate on ${\cal E}_{0}$ in (\ref{elphaba6}),

973: the upper bound on the mixing efficiency depends on the shape of the

974: source-sink distribution.

975: 

976: \subsection{Upper bounds on ${\cal E}_{1}$}

977: \label{sec:bound1}

978: 

979: The gradient variance $\langle |\nabla \theta|^2 \rangle$ can quickly and easily

980: be bounded from below in a similar manner to the variance.

981: Begin with Eq.~\eqref{eq:firststep}, integrate by parts, and apply the

982: Cauchy--Schwarz inequality to obtain

983: \begin{equation}

984:   \langle \varphi s \rangle^2 = \langle ( \bm{u} \varphi + \kappa \nabla

985:   \varphi) \cdot \nabla \theta \rangle^2 \leq \langle | \bm{u} \varphi +

986:   \kappa \nabla \varphi|^2 \rangle \langle | \nabla \theta|^2 \rangle

987:   \label{eq:constr1}

988: \end{equation}

989: so that

990: \begin{equation}

991:   \langle |\nabla \theta |^2 \rangle \geq \max_{\varphi} \frac{\langle \varphi

992:   s \rangle^2}{\langle |\bm{u} \varphi + \kappa \nabla \varphi|^2

993:   \rangle}.

994:   \label{eq:gvbound}

995: \end{equation}

996: The right-hand side of~\eqref{eq:gvbound} is homogeneous in~$\varphi$

997: so we minimize the denominator subject to the constraint that 

998: $\langle \varphi s \rangle = 1$.  

999: Under the homogeneity and isotropy assumptions  (\ref{mean1}) and

1000: (\ref{eq:HIT1}), the challenge becomes to evaluate

1001: \begin{equation}

1002:   \min_{\varphi} ~\{\langle \kappa | \nabla \varphi|^2 + U^2\varphi^2 \rangle

1003:   ~|~ \langle \varphi s \rangle=1\}.

1004: \end{equation}

1005: Following a similar development as in Section~\ref{sec:bound0}, the solution is found to be

1006: \begin{equation}

1007: \langle |\nabla \theta |^2 \rangle \geq

1008: \langle s (-\kappa^2 \lapl  + U^2)^{-1} s \rangle

1009: \end{equation}

1010: and the mixing efficiency at small scales is bounded according to

1011: \begin{equation}

1012:   {\cal E}_{1}^{2} \leq \frac{ \langle s\,(-\lapl)^{-1}\,s

1013:   \rangle}{\langle s (-\lapl  + \Pe^2/L^2)^{-1} s \rangle}

1014:   = \frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}

1015: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^2 + \Pe^2 / L^{2})}.

1016: \label{E0cheap}

1017: \end{equation}

1018: Like the upper bound for ${\cal E}_{0}$ in (\eqref{eq:varlubound}), this

1019: estimate depends on the functional structure of the sources and sinks, and on

1020: the statistically homogeneous and isotropic stirring only through the P\'eclet

1021: number.

1022: 

1023: We can improve this upper estimate by avoiding the application of the

1024: Cauchy--Schwartz inequality that led to~\eqref{eq:constr1}.  We used that

1025: inequality above for expediency, but in fact we expect the bound to involve

1026: only the gradient (i.e., curl-free) part of the field $\bm{u}\varphi+\kappa

1027: \nabla \varphi$.  This can be seen by solving the full min-max variational

1028: problem

1029: \begin{equation}

1030:   \langle |\nabla \theta |^2 \rangle \geq

1031:   \max_{\varphi} \min_{\vartheta}

1032:   \{ \langle | \nabla \vartheta|^2 \rangle ~|~

1033:   \langle \varphi s \rangle = \langle (\bm{u} \varphi + \kappa \nabla

1034:   \varphi) \cdot \nabla \vartheta \rangle \}.

1035: \label{337}

1036: \end{equation}

1037: The minimization is straightforward:

1038: \begin{equation}

1039:   \langle | \nabla \theta |^2 \rangle  \ge \max_{\varphi}

1040:   \frac{ \langle \varphi s \rangle^2}{\langle (\nabla \cdot \bm{w})

1041:   (-\lapl^{-1})\nabla \cdot \bm{w} \rangle}

1042:   \label{eq:varsolsharper}

1043: \end{equation}

1044: where $\bm{w}=\bm{u}\varphi + \kappa \nabla \varphi$.

1045: The vector field $\bm{w}$ can be decomposed as

1046: \begin{eqnarray}

1047:   &&\bm{w}=\underbrace{\bm{w} -\nabla \lapl^{-1} \nabla \cdot

1048:   \bm{w} }+ \underbrace{\nabla \lapl^{-1} \nabla \cdot \bm{w}}\\

1049:   &&~~~~~~~{{\text{divergence-free}}~~~~~~~{\text{curl-free}}}\nonumber

1050: \end{eqnarray}

1051: where the two components are orthogonal.

1052: Only the curl-free part contributes in (\ref{eq:varsolsharper}).

1053: That is, the denominator is just the norm of the curl-free portion:

1054: \begin{align}

1055:   \langle (\nabla \cdot \bm{w} (-\lapl^{-1}) (\nabla \cdot \bm{w})

1056:   \rangle &= \langle [\lapl \lapl^{-1} (\nabla \cdot

1057:   \bm{w})](-\lapl^{-1}) (\nabla \cdot \bm{w}) \rangle \nonumber\\

1058:   &= \langle \nabla (\lapl^{-1} (\nabla

1059:   \cdot \bm{w}) \cdot \nabla (\lapl^{-1} (\nabla \cdot \bm{w})\rangle

1060:   \nonumber\\

1061:   &= \langle | \nabla \lapl^{-1} \nabla \cdot \bm{w}|^2 \rangle

1062:   \ \le \ \langle |\bm{w}|^2 \rangle.

1063: \end{align}

1064: Hence (\ref{eq:varsolsharper}) generally represents an improvement over the

1065: expression resulting from application of the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality in

1066: (\ref{eq:gvbound}).

1067: 

1068: This improved bound depends on the full two-point correlation function of the

1069: velocity field:

1070: \begin{eqnarray}

1071:   \langle (\nabla \cdot \bm{w}) (-\lapl^{-1})\nabla \cdot \bm{w}

1072:   \rangle &=& \frac{1}{L^d} \int d^{d}x \int d^{d}y \

1073:   \overline {\nabla_{\bm{x}} \cdot \bm{w}(\bm{x},\cdot) 

1074:   G( \bm{x} - \bm{y}) \nabla_{\bm{y}} \cdot

1075:   \bm{w}(\bm{y},\cdot)} \nonumber \\

1076:   &=&\frac{1}{L^d} \int d^{d}x \int d^{d}y \

1077:   (-\nabla_{\bm{x}} \nabla_{\bm{x}} G):

1078:   \overline{\bm{w}(\bm{x},\cdot)\bm{w}(\bm{y},\cdot)}

1079: \end{eqnarray}

1080: where $G(\bm{x}-\bm{y})$ is the Green's function for $-\lapl$ on spatially

1081: mean-zero functions with Fourier coefficients $\hat{G}(k)=1/(L^{d}k^{2})$ for

1082: $\bm{k} \ne 0$.

1083: %Integrating by parts,

1084: %\begin{equation}

1085: %  \langle (\nabla \cdot \bm{w}) (-\lapl^{-1})\nabla \cdot \bm{w}

1086: %  \rangle = \frac{1}{L^d} \int d^{d}x \int d^{d}y \

1087: %  (-\nabla_{\bm{x}} \nabla_{\bm{x}} G):

1088: %  \overline{\bm{w}(\bm{x},\cdot)\bm{w}(\bm{y},\cdot)}.

1089: %\end{equation}

1090: Under the assumptions (\ref{mean1}) and (\ref{eq:SHIT}) 

1091: of statistical homogeneity and isotropy,

1092: \begin{eqnarray}

1093:   \overline{w_{i}(\bm{x},\cdot)w_{j}(\bm{y},\cdot)} &=&

1094:   \varphi(\bm{x}) \varphi(\bm{y})

1095:   \overline{u_{i}(\bm{x},\cdot)u_{j}(\bm{y},\cdot)} +

1096:   \kappa^2 \partial_{i}\varphi(\bm{x}) \partial_{j}\varphi(\bm{y})

1097:   \nonumber \\

1098:   &=& C_{ij}(\bm{x}-\bm{y})\varphi(\bm{x}) \varphi(\bm{y})+

1099:   \kappa^2 \partial_{i}\varphi(\bm{x}) \partial_{j}\varphi(\bm{y}).

1100: \end{eqnarray}

1101: In terms of Fourier transformed variables,

1102: \begin{equation}

1103:   \langle (\nabla \cdot \bm{w}) (-\lapl^{-1})\nabla \cdot \bm{w} \rangle = 

1104:   \sum_{\bm{k},\bm{k'} \ne 0} \frac{\hat{C}(k)}{d-1}

1105:   \left( 1-\frac{(\bm{k} \cdot \bm{k'})^{2}}{k^{2}k'^{2}}\right)

1106:   | \hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}+\bm{k'}}|^{2} +

1107:   \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} \left( \frac{\hat{C}(0)}{d} + \kappa^{2} k^{2} \right)

1108:   | \hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}.

1109: \end{equation}

1110: Thus the mixing efficiency at small scales is actually bounded from above according to

1111: \begin{eqnarray}

1112: {\cal E}_{1}^{2} &\leq&

1113: \min_{\varphi} \ \frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}

1114: {\left[ \sum_{\bm{k}} \hat{s}_{\bm{k}}^{*}\hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}}\right]^{2} }

1115: \ \times \nonumber \\

1116: &\times& 

1117: \left[

1118:  \sum_{\bm{k},\bm{k'} \ne 0} \frac{\hat{C}(k)}{(d-1) \kappa^{2} }

1119:   \left( 1-\frac{(\bm{k} \cdot \bm{k'})^{2}}{k^{2}k'^{2}}\right)

1120:   | \hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}+\bm{k'}}|^{2} +

1121:   \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} \left( \frac{\hat{C}(0)}{d \kappa^{2}} + k^{2} \right)

1122:   | \hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}.

1123: \right]

1124: \label{IB}

1125: \end{eqnarray}

1126: This upper bound depends on details of the full spectrum of the stirring

1127: velocity field.

1128: 

1129: We will not perform the optimization over $\varphi$ for the general problem

1130: here; the implications of two-point statistical properties of the stirring on

1131: the P\'eclet number dependence of this bound on ${\cal E}_{1}$ will be left

1132: for future investigations.  There is one case, however, where the optimization

1133: can easily be carried out that shows that the result of (\ref{IB}) may indeed

1134: be a quantitative improvement over (\ref{E0cheap}).  That simple case is when

1135: the spectrum of the velocity field is concentrated at $\bm{k} = 0$, i.e., when

1136: the velocity field is at (almost) every moment of time a uniform ``wind'' in

1137: space.  For such spatially uniform statistically homogeneous and isotropic

1138: flows, $\hat{C}(0) = U^{2}$ while all the other $\hat{C}(k) = 0$ for $\bm{k}

1139: \ne 0$.  Then

1140: \begin{eqnarray}

1141: {\cal E}_{1}^{2} \ \leq \

1142: \min_{\varphi} \ \frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}

1143: {\left[ \sum_{\bm{k}} \hat{s}_{\bm{k}}^{*}\hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}} \right]^{2}}

1144:   \sum_{\bm{k} \ne 0} \left( \frac{U^{2}}{d \kappa^{2}} + k^{2} \right)

1145:   | \hat{\varphi}_{\bm{k}}|^{2}

1146:  \ = \ \frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}

1147: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^2 + \Pe^2 / dL^{2})}.

1148: \label{IB2}

1149: \end{eqnarray}

1150: In this case the improvement over (\ref{E0cheap}) is just the extra factor of

1151: the spatial dimension $d$ in the denominator of the denominator of the

1152: denominator in the last term.

1153: 

1154: \subsection{Upper bounds on ${\cal E}_{-1}$}

1155: \label{sec:boundm1}

1156: 

1157: To derive a lower bound on the inverse-gradient variance

1158: $\langle |\nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle$ we begin

1159: again with (\ref{eq:firststep}), insert $\lapl\lapl^{-1}=1$, 

1160: integrate by parts and apply the Cauchy--Schwarz

1161: inequality to obtain

1162: \begin{align}

1163:   \langle \varphi s \rangle \ = \ \langle \nabla (\bm{u} \cdot \nabla \varphi +

1164:   \kappa \lapl \varphi) \cdot \nabla \lapl^{-1} \theta \rangle

1165:   % \nonumber \\

1166:   \ \leq \ \langle | \nabla (\bm{u} \cdot \nabla \varphi + \kappa \lapl

1167:   \varphi) |^2 \rangle ^{\frac{1}{2}} \langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta| ^2 \rangle

1168:   ^{\frac{1}{2}}.

1169: \end{align}

1170: This gives a lower bound on the inverse-gradient variance

1171: \begin{equation}

1172:   \langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle \geq\max_{\varphi} \frac{ \langle

1173:   \varphi s \rangle^2 }{ \langle | \nabla(\bm{u}\cdot \nabla

1174:   \varphi+\kappa \lapl \varphi|^2\rangle}\,.

1175:   \label{Oz}

1176: \end{equation}

1177: Recalling that $\varphi$ is time-independent and restricting attention to statistically

1178: homogeneous and isotropic flows---assuming as well that the enstrophy 

1179: $\Omega^{2} = \langle |\nabla \bm{u}|^{2} \rangle$ is finite---the

1180: denominator is

1181: \begin{equation}

1182:   |\nabla \bm{u} \cdot \nabla \varphi+ \bm{u} \cdot \nabla \nabla

1183:   \varphi + \kappa \nabla \lapl \varphi  |^2 =(\Omega^2/d) | \nabla \varphi|^2 + (U^2/d)(\lapl

1184:   \varphi)^2+ \kappa^2

1185:   |\lapl \nabla \varphi|^2 .

1186: \end{equation}

1187: Then the optimization over $\varphi$ in (\ref{Oz}) is straightforward.  Recalling that

1188: \begin{equation}

1189: \langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta_0|^2 \rangle =

1190: \langle  | \nabla^{-1} \lapl^{-1} s |^2 \rangle/\kappa^{2}

1191: \end{equation}

1192: and the definition $\lambda = U/\Omega$,

1193: we conclude that

1194: \begin{eqnarray}

1195: {\cal E}_{-1}^2 &\leq& \frac{ \langle

1196:   | \nabla^{-1} \lapl^{-1} s |^2 \rangle}

1197:        { \langle s \l(-\lapl^3 + (\Pe^2/L^2\,d)

1198: \lapl^2 - (\Pe^2/\lambda^2 L^2\,d) \lapl\r)^{-1} s \rangle}

1199: \nonumber \\

1200: &=& 

1201: \frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^6}

1202: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^6 +k^4 \Pe^2 / L^{2}d

1203: +k^2 \Pe^2 / \lambda^{2} L^{2}d)} .

