arxiv: v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 6 Mar 2015

Transcription

1 Physical Review E Log-stable law of energy dissipation as a fraework of turbulence interittency Hideaki Mouri Meteorological Research Institute, Nagaine, Tsukuba , Japan (Dated: March 6, 2015) arxiv: v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 6 Mar 2015 To describe the sall-scale interittency of turbulence, a self-siilarity is assued for the probability density function of a logarith of the rate of energy dissipation soothed over a length scale aong those in the inertial range. The result is an extension of Kologorov s classical theory in 1941, i.e., a one-paraeter fraework where the logarith obeys soe stable distribution. Scaling laws are obtained for the dissipation rate and for the two-point velocity difference. They are consistent with theoretical constraints and with the observed scaling laws. Also discussed is the physics that deterines the value of the paraeter. PACS nubers: Ak I. INTRODUCTION Consider a fully developed state of three-diensional hoogeneous and isotropic turbulence that occurs in an incopressible fluid. The kinetic energy is supplied at a large length scale and is dissipated into heat by viscosity ν at around a sall scale of the Kologorov length η K [1]. Between these two, there is an inertial range of length scales, where the kinetic energy is transferred on average to the saller and saller scales without essentially any dissipation. This range has no characteristic scales about its lengths r and about rando variables defined at each ofthe lengths r. For the spatial average ofsuch a variable X r, we expect the scale invariance X γr = C γ X r with C γ > 0 that is a function of γ > 0. The solution is a power law X r r τ, where the scaling exponent τ is unlikely to depend on the details of the energy supply [1]. Below the inertial range, there is a dissipation range. The power-law scaling does not persist because of the existence of the Kologorov length η K as a characteristic scale [2]. Turbulence is interittent at these length scales in the inertial and dissipation ranges. An exaple is the rate of energy dissipation per unit ass ε = ν 3 i,j=1 ( v i/ x j + v j / x i ) 2 /2, where v i is the velocity in the direction of the coordinate x i. This rate is unifor according to the 1941 theory of Kologorov [1], but actually it fluctuates in space. If soothed over a scale in the inertial or dissipation range (see Sec. II), it is significant only within a fraction of the space. The fraction decreases with a decrease in the scale [3, 4]. Such sall-scale interittency has been intensively studied for decades [5]. The central issue is to forulate a statistical fraework that describes the rate ε of energy dissipation. Although the dissipation itself is negligible in the inertial range, a power-law scaling is expected for the rate ε r soothed over length scale r in this range, ε r r τ. (1a) Since the dissipation rate is positive as ε > 0, the exponent τ has to satisfy an inequality explained in Sec. II for the diension D = 1, 2, or 3 of the soothing region [6], τ > D at > 0. (1b) Thisdoesnotapplytotherateofenergytransferthrough the scale r, which takes both positive and negative values [5]. Also fro an assuption for the interittency (see Sec. II), we expect an asyptote [7], τ D as +. (1c) The fraework has to be justified by atheatical consistency with these and other constraints [8]. We would be left with free paraeters that are to be deterined by physics outside the fraework. Kologorov in 1962 [9] was the first to propose a theory for the sall-scale interittency, by assuing that ε r obeys a log-noral distribution or equivalently lnε r obeys a Gaussian(noral) distribution throughout scales r in the inertial range. However, since the resultant exponent τ does not satisfy Eq. (1b), this log-noral theory does not deserve to be a statistical fraework of the dissipation rate. The log-noral theory is nevertheless of interest because the probability density function (PDF) of lnε r is self-siilar aong those scales r. While its position and its width are different, its shape reains identical. To see atheatics of this self-siilarity, we ignore fluctuations at the largest scale R of the inertial range and divide the scales as r = r 1 < r 2 < < r N+1 = R, ( ) εr ln = ε R N n=1 ( ) εrn ln. (2) ε rn+1 The suands ln(ε rn /ε rn+1 ) are set to be Gaussian and to be independent of one another. Since the Gaussianity is invariant under addition of its independent variables, the su ln(ε r /ε R ) is again Gaussian. The self-siilarity in such a sense, if actual, should be useful to forulating the fraework. Gaussian distributions ake up a two-paraeter faily, which is included in a four-paraeter faily of stable

