text:
# Transient growth and instability in rotating boundary layers

## I Introduction

The standard development of boundary layers may be transformed by various effects, the modification of boundary conditions (riblets, compliant walls) or the presence of bulk forces such as centrifugal DR  and/or Coriolis forces, ZebBot  to name just a few. In astrophysical, geophysical and technological flows, rotation through the Coriolis effect plays a major role: technological examples appear most notably for turbomachinery but also include rotary atomization nozzles. Lefebvre  Astrophysical examples include the solar tachocline SpiegelZahn  and, on a larger scale, accretion disk flow at the disk-star boundary layer. Frank

For shear flows $`(U(x,y),V(x,y),0)`$, it is known that rotation along the $`z`$axis can produce an instability generating streamwise oriented vortices, also known as longitudinal rolls. TrittonDavies . This instability arises due to the imbalance of pressure and Coriolis forces. DR  Rotating channel flows have been shown to exhibit this instability, in both theory and experiment, Hart ; LezJon ; AlfPer  while rotating free shear flows have been predicted to be likewise unstable. YFMR

However, this modal instability is present only for a certain range of rotations rates and depends on the direction of the frame rotation vector (here the $`z`$-axis) with respect to the vorticity vector of the base flow. When the latter quantities are parallel (anti-parallel), the rotation is called cyclonic (anti-cyclonic). Cyclonic rotation and strong anti-cyclonic rotation are found to stabilize normal modes. On the contrary, weak anti-cyclonic rotation results in unstable streamwise vortices. All these properties have been verified for rotating Poiseuille flow, Hart ; LezJon ; AlfPer  rotating planar wakes and rotating mixing layers. YFMR  In addition, instability thresholds have been determined in terms of Rossby and Reynolds numbers (the Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}`$ and Rossby number $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ are defined explicitly in §III(A)). Such an instability mechanism is fundamentally inviscid and is reduced by the presence of viscosity. For instance, in rotating Poiseuille flow, LezJon  a critical point was found at $`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{C}89`$ and Rossby number $`\mathrm{Ro}=1`$. Even though the boundary layer over a flat plate continues to be an essential prototypical flow in the study of transition to turbulence, rotating boundary layers have been less extensively studied. In one early study, PotCha  it was found that rotating Blasius flow (denoted hereafter by RB) is destabilized by weak anti-cyclonic rotation. However stabilization for stronger anti-cyclonic rotation was not found since strong rotation rates were not considered. This study was limited to a few fixed values of streamwise wavenumbers and no critical point was sought. The first purpose of the present work is to investigate the characteristics of the unstable normal modes of rotational boundary layer flows by emphasizing the ranges of Reynolds and Rossby numbers where the rotational instability is active.

In non-rotating shear flows (plane Couette, Poiseuille, boundary layer flows), nearly streamwise vortices have also been observed during the transition to turbulence (note that no fundamental connection exists between these two kind of streamwise vortices). These are thought to be the result of a transient growth process that can occur even when linear stability theory predicts that all modes are stable. The ability of disturbances in shear flows to grow transiently was first proposed by Kelvin Kelvin  and explored by Orr; Orr  later, Ellingson and Palm, EllPal  Landahl Landahl  and Hultgren and Gustavsson HulGus  proposed mechanisms for this growth. Transient growth theory has taken shape more recently see e.g. papers BobBro, ; ButFar, ; TTRD, ; RedHen, , reviews, Refs. Grossmann, ; Reshotko,  and the monograph SchHen, . For steady flows, transient growth can be related to the non-orthogonality, with respect to a suitable energy norm, of the eigenvectors of the linear evolution operator. This feature permits certain initial conditions to experience relatively large amplification $`G(t)`$ at intermediate times even for asymptotically stable flows. The most amplified transient disturbances for boundary layers ButFar  typically take the form of streamwise vortices. The well known streaks seen in such flows at high levels of free stream turbulence, are now thought to be formed as these optimal vortices lift up Landahl  low velocity fluid from the wall region and push down high velocity fluid toward the wall. MatAlf2001  In rotating boundary layers, there exists also a wide range of rotation rates for which the instability is not present and little attention has been paid to this rotationally stable regime. In particular, the possibility that disturbances experience significant transient growth in rotating boundary layers, has not been addressed yet (although some preliminary results for rotating channel flow appears in Ref. SchHen, ). The second and major purpose of this paper is to study transient growth in rotating boundary layer flows, primarily in the regime where no unstable normal modes are present. Transient growth factors, maximized in time, are calculated for a broad range of wavenumbers and Rossby numbers. Peak transient growth factors, maximized both in time and in wavenumber space, are also computed as a function of rotation. Calculations based on RB flow are presented alongside equivalent calculations based on the rotating asymptotic suction (denoted hereafter by RAS) profile. The base flows are discussed in §II, then in §III the disturbance equations and calculation methods are presented. Results for modal instability and transient growth for both base flows are contained in §IV and the study is concluded in §V.

## II Base Flows

To examine the effect of rotation on boundary layers, we choose as base flows two well-known boundary layer solutions which are rapidly recalled in the following sub-section: the Blasius boundary layer and the asymptotic suction profile.

### II.1 Base Flows without rotation

The paradigmatic Blasius velocity profile $`U(y)`$ SchGer  is related to the streamfunction $`f`$ by $`U(y)=U^{}f^{}(\eta )`$ where $`U^{}`$ denotes the free-stream velocity, primes the differentiation with respect to the similarity variable $`\eta `$. More precisely $`f`$ and $`\eta `$ satisfy

$$f^{\prime \prime \prime }+\frac{1}{2}ff^{\prime \prime }=0\text{with}\eta =y/\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\sqrt{\nu x/U^{}}.$$
(1)
The quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ denotes a boundary layer thickness defined in terms of the free-stream velocity $`U^{}`$, the downstream distance $`x`$ and the kinematic viscosity $`\nu `$. Equation (1) is easily evaluated using straightforward numerical schemes (Falkner-Skan routines built into Matlab Matlab  were used in this work). Blasius flow includes as well a weak transverse velocity,

$$V(y)=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\nu U^{}}{x}}\left(\eta f^{}f\right),$$
(2)
which is zero at the wall and approaches the constant displacement velocity, $`V^{}=0.8604U^{}\sqrt{\nu /xU^{}}`$ as $`y,\eta \mathrm{}`$. The displacement thickness

$$\delta _B=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{U}{U^{}}\right)𝑑y=\mathrm{\Delta }(x)\underset{\eta \mathrm{}}{lim}[\eta f(\eta )]=1.7208\mathrm{\Delta }(x),$$
(3)
defines the length scale used to build a Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}=U^{}\delta _B/\nu `$.

The non-rotating asymptotic suction profile (denoted hereafter by AS) describes the velocity field obtained when a fluid flows parallel to a surface on which uniform suction $`V^{}`$ is applied. This boundary layer profile

$$U(y)=U^{}\left(1e^{y/\delta _S}\right);V(y)=V^{}\text{with}\delta _S=\frac{\nu }{V^{}}$$
(4)
is a true Navier-Stokes solution and, contrary to Blasius flow, does not vary in the downstream direction. The linear SchGer ; HugRei  and nonlinear Hocking  stability properties of flow (4) have been long known: AS flow remains stable for much higher Reynolds numbers than Blasius flow for a Reynolds number based on the displacement thickness (for AS equal to $`\delta _S`$) and free stream velocity, i.e. $`\mathrm{Re}=U^{}\delta _S/\nu `$. Note that the non-dimensional transverse velocity is such that $`V^{}/U^{}=1/\mathrm{Re}`$.

### II.2 Base Flows with rotation

Let us now consider a frame rotating along the $`z`$-direction with a constant angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see Fig.1). By applying the usual boundary layer scalings SchGer  to the rotating Navier-Stokes equations, the nondimensional equations read in the limit of large $`\mathrm{Re}`$,

$$\frac{u}{x}+\frac{v}{y}=0$$
(5)
$$u\frac{u}{x}+v\frac{u}{y}=\frac{p}{x}+\frac{^2u}{y^2}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{ReRo}}v$$
(6)
$$0=\frac{p}{y}\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}u$$
(7)
where the Rossby number is defined such as $`\mathrm{Ro}=U^{}/2\mathrm{\Omega }\delta `$ where $`\delta `$ stands for the displacement thickness ($`\delta =\delta _B`$ or $`\delta _S`$). Unless rotation is very strong (i.e. the rotation number $`\mathrm{Rot}=(2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{o})^1>>1`$), the term $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{ReRo}}v`$ is weak relative to the leading order terms (the strongest rotation numbers used in this study are $`𝒪(1)`$) and can thus be neglected in the streamwise momentum equation, (6). A non-rotating boundary layer profile such as the Blasius profile or AS profile, is then preserved in the presence of rotation PotCha  although rotation calls for an added cross-stream base pressure gradient, $`dP/dy=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}U(y)`$ to balance the Coriolis force resulting from the streamwise velocity $`U(y)`$. The rotating asymptotic suction (RAS) profile continues to be an exact solution of the rotating Navier-Stokes equations if, in addition to the normal base pressure gradient, $`dP/dy=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}U(y)`$, a streamwise pressure gradient $`dP/dx=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ReRo}}V`$ is included in the base flow to balance the Coriolis term in the streamwise momentum equation.

