Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:16:52.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Kolmogorov's dissipation number and the number of degrees of freedom for the 3D Navier–Stokes equations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2019

Alexey Cheskidov
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Stat. and Comp. Sci., University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA (acheskid@uic.edu; mdai@uic.edu)
Mimi Dai
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Stat. and Comp. Sci., University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA (acheskid@uic.edu; mdai@uic.edu)

Abstract

Kolmogorov's theory of turbulence predicts that only wavenumbers below some critical value, called Kolmogorov's dissipation number, are essential to describe the evolution of a three-dimensional (3D) fluid flow. A determining wavenumber, first introduced by Foias and Prodi for the 2D Navier–Stokes equations, is a mathematical analogue of Kolmogorov's number. The purpose of this paper is to prove the existence of a time-dependent determining wavenumber for the 3D Navier–Stokes equations whose time average is bounded by Kolmogorov's dissipation wavenumber for all solutions on the global attractor whose intermittency is not extreme.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 2019 

Access options

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

References

1 Bahouri, H., Chemin, J. and Danchin, R.. Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations. Grundlehrender Mathematischen Wissenschaften,vol. 343 (Heidelberg: Springer, 2011).Google Scholar
2Cheskidov, A.. Global attractors of evolutionary systems. J. Dyn. Differ. Equ. 21 (2009), 249268.Google Scholar
3Cheskidov, A. and Dai, M.. Determining modes for the surface Quasi-Geostrophic equation. arXiv:1507.01075 (2015).Google Scholar
4Cheskidov, A. and Foias, C.. On global attractors of the 3D Navier–Stokes equations. J. Differ. Equ. 231(2006), 714754.Google Scholar
5Cheskidov, Al. and Friedlander, S.. The vanishing viscosity limit for a dyadic model. Phys. D 238(2009), 783787.Google Scholar
6Cheskidov, A. and Kavlie, L.. Pullback attractors for generalized evolutionary systems. Discrete. Contin. Dyn. Syst. B 20 (2015), 749779.Google Scholar
7Cheskidov, A. and Shvydkoy, R.. A unified approach to regularity problems for the 3D Navier–Stokes and Euler equations: the use of Kolmogorov's dissipation range. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 16 (2014a), 263273.Google Scholar
8Cheskidov, A. and Shvydkoy, R.. Euler Equations and Turbulence: Analytical Approach to Intermittency. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 46(2014b), 353374.Google Scholar
9Cheskidov, A., Dai, M. and Kavlie, L.. Determining modes for the 3D Navier–Stokes equations. arXiv:1507.05908 (2015).Google Scholar
10Constantin, P., Foias, C., Manley, O. P. and Temam, R.. Determining modes and fractal dimension of turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 150 (1985), 427440.Google Scholar
11Constantin, P., Foias, C. and Temam, R.. On the dimension of the attractors in two-dimensional turbulence. Physica D 30 (1988), 284296.Google Scholar
12Foias, C. and Prodi, G.. Sur le comportement global des solutions non-stationnaires des équations de Navier–Stokes en dimension 2. Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 39 (1967), 134.Google Scholar
13Foias, C. and Temam, R.. Some analytic and geometric properties of the solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations. J. Math. Pures Appl. 58 (1979), 339368.Google Scholar
14Foias, C. and Temam, R.. Determination of the solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations by a set of nodal values. Math. Comput. 43 (1984), 117133.Google Scholar
15 Foias, C. and Temam, R.. The connection between the Navier–Stokes equations,and turbulence theory. Directions in Partial Differential Equations, Publ. Math. Res., Center Univ., Wisconsin,pp. 5573 (Academic Press, Boston, 1987).Google Scholar
16Foias, C. and Titi, E. S.. Determining nodes, finite difference schemes and inertial manifolds. Nonlinearity (1991), 135153.Google Scholar
17Foias, C., Manley, O. P., Temam, R. and Tréve, Y. M.. Asymptotic analysis of the Navier–Stokes equations. Phys. D 9(1983), 157188.Google Scholar
18Foias, C., Manley, O., Rosa, R. and Temam, R.. Navier–Stokes equations and turbulence, Vol. 83 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
19Foias, C., Jolly, M., Kravchenko, R. and Titi, E.. A determining form for the 2D Navier–Stokes equations – the Fourier modes case. J. Math. Phys. 53(2012), 115623, 30 pp.Google Scholar
20Foias, C., Jolly, M., Kravchenko, R. and Titi, E.. A unified approach to determining forms for the 2D Navier–Stokes equations – the general interpolants case. Russ. Math. Surv. 69 (2014), 359.Google Scholar
21Grafakos, L.. Modern Fourier Analysis, 2nd edn, Graduate Texts in Mathematics,vol. 250 (New York: Springer, 2009).Google Scholar
22Jones, D. A. and Titi, E. S.. Upper bounds on the number of determining modes, nodes, and volume elements for the Navier–Stokes equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 42(1993), 875887.Google Scholar
23Kaneda, Y., Ishihara, T., Yokokawa, M., Itakura, K. and Uno, A.. Energy dissipation rate and energy spectrum in high resolution direct numerical simulations of turbulence in a periodic box. Phys. Fluids. 15(2003), 2124.Google Scholar
24Kolmogorov, A. N.. The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluids at very large Reynolds numbers. Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 30 (1941), 301305.Google Scholar
25Leray, J.. Sur le mouvement d'un liquide visqueux emplissant l'espace. Acta Math. 63(1934), 193248.Google Scholar