2 2 distributions[10 12]. If and only if the distribution is stable, theshapeofits PDFisinvariantunderadditionofits variables. For scales r in the inertial range, Kida[13] considered that ln(ε r /ε R ) obeys a stable distribution. Two of its four paraeters were deterined atheatically, whiletheothertwowereleftasfreeparaeters. Thislogstable theory is necessary and sufficient for a self-siilar PDF to describe the fluctuations of ln(ε r /ε R ). However, the theory as a whole is not consistent with Eq. (1b). In fact, its special case is the log-noral theory. The sae self-siilarity of ln(ε r /ε R ) exists in the 1941 theory of Kologorov[1], i.e., τ = 0, which is not interittent but is consistent with Eq. (1b) and is regarded as the degenerate case of soe stable distribution. We search for an extension of this classical theory within the whole faily of the stable distributions. The result is a one-paraeter fraework where ln(ε r /ε R ) in the inertial range has a self-siilar PDF and is consistent with Eq. (1b) and also with Eq. (1c). We discuss the application to the velocity field, consistency with the actual turbulence, physics that deterines the paraeter value, and differences fro the existing fraeworks. II. BASIC SETTINGS The dissipation rate ε is soothed over length scales r in the inertial range. Since its boundaries are not definite, it is set to be wide enough as copared with ranges of scales that could be used as its largest and sallest scales. The largest scale is fixed at R, which is well below the scale of the energy supply [1]. We do not fix the sallest scale because the inertial range could extend to any sall scale r > η K in accordance with the Reynolds nuber of the turbulence. We consider the one-diensional soothing case D = 1. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the rate ε is averaged over a segent of length r centered at a position x along a line in the three-diensional space, ε r (x) = 1 ε(x )dx. (3a) r x x r/2 The direction of this line is fixed arbitrarily in the isotropicturbulence. Atthesaepositionx, wedefinearando variable χ r as [ ] rεr (x) χ r (x) = ln 0 at r R. (3b) Rε R (x) The inequality χ r 0 is due to the positivity ε > 0 in Eq.(3a). We also consider the three-diensional soothing case D = 3, by averaging the rate ε over a spherical volue of diaeter r centered at a position x, and ε r (x) = 6 πr 3 x x r/2 ε(x )dx, [ r 3 ] ε r (x) χ r (x) = ln R 3 0 at r R. ε R (x) (4a) (4b) FIG. 1. Scheatic illustration of soothing regions for D = 1 in Eq. (3a) and for D = 3 in Eq. (4a) on a two-diensional cut of the space. The grey and dark grey areas denote regions of intense dissipation and of very intense dissipation. The center of the soothing region is fixed at a position inthespacesoastoregardε r andχ r asrandofunctions of r in the inertial range up to the largest scale R. Their spatial averages are obtained by shifting the position of that center. The saller soothing region is included in the larger solong astheir centersarecoon. Also since the rateε is positive, its integral over the region r D ε r is increasing in the scale r. The oent (r D ε r ) r D+τ at > 0 is increasing as well, i.e., D+τ > 0 [6]. This corresponds to Eq. (1b), which always holds regardless of relative positions of the soothing regions because the turbulence is hoogeneous. Another constraint is expected fro the interittency [7]. We assue that r D ε r /R D ε R is independent of R D ε R and takes any value fro 0 to 1. Then r D ε r and R D ε R take the sae axiu value, i.e., (r D ε r ) 1/ (R D ε R ) 1/ as +. It eans r (D+τ)/ r 0 and hence Eq. (1c). The axiu values are the sae even at r R. That is, any very intense dissipation has been assued to occur in an isolated point-like region (see Fig. 1). Although the energy dissipation is intense in organized structures, the intensity within each of the structures is not unifor but is enhanced in its point-like regions [5]. They are at r > 0, so that they