In the following stability and transient growth calculations, the downstream variation of boundary layers is not accounted for. Two major hypothesis follow: (a) the streamwise profile is considered at a given streamwise position $`x=x_0`$, and (b) the transverse velocity component is discarded, i.e. we set $`V=0`$. For all RB computations and most RAS calculations (unless otherwise stated), the approximated profile $`(U(y),0,0)`$ will be hence used. However, as mentioned above, RAS flow with $`V0`$ is an exact parallel solution of the Navier-Stokes equations; it can thus be used as a test for the validity of the second hypothesis. In the Appendix, a comparison between the two possibilities $`V0`$ and $`V=0`$ is presented for RAS, based on growth rates and neutral curves of normal modes as well as transient growth. This study shows that the effect of the transverse velocity on the normal modes and transient properties is negligible.

## III Mathematical Formulation

### III.1 Linearized disturbance equations

In a frame rotating along the $`z`$-direction with a constant angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see Fig.1), the dimensionless Navier-Stokes Equations read

$$\frac{𝐮_{tot}}{t}+𝐮_{tot}𝐮_{tot}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}\widehat{z}\times 𝐮_{tot}=p_{tot}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}^2𝐮_{tot};𝐮_{tot}=0$$
(8)
where non-dimensionalization has been performed using free stream velocity $`U^{}`$, displacement thickness $`\delta `$ ($`=\delta _B`$ or $`\delta _S`$), and pressure scale $`\rho (U^{})^2`$. Two dimensionless number then arise: the Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}=U^{}\delta /\nu `$ , and the Rossby number $`\mathrm{Ro}=U^{}/2\mathrm{\Omega }\delta `$.

Following standard methods, the base state velocity footnote  $`(U(y),V,0)`$ and pressure $`P(y)`$ are perturbed by adding an infinitesimal disturbance $`(u_p,v_p,w_p)`$ and $`p_p`$. These linear perturbations can be assumed to satisfy a modal behavior in $`x`$,$`z`$, viz.

$$(u_p,v_p,w_p;p_p)=(u(y,t),v(y,t),w(y,t);p(y,t))e^{i(\alpha x+\beta z)},$$
(9)
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are assumed to be purely real. By using normal velocity $`v(y,t)`$ and normal vorticity

$$\zeta (y,t)=i\beta ui\alpha w,$$
(10)
the linear dynamics is described by one equation governing normal velocity $`v`$:

$$(\frac{}{t}+i\alpha U+VD)(D^2k^2)vi\alpha (D^2U)v+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}i\beta \zeta \frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}(D^2k^2)^2v=0,$$
(11)
and a second equation governing normal vorticity $`\zeta `$:

$$(\frac{}{t}+i\alpha U+VD)\zeta \frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}i\beta v+i\beta (DU)v\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}(D^2k^2)\zeta =0,$$
(12)
where $`k^2\alpha ^2+\beta ^2`$, $`Dd/dy`$. Equation (11) (resp. (12)) is nothing but the Orr-Sommerfeld (resp. Squire) equation modified to account for rotation. Boundary conditions

$$v=Dv=\zeta =0$$
(13)
should be imposed at the wall $`(y=0)`$ and in the far field $`(y\mathrm{})`$. A dynamical system is thus defined for $`𝐪(𝐲,𝐭)=(v(y,t),\zeta (y,t))^T`$.

### III.2 Normal mode approach

In this work, we study the above problem using two different approaches: the normal mode approach (cf asymptotic dynamics) and the non-normal approach (cf transient dynamics). The first approach consists in recasting the problem in §III(A) into an eigenvalue problem by assuming $`𝐪=\stackrel{~}{𝐪}(𝐲)e^{i\omega t}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐪}=(\stackrel{~}{v},\stackrel{~}{\zeta })^T`$ and $`\omega =\omega _r+i\omega _i`$ are complex. Clearly a mode having $`\omega _i>0`$ is unstable. Equations (11)-(12) can then be written

$$i\omega 𝐌\stackrel{~}{𝐪}=𝐋\stackrel{~}{𝐪}$$
(14)
where

$$𝐌=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D^2k^2& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),𝐋=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{OS}& _{OS}\\ _{SQ}& _{SQ}\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
with

$$_{OS}=(i\alpha U+VD)(D^2k^2)i\alpha (D^2U)\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}(D^2k^2)^2,$$
(16)
$$_{SQ}=i\alpha U+VD\frac{1}{\mathrm{Re}}(D^2k^2),$$
(17)
$$_{OS}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}i\beta ,_{SQ}=i\beta (DU)\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}i\beta $$
(18)
It should be emphasized that as a result of rotation, the Orr-Sommerfeld equation is explicitly coupled to the Squire equation since both $`_{OS}`$ and $`_{SQ}`$ are nonzero while only the Squire equation is coupled through $`_{SQ}`$ in the absence of rotation. These equations together with the boundary conditions

$$\stackrel{~}{v}=D\stackrel{~}{v}=\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0$$
(19)
imposed at the wall $`(y=0)`$ and in the far field $`(y\mathrm{})`$ define the eigenvalue problem to be solved. A Chebyshev collocation algorithm developed in previous work YZF  is implemented. First the semi-infinite domain is approximated by a sufficiently large interval $`[0,L]`$, a method known to be effective ButFar . In practice, the domain extended to sixteen displacement thicknesses $`\delta `$, $`L=16\delta `$. This spatial interval is then mapped to the interval $`[1,1]`$. Finally eigenfunctions are expanded into Chebyshev polynomials. The number $`N`$ of polynomials was generally $`N=75`$, although as many as $`N=125`$ were used to give improved accuracy in some calculations. Collocation points are the standard Gauss-Lobatto points. The eigenvalue problem (14) and boundary conditions (19) are then transformed into a corresponding $`2N\times 2N`$ matrix problem. To facilitate calculation, the eigenvalue problem (14) is actually written as

$$i\omega \stackrel{~}{𝐪}=\stackrel{~}{𝐪}\text{with }𝐌^1𝐋.$$
(20)
### III.3 Transient Growth Calculations

Transient amplification calculations have also been implemented on the problem in §III(A) according to the singular value decomposition (SVD) method given by Reddy and Henningson RedHen  and the algorithms published in Ref. SchHen, . The main steps of the method are briefly described below; more details can be found in the references. First, the standard kinetic energy norm

$$𝐪(𝐭)_E^2=_0^L(|Dv|^2+k^2|v|^2+|\zeta |^2)𝑑y$$
(21)
is used to measure the magnitude of a disturbance $`𝐪(𝐭)`$ at time $`t`$. At time $`t`$, one can define

$$G(t)=\underset{𝐪(0)0}{sup}\frac{𝐪(𝐭)_E^2}{𝐪(\mathrm{𝟎})_E^2}=e^{it}_E^2,$$
(22)
where $`𝐪(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ is an initial disturbance and $``$ is the linear operator defined in (20). This quantity $`G(t)`$ represents the maximum possible energy amplification at time $`t`$, optimized over all possible initial disturbances. Finally the maximum or optimal growth is defined as $`G_{MAX}=sup_{t0}G(t)`$. The peak value $`G_P(\mathrm{Ro},\mathrm{Re})sup_{\alpha ,\beta }G_{MAX}(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{Ro},\mathrm{Re})`$ can also be computed. Note that $`G_{MAX}`$ is associated with a particular initial disturbance which reaches $`G_{MAX}`$ at a specific time $`t_{MAX}(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{Ro},\mathrm{Re})`$ such that $`G_{MAX}=G(t_{MAX})`$. Similarly one may define a specific time $`t_p(\mathrm{Ro},\mathrm{Re})`$ related to $`G_P`$.

The quantity $`G(t)`$ is obtained as follows. Assume that the eigenvalues of (20)-(19) are sorted in order of decreasing imaginary part $`\omega _i`$. One can approximate $`G(t)`$ by computing the maximum possible energy amplification at time $`t`$, optimized over all possible initial combinations of the $`K`$ eigenfunctions associated with the first $`K`$ eigenvalues of (20). In this case, it is possible to transform the energy norm of the matrix exponential (22) to an ordinary 2-norm via the following equation

$$e^{it}_E^2𝐅e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }t}𝐅^\mathrm{𝟏}^2,$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a $`K\times K`$ diagonal matrix with the first $`K`$ eigenvalues $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _K`$ along the diagonal and $`𝐅`$ is obtained by Cholesky factorization of $`K\times K`$ Hermitian matrix $`=𝐅^𝐇𝐅`$ which is calculated using the inner product of the $`K`$ eigenfunctions of (20), the inner product used being the same as the one defining the norm (21).

