Algebraic proof and application of Lumley s realizability triangle

Algebraic proof and application of Lumley s realizability triangle G.A. Gerolymos and I. Vallet Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre-et-Marie-Curie (UPMC), place Jussieu, 755 Paris, France Emails: georges.gerolymos@upmc.fr, isabelle.vallet@upmc.fr arxiv:161.368v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 11 Oct 16 Lumley [Lumley J.L.: Adv. Appl. Mech. 18 (1978) 13 176] provided a geometrical proof that any Reynolds-stress tensor u i u j (indeed any tensor whose eigenvalues are invariably nonnegative) should remain inside the so-called Lumley s realizability triangle. An alternative formal algebraic proof is given that the anisotropy invariants of any positivedefinite symmetric Cartesian rank- tensor in the 3-D Euclidian space E 3 define a point which lies within the realizability triangle. This general result applies therefore not only to u i u j but also to many other tensors that appear in the analysis and modeling of turbulent flows. Typical examples are presented based on DNS data for plane channel flow. 1 Introduction The introduction in [1] of Lumley s [9] realizability triangle is without doubt one of the most important contributions to statistical turbulence theory. The Reynolds-stress tensor property that serves to prove that every possible (realizable) Reynolds-stress tensor should lie within Lumley s [9] realizability triangle, is the positivity of the diagonal components of the covariance of velocity-fluctuations r : u i u j (1a) in every reference-frame, and hence also in the frame of its principal axes [9], implying that the tensor u i u j is positivedefinite [15, Theorem.3, p. 186], is exactly the same as that behind Schumann s [11] realizability conditions. Throughout the paper, u i {u,v,w} are the velocity components in a Cartesian coordinates system x i {x,y,z}, ν is the kinematic viscosity, ( ) denotes Reynolds (ensemble) fluctuations and ( ) denotes Reynolds (ensemble) averaging. Lee and Reynolds [8] further argued that Lumley s [9] realizability triangle also applies to the dissipation tensor ε : ν u i u j (1b) and to the covariance of the fluctuating vorticity components ζ : ω i ω j (1c) where ω i are the fluctuating vorticity components. Obviously the diagonal components of both these tensors are positive for every orientation of the axes of the Cartesian coordinates system. Realizability constraints are essential not only in theory and modelling [9, 1] but also in computational implementations of second-moment closures [, 3]. The same positivity of the diagonal components for every orientation of the axes of coordinates, which is equivalent to the positivedefiniteness of the symmetric real tensor [15, Theorem., p. 186], and implies Lumley s [9] realizability triangle, can also be of interest to the unresolved stresses [1] in partiallyresolved approaches [6]. Lumley s [9] proof of the realizability triangle is geometric, based on representing the behaviour of of the principal values of the traceless anisotropy tensor, and taking into account the corresponding behaviour of the invariants. An alternative easy-to-follow algebraic proof is possible, based on just requirements 1. the symmetric Reynolds-stress tensor has 3 real eigenvalues [1, Theorem, p. 55]. which are nonnegative [9, 11] with nonzero trace (positive kinetic energy) which also apply to any symmetric real positive-definite rank- tensor in E 3. Anisotropy, principal axes and invariants Before giving the proof, we summarize for completeness some basic definitions and properties [9, 1]. The tensor of the -moments of fluctuating velocities r (1a) is real and symmetric, and is therefore diagonalizable in the frame of its principal axes [1, Theorem 5, p. 59], where its diagonal components (principal values) are its real [1, Theorem, p. 55] eigenvalues [1, Theorem, p. 58]. This implies that the eigenvalues of r, being its diagonal components in

