Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:35:18.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal mixing in two-dimensional plane Poiseuille flow at finite Péclet number

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2014

D. P. G. Foures ,
C. P. Caulfield  and
P. J. Schmid
D. P. G. Foures
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK
C. P. Caulfield*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK BP Institute, University of Cambridge, Madingley Rise, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0EZ, UK
P. J. Schmid
Affiliation:
Laboratoire d’Hydrodynamique (LadHyX), CNRS-École Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France
*
†Email address for correspondence: c.p.caulfield@bpi.cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider the nonlinear optimisation of the mixing of a passive scalar, initially arranged in two layers, in a two-dimensional plane Poiseuille flow at finite Reynolds and Péclet numbers, below the linear instability threshold. We use a nonlinear-adjoint-looping approach to identify optimal perturbations leading to maximum time-averaged energy as well as maximum mixing in a freely evolving flow, measured through the minimisation of either the passive scalar variance or the so-called mix-norm, as defined by Mathew, Mezić & Petzold (Physica D, vol. 211, 2005, pp. 23–46). We show that energy optimisation appears to lead to very weak mixing of the scalar field whereas the optimal mixing initial perturbations, despite being less energetic, are able to homogenise the scalar field very effectively. For sufficiently long time horizons, minimising the mix-norm identifies optimal initial perturbations which are very similar to those which minimise scalar variance, demonstrating that minimisation of the mix-norm is an excellent proxy for effective mixing in this finite-Péclet-number bounded flow. By analysing the time evolution from initial perturbations of several optimal mixing solutions, we demonstrate that our optimisation method can identify the dominant underlying mixing mechanism, which appears to be classical Taylor dispersion, i.e. shear-augmented diffusion. The optimal mixing proceeds in three stages. First, the optimal mixing perturbation, energised through transient amplitude growth, transports the scalar field across the channel width. In a second stage, the mean flow shear acts to disperse the scalar distribution leading to enhanced diffusion. In a final third stage, linear relaxation diffusion is observed. We also demonstrate the usefulness of the developed variational framework in a more realistic control case: mixing optimisation by prescribed streamwise velocity boundary conditions.