1204: \label{eq:igvarlubound}

1205: \end{eqnarray}

1206: 

1207: 

1208: Compare this to (\ref{eq:varlubound}) for the upper estimate on ${\cal E}_{0}$

1209: and (\ref{E0cheap}) and (\ref{IB}) for the upper estimate on ${\cal E}_{1}$.

1210: Note that the efficiency depends on the enstropy in the flow, i.e., the flow's

1211: ``shear'' or ``strain'' content, directly through $\lambda = U/\Omega$.

1212: Interestingly, the $\Omega$ (or $\lambda$) term allows for an increase in the

1213: bound on the mixing efficiency on large scales via stirring on small scales,

1214: something that is absent in the bounds on the mixing efficiency at

1215: intermediate and small scales.

1216: 

1217: %===================================================

1218: 

1219: \section{Saturating the Multi-scale Mixing Efficiency Bounds}

1220: \label{sec:saturation}

1221: 

1222: The upper bounds on the mixing efficiencies ${\cal E}_{p}$ derived in the

1223: previous section depend on the entire source-sink distribution functions, but

1224: on just a few features ($U$, and for ${\cal E}_{-1}$, $\lambda=U/\Omega$) of

1225: the statistically homogeneous and isotropic stirring field.  In this section

1226: we show that there is at least one combination of sources, sinks and stirring

1227: strategies that saturate the upper estimates exactly at all P\'eclet numbers.

1228: This establishes that on the highest level of generality the upper bound

1229: analysis is absolutely sharp.  We also show that there is at least one

1230: combination of sources, sinks and statistically stationary homogeneous

1231: isotropic stirrings that saturate the scaling (if not necessarily the

1232: prefactor) of the lower estimates on the efficiencies $\sim \Pe^{0}$.

1233: 

1234: Consider the simple monochromatic source function

1235: \begin{equation}

1236: s(\bm{x}) \ = \ \sqrt{2} S \sin(k_{s}x_{1})

1237: \label{MS}

1238: \end{equation}

1239: where $S$ is the root mean square amplitude, $2\pi/k_{s}$ is the wavelength,

1240: and $x_{1}$ is one of the $d$ coordinates.

1241: For this monochromatic source the lower bounds on the mixing efficiencies

1242: at all scales are the same, i.e., for $p = -1, 0, 1$,

1243: \begin{equation}

1244: 1 \ \le \ {\cal E}_{p} \quad

1245: \text{ (monochromatic sources)}.

1246: \end{equation}

1247: 

1248: The upper bounds on ${\cal E}_{0}$, ${\cal E}_{1}$ and ${\cal E}_{-1}$ in,

1249: respectively, (\ref{eq:varlubound}), (\ref{E0cheap}) and (\ref{IB2}) are

1250: generally different for monochromatic source-sink distribution functions.  But

1251: if we restrict attention to ``uniform wind'' flows $\bm{u}(\bm{x},t)$ that are

1252: at each instant of time spatially uniform (i.e., $\nabla \bm{u}(\bm{x},t)=0$),

1253: then $\Omega = 0$, $\lambda \rightarrow \infty$, and we can take advantage of

1254: the improved bound for ${\cal E}_{1}$ in (\ref{IB2}) to see that the upper

1255: estimates are all the same.  For $p = -1, 0, 1$,

1256: \begin{equation}

1257: {\cal E}_{p} \ \leq \ \sqrt{1+\Pe^2/ L^{2}k_{s}^{2}d}

1258: \quad \text{ (monochromatic sources \& uniform winds)}.

1259: \label{UMU}

1260: \end{equation}

1261: 

1262: In order to show that the upper bounds in (\ref{UMU}) are sharp, we construct

1263: a family of statistically homogeneous and isotropic flows that approach these

1264: limits.  The trick is to sustain a uniform wind in a given direction for a

1265: ``long'' time so that the steady state is very nearly achieved before

1266: switching to a uniform wind in another direction.  The dynamic transients

1267: between the changes in flow configurations decay at least at rate $\kappa

1268: k_{s}^{2}$, so when the transitions are sufficiently infrequent the scalar

1269: field is almost always (nearly) in a static configuration.  Then we may solve

1270: the steady flow problem for the scalar field exactly and average the variances

1271: over the wind directions to evaluate the efficiencies in the limit of slow

1272: switches among the directions.  This adiabatic averaging method can be

1273: implemented for other flows, too, as will be considered in

1274: Section~\ref{sec:SSSSSF}.

1275: 

1276: Consider uniform winds of speed $U$ blowing along the ``diagonals'', in the

1277: $2^{d}$ directions given by unit vectors $\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}} \left( \pm

1278: \hat{\bm{e}}_{1} \dots \pm \hat{\bm{e}}_{d} \right)$.  Each of these

1279: directions is equivalent, so we can solve any single problem to evaluate the

1280: variances.  The steady advection--diffusion equation with source

1281: $s(\bm{x})=\sqrt{2}S \sin (\ks x_1)$ and uniform stirring field

1282: $\bm{u}(\bm{x})=\frac{U}{\sqrt{d}}\sum_{j=1}^{d} \hat{\bm{e}}_{j}$ is

1283: \begin{equation}

1284:   \frac{U}{\sqrt{d}} \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x_j} =

1285:   \kappa \sum_{j=1}^d \frac{\partial^2 \theta}{\partial x_j^2} + \sqrt{2} S

1286:   \sin(\ks x_1).

1287: \end{equation}

1288: The solution is of the form $\theta(\bm{x})=\sum_{j=1}^dF^{(j)}(x_j)$ where

1289: the functions $F^{(j)}(x_j)$ satisfy the system of constant coefficient ODEs

1290: \begin{equation}

1291: \begin{split}

1292:   \frac{d^2F^{(1)}}{dx_1^2} - \frac{U}{\sqrt{d}\,\kappa}\, \frac{dF^{(1)}}{dx_1}

1293:   +\frac{\sqrt{2}S}{\kappa}\, \sin(\ks x_1/L)&=0,\\

1294:   \frac{d^2F^{(j)}}{dx_n^2} - \frac{U}{\sqrt{d}\,\kappa}\, \frac{dF^{(j)}}{dx_n}

1295:   &=0,\qquad\text{for $2 \leq j \leq d$,}

1296: \end{split}

1297: \end{equation}

1298: with periodic boundary conditions $F^{(j)}(0)=F^{(j)}(L)$.  Recalling that

1299: $\theta$ has, without loss of generality, spatial mean zero, the solution is

1300: \begin{equation}

1301: \begin{split}

1302:   F^{(1)} &= \frac{\sqrt{2}S}{\kappa k_{s}^{2} + U^2/d\kappa}\left[

1303:     \sin(\ks x_1) - \frac{U}{\kappa k_{s} \sqrt{d}}\, \cos(\ks x_1) \right],\\

1304:   F^{(j)} &= 0,\qquad\text{for\ } 2\leq j \leq d.

1305: \end{split}

1306: \end{equation}

1307: The variance is thus

1308: \begin{equation}

1309:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle = \frac{S^2}{\kappa^{2} k_{s}^{4}

1310:   + k_{s}^{2}U^{2}/d},

1311: \end{equation}

1312: and because the scalar field is monochromatic, the small-scale and large-scale

1313: variances simply satisfy $k_{s}^{2} \langle |\nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle =

1314: \langle |\nabla \theta|^2 \rangle/k_{s}^{2} =\langle \theta^2 \rangle$.  The

1315: multi-scale mixing efficiencies are all then

1316: \begin{equation}

1317: {\cal E}_{p} = \sqrt{\frac{\langle  |\nabla^{p} \theta_{0}|^2 \rangle}

1318: {\langle  |\nabla^{p} \theta|^2 \rangle}}

1319: = \sqrt{1+ \frac{\Pe^2}{k_{s}^{2}L^{2}d}}

1320: \end{equation}

1321: precisely as in (\ref{UMU}).

1322: 

1323: On one hand this result is fairly intuitive: the most efficient way to reduce the variance 

1324: (on any length scale) is to direct the flow from source regions directly toward the 

1325: closest convenient sink regions and the likewise from sinks toward sources---{\it if} 

1326: this can be accomplished effectively given the constraints of incompressibility 

1327: and statistical homogeneity and isotropy.  

1328: This can be done simply for these monochromatic flows on the torus, 

1329: and we have discovered that such flows actually suppress the scalar

1330: variance at all scales as well as is possible for {\it any} 

1331: statistically homogeneous and isotropic flow field. 

1332: (Note: this example was inspired by Plasting \& Young~\cite{Plasting2006}

1333: who showed that the steady direct flow across the source saturates the variance 

1334: bound for single-wavenumber sources among {\it all} flows regardless

1335: of any statistical considerations.)

1336: On the other hand this type of sweeping flow is somewhat pathological in the 

1337: sense that it simply transports the source onto the sink without ``stirring''

1338: and ``mixing'' by the usual meanings of those words.

1339: In some cases, such as transient mixing as discussed in the introduction, the 

1340: role of effective stirring is to stretch material lines and amplify gradients 

1341: of the passive scalar to accelerate the action of molecular diffusion 

1342: to dissipate variance on small scales.

1343: 

1344: It is not presently clear whether the upper bounds in (\ref{eq:varlubound}),

1345: (\ref{IB}) and (\ref{IB2}) can be saturated for more general

1346: sources and sinks.

1347: Moreover, this particular saturation result depends explicitly on the 

1348: geometry of the domain.

1349: In geophysical and astrophysical applications, for example, it is natural

1350: to consider the domain to be the surface of a sphere.  

1351: While such a domain admits similar concepts of statistical homogeneity

1352: and isotropy for the flow and ``monochromaticity'' for the source-sink 

1353: distribution (eigenfunctions of the Laplacian on the sphere), there is

1354: no analogous uniform sweeping flow as there is on the torus.  

1355: This makes it clear that the optimal stirrer is a function of both

1356: the source shape and the domain.

1357: Formulating the optimization problem for the best stirring field for a given

1358: source-sink distribution remains a problem for future investigation.

1359: 

1360: We close this section by pointing out that a similar statistically homogeneous

1361: and isotropic uniform wind can also be arranged to saturate the high-$\Pe$ scaling

1362: of the {\em lower} bounds on the mixing efficiencies.  For the monchromatic source

1363: (\ref{MS}), consider uniform winds oriented along the coordinate axes in the

1364: $2d$ directions $\pm \hat{\bm{e}}_{j}$, switching only after blowing each way

1365: for a long enough time for the transients to be negligible for the time

1366: averages.  The wind reduces the scalar variances below the variance in

1367: $\theta_{0}$ only when it blows in the $\pm \hat{\bm{e}}_{1}$ directions,

1368: which occurs $1/d$ of the time.  Averaging the scalar variance adiabatically

1369: over the wind directions yields the mixing efficiencies

1370: \begin{equation}

1371: {\cal E}_{p} =

1372: \sqrt{\frac{1+\Pe^{2}/k_{s}^{2}L^{2}}{1+(d-1)\Pe^{2}/dk_{s}^{2}L^{2}}}.

1373: \end{equation}

1374: These efficiencies are monotonically increasing in $\Pe$ but bounded according

1375: to

1376: \begin{equation}

1377: 1 \ \le \ {\cal E}_{p} \ < \ \lim_{\Pe \rightarrow \infty}

1378: \sqrt{\frac{1+\Pe^{2}/k_{s}^{2}L^{2}}{1+(d-1)\Pe^{2}/dk_{s}^{2}L^{2}}}

1379: \ = \ \sqrt{\frac{d}{d-1}} \times \Pe^{0}.

1380: \end{equation}

1381: 

1382: 

1383: \section{High-$\Pe$ behavior of the mixing efficiency bounds}

1384: \label{sec:SARSAS}

1385: 

1386: Here we examine the high P\'eclet number behavior of the upper bounds on the

1387: multi-scale mixing efficiencies for statistically homogeneous and isotropic

1388: flows.  As a point of reference we recall that if there is an effective eddy

1389: diffusion associated with the flow field, so that the stirring suppresses the

1390: scalar variances in the manner of enhanced molecular diffusion in the form of

1391: an equivalent (eddy) diffusion $\sim U\ell$, then the efficiencies would scale

1392: ``classically'', as ${\cal E}_{p} \sim \Pe^{1}$, as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$.

1393: Classical scaling allows for the precise identification of equivalent

1394: diffusivities $\kappa^{(\mathrm{eq})}_{p} \ldef \kappa {\cal E}_{p} \rdef U

1395: \ell_{p}$ that serve as the definition of associated ``mixing lengths''

1396: $\ell_{p}$ that are independent of the magnitude of $U$ and $\kappa$.  The

1397: upper limits on ${\cal E}_{0}$ in (\ref{eq:varlubound}), ${\cal E}_{1}$ in

1398: (\ref{E0cheap}) and ${\cal E}_{-1}$ (\ref{eq:igvarlubound}), reproduced

1399: immediately below for reference, all depend on the full structure of the

1400: source-sink distribution:

1401: \begin{eqnarray}

1402: {\cal E}_{1} &\leq& \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}

1403: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^2 + \Pe^2 / L^{2})}} 

1404: \label{E0cheap2a} \\

1405: {\cal E}_{0} &\le& \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^4}

1406: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^4 +k^2 \Pe^2 / L^{2}d)}}

1407: \label{eq:varlubounda} \\

1408: {\cal E}_{-1} &\leq& \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^6}

1409: {\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^6 +k^4 \Pe^2 / L^{2}d

1410: +k^2 \Pe^2 / \lambda^{2} L^{2}d)} },

1411: \label{eq:igvarluboundb}

1412: \end{eqnarray}

1413: The high-$\Pe$ behavior, though, can be discerned from just a few features

1414: of the sources and sinks.

1415: 

1416: \subsection{Square-integrable sources and sinks}

1417: 

1418: Consider the case where the source-sink distribution function is square integrable,

1419: $s(\bm{x}) \in L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^d)$, so that the Fourier coefficients are square summable:

1420: \begin{equation}

1421: \sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^{2} \ < \ \infty.

1422: \end{equation}

1423: Then the $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$ asymptotic behaviors in (\ref{E0cheap2a}), 

1424: (\ref{eq:varlubounda}) and (\ref{eq:igvarluboundb}) are elementary to evaluate:

1425: \begin{eqnarray}

1426: {\cal E}_{1} \ &\lesssim& \ \Pe \

1427: \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}

1428: {L^{2}\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}} \ \rdef \

1429: \Pe \times \frac{\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})}}{L}

1430: \label{HighPeL2p1}

1431: \\

1432: {\cal E}_{0} \ &\lesssim& \ \Pe \

1433: \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^4}

1434: {dL^{2}\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^2}} \ \rdef \

1435: \Pe \times \frac{\ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})}}{L}

1436: \label{HighPeL2v0}

1437: \\

1438: {\cal E}_{-1}  \ &\lesssim& \ \Pe \

1439: \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/k^6}

1440: {dL^{2}\sum_{\bm{k}} |\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2/(k^{4}

1441: +k^2 / \lambda^{2})}} \ \rdef \

1442: \Pe \times \frac{\ell_{-1}^{(\mathrm{max})}}{L}.

