text:
# Transient growth in Taylor-Couette flow

## Abstract

Transient growth due to non-normality is investigated for the Taylor-Couette problem with counter-rotating cylinders as a function of aspect ratio $`\eta `$ and Reynolds number $`Re.`$ For all $`Re500`$, transient growth is enhanced by curvature, i.e. is greater for $`\eta <1`$ than for $`\eta =1`$, the plane Couette limit. For fixed $`Re<130`$ it is found that the greatest transient growth is achieved for $`\eta `$ between the Taylor-Couette linear stability boundary, if it exists, and one, while for $`Re>130`$ the greatest transient growth is achieved for $`\eta `$ on the linear stability boundary. Transient growth is shown to be approximately 20% higher near the linear stability boundary at $`Re=310`$, $`\eta =0.986`$ than at $`Re=310`$, $`\eta =1`$, near the threshold observed for transition in plane Couette flow. The energy in the optimal inputs is primarily meridional; that in the optimal outputs is primarily azimuthal. Pseudospectra are calculated for two contrasting cases. For large curvature, $`\eta =0.5`$, the pseudospectra adhere more closely to the spectrum than in a narrow gap case, $`\eta =0.99`$.

Keywords: Taylor-Couette instability, transition to turbulence

## I Introduction

Two shear-driven flows bear the name of Couette: the flow between differentially rotating concentric cylinders is called cylindrical Couette flow, or more commonly, Taylor-Couette flow, while the flow between infinite parallel plates translating at different velocities while maintaining a constant separation is called plane Couette flow. Exact solutions, both called Couette solutions, to the Navier-Stokes equations for each of these configurations are easily calculated and serve as illustrations in most textbooks. Each of these two flows has become a paradigm of hydrodynamic stability theory.

Taylor-Couette flow can be considered to be a paradigm of understanding. In 1923, Taylor Taylor  carried out calculations of the linear instability of Couette flow to the onset of axisymmetric vortices and compared these with experiment, obtaining agreement which remains remarkable even by today’s standards. In later research, increasingly ornate and beautiful experimental patterns were discovered, e.g. Coles ; Andereck ; Taggribbons , and correspondingly elaborate numerical, asymptotic, and theoretical calculations, e.g. Krueger ; Marcus ; Langford , reproduced and explained these patterns, again with remarkable accuracy; see Swinney ; DrazinReid ; Taggreview ; ChossatIooss .

Plane Couette flow, on the other hand, can be considered to be a paradigm of mystery. For plane parallel flows, Squire’s theorem Squire  firmly establishes that the linear instability with the lowest critical Reynolds number is spanwise invariant. Armed with this theorem, researchers have long known, and more recently proved Romanov , that plane Couette flow is linearly stable at all Reynolds numbers. Yet, in laboratory experiments Tillmark  and in numerical simulations Lundbladh , plane Couette flow undergoes sudden transition to three-dimensional turbulence. Since at least the 1960’s researchers have explored various mechanisms for transition in plane Couette flow which bypass linear instability and Squire’s theorem. An element shared by all of these approaches, independent of the theoretical mechanism proposed for instability, is the presence of streamwise vortices Joseph ; Butler ; Trefethen\_93 ; Reddygrowth ; Waleffe , i.e. perturbations which, unlike those deemed critical by Squire’s theorem, are not spanwise invariant, but are instead invariant or almost invariant in the streamwise direction. These are analogous to the Taylor vortices which, in Taylor-Couette flow, are the eigenvectors responsible for the linear instability and are realized in experiments and in nonlinear numerical simulations.

One major line of research has focused on the effect of the non-normality of the operator governing the linear stability of plane Couette flow Butler ; Trefethen\_93 ; Reddygrowth . Such operators may lead to transient growth dynamics, even in the absence of linear instability, allowing nonlinear effects to take over before the final exponential decay exhibited by the linear evolution. Plane Couette flow can exhibit transient growth of several orders of magnitude; the initial conditions which maximize the transient growth, called optimal perturbations, contain streamwise vortices. Transient growth is closely associated with the sensitivity of the spectrum to small perturbations of the operator, quantified by the pseudospectra Trefethen\_93 .