the frame of its principal axes, are nonnegative. Since the eigenvalues of the symmetric tensor r are nonnegative, r is positive-semidefinite [15, Theorem.3, p. 186]. Inversely, the diagonal components of every positive-semidefinite tensor are nonnegative [15, p. 186]. The halftrace of r is the turbulent kinetic energy and is therefore nonzero (trr k > ), implying that at least one of its eigenvalues is nonzero (therefore r is positive-definite, which inversely implies nonzero trace). Let Λ r and Λ br Λ r : λ r 1 λ r λ r3 ; Λ br Λ br : λ 1 λ br λ br3 (a) be the diagonal matrices of the eigenvalues of r and, respectively, where : r trr 1 3 I 3 I br II br trb 1 ji 1 λ i λ bri < detb λ br1 λ br λ br3 III br (b) is the traceless anisotropy tensor corresponding to r and I 3 is the 3 3 identity tensor, with the usual definition of the invariants [1, (6), p. 51], simplified [9] by the relation I br trb (b), and the corresponding expressions in terms of the eigenvalues in the frame of principal axes [9]. By definition (b), is real symmetric, and has therefore real eigenvalues [1, Theorem, p. 55]. It is straightforward to show that the eigenvectors of r are also eigenvectors of. Let X r and X br denote the orthonormal matrices [1, Theorem 5, p. 59] whose columns are the right eigenvectors of r and, respectively, and therefore satisfy 3 Proof As stated in the introduction the algebraic proof of Lumley s [9] realizability triangle can be easily obtained from well-known conditions, also discussed in ( ). The eigenvalues of satisfy the characteristic polynomial [1, (5), p. 51] λ 3 I br }{{} (b) λ + II br λ br III br (a) The roots of the cubic equation (a) are real iff [7, pp. 5] its determinant is nonpositive, 1 ie has 3 real eigenvalues ( 1 9 (3II br ) ) 3 ( + 1 ) III br II br 3 ( 1 III ) 1 3 (b) readily implying that possible (realizable) states must lie (Fig. 1) above the branches of axisymmetric componentality in the (III br )-plane [13]. Furthermore, the eigenvalues of r representing also its diagonal components in the system of principal axes [1, Theorem, p. 58] must be nonegative, also implying that detr λ r1 λ r λ r3, the last of the 3 realizability conditions of Shumann [11]. Using the relation (3d) between the eigenvalues of r and 1 ( )( )( ) (trr) 3 λ (3d) r 1 λ r λ r3 λ br1 + 3 1 λ br + 1 3 λ br3 + 1 3 () 7 1 + 1 3 II + III br II br 9 1 + 3III (5) implying that possible (realizable) states equally lie (Fig. 1) below the -C straight line in the (III br )-plane [13]. The intersection of these inequalities is precisely Lumley s [9] realizability triangle r X X r Λ r X X r ; X X br Λ br X X br By straightforward computation using (b, 3a) XX r (b) X r (3a) implying by (3a) (3a, 3b) Λ br 1 trr Λ r ( r ) trr 3 1I 3 X X r 1 trr r X X r 1 3 X r ( ) 1 trr Λ r 1 3 I 3 X X r Λ r 1 3 I 3 λ ri (trr) (3a, 3b) X br X r ( λ bri + 1 3 ) (3a) (3b) (3c) (3d) (b, 5) 3 ( 1 III ) 1 3 II br 9 1 + 3III (6) and is defined by the conditions stated in ( 1), viz that the eigenvalues of r are real and positive. Notice that (6) describes precisely a curvilinear triangle (Fig. 1), because the axisymmetric branches II br 3 ( 1 III ) 1 3 (b) are obviously described by the same singlevalued function of III br with a cusp at ( II br,iii br ) (,), defining the isotropic 3-C corner [13, Fig., p. 3]. The intersections of this single valued function with the straight line II br 9 1 + 3III 1 9 + 3III br III 3 36 5 III ( IIIbr + 1 (5) are the roots of 3 ( 1 III ) 1 3 + 3 1 III + 19683 1 18)( IIIbr 7), defining the other corners, viz the 1-C corner [13, Fig., p. 3] ( II br,iii br ) ( 1 3, 7 ) corresponding to the double root 7 and the isotropic -C,III br ) ( 1 1, 1 point [13, Fig., p. 3] ( II br 18 ). ie r and have the same system of principal axes and their eigenvalues are related by (3d). 1 The cubic equation x 3 + ax + bx + c has 3 real roots iff [7, pp. 5] the determinant is negative, 3 [ 1 9 (3b a )] 3 + [ 1 (c + 7 a3 7 ab)]. If 3 then roots are identical.

