2.1 Non-monotonic viscosity relationship

The exact nature of the relationship between the dynamic viscosity $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$ and concentration $c$ will depend on the particular combination of fluids under consideration (Pankiewitz & Meiburg Reference Pankiewitz and Meiburg1999; Haudin et al. Reference Haudin, Callewaert, De Malsche and De Wit2016). It has been observed that there exists an alcohol–water pair for which viscosity $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c)$ can achieve a maximum at some intermediate local concentration composition $c$ (Manickam & Homsy Reference Manickam and Homsy1993, Reference Manickam and Homsy1994; Schafroth et al. Reference Schafroth, Goyal and Meiburg2007; Haudin et al. Reference Haudin, Callewaert, De Malsche and De Wit2016). In other words, the flow develops a potentially unstable region followed downstream by a potentially stable region or vice versa. In this scenario, the stable region acts as a barrier to the growth of fingers, thereby providing a mechanism to control the VF. Hence, a fundamental understanding of the finger propagation in flows with non-monotonic viscosity profiles is essential to develop methodologies aimed at controlling the growth of viscous fingers. In order to understand the influence of non-monotonic viscosity profiles, we focus on the non-monotonic viscosity–concentration model proposed by Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993).

In order to allow comparisons with earlier studies of rectilinear displacements, we employ the non-monotonic class of viscosity–concentration profiles used by Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993, Reference Manickam and Homsy1994) and Pankiewitz & Meiburg (Reference Pankiewitz and Meiburg1999). The viscosity–concentration profiles are sine functions modified through a sequence of transformations which is well-suited to the non-monotonic profiles of alcohol mixtures (Weast Reference Weast1990) and is given by the expressions

(2.14) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c)=\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}\sin (\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}), & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(2.15) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D701}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{0}(1-\unicode[STIX]{x1D702})+\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{1}\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

(2.16) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle & \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D702}=\frac{(1+a)c}{1+ac}, & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where

(2.17) $$\begin{eqnarray}\left.\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}\displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{0}=\arcsin (\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}),\\ \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{1}=\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}-\arcsin (1/\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}),\\ \displaystyle a=\frac{c_{m}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}_{m}}{c_{m}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}_{m}-1)},\\ \displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D702}_{m}=\frac{\unicode[STIX]{x03C0}/2-\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{0}}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{1}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{0}},\text{ and }\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{1}.\end{array}\right\}\end{eqnarray}$$

The transformations are defined in such a way that the endpoint values are $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(0)=\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$ , $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(1)=1$ and they attain a maximum value $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}$ at $c=c_{m}$ .

Figure 2.

Spatial variation of the viscosity relation (2.14) in a self-similar coordinate $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=x/\sqrt{t}$ for (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and (b) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ . The monotonic viscosity is $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c)=\exp (\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC})(1-c))$ .

The non-monotonic profile of dynamic viscosity is characterized by a family of curves described by three parameters, namely, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC},c_{m}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}$ . The parameter $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$ is the ratio of the endpoint viscosities, i.e. $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{1}$ , the traditional measure of stability in viscous fingering. In particular, for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}<1$ the flow is said to have a favourable viscosity contrast, and when $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}>1$ , the flow is said to have an unfavourable viscosity contrast. Figure 2(a,b) demonstrates the spatial variation of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c)$ for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ , for different values of $c_{m}$ . It can be noted that for $c_{m}>0.5$ , $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}$ is located closer to the displacing fluid, while it is near to the displaced fluid if $c_{m}<0.5$ . Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993) showed that the stability criterion for non-monotonic profiles (2.14) is determined by a parameter, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ , that relates the endpoint slopes of the viscosity profile which is defined as

(2.18) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \unicode[STIX]{x1D712}=-\left(\frac{\left.\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}}{\text{d}c}\right|_{c=0}+\left.\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}}{\text{d}c}\right|_{c=1}}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}+1}\right). & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

In particular, the system is stable if $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}<0$ , otherwise it is unstable. For the monotonic case, i.e. $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c)=\exp (R(1-c)),R=\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC})$ , we have $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}=R$ . In contrast, in the non-monotonic case the sign of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ depends on the magnitude of the gradient at the endpoints. Thus, in the non-monotonic case, the stability depends not on the endpoint viscosities but on the derivative of the viscosity with respect to concentration at the endpoints.

