Abstract
The Cahn–Hilliard equation is a classic model of phase separation in binary mixtures that exhibits spontaneous coarsening of the phases. We study the Cahn–Hilliard equation with an imposed advection term in order to model the stirring and eventual mixing of the phases. The main result is that if the imposed advection is sufficiently mixing, then no phase separation occurs, and the solution instead converges exponentially to a homogeneous mixed state. The mixing effectiveness of the imposed drift is quantified in terms of the dissipation time of the associated advection–hyperdiffusion equation, and we produce examples of velocity fields with a small dissipation time. We also study the relationship between this quantity and the dissipation time of the standard advection–diffusion equation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
When \(\gamma \) is sufficiently small such a \(\lambda _N\) is guaranteed to exist.
References
Alberti, G., Crippa, G., Mazzucato, A.L.: Exponential self-similar mixing by incompressible flows. J. Am. Math. Soc. 32(2), 445–490 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1090/jams/913
Bedrossian, J., He, S.: Suppression of blow-up in Patlak–Keller–Segel via shear flows. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 49(6), 4722–4766 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1137/16M1093380
Bedrossian, J., Blumenthal, A., Punshon-Smith, S.: Almost-sure exponential mixing of passive scalars by the stochastic Navier–Stokes equations. (2019). arXiv:1905.03869
Berestycki, H., Kiselev, A., Novikov, A., Ryzhik, L.: The explosion problem in a flow. J. Anal. Math. 110, 31–65 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11854-010-0002-7
Berthier, L.: Phase separation in a homogeneous shear flow: morphology, growth laws, and dynamic scaling. Phys. Rev. E 63(5), 051503 (2001)
Bray, A.: Coarsening dynamics of phase-separating systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 361(1805), 781–792 (2003)
Cahn, J.W.: On spinodal decomposition. Acta Metall. 9(9), 795–801 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6160(61)90182-1
Cahn, J.W., Hilliard, J.E.: Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial free energy. J. Chem. Phys. 28(2), 258–267 (1958). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1744102
Chan, C.K., Perrot, F., Beysens, D.: Effects of hydrodynamics on growth: spinodal decomposition under uniform shear flow. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 412–415 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.412
Constantin, P., Kiselev, A., Ryzhik, L., Zlatoš, A.: Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow. Ann. Math. (2) 168(2), 643–674 (2008). https://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2008.168.643
Coti Zelati, M., Delgadino, M.G., Elgindi, T.M.: On the relation between enhanced dissipation time-scales and mixing rates. ArXiv e-prints (2018). arXiv:1806.03258
Drivas, T.D., Elgindi, T.M., Iyer, G., Jeong, I.-J.: Anomalous dissipation in passive scalar transport. arXiv e-prints (2019). arXiv:1911.03271
Elgindi, T.M., Zlatoš, A.: Universal mixers in all dimensions. Adv. Math. 356, 106807 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2019.106807
Elliott, C.M.: The Cahn-Hilliard model for the kinetics of phase separation. In: Mathematical Models for Phase Change Problems (Óbidos, 1988), volume 88 of International Series of Numerical Mathematics, pp. 35–73. Birkhäuser, Basel (1989)
Elliott, C.M., Songmu, Z.: On the Cahn–Hilliard equation. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 96(4), 339–357 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00251803
Fannjiang, A., Wołowski, L.: Noise induced dissipation in Lebesgue-measure preserving maps on \(d\)-dimensional torus. J. Stat. Phys. 113(1–2), 335–378 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025787124437
Fannjiang, A., Kiselev, A., Ryzhik, L.: Quenching of reaction by cellular flows. Geom. Funct. Anal. 16(1), 40–69 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00039-006-0554-y
Feng, Y.: Dissipation enhancement by mixing. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University (2019)
Feng, Y., Iyer, G.: Dissipation enhancement by mixing. Nonlinearity 32(5), 1810–1851 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/ab0e56