The approximation of (23) is a result of the finite number $`K`$ used in the expansion. Following Ref RSH, , $`K`$ is chosen such that convergence is reached; in practice, $`K60`$ was found to be sufficient. The 2-norm on the RHS of (23) can now be evaluated using SVD. This procedure gives both $`G_{MAX}`$ and the $`K`$ expansion coefficients of the disturbance associated with $`G_{MAX}`$ RedHen ; ButFar . Note that, since eigenfunctions have been expressed as an expansion in Chebyshev polynomials, all calculations are ultimately performed in terms of the Chebyshev expansion coefficients. In particular, the energy norm (21) and the weight matrix $``$ are easily recast in terms of the expansion coefficients using the properties of Chebyshev polynomials and their derivatives (for details see Ref. RSH, ).

## IV RESULTS

### IV.1 Modal Stability Properties

It can be shown that within inviscid theory, Hart ; LezJon  the stability of a rotating shear flow is analogous to that of Boussinesq convection in which the total base vorticity $`(2\mathrm{\Omega }dU/dy)`$ plays the role of temperature gradient. The dimensionless instability criterion then states that total vorticity must be negative somewhere in the flow Hart  i.e.

$$\mathrm{Ro}\frac{dU}{dy}>1.$$
(24)
The relative vorticity of the base flow $`dU/dy`$ which is directed along the $`z`$ direction, is always negative for both RB and RAS flows. Positive Rossby $`\mathrm{Ro}>0`$, thus corresponds to oppositely directed rotation and flow vorticity, that is why it is referred to, in the geophysical literature, as anti-cyclonic. This is the region we will consider here since negative Rossby $`\mathrm{Ro}<0`$ correspond to cyclonic case where this instability disappears.

Neutral stability curves of RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and several Rossby numbers are shown in Fig. 2a. The region identified as “TS” corresponds to the (rotationally modified) Tollmien-Schlichting modes of the non-rotating Blasius flow. The TS region is only slightly modified by rotation, becoming discernibly larger only when $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ is below $`300`$. The lower curves in Fig. 2a, identified by their $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ values, delineate the region of rotational instability. The largest growth rates are found for streamwise uniform modes ($`\alpha =0`$) having a non-zero spanwise wavenumber $`\beta `$ (Fig. 2b), that depends on the value of Ro, in agreement with previous results for other rotating shear flows. Hart ; LezJon ; AlfPer ; YFMR  The extent of the rotationally unstable region grows rapidly with rotation, and is quite large at $`\mathrm{Ro}=300`$ which is the strongest rotation depicted in figure Fig. 2a. Ultimately, this instability is suppressed for very strong rotation as examined below. Note that the rotational instability takes on much larger growth rates than the TS instability, as illustrated by the curves of constant growth rate shown in Fig. 2b for the case $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$, $`\mathrm{Ro}=300`$. More precisely the largest TS growth rate is found in this case to be $`sup_{\alpha ,\beta }(\omega _i)_{TS}=0.006`$ while the maximum value in Fig.2b is $`sup_{\alpha ,\beta }\omega _i=0.145`$

As in RB flow, an anti-cyclonic rotation for RAS leads, if not too strong, to a rotationally-induced instability which also reaches its maximum at $`\alpha =0`$, while a cyclonic rotation ($`\mathrm{Ro}<0`$) is stabilizing. These rotationally unstable regions in $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane are presented in Fig. 3a for $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and several Rossby numbers $`\mathrm{Ro}`$. Note that growth rates of the rotational instability for RAS are of comparable magnitude to those found for RB flow (see Fig.3b for the case $`\mathrm{Ro}=300`$ where $`sup_{\alpha ,\beta }\omega _i=0.144`$ is found). On the contrary, no TS neutral curves appear for RAS (Fig. 3a) for $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$. Recall that the AS profile is known to be much more stable with respect to TS instability compared with non-rotating Blasius flow. This effect is very apparent in the large critical Reynolds number of the AS profile ($`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{c}=54370`$); DR  RAS flow thus lacks TS instability at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$.

Re-stabilization –

In RB flow, the condition for instability (24) corresponds to $`1/\mathrm{Ro}<0.5714`$foot57  while in RAS flow the condition becomes $`1/\mathrm{Ro}<1`$. The re-stabilization of rotating boundary layer flows by strong anti-cyclonic rotation is confirmed by numerical computations. The curves in Fig. 4 represent the largest growth rates $`\mathrm{max}\omega _i`$ of this rotational instability found in the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane as a function of $`1/\mathrm{Ro}`$ (this maximum was always found to occur for $`\alpha =0`$). At the largest Reynolds number depicted in Fig. 4a, $`\mathrm{Re}=6000`$, re-stabilization of RB flow occurs at $`1/\mathrm{Ro}0.57`$ while for RAS, re-stabilization occurs at $`1/\mathrm{Ro}0.98`$ when $`\mathrm{Re}=60000`$, in agreement with the predicted values. Large positive rotations have also been found to re-stabilize channel flows, LezJon ; MatAlf2001  at $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ values consistent with the vorticity criterion (24).

Since the rotational instability is fundamentally inviscid, the minimum Reynolds number below which the rotational instability is suppressed is quite low. The minimum Reynolds numbers below which no instability is found are $`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{C}21`$ at $`\mathrm{Ro}_\mathrm{C}10.9`$ for RB (see Fig. 4a) flow and $`\mathrm{Re}_\mathrm{C}25.9`$ at $`\mathrm{Ro}_\mathrm{C}23.5`$ for RAS flow (see Fig. 4b).

### IV.2 Transient Amplification

The effect of rotation on transient growth for the RB and RAS flows is quantified through the analysis of amplification gain $`G_{MAX}(\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{Ro},\mathrm{Re})`$ as a function of streamwise wavenumber $`\alpha `$, spanwise wavenumber $`\beta `$, Reynolds number and Rossby number. Note that, in calculating $`G_{MAX}`$ and $`G_P`$ values, a fixed time interval $`[0,T]`$ is used during which the maximum growth is allowed to occur; the value of $`T`$ required to capture the maximum varies with $`\mathrm{Re}`$ and is adjusted accordingly in the calculations.

Non-rotating boundary layer flows are known to display the following transient growth features: (i) the most amplified disturbances tend to be three-dimensional with $`\beta 0`$ and $`\alpha =0`$; (ii) the peak amplification for large Reynolds number is proportional to the square of the Reynolds number i.e.

$$G_{MAX}\frac{\beta ^2\mathrm{Re}^2T(k,\alpha \mathrm{Re})}{k^2},$$
(25)
where it is recalled that $`k^2=\alpha ^2+\beta ^2`$ and $`T`$ is a function of $`k`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{Re}`$ only; (iii) the time to achieve peak amplification increases linearly with the Reynolds number i.e. $`t_{MAX}\mathrm{Re}`$. For rotating boundary layers, scaling (25) or its straightforward consequence $`G_P\mathrm{Re}^2`$ is not preserved as shown below.

For non-rotating boundary layers $`(U(y),0,0)`$, the Reynolds scalings rely on the following statements (see also Ref.SchHen, ): upon performing the rescalings $`\widehat{t}=t/\mathrm{Re}`$, $`\widehat{\zeta }=\zeta /(\beta \mathrm{Re})`$, $`\widehat{v}=v`$, equations (11)-(12) become dependent only on $`k^2`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{Re}`$ and the energy turns into

$$𝐪(\widehat{𝐭})_E^2=_0^L(|D\widehat{v}|^2+k^2|\widehat{v}|^2)𝑑y+(\beta \mathrm{Re})^2_0^L(|\widehat{\zeta }|^2)𝑑y.$$
(26)
When the Rossby number is present, the energy expression is still valid but, in addition to $`k^2=\alpha ^2+\beta ^2`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{Re}`$, the parameters $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ and $`\frac{(\beta \mathrm{Re})^2}{\mathrm{Ro}}`$ explicitly appear in equations (11)-(12)

$$(\frac{}{\widehat{t}}+i\alpha \mathrm{Re}U)(D^2k^2)\widehat{v}i\alpha \mathrm{Re}(D^2U)\widehat{v}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}i(\beta \mathrm{Re})^2\widehat{\zeta }(D^2k^2)^2\widehat{v}=0,$$
(27)
$$(\frac{}{\widehat{t}}+i\alpha \mathrm{Re}U)\widehat{\zeta }\frac{1}{\mathrm{Ro}}i\widehat{v}+i(DU)\widehat{v}(D^2k^2)\widehat{\zeta }=0.$$
(28)
The standard arguments are thus no longer valid when the Rossby number is present, implying that the classical scalings will not be replicated. The numerical computations which confirm this idea, are presented below with the observed scalings.