2.2 Linear stability analysis

In order to carry out the linear stability analysis, we introduce an infinitesimal perturbation to the base state, equation (2.12). Then, we linearize the equations (2.5)–(2.7) about the base state (2.12) and eliminate the pressure and transverse velocity disturbances by taking the curl of Darcy’s law and utilizing the continuity equation. The final form of the linearized perturbation equations is given by (Manickam & Homsy Reference Manickam and Homsy1993)

(2.19a,b ) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle M_{1}u^{\prime }=M_{2}c^{\prime },\quad \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}c^{\prime }}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}t}=M_{3}c^{\prime }+M_{4}u^{\prime }, & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $c^{\prime }$ and $u^{\prime }$ denote the perturbation quantities representing the concentration and the axial velocity component, respectively, and

(2.20) $$\begin{eqnarray}\left.\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}\displaystyle M_{1}={\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{2}+\frac{1}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}}({\mathcal{D}}_{x}c_{b}){\mathcal{D}}_{x}+\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}{\mathcal{D}}_{y}^{2},\quad M_{2}=-R(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}){\mathcal{D}}_{y}^{2},\\ \displaystyle M_{3}={\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{2}+{\mathcal{D}}_{y}^{2},\quad M_{4}=-{\mathcal{D}}_{x}c_{b},\end{array}\right\}\end{eqnarray}$$

${\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{n}=\unicode[STIX]{x2202}^{n}/\unicode[STIX]{x2202}x^{n},{\mathcal{D}}_{y}^{n}=\unicode[STIX]{x2202}^{n}/\unicode[STIX]{x2202}y^{n},n=1,2$ . Since the coefficients of the above equations are independent of $y$ , the disturbances are decomposed in terms of Fourier components in the $y$ direction,

(2.21) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle [c^{\prime },u^{\prime }](x,y,t)=[\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c},\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{u}](x,t)\text{e}^{\text{i}ky},\quad \text{i}=\sqrt{-1}, & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $k$ is the non-dimensional wavenumber. Using (2.21), the operators in (2.20) can be recast as

(2.22) $$\begin{eqnarray}\left.\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}\displaystyle M_{1}={\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{2}+\frac{1}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}}({\mathcal{D}}_{x}c_{b}){\mathcal{D}}_{x}-k^{2}\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\quad M_{2}=k^{2}R(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b})\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\\ \displaystyle M_{3}={\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{2}-k^{2}\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\quad M_{4}=-{\mathcal{D}}_{x}c_{b},\end{array}\right\}\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D644}$ is the identity operator and $R(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b})$ is a viscosity-related parameter given by

(2.23) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle R(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b})=\frac{1}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}}\frac{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}}{\text{d}c_{b}}=\frac{(1+a)(\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{1}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}_{0})}{(1+ac_{b})^{2}}\cot (\unicode[STIX]{x1D701}). & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

Here, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}$ and $c_{b}$ are the viscosity and concentration base states, respectively. It is easily verifiable that for monotonic viscosity–concentration profiles, $R(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b})=R=\ln (\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC})$ , the log-mobility ratio. Now, the linearized (2.19) can be recast as an initial boundary value problem,

(2.24) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}t}=\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}, & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}=M_{3}+M_{4}M_{1}^{-1}M_{2}$ , and $M_{i}$ values are as in (2.22). The associated boundary conditions are $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c},\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{u})\rightarrow 0,$ as $x\rightarrow \pm \infty$ and a random initial condition. Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993, Reference Manickam and Homsy1994) analyse the stability of (2.24) by using a quasi-steady-state approximation (QSSA) and compare linear stability results with nonlinear simulations. They have shown that the validity of the QSSA is questionable at short times where the base state changes rapidly. A fundamental problem with such an approach is that the concentration eigenfunctions span the entire spatial domain, i.e. the eigenfunctions of the operator ${\mathcal{D}}_{x}^{2}=\unicode[STIX]{x2202}^{2}/\unicode[STIX]{x2202}x^{2},x\in (-\infty ,\infty )$ are global modes. Hence, they do not provide an appropriate basis for streamwise perturbations (Ben et al. Reference Ben, Demekhin and Chang2002). As the present problem can have a small onset time ( $t\approx O(1)$ ) for instability, the QSSA as such is ill-suited to the task of resolving the early-time behaviour. To overcome this difficulty, Kim & Choi (Reference Kim and Choi2011) uses the self-similar property of the base state, i.e. they transform the $(x,t)$ coordinate to a self-similar coordinate $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ , $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=x/\sqrt{t}$ such that the base state, equation (2.12), becomes $c_{b}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709})=(1/2)[1-\text{erf}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/2)]$ . In the self-similar coordinate $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ , the streamwise operator,

(2.25) $$\begin{eqnarray}\boldsymbol{T}=\frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}^{2}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}^{2}}+\frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}{2}\frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}},\end{eqnarray}$$

satisfies the eigenvalue problem

(2.26) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \boldsymbol{T}e_{n}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709})=\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}_{n}e_{n}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709})=\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}_{n}a_{n}{\mathcal{H}}_{n}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}/2)\exp (-\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}^{2}/4),\quad n=0,1,2,\ldots , & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where ${\mathcal{H}}_{n}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709})$ is the $n$ th Hermite polynomial, $a_{n}$ are positive constants and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}_{n}=-(n+1)/2$ . The Hermite function based eigenfunctions, being localized around the base state, provide an optimal basis for streamwise perturbations. This suggests that the numerical simulation of the miscible viscous fingering dynamics in an unbounded domain is best done in the $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ coordinates. For this reason we have investigated the stability analysis of miscible viscous fingering in $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ coordinates. On rewriting (2.24) in transformed coordinates $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ , we have