The concepts of pseudospectra, non-normality, transient growth, and optimal perturbations, have been rarely applied to Taylor-Couette flow Gebhardt ; Meseguer , probably because conventional linear stability analysis is so successful in explaining the transitions observed. However, the large parameter space of Taylor-Couette flow offers the possibility of tuning the system from a normal operator, which does not support any transient growth, to a highly non-normal operator. Because of translational and Galilean invariance, plane Couette flow depends only on the distance $`2d`$ between the plates, the relative velocity $`2\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ of the plates, and the kinematic viscosity $`\nu `$, which are combined into a single nondimensional parameter, the Reynolds number defined conventionally as $`Re\mathrm{\Delta }Ud/\nu `$. In contrast, because of curvature effects in Taylor-Couette flow, both the inner and outer radii $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$ (or gapwidth $`2d=r_{\mathrm{out}}r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and average radius $`\overline{r}=(r_{\mathrm{in}}+r_{\mathrm{out}})/2`$) play a role. Because transformation to a rotating reference frame would introduce a Coriolis term into the equations, the flow depends on the angular velocities of both the inner and the outer cylinders, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{out}}`$. The five dimensional parameters can be combined into three non-dimensional parameters in various ways. Our choice is $`\eta r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}}`$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{out}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}`$, and $`Rer_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}d/\nu `$.

The idea of trying to approach the stability of plane Couette flow via Taylor-Couette flow is an appealing one and has inspired a number of investigations. The axisymmetric Taylor-vortex solution undergoes a secondary bifurcation to a non-axisymmetric wavy-vortex solution Coles ; Marcus . In a search for states intermediate in complexity between the Couette solution and turbulent plane Couette flow, Nagata Nagata90 ; Nagata98  took the limits of a narrow gap and almost corotating cylinders and discovered that, while the Taylor-vortex solution ceases to exist as the Coriolis term (i.e. the average angular velocity) is decreased, the wavy-vortex solution could be continued to the plane Couette limit. Faisst & Eckhardt Eckhardt  showed that these wavy solutions also exist for counter-rotating cylinders and that the lowest Reynolds number at which they first appear (via a saddle-node bifurcation) becomes independent of the rotation ratio as $`\eta 1`$. Finally, Prigent and Dauchot Prigent  have discovered that an analog of the spiral turbulence state of Taylor-Couette flow also exists for plane Couette flow.

Our investigation goes somewhat in the opposite direction. While the investigations cited above considered steady or traveling states known to exist in Taylor-Couette flow and continued them to the plane Couette limit, we take the ideas of pseudospectra, non-normality, transient growth, and optimal perturbations, apply them to Taylor-Couette flow and investigate the limit as Taylor-Couette flow approaches plane Couette flow. We focus on a given representative azimuthal and axial wavenumber and explore the stability characteristics of counter-rotating Taylor-Couette flow for a range of Reynolds numbers and radius ratios. In a related study, Meseguer Meseguer  studied transient effects – optimized over azimuthal and axial wavenumbers – for a specified radius ratio and varying Reynolds number and angular velocity ratio. Since Taylor-Couette flow is linearly stable for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}=0`$, Meseguer suggests that transient growth plays an important role in the transition to turbulence observed experimentally Coles  for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{out}}1`$, a theory contested by Gebhardt & Grossman Gebhardt .

Why calculate transient growth in Taylor-Couette flow, one of the major success stories of linear stability theory? Transient growth is a new tool in linear stability theory, whose worth and longevity have yet to be proved. It has up to now been applied to flows in which transition from the basic laminar state is not understood. It is therefore worthwhile to calculate transient growth in Taylor-Couette flow, in which transition is believed to be completely understood by hydrodynamicists. This could provide information about the value and significance of transient growth calculations. The other side of the coin is that the paradigmatic status of Taylor-Couette flow should be maintained. As new tools or measurements become available, they should be brought to bear on this basic flow in order for hydrodynamicists to extract additional knowledge about Taylor-Couette flow.

## II Governing Equations and Numerical Methods

### II.1 Taylor-Couette flow

The Couette solution is the unique solution of the form $`\underset{¯}{U}=U_C(r)\underset{¯}{e}_\theta `$ to the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{¯}{U}}{t}}+(\underset{¯}{U})\underset{¯}{U}`$ $`=`$ $`P+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Re}}\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{¯}{U},`$ (1a)
$`\underset{¯}{U}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1b)
$`\underset{¯}{U}(r=\overline{r}1)=1,`$ $`\underset{¯}{U}(r=\overline{r}+1)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\eta }}.`$ (1c)
Distances have been nondimensionalized by $`(r_{\mathrm{out}}r_{\mathrm{in}})/2`$ and velocities by $`r_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}`$. We recall that