Rotating Blasius boundary layer –

In Fig.5, level curves of $`G_{MAX}`$ in the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane are presented for RB flow in three cases: weak cyclonic rotation $`\mathrm{Ro}<0`$ (Fig.5a), no rotation (Fig.5b), and weak anticyclonic rotation $`\mathrm{Ro}>0`$ (Fig.5c), the Reynolds number being always fixed at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ which is just above the critical value $`\mathrm{Re}_c520`$ for unstable Tollmien-Schlichting waves. The TS instability region is apparent along the $`\alpha `$-axis centered at $`\alpha 0.3`$ and has only minor influence on the transient growth (see below).

In the absence of rotation, the peak $`G_{MAX}`$ value was found to occur at $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta =0.651`$ (Fig.5b), and to take the value $`G_P=545.8`$ ( $`G_P=545.9`$ with $`N=75`$ polynomials and $`G_P=545.8`$ with $`N=125`$). This value is in good agreement with other studies. ButFar ; BreKur ; CorBot  From previous computations by Butler and FarrellButFar  ($`G_P=1514`$ at $`\mathrm{Re}=1000`$) or Corbett and BottaroCorBot  ($`G_P=1515`$ at $`\mathrm{Re}=1000`$) the scaling law $`G_P=1.515\times 10^3\mathrm{Re}^2`$ should be the correct one for non-rotating Blasius flow. Using this latter formula, it is found that $`G_P=545.4`$ at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$.

When the rotation is anti-cyclonic (Fig.5c) i.e. for $`\mathrm{Ro}>0`$, rotational instability of §IV(A) appears along the $`\beta `$-axis and the level curves of $`G_{MAX}`$ are distorted in the neighborhood of the highlighted region of unstable normal modes. Moreover, the $`G_{MAX}`$ values adjacent to the neutral curve are enhanced by the nearby modal instability, and the peak amplification occurs along the rotational neutral curve at $`\beta 1`$. In such a case, transient growth must compete with the strong modal instability.

With cyclonic rotation (Fig.5a) i.e. for $`\mathrm{Ro}<0`$, $`G_{MAX}`$ values are reduced in magnitude everywhere in the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane and the rotational instability is absent. In addition, $`G_P`$ is now found at non-zero streamwise wavenumber (for $`\mathrm{Ro}=1800`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$, $`\alpha 0.12`$), while the spanwise wavenumber slightly shifts from the value of the non-rotating case (for $`\mathrm{Ro}=1800`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$, $`\beta 0.75`$). An optimal disturbance (hereafter denoted by OD) with weak streamwise dependence ($`\alpha 0`$) is often referred to as oblique, and is more typical of plane Couette flow than of boundary layer flow. Here, the obliquity is a consequence of the Coriolis effects. The $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ dependence of the peak growth $`G_P`$ is illustrated in Fig.6. Each point in this figure was obtained by first performing a calculation of $`G_{MAX}`$ throughout the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane (like the one of Fig.5a), then finding the peak value, $`G_P`$, and the wavenumbers, $`\alpha _P`$ and $`\beta _P`$ at which the peak occurs. Two Reynolds numbers are shown: $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$, marked by open circles, and $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$, marked by dots.

The inset of Fig.6 shows the location in the $`\alpha \beta `$ wavenumber plane corresponding to the plotted $`G_P`$ values. When rotation is very weak, $`G_P`$ is found at $`\alpha _P=0`$, $`\beta _P=0.651`$; as rotation increases, the location of $`G_P`$ loops through the plane, eventually settling at $`\beta _P=0`$ for strong rotation, with a streamwise wavenumber $`\alpha _P(\mathrm{Re})`$ dependent on the Reynolds number. The value $`G_P=16.70`$ is found at $`\alpha _P=0.467`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ while $`G_P=51.02`$ is found at $`\alpha _P=0.364`$ when $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$. These values are also recovered for strong values of anti-cyclonic rotation. The wavenumber $`\alpha _P`$ and $`G_P`$ values at strong rotation agree with two-dimensional non-rotating transient growth calculations. Butler & Farrell ButFar  give $`G_P=28`$ at $`\alpha _P=0.42`$ for the best optimal 2D ($`\beta _P=0`$) disturbance for non-rotating Blasius flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=1000`$. At the same Reynolds number, we find $`G_P=28.4`$ for $`\mathrm{Ro}=0.5`$ at $`\alpha _P=0.42`$. These findings are consistent with the idea that strong rotation imposes a two-dimensional Taylor-Proudman régime. LezJon ; Mutabazi

The ratio of the two $`G_P`$ curves in Fig.6 is a measure of the $`\mathrm{Re}`$ dependence of $`G_P`$ over a range of $`\mathrm{Ro}`$. From the figure, this dependence is clearly inconsistent with a $`Re^2`$ scaling throughout the entire $`\mathrm{Ro}`$ range. This $`\mathrm{Re}`$ dependence is explicitly shown in Fig.7a and 7c. For weak rotation ($`\mathrm{Ro}=10^6`$), $`G_P/\mathrm{Re}^2`$ possesses a weak $`\mathrm{Re}`$ dependence (Fig.7a) which strengthens for slightly stronger rotations ($`\mathrm{Ro}=10^5`$). In the strong rotation régime (Fig.7c), no simple $`\mathrm{Re}`$ dependence is found for $`G_P`$ in RB flow: although $`G_P`$ seems linear in $`\mathrm{Re}`$, a careful analysis reveals that this is not strictly correct. In addition, figure Fig.7c confirms that, for transient growth properties, the flow becomes increasingly two-dimensional in character as rotation increases. Note that, in a similar manner, the time $`t_p`$ is not linear in $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for weak rotation ($`\mathrm{Ro}=10^6`$) (Fig.7b) while we obtain scaling $`t_P=0.78\mathrm{Re}`$ with no rotation. In the strong rotation régime (Fig.7d), $`t_P`$ possesses no obvious scaling though one would guess by eye a $`\sqrt{\mathrm{Re}}`$ law, which is not confirmed by a rigorous fit.

Rotating asymptotic suction flow –

The qualitative features found for RB flow are also recovered for RAS flow; the following presentation can therefore be relatively terse. Figure 8 is the equivalent of Fig. 5, but for RAS flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$. AS flow is well below its critical value $`R_c=54370`$ for TS instability, so no TS region is present. The most amplified disturbances in the absence of rotation (Fig.8b) are again streamwise uniform $`(\alpha =0)`$ while for weak cyclonic rotation (Fig.8a) they begin to show weak streamwise variability ($`\alpha 0.07`$ for the case of Fig.8a). Figure 9 is the RAS flow equivalent of Fig. 6; here, again, both $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$, marked by open circles, and $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$, marked by dots, are calculated. These are the only known calculations of transient growth in RAS flow. For AS flow (i.e. no-rotating case), the values of $`G_P`$ and $`\beta _P`$ have appeared in recent works: Ref. FranssonCorbett,  provides a scaling law of the form $`G_P=0.99Re^2`$ which gives e.g. $`G_P=356.4`$ at $`Re=600`$. In the limit of very weak rotation, we find $`G_P(\mathrm{Re}=600)=358.12`$ (or, when the transverse velocity $`V`$ is included, $`G_P(\mathrm{Re}=600)=356.74`$, in good agreement with Ref.FranssonCorbett, ). As in RB, scalings $`G_P\mathrm{Re}^2`$ and $`t_P\mathrm{Re}`$ are not recovered, except for very weak rotation (Fig.10a and 10b). Again as in RB, a careful analysis does not reveal a clear scaling for $`G_P`$ and $`t_P`$ in the strong rotation régime (Fig.10c and 10d) though one would guess by eye a scaling in $`\mathrm{Re}`$ and $`\sqrt{\mathrm{Re}}`$ respectively.

The inset of Fig.9 shows the location in the $`\alpha \beta `$ wavenumber plane corresponding to the plotted $`G_P`$ values. As in RB, the optimal disturbance in RAS flow makes an excursion in wavenumbers, starting at $`\alpha _P=0`$, $`\beta _P=0.499`$ ($`\beta _P=0.530`$ when $`V`$ is included) for very weak rotation, looping through the plane and settling on $`\beta =0`$ and a $`\mathrm{Re}`$-dependent $`\alpha _P(\mathrm{Re})`$ when rotation is strong. For instance, the value $`G_P=5.736`$ is found at $`\alpha _P=0.670`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ while $`G_P=13.12`$ is found at $`\alpha _P=0.617`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$. When $`V`$ is included, these values shift to $`G_P=5.661`$ at $`\alpha _P=0.675`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`G_P=13.01`$ at $`\alpha _P=0.621`$ for $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$. These same values are also recovered for strong values of anti-cyclonic rotation.