. II br.. all 3 eigenvalues of are real II br 3( 1 III II br 3( 1 III II br 3( 1 III { II 1-C br 1 3 III br + 7. -.5.5 { II isotropic -C br 1 1 III br 1 18 II br 3( 1 III (axisymmetric disk-like) III br -C: 1 + 7III br + 9II br II br 3( 1 III (axisymmetric rod-like) -.5.5 -.5 {.5 III br II isotropic 3-C br III br. IIbr II br 1 9 + 3III III br all 3 eigenvalues of r are nonnegative II br 1 9 + 3III Fig. 1. Lumley s [9, 13] realizability triangle (6) for a positive-definite symmetric real rank- Cartesian tensor r in the 3-D Euclidean space, plotted in the (III br )-plane of the invariants (b) of the corresponding anisotropy tensor (b), and representation of the inequalities (b, 5) whose intersection defines the region of realizable states. Applications Obviously the property applies not only to the Reynoldsstresses r (1a), their dissipation ε (1b) or the vorticity covariance ζ (1c), but also to any tensor with nonnegative diagonal values. Typical examples are the destruction-ofdissipation tensor [, 5] ε ε :ν u u x m x m (7a) which represents the destruction of ε by the action of molecular viscosity [5, (3.3), p. 17] or the destruction-ofvorticity-covariance tensor ε ζ :ν ω i ω j (7b) which represents the destruction of ζ by the action of molecular viscosity [1, (), p. 58]. Regarding acceleration fluctuations (D t u i ) most authors generally study the variances of its components [17, 18] and its splitting, based on the momentum equation, in a pressure part ρ 1 xi p (also called inviscid) and a viscous part ν u i (also called soleneidal because, by the fluctuating continuity equation [5, (3.a), p. 17], it is divergence-free). As for the fluctuating vorticity correlations, we may define the symmetric positive-definite tensor of fluctuating acceleration correlations ac and the corresponding inviscid and solenoidal parts ( ) ( ) Dui Du j ac : (7c) Dt Dt ac (p) : 1 ρ p x i p x j ac (ν) :ν u i x m x m u j (7d) (7e) We consider DNS results of fully developed (streamwise invariant in the mean) turbulent plane channel flow [, 5], in a streamwise wall-normal spanwise L x L y L z πδ δ 3πδ computational box, and use standard definitions [5, 3., p. 18] of computational parameters (Figs., 3).

Re τw N x N y N z L x L y L z x + y w + N 1 CL z + t + t + OBS t + s 18 1 1 1 πδ δ 3πδ 5.7. 6 3.1 1.9.6 818.6 ( ) + xx ( ) + xy ( ) + yy ( ) + zz 8 r + 6 3 1 1 3 5. ε +. 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. ε + ε ζ +.3....3..1.1 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.8.6.. ε + ζ.1.8.6.. 1 3 5.1.5 ac +.15.1.5 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 ac (p)+.15.1.1 ac (ν)+.15.1.5.5.5 1 3 5.5 1 3 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fig.. Components, in wall-units [5, (A3), p. 8], of the positive-definite symmetric tensors (1, 7), plotted against the inner-scaled walldistance (logscale and linear ), from DNS computations of turbulent plane channel flow [, 5]. Regarding r (1a), its dissipation-rate ε (1b) and the destruction of that dissipation ε ε (7a), notice that the shear component ( ) xy is generally of the order-of-magnitude of the wall-normal component ( ) yy (Fig. ). Sufficiently far from the wall [8] r is expected to reflect the anisotropy of the large turbulent scales (typical size l T ), whereas ε is expected to reflect the anisotropy of the smaller scales (of the order of the Taylor microscale λ). The scaling arguments of

Re τw N x N y N z L x L y L z x + y w + N 1 CL z + t + t + OBS t + s 18 1 1 1 πδ δ 3πδ 5.7. 6 3.1 1.9.6 818.6.... r ε ε ε ζ IIbr IIbε IIbεε IIbζ..... III br.5. III bε.5. III bεε.5. III bζ.5 IIbζ ε ζ IIbac ac IIb ac (p) ac (p) IIb ac (ν) ac (ν).... Fig. 3. III bζ.5 III bac.5 III bac (p).5 III bac (ν).5 Locus, within Lumley s [9, 13] realizability triangle (6) in the (III, II)-plane, of the anisotropy invariants (b) of the positive-definite symmetric tensors (1, 7), from DNS computations of turbulent plane channel flow [, 5]. Tennekes and Lumley [16, pp. 88 9] suggest that, again sufficiently far from the wall, ε ε reflects the anisotropy of scales between λ and the Kolmogorov scale l K. It is therefore noteworthy that they appear to share a seemingly similar anisotropy ( ) xx > ( ) zz > ( ) yy 1 (Fig. ). Nonetheless, very near the wall ( 1; Fig. ), where all these lengthscales collapse to, ε εzz becomes larger than ε εxx. Vorticity covariance ζ (1c) is expected [16, pp. 88 9] to reflect the