$$\eta r_{\mathrm{in}}/r_{\mathrm{out}},\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{out}}/\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}},Re=r_{\mathrm{in}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}(r_{\mathrm{out}}r_{\mathrm{in}})/(2\nu )$$
(2)
where $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$, $`r_{\mathrm{out}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{in}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{out}}`$ are the inner and outer cylindrical radii and angular velocities, respectively, and $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity. Definition (2) of $`Re`$, chosen for compatibility with the plane Couette convention for the case $`\mu =1`$, differs by a factor of two from the conventional definition employed in Taylor-Couette flow. The average radius is $`\overline{r}=(1+\eta )/(1\eta )`$. Thus, the limit $`\eta 1`$ corresponds to $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$; we refer to either of these limits as convenient.

The Couette solution is:

$`U_C(r)`$ $`=`$ $`Ar+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{r}},`$ (3a)
$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\mu \eta ^2}{2\eta (1+\eta )}},`$ $`B={\displaystyle \frac{2\eta (1\mu )}{(1\eta )(1\eta ^2)}}.`$ (3b)
The expressions for $`A`$ and $`B`$ again differ from the standard ones by factors of two due to our use of $`(r_{\mathrm{out}}r_{\mathrm{in}})/2`$ as unit of length. Expression (3) can be viewed as a superposition of solid body rotation, $`Ar`$, and the flow due to a point vortex, $`B/r`$. As $`\eta 1`$, the leading terms of these two contributions become equal and opposite: $`ArB/r(\mu 1)\overline{r}/4`$. For $`\eta 1`$, we therefore rewrite (3) in the following equivalent form not subject to this cancellation error:

$`U_C(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4r\overline{r}(\overline{r}1)}}[2\overline{r}^3((\mu +1)+(\mu 1)y)+\overline{r}^2(3(\mu 1)+4(\mu +1)y+(\mu 1)y^2)`$
$`+2\overline{r}y((\mu 1)+(\mu +1)y)(\mu 1)(1y^2)]`$ (4)
where

$$yr\overline{r}.$$
(5)
The equations we consider are the Navier-Stokes equations (1) linearized about the Couette solution (3) or (4):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_C}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2U_C}{r}}u_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{p}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Re}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }u_r{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_\theta }{\theta }}\right),`$ (6a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_\theta }{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_C}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_\theta }{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_C}{r}}u_r+U_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{^{}}u_r={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Re}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }u_\theta {\displaystyle \frac{u_\theta }{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{\theta }}\right),`$ (6b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_z}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U_C}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_z}{\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{p}{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Re}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }u_z\right),`$ (6c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_r}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}u_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_\theta }{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{u_z}{z}}=0,`$ (6d)
subject to the boundary conditions
$$u_r=u_\theta =u_z=0\mathrm{at}r=\overline{r}\pm 1$$
(6e)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{^2}{\theta ^2}+\frac{^2}{z^2}.$$

The Taylor-Couette geometry and the Couette solution are homogeneous in the azimuthal ($`\theta `$) and axial ($`z`$) direction, which are analogous to the streamwise ($`x`$) and spanwise ($`z`$) directions in plane Couette flow. Table 1 summarizes the equivalence of the coordinate systems for plane Couette and Taylor-Couette flow. Solutions to (6e) which are spatially bounded are therefore trigonometric in each of these directions, with wavenumbers $`m`$ and $`\beta ,`$

$$(u_r,u_\theta ,u_z,p)=(\widehat{u}_r,\widehat{u}_\theta ,\widehat{u}_z,\widehat{p})(r,t)\mathrm{exp}(im\theta +i\beta z).$$
(6)
The parameter space is too vast to permit full exploration. In this study, we limit ourselves to $`\mu =1`$, $`m=0`$, and $`\beta =\pi /2`$. We choose $`\mu =1`$ so that the average angular velocity vanishes.