could exist in soothing regions of any diension D and hence Eq. (1c) holds for any value of D 3. III. FORMULATION The following conditions are iposed on the rando variableχ r intheinertialrangeatr R: (i)χ r1 χ r2 has a PDF that depends only on r 1 /r 2 for any pair of r 1 and r 2 ; (ii) χ r1 χ r2, χ r2 χ r3,..., χ rn 1 χ rn do not depend on one another for any finite series of r 1 < r 2 < < r N ; and (iii) χ r has a self-siilar PDF. If the sign is used to denote that the two rando variables have the sae PDF,the condition(iii) issuchthataconstantc r1,r 2 > 0 is found for any pair ofr 1 and r 2 to havec r1,r 2 χ r1 χ r2. Fro these three conditions, it follows that χ r is strictly

3 3 stable at each of the scales r. The above self-siilarity is described as χ r [ ln ( R β /r β)] 1/α χ with 0 < α 2 and β > 0. (5) Here χ is identical to χ r at ln(r β /r β ) = 1. We are also to use an auxiliary condition that ε R is unifor in space, i.e., ε R = ε, although it is only for siplicity because ε R does not affect the PDF of χ r nor of ε r /ε R at least under the condition (i). Here is a atheatical explanation [10, 12]. The conditions (i) and (ii) perit us to regard χ r as a stochastic Lévy process for the tie paraeter t = ln(r β /r β ) 0. Any process χ t at t 0 is a Lévy process if χ t = 0 at t = 0, if χ t is a continuous function of t, if χ t1 χ t2 has a PDFthat depends onlyont 1 t 2 foranypairoft 1 andt 2, and if χ t1 χ t2, χ t2 χ t3,..., χ tn 1 χ tn do not depend on one another for any finite series of t 1 < t 2 < < t N. The paraeter β is to define the scale r that corresponds to the tie t = 1. The Lévy process χ t is stable if constants C t1,t 2 > 0 and C t 1,t 2 are found for any pair of t 1 and t 2 to have C t1,t 2 χ t1 +C t 1,t 2 χ t2. If all the pairs yield C t 1,t 2 = 0, thestabilityissaidtobestrict. Thisisourcondition(iii). The constant C t 1,t 2 serves as a shift of the PDF. It is not required for χ t used here, judging fro our discussion in Sec. II. Bydefiningχ asχ t att = 1, thestrictlystableprocess is described as χ t t 1/α χ with a paraeter 0 < α 2. This is Eq.(5). At eacht, the distribution ofχ t is strictly stable with the sae paraeter α. To be specific, if χ t,1 and χ t,2 are independent copies of χ t, we have C 1 χ t,1 + C 2 χ t,2 (C1 α +C2) α 1/α χ t foranypairofconstantsc 1 > 0 and C 2 > 0. The shape of the PDF is invariant without its shift. The condition (i) eans hoogeneity of ln(ε rn /ε rn+1 ) throughout scales r in the inertial range, while the condition (ii) eans their independence. Under these two, no characteristic scale is perissible, so that we expect the existence of the power-law scaling ε r r τ (see Sec. I). They are actually idealized conditions. For exaple, ln(ε r1 /ε r2 ) and ln(ε r2 /ε r3 ) are not independent of each other for narrowly separated scales, say, r 3 /r 1 10 [14], although such narrow separations are not iportant if the inertial range is wide enough. The condition(iii) eans a self-siilarity of the PDF of ln(ε r /ε R ), albeit requiring its shift, aong scales r in the inertial range. If the shape of such a self-siilar PDF is used to define the interittency, it is not dependent on r. The dependence does exist for the interittency ofε r /ε R because the PDF is no longer self-siilar. Fro Eq. (5) via Eq.(3b) or (4b), we find that ε r /ε R is increasinglyinterittent with a decrease in the scale r fro the largest scale R. Stable distributions are described generally by four paraeters,butthoseinthestrictsenseakeupafailyof three paraeters, where excluded is a paraeter to shift the PDF [10, 12]. Except for α = 1, the characteristic function of the distribution of χ is ( exp(iχ ξ) = exp λ ξ α e iπθξ/2 ξ ). (6) While λ > 0 deterines the width of the PDF, α and θ deterine its shape( θ α for0 < α < 1and θ 2 α for 1 < α 2). The stable distributions for α = 2 and θ = 0 are Gaussian. We focus on the distributions for 0 < α < 1 and θ = α. They alone are totally skewed to the left, i.e., χ 0 [10, 12], which is required fro Eq. (3b) or (4b) via Eq. (5). By using the above values of α and θ in the inverse Fourier transfor of Eq. (6), the PDF f(χ ) is written as 0 at χ 0 f(χ ) = λ( λ) n 1 Γ(nα+1)sin(πnα) πn! χ n=1 nα+1 at χ < 0. (7) Here Γ is the gaa function. The tail for χ is in the for of power law χ (α+1), which leads to divergence of oents such as the average χ. To forulate