2.1. Dumbbell model

We primarily model polymer molecules using the FENE dumbbell model (Bird et al. Reference Bird, Curtiss, Armstrong and Hassager1987; Öttinger Reference Öttinger1996; Graham Reference Graham2018). With $\tau$ as the relaxation time of the polymer, $R_{{eq}}$ as the equilibrium root-mean-square (r.m.s.) end-to-end length, and $R_m$ as the maximum length, the dynamics of the end-to-end separation vector $\boldsymbol {R}$ in $d$ dimensions satisfies

(2.1)\begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d}\boldsymbol{R}}{\mathrm{d}t}=\boldsymbol{\kappa}(t)\boldsymbol{\cdot}\boldsymbol{R}-f(R)\,\frac{\boldsymbol{R}}{2 \tau} +\sqrt{\frac{R_{{eq}}^2}{\tau d}}\,\boldsymbol{\xi}(t), \end{equation}

where $\kappa _{ij}=\boldsymbol {\nabla }_j u_i$ is the velocity gradient at the location of the centre of mass of the polymer, $f(R)=(1-R^2/R_m^2)^{-1}$ defines the FENE spring force, and $\boldsymbol {\xi }(t)$ is $d$-dimensional white noise that accounts for thermal fluctuations. This noise would also make an appearance in the equation of motion for the centre of mass. However, its effect on the transport of the dumbbell is very small compared to the advection by the turbulent carrier flow and thus may be neglected. The motion of the centre of mass of the polymer is therefore treated like that of a tracer.

Given a Lagrangian time series of $\boldsymbol {\kappa }(t)$, (2.1) is integrated using the Euler–Maruyama method supplemented with the rejection algorithm proposed by Öttinger (Reference Öttinger1996), which rejects those time steps that yield extensions greater than $R_m(1-\sqrt {\mathrm {d}t/10})^{1/2}$. Since the velocity gradient fluctuates, the numerical integration of (2.1) does not present the same difficulties as in the case of a laminar extensional flow, and more sophisticated integration methods are not necessary. We have indeed checked that only a negligible fraction of time steps is rejected over a simulation.

Throughout this paper, we study the dumbbell model with $R_{{eq}}=1$ and $R_m=110$. The elastic relaxation time $\tau$ defines the non-dimensional Weissenberg number, $\mathit {Wi} \equiv \lambda \tau$, where $\lambda$ is the maximum Lyapunov exponent of the carrier flow. The Weissenberg number provides a non-dimensional measure of the elasticity of the polymer, with high-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers being easily extensible. We consider a wide range of $\mathit {Wi}$, from 0.3 to 40.

Note that while the dumbbell model (2.1) is used in most of this study, we do show in § 5 that our results also hold true for bead–spring chains.

2.2. Turbulent carrier flow

To study polymer stretching in a turbulent flow, we use a database of Lagrangian trajectories from DNS of homogeneous isotropic incompressible turbulence (at Taylor-microscale Reynolds number ${Re}_\lambda \approx 111$), generated at ICTS, Bangalore (James & Ray Reference James and Ray2017). The DNS solve the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, discretized on a periodic cube, using a standard fully-dealiased pseudo-spectral method with $512^3$ grid points. Time integration is performed using a second-order slaved Adams–Bashforth scheme. The motion of $9\times 10^5$ tracers is calculated using a second-order Runge–Kutta method for time integration; the fluid velocity at the location of a tracer is obtained from its value on the grid using trilinear interpolation. The velocity gradient $\boldsymbol {\nabla }\boldsymbol {u}$ is calculated along these trajectories and stored at intervals $0.11 \tau _\eta$, where $\tau _\eta$ is the Kolmogorov time scale (given below). These Lagrangian data provide the values of $\boldsymbol {\kappa }(t)$ for the integration of (2.1) along $9\times 10^5$ trajectories, allowing us to obtain good statistics of single-polymer stretching dynamics.

The Lyapunov exponent of the flow, required for defining $\mathit {Wi}$, is computed from these trajectories via the continuous $QR$ method, implemented using an Adams–Bashforth projected integrator along with the composite trapezoidal rule (for further details, see Dieci, Russell & Van Vleck Reference Dieci, Russell and Van Vleck1997). We find $\lambda =0.136/\tau _\eta$, which is compatible with previous simulations of isotropic turbulence (Bec et al. Reference Bec, Biferale, Boffetta, Cencini, Musacchio and Toschi2006). We also estimate the Lagrangian correlation time scales of strain rate and vorticity in the turbulent flow, $\tau _{S}$ and $\tau _\varOmega$, which serve as inputs to the Gaussian random model described in the next subsection. The rate-of-strain and rotation tensors are defined as ${\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}}=(\boldsymbol {\nabla }\boldsymbol {u}+\boldsymbol {\nabla }\boldsymbol {u}^{\rm T})/2$ and $\boldsymbol {\varOmega }=(\boldsymbol {\nabla }\boldsymbol {u}-\boldsymbol {\nabla }\boldsymbol {u}^{\rm T})/2$, respectively. The autocorrelation functions of $S_{11}$ and $\varOmega _{12}$ are calculated and found to display an approximately exponential decay. Integrating these functions yields the integral time scales $\tau _{S}=2.20\,\tau _\eta$ and $\tau _\varOmega =8.89\,\tau _\eta$, in agreement with previous numerical simulations at comparable $R_\lambda$ (Yeung Reference Yeung2001). The Kolmogorov time scale $\tau _\eta$ is determined from $S_{11}$, using isotropy, as $\tau _\eta =({15\langle S_{11}^2\rangle })^{-1/2}=3.72\times 10^{-2}$.