### IV.3 Optimal Disturbances

The most amplified disturbances in cyclonic RB and RAS flows possess a non-null streamwise wavenumber: they thus correspond to oblique vortices. The flow field of these disturbances can be calculated from its expansion coefficients, already obtained in the SVD solution of $`G_{MAX}`$. An example of the optimal disturbance (OD) in a weakly rotating RB flow, at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$, $`\mathrm{Ro}=1\times 10^6`$, is depicted in Fig.11 and can be compared to the OD for the classical Blasius flow at the same Reynolds. In figures Fig.11 and 12, the velocity field $`v\widehat{y}+w\widehat{z}`$ and the streamwise velocity component $`u`$ are shown at a given streamwise location ($`x=0`$). Due to the similarity of the optimal disturbances for RB and RAS flows, RAS examples are not shown.

While the OD in RB at very weak rotation $`\mathrm{Ro}=1\times 10^8`$ is indistinguishable from the OD in non-rotating Blasius flow at both $`t=0`$ and $`t=t_P`$, this is not so for larger but still weak rotations. Indeed the OD in RB at $`\mathrm{Ro}=1\times 10^6`$ (Fig.11 a) –which resembles with apparent counter-rotating streamwise rolls, the OD in non-rotating Blasius flow at $`t=0`$ (Fig.11c)– is such that the extrema of streamwise velocity $`u`$ (Fig.11b) are not precisely aligned with the up- and down-flows (Fig.11a) between the vortices, as found in non-rotating Blasius flow (Figs.11c,d). This offset is still found in the OD at its greatest amplification at $`t=t_P`$. Except for a shift of phase, little change is seen in the $`u`$ field. This explains why the $`G_P`$ value is not too different from the one found in the non-rotating limit. The kinetic energy of the OD is initially mainly in the $`v`$ or $`w`$ components and not in $`u`$ component. At $`t=t_P`$ it is contained mainly in $`u`$ field.

The above features are enhanced at stronger rotations as depicted in Fig.12, where $`\mathrm{Ro}=1800`$: even the OD at $`t=0`$ being profoundly modified. Finally, at very strong rotation (e.g. $`\mathrm{Ro}=1`$ in Fig.13), two-dimensionality is imposed in the $`xy`$ plane and the OD at $`t=0`$ (Fig.13) clearly exhibits the characteristic tilting against the shear of the 2D Orr mechanism. At $`t=t_P`$, the shear has evolved the initial disturbance into vortices counter-rotating along the $`z`$-axis (Fig.13).

## V Conclusions

This work has expanded on previous studies of boundary layer flows to account for frame rotation. In particular, the temporal evolution of three-dimensional disturbances has been studied for RB and RAS boundary layer flows in the presence of spanwise rotation. Normal mode and transient growth disturbances properties were calculated and compared for the two flows. Rotational modal instability, similar to that known for rotating channel and free shear flows, was found for weak anti-cyclonic rotation in RB and RAS; neutral curves, growth rates and the critical point were calculated for both flows. Rotating boundary layer flows were also found to exhibit transient growth. In the modally stable cyclonic regime the transient growth properties strongly depend on the rotation rate. In particular: (i) peak growth factors are reduced by rotation; (ii) even at weak rotation, the classical $`Re^2`$ dependence is not recovered; (iii) optimal disturbances take the form of oblique vortices which transform continuously from streamwise uniformity ($`\alpha =0`$) when rotation is very weak to spanwise uniformity ($`\beta =0`$) when rotation is strong, this last feature being a consequence of a Taylor-Proudman régime.

It is anticipated that the results presented here may be useful in dealing with geophysical and astrophysical flows, where rotation is important and curvature is often negligible. Most noteworthy is the example of Keplerian flow in an accretion disk, where no purely hydrodynamic inviscid linear eigenvalue instability has been identified. A study of transient growth in two-dimensional accretion disks IK  has recently been performed and further inquiry is already under way. The problems analyzed in this work constitute an interesting element of disk flow studies.

Finally let us mention that the longitudinal roll instability in rotating shear flow exhibits weak downstream development AlfPer . Because the development is weak and because a great deal of closely related previous work Johnson ; PotCha ; YFMR ; LezJon ; Hart  is based on temporal theory, this study adopted a temporal framework. However recent spatial analyses of ordinary boundary layer transient growth Luchini12 ; AndBerHen ; TumRes  are shown to be more realistic with respect to observations. White  In future investigation, this aspect should be envisaged to complement the present temporal theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

Thanks to Ed Spiegel for enlightening discussions and to the Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality and support at the inception of this work.
APPENDIX: The transverse velocity in the presence of rotation.

Transverse velocity $`V`$ is normally neglected in the classical temporal stability analysis of Blasius flow, being of the same order as other neglected terms. The effect of this assumption on the instability normal modes is well documented for non-rotating AS and Blasius flows (see standard references, e.g. Ref. DR, ). In this appendix, we examine the effect of this assumption on two aspects which have not been previously studied: (a) the effect of $`V`$ on transient growth properties with or without rotation; (b) the effect of $`V`$ on the rotational normal mode instability properties. We consider these two effects on the AS and RAS flows since they are true Navier-Stokes solution when $`V`$ is present which authorizes a quantitative comparison between the simplified analysis ($`V=0`$) and the complete one.

An overview of the effect of $`V`$ on the transient growth properties of the AS flow (i.e. non-rotating) can be found in Table I. Briefly, the neglect of $`V`$ has little effect on the peak growth factors $`G_P`$ of AS flow, less than one percent. The wavenumber of peak growth, $`\beta _P`$, is shifted to larger values when $`V`$ is included in AS calculations, but the shift is relatively small. The two cases are illustrated in Fig. 14 where level surfaces of $`G_P(\alpha ,\beta )`$ are shown for the AS calculated with and without the $`V`$ term. As regard $`t_P`$ values, we obtain $`t_P=1.145\mathrm{Re}`$ when V is included which agrees with Ref.FranssonCorbett,  and we find $`t_P=1.331\mathrm{Re}`$ when V is neglected.

The effect of $`V`$ on the rotational instability neutral curves and growth rates is small, except near the critical point $`(\mathrm{Re}_C,\mathrm{Ro}_C)`$. These properties are illustrated for RAS in Fig.15a, showing the shifted neutral curves, and Fig.15b, showing the modified growth rates. When $`V`$ is included, the location of the critical point shifts from $`\mathrm{Re}_C=25.9,\mathrm{Ro}_C=23.5`$ to $`\mathrm{Re}_C=33.7,\mathrm{Ro}_C=14.6`$, as seen in Fig.16 (compare to Fig.4(b)).

Under rotation, the effect of $`V`$ on the transient growth properties of the RAS remains negligible. To show this we display in Fig.17 the differences in peak growth factors $`G_P`$ calculated with and without the $`V`$ term for $`\mathrm{Re}=600,\mathrm{Ro}=1800`$.

Table I, Yecko, Phys. Fluids

List of Figure Captions

FIG. 1: Sketch of the flow configuration.

FIG. 2: (a) Neutral curves of RB flow at Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and various Rossby numbers $`\mathrm{Ro}`$; $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the streamwise and spanwise wavenumber, respectively. (b) Curves of constant growth rate $`\omega _i`$ for RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Ro}=300`$.

FIG. 3: (a) Neutral curves of RAS flow at Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and various $`Ro`$; (b) Curves of constant growth rate $`\omega _i`$ for RAS flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Ro}=300`$.

FIG. 4: (a) Largest growth rates $`\mathrm{max}\omega _i`$ for anti-cyclonic RB flow at Reynolds numbers $`Re=25,60,600,6000`$ (curves bottom to top); Inset: projection of the neutral surface $`\omega _i(\beta ,Re,Ro)=0`$ onto the $`ReRo`$ plane, showing the critical point $`Re_C=21.005,Ro_C=10.9`$; (b) Same as (a) but for RAS at $`Re=40,60,600,6000,60000`$ (curves bottom to top); Inset: critical point $`Re_C=25.9,Ro_C=23.5`$.

FIG. 5: Level curves of $`G_{MAX}`$ in the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane for RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and for weak cyclonic $`(\mathrm{Ro}=1800)`$ rotation (a), no rotation (b), and weak anti-cyclonic $`(\mathrm{Ro}=1800)`$ rotation (c). Regions of modal instability are shaded.