1443: \label{HighPeL2m1}

1444: \end{eqnarray}

1445: There are three significant features of these scaling bounds worth noting.

1446: 

1447: The first point is that these upper estimates all scale classically, allowing

1448: us to identify the largest possible values for meaningful mixing lengths that

1449: we have labeled $\ell_{p}^{(\mathrm{max})}$.

1450: 

1451: The second remarkable fact is that the largest possible mixing lengths

1452: relevant to small and intermediate scale fluctuations do {\it not} depend on

1453: the flow field, but rather only on the source-sink distribution.  Indeed,

1454: $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})} \le \ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})} \le L/2\pi$ are particular length

1455: scales in the source-sink function that have nothing to do with the stirring

1456: field or any length scales in the flow.  This is in direct conflict with the

1457: notion that a mixing length should be a characteristic persistence length or

1458: eddy size in the velocity vector field.  Rather, these mixing efficiencies are

1459: ultimately limited by the structure of the sources and sinks.  When

1460: $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})}$ and $\ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})}$ are ``small'' (i.e., when

1461: $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})} \le \ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})} \ll L$) then the mixing efficiencies are

1462: also ``small'' and {\it not} subject to any further improvement by any sort of

1463: clever stirring designed to enhance the variance reduction at intermediate and

1464: small scales.

1465: 

1466: The bound on the mixing length $\ell_{-1}$ for large-scale variance reduction,

1467: however, {\it does} depend on the spectrum of length scales in the flow

1468: through (the Taylor microscale) $\lambda$.  It is interesting to note that the

1469: bound on $\ell_{-1}^{(\mathrm{max})}$ is an increasing function of $\lambda^{-1}$,

1470: allowing for the possibility that small-scale stirring could enhance large

1471: scale mixing.  That is, this analysis does not preclude small-scale stirring from

1472: suppressing large-scale fluctuations in ways that it cannot decrease the variance at

1473: intermediate and small scales.

1474: 

1475: We note as well that the improved upper bound on the small-scale mixing

1476: efficiency ${\cal E}_{1}$ in (\ref{IB}) generally produces an even {\it

1477: smaller} estimate for $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})}$ that depends on the spectrum, i.e.,

1478: the magnitude and distribution, of the length scales in the flow.  In cases

1479: where the shortest length scale (call it $\ell_{s}$) in the source is much

1480: longer than the longest length scale (call it $\ell_{u}$) in the stirring

1481: field, a thoughtful examination of (\ref{IB}) suggests that $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})}

1482: \sim \ell_{u} \ll \ell_{s}$.

1483: 

1484: The third point worth noting is that the upper estimates for all three of the

1485: ${\cal E}_{p}$ scale the same, $\sim \Pe^{1}$ as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$.  So

1486: far all the examples we have considered share this property, but in the next

1487: subsection we will see that this is {\it not} a general feature of the

1488: multi-scale mixing efficiency bounds.

1489: 

1490: \subsection{Measure-valued source-sink distributions}

1491: 

1492: If $s(\bm{x}) \notin L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^d)$ then the sum in the denominator of

1493: (\ref{HighPeL2p1}) diverges and the ratio defining the prefactor

1494: ($\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})}/L$) to the $\Pe^{1}$ scaling could vanish.  This

1495: would violate the lower bound ${\cal E}_{1} \ge 1$, so the high-$\Pe$

1496: asymptotic analysis of the ratios of sums must be revisited.  This issue

1497: arises for measure-valued sources and sinks, i.e., when the distribution

1498: involves singular objects like $\delta$-functions.  

1499: Then ``anomalous'' sub-classical P\'eclet number scalings for some

1500: efficiencies are inevitable.

1501: 

1502: Consider the extreme cases where the Fourier coefficients of $s(\bm{x})$ obey

1503: \begin{equation}

1504: |\hat{s}(\bm{k})| = {\cal O}(1) \quad \text{as} \quad 

1505: |\bm{k}| \rightarrow \infty.

1506: \end{equation}

1507: In this case, in spatial dimensions $d=2$ and $3$, sums in both

1508: (\ref{HighPeL2p1}) and (\ref{HighPeL2v0}) diverge so the high-$\Pe$ behavior

1509: of the bounds on ${\cal E}_{1}$ and ${\cal E}_{0}$ must be re-evaluted

1510: directly from (\ref{E0cheap2a}) and (\ref{eq:varlubounda}).  The classical

1511: high-$\Pe$ scaling (\ref{HighPeL2m1}) for the bound on ${\cal E}_{-1}$ from

1512: (\ref{eq:igvarluboundb}) remains the same in $d=2$ and $3$.

1513: 

1514: To discern the high P\'eclet number behavior of the expressions in

1515: (\ref{E0cheap2a}) and (\ref{eq:varlubounda}) when $|\hat{s}(\bm{k})| \sim C =

1516: {\cal O}(1)$ as $|\bm{k}| \rightarrow \infty$, we analyze integral

1517: approximations to the sums.  This is justified because the major contribution

1518: to these diverging sums comes from the high-$k$ end where the discreteness

1519: of the wavenumbers is negligible.  For example, the denominator for the bound

1520: on ${\cal E}_{0}$ in (\ref{eq:varlubounda}) is

1521: \begin{equation}

1522: \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}

1523: {k^4 + k^{2}\Pe^2 / L^{2}d}

1524: \ \approx \ \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right)^{d} \ S_{d}

1525: \int_{\fracs{2\pi}{L}}^{\infty} \frac{C \ k^{d-3} dk}

1526: {k^{2}+\Pe^2 / L^{2}d}

1527: \end{equation}

1528: where $S_{2} = 2\pi$ and $S_{3}=4\pi$.

1529: 

1530: In $d=2$ this is

1531: \begin{equation}

1532: \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}

1533: {k^4 + k^{2}\Pe^2 / L^{2}d}

1534: \ \approx \ \frac{L^{2}}{2\pi} \ C \ \frac{L^{2}}{\Pe^{2}}

1535: \ \log \left[1+\frac{\Pe^{2}}{8\pi^{2}} \right],

1536: \end{equation}

1537: so the upper bound on ${\cal E}_{0}$ in $d=2$ is

1538: \begin{equation}

1539: {\cal E}_{0} \ \lesssim \

1540: \frac{\Pe}

1541: {\sqrt{8\pi^{2}\log \left[1+\frac{\Pe^{2}}{8\pi^{2}} \right]}}

1542: \ \sim \ \frac{\Pe}{(\log{\Pe})^{1/2}}

1543: \quad \text{as} \ \Pe \rightarrow \infty.

1544: \end{equation}

1545: This upper bound exhibits a logarithmic correction to classical scaling.  The

1546: significance of this is perhaps best appreciated as the {\it absence} of any

1547: residual variance suppression in the limit of vanishing molecular diffusivity.

1548: That is, the largest possible effective diffusivity defined by the bulk

1549: variance suppression $\kappa_{\mathrm{eff}} \le \kappa {\cal E}_{0} \sim {\cal

1550: O}(|\log{\kappa}|^{-1/2}) \rightarrow 0$ as $\kappa \rightarrow 0$.  It is

1551: worthwhile stressing that this result does not depend on---and cannot be

1552: circumvented by manipulating---any further details of the statistically

1553: homogeneous and isotropic stirring field.

1554: 

1555: The deviation from classical scaling is more dramatic in $d=3$ where

1556: \begin{equation}

1557: \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}

1558: {k^4 + k^{2}\Pe^2 / L^{2}d}

1559: \ \approx \ \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right)^{3} \ 4 \pi C \ \frac{\sqrt{3}L}{\Pe}

1560: \ \left[ \frac{\pi}{2} - \arctan \left(\frac{2\pi\sqrt{3}}{\Pe} \right) \right].

1561: \end{equation}

1562: Then the upper bound on ${\cal E}_{0}$ is

1563: \begin{equation}

1564: {\cal E}_{0} \ \lesssim \  

1565: \sqrt{

1566: \frac{\Pe}{

1567: 2 \pi \sqrt{3} \ \left[ \frac{\pi}{2} 

1568: - \arctan \left(\frac{2\pi\sqrt{3}}{\Pe} \right)\right]

1569: }

1570: } 

1571: \ \sim \ \Pe^{1/2}

1572: \quad \text{as} \ \Pe \rightarrow \infty.

1573: \end{equation}

1574: This upper bound exhibits strictly

1575: sub-classical scaling at high P\'eclet numbers.

1576: 

1577: Both the numerator and the denominator diverge in the bound in

1578: (\ref{E0cheap2a}) for ${\cal E}_{1}$ for such measure-valued source-sink

1579: distributions, so those bounds must be evaluated as the limit of ratios for a

1580: sequence of appropriately mollified sources and sinks.  This is

1581: straightforward if we simply truncate the Fourier series for $s(\bm{x})$ at

1582: small length scale $\ell_{s} \ll L$ and study the ideal case where

1583: $|\hat{s}(\bm{k})| = C$ for $2\pi/L \le |\bm{k}| < 2\pi/\ell_{s}$ and

1584: $|\hat{s}(\bm{k})| = 0$ for $|\bm{k}| > 2\pi/\ell_{s}$, and then take the

1585: limit $\ell_{s}/L \rightarrow 0$.

1586: 

1587: Again we analyze integral approximations to the sums;

1588: the numerator in (\ref{E0cheap2a}) is

1589: \begin{equation}

1590: \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}{k^2}

1591: \ \approx \ \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right)^{d} \ S_{d}

1592: \int_{\fracs{2\pi}{L}}^{\fracs{2\pi}{\ell_{s}}} \frac{C \ k^{d-1} dk}

1593: {k^{2}}

1594: \end{equation}

1595: and the denominator is

1596: \begin{equation}

1597: \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}{k^2 + \Pe^2 / L^{2}}

1598: \ \approx \ \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right)^{d} \ S_{d}

1599: \int_{\fracs{2\pi}{L}}^{\fracs{2\pi}{\ell_{s}}} \frac{C \ k^{d-1} dk}

1600: {k^{2}+\Pe^2 / L^{2}}.

1601: \end{equation}

1602: In $d=2$ spatial dimensions this implies the bound

1603: \begin{equation}

1604: {\cal E}_{1} \ \lesssim \  

1605: \sqrt{

1606: \log \left[ \frac{L^{2}}{\ell_{s}^{2}}\right]

1607: } \bigg/

1608: \sqrt{

1609: \log \left[ \frac{\Pe^{2}+4 \pi^{2} \frac{L^{2}}{\ell_{s}^{2}}}

1610: {\Pe^{2}+4 \pi^{2}}\right]

1611: } 

1612: \ \ \rightarrow \ \ 1 

1613: \quad \text{as} \ \ \frac{\ell_{s}}{L} \rightarrow 0.

1614: \end{equation}

1615: Hence there can be {\it no} reduction of the small-scale variance beyond that

1616: due to molecular diffusion for such singular source-sink distributions, no

1617: matter what flow strategy is adopted or how energetic the stirring is.

1618: 

1619: It is interesting to note as well that if $\ell_{s}$ is small but finite and

1620: $\Pe \gg \frac{L}{\ell_{s}} \gg 1$, then the 

1621: bound scales classically again.

1622: That is, as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$,

1623: \begin{equation}

1624: {\cal E}_{1} \ \lesssim \  

1625: \sqrt{

1626: \log \left[ \frac{L^{2}}{\ell_{s}^{2}}\right]

1627: }  \bigg/

1628: \sqrt{

1629: \log \left[ \frac{\Pe^{2}+4 \pi^{2} \frac{L^{2}}{\ell_{s}^{2}}}

1630: {\Pe^{2}+4 \pi^{2}}\right]

1631: } 

1632: \ \rightarrow \ \frac{\ell_{s}}{2 \pi \sqrt{L^{2}-\ell_{s}^{2}}} \, \Pe 

1633: \ \approx \ \frac{\ell_{s}}{2 \pi L} \, \Pe.

1634: \end{equation}

1635: This can be interpreted as the statement

1636: that the largest possible value for the mixing length $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})} =

1637: {\cal O}(\ell_{s})$ in such cases.

1638: 

1639: 

1640: For such distributions in $d=3$ spatial dimensions,

1641: \begin{equation}

1642: {\cal E}_{1} \ \lesssim \  

1643: \l({

1644: 1 - \frac{\Pe}{\frac{L}{\ell_{s}}-1} \, \left[ 

1645: \arctan\l(\frac{2 \pi L}{\Pe\, \ell_{s}}\r)

1646: - \arctan\l(\frac{2 \pi}{\Pe}\r) \right]

1647: }\r)^{-1/2}

1648: \ \ \rightarrow \ \ 1 

1649: \quad \text{as} \ \ \frac{\ell_{s}}{L} \rightarrow 0.

1650: \end{equation}

1651: Again, there can be no reduction of the small-scale variance beyond that due to

1652: molecular diffusion for this kind of singular source-sink distributions, 

1653: no matter what stirring strategy is adopted.

1654: Furthermore, when $\ell_{s}$ is finite and $\Pe \gg \frac{L}{\ell_{s}} \gg 1$, 

1655: the bound scales classically again: as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$,

1656: \begin{equation}

1657: {\cal E}_{1} \ \lesssim \  

1658: \l(

1659: {

1660: 1 - \frac{\Pe}{\frac{L}{\ell_{s}}-1} \, \left[ 

1661: \arctan\l(\frac{2 \pi L}{\Pe \ell_{s}}\r)

1662: - \arctan\l(\frac{2 \pi}{\Pe}\r) \right]

1663: }\r)^{-1/2}

1664: \ \rightarrow \ 

1665: \sqrt{

1666: \frac{3}{4\pi^{2}} \, 

1667: \frac{\frac{L}{\ell_{s}}-1}{\frac{L^{3}}{\ell_{s}^{3}}-1}

1668: }

1669:  \, \Pe 

1670: \ \approx \ \frac{\sqrt{3} \, \ell_{s}}{2 \pi L} \, \Pe.

1671: \end{equation}

1672: Not unexpectedly, the largest possible

1673: value for a mixing length for this kind of mollified distribution is

1674: $\ell_{1}^{(\mathrm{max})} = {\cal O}(\ell_{s})$.