2.3. Gaussian random velocity gradient

One of the goals of this study is to compare the stretching of polymers in a turbulent flow to that in a flow with Gaussian statistics, in order to determine the effect of extreme-valued fluctuations of the turbulent velocity gradient. For this, we use a Gaussian random velocity gradient model to generate a time series of $\boldsymbol {\kappa }(t)$ for each polymer trajectory. Following Brunk, Koch & Lion (Reference Brunk, Koch and Lion1997), we take $\boldsymbol {\kappa }(t)={\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}}(t)+\boldsymbol {\varOmega }(t)$, with

(2.2a,b)\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}=\sqrt{3}\,A \begin{pmatrix} \frac{2\zeta_1}{\sqrt{3}} & \zeta_3 & \zeta_4\\ \zeta_3 & -\frac{\zeta_1}{\sqrt{3}}+\zeta_2 & \zeta_5\\ \zeta_4 & \zeta_5 & -\frac{\zeta_1}{\sqrt{3}}-\zeta_2 \end{pmatrix}, \quad \boldsymbol{\varOmega}=\sqrt{5}\,A \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \varpi_1 & \varpi_2\\ -\varpi_1 & 0 & \varpi_3\\ -\varpi_2 & -\varpi_3 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, \end{equation}

where $A$ determines the magnitude of the velocity gradient, and $\zeta _i(t)$ ($i=1,\dots,5$) and $\varpi _i(t)$ ($i=1,2,3$) are independent zero-mean unit-variance Gaussian random variables, with exponentially decaying autocorrelation functions and integral times $\tau _S$ and $\tau _\varOmega$, respectively. Therefore, $S_{ij}$ and $\varOmega _{ij}$ are Gaussian variables such that $\langle S_{ij}\rangle =\langle \varOmega _{ij}\rangle =0$,

(2.3)\begin{equation} \langle S_{ik}(t)\,S_{jl}(0)\rangle = 3A^2 (\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}+\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}-\tfrac{2}{3}\delta_{ik} \delta_{jl}) {\rm e}^{{-}t/\tau_S} \end{equation}

and

(2.4)\begin{equation} \langle \varOmega_{ik}(t)\,\varOmega_{jl}(0)\rangle = 5A^2 (\delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}-\delta_{il}\delta_{jk}) {\rm e}^{{-}t/\tau_\varOmega}. \end{equation}

As a consequence, $\langle \varOmega _{ij}\varOmega _{ij}\rangle =\langle S_{ij}S_{ij}\rangle$, which reproduces the relation $\nu \langle \omega ^2\rangle =\langle \epsilon \rangle$, where $\omega$ is the vorticity and $\epsilon$ is the energy dissipation rate (Frisch Reference Frisch1995). We take $\tau _S$ and $\tau _\varOmega$ to be the same as in the turbulent flow (§ 2.2), and generate $\zeta _i$ and $\varpi _i$ using the algorithm of Fox et al. (Reference Fox, Gatland, Roy and Vemuri1988). Furthermore, we set the coefficient $A= 2.538$ so as to obtain approximately the same Lyapunov exponent $\lambda$ as in the turbulent flow. As a consequence, the Kubo number ${Ku}=\lambda \tau _S$ is also nearly the same in the turbulent and Gaussian flows.

3.1. Large deviations theory: illustration for a renewing flow

The theory of Balkovsky et al. (Reference Balkovsky, Fouxon and Lebedev2000) and Chertkov (Reference Chertkov2000) is recalled here in terms of the generalized Lyapunov exponents, rather than the Cramér function of the strain rate; the two properties are equivalent and related via a Legendre transform (see Boffetta et al. Reference Boffetta, Celani and Musacchio2003). If $\boldsymbol {\ell }(t)$ is a line element in a random flow, then the Lyapunov exponent is defined as

(3.1)\begin{equation} \lambda = \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\left\langle\ln\left[\frac{\ell(t)}{\ell(0)}\right]\right\rangle, \end{equation}

where $\langle {\cdot }\rangle$ denotes the average over the statistics of the velocity field. The $q$th generalized Lyapunov exponent,

(3.2)\begin{equation} \mathscr{L}(q) = \lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\ln\left\langle\left[\frac{\ell(t)}{\ell(0)}\right]^q\right\rangle, \end{equation}

gives the asymptotic exponential growth rate of the $q$th moment of $\ell (t)$. The function $\mathscr {L}(q)$ is convex and satisfies $\mathscr {L}'(0)=\lambda$ (for more details, see e.g. Cecconi, Cencini & Vulpiani Reference Cecconi, Cencini and Vulpiani2010). If the flow is incompressible, then we also have $\mathscr {L}(-d)=\mathscr {L}(0)=0$, where $d$ is the space dimension (Zel'dovich et al. Reference Zel'dovich, Ruzmaikin, Molchanov and Sokoloff1984).

For the elastic dumbbell (see (2.1)), the p.d.f. of the extension has a power-law form, $p(R) \sim R^{-1-\alpha }$ for $R_{{eq}} \ll R\ll R_m$, with an exponent that satisfies

(3.3)\begin{equation} \frac{\alpha}{2\,\mathit{Wi}} = \frac{\mathscr{L}(\alpha)}{\lambda}. \end{equation}

Note that the curve $\mathscr {L}(\alpha )/\lambda$ and the straight line $\alpha /2\,\mathit {Wi}$ always intersect at the origin; it is the second, $\mathit {Wi}$-dependent point of intersection that determines the exponent. Furthermore, the curve and the line will be tangential at the origin when $\mathit {Wi}=1/2$ (because $\mathscr {L}'(0)=\lambda$). Now, because $\mathscr {L}(\alpha )$ is convex, increasing (decreasing) $\mathit {Wi}$ will cause the line of reduced (enhanced) slope to intersect the curve at an increasingly negative (positive) value of $\alpha$. Therefore, (3.3) implies that $\alpha$ is a decreasing function of $\mathit {Wi}$ that crosses zero at the critical value $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}=1/2$ and saturates to $-d$ for very large $\mathit {Wi}$ (because $\mathscr {L}(-d)=0$). In the limit $R_m\to \infty$, the p.d.f. of $R$ ceases to be normalizable for $\mathit {Wi}\geq \mathit {Wi}_{cr}$ (i.e. highly stretched configurations predominate), so $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$ is taken to mark the coil–stretch transition.

In principle, (3.3) may be used to determine $\alpha$ as a function of $\mathit {Wi}$. However, in general, calculating the function $\mathscr {L}(q)$ is very challenging. A useful approximation can be obtained in the vicinity of the coil–stretch transition by expanding about $q=0$: $\mathscr {L}(q)=\lambda q+\varDelta q^2/2+O(q^3)$, with $\varDelta = \int (\langle \zeta (t)\,\zeta (t')\rangle - \lambda ^2)\,{\rm d}t'$ and $\zeta (t)={\boldsymbol {R}}\boldsymbol {\cdot }\boldsymbol {\kappa }(t)\boldsymbol {\cdot }\boldsymbol {R}/R^2$. Substituting this quadratic expansion into (3.3) yields

(3.4)\begin{equation} \alpha=\frac{\lambda}{\varDelta}\left(\frac{1}{\mathit{Wi}}-2\right)\quad \mathrm{for}\ \mathit{Wi} \to \mathit{Wi}_{cr}. \end{equation}

Interestingly, in the limiting case of a time-decorrelated flow, (3.4) is accurate for all $\mathit {Wi}$, since $\mathscr {L}(q)$ is quadratic for all $q$ (Falkovich, Gawȩdki & Vergassola Reference Falkovich, Gawȩdki and Vergassola2001). Moreover, in this case, $\lambda /\varDelta =d/2$, which further simplifies (3.4) to yield