The choice $`m=0`$ of axisymmetric perturbations is made for simplicity. In plane Couette flow, the transient growth achieved by streamwise-independent perturbations is, while not maximal, very close to the optimal value. Although the study of transient growth in Taylor-Couette flow is relatively unexplored, its linear instability has been extensively studied, e.g. Taylor ; Krueger ; Langford ; DrazinReid ; Gebhardt . The linear instability undergone by Taylor-Couette flow with counter-rotating cylinders is usually non-axisymmetric and leads to spirals rather than vortices. However, the threshold associated with axisymmetric perturbations is very close to the actual non-axisymmetric threshold. Indeed, the thresholds are so close that the instability was thought to be axisymmetric until 1966, when calculations by Krueger, Gross and DiPrima Krueger  confirmed experimentally by Coles Coles  showed the first instability to be non-axisymmetric for $`\mu `$ sufficiently negative, more precisely $`\mu 0.78`$ in the narrow-gap limit. Note that the correspondence between the streamwise wavenumber $`\alpha `$ of plane Couette flow and the azimuthal wavenumber $`m`$ of Taylor-Couette flow is $`m\overline{r}\alpha `$, since $`xr\theta `$. Setting $`m`$ to correspond to a fixed non-zero value of $`\alpha `$ would thus require increasing $`m`$ through integer values as $`\eta 1`$ or $`\overline{r}\mathrm{}`$.

The choice $`\beta =\pi /2`$ corresponds to an axial wavelength of 4. Since our choice of length scales dictates that the radial gap is of width 2, this means that a single vortex has the same axial as radial extent, i.e. is approximately circular. The axial wavelength corresponding to linear instability is somewhat smaller than this for counter-rotating cylinders by as much as 20%, but is nonetheless close.

We eliminate $`\widehat{u}_z`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ by using (6c) and the condition of incompressibility (6d), obtaining evolution equations in $`\underset{¯}{u}=(\widehat{u}_r,\widehat{u}_\theta )`$. The perturbations $`(\widehat{u}_r,\widehat{u}_\theta )`$ are represented as series of Chebyshev polynomials in $`yr\overline{r}`$, which are evaluated at the Gauss-Lobatto points Canuto .

The evolution equation is written symbolically for the state vector $`\underset{¯}{u}=(\widehat{u}_r,\widehat{u}_\theta )^T`$ as

$$\frac{}{t}\underset{¯}{u}=i\widehat{}\underset{¯}{u}.$$
(7)
The axial velocity component $`\widehat{u}_z`$ is calculated from $`(\widehat{u}_r,\widehat{u}_\theta )`$ via incompressibility.

Our codes for discretizing the Taylor-Couette operator were based on a pseudospectral representation of the radial and azimuthal velocity in the inhomogeneous normal direction, similar to the Matlab code for plane Couette flow written by Reddy Reddygrowth ; Reddypseudo  and published in Schmid . We tested our Taylor-Couette code in a number of ways. First, we took the limit $`\eta 1`$ while maintaining a fixed Reynolds number and verified that we obtained the same asymptotic growth rates as in plane Couette flow. We then took $`\eta 1`$ and verified that the critical Reynolds numbers were those obtained by Krueger et al. Krueger . Finally, for arbitrary values of $`\eta `$, we verified that the critical Reynolds numbers were those given in Swinney .

### II.2 Optimal Growth and Pseudospectra

As a measure of growth, we use the energy norm defined by:

$$E(\underset{¯}{u})=\underset{¯}{u}_E^2=\underset{E_{r,z}}{\underset{}{_{r=\overline{r}1}^{\overline{r}+1}\left(|\widehat{u}_r|^2+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}|𝒟\widehat{u}_r|^2+\frac{m^2}{\beta ^2r^2}|\widehat{u}_\theta |^2\right)r𝑑r}}+\underset{E_\theta }{\underset{}{_{r=\overline{r}1}^{\overline{r}+1}|\widehat{u}_\theta |^2r𝑑r}}.$$
(8)
with $`𝒟f\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}(rf).`$ The energy norm is particularly significant in hydrodynamics, because the nonlinear terms of the Navier-Stokes equations conserve energy. This lends significance to the study of the linearized equations (6e), since any energy growth that takes place must occur via linear mechanisms Schmid . The maximal energy growth at time $`t`$ for $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ evolving according to (7) is defined by:

$$G(t)\underset{\underset{¯}{u}(0)0}{sup}\frac{\underset{¯}{u}(t)_E^2}{\underset{¯}{u}(0)_E^2}=\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{}t)_E^2.$$
(9)
Thus the maximal energy growth is given by the energy norm of the operator $`\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{}t)`$.