Hashimoto, T., Matsuzaka, K., Moses, E., Onuki, A.: String phase in phase-separating fluids under shear flow. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74(1), 126 (1995)
Hou, T.Y., Lei, Z.: On the stabilizing effect of convection in three-dimensional incompressible flows. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 62(4), 501–564 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.20254
Iyer, G., Xu, X., Zlatoš, A.: Convection-induced singularity suppression in the Keller-Segel and other non-linear PDEs. arXiv e-prints (2019). arXiv:1908.01941
Kiselev, A., Xu, X.: Suppression of chemotactic explosion by mixing. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 222(2), 1077–1112 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-016-1017-8
Kiselev, A., Shterenberg, R., Zlatoš, A.: Relaxation enhancement by time-periodic flows. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 57(5), 2137–2152 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1512/iumj.2008.57.3349
Läuger, J., Laubner, C., Gronski, W.: Correlation between shear viscosity and anisotropic domain growth during spinodal decomposition under shear flow. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3576–3579 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3576
Lin, Z., Thiffeault, J.-L., Doering, C.R.: Optimal stirring strategies for passive scalar mixing. J. Fluid Mech. 675, 465–476 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112011000292
Liu, J., Dedè, L., Evans, J.A., Borden, M.J., Hughes, T.J.: Isogeometric analysis of the advective Cahn–Hilliard equation: spinodal decomposition under shear flow. J. Comput. Phys. 242, 321–350 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2013.02.008
Miles, C.J., Doering, C.R.: Diffusion-limited mixing by incompressible flows. Nonlinearity 31(5), 2346 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/aab1c8
Minakshisundaram, S., Pleijel, Å.: Some properties of the eigenfunctions of the Laplace-operator on Riemannian manifolds. Can. J. Math. 1, 242–256 (1949). https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1949-021-5
Náraigh, L.Ó., Thiffeault, J.-L.: Bubbles and filaments: Stirring a Cahn-Hilliard fluid. Phys. Rev. E 75, 016216 (2007a). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.75.016216
Náraigh, L.Ó., Thiffeault, J.-L.: Dynamical effects and phase separation in cooled binary fluid films. Phys. Rev. E 76, 035303 (2007b). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.035303
Náraigh, L.Ó., Thiffeault, J.-L.: Bounds on the mixing enhancement for a stirred binary fluid. Physica D 237(21), 2673–2684 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2008.04.012
Pego, R.L.: Front migration in the nonlinear Cahn–Hilliard equation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 422(1863), 261–278 (1989)
Pierrehumbert, R.: Tracer microstructure in the large-eddy dominated regime. Chaos Solitons Fractals 4(6), 1091–1110 (1994)
Poon, C.-C.: Unique continuation for parabolic equations. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 21(3–4), 521–539 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1080/03605309608821195
Shou, Z., Chakrabarti, A.: Ordering of viscous liquid mixtures under a steady shear flow. Phys. Rev. E 61(3), R2200 (2000)
Thiffeault, J.-L.: Using multiscale norms to quantify mixing and transport. Nonlinearity 25(2), R1–R44 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/25/2/R1
Wei, D.: Diffusion and mixing in fluid flow via the resolvent estimate. arXiv e-prints (2018). arXiv:1811.11904
Yao, Y., Zlatoš, A.: Mixing and un-mixing by incompressible flows. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 19(7), 1911–1948 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4171/JEMS/709
Zlatoš, A.: Diffusion in fluid flow: dissipation enhancement by flows in 2D. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 35(3), 496–534 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/03605300903362546
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Charles R. Doering.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This material is based upon work partially supported by the National Science Foundation, under Grant DMS-1814147, and the Center for Nonlinear Analysis.