(3.5)\begin{equation} \alpha=\frac{d}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\mathit{Wi}}-2\right). \end{equation}

To obtain $\alpha$ for polymers in a general chaotic flow and for arbitrary $\mathit {Wi}$, we must measure $\mathscr {L}(q)$; due to statistical errors, this is especially difficult for values of $q$ that are negative or large and positive (Vanneste Reference Vanneste2010). Thus past studies have been restricted to values of $\mathit {Wi}$ sufficiently near $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$ so that $\alpha$ does not deviate far from zero (Gerashchenko et al. Reference Gerashchenko, Chevallard and Steinberg2005; Bagheri et al. Reference Bagheri, Mitra, Perlekar and Brandt2012). In order to illustrate the validity of (3.3) over a wider range of $\mathit {Wi}$, we now consider a renewing (or renovating) random flow, for which $\mathscr {L}(q)$ can be calculated easily (Childress & Gilbert Reference Childress and Gilbert1995). To generate this flow, the time axis is divided into intervals $\mathscr {I}_n=[t_{n},t_{n+1})$, with $t_n=n\tau _c$ and $n=1,2,\dots$. The velocity field changes randomly at the beginning of each interval and then remains frozen for the rest of the time interval. Thus the parameter $\tau _c$ sets the velocity correlation time. The velocity field is chosen to be a Couette flow, i.e. a two-dimensional linear shear flow, with a direction that is rotated randomly by an angle $\theta _n$ at the beginning of each time interval $\mathscr {I}_n$ (Young Reference Young1999, Reference Young2009). For $t\in \mathscr {I}_n$, the velocity gradient takes the form

(3.6)\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{\kappa}=\sigma\begin{pmatrix} -\sin\theta_n\cos\theta_n & \cos^2\theta_n\\ -\sin^2\theta_n & \sin\theta_n\cos\theta_n \end{pmatrix}, \end{equation}

where $\sigma$ is the magnitude of the shear, and $\theta _n$ is distributed uniformly over $[0,2{\rm \pi} ]$. The Lyapunov exponent as well as the generalized Lyapunov exponents for this flow can be calculated exactly (Young Reference Young1999, Reference Young2009):

(3.7a,b)\begin{equation} \lambda = \frac{1}{2\tau_c}\ln\left(1+\frac{\sigma^2\tau_c^2}{4}\right), \quad \mathscr{L}(q)=\frac{1}{\tau_c}\ln\left[P_{q/2}\left(1+\frac{\sigma^2\tau_c^2}{2}\right)\right], \end{equation}

where $P_{q/2}$ is the Legendre function of order $q/2$.

The solution of (3.3) for the renewing Couette flow is presented in figure 1(a) for several values of $\sigma \tau _c$ (this non-dimensional group is the only free parameter that remains after substituting (3.7a,b) in (3.3)). As $\tau _c$ is decreased towards zero, the results are seen to approach the prediction for a delta-correlated flow (3.5), shown by the dashed (black) line. We also expect the results for all cases of $\sigma \tau _c$ to be well approximated by (3.5) in the vicinity of the coil–stretch transition, $\mathit {Wi} = \mathit {Wi}_{cr} = 1/2$. This is indeed the case. In addition, for this renewing flow, (3.5) is seen to provide an excellent approximation for all $\mathit {Wi}$ greater than $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$. In general, one may expect the deviation of $\alpha$ from the prediction of (3.5) to be higher for small $\mathit {Wi}$ than for large $\mathit {Wi}$. This is because $\alpha$ is negative for large $\mathit {Wi}$, and the form of $\mathscr {L}(q)$ for negative arguments is strongly constrained by its convexity and the general properties $\mathscr {L}(0)=\mathscr {L}(-d)=0$ and $\mathscr {L}'(0)=\lambda$.

Figure 1.

(a) Slope of $p(R)$ as a function of $\mathit {Wi}$, as predicted by the large deviations theory, for the renewing Couette flow with various values of $\sigma \tau _c$. The dashed line is the prediction (3.5) for a time-decorrelated flow ($\tau _c = 0$) with $d = 2$. (b) Comparison of the large deviations theory (solid line) with Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations of the dumbbell model (markers), for the renewing Couette flow with $\sigma =10$ and $\tau _c=0.1$. The decorrelated flow (dashed line) is seen to provide a good approximation for $\mathit {Wi}$ near to $\mathit {Wi}_{cr} = 1/2$ and beyond.

In figure 1(b), the prediction of (3.3) is compared with the results of Brownian dynamics (BD) simulations of the dumbbell model (§ 2.1), with $\boldsymbol {\kappa }$ given by (3.6), for the case $\tau _c = 0.1$ and $\sigma =10$. The decorrelated-flow approximation is also shown for comparison (black dashed line). To obtain $\alpha$ from the simulations, we fit the stationary p.d.f. of the extension $p(R)$ with a power law over a range $R_{{eq}}\ll R\ll R_m$. Figure 1(b) shows excellent agreement between the large deviations theory and the simulations of the dumbbell model.

It is interesting to note that (3.3) may also be regarded as a tool for measuring the generalized Lyapunov exponents of a turbulent flow from the statistics of polymer extensions. Since $\alpha$ is a monotonic function of $\mathit {Wi}$, one could invert the $\alpha$ versus $\mathit {Wi}$ relation obtained from simulations and express $\mathit {Wi}$ in terms of $\alpha$ on the left-hand side of (3.3), so as to obtain an explicit formula for $\mathscr {L}(\alpha )$. However, even with this strategy, measuring the generalized Lyapunov exponents for large negative and positive orders will remain challenging. On the one hand, because $\alpha \geq -d$, this approach cannot yield the generalized Lyapunov exponents of order less than $-d$. On the other hand, it is computationally intensive to construct the tail of the p.d.f. of $R$ for small $\mathit {Wi}$, which corresponds to large positive values of $\alpha$ and hence to generalized Lyapunov exponents of large positive order.