(2.27) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \frac{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}}{\unicode[STIX]{x2202}t}={\mathcal{L}}(t)\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}, & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where ${\mathcal{L}}(t)=T_{3}+T_{4}T_{1}^{-1}T_{2}$ , and $T_{i}$ values are as follows:

(2.28) $$\begin{eqnarray}\left.\begin{array}{@{}c@{}}\displaystyle T_{1}={\mathcal{D}}^{\prime 2}+\frac{1}{\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}}\frac{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b}}{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}{\mathcal{D}}^{\prime }-k^{2}t\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\quad T_{2}=k^{2}tR(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b})\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\\ \displaystyle T_{3}=\frac{1}{t}{\mathcal{D}}^{\prime 2}+\frac{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}{2t}{\mathcal{D}}^{\prime }-k^{2}\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\quad T_{4}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\frac{\text{d}c_{b}}{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D644},\end{array}\right\}\end{eqnarray}$$

${\mathcal{D}}^{\prime n}=\unicode[STIX]{x2202}^{n}/\unicode[STIX]{x2202}\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}^{n},n=1,2$ and $R(\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{b})$ as in (2.23). Even though the two sets of equations (2.24) and (2.27) are mathematically equivalent, there is one restriction. It is observed that the transformation to the self-similar coordinates $(x,t)\rightarrow (\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ is singular at $t=0$ . Hence, we must restrict our evolution away from this singular limit $t=0$ . The omission of this singular limit is not practically important. Further, we have presented the relationship between the onset time and energy of the perturbations that is obtained from both the coordinates in appendix B.

2.3 Non-modal analysis

As the linear stability operator, ${\mathcal{L}}(t)$ , in (2.27) is non-autonomous, we have employed the non-modal analysis (NMA) described by Schmid (Reference Schmid2007). We first discretize the linearized disturbance system, equation (2.27), to get an initial value problem (IVP):

(2.29) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}}{\text{d}t}={\mathcal{L}}(t)\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}. & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

For a chosen time interval $[t_{p},t_{f}]$ , let $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ be a formal solution of (2.29), where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{f})=\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{p})$ , $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{p})$ being an arbitrary initial condition. Substitute this value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{f})$ in (2.29) to get a matrix-valued IVP,

(2.30) $$\begin{eqnarray}\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}t}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})={\mathcal{L}}(t_{f})\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f}),\end{eqnarray}$$

with initial condition $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{p})=\unicode[STIX]{x1D644}$ , where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D644}$ is the identity matrix. The operator $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ propagating the information from initial perturbation time $t_{p}$ (time at which the perturbation is introduced to the base state) to final time $t_{f}$ is known as the propagator operator. It can be noted that the existence and uniqueness of the solution to (2.29) can be established under the hypothesis that the map $t\rightarrow {\mathcal{L}}(t)$ is continuous from $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ to the set of $n\times n$ matrix over real numbers $\mathbb{R}$ (Vidyasagar Reference Vidyasagar2002). Further, assuming that $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}$ is square integrable over $\mathbb{R}$ , we wish to find the maximum perturbation energy gain, that is,

(2.31) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle G(t_{f}) & = & \displaystyle G(t_{f},k,Pe,R,\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FF}):=\max _{\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{p})}\frac{E_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}}(t_{f})}{E_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}}(t_{p})}\nonumber\\ \displaystyle & = & \displaystyle \max _{\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{p})}\Vert \unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}(t_{p})\Vert _{2}=\Vert \unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})\Vert =\sup _{j}s_{j}(t_{f}),\end{eqnarray}$$

where $s_{j}$ values are the singular values of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ , in other words, the eigenvalues of the self-adjoint matrix $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}^{\ast }(t_{p};t_{f})\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ can be found by singular value decomposition (SVD) of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ . Here $E_{g}(t_{f}):=\Vert g(t_{f})\Vert _{2}^{2}=\int _{-\infty }^{\infty }|g(w,t_{f})|^{2}\,\text{d}w$ .

3.1 Stability analysis for unfavourable endpoint viscosity contrast

Figure 3.

(a) Schematic of the spatial variation of viscosity for a diffused concentration profile and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}>1$ . (b) Viscosity profiles for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and various values of $c_{m}$ . As $c_{m}$ increases, the viscosity gradient in the unstable region steepens.

In this case, we have $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}>1$ , equivalently, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{1}<\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}$ . The spatial variation of the viscosity profile and the corresponding variation with concentration is given in figure 3(a,b), respectively. From figure 3 there develops a potentially unstable region, where the viscosity increases in the flow direction, followed in the downstream direction by a potentially stable region, where the viscosity decreases in the flow direction. In order to compare our results with the existing literature, we choose the following parameters: $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ . With this configuration, the viscosity ratio within the unstable zone grows $7.5$ times, while it decreases moderately by a factor $7.5/5=1.5$ within the stable zone.