1675: 

1676: Classical scaling for ${\cal E}_{0}$ is also eventually recovered for these

1677: regularlized sources and sinks when $\Pe \gg L/\ell_{s}$, albeit with very

1678: different relationships between the smallest source-sink length scale

1679: $\ell_{s}$ and the maximal mixing length $\ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})}$.  When

1680: $|\hat{s}(\bm{k})| = C > 0$ for $2\pi/L \le |\bm{k}| < 2\pi/\ell_{s}$ and

1681: $|\hat{s}(\bm{k})| = 0$ for $|\bm{k}| > 2\pi/\ell_{s}$ the numerator of the

1682: bound in (\ref{eq:varlubounda}) is

1683: \begin{equation}

1684: \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}{k^4}

1685: \ \approx \ \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right)^{d} \ S_{d}

1686: \int_{\fracs{2\pi}{L}}^{\fracs{2\pi}{\ell_{s}}} \frac{C \ k^{d-1} dk}

1687: {k^{4}}

1688: \end{equation}

1689: and the denominator is

1690: \begin{equation}

1691: \sum_{\bm{k}}\frac {|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}|^2}{k^4 +k^2 \Pe^2 / L^{2}d}

1692: \ \approx \ \left( \frac{L}{2\pi} \right)^{d} \ S_{d}

1693: \int_{\fracs{2\pi}{L}}^{\fracs{2\pi}{\ell_{s}}} \frac{C \ k^{d-1} dk}

1694: {k^{4}+k^{2}\Pe^2 / L^{2}d}.

1695: \end{equation}

1696: For $d=2$, as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$,

1697: \begin{equation}

1698: {\cal E}_{0} \ \lesssim \

1699: \sqrt{

1700: \frac{\Pe^{2}}{8 \pi^{2}}

1701: \left( 1 - \frac{\ell_{s}^{2}}{L^{2}} \right)

1702: \frac{1}{\log \left[

1703: \frac{8\pi^{2}+\Pe^{2}}{8\pi^{2}+\ell_{s}^{2}\Pe^{2}/L^{2}}

1704: \right]}

1705: }

1706: \ \ \sim \ \ 

1707: \frac{\Pe}{2 \pi \sqrt{2}} \sqrt{

1708: \frac{\left( 1 - \frac{\ell_{s}^{2}}{L^{2}} \right)}

1709: {\log \frac{L^{2}}{\ell_{s}^{2}}}

1710: }

1711: \ \ \approx \ \  

1712: \frac{\Pe}{4 \pi}

1713: \sqrt{\frac{1}{\log \frac{L}{\ell_{s}}}} \ .

1714: \end{equation}

1715: So in spatial dimension $d=2$ the largest possible mixing length

1716: $\ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})} \sim L/\sqrt{\log[L/\ell_{s}]}$.  This length scale

1717: vanishes as $\ell_{s} \rightarrow 0$, but much slower than the actual smallest

1718: scale ${\cal O}(\ell_{s})$.

1719: 

1720: In $d=3$,

1721: \begin{equation}

1722: {\cal E}_{0} \ \lesssim \

1723: \frac{\Pe}{2 \pi \sqrt{2}}\sqrt{

1724: \frac{\ell_{s}}{L}

1725: }

1726: \quad \text{as} \ \Pe \rightarrow \infty

1727: \end{equation}

1728: so $\ell_{0}^{(\mathrm{max})} = {\cal O}(\ell_{s}^{1/2})$.

1729: This vanishes faster than in $2$-$d$ as $\ell_{s} \rightarrow 0$, but

1730: still much slower than $\ell_{s}$.

1731:  

1732: A log-log plot of the bound on ${\cal E}_{0}$ vs $\Pe$ for these cutoff

1733: source-sink distributions is shown in Figure~\ref{dumfig1} for the

1734: $3$-$d$ case with $\ell_{s}/L = 10^{-8}$.  The anomalous $\Pe^{1/2}$ scaling

1735: persists over the range $1 \lesssim \Pe \lesssim L/\ell_{s}$ and classical

1736: scaling $\sim \Pe^{1}$ takes over at higher P\'eclet numbers with a ``small''

1737: prefactor $\sim \sqrt{\ell_{s}/L}$.  This small prefactor is a quantitative

1738: indication of the difficulty of any statistically homogeneous and isotropic

1739: flow field to efficiently suppress the scalar variance---beyond the suppression

1740: achieved by molecular diffusion alone---in the presence of small-scale scalar

1741: sources and sinks.

1742: 

1743: %

1744: \begin{figure}

1745: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figure1.eps}}

1746: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-5pt}

1747: \caption{${\cal E}_0$ as a function of $\Pe$ for cutoff source-sink

1748: distributions, after~\cite{DoeringThiffeault2006}.}

1749: \label{dumfig1}

1750: \end{figure}

1751: %

1752: 

1753: The scalings for the mixing efficiencies with a $\delta$-function source are 

1754: apparently not all realized by

1755: a simple uniform wind as was the case for smooth monochromatic sources.

1756: We have performed the adiabatic approximation for the bulk variance 

1757: in the case of a uniform wind blowing past a $\delta$-function source

1758: to estimate the mixing efficiencies (see Appendix B).

1759: While ${\cal E}_1$ is necessarily equal to 1 in both $2$-$d$ and $3$-$d$,

1760: we find that the uniform wind gives ${\cal E}_0 \sim \sqrt{\Pe}$ (rather than

1761: the bound $\Pe/\sqrt{\log{\Pe}}$) in $2$-$d$, and 

1762: ${\cal E}_0 \sim \sqrt{\Pe}/\sqrt{\log{\Pe}}$ 

1763: (significantly closer to the bound $\sqrt{\Pe}$) in $3$-$d$.

1764: For the large-scale efficiency, however, the uniform wind produces 

1765: ${\cal E}_{-1} \sim \sqrt{\Pe}$ in both $2$-$d$ and $3$-$d$,

1766: far below its classically scaling upper bound.

1767: 

1768: A similar integral analysis can be carried out for ``fractal'' source-sink

1769: distributions where $|\hat{s}_{\bm{k}}| \sim |\bm{k}|^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma

1770: \ge 0$.  The scalings of the mixing efficiency bounds are summarized in

1771: Table~\ref{tab:scalingsall}.  For $\gamma > d/2$ all the bounds scale

1772: classically since then $s(\bm{x}) \in L^{2}(\mathbb{T}^d)$.  The

1773: case~$\gamma=0$ is the $\delta$-function studied above.  We observe that the

1774: bounds for ${\cal E}_{1}$ and ${\cal E}_{0}$ can exhibit anomalous scaling

1775: with exponents depending on the fractal nature of the source-sink distribution

1776: as characterized by $\gamma$~\cite{DoeringThiffeault2006}.  Of course if the

1777: fractal scaling of the source-sink distribution persists over a broad but

1778: finite range of wavenumbers, say for $2\pi/L < k < 2\pi/\ell_{s}$, then

1779: classical scaling for the efficiency estimates will again appear for $\Pe \gg

1780: L/\ell_{s}$.

1781: 

1782: \begin{table}

1783: \vspace{.5em}

1784: \caption{Scalings of the bound on the mixing efficiency~${\cal E}_{p}$ as

1785: functions of the source roughness exponent~$\gamma$ of the source in two and

1786: three dimensions.}

1787: \begin{flushleft}

1788: \begin{ruledtabular}

1789: \begin{tabular}{lccc}

1790: $d = 2$ & ${p}=1$ & ${p}=0$ & ${p}=-1$ \\

1791: \hline

1792: $\gamma = 0$       & 1 & $\Perm/(\log\Perm)^{1/2}$ & \Perm \\

1793: $0 < \gamma < 1$ & $\Perm^\gamma$ & \Perm & \Perm \\

1794: %$\gamma = 1/2$     & $\Pe^{1/2}$ & \Pe  & \Pe \\

1795: %$1/2 < \gamma < 1$ & $\Pe^\gamma$ & \Pe & \Pe \\

1796: $\gamma = 1$       & \ \ \ $\Perm/(\log\Perm)^{1/2}$ & \Perm & \Perm \\

1797: $\gamma > 1$       & \Perm & \Perm & \Perm \\[2pt]

1798: %\end{tabular}

1799: %\end{ruledtabular}

1800: %\vspace{1.0em}

1801: %\begin{ruledtabular}

1802: %\begin{tabular}{lccc}

1803: \hline

1804: $d = 3$\\ %& ${p}=1$ & ${p}=0$ & ${p}=-1$ \\

1805: \hline

1806: $\gamma = 0$         & 1 & $\Perm^{1/2}$ & \Perm \\

1807: $0 < \gamma < 1/2$   & 1 & $\Perm^{\gamma+1/2}$ & \Perm \\

1808: $\gamma = 1/2$       & 1 & \quad $\Perm/(\log{\Perm})^{1/2}$ & \Perm \\

1809: $1/2 < \gamma < 3/2$ & $\Perm^{\gamma - 1/2}$ & \Perm & \Perm \\

1810: $\gamma = 3/2$       & \ $\Perm/(\log{\Perm})^{1/2}$ & \Perm & \Perm \\

1811: $\gamma > 3/2$       & \Perm & \Perm & \Perm \\

1812: \end{tabular}

1813: \end{ruledtabular}

1814: \end{flushleft}

1815: \label{tab:scalingsall}

1816: \end{table}

1817: 

1818: 

1819: %===================================================

1820: 

1821: \section{A Single-scale Source Stirred by a Single-scale Flow}

1822: \label{sec:SSSSSF}

1823: 

1824: In the previous sections we have seen that the classical high-P\'eclet number

1825: scalings for the multi-scale mixing efficiencies, ${\cal E}_{p} \sim \Pe$, are

1826: generally upper bounds that may in fact be saturated for particular

1827: source-sink distributions stirred by certain statistically homogeneous and

1828: isotropic flows.  It was shown in Section~\ref{sec:SARSAS} that for some

1829: distribution-valued sources and sinks, some of the mixing efficiencies

1830: necessarily scale anomalously, i.e., ${\cal E}_{p} \lesssim \Pe^{\alpha_{p}}$

1831: with some $\alpha_{p} < 1$.  For those examples the bounds on the mixing

1832: efficiencies at the different scales scale differently: $0 \le \alpha_{1} <

1833: \alpha_{0} < \alpha_{-1} = 1$.  It is not presently known if the anomalously

1834: scaling bounds for distribution-valued sources and sinks are sharp or, if they

1835: are, what kinds of statistically homogeneous and isotropic flows might be

1836: required to realize them.  Those questions remain open, but in this section we

1837: settle the issue of the possibility of realizing distinct scaling exponents

1838: for the mixing efficiencies on different length scales for a smooth

1839: source-sink distribution.

1840: 

1841: The random sine flow, a.k.a.\ the renewing wave flow characterized by a single

1842: length scale, is a popular and convenient test bed for studying---both

1843: analytically and via simulation---a wide variety of stirring and mixing

1844: phenomena~\cite{Pierrehumbert1994,Antonsen1996,Thiffeault2004,Tsang2005}.

1845: Here we consider the simplest single-scale source

1846: \begin{equation}

1847: s(\bm{x}) = \sqrt{2} \, S \sin[2 \pi (x+y)/L]

1848: \end{equation}

1849: stirred by a random sine flow that switches between

1850: \begin{equation}

1851: \bm{u}(\bm{x}) = \hat{\bm{i}} \sqrt{2} \, U \sin[2 \pi y/L + \phi]

1852: \label{Z1}

1853: \end{equation}

1854: and

1855: \begin{equation}

1856: \bm{u}(\bm{x}) = \hat{\bm{j}} \sqrt{2} \, U \sin[2 \pi x/L + \phi]

1857: \label{Z2}

1858: \end{equation}

1859: at time intervals of length $\tau/2$, where the phase $\phi$ is chosen

1860: randomly and uniformly from $[0, 2\pi)$ at each switch.  This is a

1861: statistically homogeneous and isotropic flow, but it is not the maximally

1862: efficient flow for this source-sink distribution; the optimal flow is the

1863: spatially uniform flow constructed in Section~\ref{sec:saturation}.  We have

1864: performed high resolution direct numerical simulations of this system in $d=2$

1865: spatial dimensions that reveal that the multi-scale mixing efficiencies may

1866: have distinct scaling exponents.  Additionally, for this example we are able

1867: to compute the exponents theoretically in the context of the adiabatic

1868: averaging approximation utilized in Section~\ref{sec:saturation}.

1869: 

1870: Figure~\ref{dumfig2} shows the results of the direct numerical simulation for

1871: $p=1,0,-1$, each plotted along with the classically-scaling upper bounds from

1872: Section~\ref{sec:BOUNDS}.  The P\'eclet number in these simulations was varied

1873: by holding $U=1$ fixed in a box of side length $L=1$ 

1874: and changing the molecular diffusivity $\kappa$.  

1875: The computations were carried out with switching time $\tau=1$.  

1876: The details of the numerical simulations can be found

1877: in~\cite{Thiffeault2004}.

1878: %

1879: \begin{figure}

1880: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure2.eps}}

1881: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-30pt}

1882: \caption{ Mixing efficiencies ${\cal E}_p$ as a function of $\Pe$ for (a)

1883: $p=1$, (b) $p=0$, and (c) $p=-1$ for the random sine flow with source $\sim

1884: \sin k_s(x+y)$.  The solid lines are the upper bounds for this source from

1885: Section~\ref{sec:BOUNDS} and the dashed lines are the data from the direct

1886: numerical simulations with $U$, $L$ and $\tau$ fixed.}

1887: \label{dumfig2}

1888: \end{figure}

1889: %

1890: Writing ${\cal E}_{p} \sim \Pe^{\alpha_{p}}$ as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$,

1891: it is clear that the data are 

1892: consistent with $\alpha_{0} < \alpha_{1} < 1$ and $\alpha_{-1} \approx 1$.

1893: 

1894: These simulations establish two important facts:

1895: (1) that the mixing efficiencies at different length scales generally scale differently at

1896: high P\'eclet numbers, and (2) that anomalous subclassical scaling can easily be 

1897: realized by simple and ``reasonable" flows.

1898: 

1899: We can evaluate the observed scaling exponents $\alpha_{p}$ theoretically for

1900: this particular system by appealing to a quasi-static adiabatic approximation

1901: introduced in Section~\ref{sec:saturation} for the optimally mixing uniform

1902: flow.  That is, we solve the time-independent problem for the scalar

1903: distribution under the influence of steady flows of the form (\ref{Z1}) and

1904: (\ref{Z2}), compute the variances, and average over the flow configurations.

1905: The physical justification for this approximation comes from examining

1906: the results of the direct numerical simulations: it is observed that the

1907: relevant steady-state configuration is quickly approached in the time

1908: intervals between the switches of the stirring field.  If we make the

1909: switches at longer and longer intervals, i.e., if we increase $\tau$,

1910: the scalar field is distributed (nearly) according to the static

1911: configurations for most of the time, and the steady-state variances

1912: dominates the time averages.\footnote{This approach is similar in spirit

1913: to ``rapid distortion theory" in turbulence~\cite{Savill1987,Hunt1990}.}

1914: 

1915: The simplest problem in this category is when the velocity field is oriented

1916: parallel to the gradient of the source, so we consider the steady

1917: advection--diffusion equation

1918: \begin{equation}

1919:   \sqrt{2} U \sin \ku y \  \partial_{x} \theta =

1920:   \kappa (\partial_{x}^{2}+\partial_{y}^{2}) \theta + 

1921:   \sqrt{2} S \sin \ks x

1922:   \label{eq:ADsteady}

1923: \end{equation}

1924: where we allow for different length scales in the stirring and the source with

1925: the non-dimensional number $r=\ku/\ks$ gauging the relative amount of shear in

1926: the flow.  This is not exactly the static problem corresponding to the

1927: dynamic simulations where the flow is always at a $45\degree$ angle from the

1928: source-sink alignment, but it turns out that the scaling exponents

1929: $\alpha_{p}$ are the same for that case and for the $90\degree$ alignment in

1930: (\ref{eq:ADsteady}).  For illustrative purposes it is convenient to explain

1931: the most elementary case (\ref{eq:ADsteady}) in detail here

1932: and relegate details of the $45\degree$ problem to Appendix C.