3.2. Stretching in turbulence and the roles of mild and extreme strain rates

Let us now examine the p.d.f. of the extension for FENE dumbbells in homogeneous isotropic turbulence (§ 2.2). These results are presented in figure 2(a) (solid lines). A power-law range is apparent for $R$ between $R_{{eq}}$ and $R_m$ (vertical dashed lines), and the corresponding exponents $-1-\alpha$ are seen to increase past $-1$ as $\mathit {Wi}$ increases beyond $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$. (The $R^2$ behaviour for $R< R_{{eq}}$ is a consequence of thermal fluctuations.) This plot also shows results for a Gaussian random flow (dashed lines), constructed so as to match the turbulent flow in terms of its integral correlation times of vorticity and strain as well as its Lyapunov exponent $\lambda$ (see § 2.3). Of course, the higher-order generalized Lyapunov exponents of these two flows will not be the same (see Biferale, Meneveau & Verzicco Reference Biferale, Meneveau and Verzicco2014), and this leads to different values of the power-law exponent of the tails of $p(R)$ in figure 2(a). The corresponding values of $\alpha$ are shown in figure 2(b) (markers); the thin solid line corresponds to the result (3.5) for a three-dimensional ($d = 3$) time-decorrelated random flow. Though small, the differences between these results show a systematic dependence on $\mathit {Wi}$ that warrants further scrutiny.

Figure 2.

Stationary p.d.f.s of the end-to-end extension $R$ of polymers in turbulent and random flows. (a) Comparison of the stationary p.d.f. of $R$, for different values of $\mathit {Wi}$, in DNS of turbulent flow and a synthetic Gaussian flow, constructed with the same Lyapunov exponent $\lambda$ as the DNS, as well as the same Lagrangian correlation times for vorticity $\tau _\varOmega$ and strain rate $\tau _S$. (b) The power-law exponent of the tail of the p.d.f. of $R$ in (a) presented as a function of $\mathit {Wi}$. The exponents from DNS are compared with that from the Gaussian flow, as well as with the prediction for a three-dimensional time-decorrelated random flow in (3.5).

Consider first the effect of the non-Gaussian statistics of turbulence. Figure 2(b) shows that low-$\mathit {Wi}$ stiff polymers stretch more in a turbulent flow than in a Gaussian flow: the values of $\alpha$ are less negative in the turbulent flow (compare the filled and open markers), which implies a greater power-law exponent for $p(R)$. Therefore, encountering a higher frequency of extreme-valued velocity gradients aids in stretching stiff polymers. Surprisingly, this is no longer true when $\mathit {Wi}$ is increased beyond $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$. Rather, these moderately high-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers, which are relatively easy to stretch, are seen to be more extended in a Gaussian flow than in a turbulent flow. On further increasing $\mathit {Wi}$, all three flows in figure 2(b) eventually exhibit nearly identical values of $\alpha$; this is to be expected since $\alpha$ must attain the limiting value $-3$ regardless of flow statistics (see § 3.1).

Why are moderately high-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers stretched more in a Gaussian flow? To answer this, it is helpful to examine the p.d.f. of the rate of strain $s = \sqrt {S_{ij} S_{ij}}$ sampled by polymers. Figure 3(a) compares the distributions of $s$ for the turbulent and Gaussian flows. We see that the Gaussian flow has a comparative abundance of mild strain rate events to compensate for its lack of extreme-valued events. This suggests that high-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers that have long relaxation times are stretched more effectively by mild persistent straining rather than by strong but short-lived straining. In contrast, stretching small-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers that have short relaxation times requires strong strain rate events. These observations are consistent with a previous result by Terrapon et al. (Reference Terrapon, Dubief, Moin, Shaqfeh and Lele2004) for a turbulent channel flow. It was shown that stretching events at low $\mathit {Wi}$ are typically preceded by a burst of the strain rate; such bursts were not seen before stretching events at high $\mathit {Wi}$.

Figure 3.

Effect of non-Gaussian velocity gradient fluctuations on polymer stretching in turbulence. (a) Comparison of the p.d.f. of the strain rate sampled by polymers in DNS of turbulent flow with that in a synthetic Gaussian flow with same $\lambda$, $\tau _\varOmega$, $\tau _S$ as the DNS. The inset is a zoom that shows the near-peak behaviour of the distributions. (b) Illustration of the typical stretching dynamics of a $\mathit {Wi} = 0.8$ polymer in the DNS (upper plot) and Gaussian flows (lower plot). The grey shading shows when the polymer is stretched beyond a threshold $\ell = R_m/2=50$; each such time interval yields a value of $t_{str}$. (c) Distributions of $t_{str}$ for various values of $\mathit {Wi}$ in both DNS and Gaussian flows. The exponential tails of these p.d.f.s are associated with the time scale $T_{str}$. (d) Variation of $T_{str}$, the typical time spent by polymers in a stretched state, as a function of $\mathit {Wi}$, for both DNS and Gaussian flows. High-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers in the Gaussian flow are seen to persist in a stretched state for significantly longer than they do in the DNS.

If it is true that high-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymers are stretched primarily by mild persistent straining, then they should not only stretch more in a Gaussian flow but also remain in an extended configuration for a longer duration of time. To detect this behaviour, we carry out a persistence time analysis and compare quantitatively how long polymers stay stretched in the turbulent and Gaussian random flows. Interestingly, the concept of persistence, which arose out of problems in non-equilibrium statistical physics (Majumdar Reference Majumdar1999; Bray, Majumdar & Schehr Reference Bray, Majumdar and Schehr2013), has been used recently to study the turbulent transport of particles and filaments (Kadoch et al. Reference Kadoch, del Castillo-Negrete, Bos and Schneider2011; Perlekar et al. Reference Perlekar, Ray, Mitra and Pandit2011; Bhatnagar et al. Reference Bhatnagar, Gupta, Mitra, Pandit and Perlekar2016; Singh, Picardo & Ray Reference Singh, Picardo and Ray2022).

We begin by defining a polymer to be in a ‘stretched’ state if $R>\ell$, where the threshold $\ell = R_m/2$ is set well within the power-law range. The non-stretched state is then defined as $R \le \ell$. We have verified that varying the value of $\ell$ within the power-law range does not change our conclusions. With these states defined, we examine the Lagrangian history of each polymer, and detect the time intervals $t_{str}$ over which the polymer remains in a stretched state (see figure 3b). The distribution of this persistence time $p(t_{str})$ is presented in figure 3(c) for various $\mathit {Wi}$ and for both the turbulent and Gaussian flows. At large $t_{str}$, the distribution displays an exponential tail, $p(t_{str}) \sim \exp (-t_{str}/T_{str})$, from which we extract the persistence time scale $T_{str}$.