3.1.1 Optimal amplification

The optimal amplification, $G(t)$ , is the maximum possible energy that a perturbation can have, incorporating all possible initial conditions. From $G(t)$ , the onset of instability can be obtained as follows:

(3.1) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle t_{on}=\min \left\{t>0:\frac{\text{d}G(t)}{\text{d}t}=0\right\}. & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

Figure 4(a) shows the optimal amplification, $G(t)$ (see (2.31)), for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and initial perturbation time $t_{p}=0.01$ . The initial perturbation time $t_{p}$ is chosen to be at least one order of magnitude smaller than the onset of instability, $t_{on}$ . We have shown in figure 4(b) that the onset times, $t_{on}$ , for $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ are found approximately to be $5.11,2.17$ and $0.63$ , respectively. In other words, we have found that for the parameters considered, $t_{on}$ is a decreasing function of $c_{m}$ . Further, the energy is most amplified for $c_{m}=0.75$ in comparison to $c_{m}=0.25$ and $0.5$ , which is in contrast to the findings of Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993) and Kim & Choi (Reference Kim and Choi2011). These authors have shown that the instabilities set in the unstable region and propagate downstream into the stable barrier. Figure 3(a) illustrates that the concentration $c_{m}$ , at which the viscosity reaches a maximum, determines the length of the stable zone. Further, the larger the value of $c_{m}$ , the longer the stable zone and consequently its effectiveness in stunting the downstream propagation of the viscous fingers.

Figure 4.

(a) Optimal amplification, $G(t)$ , for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ for three different values of $c_{m}$ . The black dots (●) denote the onset of instability, $t_{on}$ . (b) Onset time, $t_{on}$ , is monotonically decreasing with increase in $c_{m}$ .

Table 1.

The unstable and stable interval for $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC},\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m})=(5,7.5)$ and $(0.5,2)$ (see figures 3 a and 7 a). The initial unperturbed interface is located at $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=0$ . In each case the left-hand endpoints are obtained when the value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$ is equal to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c=1)=1$ , and similarly the right-hand endpoints are obtained when the value is equal to $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}(c=0)=\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$ , with an absolute error of order $O(10^{-12})$ . It is evident that the stable region is increasing with an increase in the value of $c_{m}$ .

From table 1 and figure 3(b), it can be observed that although with the increase in $c_{m}$ one has a larger stable zone, the corresponding viscosity gradient is larger. In this light, the present contrasting results from NMA can be explained from the structure of the viscosity profiles. For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ , figure 3(b) depicts that as $c_{m}$ increases the resident fluid experiences an increase in viscosity. This enhances the energy of the perturbations and thus results in a early onset of instability. Note that the values of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ (as defined in (2.18)) for $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ are $-2.12,3.58$ and $14.05$ , respectively. This implies that there is a strong influence of the concentration gradient with respect to concentration in the non-monotonic viscosity profiles. Hence, it is shown that the endpoint viscosity gradient, along with the unfavourable endpoint viscosity contrast, have a substantial effect on the growth rate. The NMA findings are also supported by the findings of Wang (Reference Wang2014) on the radial miscible flow in a Hele-Shaw cell. Wang (Reference Wang2014) found that the time evolution of the interfacial length (which is a global measurement of the onset of fingering) suggests that for an unfavourable endpoint viscosity a higher value of $c_{m}$ leads to a more unstable interface at early times.

Figure 5.

For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5,k=0.2$ , (a1–a3) the optimal initial perturbations, $c_{p}^{\prime }=V_{opt}\cos (ky)$ , and (b1–b3) the corresponding evolved state, $c^{\prime }=U_{opt}\cos (ky)$ . From top to bottom $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ . Here the time integration intervals are $(\text{i})=[0.01,0.5]$ , $(\text{ii})=[0.01,4]$ and $(\text{iii})=[0.01,10]$ . Both $c_{p}^{\prime }$ and $c^{\prime }$ are normalized with respect to sup-norm. The dashed lines correspond to the negative contours and the continuous lines correspond to the positive contours. The vertical dashed lines show the initial fluid–fluid interface. The concentration contours shown: (a1,b1) $0.02$ – $0.7$ with eight equal increments, (a2,b2) $0.01$ – $0.6$ with five equal increments, (a3,b3) span from $0.01$ to $0.8$ with four equal increments.

3.1.2 Structure of optimal perturbations

For miscible displacements with a non-monotonic viscosity–concentration profile, Bacri et al. (Reference Bacri, Rakotomalala, Dalin and Wouméni1992a ), Bacri, Salin & Yortsos (Reference Bacri, Salin and Yortsos1992b ) and Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993, Reference Manickam and Homsy1994) have found that even for a favourable (unfavourable) endpoint viscosity contrast the displacement can be unstable (stable). Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993, Reference Manickam and Homsy1994) analyse the physical mechanism of the stability of the flow, in terms of the structure of the vorticity and streamfunction fields. It is observed that the vorticity field has a quadruple structure which can give rise to dynamics fundamentally different from the dipole structure (see figure 5 of Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993) and figure 7 of Hota et al. (Reference Hota, Pramanik and Mishra2015a )) that dominates the evolution of monotonic displacements.