The norm of a normal operator is its dominant eigenvalue $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$; this is the largest factor by which matrix multiplication can increase the norm of a vector. For a non-normal operator, cross-terms between non-orthogonal eigenvectors typically contribute to the norm of a vector. Instead, it is the singular vectors which are orthogonal; the norm of the operator is given by the largest singular value $`\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}`$. The singular value $`\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and its corresponding normalized right and left singular vectors $`\underset{¯}{u}_{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`\underset{¯}{v}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ satisfy:

$$\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{}t)\underset{¯}{u}_{\mathrm{max}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}\underset{¯}{v}_{\mathrm{max}}$$
(10)
i.e. linear evolution from initial condition $`\underset{¯}{u}_{\mathrm{max}}`$ leads to the state $`\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}\underset{¯}{v}_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The statements above are all inner-product dependent: an operator is normal or not and vectors are orthogonal or not with respect to a particular inner product. The singular value decomposition is inner-product dependent as well. Since we investigate growth in the energy norm, we seek the largest singular value and its corresponding left and right singular vectors in the energy norm as well. Standard software, however, provides singular value decompositions with respect to the 2-norm. Additionally, each of the values on the Gauss-Lobatto grid points must be multiplied by a weight appropriate for calculating the energy (8). We compute the elements $`M_{ij}`$ of an $`N\times N`$ Hermitian matrix $`𝐌`$ by taking the inner products, derived from (8), between two eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ of $`\widehat{}.`$ The Cholesky factorization of $`𝐌=𝐅^H𝐅`$ is then used to convert the energy norm of the operator exponential to an $`L_2`$-norm of the weighted matrix exponential according to

$$\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{}t)_E^2𝐅\mathrm{exp}(i𝐃t)𝐅^1^2$$
(11)
with $`𝐃`$ as an $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrix consisting of the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{}`$ (see Schmid  for more details). We calculate the largest singular value (under the 2-norm) of the operator on the right-hand-side of (11). Its square is the maximal energy growth. The number $`N`$ of eigenfunctions has been chosen large enough to ensure converged results.

The optimal growth is defined as

$$G_{\mathrm{max}}=\underset{t0}{sup}G(t).$$
(12)
If $`\widehat{}`$ has an eigenvalue with positive imaginary part, then $`\underset{¯}{u}`$ grows exponentially in time (for any norm) and so $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$. Thus calculations of optimal growth are meaningful only for operators which are linearly stable.

We also wish to keep track of the quantities responsible for achieving the maxima in (9) and (12). The time for optimal growth $`t_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is that which achieves the maximum (sup) in (12), i.e. $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=G(t_{\mathrm{max}})`$. The optimal input, denoted by $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$, is the normalized initial condition which achieves the maximum (sup) in (9) for $`t=t_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The optimal output, denoted by $`\underset{¯}{u}(t_{\mathrm{max}})`$, is the velocity field resulting from the linearized Taylor-Couette evolution (7) starting from the unit-energy optimal input $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$; its energy gain is $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

A non-normal operator $``$ is also characterized by its pseudospectra Trefethen\_93 . The $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_ϵ()`$ is the set of complex values $`z`$ (parametrized by $`ϵ`$) which satisfies the property:

$$(zI)^1ϵ^1$$
(13)
Equivalent definitions of the $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum are given in Trefethen\_93 ; Reddygrowth ; Reddypseudo ; Schmid ; Trefethen\_99 . The definition of the pseudospectra, like that of transient growth, depends on the norm or inner product. For a normal operator, the $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum is the union of the balls of radius $`ϵ`$ surrounding each eigenvalue. For a non-normal operator, on the other hand, the $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum may be much larger.

Kreiss’ theorem relates the optimal growth and the pseudospectra by the following inequality:

$$G_{\mathrm{max}}\underset{ϵ>0}{sup}\left(ϵ^1\underset{z\mathrm{\Lambda }_ϵ()}{sup}\mathrm{Im}(z)\right).$$
(14)
The right-hand-side of (14) maximizes (over all strictly positive values of $`ϵ`$) the ratio of the distance to the real axis of any point in the $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_ϵ`$ to the value of $`ϵ.`$ In practice, it is found, both for Taylor-Couette flow and for plane channel flows, that the optimal growth given by the left-hand-side of (14) is approximately twice the lower bound given by the right-hand-side of (14).

For computing the optimal growth, we used the Matlab code written by Reddy Reddygrowth ; Reddypseudo , given in Schmid . For computing the pseudospectra, we used the code EigTool written by Wright Wright , which in turn makes use of the algorithm developed by Trefethen Trefethen\_99  and is available at website http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/projects/pseudospectra.