Figure 3(d) presents $T_\mathrm {str}$ for both flows and for various values of $\mathit {Wi}$. Clearly, polymers with $\mathit {Wi} > \mathit {Wi}_{cr}$ typically remain stretched for a significantly longer time in the Gaussian flow as compared to the turbulent flow. This is true even for very large $\mathit {Wi}$ for which the exponent of the power law of $p(R)$ is nearly the same in both flows (see the results for $\mathit {Wi} \ge 2$ in figures 2b and 3d). So though the probability of large extensions is the same, the nature of stretching is different: polymers experience many short-lived episodes of large extension in the turbulent flow, whereas such episodes are fewer but last longer in the Gaussian flow.

Our study in this section of the differences between polymer stretching in turbulent and Gaussian flows has led to interesting physical insights; however, it is important to recognize that these differences are rather minor. Indeed, the Gaussian flow seems to provide a remarkably good approximation to a turbulent flow for studying polymer stretching statistics. Further support for this conclusion is provided in § 4.3, where we compare the evolution of the p.d.f. of $R$ in the two flows, and in § 5, where we extend our study to the stretching of multi-bead chains.

Given that the p.d.f. and the Lagrangian temporal correlations (persistence) of $R$ are unable to distinguish between the Gaussian and turbulent flows – the results are qualitatively alike – it is natural to ask whether Eulerian spatial correlations of polymer extension would be able to do so. First, consider polymers with small to moderate values of $\mathit {Wi}$. Their relatively rapid elastic relaxation implies that they will stretch only near regions of the flow with large strain rates. In turbulence, intense straining is localized in sheets that wrap around vortex tubes – a markedly different spatial organization compared with the random distribution expected for a Gaussian flow. Therefore, one should be able to tell the two flows apart by examining the spatial distribution of the most stretched polymers. However, as $\mathit {Wi}$ is increased to large values, the correlation between the extension of a polymer and the instantaneous strain rate will weaken. Once stretched, a high-$\mathit {Wi}$ polymer will remain extended over long intervals of time, even as it is advected across regions of the flow with varying strain rates.

The chaotic nature of turbulent advection will, at high $\mathit {Wi}$, produce large gradients in the Eulerian field of polymer extension, $\hat {R}({\boldsymbol {x}})$. Such a field may be constructed from Lagrangian simulations by averaging over the extension of polymers in a given neighbourhood of $\boldsymbol {x}$, whereas in a continuum simulation (using e.g. the FENE-P model), $\hat {R}$ would be given by the square root of the trace of the conformation tensor. In the continuum context, the development of large gradients in $\hat {R}(\boldsymbol {x})$ leads to numerical instabilities – the high-$\mathit {Wi}$ problem – and special techniques are needed to simulate the field equations (Alves, Oliveira & Pinho Reference Alves, Oliveira and Pinho2021). Returning to our question, will these large gradients be produced in both the turbulent and Gaussian flows? We expect so. Recall indeed that when a passive scalar is mixed, the spatial concentration is highly intermittent with steep ramp–cliff structures, regardless of whether the carrier flow is Gaussian or turbulent (Shraiman & Siggia Reference Shraiman and Siggia2000; Falkovich et al. Reference Falkovich, Gawȩdki and Vergassola2001; Tsinober Reference Tsinober2009; Iyer et al. Reference Iyer, Schumacher, Sreenivasan and Yeung2018).

The above discussion of spatial correlations is limited to passive polymers. When feedback forces are present, the spatial correlations of the polymer extension field become closely coupled to those of the flow. At high $\mathit {Wi}$, this coupling results in the emergence of an elastic scaling range in the kinetic energy spectrum, accompanied by a corresponding power-law range in the spatial spectrum of polymer energy or $\hat {R}^2$ (Fouxon & Lebedev Reference Fouxon and Lebedev2003; Steinberg Reference Steinberg2019). While there is some disagreement on the precise values of the scaling exponents, the presence of this new scaling range (above the dissipation scale and below the Kolmogorov inertial range) has been reported by several studies, both numerical (Nguyen et al. Reference Nguyen, Delache, Simoëns, Bos and El Hajem2016; Valente, da Silva & Pinho Reference Valente, da Silva and Pinho2016; Rosti et al. Reference Rosti, Perlekar and Mitra2023) and experimental (Vonlanthen & Monkewitz Reference Vonlanthen and Monkewitz2013; Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Bodenschatz, Xu and Xi2021). Within this elastic range, the flow has been shown to be intermittent (Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Bodenschatz, Xu and Xi2021; Rosti et al. Reference Rosti, Perlekar and Mitra2023) – the velocity structure functions scale anomalously – but the high-order structure functions of the polymer extension field have not been investigated yet. Future work in this direction would be helpful in understanding how extreme events arise and co-evolve in the face of strong fluid–polymer coupling.

4.1. Two regimes of evolution

Thus far, we have been studying the stationary p.d.f. of $R$, attained after the polymers have spent enough time in the flow for their statistics to equilibrate. We now examine how the p.d.f. of $R$ evolves with time. Past work has shown that the p.d.f. relaxes exponentially to its stationary form, with a $\mathit {Wi}$-dependent time scale that exhibits a pronounced maximum at the coil–stretch transition (Celani et al. Reference Celani, Puliafito and Vincenzi2006; Watanabe & Gotoh Reference Watanabe and Gotoh2010). But what is the shape of the p.d.f. as it evolves? And how, if at all, does this evolution depend on $\mathit {Wi}$?

To answer these questions, we use our Lagrangian simulations to construct the p.d.f. of $R$ as a function of time, $p(R,t)$. We consider an initial state in which the polymers are in equilibrium with a static fluid. So we first evolve the polymers with $\boldsymbol {\kappa } = 0$ (in (2.1)) until the p.d.f. of $R$ attains the equilibrium distribution (Bird et al. Reference Bird, Curtiss, Armstrong and Hassager1987). We then ‘turn on’ the turbulent flow.

The evolution of $p(R,t)$ in the turbulent carrier flow is illustrated in figure 4. Interestingly, we find two qualitatively distinct regimes. At small or moderate $\mathit {Wi}$ (figure 4a), the p.d.f. is seen to quickly attain a power-law form with an exponent $\beta (t)$ that increases in time until it reaches its stationary value $\beta _\infty = -1-\alpha$. By fitting the distributions with a power law in the range $R_{eq} \ll R \ll R_m$, we find that $\beta (t)$ relaxes exponentially, i.e. $\beta _\infty -\beta \sim \exp (-t/T_\beta )$, as demonstrated in figure 4(b). The time scale $T_\beta$ is analysed in § 4.3.

Figure 4.