The structure of the optimal perturbations can be analysed by the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the propagator matrix $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ . The SVD of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ at a given final time, $t_{f}$ , is given by

(3.2) $$\begin{eqnarray}\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})=\boldsymbol{U}_{[t_{p};t_{f}]}\unicode[STIX]{x1D72E}_{[t_{p};t_{f}]}\boldsymbol{V}_{[t_{p};t_{f}]}^{\ast },\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\boldsymbol{U}$ and $\boldsymbol{V}$ are the right and left singular values of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F7}(t_{p};t_{f})$ and the superscript star ( $\ast$ ) denotes the Hermitian.

For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5,k=0.2$ and $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ , figure 5(a1–a3, b1–b3) shows the contours of initial optimal perturbations, $c_{p}^{\prime }=V_{opt}\cos (ky)$ , and corresponding evolved state, $c^{\prime }=U_{opt}\cos (ky)$ , respectively. The vertical dashed line shows the initial interface position, which is $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=0$ in all our simulations. It is observed that displacements characterized by non-monotonic viscosity profiles typically lead to quadruple structures of the flow field, as opposed to the dipoles observed for monotonic profiles (Manickam & Homsy Reference Manickam and Homsy1993; Hota et al. Reference Hota, Pramanik and Mishra2015a ). It is evident from figure 5(a1–a3) that the optimal perturbations have two columns of isocontours, and the contours on the right of the dashed line, being situated in the stable region, have a larger impact than the column of contours on the left.

Figure 5(b1–b3) illustrates the optimal output associated with the initial optimal perturbations shown in figure 5(a1–a3). In figure 5(b1–b3), the left column contours are destabilizing as they move low viscosity fluid to the high viscosity regions, in the direction of the flow, and move high viscosity fluid to the region of lower viscosity, against the direction of the flow. On the other hand, the right column contours do exactly the opposite. Formation of quadruple contours for the perturbations is an unique feature of non-monotonic viscosity profiles. It is observed from figure 5(b1–b3) that the optimal perturbations are spread farther in the backward than in the forward direction and this spreading is more for the higher value of $c_{m}$ , i.e. 0.75. The flow is unstable if the destabilizing left columns are stronger than the right column contours, otherwise it is stable. Further, as the value of maximum concentration, $c_{m}$ , increases, the diffusive region connecting the perturbations and the resident fluid experiences an increase in viscosity. As a result, the left column contours diminish, which causes early instability with an increase in $c_{m}$ . Thus, the onset time, $t_{on}$ , of a flow with a non-monotonic viscosity–concentration profile and with an unfavourable endpoint viscosity contrast is a monotonically decreasing function of $c_{m}$ due to the relative strengths of the left and right columns of the isocontours. These results are consistent with the findings of Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993) based on the vorticity perturbation equations. Thus, the optimal perturbation obtained from NMA captured the non-monotonic viscosity–concentration effect without invoking the vorticity perturbation equations.

3.1.3 Comparison with nonlinear simulations

Here, we compare our NMA results with nonlinear simulations. As the flow is two-dimensional, we use a streamfunction formulation, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D713}$ . Further, writing the unknown variables as $\unicode[STIX]{x1D713}^{\prime }(x,y,t)=\unicode[STIX]{x1D713}(x,y,t)-\unicode[STIX]{x1D713}_{b}(x,t),c^{\prime }(x,y,t)=c(x,y,t)-c_{b}(x,t)$ , we solve the nonlinear equations (2.5)–(2.7) using the Fourier pseduospectral method proposed by Tan & Homsy (Reference Tan and Homsy1988) and the detailed algorithm found in Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1994) and Pramanik, Hota & Mishra (Reference Pramanik, Hota and Mishra2015). The non-dimensional width of the computational domain is $Pe=UH/D$ , the Péclet number and the corresponding length of the domain is $A\cdot Pe$ . Here, $A=L/H$ is the aspect ratio and $L,H$ the dimensional length and width of the computational domain, respectively. The length of the computational domain is taken large enough so that we can accommodate the viscous fingers. To obtain the nonlinear growth of perturbations, the computational domain is chosen to be $Pe=512$ and $A=4$ with $1024\times 256$ grid points for discretizing the domain. The time integration is performed by taking time step $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}t=10^{-3}$ . A convergence study has been carried out by taking spatial discretization steps $(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}x,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}y)=(4,4)$ , $(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}x,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}y)=(2,4)$ and $(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}x,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}y)=(2,2)$ in a computational domain $[0,2048]\times [0,512]$ . The relative error between the transversely averaged concentration profiles $\bar{c}(x,t)=(1/Pe)\int _{0}^{Pe}c(x,y,t,\text{d}y)$ has been calculated corresponding to both the simulations, and it is found that with respect to Euclidean norm, $\Vert \cdot \Vert ^{2}=\sum _{j=1}^{n}(\cdot )^{2}$ , the maximum relative error is of order $O(10^{-2})$ . To get optimal results, $(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}x,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}y)=(4,4)$ , with $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}t=0.1$ , has been chosen.

Figure 6.