FIG. 6: Peak amplification factors $`G_P`$ of RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$ as a function of cyclonic $`\mathrm{Ro}<0`$; Inset: corresponding location in the wavenumber $`\alpha \beta `$ plane of the optimal disturbance associated with $`G_P`$ values in the figure; weak rotation cases lie along the $`\beta `$ axis while strong rotation cases lie along $`\alpha `$.

FIG. 7: (a) $`G_P/\mathrm{Re}^2`$ of RB flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for two weak rotation cases $`\mathrm{Ro}=10^5`$, $`\mathrm{Ro}=10^6`$ and no-rotation; (b) $`t_P/Re`$ of RB flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for the same cases as (a); (c) $`G_P`$ of RB flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for strong rotation, $`\mathrm{Ro}=1`$, and two-dimensional disturbances; (d) $`t_P`$ of RB flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for the same cases as (c).

FIG. 8: Level curves of $`G_{MAX}`$ in the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane for RAS flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ for weak cyclonic $`(\mathrm{Ro}=1800)`$ rotation (a), no rotation (b), and weak anti-cyclonic $`(\mathrm{Ro}=1800)`$ rotation (c). Regions of modal instability are shaded.

FIG. 9: Peak amplification factors $`G_P`$ of RAS flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Re}=1800`$ as a function of cyclonic $`\mathrm{Ro}<0`$; Inset: corresponding location in the $`\alpha \beta `$ plane of the optimal disturbance associated with $`G_P`$ values in the figure; weak rotation cases lie along the $`\beta `$ axis while strong rotation cases lie along the $`\alpha `$ axis.

FIG. 10: (a) $`G_P/\mathrm{Re}^2`$ of RAS flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for two weak rotation cases $`\mathrm{Ro}=10^5`$, $`\mathrm{Ro}=10^6`$ and no-rotation; (b) $`t_P/Re`$ of RAS flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for the same cases as (a); (c) $`G_P`$ of RAS flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for strong rotation, $`\mathrm{Ro}=1`$, and two-dimensional disturbances; (d) $`t_P`$ of RAS flow as a function of $`\mathrm{Re}`$ for the same cases as (c).

FIG. 11: (a) Velocity vectors $`v\widehat{y}+w\widehat{z}`$ of the most amplified disturbance in cyclonic RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Ro}=10^6`$. The disturbance is shown at $`t=0`$ (left) and at the time of maximum growth (right). (b) Streamwise velocity $`u`$ for OD of (a). (c) Velocity vectors $`v\widehat{y}+w\widehat{z}`$ for non-rotating Blasius flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$. The disturbance is shown at $`t=0`$ (left) and at the time of maximum growth (right). (d) Streamwise velocity $`u`$ for OD of (c).

FIG. 12: (a) Velocity vectors $`v\widehat{y}+w\widehat{z}`$ of the most amplified disturbance in cyclonic RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Ro}=1800`$. The disturbance is shown at $`t=0`$ (left) and at the time of maximum growth (right). (b)Streamwise velocity $`u`$ for OD of (a).

FIG. 13: Velocity vectors $`u\widehat{x}+v\widehat{y}`$ in the $`xy`$ plane of the most amplified disturbance in cyclonic RB flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Ro}=1`$. The disturbance is shown at $`t=0`$ (left) and at the time of maximum growth (right).

FIG. 14: Comparison of the level curves of $`G_{MAX}`$ in the $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-plane for AS flow calculated with $`V`$ included (solid curves) and $`V`$ neglected (dashed). The peak growth is found at $`\alpha _P=0`$ and $`\beta _P=0.529`$ (V included) or $`\beta _P=0.499`$ (V neglected).

FIG. 15: (a) Neutral curves of RAS flow at Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and three $`Ro`$; (b) Curves of constant growth rate $`\omega _i`$ for RAS flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600`$ and $`\mathrm{Ro}=300`$. In the figure, the dashed curves correspond to calculations in which $`V`$ was neglected, reproducing Fig.3; the solid curves were computed with $`V`$ included.

FIG. 16: Largest growth rates $`\mathrm{max}\omega _i`$ for anti-cyclonic RAS flow with $`V`$ included at Reynolds numbers $`Re=40,60,600,6000,60000`$ (curves, bottom to top); Inset: projection of the neutral surface $`\omega _i(\beta ,Re,Ro)=0`$ onto the $`ReRo`$ plane, showing the critical point at $`\mathrm{Re}=33.77`$, $`\mathrm{Ro}=14.5`$. To be compared to Fig.4(b).

FIG. 17: Comparison of maximum transient growth level curves for RAS flow at $`\mathrm{Re}=600,\mathrm{Ro}=1800`$, calculated with $`V`$ included (solid curves) and $`V`$ neglected (dashed curves). The peak growth factor is $`G_P=130.79`$ ($`V`$ included) or $`G_P=129.86`$ ($`V`$ neglected).


format: text

text:
# The ‘BRST-invariant’ Condensate of Dimension Two in QCD

## 1 Introduction

It is by now well known that vacuum condensates provide signatures of the non-perturbative dynamics of QCD. The quark-antiquark condensate acts as an order parameter for chiral symmetry breaking, the gluon condensate is related to the QCD trace anomaly, and the topological susceptibility gives the $`\eta ^{}`$ its large mass via the $`U(1)`$ axial anomaly. Condensates of mass dimension two are also believed to be important. They occur in operator product expansions for gluon propagators  and may be important for confinement . The drawback is that they cannot be discussed in a gauge-invariant fashion, since there are no *local* gauge-invariant quantities of mass dimension two. Calculations are thus dependent on the choice of gauge.

Recently, in the BRST  formulation of QCD, a mixed vacuum condensate of mass dimension two containing both gluons and ghosts has been proposed . It is claimed that the condensate is BRST-invariant ‘for any gauge’ and moreover that it is of ghost number zero and BRST-inexact. It is thus a non-trivial element of the BRST co-homology at ghost number zero. Now there is a well established one-to-one correspondence between the BRST co-homology at ghost number zero and the set of classical physical observables, that is the gauge-invariant functions . The following question thus arises: if the mixed condensate is indeed BRST-invariant, to what classical observable does it correspond? This presents us with a paradox, for there are no (local) gauge-invariant functions of mass dimension two.

In this letter, the paradox is resolved by considering the subtleties of gauge fixing in the extended phase space of the BRST formalism. Whilst the BRST symmetry in the extended phase space exists independently of the choice of gauge (as it must, since it is equivalent to gauge invariance), the action does not. So the action, and the dynamics, are inevitably gauge-fixed. The construction of the BRST-invariant mixed condensate  requires one to eliminate the auxiliary (or Takanishi–Lautrup) field via its equation of motion. Thus the dynamics are invoked, and the gauge is partially fixed. The mixed condensate is thus not strictly BRST-invariant. It is invariant under an ‘on-shell’ BRST symmetry corresponding to a partial gauge fixing. What is the classical observable corresponding to the on-shell BRST-invariant condensate? It is a function of mass dimension two which is gauge invariant under the restricted class of gauge transformations which preserve the partial gauge fixing. This is demonstrated explicitly for both classes of gauge considered in the original work, *viz.* the (generalized) Lorentz  and maximal Abelian  gauges.

In the next section we recall the details of the BRST transformation in $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory and discuss the correspondence between elements of the BRST co-homology at ghost number zero and classical observables. Then, in section 3, we discuss the form of the action and the inherent gauge fixing. In section 4 we introduce the mixed condensate and extract the corresponding classical observables. We then show that the classical observables are invariant under the restricted set of gauge transformations preserving the partial gauge fixing.

## 2 The BRST symmetry in QCD

For the pure $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, the gauge transformations of the Lie algebra-valued gauge fields $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^AT^A`$ are $`A_\mu U(A_\mu +_\mu )U^{}`$, where $`UϵSU(N)`$. The BRST transformation can be written in the form

$`\delta A_\mu ^A`$ $`=_\mu C^A+gf^{ABC}A_\mu ^BC^C,`$
$`\delta C^A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{ABC}C^BC^C,`$
$`\delta \overline{C}^A`$ $`=ib^A,`$
$`\delta b^A`$ $`=0,`$ (1)
where $`b,C`$ and $`\overline{C}`$ are the auxiliary fields, ghosts and antighosts respectively. The BRST operator $`\delta `$ has a left action, increases the ghost number by unity, and is nilpotent of order two, *i. e.*

$$\delta ^2=0.$$
(2)
One can define *another* BRST transformation $`\overline{\delta }`$, called anti-BRST, by

$`\overline{\delta }A_\mu ^A`$ $`=_\mu \overline{C}^A+gf^{ABC}A_\mu ^B\overline{C}^C,`$
$`\overline{\delta }\overline{C}^A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{ABC}\overline{C}^B\overline{C}^C,`$
$`\overline{\delta }\overline{C}^A`$ $`=i\overline{b}^A,`$
$`\overline{\delta }\overline{b}^A`$ $`=0,`$ (3)
where $`\overline{b}^A=b^A+igf^{ABC}C^B\overline{C}^C`$.