the one-diensional soothing case D = 1, we use Eq. (3b) to have r ε r /R ε R = exp(χ r). Then exp(χ r ) is obtained by substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (6) and by replacing ξ with i. This replaceent corresponds to an analytical continuation fro ξ to i. It is justified at 0 by the convergenceof exp(χ ), which is in turn justified by the for of f(χ ) in Eq. (7). The result is ε r = (r/r) +α βλexp(πα/2) at 0. (8) ε R However, ε r /ε R does notexist at < 0. The reasonis the power-law tail of f(χ ) and the resultant divergence of exp(χ ) at < 0. Negative-order oents observed in nuerical siulations and in experients are attributable to, e.g., rando noise that is inherent in any actual data. Finally, theparaetersβ andλareeliinatedbyakinguse ofthe auxiliaryconditionε R = ε. The left-hand side of Eq. (8) is reduced to ε r / ε. At = 1, it is ε r / ε = 1. The corresponding exponent for r/r in the right-hand side is 1+βλexp(πα/2) = 0. Accordingly, ε r ε = α (r/r) +, and hence as the exponent τ for D = 1, τ = + α with 0 < α < 1 at 0. (9a) (9b) Even if ε R is not unifor, ε R does not affect ε r /ε R under the condition(i). We have ε r /ε R ε R = ε r, through whicheq.(8)leadsto ε r rτ withthesaeeq.(9b). Then, Eq. (9a) could be regarded as a result conditioned on a given value ε of the fluctuating rate ε R [4]. This is the necessary and sufficient fraework for the case of D = 1 where ln(ε r /ε R ) has a self-siilar PDF

4 4 and satisfies Eq. (1b). Also satisfied is Eq. (1c). The interittency is described by the paraeter α. Especially in the liit α 1, we reproduce the 1941 theory of Kologorov [1], i.e., τ = 0, for which Eq. (1c) does not hold because the interittency does not persist. The three-diensional soothing case D = 3 is also forulated, by replacing the length ratio r/r in Eq. (9a) with the volue ratio r 3 /R 3, ε r ε = ( r 3 /R 3) α = (r/r) α, and hence as the exponent τ for D = 3, (10a) τ = 3+3 α with 0 < α < 1 at 0. (10b) Between D = 1 and D = 3, the exponent τ is different. We have τ = D+D α, which holds for D = 2 as well. The value of the paraeter α could depend on the soothing diension D, although there has been found no atheatical relation. The present forulation is alost equivalent to that of Kida [13]. However, his stable distribution for χ r is not in the present three-paraeter strict sense but is in the four-paraeter general sense. The resultant exponent has the for of τ = µ( α )/(2 α 2) with two free paraeters µ > 0 and 0 < α 2, even if the soothing diension D is given. We have iposed an additional constraint of χ r 0 to eliinate the paraeter µ and to obtain Eqs. (9b) and (10b) where τ always satisfies the inequality of Eq. (1b). IV. APPLICATION TO VELOCITY FIELD The power-law scaling in the inertial range is expected also for the two-point velocity difference δu r (x) = u(x+ r) u(x), δu r r ζ at 0. (11a) Here u is longitudinal or lateral, i.e., parallel or perpendicular to the line through the two points. The coordinate x is along this line. We study δu r instead of δu r itself [9]. Since δu r could take the value of 0, the oent δu r does not exist at < 0. If the velocity u is to be bounded such that the flow does not becoe supersonic and hence does not becoe copressible, there is a necessary condition dζ d 0. (11b) This is because δur + / δu r r ζ + ζ has to be bounded for > 0 even if the inertial range extends to any sall scale, i.e., ζ + ζ 0 [15]. The exponent ζ is obtained fro the exponent τ for thedissipationrateε r. Basedonavelocityscale(rε r ) 1/3, there is a relation known as Kologorov s refined siilarity hypothesis [9], δu r (rε r ) /3 and ζ = τ / (12) To the longitudinal velocity, Eq. (12) is plausible because the energy dissipation is intense in regions under intense strain. We do not use the lateral velocity. Its two-point difference is rotational and is not related closely to the rate of the dissipation [16]. We consider the one-diensional soothing case D = 1. The two points for the velocity difference δu r are the ends of the line segent used to sooth the dissipation rate ε r. Fro τ = + α in Eq. (9b) via Eq. (12), ( ) α ζ = with 0 < α < 1 at 0. (13) 3 Theexponentζ satisfieseq.(11b)andotherconstraints such as ζ 2 2/3 [17]. In the liit α 1, we reproduce the 1941 theory of Kologorov [1], i.e., ζ = /3. We also consider the three-diensional soothing case D = 3. The two points for the velocity difference δu r are polesofthesphereusedtosooththedissipationrateε r. Froτ = 3+3 α ineq.