Finger propagation for the set of non-monotonic profiles with $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and (a) $c_{m}=0.25$ , (b) $c_{m}=0.5$ and (c) $c_{m}=0.75$ . All the simulations have aspect ratio $A=4$ . The concentration contours shown span from $c^{\prime }=0.1$ to $c^{\prime }=0.9$ with six equal increments.

Figure 6 shows the NLS results for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and various values of maximum concentration, $c_{m}$ . It is observed that at time $t=300$ the fingers are visible for $c_{m}=0.75$ , whereas the times at which the fingers are visible for $c_{m}=0.5$ and $c_{m}=0.25$ are $t=340$ and $400$ , respectively. From this important visual observation it can clearly be noted that the onset of the fingers is early for the higher value of $c_{m}$ in comparison to smaller values of $c_{m}$ , or in other words, onset of fingers is a monotonically decreasing function of $c_{m}$ . These results are consistent with the onset of instability in the linear regime determined from NMA (see figure 4). Further, in contrast to the monotonic viscosity–concentration profiles, in the case of non-monotonic viscosity–concentration profiles, the fingers propagate faster in the backward direction than in the forward direction. This is illustrated in figure 6 where the fingers have spread farther to the left than to the right, especially for the case $c_{m}=0.75$ . This result is consistent with the nonlinear simulations of Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1994), who refer to this phenomenon as reverse fingering.

The mechanism of reverse fingering, as shown in figure 6, can be explained from the spatial variation of viscosity, which is shown in figure 3(b). For flow systems with such profiles, there would develop a potentially unstable region, where the viscosity increases in the flow direction, followed by a potentially stable region in the downstream direction, where the viscosity decreases in the flow direction. Thus, for non-monotonic displacements the stable zone of the viscosity profiles acts as a barrier for the forward growth of fingers, which, when viewed in a reference moving with the front, tend to propagate backwards. This feature of reverse fingering in the non-monotonic displacement is also illustrated in the analysis of the structure of optimal perturbations, shown in figure 5. Thus, it can be concluded that NMA successfully captures the early evolution of perturbations which is well aligned with results of NLS.

3.2 Stability analysis for favourable endpoint viscosity contrast

In this case, we have $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}<1$ , equivalently, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{1}>\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{2}$ : the displacing fluid is more viscous than the displaced fluid. The spatial variation of the viscosity profile and the corresponding variation with concentration are shown in figures 7(a) and 7(b), respectively. The flow systems as illustrated in figure 7 are said to have a favourable viscosity contrast, as a high viscosity fluid displaces a low viscosity fluid. As before, in order to compare our results with the existing literature, we use the following parameters: $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ and $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ . With this configuration, the flow has a viscosity ratio of $2$ across the weaker unstable zone and a viscosity ratio of $2/0.5=4$ across the stable zone.

Figure 7.

For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ , (a) the spatial variation of the viscosity profile, (b) viscosity–concentration profiles for $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ . Across the unstable zone, viscosity increases by a factor $2$ , while it decreases by a factor of $4$ through the stable zone. However, the strength of the (un)stable zone depends on $\text{d}\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}/\text{d}c$ , not on the endpoint viscosity ratio. Thus, for the same values of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}$ , different $c_{m}$ determine the strength of the two zones.

3.2.1 Optimal amplification

For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5,k=0.06$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ , figure 8 demonstrates the influence of the position of maximal concentration, $c_{m}$ , on the optimal amplification, $G(t)$ . For the present case, the stability parameter $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ has values $-10.81,-1.68$ and $5.29$ for $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ , respectively. For unfavourable viscosity contrast, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}>0$ represents the slope of the viscosity profile at the point $c=1$ being steeper than at the point $c=0$ , whereas $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}<0$ denotes the reverse scenario. From table 1, it can be observed that the length of the stable interval is decided by the parameter $c_{m}$ , i.e. longer stable zones with larger values of $c_{m}$ . This affects the delay in the onset time, $t_{on}$ , as $c_{m}$ increases. For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5$ , $c_{m}=0.25$ and $0.75$ , an important feature resembling the secondary instability of the optimal amplification $G(t)$ is observed. Figure 8(a) illustrates that initially there is an influence of steeper viscosity profile (see figure 7 b) which helps to amplify the energy, but due to the weak unstable region, this energy is only sustained for a transient period. However, when diffusion becomes weaker and the isocontours in the unstable zone overcome the stable zone, then there is a growth of energy which sets the instability and we call this a secondary instability. This temporal evolution of the perturbation was not observed for $c_{m}=0.5$ . Further, it is noted that the energy amplification is lowest for $c_{m}=0.5$ in comparison to $c_{m}=0.25$ and $0.75$ . The reason for this secondary instability is due to the steep viscosity gradient at either end at $c=0$ or $c=1$ for $c_{m}=0.25$ and $0.75$ . This also shows that the value of $c_{m}$ alone is not sufficient to describe the early-time temporal evolution of the disturbances.

Figure 8.

For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ , (a) optimal amplification, $G(t)$ , for $k=0.06$ with three different values of $c_{m}$ . The black dots (●) denote the onset of instability, $t_{on}$ . (b) Onset time, $t_{on}$ , is monotonically increasing with an increase in $c_{m}$ .