Appendix A. Dissipation Time Bounds of Mixing Vector Fields
Appendix A. Dissipation Time Bounds of Mixing Vector Fields
In this section, we prove Theorem 3.2. As in Sect. 3, we assume here that M is a smooth, closed, Riemannian manifold with volume 1, and \(\Delta \) is the Laplace–Beltrami operator on M. We also fix a divergence-free vector field \(u \in L^\infty ( [0, \infty ); C^{2}(M) )\), and let \(\theta \) be the solution to the advection–hyperdiffusion equation (1.3) with \(\alpha = 2\) on the manifold M, with mean-zero initial data \(\theta _0 \in \dot{L}^2(M)\).
The idea behind the proof of Theorem 3.2 is to divide the analysis into two cases. When \(\Vert \Delta \theta \Vert _{L^2} / \Vert \theta \Vert _{L^2}\) is large, the energy inequality implies \(\Vert \theta \Vert _{L^2}\) decays rapidly. On the other hand, when \(\Vert \Delta \theta \Vert _{L^2} / \Vert \theta \Vert _{L^2}\) is small, we use the mixing assumption on u to show that \(\Vert \theta \Vert _{L^2}\) still decays rapidly. The outline of the proof is the same as that of Theorem 1.2; however, the proof of the second case is substantially different. We begin by stating two lemmas handling each of the above cases.
Lemma A.1
The solution \(\theta \) satisfies the energy inequality
Consequently, if for some \(c_0>0\) we have
then
Lemma A.2
Let \(0 < \lambda _1 \leqslant \lambda _2 \leqslant \cdots \) be the eigenvalues of the Laplacian, where each eigenvalue is repeated according to its multiplicity. Suppose u is weakly mixing with rate function h. There exists positive, finite dimensional constants \(\tilde{C}\), \(\tilde{c}\) such that for all \(\gamma \) sufficiently small the following holds: If \(\lambda _N\) is an eigenvalue of the Laplace–Beltrami operator such thatFootnote 1
and if
holds, then we have
at a time \(t_0\) given by
If instead u is strongly mixing, then the analog of Lemma A.2 is as follows.
Lemma A.3
Suppose u is strongly mixing with rate function h. There exists a finite dimensional \(\tilde{C} > 0\) such that for all \(\gamma \) sufficiently small the following holds: If \(\lambda _N\) is an eigenvalue of the Laplace–Beltrami operator such that
and if (A.4) holds, then (A.5) holds at a time \(t_0\) given by
Finally, for the proof of Theorem 3.2 we need Weyl’s Lemma [see, for instance, (Minakshisundaram and Pleijel 1949)], which describes the asymptotic growth of the eigenvalues of the Laplace–Beltrami operator.
Lemma A.4
(Weyl’s Lemma). Let \(0 < \lambda _1 \leqslant \lambda _2 \leqslant \cdots \) be the eigenvalues of the Laplacian, where each eigenvalue is repeated according to its multiplicity. We have
asymptotically as \(j \rightarrow \infty \).
Momentarily postponing the proof of Lemmas A.1–A.3, we prove Theorem 3.2.
Proof of Theorem 3.2
For the first assumption, we assume u is weakly mixing with rate function h. Let \(\tilde{c}\), \(\tilde{C}\) be the constants from Lemma A.2. Note that the intermediate value theorem readily implies the existence of a unique \(\lambda _* > 0\) such that
Further, it is easy to see that \(\lambda _* \rightarrow \infty \) as \(\gamma \rightarrow 0\). Thus, for all sufficiently small \(\gamma \), Weyl’s lemma implies \(\lambda _{j+1}-\lambda _{j}=o(\lambda _j)\) as \(j \rightarrow \infty \). Hence, for all sufficiently large \(\lambda _*\), one can always find N large enough such that
Now choosing \(c_0=\lambda _N^2\) and repeatedly applying Lemmas A.1 and Lemma A.2, we obtain an increasing sequence of times \((t'_k)\), such that \(t'_k \rightarrow \infty \), \(t_{k+1}'-t_k'\leqslant t_0\), and
This immediately implies
Choosing
and using (A.10), (A.11), and (A.12) yields (3.2) as claimed.