1933: 

1934: The solution to~\eqref{eq:ADsteady} takes the form

1935: \begin{equation}

1936:   \theta(\bm{x}) = f(y)\sin(\ks x) + g(y) \cos(\ks x)

1937: \end{equation}

1938: where the functions $f$ and $g$ are periodic on $y\in[-\pi/\ku,\pi/\ku]$ 

1939: and satisfy the system of ODEs

1940: \begin{subequations}

1941: \begin{align}

1942:   -\sqrt{2}U\ks \sin(\ku y)\, g(y)

1943:   &= \kappa \left [ -\ks^2 + \frac{d^2}{dy^2}

1944:     \right] f(y) + \sqrt{2} S\,,\label{54a}\\

1945:   \sqrt{2}U\ks \sin(\ku y) f(y) &= \kappa \left [ -\ks^2 + \frac{d^2}{dy^2}

1946:     \right] g(y)\,.\label{54b}

1947: \end{align}

1948: \label{eq:fgeqns}%

1949: \end{subequations}%

1950: From~\eqref{54a} we deduce that $g(y)$ is an odd function of~$y$ and~$f(y)$ is

1951: an even function of~$y$, compatible with~\eqref{54b} which says

1952: that~$f$ and~$g$ have opposite parity.

1953: We can thus infer boundary conditions on the reduced domain $[0,\pi/\ku]$:

1954: \begin{equation}

1955:   g(0)=0=g(\pi/\ku),\quad f'(0)=0=f'(\pi/\ku).

1956: \end{equation}

1957: 

1958: We are interested in the high-$\Pe$ behavior of the solution

1959: to~\eqref{eq:ADsteady}.  In Figure~\ref{dumfig3} we show a grayscale plot of

1960: the scalar field at several values of the P\'eclet number.  As is evident,

1961: internal layers develop along the lines of maximum shear around $y = n

1962: \pi/\ku$ for $n=0, \pm1, \pm2, \dots$.  Away from these lines the flow

1963: directly blows source regions onto sink regions and vice versa which, as we

1964: have seen in Section~\ref{sec:saturation}, is the most efficient stirring

1965: to reduce variance at all scales.  Even though the regions of high shear

1966: effectively stretch material lines, the mixing process is apparently

1967: frustrated by the constant replishment of the scalar variation by the steady

1968: sources and sinks and the variance is dominated by fluctuations concentrated

1969: in shear layers.

1970: 

1971: %

1972: \begin{figure}

1973: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=20.0cm]{figure3.eps}}

1974: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-25pt}

1975: \caption{The scalar field stirred by a steady sine flow for (a) $\Pe$ = 0, (b) $\Pe$ = 100,

1976:  (c) $\Pe$ = 1000.}

1977: \label{dumfig3}

1978: \end{figure}

1979: %

1980: 

1981: We develop an asymptotic singular perturbation internal layer approach for the

1982: limit $\Pe \gg 1$ with~$r = {\cal O}(1)$ fixed.  Upon rescaling $\tilde{y}=\ks

1983: y$, $\hat{f}=fU\ks/S$, $\hat{g}=gU\ks/S$, $r=\ku/\ks$, and introducing the

1984: slightly re-scaled P\'eclet number $\Pec=\sqrt{2}U/\kappa \ks = \sqrt{2}

1985: \Pe/\ks L$ in Eqs.~\eqref{eq:fgeqns}, we obtain the non-dimensional ODEs

1986: \begin{subequations}

1987: \begin{align}

1988:   \frac{1}{\Pec}  \left[ -1 + \frac{d^2}{d \tilde{y}^2} \right]

1989:   \hat{f}(\tilde{y})+1 &= -\sin(r\tilde y) \hat{g}(\tilde{y}),\label{55a}\\

1990:   \frac{1}{\Pec}  \left[ -1 + \frac{d^2}{d \tilde{y}^2} \right]

1991:   \hat{g}(\tilde{y}) &= \sin(r\tilde y) \hat{f}(\tilde{y}).\label{55b}

1992: \end{align}

1993: \label{eq:fgeqnsscaled}%

1994: \end{subequations}%

1995: Proceeding as usual we construct inner and outer solutions.  The outer

1996: solution, valid away from the internal layers, is obtained by expanding in

1997: powers of $\Pec^{-1}$:

1998: \begin{equation}

1999:   \hat{f}_{\mathrm{outer}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}  \Pec^{-n}

2000:   \hat{f}_{n},\qquad\hat{g}_{\mathrm{outer}}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \Pec^{-n}

2001:   \hat{g}_{n}.

2002: \end{equation}

2003: To leading order the solution to~\eqref{eq:fgeqnsscaled} in the outer region is

2004: \begin{equation}

2005:   \hat{f}_{\mathrm{outer}} \sim 0,\qquad 

2006:   \hat{g}_{\mathrm{outer}} \sim -\frac{1}{ \sin(r \tilde{y})}\,.

2007:   \label{eq:outersol}

2008: \end{equation}

2009: 

2010: For the internal layer we expand in a small parameter~$\epsilon$ as

2011: \begin{equation}

2012:   \hat{f}_{\mathrm{inner}}= \sum_{n=-1}^{\infty}  \epsilon^n

2013:   \hat{f}_{n},\qquad \hat{g}_{\mathrm{inner}}=

2014:   \sum_{n=-1}^{\infty}  \epsilon^n \hat{g}_{n}\,,

2015:   \label{eq:innersol}

2016: \end{equation}

2017: so that both~$\hat{f}_{\mathrm{inner}}$ and~$\hat{g}_{\mathrm{inner}}$ are

2018: ${\cal O}(\epsilon^{-1})$ as~\hbox{$\epsilon\rightarrow 0$}.  The internal

2019: layer scaling is determined by a dominant balance argument: we choose

2020: $\epsilon= \Pec^{-1/3}$ and rescale~$\tilde{y} = \epsilon\, \eta$ to achieve a

2021: self-consistent scaling of the leading order terms.  When these scalings

2022: and~\eqref{eq:innersol} are inserted into~\eqref{eq:fgeqnsscaled}, the problem

2023: to solve at leading order ${\cal{O}}(1/\epsilon)$ is

2024: \begin{equation}

2025:   \frac{d^2 \hat{f}_{-1}}{d \eta^2} + r \eta \hat{g}_{-1} +1=0,

2026:   \qquad\frac{d^2 \hat{g}_{-1}}{d \eta^2} - r \eta \hat{f}_{-1} =0.

2027:   \label{eq:fginner}

2028: \end{equation}

2029: Then letting $\xi=r^{1/3} \eta$, $F=r^{2/3} \hat{f}_{-1}$, and

2030: $G=r^{2/3}\hat{g}_{-1}$, \eqref{eq:fginner} simplifies to

2031: the inner layer equations

2032: \begin{equation}

2033:   F^{''} + \xi G +1 =0,\qquad G^{''} - \xi F = 0,

2034:   \label{510}

2035: \end{equation}

2036: with boundary conditions

2037: %\begin{equation}

2038:   $F'(0)=0$ and $G(0)=0$.

2039: %\end{equation}

2040: The other boundary conditions come from the requirement of matching to the

2041: outer solution~\eqref{eq:outersol}: $F(\xi) \rightarrow 0$ and $ G(\xi)

2042: \rightarrow -1/\xi$ as $\xi \rightarrow \infty$.

2043: The system (\ref{510}) can be cast as a complex Airy equation for $F+iG$, 

2044: but we resort instead to a numerical shooting method to obtain the solution.  

2045: 

2046: The solution of the internal layer equations is obtained by shooting backward 

2047: (which is the more stable evolution direction) from $\xi \rightarrow \infty$.

2048: The large-$\xi$ asymptotic behavior deduced from \eqref{510} is

2049: \begin{equation}

2050:   F \approx -\frac{2}{\xi^4} + \frac{a}{\xi^{10}}\,,\qquad

2051:   G \approx -\frac{1}{\xi} + \frac{b}{\xi^7}\,,

2052: \end{equation}

2053: where in practice $a$ and $b$ are tuned numerically to produce a solution that

2054: satisfies the boundary conditions at $\xi=0$.  This is easily accomplished,

2055: and in Figure~\ref{dumfig4} we compare the internal layer solution against the

2056: exact (numerical) solution of the full advection--diffusion equation

2057: (\ref{eq:ADsteady}) at $\Pe=1000$ where the small parameter $\epsilon \approx

2058: .2$.  This agreement confirms that the leading terms

2059: \begin{equation}

2060:   \hat{f}_{\mathrm{inner}} = \frac{r^{-2/3}}{\epsilon}\,F(\xi),

2061:   \qquad

2062:   \hat{g}_{\mathrm{inner}} = \frac{r^{-2/3}}{\epsilon}\,G(\xi).

2063: \end{equation}

2064: do indeed accurately capture the asymptotic behavior.

2065: %

2066: \begin{figure}

2067: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{figure4.eps}}

2068: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-35pt}

2069: \caption{Comparison of the direct numerical solution (solid) and the internal

2070: layer solution (dashed) for \hbox{$\Pe$ = 1000}.}

2071: \label{dumfig4}

2072: \end{figure}

2073: %

2074: 

2075: The uniform asymptotic solution to the coupled ODEs are, to leading order, the

2076: composites of the inner and outer solutions.  Recovering all the scalings and

2077: letting $\delta=\epsilon/r^{1/3} \ks$, we define

2078: \begin{subequations}

2079: \begin{align}

2080:   f_{\mathrm{comp}}(y) \ &= \ \frac{S}{U\ks} \,\hat{f}_{\mathrm{inner}}(y)

2081:   %= \frac{S}{U\ks}

2082:   %\frac{r^{-2/3}}{\epsilon}F \left( \frac{r^{1/3} \ks}{\epsilon} y \right)

2083:   \ = \frac{S}{U\ks}\, \frac{1}{\ku \delta} F \left(\frac{y}{\delta}\right),\\

2084:   g_{\mathrm{comp}}(y) \ &= \ \frac{S}{U\ks} \,

2085:   \ku y \times \hat{g}_{\mathrm{inner}}(y) \times \hat{g}_{\mathrm{outer}}(y)

2086:   %=\frac{S}{U\ks} \frac{r^{-2/3}}{\epsilon}G

2087:   %\left( \frac{r^{1/3} \ks}{\epsilon} y \right) \frac{\ku y}{\sin(\ku y)}

2088:   %\\

2089:   \ = \frac{S}{U\ks}\, \frac{1}{\ku \delta}\,

2090:   \frac{\ku y}{\sin(\ku y)}\,G\left(\frac{y}{\delta}\right).

2091: \end{align}

2092: \label{eq:fginternalsol}

2093: \end{subequations}

2094: Armed with the approximate solutions~\eqref{eq:fginternalsol} we can compute the multi-scale

2095: mixing measures $\langle |\nabla^{p} \theta |^2 \rangle$ for $p=0,1,-1$.

2096: 

2097: The variance is

2098: \begin{equation}

2099:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle = \frac{1}{2} \left( \langle f^2 \rangle + \langle

2100:   g^2 \rangle \right) =\frac{1}{2} \frac{4\ku}{\pi}

2101:   \left( \int_0^{\pi/4\ku} f(y)^2 dy +

2102:   \int_0^{\pi/4\ku} g(y)^2 dy \right)

2103: \end{equation}

2104: where we use the symmetry of the solution to carry out the integral over only

2105: a quarter-period.  

2106: Letting $\eta=y/\delta$ and replacing $f$ and $g$ by $f_{\mathrm{comp}}$ and $g_{\mathrm{comp}}$,

2107: \begin{equation}

2108:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \ \sim \ \frac{1}{\pi} 

2109:   \frac{S^2}{U^2\ks^2}\frac{1}{\ku \delta}

2110:   \left( \int_0^{\fracs{\pi}{2\ku \delta}} F(\eta)^2

2111:   d\eta+\int_0^{\fracs{\pi}{2\ku \delta}} G(\eta)^2 \frac{\ku^2 \eta^2

2112:   \delta^2}{\sin^2(\ku \eta \delta)} d\eta \right).

2113: \end{equation}

2114: Here we are interested in the scaling as $\delta\rightarrow 0$ so we are

2115: justified in replacing the upper limit of the integral of $F(\eta)^2$ by

2116: infinity.  Slightly more care must be taken with the integral involving

2117: $G(\eta)^2$: because $\ku^2 \eta^2 \delta^2/\sin^2(\ku \eta \delta)$ is

2118: uniformly bounded by $0$ and $\pi/2$ we can appeal to Lebesgue's dominated

2119: convergence theorem to deduce

2120: \begin{equation}

2121:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \ \sim \ \frac{1}{\pi}  \frac{S^2}{U^2\ks^2}

2122:   \frac{1}{\ku\delta}

2123: \left( \int_0^\infty F(\eta)^2 d \eta + \int_0^\infty G(\eta)^2 d \eta\right).

2124: \end{equation}

2125: The unstirred variance is $\langle \theta_0^2 \rangle=S^2/\kappa^2 \ks^4$, 

2126: so the mixing efficiency is

2127: \begin{equation}

2128:   {\cal E}_{0} \ \sim \ \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \,

2129:   \left(\int_0^\infty F(\eta)^2 d \eta + 

2130:   \int_0^\infty G(\eta)^2 d \eta \right)^{-1/2} \, 

2131:    r^{1/3} \, \Pec^{5/6}.

2132:    \label{A0}

2133: \end{equation}

2134: 

2135: Figure~\ref{dumfig5} shows ${\cal E}_{0}$ as a function of $\Pe$ from the

2136: numerical solution of the steady advection--diffusion equation

2137: (\ref{eq:ADsteady}).  The data accurately match the $\Pe^{5/6}$ scaling and

2138: using the prefactor calculated from (\ref{A0}) there is only a 5\% discrepancy

2139: between the internal layer solution and that calculated from the direct

2140: numerical simulation at $\Pe=1000$ with $r=1$.  Remarkably, this $\Pe^{5/6}$

2141: scaling also fits the data for the time-dependent stirring of the tilted

2142: source shown in Figure~\ref{dumfig2}.