## III Results

We begin by presenting the optimal growth as a function of $`\eta `$ and $`Re`$. We recall that throughout our study, we fix the azimuthal wavenumber $`m=\alpha =0`$, the axial wavenumber $`\beta =\pi /2`$, and the angular velocity ratio $`\mu =1`$. Figure 1 shows the contours of constant optimal growth $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Inside the shaded region, Couette flow is linearly unstable to axisymmetric perturbations. The boundary of this region is the critical Reynolds number $`Re_L(\eta )`$. $`Re_L\mathrm{}`$ as $`\eta 1`$, as expected since plane Couette flow is linearly stable for all Reynolds numbers. We may also consider the rightmost portion of the linear stability boundary as a function $`\eta _L(Re)`$.

A striking feature is that the maximum growth for a fixed Reynolds number, indicated by the triangles in figure 1, is always achieved for a radius ratio $`\eta =\eta _{\mathrm{opt}}(Re)`$ which is less than one. We propose a possible explanation for this trend. As we decrease the radius ratio $`\eta `$, the asymptotic growth rate, i.e. the imaginary part of the least stable eigenvalue, increases. At the same time, the non-normality of the operator decreases, resulting in diminished transient growth. The combination of these effects results in a maximum growth rate that is achieved for values of $`\eta `$ less than one. We see that $`\eta _{\mathrm{opt}}0.6`$ for $`Re=20`$, increases to a maximum of $`\eta _{\mathrm{opt}}0.96`$ for $`Re110`$, and then abruptly decreases and terminates by meeting the linear instability boundary $`\eta _L0.9`$ at $`Re130`$. For $`Re>130`$, the maximum growth is achieved for $`\eta =\eta _L(Re)`$. The enlargements in figure 2 show the typical behavior of the contours of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ for $`Re`$ near 130 and for $`Re`$ near 300. For $`Re130`$, the optimal growth is fairly weak, varying from a factor of 1 to 21. Arbitrarily high values of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ can be attained by increasing $`Re`$, since for plane Couette flow, i.e. $`\eta =1`$, it is known Reddygrowth  that $`G_{\mathrm{max}}Re^2`$. In fact, over the range $`300<Re<310`$, $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is approximately 20% higher for $`\eta =\eta _L`$ than for $`\eta =1`$. In this range, the $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ contours are nearly vertical as they approach the linear instability boundary, meaning that $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is far more sensitive to a decrease in $`\eta `$ than to an increase in $`Re`$. It is near $`Re=310`$ that plane Couette flow undergoes a sudden unexplained transition to turbulence. Table 2 gives selected numerical values of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

We now study in detail two contrasting cases: $`\eta =0.5`$, $`Re=125`$ and $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$. In the first case, $`\eta =0.5`$ or equivalently $`\overline{r}=3`$, curvature obviously plays an important role. The second case, $`\eta =0.99`$ or equivalently $`\overline{r}=199`$, is very near the plane Couette limit. The Reynolds numbers have been chosen to be close to the linear instability threshold $`Re_L`$ in each case in order to maximize transient growth while remaining within the linearly stable region.

Figures 3 and 4 show the optimal input $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$ and output $`\underset{¯}{u}(t_{\mathrm{max}})`$ for each case. The least stable eigenvector, i.e. that with the smallest decay rate, is not shown, but resembles the optimal output. The upper portion of each figure shows the meridional velocity fields $`(u_r,u_z)`$ of the optimal input and output, while the lower portion shows contours of azimuthal velocity $`u_\theta `$. The meridional velocity fields consist of vortices whose axes are oriented in the azimuthal direction, similar to the eigenvectors which lead to Taylor vortices at slightly higher Reynolds numbers and to the streamwise vortices which are the optimal inputs in plane Couette flow. The azimuthal components of the optimal inputs and outputs, shown in the lower portions of figures 3 and 4, are in phase opposition with the vortices, with nodal lines at $`z=1,3`$ going through the vortex centers.

Figure 5 shows the evolution in time of the energies in the meridional components $`E_{r,z}`$ and in the azimuthal component $`E_\theta `$ starting from the optimal input $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$. While the optimal inputs $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$ are concentrated primarily in the meridional components, it is the azimuthal component which dominates the optimal outputs $`\underset{¯}{u}(t_{\mathrm{max}})`$. For this reason, in order to show the qualitative geometric features of the two fields, the inputs and outputs of Figures 3 and 4 use different scales for the arrow lengths and for the contour levels. This evolution corresponds to the generation of streaks – deformations of the azimuthal velocity profile – by the vortices. This physical process, referred to as the lift-up mechanism, has been described, e.g., in liftup  and is believed to be a key element in the transition to turbulence in plane Couette flow.