Functions of the fields which are annihilated by $`\delta `$ are called *BRST closed*. A trivial subset of these are those functions which are themselves obtained by the action of $`\delta `$ on some function; these are deemed *BRST exact*. The BRST symmetry operator thus generates a co-homology, obtained as equivalence classes of BRST-closed functions modulo BRST-exact ones. According to standard arguments , there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the BRST co-homology at ghost number zero and the set of classical physical observables (the gauge-invariant functions of the gauge fields).

It is to be stressed that no choice of gauge fixing is required to establish either the existence of the BRST transformation or of the correspondence between the BRST co-homology and gauge-invariant functions.

## 3 BRST actions and gauge fixing

A complete specification of a physical theory requires not only a set of physical observables (and their commutation relations for quantum mechanics), but also a prescription for the dynamics (via an action principle). In the context of the BRST formalism, it transpires that prescribing the action necessarily implies fixing the gauge.111One demands that the action unequivocally determines the trajectory in the extended phase space via the equations of motion, once boundary conditions are supplied. The gauge freedom, which allows the trajectories to be gauge transformed, must be abandoned. This is precisely gauge fixing. In the original work , two classes of Lorentz-covariant gauge conditions are considered. The first class corresponds to the Lorentz gauge condition

$$_\mu A^\mu =0.$$
(4)
The gauge fixing is incomplete, or partial, in that there remains a subgroup of $`SU(N)`$ gauge transformations which preserve the gauge condition (4). A suitable BRST-closed Lagrangian corresponding to the gauge fixing in (4) can be written as

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{A\mu \nu }+i\delta \overline{\delta }(\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^AA^{A\mu }\frac{i\alpha }{2}C^A\overline{C}^A).$$
(5)
The second class of gauge conditions corresponds to the maximal Abelian gauge . In this scenario, the gauge is fixed by choosing some operator $`X`$ which transforms in the adjoint representation, and performing a gauge transformation $`V`$ such that $`X`$ is diagonalized,

$$X\stackrel{~}{X}=VXV^{}=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N).$$
(6)
Like the Lorentz gauge, this gauge fixing is also incomplete: $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ maintains its diagonal form under the restricted set of gauge transformations belonging to the maximal torus $`U(1)^{N1}`$ of $`SU(N)`$, *viz.*

$$\{dϵSU(N)|d=\mathrm{diag}(e^{i\alpha _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\alpha _N}),\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\alpha _i=0\}.$$
(7)
The gauge fields can be partitioned into $`N1`$ diagonal components or ‘photons’ $`a_\mu ^i=[A_\mu ]_{ii}`$ transforming as

$$a_\mu ^ia_\mu ^i+i_\mu \alpha _i$$
(8)
under the residual $`U(1)^{N1}`$, and $`N(N1)`$ off-diagonal ‘gluons’ $`c_\mu ^{ij}=[A_\mu ]_{ij}`$ transforming as

$$c_\mu ^{ij}e^{i(\alpha _i\alpha _j)}c_\mu ^{ij}.$$
(9)
The components of the gauge field $`A_\mu ^A`$ in the basis $`\{T^A\}`$ of generators of the Lie algebra can be written as linear combinations of the ‘photons’ and ‘gluons’. This amounts to a change of basis. We denote the diagonal components by $`\{A^i|i=1,\mathrm{},N1\}`$ and the off-diagonal components by $`\{A^a|a=N,\mathrm{},N^21\}`$.

The gauge-fixed BRST-closed action can be derived from the Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^AF^{A\mu \nu }+i\delta \overline{\delta }(\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^aA^{a\mu }\frac{i\alpha }{2}C^a\overline{C}^a),$$
(10)
which is identical to (5), except that the gauge fixing part of the Lagrangian contains only the off-diagonal gauge fields.

## 4 The mixed condensate

The mixed gluon-ghost condensate of dimension two proposed in  is

$$O=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}d^Dx\mathrm{tr}\left[\frac{1}{2}A_\mu A^\mu \alpha iC\overline{C}\right],$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of $`D`$-dimensional spacetime and the fields all take values in the Lie algebra of the gauge group $`SU(N)`$. The trace runs over the broken generators of the Lie algebra. Thus, in the Lorentz gauge, the trace runs over all generators, whereas in the maximal Abelian gauge, the trace runs only over the off-diagonal generators, *i. e.* those in $`SU(N)/U(1)^{N1}`$.

The BRST invariance is shown by eliminating the $`b`$-fields via their equations of motion. In the Lorentz gauge for example, the $`b`$ fields satisfy

$$b^A=\frac{1}{\alpha }_\mu A^{A\mu }+i\frac{g}{2}f^{ABC}C^B\overline{C}^C.$$
(12)
Once the auxiliary fields have been eliminated, the BRST transformation (2) reduces to the *on-shell* form

$`\delta ^{}A_\mu ^A`$ $`=_\mu C^A+gf^{ABC}A_\mu ^BC^C,`$
$`\delta ^{}C^A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}gf^{ABC}C^BC^C,`$
$`\delta ^{}\overline{C}^A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\alpha }}_\mu A^{A\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{ABC}C^B\overline{C}^C.`$ (13)
The on-shell BRST variation of $`O`$ is thus zero,

$$\delta ^{}\left[\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^AA^{A\mu }i\alpha C^A\overline{C}^A\right]=_\mu (A^{A\mu }C^A)=0.$$
(14)
The BRST invariance of $`O`$ in the maximal Abelian gauge follows by replacing uppercase indices by lowercase ones in equations (12-14), *i. e.* restricting to the off-diagonal components.

Now we are confronted with the paradox. An operator has been found which is (on-shell) BRST-closed. It is clearly also BRST-inexact, and of ghost number zero. It is apparently, therefore, a *bona fide* member of the BRST co-homology at ghost number zero and ought to correspond to a gauge-invariant operator. The correspondence states  that to obtain the gauge-invariant function from the BRST-closed operator, one simply discards the ghost fields. We thus have the apparent result that

$$O_0=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{tr}A_\mu A^\mu $$
(15)
is a gauge-invariant quantity! This is nonsensical.

To resolve this, let us go back to the BRST transformation written in its on-shell form (4). To obtain this form, we have eliminated the $`b`$-fields via their equations of motion. But the Lagrangians (5) and (10), and thus the equations of motion, are *dependent* on the gauge-fixing. Thus the on-shell BRST symmetry is somehow dependent on the gauge-fixing. But one *still* has a BRST symmetry (4),222It is straightforward to show that the on-shell action obtained by eliminating the $`b`$ fields is closed under the on-shell BRST transformation which must correspond to *some* gauge symmetry. What gauge symmetry? The answer must be that *the on-shell BRST symmetry corresponds to the residual gauge symmetry which remains after the gauge has been partially fixed*.

Now the resolution of the paradox is clear. The operator $`O`$ is closed under the on-shell BRST transformation. It therefore has a corresponding gauge-invariant function. This gauge-invariant function need not be invariant under the full gauge group $`SU(N)`$, but only under the subgroup of gauge transformations which preserve the partial gauge-fixing. Let us now see this explicitly.

Consider performing an infinitesimal gauge transformation $`U=1+O(ϵ)`$ which preserves the Lorentz gauge condition (4). The variation of (15) is

$`{\displaystyle \mathrm{tr}A_\mu A^\mu }`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{tr}(UA_\mu U^{}+U_\mu U^{})^2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \mathrm{tr}(UA_\mu A^\mu U^{}+2UA^\mu _\mu U^{})}+O(ϵ^2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \mathrm{tr}(A_\mu A^\mu 2_\mu A^\mu )}+O(ϵ^2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \mathrm{tr}A_\mu A^\mu },`$ (16)
where we have integrated partially and restricted to the subgroup of gauge transformations which preserve the gauge condition. The ‘gauge invariant’ operator $`O`$ is thus invariant under the *restricted* transformations which preserve the Lorentz gauge condition, but not the full gauge group.

Similarly, in the maximal Abelian gauge (6), the on-shell BRST closed operator of dimension two corresponds to the ‘gauge-invariant’ quantity (15)

$$O_0=\mathrm{tr}A_\mu A^\mu ,$$
(17)
where now the trace runs only over the off-diagonal generators of the Lie algebra. Performing a change of basis, one has that

$$O_0=c_\mu ^{ij}c^{ji\mu }.$$
(18)
Under a $`U(1)^{N1}`$ gauge transformation (9), it is straightforward to show that $`O_0`$ is invariant, as required.