(10b)viaeq.(12), wehave ζ = 2/3+3(/3) α. As +, the exponent ζ becoes inconsistent with Eq. (11b) and becoes negative. The reason is τ / 3 that satisfies Eq. (1c). Thus, Eqs.(1c), (11b), and (12) are inconsistent with one another in the case of D = 3. The dissipation exponent τ is different between D = 1and D = 3, while the velocityexponent ζ is unique. It is hence possible that the relation of τ to ζ in Eq. (12) is suited to D = 1 but is not to D = 3. The velocity difference δu r is an integral of the velocity derivative u/ x overthe separationr, while anintegralof( u/ x) 2 is one of the coponents of the dissipation rate ε r. Regions of these two integrations are identical in the case of D = 1. They are not identical in the case of D = 3, for which it would be of interest to reconsider whether or not any relation exists between the velocity difference δu r and the dissipation rate ε r. V. COMPARISON WITH OBSERVATIONS Figure 2 copares the scaling exponents of our fraework with those observed in nuerical siulations of hoogeneous and isotropic turbulence [18 20]. Since our fraework is well consistent with the siulations, we conclude that our conditions (i) (iii) used in Sec. III are at least good approxiations of the actual turbulence. This conclusion applies especially to the condition (iii), which says that ln(ε r /ε R ) has a self-siilar PDF. The three-diensional soothing case D = 3 has been studied for the dissipation exponent τ in Eq. (10b). It yields α On the other hand, in the onediensionalsoothingcased = 1,thedataofτ arenot available, except for a surrogate of the dissipation rate

5 5 VI. EXPLANATION FOR PARAMETER VALUE Thus far, we have discussed atheatics of the dissipation rate ε r to forulate a statistical fraework of its log-stable law. If this fraework does apply to the sallscale interittency, the observed value of the paraeter α is explainable by its physics. Here is an attept of such an explanation, which is based on the transition fro the inertial range to the dissipation range in the one-diensional soothing case D = 1. The transition is deterined by the Reynolds nuber Re r. For a region of length r centered at soe position x, we follow Kologorov [9] to define Re r by aking use of a velocity scale (rε r ) 1/3, Re r (x) = r[rε r(x)] 1/3. (14a) ν Thesaevelocityscaleexistsin Eq.(12). FroRe η = 1, the transition length scale η is defined as η(x) = ν3/4 ε 1/4 η (x). (14b) FIG. 2. Coparison of our fraework with nuerical siulations of forced steady states of hoogeneous and isotropic turbulence at the Reynolds nuber for the Taylor icroscale of 216 [18], 460 [19], and 600 [20]: (a) dissipation exponent τ for D = 3 in Eq. (10b), and (b) velocity exponent ζ for D = 1 in Eq. (13). The dotted lines denote the 1941 theory of Kologorov [1]. ( u/ x) 2 that tends to be ore interittent [21]. We haveinsteadusedthevelocityexponentζ ineq.(13). It yields α Thus α takes different values between the cases of D = 1 and D = 3. With a nuerical siulation or with an experient, we would have to copare our fraework again in the future. The conditions (i) and (ii), i.e., hoogeneity and independenceofln(ε rn /ε rn+1 )intheinertialrange,would hold if the Reynolds nuber were high enough to set up a wide inertial range. This is not the case in the existing siulations and experients [5, 22]. We expect that the future data are at a high enough Reynolds nuber, which would also perit the ore accurate observations of τ and ζ. The auxiliary condition, i.e., unifority of ε R, alsodoesnotholdbecauseε R fluctuatessignificantlyeven if the turbulence is fully developed and is filling the space [23, 24]. Although such fluctuations are unlikely to affect the power law in the for of ε r r τ, we expect that the future data are of enough size to study the scaling of ε r at each value of ε R. Then, our fraework should exhibit a better consistency with the siulation or with the experient if our self-siilarity condition (iii) holds for the actual turbulence. for the actual occurrence of the transition [5]. The inertial range exhibits ε r / ε = (r/r) τ if we use Eq. (9a), which yields The scale η fluctuates spatially with fluctuations of the dissipationrateε η [9]. Since η 4 isrelatedto ε η, we assue that ε r in the