2143: %

2144: \begin{figure}

2145: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{figure5.eps}}

2146: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-3pt}

2147: \caption{ Mixing efficiencies ${\cal E}_{p}$ for $p=1$ (x), $p=0$ (*) and

2148: $p=-1$ (+) for the steady sine flow.  The solid lines are the scaling

2149: predictions of the asymptotic analysis and the discrete data are from the

2150: numerical solution of the steady advection--diffusion equation

2151: (\ref{eq:ADsteady}).  }

2152: \label{dumfig5}%

2153: \end{figure}%

2154: %

2155: 

2156: The gradient variance in the steady solution is given by

2157: \begin{equation}

2158:   \langle | \nabla \theta|^2 \big\rangle = \frac{\ks^2}{2} \left[ \langle f^2

2159:   \rangle + \langle g^2 \rangle \right] +\frac{1}{2} \left[ \langle (f')^2

2160:   \rangle + \langle (g')^2 \rangle \right].

2161:   \label{eq:gradvarinternal}

2162: \end{equation}

2163: The $\langle f^2 \rangle$ and $\langle g^2 \rangle$ terms were computed above

2164: in the context of ${\cal E}_{0}$, so we focus on the derivative terms.

2165: Inserting the composite asymptotic solution~\eqref{eq:fginternalsol} we obtain

2166: \begin{multline*}

2167:   \frac{1}{2} \left[ \langle (f')^2 \rangle +  \langle (g')^2 \rangle

2168:     \right]  \sim \left \langle \left( \frac{S}{U\ks} \frac{1}{\ku \delta^2}

2169:   F'(y/\delta) \right)^2  \right \rangle + \\

2170:   \left \langle \left(\frac{S}{U\ks} \frac{1}{\ku \delta^2} G'(y/\delta)

2171:     \frac{\ku y}{\sin(py)} + \frac{S}{U\ks} \frac{1}{\ku\delta} G(y/\delta)

2172:     \left[\frac{\ku y}{\sin(\ku y)}\right]' \right)^2 \right \rangle.

2173: \end{multline*}

2174: The last term is smaller (${\cal O}(\delta^{-1})$) than the immediately

2175: preceeding term (${\cal O}(\delta^{-2})$) and may thus be neglected.  The

2176: first two terms in~\eqref{eq:gradvarinternal} are also ${\cal

2177: O}(\delta^{-1})$, so they may be neglected as well.  Hence

2178: \begin{equation*}

2179:   \frac{1}{2} \left[ \langle (f')^2 \rangle + \langle (g')^2 \rangle \right]

2180:   \sim \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{S^2}{U^2 \ks^2} \frac{1}{\ku\delta^3}  \left[

2181:   \int^{\fracs{\pi}{2\ku\delta}}_0 F'(\eta)^2 d\eta +

2182:   \int^{\fracs{\pi}{2\ku\delta}}_0 G'(\eta)^2 \frac{\ku^2 \eta^2

2183:   \delta^2}{\sin^2(\ku\eta\delta)}d\eta \right]

2184: \end{equation*}

2185: and by the same arguments as for the variance above we deduce

2186: \begin{equation}

2187:   \langle | \nabla \theta|^2 \big\rangle \sim \frac{1}{\pi} \left(

2188:   \int_0^\infty F'(\eta)^{2} d \eta + \int_0^\infty G'(\eta)^{2} d \eta\right)

2189:   \frac{S^2}{U^2\ks^2} \frac{1}{\ku \delta^3}\,.

2190: \end{equation}

2191: Using $\langle| \nabla \theta_0|^2 \rangle=S^2/\kappa^2 \ks^2$,

2192: we deduce that the mixing efficiency is

2193: \begin{equation}

2194:   {\cal E}_{1} \ \sim \  \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}} \,

2195:   \left( \int_0^\infty F'(\eta)^2 d \eta + \int_0^\infty

2196:   G'(\eta)^2 d \eta \right)^{-1/2} \,

2197:   \Pec^{1/2}.

2198:   \label{A1}

2199: \end{equation}

2200: 

2201: Figure~\ref{dumfig5} also shows the scaling of ${\cal E}_{1}$ from the 

2202: numerical solution of (\ref{eq:ADsteady}). 

2203: The internal layer asymptotic approximation in (\ref{A1}) and the numerical

2204: solutions differ by approximately 1\% at $\Pe$ = 1000.  

2205: The (lack of) scaling in $r$ was also confirmed numerically. 

2206: Interestingly, for this problem stirring at ever smaller scales does {\em not} 

2207: further enhance the mixing efficiency on small scales. 

2208: This is apparently because the decrease in gradient variance due to stirring 

2209: on small scales is compensated by the increase in 

2210: gradient variance in the internal layer.

2211: 

2212: 

2213: The inverse-gradient variance,

2214: \begin{equation}

2215:   \langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle \ = \ \langle | \nabla^{-1}(f(y)

2216:   \sin(\ks x) + g(y) \cos(\ks x))|^2 \rangle,

2217: \end{equation}

2218: requires a slightly more subtle analysis.

2219: Expanding $f(y)$ and $g(y)$ in Fourier series,

2220: \begin{equation}

2221:   f(y)=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty} f_{n} \cos(n\ku y) , \quad \quad

2222:   g(y)=\sum _{n=1}^{\infty} g_{n} \sin(n\ku y)  

2223: \end{equation}

2224: the inverse gradient variance is

2225: \begin{equation}

2226:   \langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle \ = \ 

2227:   \frac{f_{0}^{2}}{2 \ks^{2}} + 

2228:   \frac{1}{4} \sum _{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{f_{n}^{2}+g_{n}^{2}}

2229:   {\ks^{2} + n^{2} \ku^{2}}.

2230: \end{equation}

2231: We know that ${\cal E}_{-1} \lesssim \Pe$, so if we could establish a {\it lower} bound with 

2232: the same scaling then we could conclude that ${\cal E}_{-1}$ scales classically $\sim \Pe$.

2233: Hence we focus on deducing an asymptotic {\it upper} bound on 

2234: $\langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle$.

2235: As will be seen, however, the best we can do is assert the classical scaling 

2236: with a logarithmic correction.

2237: 

2238: Toward that end, using the fact that $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-2} = \pi^{2}/6$,

2239: \begin{equation}

2240:   \langle | \nabla^{-1} \theta|^2 \rangle \ \le \ 

2241:   \frac{f_{0}^{2}}{2 \ks^{2}} \ + \ 

2242:   \frac{\pi^{2}}{24 \ku^{2}} \, \sup_{n \ge 1} (f_{n}^{2}+g_{n}^{2}).

2243: \end{equation}

2244: Then the key is to note that the Fourier coefficients $f_{n}$ are all 

2245: ${\cal O}(S/U\ks)$---without any further factors of $\delta$ appearing---while 

2246: the $g_{n}$ are ${\cal O}(S/U\ks \times \log{\frac{1}{\delta}})$.

2247: Indeed,

2248: \begin{equation}

2249:   |f_{n}| \ = \ \left| \frac{(2-\delta_{n,0})\ku}{\pi}

2250:   \int_{-\pi/2\ku}^{\pi/2\ku} f(y) \cos(n \ku y) dy \, \right| 

2251:     \ \lesssim \ \frac{2(2-\delta_{n,0})S}{\pi U\ks}

2252:     \int_{0}^{\infty} |F(\eta)|  \, d\eta

2253: \end{equation}

2254: while %**

2255: \begin{eqnarray}

2256:   |g_{n}| \ &=& \left| \frac{2\ku}{\pi}

2257:   \int_{-\pi/2\ku}^{\pi/2\ku} g(y) \sin(n \ku y) dy \, \right|

2258:     \nonumber \\

2259:       &\sim& \frac{2S}{\pi U \ks} \left| \int_{-\pi/2\ku\delta}^{\pi/2\ku\delta} 

2260:     \frac{\ku \delta \, \eta}{\sin(\ku \delta \, \eta)}

2261:     G(\eta) \sin(n \ku \delta \, \eta) d\eta \, \right|

2262:     \nonumber \\

2263:       &\le& \frac{2 S}{U\ks} \int_{0}^{\pi/2\ku\delta} 

2264:        | G(\eta)| \, d\eta \,  \ \sim \

2265:        \frac{2S}{U\ks}\log\left[ \frac{1}{\ku \delta}\right].

2266: \end{eqnarray}

2267: In the last step above we used the fact that $|G(\eta)| \sim \eta^{-1}$ as 

2268: $\eta \rightarrow \infty$.

2269: 

2270: The unstirred large-scale variance is $\langle| \nabla^{-1} \theta_0|^2

2271: \rangle=S^2/\kappa^2 \ks^6$, so we deduce the large-scale 

2272: mixing efficiency obeys

2273: \begin{equation}

2274:   {\cal E}_{-1} \ \ge \ C \, \frac{\Pe}{\ks L}

2275:   \times \frac{1}{\sqrt{{1 + C' \left(\frac{\log{\Pe}}{r}\right)^{2}}}}

2276: \end{equation}

2277: where $C$ and $C'$ are absolute constants.  The numerical solutions of the

2278: steady advection--diffusion equation shown in Figure~\ref{dumfig5} confirms

2279: this classical scaling; the logarithmic term is not visible for this range of

2280: $\Pe$.  Again, this is consistent with the dynamic data for ${\cal E}_{-1}$ in

2281: Figure~\ref{dumfig2}.

2282: %*%*%*

2283: 

2284: 

2285: 

2286: %===================================================

2287: 

2288: %\newpage

2289: 

2290: \section{Summary and Discussion}

2291: \label{sec:SandD}

2292: 

2293: \noindent

2294: 

2295: The suppression of bulk variance of a scalar field is a natural gauge of the

2296: efficiency of stirring, and this notion allows for the examination of the

2297: effect of a flow on various length scales.  We have quantified the influence

2298: of stirring on weighted bulk variances in terms of nondimensional mixing

2299: efficiencies ${\cal E}_p$ that characterize fluctuations on relatively small

2300: ($p=1$), intermediate ($p=0$) and large ($p=-1$) length scales.  We studied

2301: these mixing efficiencies for statistically stationary, homogeneous and

2302: isotropic flow fields stirring scalars sustained by a variety of steady but

2303: spatially inhomogeneous scalar sources and sinks on periodic domains.  We

2304: reach a number of conclusions:

2305: \begin{itemize}

2306: 

2307: \item{Very generally, the mixing efficiencies ${\cal E}_p$ are bounded from

2308: below $\sim \Pe^0$ at high P\'eclet numbers---indicating ineffective

2309: stirring---and from above $\sim \Pe^1$---the classical scaling anticipated by

2310: the simplest eddy diffusion theory.  Classical scaling of the efficiencies

2311: corresponds to the existence of residual supression of variance in the

2312: vanishing diffusion ($\kappa \rightarrow 0$) limit.}

2313: \item{Source, sink and statistically stationary homogeneous

2314: and isotropic flow combinations exist that realize both the upper and lower

2315: bounds' scaling with respect to $\Pe$---and in some cases the prefactors

2316: as well---showing that the analysis is sharp at the most general level.}

2317: 

2318: \item{The small and intermediate scale mixing efficiencies

2319: ${\cal E}_1$ and ${\cal E}_0$ are ultimately limited

2320: by length scales in the source-sink distributions.

2321: That is, even if the efficiencies scale classically the inferred mixing lengths

2322: $\sim \kappa \Pe/U$ are limited by length scales defined by the

2323: sources and sinks rather than by the spectrum of scales in the flow.

2324: On the other hand the upper bound analysis does not prevent small scales 

2325: in the flow field from enhancing suppression of the variance at large scales, 

2326: i.e., ${\cal E}_{-1}$, to an unlimited degree.}

2327: 

2328: \item{Sufficiently ``rough'' scalar sources and sinks, in particular

2329: non-square-integrable distributions, necessarily produce sub-classical scaling

2330: of ${\cal E}_0$ and/or ${\cal E}_1$ at high P\'eclet numbers.  In such cases

2331: there is no residual suppression of variance in the vanishing diffusion limit

2332: for any finite mean kinetic energy statistically stationary homogeneous and

2333: isotropic stirring.}

2334: 

2335: \item{The mixing efficiencies at various length scales need not scale the same

2336: as $\Pe \rightarrow \infty$.  This was illustrated explicitly by the example of a monochromatic

2337: source distribution stirred by the random sine flow.  We found by direct

2338: numerical simulation and an adiabatic asymptotic internal layer analysis that

2339: for small scales ${\cal E}_1 \sim \Pe^{1/2}$, for intermediate scales ${\cal

2340: E}_0 \sim \Pe^{5/6}$, and the large length scale efficiency ${\cal E}_{-1}$

2341: exhibits near-classical scaling $\sim \Pe/\log{\Pe}$.}

2342: \end{itemize}

2343: 

2344: The analysis, simulations and modeling presented in this paper have addressed

2345: some fundamental questions regarding suppression of the long time averaged

2346: bulk scalar variance via stirring by incompressible and statistically

2347: homogeneous and isotropic flow fields, but compelling challenges remain for

2348: future study.  Among the unsolved problems open questions are:

2349: \begin{itemize}

2350: \item{Can the anomalous mixing efficiency bounds for measure-valued or fractal

2351: sources be achieved by any statistically stationary homogeneous and isotropic

2352: flow?  This is a difficult problem for direct numerical simulations of the

2353: advection--diffusion equation because of the small spatial scales that need to

2354: be resolved.  An alternate simulation approach is particle tracking, by

2355: following the evolution of many discrete particles moving with the flow and

2356: diffusing and approximating the continuous scalar concentration on an

2357: appropriately coarse grained level.}

2358: 

2359: \item{Can the small-flow-scale enhancement of the large-scale mixing

2360: efficiency ${\cal E}_{-1}$, as suggested by the upper bound in

2361: (\ref{eq:igvarlubound}), be realized?  It makes sense that stirring may be

2362: capable of suppressing large-scale variance, even for negligible molecular

2363: diffusion, by transferring scalar inhomogeneities from large length scales to small

2364: length scales via kinetic stretching and folding mechanisms.  The upper bound

2365: provides a quantitative estimate of this effect and it will be interesting to

2366: see to what extent it is an accurate estimate.}

2367: 

2368: \item{What is the mixing efficiency of ``real'' stationary homogeneous and

2369: isotropic turbulence in two and three dimensions?  The bounds derived here all

2370: apply to these flows, and the inevitable limitations on the mixing efficiency

2371: imposed by the source and sink structure apply. Turbulent mixing by a fluid

2372: with viscosity $\nu$ is often characterized by a Reynolds number

2373: $\text{Re}=UL/\nu$ and a Schmidt number $\text{Sc}=\nu/\kappa$.  While the

2374: mixing efficiencies ${\cal E}_p$ are studied here as functions of

2375: $\Pe=\text{Re} \times \text{Sc}$, the separate Reynolds and Schmidt number

2376: dependences are of interest, too.  These questions can be investigated

2377: theoretically and via direct numerical simulations in the periodic domain

2378: setting utilized here.}

2379: 

2380: \item{The uniform-wind optimal solution presented in

2381: Section~\ref{sec:saturation} is only appropriate for a one-dimensional source

2382: distribution in a domain with periodic boundary conditions.  