Figure 9.

For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5,k=0.06$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ , (a–c) the evolution of the optimal initial perturbations, $c_{p}^{\prime }=V_{opt}\cos (ky)$ , for $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ , respectively. Here the time integration intervals are $(\text{i})=[0.01,50],(\text{ii})=[0.01,100]$ and $(\text{iii})=[0.01,150]$ . The concentration contours shown span from its minimum to maximum values in five equal increments. The initial interface is located at $\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}=0$ . Black lines correspond to negative contours and grey lines correspond to positive contours. (d) The spatial variation of viscosity for the same values of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}$ .

3.3 Comparison with quasi-steady-state modal analysis

In this section, we present the stability analysis based on the quasi-steady-state approximation in the self-similar $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ -domain, which we abbreviate as SS-QSSA (Pramanik & Mishra Reference Pramanik and Mishra2013). Kim & Choi (Reference Kim and Choi2011) used QSSA2 for quasi-steady analysis in the $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ domain. In the SS-QSSA approach, the space and time dependences can be separated by fixing the time at $t_{0}$ and the disturbance quantities from equation (2.21) are assumed to be

(3.3) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle (\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c},\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{u})(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)=(\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}},\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{u}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}})(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709})\text{e}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})t}, & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})$ is the perturbation (quasi-steady) growth rate at the time $t_{0}$ , and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{u}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}$ are the concentration and velocity perturbations, respectively. Substituting (3.3) into (2.27)–(2.28) produces an eigenvalue problem for eigenvalues $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$ and eigenfunctions $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}$ , where ${\mathcal{L}}$ is as in (2.27). It is noted that here we are presenting the temporal stability analysis, i.e. the non-dimensional wavenumber $k$ , as a real number, whereas, the growth rate, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})$ , can be allowed to be a complex number. Numerically, the temporal stability analysis has been performed by computing the leading eigenvalues, i.e. $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})=\max \text{Re}[\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}({\mathcal{L}})]$ , the spectral abscissa of the stability matrix ${\mathcal{L}}(t_{0})$ . Here $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6EC}$ denotes the set of all discrete eigenvalues of ${\mathcal{L}}$ . It is observed that the SS-QSSA eigenfunctions are concentrated around the base state. However, these concentration eigenfunctions fail to capture the quadruple structure and, consequently, only predict the temporal growth of disturbances after an initial transient period.

Figure 10.

Quasi-steady eigenfunctions, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}$ , of the linearized operator ${\mathcal{L}}$ (see equation (3.4)) for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5,k=0.2$ : $c_{m}=0.25$ (a), $0.5$ (b) and $0.75$ (c), at different frozen times.

Figure 11.

Growth rate for the corresponding viscosity profiles (2.14) with (a) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ and $k=0.2$ , (b) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=1,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ and $k=0.06$ , and (c) $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5$ , $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=2$ and $k=0.1$ : the growth rate determined from NMA (continuous lines), SS-QSSA (dashed lines) and QSSA (dotted lines). The NMA growth rates are determined from $(1/G(t))(\text{d}G(t)/\text{d}t)$ .

Figure 10 demonstrates the spatial variations of SS-QSSA eigenfunctions at times $t_{0}=0.5,4$ and $10$ . The parameters used are $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5,k=0.2$ and $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ . It is observed that SS-QSSA typically produces the dominant eigenfunctions that are qualitatively very different from the corresponding optimal initial perturbations, e.g. the typical quadruple structure of perturbations that are obtained from NMA (see figure 5) are not captured by SS-QSSA eigenfunctions, as evident from figure 10(a–c). A comparison of quasi-steady eigenfunctions in $(x,t)$ and $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D709},t)$ domains are discussed in appendix B.

With this substantial difference in the structure of the quasi-steady eigenfunctions in comparison to the optimal perturbations, we move to compare the growth rate determined from NMA and SS-QSSA. The growth rate in SS-QSSA can obtained by analysing the spectral abscissa, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}({\mathcal{L}})$ , which is defined as the collection of numbers $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})$ satisfying

(3.4) $$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle {\mathcal{L}}(t_{0})\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})\unicode[STIX]{x1D719}_{c}^{\unicode[STIX]{x1D709}}, & & \displaystyle\end{eqnarray}$$

where $t_{0}$ is the frozen time at which $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{0})$ is determined.