inertial range transits to ε r in thedissipationrangeatthelengthofr = C η 4 1/4 [25]. The constant C 10 is due to the Reynolds nuberre r = C 4/3 ( ) d ε d ln r ε = dτ d ln(r/r). (15a) Here dτ /d = α/ 1 α 1 > 0 at < = α 1/(1 α) and dτ /d 0 at. The value of is found at in the case of α 0.5. The dissipation range exhibits sooth velocities such that v i / x j constant in any region of length r C η, frowhichwehaveε r (x) ε η (x) and ε r ε η. Also by using the Kologorov length η K = ν 3/4 / ε 1/4 [1], d d ln ( ) ε r ε 1 ( ε ln r ε ) 1 η 4 ln K η 4. (15b) The derivative has been approxiated by a linear slope fro ln( ε r / ε ) = 0 at = 0. It holds if is sall, say, <. If were not sall, the slope would have to be taken fro ln( ε r / ε ) = 0 at = 1. Finally, our assuption is used to equate Eq. (15a) with Eq. (15b) at r = C η 4 1/4. The result for = 1/4 is ( ) 4/(4+dτ/d) R R =1/4. (16) C η C η K

6 6 Here R/C η serves as the width of the inertial range. The classical width R/C η K is reproduced in the liit α 1, corresponding to the 1941 theory of Kologorov [1]. Given the classicalwidth ofthe inertialranger/c η K, which is fixed by conditions external to the turbulence, R/C η is inial at α = Since α is observed for D = 1 in Fig. 2, we consider that the observed value of α corresponds to the iniu of the width of the inertial range R/C η. Its inverse R/C η 1 serves as the ean efficiency of the energy dissipation. While η is large in regions where the kinetic energy is effectively dissipated into heat, η is not large in the other regions. The averageoverallthe regionsis η 1 1. Thus, a plausible explanation is that the value of α is deterined so as to axiize the ean efficiency of the energy dissipation R/C η 1 and thereby to iniize the width of the inertial range R/C η. Thisexplanationhasusedourauxiliaryconditionε R = ε and the resultant Eq. (9a). Even if ε R is not unifor, the sae explanation is possible by considering R/C η K and R/C η for each value of ε R (see Sec. III). To study the three-diensional soothing case D = 3, we have to consider R 3 /(C η) 3 instead of R/C η, i.e., = 3/4 instead of = 1/4. However, even if Eq. (15b) is rewritten for >, it leads to an inconsistent result that R 3 /(C η) 3 is not inial in the range of 0 < α < 1. Thereasonisattributabletothevelocityscale(rε r ) 1/3 in Eq. (14a), which is unlikely to be suited to D = 3 as discussed for Eq.(12) in Sec. IV. An alternative approach is required to explain the observed value of the paraeter α and the relation to its value for D = 1, if possible on the basis of soe definition of the ean efficiency of the energy dissipation. VII. COMPARISON WITH OTHER THEORIES For the sall-scale interittency, ost of the existing theories are based on the conditions (i) and (ii) used also in Sec. III. They yield ε r /ε R = ε γr /ε R ln(r/r)/lnγ with r γr < R, which is necessary and sufficient for the existence of a powerlaw ε r /ε R = (r/r)τ [6]. It is equivalent to ε r rτ because ε r /ε R does not depend on ε R under the condition (i). To constrain the exponent τ, each theory has soe additional condition. The current paradig is ultifractality [26]. To forulate this into a statistical fraework [27, 28], instead of using our self-siilarity condition (iii), the large deviation theory is used for the su of ln(ε rn /ε rn+1 ) in Eq. (2) with r n /r n+1 = constant, i.e., with N ln(r/r). This liit theore says that the PDF of ln(ε r /ε R )/ln(r/r) hasaspecificforofasyptoteintheliitr/r 0[27 29]. Theinertialrangeisassuedtoextendtothat liit, where the asyptotic PDF is related to the exponent τ via a series of differences between the soothing diension D and soe fractal diensions on the D-diensional cut of the space. Since these differences are independent of the value of D [11], the exponent τ is independent as well. For the ultifractal PDF of ln(ε rn /ε rn+1 ), there have been proposed various theories. Soe of the lead to ε r /ε R even at < 0 [30]. The others do not as in our case of the stable distribution [31]. To any stable distribution that is not Gaussian, the large deviation theory is not applicable. It requires that the tail of the PDF of ln(ε r /ε R )/ln(r/r) decays exponentially as ln(r/r), i.e., as N +. This is not the case for the PDF of the stable distribution that retains its power-law tail [29]. Especially for 0 < α < 1 studied here, ln(ε r /ε R )/ln(r/r) diverges