JFM classification

Flow Control: Flow Control Flow Control: Mixing enhancement Mathematical Foundations: Variational methods
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 748 , 10 June 2014 , pp. 241 - 277
Copyright
© 2014 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aamo, O. M. & Krstić, M. 2003 Flow Control by Feedback: Stabilization and Mixing. Springer.Google Scholar
Aamo, O. M. & Krstić, M. 2004 Feedback control of particle dispersion in bluff body wakes. Intl J. Control 77, 1001–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aamo, O. M., Krstić, M. & Bewley, T. R. 2003 Control of mixing by boundary feedback in 2d channel flow. Automatica 39, 1597–1606.Google Scholar
Annaswamy, A. M. & Ghoniem, A. F. 1995 Active control in combustion systems. IEEE Control Syst. 15, 49–63.Google Scholar
Aref, H. 1984 Stirring by chaotic advection. J. Fluid Mech. 143, 1–21.Google Scholar
Balogh, A., Aamo, O. M. & Krstić, M. 2005 Optimal mixing enhancement in 3-D pipe flow. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 13, 27–41.Google Scholar
Cherubini, S., De Palma, P., Robinet, J.-C. & Bottaro, A. 2010 Rapid path to transition via nonlinear localised optimal perturbations in a boundary-layer flow. Phys. Rev. E 82, 066302.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, D., Dahleh, M. & Mezic, I. 1999 Control of mixing in fluid flow: a maximum entropy approach. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44, 1852–1863.Google Scholar
Danckwerts, P. V. 1952 The definition and measurement of some characteristics of mixtures. Appl. Sci. Res. A 3, 279–296.Google Scholar
Duguet, Y., Monokrousos, A., Brandt, L. & Henningson, D. S. 2013 Minimal transition thresholds in plane Couette flow. Phys. Fluids 25, 084103.Google Scholar
Eckart, C. 1948 An analysis of the stirring and mixing processes in incompressible fluids. J. Mar. Res. 7, 265–275.Google Scholar
Foures, D. P. G., Caulfield, C. P. & Schmid, P. J. 2013 Localization of flow structures using $\infty $ -norm optimization. J. Fluid Mech. 729, 672–701.Google Scholar
Fursikov, A. V., Gunzburger, M. D. & Hou, L. 1998 Boundary value problems and optimal boundary control for the Navier–Stokes system: the two-dimensional case. SIAM J. Control Optim. 36 (3), 852–894.Google Scholar
Guégan, A., Schmid, P. J. & Huerre, P. 2006 Optimal energy growth and optimal control in swept Hiemenz flow. J. Fluid Mech. 566, 11–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guermond, J. L., Minev, P. & Shen, J. 2006 An overview of projection methods for incompressible flows. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Engng 195, 6011–6045.Google Scholar
Hessel, V., Löwe, H. & Schönfeld, F. 2005 Micromixers - a review on passive and active mixing principles. Chem. Engng Sci. 60, 2479–2501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juniper, M. P. 2011 Triggering in the horizontal Rijke tube: non-normality, transient growth and bypass transition. J. Fluid Mech. 667, 272–308.Google Scholar
Lekien, F., Coulliette, C., Mariano, A. J., Ryan, E. H., Shay, L. K., Haller, G. & Marsden, J. 2005 Pollution release tied to invariant manifolds: a case study for the coast of Florida. Physica D 210, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Z., Thiffeault, J.-L. & Doering, C. R. 2011 Optimal stirring strategies for passive scalar mixing. J. Fluid Mech. 675, 465–476.Google Scholar
Linden, P. F. 1999 The fluid mechanics of natural ventilation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 31, 201–238.Google Scholar
Lindzen, R. S. 1988 Instability of plane parallel shear flow (toward a mechanistic picture of how it works). Pure Appl. Geophys. 126, 103–121.Google Scholar
Liu, W. 2008 Mixing enhancement by optimal flow advection. SIAM J. Control Optim. 47, 624–638.Google Scholar
Lunasin, E., Lin, Z., Novikov, A., Mazzucato, A. & Doering, C. R. 2012 Optimal mixing and optimal stirring for fixed energy, fixed power, or fixed palenstrophy flows. J. Math. Phys. 53, 115611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mao, X., Blackburn, H. M. & Sherwin, S. J. 2012 Optimal inflow boundary condition perturbations in steady stenotic flow. J. Fluid Mech. 705, 306–321.Google Scholar
Mathew, G., Mezic, I., Grivopoulos, S., Vaidya, U. & Petzold, L. 2007 Optimal control of mixing in Stokes fluid flows. J. Fluid Mech. 580, 261–281.Google Scholar
Mathew, G., Mezić, I. & Petzold, L. 2005 A multiscale measure for mixing. Physica D 211, 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monokrousos, A., Bottaro, A., Brandt, L., Di Vita, A. & Henningson, D. S. 2011 Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and the optimal path to turbulence in shear flows. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 134502.Google Scholar
Nguyen, N.-T. & Wu, Z. 2005 Micromixers: a review. J. Micromech. Microengng 15, R1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, W. M. F. 1907 The stability or instability of the steady motions of a perfect liquid and of a viscous liquid. Part I: a perfect liquid, part II: a viscous liquid. Proc. R. Irish Acad. A 27, 9–138.Google Scholar
Ottino, J. M. 1990 Mixing, chaotic advection, and turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 22, 207–254.Google Scholar
Pringle, C. C. T. & Kerswell, R. R. 2010 Using nonlinear transient growth to construct the minimal seed for shear flow turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 154502.Google Scholar
Rabin, S. M. E., Caulfield, C. P. & Kerswell, R. R. 2012 Triggering turbulence efficiently in plane Couette flow. J. Fluid Mech. 712, 244–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, S. M. E., Caulfield, C. P. & Kerswell, R. R. 2014 Designing a more nonlinearly stable laminar flow via boundary manipulation. J. Fluid Mech. 738, R1.Google Scholar
Rhines, P. B. & Young, W. R. 1983 How rapidly is a passive scalar mixed within closed streamlines? J. Fluid Mech. 133, 133–145.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. I. 1953 Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 219, 186–203.Google Scholar
Thiffeault, J.-L. 2012 Using multiscale norms to quantify mixing and transport. Nonlinearity 25, R1.Google Scholar
Wunsch, C. & Ferrari, R. 2004 Vertical mixing, energy, and the general circulation of the oceans. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 281–314.Google Scholar