## 5 Discussion

The status of the ‘BRST-invariant ’ operator of mass dimension two is now clear. It is not strictly BRST-closed; rather it is closed under an on-shell BRST symmetry which corresponds to the residual gauge freedom which remains once one has performed a partial gauge fixing. This raises an important point regarding the BRST construction in the general case. It is quite common to eliminate fields via their equations of motion, for example, when passing from the Hamiltonian to the Lagrangian formalism. The BRST symmetry which results will only correspond to the full gauge symmetry if no gauge-fixing is invoked in eliminating the fields. In practice this means that one is only free to eliminate those fields which are not coupled to the so-called ‘gauge-fixed’ part of the action.

Given that the BRST symmetry of the mixed condensate corresponds only to a *subset* of gauge symmetries of the theory, it is clear that the condensate is no more or less useful than other gauge-variant quantities. In a fixed gauge, the condensate (11) is a correct BRST-invariant extension of the gauge-invariant operator (15). Provided one sticks to the chosen gauge, the condensate is BRST-invariant, and calculations are perfectly valid. However, the problem of how to extend the condensate off the chosen gauge slice in a gauge- (or rather BRST-) invariant fashion still remains.

Clearly what would be useful is a dimension-two operator which is closed under the full BRST transformation (2). But this is no easier to write down than a fully gauge-invariant function of dimension two. The only possibilities for progress appear to be the consideration of non-local quantities , or the possibility that physics may be hidden in the co-homology at non-zero ghost number, which is not understood.

## 6 Acknowledgement

I would like to thank I. I. Kogan for discussions.


text:
# Accretion disk assembly and survival during the disruption of a neutron star by a black hole

## 1. Short-lived mysteries

Almost 5 years after astronomers first discovered their telltale afterglows, the brief, ultrabright flashes of high-energy radiation known as cosmic gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are still among the most mysterious phenomena in the universe. Their energy output has to be of the order $`10^{51}10^{54}`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup>, larger than that of any other type of source. Most researchers agree that the most common GRBs – those that last between about a second and a minute – signal the catastrophic collapse of massive, rapidly rotating stars into black holes (see Mészáros 2001 for a review). The precise details of their origin, however, are unknown; and the nature of bursts that flash in less than a second is anybody’s guess. These bursts, which account for about one-third of all observed GRBs, differ markedly from the long ones not only in duration but also in having a larger proportion of high-energy gamma rays in their energy distribution. The most widely favoured and conventional possibility is that they result either from the merger of two neutron stars or of a neutron star and a black hole (e.g. Narayan et al. 1992).

When a neutron star is tidally disrupted by a black hole, the total angular momentum is large enough for the star not to be swallowed immediately. The expected outcome, after a few milliseconds, would therefore be a spinning black hole, orbited by a torus of neutron-density matter. An acceptable model thus requires that the surrounding torus should not completely drain into the hole, or be otherwise dispersed, on too short a time scale (Rees 1999). The key issue is then how long a sufficient amount of this matter survives to power a burst, and it is to this problem that we have turned our attention.

## 2. Coalescing odd couples

It has been our objective to investigate the outcome of the coalescence of a black hole with a neutron star, to find out to what extent the neutron star is tidally disrupted and, in particular, to determine if an accretion structure does form around the black hole as a result of the encounter. Using a three-dimensional smooth particle hydrodynamics (SPH) code we have simulated the last stages of binary evolution of a black hole and a neutron star, when the components are separated by a few stellar radii. The gravitational radiation waveforms as well as the gravitational radiation luminosity are calculated in the quadrupole approximation; and the neutron star is modeled with a stiff polytropic equation of state (the reader is referred to Lee 2001 for further details). Given that tidal locking is not expected in these systems (e.g. Bildsten & Cutler 1992), we have used initial conditions that correspond to irrotational binaries in equilibrium, approximating the neutron star as a compressible triaxial ellipsoid.

The 3D dynamical simulations are begun when the system is on the verge of initiating mass transfer, and followed for approximately 22 ms. The decrease in binary separation leads to Roche lobe overflow on an orbital time-scale. A stream of gas forms at the inner Lagrange point, transferring matter from the neutron star to the black hole. At the same time, the star is tidally stretched and extends away from the black hole through the external Lagrange point. Figure 1 shows the density contours in a meridional slice at various times during the simulation.

As the accretion stream winds around the black hole, it collides with itself and forms a torus, while the gas thrown out through the outer Lagrange point forms a long tidal tail. The orbiting debris that is formed around the black hole is not initially azimuthally symmetric, but shows a double ring structure. This appears as the gas that passes through periastron near the black hole overshoots the circular orbit that would correspond to the specific angular momentum it contains, forming an outer ring. It then falls back towards the black hole and encounters the rear of the accretion stream. The subsequent collision tends to circularize the orbit of the fluid, and also pushes it to the inner ring, closer to the black hole. The structure of the outer ring and the bulk of the disrupted star continue their orbital motion on opposite sides of the black hole. At late times, the disc becomes more azimuthally symmetric.

## 3. Survival of the orbiting debris

A question which has remained largely unanswered so far is what determines the characteristic duration of bursts, which can extend to tens, or even hundreds, of seconds. This is of course very long in comparison with the dynamical or orbital time scale. The disruption of a neutron star is almost certain to lead to a situation where violent instabilities redistribute mass and angular momentum within a few dynamical time scales. A key issue is then the nature of the surviving debris after these violent processes are over.

So far, though, attempts to calculate such an evolution have run up against the lack of multi–dimensional, time–dependent simulations. There is now a stronger motivation to develop models in fuller detail. This paper outlines the behavior of the accretion structures on timescales that are much longer than the dynamical one. By assuming azimuthal symmetry we are able to map the output from the 3D calculation described above to 2D, and thus follow the time dependence of the disk structure on timescales that are comparable to the durations of short bursts (in this case for an additional 200 ms). We use Newtonian physics, an ideal gas equation of state, and solve the equations of viscous hydrodynamics assuming an $`\alpha `$ law. All the energy dissipated by the physical viscosity is radiated away in neutrinos (Lee & Ramirez-Ruiz 2002).

We find that meridional circulations are promptly established, whose structure depends mainly on the value of $`\alpha `$. There is an important motion of fluid from the inner regions of the disks to large radii, along the equatorial plane. The flow is directed toward the accreting black hole along the surface of the disk and in the equatorial region at small radii (Fig. 2 shows the evolution for $`\alpha =0.1`$). The disks remain thick ($`H/R0.5`$) throughout the dynamical evolution, due to their large internal energy, with accretion rates on the order of 1 $`M_{}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The maximum densities decrease during our calculations, as there is no external agent feeding the disks, but remain at $`10^{12}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, with corresponding internal energy densities $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^{30}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

There are several instabilities that can affect massive accretion disks dynamically and shorten their lifetimes considerably, compared with the viscous timescale. These instabilities can be virulent in a torus where the specific angular momentum is uniform throughout, but are inhibited by a spread in angular momentum. In a torus that was massive and/or thin enough to be self-gravitating, bar-mode gravitational instabilities could lead to further redistribution of angular momentum and/or to energy loss by gravitational radiation within only a few orbits. Whether a torus of given mass is dynamically unstable depends on its thickness and stratification, which in turn depends on internal viscous dissipation and neutrino cooling (Narayan et al. 2001).

From our simulations we draw the following conclusions. First, we find that the central object survives the initial, violent event that created it – the total angular momentum is large enough for the star not to be swallowed immediately. Second, the orbiting debris is stable to both radial and axisymmetric perturbations. Third, even if the evolution time scale for the bulk of the debris torus were no more than a tenth of a second, enough may remain to catalyse the extraction of energy from the hole at rate adequate to power a short-lived burst. However, these simulations clearly cannot tackle directly other relevant issues, mainly related to the evolution of the magnetic field, and its influence on the dynamics.

Magnetic instabilities could make the disk lifetime much shorter by effectively increasing the viscosity. The amplification of the magnetic field may be self–limiting due to magnetic stress, which would cause disk flaring. The properties of the expected variability depend strongly on the details of the configuration of the disk corona (e.g. Thompson 1994) generated by the magnetic field, which is removed from the disk by flux buoyancy.

## References

Bildsten, L., & Cutler, C. 1992, ApJ, 400, 175

Lee, W. H. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 583

Lee, W. H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2002, ApJ, 577, 893

Narayan, R. et al. 1992, ApJ, 395, L83

Narayan, R. et al. 2001, ApJ, 557, 949

Mészáros, P. 2001, Science, 291, 79

Rees, M. J. 1999, A&AS, 138, 491

Thompson, C. 1994, MNRAS, 270, 480