in that liit as N 1/α 1 (see Sec. III). The fractal diensions are hence not available. The above discussion eans that any ultifractal PDF of ln(ε rn /ε rn+1 ) is not stable and is not self-siilar. An exaple is the Poisson distribution [31 33]. Its paraeter is Λ > 0. If ln(ε r1 /ε r2 ) and ln(ε r2 /ε r3 ) are related to the paraeter values Λ 1 and Λ 2, their su ln(ε r1 /ε r3 ) is related to a different paraeter value Λ 1 +Λ 2, which results in a different shape of the PDF. The independence of the scaling exponent τ fro the soothing diension D is an iportant characteristic of any ultifractal PDF. Aong the diensions D = 1, 2, and 3, the exponent τ is unique. Since it has to satisfy Eq.(1b)forD 1, it satisfieseq.(1c) atostford = 1, although we consider that τ is not unique and satisfies Eq. (1c) for each value of D as in our case of the stable distribution. Multifractality is thus distinct fro our log-stability. The underlying assuption for using the large deviation theory is that the interittency is asyptotically deterined in the course of the ean energy transfer to the saller scales, i.e., the energy cascade [34]. Nevertheless, the energy is transferred locally and instantaneously to the largerscales as well as to the sallerscales [5]. These scales interact with one another and should have settled into a self-siilar state that is to be described by a stable distribution of ln(ε r /ε R ). In addition, it is too idealized to ignore the existence of the dissipation range by taking the liit r/r 0 for scales r in the inertial range. If the liit is not taken, the large deviation theory is not of use. The exponent τ reains available fro the powerlaw scaling itself, but it has to be positioned within soe alternative to the ultifractal fraework. The sae discussion applies to other fraeworks such as those based on the central liit theore [35] and on the generalized central liit theore [36], aside fro the consistency or inconsistency with Eq. (1b) and so on. With the exponentsτ and ζ observedthus farin nuerical siulations and in experients, the ultifractal and other theories exhibit a consistency alost coparable to that of our log-stable law [18 20]. The theories are not judged definitely at this level of observations. As for the observational judgent between the log-stable law and the others, it is essential to study whether or not the PDF of ln(ε r /ε R ) is self-siilar aong scales r in a

7 7 wide enough inertial range. This is to be expected in the future. VIII. CONCLUDING REMARKS The sall-scale interittency has been studied about a fully developed state of three-diensional hoogeneous and isotropic turbulence in an incopressible fluid. For the rate ε r of energy dissipation soothed over length scale r in the inertial range up to the largest scale R, we have followed Kida [13] to ipose a self-siilarity on the PDF of ln(ε r /ε R ). Such a self-siilarity is expected fro interactions aong the scales through the local and instantaneous transfer of the kinetic energy. The result is an extension of the 1941 theory of Kologorov[1], i.e., a one-paraeter fraework where ln(ε r /ε R ) obeys soe stable distribution. As a statistical fraework of the selfsiilar PDF of ln(ε r /ε R ), this log-stable law is necessary and sufficient. The scaling exponents have been obtained for the scaling of the dissipation rate ε r rτ in Eqs. (9b) and (10b) and for the scaling of the two-point velocity difference δu r rζ in Eq. (13). They are consistent with theoretical constraints such as Eqs. (1b), (1c), and (11b) and with the observed exponents in Fig. 2. We have attepted to explain the observed value of our paraeter α. This is also to explain the existence of organized structures in the turbulence because our fraework is just a statistical description of the. In fact, the observed value of α is distinct fro the value α 1 for the classical case of no structures, i.e., the 1941 theory of Kologorov [1]. By using Eq. (16), we have related the observed value of α to the iniu width of the inertial rangeandtherebyto theaxiueanefficiency ofthe energy dissipation. It follows that the interittency occurs and the structures are organized so as to axiize the ean efficiency of the dissipation. We have not considered the fluctuations of ε R at the largest scale R of the inertial range. They do not have to be considered if the power-law