anisotropy of the same scales as ε, and its destruction ε ζ (1b) corresponding to the same scales as ε ε. Both ζ and ε ζ have a very weak shear component ( ) xy (Fig. ). Their componentality obviously differs from that of {r,ε,ε ε }, because in the major part of the channel ( ) xx ( ) yy < ( ) zz ( 1; Fig. ). Nonetheless, ζ yy (-C at the wall), contrary to ε ζyy (Fig. ), and in the sublayer ε ζxx and ε ζzz cross each other ( 1; Fig. ), in analogy with the observed behaviour of ε ε. Regarding the acceleration correlations, ac (7c), ac (p) (7d) and ac (ν) (7e), again the shear component is substantially smaller than the diagonal components (Fig. ). Recall that the fluctuating momentum equation [5, (3.b), p. 17] readily implies Du i Dt (7c 8a) ac ac (p) 1 p + ν ρ x i ν ρ + ac (ν) ( p x i u i x m x m u j + p x j u i x m x m ) (8a) (8b) where the last cross-correlation tensor is symmetric but indefinite. The componentality of the acceleration correlations ac (7c) is quite different from that of its pressure ac (p) (7d) and viscous ac (ν) (7e) parts, as these correlations are the footprint of different mechanisms occurring mainly at different scales. In the buffer layer (1 1; Fig. ) viscous acceleration is mainly in the streamwise direction, but in the sublayer ac (ν) zz increases and crosses with ac (ν) xx at 1 (Fig. ), in analogy with the other correlations between components of the fluctuating velocity Hessian, ε ε (7a) and ε ζ (1b). The wall normal component ac (ν) yy becomes comparable to the other diagonal components only sufficiently away from the wall ( 3; Fig. ). On the other hand, acceleration induced by fluctuating pressure forces ac (p) (7d) exhibits a ac (p) zz > ac (p) yy > ac (p) xx anisotropy in the buffer layer (1 1; Fig. ), whereas near the wall ac (p) yy ( 1; Fig. ). Finally, the acceleration correlations behave quite differently from the parts in the fluctuating momentum equation (8a), implying that the cross-term in (8b) is important, and especially so near the wall where scaleseparation tends to disappear, and is directly responsible for the differences in limiting behavior (Fig. ) lim ac (8c) lim ac(p) (8d) lim ac(ν) (8e) More precise information on the componentality of these positive-definite symmetric tensors (1, 7) is obtained by considering their anisotropy invariant mapping (AIM) in the (III, II)-plane (Fig. 3). Only r (1a), ε (1b), ζ (1c) and ac (7c) are -C at the wall (Fig. 3). The fluctuating acceleration correlations ac (7c) reach the -C state near, although not exactly at, the axisymmetric disk-like boundary (Fig. 3). The tensors representing correlations between components of the fluctuating velocity Hessian, ε ε (7a), ε ζ (1b) and ac (ν) (7e), invariably reach the axisymmetric disklike boundary of the realizability triangle very near 1 (Fig. 3), roughly where the streamwise ( ) xx and spanwise ( ) zz components cross each other (Fig. ), and then return inside the realizability triangle as they approach the wall (Fig. 3). Near the centerline, ac approaches disk-like axisymmetry (Fig. 3), contrary to ac (p) (7d) and ac (ν) (7e), both of wich are axisymmetric rod-like (Fig. 3). The difference is that ac xx < ac yy ac zz 5 (Fig. ), whereas ac (p) xx > ac yy (p) ac zz (p) 8 (Fig. ). Finally ac (p) approaches the -C boundary without reaching it, and then returns inside the realizability triangle (Fig. 3). Notice that by (8a, 8c) [ac (p) ] w [ac (ν) ] w at the wall. 5 Conclusion The simple algebraic proof presented above, can be summarized in the following mathematical proposition: Theorem (Lumley s realizability triangle). Let r be a real rank- Cartesian tensor in the 3-D Euclidean space E 3. Assume r symmetric and positive definite. Then the locus of the invariants (b) of the corresponding anisotropy tensor (b), in the (III br )-plane, lies within Lumley s realizability triangle (6). The proof ( 3) follows directly from the well-kown fact that the principal values of r are real and nonegative. By its algebraic nature it leads directly to the inequality (6), which defines Lumley s realizability triangle. It is obtained in the actual (III br )-plane, with no need of transformation of the invariants or explicit analysis of the limit states at the boundaries of the realizability triangle. The novel algebraic proof reported in the paper helps to better grasp the classic geometric proof given in Lumley [9]. Many symmetric tensors with nonnegative diagonal values are encountered in the analysis of turbulent flows. Several, by no means exhaustive, examples are studied, using DNS data for plane channel flow, illustrating how anisotropy invariant mapping (AIM) within the realizability triangle can improve our understanding of their componentality behavior. Acknowledgements The authors are listed alphabetically. The present work was partly supported by the ANR project N um ERICCS (ANR 15 CE6 9).