2383: It is optimal by virtue of always having a component blowing

2384: along the source gradient, so no time and little energy

2385: is wasted blowing along lines of constant source.

2386: If the source has a more complicated structure, then it is not generally possible to

2387: achieve such an efficient flow while preserving incompressibility.  Physical

2388: boundaries or a different golbal topology (e.g. a spherical domain as relevant to

2389: geophysical applications) will likewise invalidate the uniform-wind solution.

2390: The general question is then: For a given distribution of sources and sinks in

2391: a given domain, what is the optimal stirring strategy to achieve the greatest

2392: reduction of bulk variance?  This question has obvious relevance to

2393: engineering applications.  While we have answered it in the simplest setting

2394: of a single mode source-sink distribution on a periodic domain, it is clearly

2395: a complex problem in general.  It is not unlikely, however, that intuition

2396: gained from the study of idealized models may contribute to the development of

2397: valuable intuition for such systems.}

2398: 

2399: \item{Bounded domains with rigid walls are more appropriate for some

2400: engineering applications.  Then the scalar sources and/or sinks can be

2401: implemented by boundary conditions rather than as body sources and sinks

2402: \cite{Balmforth2003}.  We can also imagine situations where fluid and/or

2403: imposed scalar fluxes at boundaries contribute to the scalar variance in the

2404: bulk.  How this will affect the efficiency scalings is an open question.}

2405: 

2406: \item{We have seen that very generally ${\cal E}_1 \ge 1$, but have only

2407: established a similar lower bound on ${\cal E}_0$ and ${\cal E}_{-1}$ for the

2408: simplest case of monchromatic sources.  It is an open question whether or not

2409: there exist source, sink and flow (even steady flow) combinations where ${\cal

2410: E}_0$ and/or ${\cal E}_{-1} < 1$.  It is worthwhile noting in this context

2411: that in all cases $\langle \theta^2 \rangle^2 \le \langle |\nabla \theta|^2

2412: \rangle \langle |\nabla^{-1}\theta|^2 \rangle$.  Any stirring decreases the

2413: mean bulk gradient variance, but this suggests that if it does not decrease

2414: the variance significantly then it would have to {\it increase} the inverse

2415: gradient variance.  Hence it may not be surprising to find flows that can

2416: amplify large-scale fluctuations.}

2417: 

2418: \item{A related problem of interest is the advection--diffusion of a passive

2419: scalar $\theta$ with decay rate $\zeta$ sustained by a body

2420: source with evolution described by

2421: \begin{equation}

2422:   \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t} + \bm{u} \cdot \nabla \theta= \kappa

2423:   \lapl \theta +s(\bm{x}) - \zeta\theta.

2424: \end{equation}

2425: In applications $\zeta$ may have an interpretation as a chemical reaction rate

2426: or a radiative relaxation rate relevant in meteorology or for other

2427: geophysical flows on the sphere.  A linear amplitude damping term in the

2428: advection--diffusion equation introduces new features such as competition

2429: between scalar decay and mixing to supress steady-state variances

2430: \cite{ShawGFD2005}.}

2431: 

2432: \item{Finally, all the questions above can be posed for time dependent 

2433: sources and sinks.}

2434: \end{itemize}

2435: 

2436: %\noindent

2437: %``It has been recognized that $L^p$ norms of the passive scalar fail to quantify

2438: %the \emph{stirring efficiency} of a mixing process because they are

2439: %insensitive to small-scale structures \cite{Danckwerts1952}.''

2440: 

2441: 

2442: 

2443: \section*{Acknowledgements}

2444: 

2445: We are grateful for stimulating discussions with Paola Cessi, Bruno Eckhardt,

2446: Paul Federbush, Matthew Finn, Francesco Paparella, J\"org Schumacher, William

2447: R. Young, and many of the participants of the 2005 GFD Program at Woods Hole

2448: Oceanographic Institution where much of this work was performed.  TAS was

2449: supported in part by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of

2450: Canada through a Canadian Graduate Scholarship.  J-LT was supported in part by

2451: the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant GR/S72931/01.

2452: CRD was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-0244859, PHY-0555324 and an

2453: Alexander von Humboldt Research Award.

2454: 

2455: %\newpage

2456: 

2457: \appendix

2458: 

2459: \section{Lower Bound on Variance Efficiency}

2460: \label{sec:lowbound0}

2461: 

2462: One might expect the variance efficiency ${\cal E}_0$ to have a lower bound of

2463: unity, implying that stirring \emph{always} decreases the variance.  In order

2464: to derive a uniform (in $\Pe$) lower estimate we can search for the maximum

2465: variance subject to the steady-state production-dissipation constraint:

2466: \begin{equation}

2467:   \langle \theta^2 \rangle \geq \min_{\vartheta}~ \{ \langle

2468:   \vartheta^2 \rangle~|~ \kappa \langle | \nabla \vartheta |^2

2469:   \rangle = \langle s \vartheta \rangle \} .

2470: \end{equation}

2471: The solution of this optimization problem in Fourier space is

2472: \begin{equation}

2473:   \hat{\theta}(\bm{k})= \frac{\mu}{2} \frac{\hat{s}(\bm{k})}{\mu \kappa k^2

2474:   + 1}

2475: \end{equation}

2476: where $\mu$ is the Lagrange multiplier enforcing the constraint

2477: \begin{equation}

2478:   \kappa \sum_{\bm{k}} k^2 | \hat{\theta}(\bm{k})|^2 =

2479:   \sum_{\bm{k}} \hat{\theta}(\bm{k}) \hat{s}^*(\bm{k})~~

2480:   \quad \Longrightarrow \quad \kappa \sum_{\bm{k}} \frac{\mu k^2

2481:   |\hat{s}(\bm{k})|^2}{(\mu \kappa k^2 +1)^2} = 2 \sum_{\bm{k}}

2482:   \frac{|\hat{s}(\bm{k})|^2}{\mu \kappa k^2 +1}.

2483: \label{sums}

2484: \end{equation}

2485: where $*$ denotes the complex conjugate.

2486: 

2487: In the case of a dichromatic source with wavenumber $k_1$ at amplitude $s_1$

2488: and $k_2$ at amplitude $s_2$, the constraint requires one to solve a cubic

2489: equation for $\xi=1/\mu \kappa k_1^{2}$,

2490: \begin{equation}

2491:   (1+\alpha)\xi^3 + \tfrac{1}{2} (1+\alpha \beta +4 \beta +4 \alpha) \xi^2 +

2492:   (\beta +\alpha \beta + \beta^2 +\alpha) \xi +\tfrac{1}{2} (\beta^2+\alpha

2493:   \beta)=0

2494: \end{equation}

2495: where $\alpha=s_1^2/s_2^2$ and $\beta= k_1^2/k_2^2$.

2496: Then the mixing efficiency bound is

2497: \begin{equation}

2498:   {\cal E}_0^2 \ge \frac{\sum_{k_{1}, k_{2}}|\hat{\theta}_0(\bm{k})|^2}

2499:   {\sum_{k_{1}, k_{2}}|\hat{\theta}(\bm{k})|^2} =

2500:   \frac{4 (1+ \frac{\alpha}{\beta^2})}

2501:   {\frac{1}{(1+\xi)^2}+\frac{\alpha}{(\beta+\xi)^2}},

2502: \end{equation}

2503: and a numerical evaluation of the roots reveals that the minimum value of the

2504: efficiency bound is less than 1 for $\forall~\xi$.  Thus the variance

2505: production-dissipation balance alone does {\it not} rule out the existence of

2506: flows that could \emph{increase} the scalar variance.

2507: 

2508: %\newpage

2509: 

2510: \section{Steady uniform wind on a $\delta$-function source}

2511: 

2512: Taking the Fourier transform of the steady advection--diffusion

2513: equation~\eqref{eq:AD} with a uniform velocity field along the $x_{d}$-axis,

2514: \begin{equation}

2515:   %\sum_k

2516:   \hat{\theta}(\bm{k}) =

2517:   %\sum_k

2518:   \frac{\hat{s}(\bm{k})}{\kappa k^2 + i U k_d}

2519: \end{equation}

2520: where $k_d$ is the $d$th component of the horizontal wavenumber.

2521: Now substitute~$\hat{s}(\bm{k})=\text{const}$ for a~$\delta$-function

2522: source and after approximating the sums by integrals (since we are only

2523: interested in the asymptotic behavior), we find

2524: \begin{subequations}

2525: \begin{alignat}{2}

2526:   d&=2: \qquad &\langle |\nabla^{p}\theta|^2 \rangle &= \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi

2527:   \int_{2\pi/L}^{\infty} \frac{k^{2p+1} dk}{\kappa^2 k^4 + U^2

2528:     k^2\cos^2\phi}\,,\\

2529:   d&=3: &\langle| \nabla^{p}\theta|^2 \rangle &= \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi

2530:   \int_0^{\pi} \sin \vartheta d\vartheta \int_{2\pi/L}^{\infty} \frac{k^{2(p+1)}

2531:   dk}{\kappa^2 k^4 + U^2 k^2\cos^2\vartheta}\,.

2532: \end{alignat}%

2533: \label{eq:integrals}%

2534: \end{subequations}%

2535: The variances in the absence of stirring are found by calculating the

2536: integrals~\eqref{eq:integrals} with $U=0$. Straightforward evaluation of the

2537: integrals~\eqref{eq:integrals} yields

2538: \begin{subequations}

2539: \begin{alignat}{4}

2540:   d&=2:

2541:   \qquad

2542:   &{\cal E}_{1} &= 1,

2543:   \quad &{\cal E}_{0} &\sim \sqrt{\Pe}\,,

2544:   \quad &{\cal E}_{-1} &\sim \sqrt{\Pe}\,,\\

2545:   d&=3:

2546:   &{\cal E}_{1} &= 1,

2547:   \quad &{\cal E}_{0} &\sim 

2548:   \frac{\sqrt{\Pe}}{\sqrt{\log \Pe}}\,,

2549:   \quad &{\cal E}_{-1} &\sim \sqrt{\Pe}\,.

2550: \end{alignat}

2551: \end{subequations}

2552: These anomalous scalings in $\Pe$ suggest that the uniform flow is not the

2553: optimal allowed by the bound for the $\delta$-function source in both $d=2$

2554: and~$3$. This emphasizes the source-dependent nature of the optimal stirrer.

2555: 

2556: %\newpage

2557: 

2558: \section{Steady shear at an angle}

2559: 

2560: When the source is tilted at a 45$^{\circ}$ angle, i.e. $s({\bf x}) = \sqrt{2} S \sin(k_s(x+y))$, the functions $f$

2561: and $g$ must satisfy

2562: \begin{subequations}

2563: \begin{align}

2564:   -\sqrt{2}U\ks \sin(\ku y)\, g(y)

2565:   &= \kappa \left [ -\ks^2 + \frac{d^2}{dy^2}

2566:     \right] f(y) + \sqrt{2} S\sin(k_s y)\,,\label{B1a}\\

2567:   \sqrt{2}U\ks \sin(\ku y) f(y) &= \kappa \left [ -\ks^2 + \frac{d^2}{dy^2}

2568:     \right] g(y)+ \sqrt{2}S \cos(k_s y)\,.\label{B1b}

2569: \end{align}

2570: \label{eq:fgeqnstilted}%

2571: \end{subequations}%

2572: Upon changing variables as done in section $\rm{VII}$ we obtain

2573: \begin{subequations}

2574: \begin{align}

2575:   \frac{1}{\Pec}  \left[ -1 + \frac{d^2}{d \tilde{y}^2} \right]

2576:   \hat{f}(\tilde{y})+\sin \tilde{y} &= -\sin(r\tilde y) \hat{g}(\tilde{y}),\label{B2a}\\

2577:   \frac{1}{\Pec}  \left[ -1 + \frac{d^2}{d \tilde{y}^2} \right]

2578:   \hat{g}(\tilde{y}) + \cos \tilde{y} &= \sin(r\tilde y) \hat{f}(\tilde{y}).\label{B2b}

2579: \end{align}

2580: \label{eq:fgeqnsscaledtilted}%

2581: \end{subequations}%

2582: The internal layer solution is once again obtained by expanding in powers of

2583: $\Pec^{-1}$. To leading order the solution to~\eqref{eq:fgeqnsscaledtilted} in 

2584: the outer region is

2585: \begin{equation}

2586:   \hat{f}_{\mathrm{outer}} \sim 1,\qquad 

2587:   \hat{g}_{\mathrm{outer}} \sim -\frac{1}{ \tan(r \tilde{y})}\,.

2588:   \label{eq:outersoltilted}

2589: \end{equation}

2590: The inner internal layer solution is the same as for the untilted source

2591:  problem.  In Figure~\ref{dumfig6} we compare the internal layer solution

2592:  against the exact (numerical) solution of the full advection--diffusion

2593:  equation (\ref{eq:ADsteady}) at $\Pe=1000$ where the small parameter

2594:  $\epsilon \approx .2$.

2595: %

2596: \begin{figure}

2597: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{figure6.eps}}

2598: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-30pt}

2599: \caption{Comparison of the direct numerical solution (solid) and the internal

2600: layer solution (dashed) for \hbox{$\Pe$ = 1000}.}

2601: \label{dumfig6}

2602: \end{figure}

2603: %

2604: Recovering all the scalings and

2605: letting $\delta=\epsilon/r^{1/3} \ks$, we define the composite approximations

2606: \begin{subequations}

2607: \begin{align}

2608:   f_{\mathrm{comp}}(y) \ &= \ \frac{S}{U\ks} \,[\hat{f}_{\mathrm{inner}}(y) + f_{\mathrm{outer}}(y) ]

2609:   %= \frac{S}{U\ks}

2610:   %\frac{r^{-2/3}}{\epsilon}F \left( \frac{r^{1/3} \ks}{\epsilon} y \right)

2611:   \ = \frac{S}{U\ks}\, \left[ \frac{1}{\ku \delta} F \left(\frac{y}{\delta}\right)+1\right],\\

2612:   g_{\mathrm{comp}}(y) \ &= \ \frac{S}{U\ks} \,

2613:   \ku y \times \hat{g}_{\mathrm{inner}}(y) \times \hat{g}_{\mathrm{outer}}(y)

2614:   %=\frac{S}{U\ks} \frac{r^{-2/3}}{\epsilon}G

2615:   %\left( \frac{r^{1/3} \ks}{\epsilon} y \right) \frac{\ku y}{\sin(\ku y)}

2616:   %\\

2617:   \ = \frac{S}{U\ks}\, \frac{1}{\ku \delta}\,

2618:   \frac{\ku y}{\tan(\ku y)}\,G\left(\frac{y}{\delta}\right).

