Linear instability of Poiseuille flows with highly non-ideal fluids

The objective of this work is to investigate linear modal and algebraic instability in Poiseuille flows with fluids close to their vapour-liquid critical point. Close to this critical point, the ideal gas assumption does not hold and large non-ideal fluid behaviours occur. As a representative non-ideal fluid, we consider supercritical carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) at pressure of 80 bar, which is above its critical pressure of 73.9 bar. The Poiseuille flow is characterized by the Reynolds number ($Re=\rho_{w}^{*}u_{r}^{*}h^{*}/\mu_{w}^{*}$), the product of Prandtl ($Pr=\mu_{w}^{*}C_{pw}^{*}/\kappa_{w}^{*}$) and Eckert number ($Ec=u_{r}^{*2}/C_{pw}^{*}T_{w}^{*}$), and the wall temperature that in addition to pressure determines the thermodynamic reference condition. For low Eckert numbers, the flow is essentially isothermal and no difference with the well-known stability behaviour of incompressible flows is observed. However, if the Eckert number increases, the viscous heating causes gradients of thermodynamic and transport properties, and non-ideal gas effects become significant. Three regimes of the laminar base flow can be considered, subcritical (temperature in the channel is entirely below its pseudo-critical value), transcritical, and supercritical temperature regime. If compared to the linear stability of an ideal gas Poiseuille flow, we show that the base flow is more unstable in the subcritical regime, inviscid unstable in the transcritical regime, while significantly more stable in the supercritical regime. Following the corresponding states principle, we expect that qualitatively similar results will be obtained for other fluids at equivalent thermodynamic states.Comment: 34 pages, 22 figure

On the Continuity of Stochastic Exit Time Control Problems

We determine a weaker sufficient condition than that of Theorem 5.2.1 in Fleming and Soner (2006) for the continuity of the value functions of stochastic exit time control problems.Comment: The proof of Lemma 3.1 is slightly modified, and Remark 4.1 is rephrased for better presentations. In addition, some typos are corrected