References [1] Bernard PS, Berger BS (198) A method for computing 3-d turbulent flows. SIAM J Appl Math (3):53 7 [] Gerolymos GA, Vallet I (5) Mean-flow-multigrid for implicit Reynolds-stress-model computations. AIAA J 3(9):1887 1898 [3] Gerolymos GA, Vallet I (9) Implicit mean-flow-multigrid algorithms for Reynolds-stress-model computations of 3-D anisotropydriven and compressible flows. Int J Num Meth Fluids 61():185 19, DOI 1/fld.195 [] Gerolymos GA, Vallet I (16) Comparison of reynolds-stress r and dissipation ε tensors budgets in turbulent plane channel flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow [submitted 1 sep 16; preprint ArXiv (16) 169.651; http://arxiv.org/pdf/169.651v1] [5] Gerolymos GA, Vallet I (16) The dissipation tensor ε in wall turbulence. J Fluid Mech [doi:117/jfm.16.61; preprint ArXiv (16) 16.5; http://arxiv.org/pdf/16.5v3] [6] Girimaji SS (6) Partially-averaged Navier-Stokes model for turbulence: A Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes to direct numerical simulation bridging method. ASME J Appl Mech 73: 9 [7] Harris JW, Stocker H (1998) Handbook of Mathematics and Computational Science. Springer Verlag, New York [NY, USA] [8] Lee MJ, Reynolds WC (1987) On the structure of homogeneous turbulence. In: Durst F, Launder BE, Lumley JL, Schmidt FW, Whitelaw JH (eds) Turbulent Shear Flows 5, Selected Papers for the 5. International Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, Cornell University, Ithaca [NY, USA], aug, 7 9, 1985, Springer, Berlin [DEU], pp 5 66 [9] Lumley JL (1978) Computational modeling of turbulent flows. Adv Appl Mech 18:13 176 [1] Lumley JL, Newman GR (1977) The return to isotropy of homogeneous turbulence. J Fluid Mech 8:161 178 [11] Schumann U (1977) Realizability of Reynolds-stress turbulence models. Phys Fluids :71 75 [1] Segel LA (7) Mathematics Applied to Continuum Mechanics. SIAM, Philadelphia [PA, USA], (unabridged republication of the MacMillan 1977 edition) [13] Simonsen AJ, Krogstad PÅ (5) Turbulent stress invariant analysis: Classification of existing terminology. Phys Fluids 17:8813 [1] Speziale CG (1998) Turbulence modeling for time-dependent RANS and VLES: A review. AIAA J 36():173 18 [15] Stewart GW (1998) Matrix Algorithms I. SIAM, Philadelphia [PA, USA] [16] Tennekes H, Lumley JL (197) A First Course in Turbulence. MIT Press, Cambridge [MA, USA] [17] Yeo K, Kim BG, Lee C (1) On the near-wall characteristics of acceleration in turbulence. J Fluid Mech 659:5 19, DOI 117/ S111557 [18] Yeung PK, Pope SB, Lamorgese AG, Donzis DA (6) Acceleration and dissipation statistics in numerically simulated isotropic turbulence. Phys Fluids 18:6513