Two regimes of evolution of the p.d.f. of the polymer extension. (a) Depiction of the evolving-power-law regime, seen for small to moderate $\mathit {Wi}$, in which the tail of $p(R,t)$ evolves as $R^{\beta (t)}$. The thick black line with the time stamp $\lambda t = \infty$ represents the stationary p.d.f. of $R$. (b) The power-law exponent $\beta (t)$ is seen to approach its steady-state value $\beta _\infty = -1-\alpha$ exponentially. Here, $t_0$ is a reference time. (c,d) Depiction of the high-$\mathit {Wi}$ rapid-stretching regime, in which $p(R,t)$ does not evolve as a power law; rather, the p.d.f. quickly forms a local maximum near to $R_m$ (c), and then adjusts its shape directly to that of the stationary power law (d). These results are for the turbulent carrier flow.

The evolution at high $\mathit {Wi}$ is quite different and is shown in figures 4(c,d). Here, the polymers stretch rapidly and quickly produce a local peak close to the maximum extension $R_m$. Thus although a transient power law appears at very early times, it is quickly lost as the local peak at $R_m$ begins to dominate the distribution (figure 4c). The long-time equilibration of the p.d.f. occurs by the peak near $R_m$ first approaching its stationary value; then the stationary power law $R^{\beta _\infty }$ gradually emerges, starting near $R_m$ and then extending its range down-scale towards $R_{{eq}}$ (figure 4d).

These two regimes of equilibration are termed the evolving-power-law regime and the rapid-stretching regime. The former occurs for $\mathit {Wi} \lesssim 3/4$, while the latter occurs for larger $\mathit {Wi}$. Note that the crossover point, $\mathit {Wi} = 3/4$, is marked by a stationary p.d.f. with $\beta _\infty = 0$ that has neither a decaying tail at large $R$ nor a local peak near $R_m$; the evolution near $\mathit {Wi} = 3/4$ is a blend of the two regimes.

Does $p(R,t)$ evolve in a similar fashion in the Gaussian flow? Yes, and we find the same two regimes of evolution, as illustrated in figure 5. The rates of relaxation, though, are different in the two flows. A quantitative comparison of the equilibration time scales is presented in § 4.3.

Figure 5.

Comparison of the evolution of the p.d.f. of the polymer extension in the turbulent flow (solid lines) and the Gaussian flow (dashed lines), for (a) the evolving-power-law regime, and (b) the rapid-stretching regime.

4.2. The time-dependent power law: insights from a stochastic model

We now lend credence to the above characterization of the evolving-power-law regime by using a stochastic model to show that for $0\leq \mathit {Wi}\lesssim 3/4$, an evolving power law is a natural consequence of scale separation between $R_{{eq}}$ and $R_m$. The associated analysis also reveals the $\mathit {Wi}$ dependence of the relaxation time scale $T_\beta$.

We consider the Batchelor–Kraichnan flow wherein the velocity gradient $\boldsymbol {\kappa }(t)$ is a statistically isotropic, time-decorrelated, $3\times 3$ Gaussian tensor (Falkovich et al. Reference Falkovich, Gawȩdki and Vergassola2001). In terms of the scaled variables $r = R/R_{{eq}}$ and $\tilde {t}=t/2\tau$, the p.d.f. of the extension $p(r,\tilde {t})$ is governed by a Fokker–Planck equation (Martins Afonso & Vincenzi Reference Martins Afonso and Vincenzi2005; Plan, Ali & Vincenzi Reference Plan, Ali and Vincenzi2016)

(4.1)\begin{equation} \partial_{\tilde{t}} p={-}\partial_r[D_1(r)\,p]+\partial_r^2[D_2(r)\,p], \end{equation}

where

(4.2a,b)\begin{equation} D_1(r)=[8\,\mathit{Wi}/3-f(r)]r+2/(3r), \quad D_2(r)=2\,\mathit{Wi}\, r^2/3+1/3, \end{equation}

and $f(r)=1/(1-r^2/r_m^2)$. Note that while (4.1) is exact for the Batchelor–Kraichnan flow, an equation of the same form may be obtained for general turbulent flows by considering the Fokker–Planck equation associated with (2.1), assuming statistical isotropy, and modelling the stretching term à la Richardson, i.e. as a diffusive process. The associated extension-dependent eddy diffusivity should scale as $R^2$ since the extension remains below the viscous scale.

We assume a wide separation between the scales of the equilibrium and maximum extensions, i.e. $R_m \gg R_{{eq}}$, or $r_m \gg 1$. Further, we focus on the long-time evolution of $p(r,\tilde {t})$, which is characterized by distinct behaviours for small, intermediate and very large extensions. (i) In the range of extensions where thermal fluctuations dominate ($r<1$), the p.d.f. of $r$ assumes a quadratic profile (figure 2). (ii) For intermediate extensions, $1\ll r\ll r_m$, a power-law solution $r^{\beta (\tilde {t})}$ forms with an exponent $\beta (\tilde {t})$ that converges to its stationary value $\beta _\infty$. (iii) For extreme extensions, $p(r,\tilde {t})$ decreases rapidly as $r$ approaches $r_m$. We therefore introduce the ansatz

(4.3a–c)

Here, $\gamma$ is a threshold value of $r/r_m$, less than unity, beyond which the nonlinear part of the FENE spring coefficient $f(r)$ becomes non-negligible and terminates the power-law behaviour. The function $g(r,\tilde {t})$ is such that for $r = \gamma r_m$, we have $g(\gamma r_m,\tilde {t})=c(\tilde {t})\,(\gamma r_m)^{\beta (\tilde {t})}$, while for $r > \gamma r_m$, $g(r,\tilde {t})$ decreases faster than $r^{\beta (\tilde {t})}$ as $r$ approaches $r_m$. The latter assumption applies only if $\mathit {Wi} < 3/4$, for which $\beta _\infty < 0$. For larger $\mathit {Wi}$, our Lagrangian simulations show that the p.d.f. of $r$ develops a pronounced time-dependent peak between $\gamma r_m$ and $r_m$ (see figures 4c,d). Thus the subsequent analysis applies only for $\mathit {Wi} < 3/4$, which in fact corresponds to the regime in which the Lagrangian simulations exhibit an evolving power law.