The graph on the left of figure 5 shows the evolution of $`E_\theta `$ and $`E_{r,z}`$ starting from the optimal input $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$ and from the least stable eigenvector for $`\eta =0.50`$, $`Re=125`$. The initial energies are $`E_\theta (0)=0.2`$ and $`E_{r,z}(0)=0.8`$. Initially, over $`0tt_{\mathrm{max}}5`$, $`E_\theta `$ rises while $`E_{r,z}`$ decreases, attaining values of $`E_\theta (t_{\mathrm{max}})4`$ and $`E_{r,z}(t_{\mathrm{max}})0.1`$, with a ratio $`E_\theta /E_{r,z}(t_{\mathrm{max}})40`$. Over the interval $`5t8`$, $`E_{r,z}`$ increases, while $`E_\theta `$ continues to decrease. With further evolution, both energies decrease as $`\underset{¯}{u}(t)`$ converges towards the least stable eigenvector. From their values at $`t=20`$, we estimate $`E_\theta /E_{r,z}(\mathrm{})0.73/0.02332`$.

The energy evolution for the case $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$, shown on the right of figure 5, resembles that for plane Couette flow. The optimal input is almost exclusively meridional, with negligible azimuthal component: $`E_{r,z}0.996`$ while $`E_\theta (0)0.004.`$ By $`t_{\mathrm{max}}66`$, $`E_\theta `$ has increased to 164 and $`E_{r,z}`$ decreased to 0.14, a ratio $`E_\theta /E_{r,z}(t_{\mathrm{max}})`$ of 1170 for the optimal output. This ratio is approximately maintained as both energies slowly decrease during the evolution of $`\underset{¯}{u}(t)`$ towards the least stable eigenvector.

In the case $`\eta =0.5`$, $`Re=125`$, two arrays of vortices are present in the optimal input, a larger and stronger array near the inner cylinder and a smaller and weaker array near the outer cylinder. Three arrays are present in the optimal output, whose radial extent and strength decreases in going from the inner to the outer cylinder. In the case $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$, the optimal input contains one array of vortices and the optimal output contains a second weaker, narrower array near the outer cylinder. Some light can be shed on the form of these perturbation fields and on the difference between the two cases by Rayleigh’s criterion for instability in Taylor-Couette flow.

Rayleigh’s argument, valid for inviscid and axisymmetric flow, is that perturbations interchanging rings of fluid at different radii (e.g. Taylor vortices) will be favored or opposed by the ambient pressure gradient, according to whether the square of the angular momentum $`(rU_C)^2`$ decreases or increases radially outwards. For counter-rotating cylinders ($`\mu <0`$), the sign of $`d(rU_C)^2/dr`$ changes within the gap. Rayleigh’s criterion is then applied to argue that only the inner portion of the gap is unstable. This modification is justified by three related tendencies DrazinReid . First, the unstable eigenvector is concentrated near the inner cylinder, where $`d(rU_C)^2/dr`$ is negative. Second, the axial wavelength corresponding to the most unstable or least stable eigenvector decreases, favoring vortices which remain closer to circular. Third, the critical Reynolds number for linear instability increases, meaning that the critical Reynolds number based on the unstable portion of the gap remains nearly constant.

Figure 6 shows that the square of the angular momentum decreases radially outwards over the interval $`r\overline{r}0.5`$ for $`\eta =0.50`$ and over the interval $`r\overline{r}`$ for $`\eta =0.99.`$ Although exact application of Rayleigh’s criterion would lead to optimal perturbations far more concentrated near the inner cylinder than they actually are, the criterion provides a heuristic explanation for the asymmetry. Rayleigh’s criterion is usually invoked to explain linear instability, i.e. exponential growth. However, a modified version of the criterion should apply to transient growth as well.

Finally, we show the spectrum and pseudospectra of the operators $``$ for the two cases in figure 7. Both pseudospectra plots contain contours (for the smaller values of $`ϵ`$) surrounding individual eigenvalues and bulb-shaped contours (for the larger values of $`ϵ`$) surrounding the entire spectrum. For both values of $`\eta `$, the contours for a fixed small value of $`ϵ`$ surrounding the eigenvalues near the real axis are wider than the contours surrounding the eigenvalues farther from the real axis. The bulb-shaped contours, however, differentiate between the two values of $`\eta `$. The spectrum for $`\eta =0.5`$ contains eigenvalues near the real axis with real parts extending to approximately $`\pm 0.7;`$ a bulb-shaped pseudospectral contour thus remains a fairly constant distance from the spectrum. The spectrum for $`\eta =0.99`$ is, in contrast, quite localized on the imaginary axis; in this case, a bulb-shaped pseudospectral contour protruding into the unstable half-plane is a first indication of non-normal effects.