2619: \end{align}

2620: \label{eq:fginternalsoltilted}%

2621: \end{subequations}%

2622: Given the internal layer solution we can compute the multi-scale mixing

2623: measures.  In fact, to leading order the dependence of the efficiencies on the

2624: P\'eclet number is the same. The difference is in the prefactors. Figure

2625: \ref{dumfig7} compares the scalings derived from the internal layer solution

2626: (including prefactors) to the discrete data from the numerical solution and

2627: the numerical solution using the random sine flow.

2628: %

2629: \begin{figure}

2630: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figure7.eps}}

2631: \setlength{\abovecaptionskip}{-20pt}

2632: \caption{Mixing efficiencies ${\cal E}_p$ as a function of $\Pe$ for (a)

2633: $p=1$, (b) $p=0$, and (c) $p=-1$. The solid lines are the bounds, the

2634: dashed-dot lines are scalings predicted from the internal layer asymptotic

2635: analysis, the open circles are the discrete data from the numerical solution

2636: of the steady advection--diffusion equation (\ref{eq:ADsteady}), and the

2637: dashed lines are the result of the direct numerical solution for the

2638: time-dependent random sine flow.}

2639: \label{dumfig7}%

2640: \end{figure}%

2641: %

2642: 

2643: 

2644: 

2645: %\newpage

2646: %\bibliography{journals_abbrev,articles}

2647: 

2648: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2649: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

2650:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

2651: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

2652: 

2653: \bibitem{Ottino1990}

2654: J.~M. Ottino, Mixing, chaotic advection, and turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.

2655:   22 (1990) 207--253.

2656: 

2657: \bibitem{Majda1999}

2658: A.~J. Majda, P.~R. Kramer, Simplified models for turbulent diffusion: {T}heory,

2659:   numerical modelling and physical phenomena, Physics Reports 314~(4-5) (1999)

2660:   237--574.

2661: 

2662: \bibitem{Warhaft2000}

2663: Z.~Warhaft, Passive scalars in turbulent flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32

2664:   (2000) 203--240.

2665: 

2666: \bibitem{Shraiman2000}

2667: B.~I. Shraiman, E.~D. Siggia, Scalar turbulence, Nature 405 (2000) 639--646.

2668: 

2669: \bibitem{Sawford2001}

2670: B.~L. Sawford, Turbulent relative dispersion, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 33 (2001)

2671:   289--317.

2672: 

2673: \bibitem{Falkovich2001}

2674: G.~Falkovich, K.~Gaw\c{e}dzki, M.~Vergassola, Particles and fields in

2675:   turbulence, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73~(4) (2001) 913--975.

2676: 

2677: \bibitem{Aref2002}

2678: H.~Aref, The development of chaotic advection, Phys. Fluids 14~(4) (2002)

2679:   1315--1325.

2680: 

2681: \bibitem{Wiggins2004}

2682: S.~Wiggins, J.~M. Ottino, Foundations of chaotic mixing, Phil. Trans. R. Soc.

2683:   Lond. A 362 (2004) 937--970.

2684: 

2685: \bibitem{Batchelor1949}

2686: G.~K. Batchelor, Diffusion in a field of homogeneous turbulence. {I}.

2687:   {E}ulerian analysis, Australian Journal of Scientific Research 2 (1949)

2688:   437--450.

2689: 

2690: \bibitem{Batchelor1952a}

2691: G.~K. Batchelor, Diffusion in a field of homogeneous turbulence. {II}. {T}he

2692:   relative motion of particles, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 48 (1952) 345--362.

2693: 

2694: \bibitem{Batchelor1959}

2695: G.~K. Batchelor, Small-scale variation of convected quantities like temperature

2696:   in turbulent fluid: {P}art 1. {G}eneral discussion and the case of small

2697:   conductivity, J. Fluid Mech. 5 (1959) 134--139.

2698: 

2699: \bibitem{Kraichnan1968}

2700: R.~H. Kraichnan, Small-scale structure of a scalar field convected by

2701:   turbulence, Phys. Fluids 11~(5) (1968) 945--953.

2702: 

2703: \bibitem{Kraichnan1974}

2704: R.~H. Kraichnan, Convection of a passive scalar by a quasi-uniform random

2705:   straining field, J. Fluid Mech. 64 (1974) 737--762.

2706: 

2707: \bibitem{Constantin2005}

2708: P.~Constantin, A.~Kiselev, L.~Ryzhik, A.~Zlato\u{s}, Diffusion and mixing in

2709:   fluid flow Preprint.

2710: 

2711: \bibitem{Townsend1951}

2712: A.~A. Townsend, The diffusion behind a line source in homogeneous turbulence,

2713:   Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 209~(1098) (1951) 418--430.

2714: 

2715: \bibitem{Townsend1954}

2716: A.~A. Townsend, The diffusion behind a line source in homogeneous turbulence,

2717:   Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 224~(1159) (1954) 487--512.

2718: 

2719: \bibitem{Saffman1960}

2720: P.~G. Saffman, On the effect of the molecular diffusivity in turbulent

2721:   diffusion, J. Fluid Mech. 8 (1960) 273--283.

2722: 

2723: \bibitem{Durbin1980}

2724: P.~A. Durbin, A stochastic model of two-particle dispersion and concentration

2725:   fluctuations in in homogeneous turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 100 (1980)

2726:   279--302.

2727: 

2728: \bibitem{Drummond1982}

2729: I.~T. Drummond, Path-integral methods for turbulent diffusion, J. Fluid Mech.

2730:   123 (1982) 59--68.

2731: 

2732: \bibitem{Sawford1986}

2733: B.~L. Sawford, J.~C.~R. Hunt, Effects of turbulence structure, molecular

2734:   diffusion and source size on scalar fluctuations in homogeneous turbulence,

2735:   J. Fluid Mech. 165 (1986) 373--400.

2736: 

2737: \bibitem{Thomson1990}

2738: D.~J. Thomson, A stochastic model for the motion of particle pairs in isotropic

2739:   high-{R}eynolds number turbulence, and its application to the problem of

2740:   concentration variance, J. Fluid Mech. 210 (1990) 113--153.

2741: 

2742: \bibitem{Borgas1994}

2743: M.~S. Borgas, B.~L. Sawford, A family of stochastic models for two-particle

2744:   dispersion in isotropic homogeneous stationary turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 279

2745:   (1994) 69--99.

2746: 

2747: \bibitem{Chertkov1997}

2748: M.~Chertkov, I.~Kolokolov, M.~Vergassola, Inverse cascade and intermittency of

2749:   passive scalar in one-dimensional smooth flow, Phys. Rev. E 56~(5) (1997)

2750:   5483--5499.

2751: 

2752: \bibitem{Chertkov1998}

2753: M.~Chertkov, G.~Falkovich, I.~Kolokolov, Intermittent dissipation of a passive

2754:   scalar in turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80~(10) (1998) 2121--2124.

2755: 

2756: \bibitem{Chertkov1995}

2757: M.~Chertkov, G.~Falkovich, I.~Kolokolov, V.~Lebedev, Statistics of a passive

2758:   scalar advected by a large-scale two-dimensional velocity field: Analytic

2759:   solution, Phys. Rev. E 51~(6) (1995) 5609--5627.

2760: 

2761: \bibitem{Chertkov1995b}

2762: M.~Chertkov, G.~Falkovich, I.~Kolokolov, V.~Lebedev, Normal and anomalous

2763:   scaling of the fourth-order correlation function of a randomly advected

2764:   passive scalar, Phys. Rev. E 52~(5) (1995) 4924--4941.

2765: 

2766: \bibitem{Chertkov1997b}

2767: M.~Chertkov, Instanton for random advection, Phys. Rev. E 55~(3) (1997)

2768:   2722--2735.

2769: 

2770: \bibitem{Balkovsky1999}

2771: E.~Balkovsky, A.~Fouxon, Universal long-time properties of {L}agrangian

2772:   statistics in the {B}atchelor regime and their application to the passive

2773:   scalar problem, Phys. Rev. E 60~(4) (1999) 4164--4174.

2774: 

2775: \bibitem{Pierrehumbert1994}

2776: R.~T. Pierrehumbert, Tracer microstructure in the large-eddy dominated regime,

2777:   Chaos Solitons Fractals 4~(6) (1994) 1091--1110.

2778: 

2779: \bibitem{Antonsen1996}

2780: T.~M. {Antonsen, Jr.}, Z.~Fan, E.~Ott, E.~Garcia-Lopez, The role of chaotic

2781:   orbits in the determination of power spectra, Phys. Fluids 8~(11) (1996)

2782:   3094--3104.

2783: 

2784: \bibitem{Rothstein1999}

2785: D.~Rothstein, E.~Henry, J.~P. Gollub, Persistent patterns in transient chaotic

2786:   fluid mixing, Nature 401~(6755) (1999) 770--772.

2787: 

2788: \bibitem{Fereday2002}

2789: D.~R. Fereday, P.~H. Haynes, A.~Wonhas, J.~C. Vassilicos, Scalar variance decay

2790:   in chaotic advection and {B}atchelor-regime turbulence, Phys. Rev. E 65~(3)

2791:   (2002) 035301(R).

2792: 

2793: \bibitem{Sukhatme2002}

2794: J.~Sukhatme, R.~T. Pierrehumbert, Decay of passive scalars under the action of

2795:   single scale smooth velocity fields in bounded two-dimensional domains: From

2796:   non-self-similar probability distribution functions to self-similar

2797:   eigenmodes, Phys. Rev. E 66 (2002) 056032.

2798: 

2799: \bibitem{Wonhas2002}

2800: A.~Wonhas, J.~C. Vassilicos, Mixing in fully chaotic flows, Phys. Rev. E 66

2801:   (2002) 051205.

2802: 

2803: \bibitem{Pikovsky2003}

2804: A.~Pikovsky, O.~Popovych, Persistent patterns in deterministic mixing flows,

2805:   Europhys. Lett. 61 (2003) 625--631.

2806: 

2807: \bibitem{Thiffeault2003d}

2808: J.-L. Thiffeault, S.~Childress, Chaotic mixing in a torus map, Chaos 13~(2)

2809:   (2003) 502--507.

2810: 

2811: \bibitem{Vanneste2005}

2812: J.~Vanneste, P.~H. Haynes, What controls the decay of passive scalars in smooth

2813:   flows?, Phys. Fluids 17 (2005) 097103.

2814: 

2815: \bibitem{Schekochihin2004}

2816: A.~Schekochihin, P.~H. Haynes, S.~C. Cowley, Diffusion of passive scalar in a

2817:   finite-scale random flow, Phys. Rev. E 70 (2004) 046304.

2818: 

2819: \bibitem{Gilbert2006}

2820: A.~D. Gilbert, Advected fields in maps. {III}. {D}ecay of passive scalar in

2821:   baker's maps, Dynam. Sys. 21 (2006) 25--71.

2822: 

2823: \bibitem{Thiffeault2004b}

2824: J.-L. Thiffeault, The strange eigenmode in {L}agrangian coordinates, Chaos

2825:   14~(3) (2004) 531--538.

2826: 

2827: \bibitem{Mathew2005}

2828: G.~Mathew, I.~Mezi{\'c}, L.~Petzold, A multiscale measure for mixing, Physica D

2829:   211~(1-2) (2005) 23--46.

2830: 

2831: \bibitem{Thiffeault2004}

2832: J.-L. Thiffeault, C.~R. Doering, J.~D. Gibbon, A bound on mixing efficiency for

2833:   the advection--diffusion equation, J. Fluid Mech. 521 (2004) 105--114.

2834: 

2835: \bibitem{Doering2002}

2836: C.~R. Doering, C.~Foias, Energy dissipation in body-forced turbulence, J. Fluid

2837:   Mech. 467 (2002) 289--306.

2838: 

2839: \bibitem{Doering2003}

2840: C.~R. Doering, B.~Eckhardt, J.~Schumacher, Energy dissipation in body-forced

2841:   plane shear flow, J. Fluid Mech. 494 (2003) 275--284.

2842: 

2843: \bibitem{Tsang2005}

2844: Y.-K. Tsang, T.~M. {Antonsen, Jr.}, E.~Ott, Exponential decay of chaotically

2845:   advected passive scalars in the zero diffusivity limit, Phys. Rev. E 71

2846:   (2005) 066301.

2847: 

2848: \bibitem{Dittrich1984}

2849: P.~Dittrich, S.~A. Molchanov, D.~D. Sokoloff, A.~A. Ruzmaikin, Mean magnetic

2850:   field in renovating random flows, Astron. Nachr. 3 (1984) 119--125.

2851: 

2852: \bibitem{Zeldovich1984}

2853: Ya.~B. Zeldovich, A.~A. Ruzmaikin, S.~A. Molchanov, D.~D. Sokoloff, Kinematic

2854:   dynamo problem in a linear velocity field, J. Fluid Mech. 144 (1984) 1--11.

2855: 

2856: \bibitem{Gilbert1992}

2857: A.~D. Gilbert, B.~J. Bayly, Magnetic field intermittency and fast dynamo action

2858:   in random helical flows, J. Fluid Mech. 241 (1992) 199--214.

2859: 

2860: \bibitem{Zeldovich1982}

2861: Ya.~B. Zeldovich, Exact solution to the problem of diffusion in a periodic

2862:   velocity field and turbulent diffusion, Doklady Akademiia Nauk SSSR. 266

2863:   (1992) 821--826.  English translation in {\it Selected Works of Yakov

2864:   Borisovich Zeldovich. {V}olume {I}: {C}hemical Physics and Hydrodynamics},

2865:   Princeton University Press (1992) 86--92.

2866: 

2867: \bibitem{ShawGFD2005}

2868: T.~A. Shaw, Bounds on multiscale mixing efficiencies, in: Proceedings of the

2869:   2005 Summer Program in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Woods Hole Oceanographic

2870:   Institute, Woods Hole, MA, 2005, p. 291.

2871: 

2872: \bibitem{Plasting2006}

2873: S.~Plasting, W.~R. Young, A bound on scalar variance for the

2874:   advection--diffusion equation, J. Fluid Mech. 552 (2006) 289--298.

2875: 

2876: \bibitem{DoeringThiffeault2006}

2877: C.~R. Doering, J.-L. Thiffeault, Multiscale mixing efficiencies for steady

2878:   sources, Phys. Rev. E, In press.

2879: 

2880: \bibitem{Savill1987}

2881: A.~M. Savill, Recent developments in rapid-distortion theory, Annu. Rev. Fluid

2882:   Mech. 19 (1987) 531--575.

2883: 

2884: \bibitem{Hunt1990}

2885: J.~C.~R. Hunt, D.~J. Carruthers, Rapid distortion theory and the `problems' of

2886:   turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 212 (1990) 497--532.

2887: 

2888: \bibitem{Balmforth2003}

2889: N.~J. Balmforth, W.~R. Young, Diffusion-limited scalar cascades, J. Fluid Mech.

2890:   482 (2003) 91--100.

2891: 

2892: \end{thebibliography}

2893: 

2894: \end{document}