The coefficient $c(\tilde {t})$ is determined in terms of the exponent $\beta (\tilde {t})$ through the normalization condition

(4.4)

Clearly, $I_1 = c/3$, while $I_2 = c[(\gamma r_m)^{1+\beta }-1]/[1+\beta ]$ for $\beta \neq -1$, and $I_2 = c \ln (\gamma r_m)$ for $\beta =-1$. For $r_m \gg 1$, $I_3$ is subdominant with respect to $I_1$ and $I_2$, and will be ignored. Thus solving (

) for $c$ yields

(4.5a)\begin{gather} c = \frac{1+\beta}{(\gamma r_m)^{1+\beta} + (\beta-2)/3} \quad \text{for $\beta \neq{-}1$}, \end{gather}

(4.5b)\begin{gather}c = \frac{1}{1/3 +\ln(\gamma r_m)} \quad \text{for $\beta ={-}1$}. \end{gather}

To calculate $\beta (\tilde {t})$, we observe that for $1 \ll r \ll r_m$, (4.1) can be simplified as

(4.6)\begin{equation} \partial_{\,\tilde{t}} p={-}\partial_r[(\tfrac{8}{3}\,\mathit{Wi}-1 ) r p]+\partial_r^2(\tfrac{2}{3}\,\mathit{Wi} \,r^2 p). \end{equation}

At steady state, we know that $p(r) \propto r^{\beta _\infty }$, which when substituted into (4.6) yields $\beta _\infty =2 -3/(2\,\mathit {Wi})$, in accordance with the large deviations theory for a time-decorrelated flow (see (3.5) and recall that $\beta _\infty = -1-\alpha$).

Now, substituting $p$ from (4.3b) into (4.6) results in

(4.7)\begin{equation} \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}c}{\mathrm{d} \beta}+c\ln r\right) \frac{\mathrm{d}\beta}{\mathrm{d}\tilde{t}}=c\,F(\beta,\mathit{Wi}), \end{equation}

with

(4.8)\begin{equation} F(\beta,\mathit{Wi})={-}(\tfrac{8}{3}\,\mathit{Wi}-1 )(1+\beta)+\tfrac{2}{3}\,\mathit{Wi}(1+\beta)(2+\beta). \end{equation}

The left-hand side of (4.7) contains $\mathrm {d}c/{\mathrm {d} \beta }$, which is evaluated using (4.5):

(4.9a)\begin{gather} \frac{\mathrm{d}c}{\mathrm{d} \beta} = c\left[\frac{1}{1+\beta}-\frac{(\gamma r_m)^{1+\beta} \ln{(\gamma r_m)}+1/3} {(\gamma r_m)^{1+\beta} +(\beta-2)/3}\right] \quad \text{for $\beta \neq{-}1$}, \end{gather}

(4.9b)\begin{gather}\frac{\mathrm{d}c}{\mathrm{d} \beta} =0 \quad \text{for $\beta ={-}1$}. \end{gather}

On taking the limit $r_m \gg 1$, the right-hand side of (4.9a) simplifies to $-3c/(\beta ^2-\beta -2)$ for $\beta < -1$, and to $-c\ln {(\gamma r_m)}$ for $\beta > -1$. By substituting these expressions for $\mathrm {d}c/{\mathrm {d} \beta }$ in (4.7) and considering that $r_m \gg r\gg 1$, we obtain the following leading-order equations for $\beta$:

(4.10a)\begin{gather} \ln(r)\, \frac{\mathrm{d}\beta}{\mathrm{d}\tilde{t}}= F(\beta,\mathit{Wi}) \quad \text{for $\beta \leq{-}1$}, \end{gather}

(4.10b)\begin{gather}\ln(\gamma r_m)\, \frac{\mathrm{d}\beta}{\mathrm{d}\tilde{t}}={-}F(\beta,\mathit{Wi}) \quad \text{for $\beta >{-}1$}. \end{gather}

Because $\ln {(x)}$ is a weak function of $x$ for $x\gg 1$, we approximate $\ln r$ in (4.10a), as well as $\ln (\gamma r_m)$ in (4.10b), as $\ln r_m$ to obtain

(4.11)\begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d}\beta}{\mathrm{d}\tilde{t}} \approx a\, \frac{F(\beta,\mathit{Wi})}{\ln r_m}, \end{equation}

with $a = 1$ for $\beta \leq -1$, and $a=-1$ for $\beta > -1$.

Being independent of $r$, (4.11) shows that $p(R,t)$ may be approximated (up to logarithmic corrections) by a time-dependent power law in the range $R_{{eq}} \ll R \ll R_m$.

Next, to reveal the long-time relaxation of $\beta$ to $\beta _\infty$, we substitute $\beta = \beta _{\infty }+ \beta '$ in (4.11) and linearize for small $\beta '$. Noting that $F(\beta _{\infty },\mathit {Wi}) = 0$ and that $\beta _{\infty } < -1$ for $\mathit {Wi} < \mathit {Wi}_{cr}$, we obtain

(4.12a)\begin{gather} \frac{\mathrm{d}\beta'}{\mathrm{d}\tilde{t}} ={-}\frac{2 \left({\mathit{Wi}_{cr}-\mathit{Wi}}\right)}{\ln r_m}\,\beta' \quad {\rm for}\ \mathit{Wi} < \mathit{Wi}_{cr}, \end{gather}

(4.12b)\begin{gather}\frac{\mathrm{d}\beta'}{\mathrm{d}\tilde{t}} ={-}\frac{2 \left({\mathit{Wi}-\mathit{Wi}_{cr}}\right)}{\ln r_m}\,\beta' \quad {\rm for}\ \mathit{Wi}_{cr} < \mathit{Wi} < 3/4. \end{gather}

In terms of dimensional time $t$, this implies an exponential relaxation of the power-law exponent,

(4.13)\begin{equation} \beta_{\infty} - \beta(t) \sim \exp({-}t/T_\beta), \end{equation}

with a time scale

(4.14)\begin{equation} T_\beta \sim \frac{\tau}{|\mathit{Wi}-\mathit{Wi}_{cr}|} \end{equation}

that diverges as $\mathit {Wi}$ approaches $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$.

Note that (4.11) actually has two fixed points: $\beta _\infty$ and $-1$. The latter, though, can be shown to be dynamically unstable, leaving $\beta _\infty$ as the only stable fixed point.

The prediction (4.13) of an exponentially relaxing power-law exponent is certainly in agreement with the results of our Lagrangian simulations (see figure 4b). The $\mathit {Wi}$ dependence of the relaxation time scale will be examined in light of (4.14) in the next section. But first, it is instructive to compare (4.13)–(4.14) against numerical simulations of the Fokker–Planck equation (4.1). Beginning from a distribution of coiled dumbbells, we solve (4.1) using second-order central differences and the LSODA algorithm (Petzold Reference Petzold1983) with adaptive time stepping (Wolfram Research 2019). We take $R_m = 10^3 R_{{eq}}$, thereby realizing a much larger scale separation than is practical in our Lagrangian simulations. The results are presented in figure 6.

Figure 6.