scaling ε r rτ is exact. It eans that the inertial range is not characterized by any of the scales, including scales of those fluctuations. This is the caseofour fraeworkwhereε r /ε R is set to be independent of ε R, but we would have to study the very case of the actual turbulence. Oboukhov [37] proposed a PDF of those fluctuations. Since it has turned out to be a good approxiation [24, 38], it would be useful to that study. The stable distribution is also expected for a logarith of any other positive rando variable, e.g., enstrophy [5, 18], if its PDF is self-siilar in a range ofthe scales. This is not liited to variables of the turbulence. For exaple, apower-lawscalingis found in avarietyoffields [11] such as the cosological density field observed through the galaxy nuber density [39]. They have been discussed to be fractal or ultifractal, but soe of the could be logstable. It is of interest to search for the stable distribution aong logariths of these and other positive rando variables. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported in part by KAKENHI Grant No The author is grateful to M. Morikawa for interesting discussions. [1] A.N. Kologorov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 30, 301 (1941). [2] J. von Neuann, Report to Office of Naval Research, 1949(unpublished). Reprinted in Collected Works, edited by A. H. Taub (Pergaon, New York, 1963), vol. 6, p [3] G.K. Batchelor and A.A. Townsend, Proc. R. Soc. London A 199, 238 (1949). [4] H. L. Grant, R. W. Stewart, and A. Moilliet, J. Fluid Mech. 12, 241 (1962). [5] T. Ishihara, T. Gotoh, and Y. Kaneda, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 165 (2009). [6] E.A. Novikov, Soviet Phys. Dokl. 14, 104 (1969). [7] E.A. Novikov, Phys. Rev. E 50, R3303 (1994). [8] T. Watanabe and H. Fujisaka, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 69, 1672 (2000). [9] A.N. Kologorov, J. Fluid Mech. 13, 82 (1962). [10] W. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1971), vol. 2. [11] B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geoetry of Nature (Freean, San Francisco, 1982). [12] K.-I. Sato, Lévy Processes and Infinitely Divisible Distributions, 2nd ed. (Cabridge University Press, Cabridge, 2013). [13] S. Kida, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 60, 5 (1991); 61, 4671 (1992). [14] G. Pedrizzetti, E. A. Novikov, and A. A. Praskovsky, Phys. Rev. E 53, 475 (1996). [15] U. Frisch, Proc. R. Soc. London A 434, 89 (1991). [16] H. Mouri, A. Hori, and Y. Kawashia, Phys. Fluids 19, (2007). [17] P. Constantin and C. Fefferan, Nonlinearity 7, 41 (1994). [18] S. Chen, K.R. Sreenivasan, and M. Nelkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1253 (1997). [19] T. Gotoh, D. Fukayaa, and T. Nakano, Phys. Fluids, 14, 1065 (2002). [20] R. Benzi, L. Biferale, R. Fisher, D. Q. Lab, and F. Toschi, J. Fluid Mech. 653, 221 (2010). [21] L.-P.Wang, S.Chen, J.G.Brasseur, andj.c.wyngaard, J. Fluid Mech. 309, 113 (1996). [22] R.A. Antonia and P. Burattini, J. Fluid Mech. 550, 175 (2006). [23] L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Perg-

8 8 aon, London, 1959). [24] H. Mouri, A. Hori, and M. Takaoka, Phys. Fluids 21, (2009). [25] V. Yakhotand K.R. Sreenivasan, J. Stat. Phys. 121, 823 (2005). [26] G. Parisi and U. Frisch, in Turbulence and Predictability in Geophysical Fluid Dynaics, edited by M. Ghil, R. Benzi, and G. Parisi (North-Holland, Asterda, 1985), p. 84. [27] B.B. Mandelbrot, Proc. R. Soc. London A 434, 79 (1991). [28] U. Frisch, Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kologorov (Cabridge University Press, Cabridge, 1995). [29] H. Touchette, Phys. Rep. 478, 1 (2009). [30] C. Meneveau and K.R. Sreenivasan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1424 (1987). [31] Z.-S. She and E. Leveque, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 336 (1994). [32] B. Dubrulle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 959 (1994). [33] Z.-S. She and E.C. Wayire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 262 (1995). [34] L. Onsager, Nuovo Ciento, Suppl. 6, 279 (1949). [35] A.M. Yaglo, Soviet Phys. Dokl. 11, 26 (1966). [36] D. Schertzer and S. Lovejoy, J. Geophys. Res. D 92, 9693 (1987). [37] A.M. Oboukhov, J. Fluid Mech. 13, 77 (1962). [38] H. Mouri, Phys. Rev. E 88, (2013). [39] H. Totsuji and T. Kihara, Pub. Astron. Soc. Japan 21, 221 (1969).