The proof of the second assertion of Theorem 3.2 is almost identical to that of the first assertion. The only change required is to replace Lemma A.2 with A.3. \(\square \)
It remains to prove Lemmas A.1–A.3.
Proof of Lemma A.1
Multiplying (1.3) by \(\theta \), integrating over M, and using the fact that u is divergence-free immediately yield (A.1). The second assertion of Lemma A.1 follows from this and Gronwall’s lemma. \(\square \)
For Lemmas A.2 and A.3, we will need a standard result estimating the difference between \(\theta \) and solutions to the inviscid transport equation.
Lemma A.5
Let \(\phi \) be the solution of (3.1) with initial data \(\theta _0\). There exists a dimensional constant \(C_d\) such that for all \(t \geqslant 0\), we have
Proof
Subtracting (1.3) and (3.1) shows
Multiplying this by \(\theta (t)-\phi (t)\) and integrating over space and time give
On the other hand, multiplying (1.3) by \(\Delta ^2\theta \) and integrating over M give
Integrating the middle term by parts, using the fact that u is divergence-free, and integrating in time yields
for some dimensional constant \(C_d\). Substituting this in (A.14) and using the Cauchy–Schwartz inequality give (A.13) as claimed. \(\square \)
We now prove Lemma A.2.
Proof of Lemma A.2
We claim that our choice of \(\lambda _N\) and \(t_0\) will guarantee
Once this is established, integrating (A.1) in time immediately yields (A.5).
Thus, to prove Lemma A.2, we only need to prove (A.15). Suppose, for contradiction, the inequality (A.15) does not hold. Letting \(P_N :\dot{L}^2(M) \rightarrow \dot{L}^2(M)\) denote the orthogonal projection onto the span of the first N eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator, we observe
We will now bound the last two terms in (A.16).
For the last term in (A.16), we use Lemma A.5 to obtain
For the last inequality above, we used our assumption that the inequality (A.15) does not hold.
To estimate the second term on the right of (A.16), let \(e_j\) denote the eigenfunction of the Laplace–Beltrami operator corresponding to the eigenvalue \(\lambda _j\). Now
Using Weyl’s lemma (A.9) and the assumption (A.4), we see
for some constant \(C = C(M)\).
We now let \(C_1\) be the larger of the constants appearing in (A.17) and (A.18). Using these two inequalities in (A.16) shows
If we choose \(\tilde{c} \geqslant \sqrt{16 C_1}\), then by equation (A.6) the last term on the right is at most 1/16. Next, when \(\gamma \) is sufficiently small we will have \(t_0 \Vert u \Vert _{C^2} \geqslant 1\). Thus, if \(\tilde{C} \geqslant 16 \sqrt{2} C_1 \) and \(\lambda _N\) is the largest eigenvalue for which (A.3) holds, then the second term above is also at most 1/16. This implies \(1/8 > 1/8\), which is the desired contradiction. \(\square \)
The proof of Lemma A.3 is very similar to that of Lemma A.2.
Proof of Lemma A.3
Follow the proof of Lemma A.2 until (A.18). Now, to estimate the second term on the right of (A.16), the strongly mixing property of u gives
Above, the last inequality followed from interpolation and the assumption (A.4).
Now let \(C_1\) be the constant appearing in (A.17). Using (A.17) and (A.20) in (A.16) implies
If \(t_0\) is defined by (A.8), then the last term above is at most 1/16. Moreover, if \(\tilde{C} = 2^{9/2}\, C_1\) and \(\lambda _N\) is the largest eigenvalue of the Laplace–Beltrami operator satisfying (A.7), then the second term above is also at most 1/16. This again forces \(1/8 > 1/8\), which is our desired contradiction. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, Y., Feng, Y., Iyer, G. et al. Phase Separation in the Advective Cahn–Hilliard Equation. J Nonlinear Sci 30, 2821–2845 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00332-020-09637-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00332-020-09637-6