Figure 11 illustrates the growth rate obtained from SS-QSSA, QSSA and NMA. In figure 11(a–b), for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5$ and $1$ , it is observed that the temporal evolution of growth rates determined from NMA and SS-QSSA are opposite to each other. Although both NMA and SS-QSSA predict that the system is unconditionally stable at early times, the SS-QSSA approach illustrates that the onset of instability is an increasing function of $c_{m}$ , which is in contrast to the result of NMA (see figure 4 b). At the early times, the qualitative nature of the growth rate of perturbations determined from NMA (continuous lines) and QSSA (dotted lines) are similar. Manickam & Homsy (Reference Manickam and Homsy1993) used the QSSA and suggested that when the parameter $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ (see (2.18)) is positive, the flow is always unstable, and when $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ is negative, the initially stable flow becomes unstable as the base flow diffuses. For the parameters given in figure 11(a), $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}=-2.12,3.58$ and $14.05$ , for $c_{m}=0.25,0.5$ and $0.75$ , respectively. However, the flow is stable for both $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}>0$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}<0$ . Thus, it is observable that QSSA underpredicts the onset of instability for $c_{m}=0.5$ and $0.75$ . Furthermore, for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5$ , the trend of onset obtained from NMA is in agreement with the NLS results (see figure 6), where it is shown that the onset of fingering is early with the increase in values of $c_{m}$ . This suggests that the deviation of the structure of discrete eigenfunctions and eigenvalues from the optimal initial perturbations and non-modal growth, at small times, is primarily due to the non-orthogonality of the quasi-steady eigenmodes. For $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=0.5$ , figure 11(c) depicts that the growth rate of perturbation decreases with increase in $c_{m}$ irrespective of any linear stability analysis (QSSA, SS-QSSA and NMA). One important point that can be noted from figure 11(c) is that the system can be unstable as predicted by NMA for $c_{m}=0.25$ as opposed to SS-QSSA, in which the system is always stable for the given parameters.

Further, in order to validate the advantage of the non-modal approach, we compare the results of NMA with those of nonlinear simulations (NLS). We obtained the growth rate of concentration perturbations by introducing a sinusoidal perturbation of the form

(3.5) $$\begin{eqnarray}c^{\prime }(x,y,t_{0})=\left\{\begin{array}{@{}ll@{}}\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}\cos (ky), & x=x_{i},\\ 0, & \text{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}$$

where $x_{i}$ is the position of unperturbed interface, $k$ is the non-dimensional wavenumber, $t_{0}$ is the time when perturbations are introduced and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D716}$ is the amplitude of the perturbation, which is taken as $10^{-3}$ . See appendix A for more detail.

Figure 12.

Comparison of neutral curves obtained from SS-QSSA (dotted line), NMA (continuous line), NLS (dashed line) and QSSA (dash-dotted line) for $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}=5,\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{m}=7.5$ : $c_{m}=0.25$ (a), $0.5$ (b) and $0.75$ (c). The lowest points of each of these curves, marked with the solid dots (●), correspond to the critical wavenumber $k_{c}$ and critical time $t_{c}$ .

Figure 12 demonstrates the neutral curves obtained from SS-QSSA (dotted line), NMA (continuous line), NLS (dashed line) and QSSA (dash-dotted line), in the $(k,t)$ plane. The neutral curves show the combinations of $k$ and $t$ for which $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}=0$ . The area above each curve determines the unstable region whereas the region below shows the stable region. The solid dots (●) mark the critical points $(k_{c},t_{c})$ at which perturbations initially become unstable. Here the critical time is $t_{c}\equiv \min \{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}:\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F})\geqslant 0,\forall k\}$ and the critical wavenumber is $k_{c}\equiv \min \{k:\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{c})=0\}$ . In figure 12, we observe that the SS-QSSA analysis predicts qualitatively very different behaviour from the rest of the neutral curves, i.e. SS-QSSA predicts that with an increase in the value of $c_{m}$ , the stable region increases, in contrast to the other methods. Although QSSA analysis qualitatively agrees with NLS and NMA results, some of the perturbations that are judged unstable by QSSA turned out to be stable, as shown in figure 12(b,c). In table 2 it is shown that at the critical time, the unstable region and dominant wavenumbers determined from NLS and NMA show excellent agreement. It is also observed that NMA and NLS results show that the critical wavenumber $k_{c}$ is an increasing function and the critical time $t_{c}$ is a decreasing function of $c_{m}$ , which are in contrast to the results obtained from SS-QSSA. It can be noted here that when discussing the physical relevance of QSSA analyses, it is important to recall that, in physical systems, perturbations usually arise due to noise that excites many eigenmodes simultaneously. Consequently, modal analyses only predict which perturbations will dominate after an initial transient period. For this reason we have found that QSSA, NMA and NLS results are almost identical at later times.

Table 2.

The critical time, $t_{c}\equiv \min \{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}:\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F})\geqslant 0,\forall k\}$ , and critical wavenumber, $k_{c}\equiv \min \{k:\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}(t_{c})=0\}$ , from each of the neutral curves illustrated in figure 12. The onset times determined from NMA and NLS are indistinguishable. Further, for $c_{m}=0.5$ and $0.75$ , QSSA shows that the system becomes unstable immediately.

Hence, it can be concluded that irrespective of viscosity–concentration profile, the quasi-steady eigenvalues do not predict the accurate growth rate at early times. To analyse the early spatial and temporal evolution of the perturbations, NMA is a suitable approach. Our main focus in the present article is on determining the onset of instability and describing the physical mechanism of instability. Thus, the effect of injection-driven flow and the influence of lifting in the presence of non-monotonic viscosity profiles may not be directly incorporated. However, we are hoping to explore these effects in the near future.