Evolution of the p.d.f. of the extension as predicted by numerical simulations of the Fokker–Planck equation for the Batchelor–Kraichnan flow (with $R_m = 10^3 R_{{eq}}$): (a) the evolving-power-law regime, (b) the rapid-stretching regime. (c) The time scale of relaxation $T_\beta$ of the evolving power-law exponent is shown as a function of $\mathit {Wi}$. The dashed line shows the variation predicted by the asymptotic analysis (cf. (4.13)).

The stochastic model exhibits the same two regimes of evolution as the Lagrangian simulations: the evolving-power-law regimes for $\mathit {Wi} < 3/4$ (cf. figures 4a and 6a) and the rapid-stretching regime for larger $\mathit {Wi}$ (cf. figures 4c,d and 6b). Within the evolving-power-law regime, we extract the exponent $\beta (t)$ and find that it does in fact evolve exponentially, in accordance with (4.13). The time scale $T_\beta$, obtained from a least squares fit, is presented as a function of $\mathit {Wi}$ in figure 6(c). The predicted divergence of $T_\beta$ at $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$ (see (4.14)) manifests in the simulations (which have a finite scale separation) as a prominent maximum of $T_\beta$ at $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$. Such a slowing down of the stretching dynamics at the coil–stretch transition was demonstrated by Martins Afonso & Vincenzi (Reference Martins Afonso and Vincenzi2005) and Celani et al. (Reference Celani, Puliafito and Vincenzi2006), but in regard to the equilibration of the entire p.d.f. of $R$. The behaviour of $T_\beta$ versus $\mathit {Wi}$ gives an alternative characterization of the same phenomenon.

4.3. Time scales of equilibration of $p(R,t)$ in random and turbulent flows

We now compare quantitatively the time scales of equilibration of $p(R,t)$ in the turbulent and Gaussian flows (Lagrangian simulations) as well as in the Batchelor–Kraichnan decorrelated flow (numerical solution of the stochastic model).

One time scale of interest is that associated with the evolving power-law tail, $T_\beta$. However, this time scale is relevant only for $\mathit {Wi} < 3/4$. So, to characterize the equilibration time for all $\mathit {Wi}$, we use the time scale associated with the entire p.d.f. of $R$. Martins Afonso & Vincenzi (Reference Martins Afonso and Vincenzi2005) and Celani et al. (Reference Celani, Puliafito and Vincenzi2006) showed, for random flows, that $p(R,t)$ approaches its asymptotic stationary form exponentially, with a time scale $T_P$ that displays a maximum near $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$. Watanabe & Gotoh (Reference Watanabe and Gotoh2010) confirmed this prediction in DNS of isotropic turbulence. We obtain $T_P$ from our simulations by fitting the evolution of the first moment of $p(R,t)$ (approximately the same value is obtained by fitting the higher moments).

Figures 7(a,b) present the equilibration time scales $T_\beta$ and $T_P$, respectively, for the turbulent flow (filled markers) and the Gaussian flow (open markers). The results for the time-decorrelated Batchelor–Kraichnan flow are also presented (line). We see that the qualitative variation of these time scales with $\mathit {Wi}$ is the same in all flows and exhibits a maximum near $\mathit {Wi}_{cr}$. In the case of $T_P$, a $\mathit {Wi}^{-1}$ asymptotic behaviour is visible (see the inset of figure 7b), in agreement with Martins Afonso & Vincenzi (Reference Martins Afonso and Vincenzi2005) and Celani et al. (Reference Celani, Puliafito and Vincenzi2006).

Figure 7.

Effect of non-Gaussian velocity gradient statistics on the time scale of evolution of the p.d.f. of the extension to its stationary form. (a) Comparison of the relaxation time scale $T_\beta$ of the power-law exponent of the tail of the p.d.f. of $R$ obtained from DNS (cf. figure 4b) with that from the synthetic Gaussian flow as well as the Batchelor–Kraichnan flow (simulations of (4.1)). (b) Comparison of the exponential relaxation time scale $T_P$ of the entire p.d.f. of $R$, for the three different cases: DNS, Gaussian flow and Batchelor–Kraichnan flow. The inset is a log-log plot of the same data that shows the $\mathit {Wi}^{-1}$ asymptotic behaviour.

On comparing the results for the turbulent and time-decorrelated flows, we see that the time correlation of the flow slows down the equilibration of the p.d.f. of $R$: both $T_\beta$ and $T_P$ are higher for the turbulent flow (figures 7a,b) than for the decorrelated flow. Therefore, by incorporating temporal correlations, the Gaussian flow is able to provide a better approximation to the turbulent flow, though the time scales are still slightly higher in the turbulent flow for most values of $\mathit {Wi}$.

These results show that one can obtain a good first approximation of the stretching statistics of elastic dumbbells in turbulence by using a correlated Gaussian velocity gradient; this is true not only for stationary statistics, as seen in § 3.2, but also for temporally evolving statistics. Is this outcome specific to the simple FENE dumbbell? This question is addressed in the next section, where we find that the Gaussian flow remains a good approximation even for multi-bead chains.

This study has shown how the distribution of extensions $p(R,t)$ evolves from an initial state in which the polymers are coiled and uniformly distributed in space. Alternately, the polymers may be localized initially, as when a concentrated polymer solution is injected into a turbulent bath of pure solvent. In the passive limit, the polymers will spread out like tracers. After an initial time, of the order of $\lambda ^{-1}$, the chaotic nature of the flow will ensure that the polymers forget their initial conditions. Moreover, since $\boldsymbol {\nabla } \boldsymbol {u}$ and $\boldsymbol {u}$ are weakly correlated in a turbulent flow (Pumir et al. Reference Pumir, Xu, Bodenschatz and Grauer2016), the stretching and advection of the polymers will proceed independently. So $p(R,t)$ will evolve – in the long term – in a manner similar to that described in this section; meanwhile, the blob of polymers will disperse, first à la Richardson (up to the large-eddy scale), and then in a diffusive manner (Davidson Reference Davidson2015).

The situation is altered considerably, however, when polymer feedback forces are significant. In one of the few studies involving an initially localized distribution of polymers, Vaithianathan et al. (Reference Vaithianathan, Rovert, Brasseur and Collins2007) have shown that elastic feedback forces locally suppress the small scales of the flow and thereby reduce the rate of dispersion. Therefore, the blob of polymers will spread more slowly in the presence of feedback forces. The mean strain rate within the blob will reduce as well, so $p(R,t)$ will also evolve more slowly than in the passive case. However, as the blob disperses and entrains pure solvent, the concentration of polymers will decrease and the effects of feedback will weaken. In general, the coupled dynamics of flow and mixing in a non-uniform polymer solution are not well understood and warrant further detailed investigation.