We use more detailed calculations of the pseudospectra to compute approximations to the lower bound (14) on optimal growth of Kreiss’ theorem. For $`\eta =0.5`$, we obtain an upper bound $`\mathrm{Im}(z)0.1`$ for the $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum with $`ϵ=10^{1.15}`$, which yields the lower bound $`G_{\mathrm{max}}(10^{1.15}\times 0.1)^2=1.99`$, about half of the exact value $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=4.17`$ that we have calculated. For $`\eta =0.99`$, we obtain an upper bound $`\mathrm{Im}(z)0.03`$ for the $`ϵ`$-pseudospectrum with $`ϵ=10^{2.45}`$, which yields the lower bound $`G_{\mathrm{max}}(10^{2.45}\times 0.03)^2=71.49`$, again about half of the exact value of 155.

## IV Conclusions

We have calculated the pseudospectra and optimal transient growth for Taylor-Couette flow.

Our major result is that, for a fixed Reynolds number, the optimal transient growth is achieved for a radius ratio $`\eta =\eta _{\mathrm{opt}}<1`$, rather than for the plane Couette limit $`\eta =1`$. This is due to the combined effect of increasing modal growth and decreasing non-normality. As shown in figure 1, for $`Re<130`$, the optimal transient growth for fixed $`Re`$ occurs at an intermediate value of $`\eta `$ ranging from $`\eta _{\mathrm{opt}}=0.6`$ at $`Re=20`$ to $`\eta _{\mathrm{opt}}=0.96`$ at $`Re=110`$. For $`Re>130`$, the optimal transient growth for fixed $`Re`$ increases as $`\eta `$ is decreased from the plane Couette limit $`\eta =1`$ to the linear stability boundary $`\eta =\eta _L`$, as shown in figure 2.

If transient growth on the order of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}100`$ is suspected to initiate transition in plane Couette flow near $`Re=300`$, then transition should also occur near $`Re=300`$ outside the linear instability domain in Taylor-Couette flow, albeit in very narrow gaps ($`\eta 0.986`$). If these predictions fail to hold, then theories concerning transition initiated by transient growth must be modified or even abandoned. Another possible direction for future studies concerns regions of $`(\eta ,Re)`$ in which transient growth competes with linear instability; such situations should be included in a comprehensive theory of transition initiated by non-normal effects.

Two cases have been considered in detail: $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$ and $`\eta =0.5`$, $`Re=125`$. Both show transient growth. As could be expected, the case $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$, shows much higher transient growth, both because of its greater resemblance to plane Couette flow and also because of its higher Reynolds number. As shown in figure 5, for $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$, energy grows from the optimal input by a factor of $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=164`$, while for $`\eta =0.5`$, $`Re=125`$, we have $`G_{\mathrm{max}}=4`$.

As is the case for plane Couette flow, the physical mechanism accompanying transient growth consists of the conversion of vortices (here, termed azimuthal rather than streamwise) into streaks, i.e. perturbations of the basic Couette profile. This is seen in the ratio of azimuthal to meridional energy in figure 5 of the optimal inputs $`\underset{¯}{u}(0)`$ and outputs $`\underset{¯}{u}(t_{\mathrm{max}})`$. The optimal outputs, depicted in figures 3 and 4, are of higher amplitude near the inner cylinder, especially in the case $`\eta =0.5`$, $`Re=125`$, as indicated by Rayleigh’s criterion for centrifugal instability illustrated in figure 6.

Although both sets of pseudospectra in figure 7 show signs of non-normality, those for $`\eta =0.99`$, $`Re=350`$ show more deviation from the spectrum than those for $`\eta =0.5`$, $`Re=125`$.

Our study is restricted to the azimuthal wavenumber $`m=\alpha =0`$, axial wavenumber $`\beta =\pi /2`$ and angular velocity ratio $`\mu =1`$. Previous results on Couette flows lead us to believe that these values of $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ may be representative of a fairly large portion of parameter space, since both the maximal optimal growth rate in plane Couette flow and the maximal linear growth rate in Taylor Couette flow are close to those achieved for $`\alpha =0`$, $`\beta =\pi /2`$. Varying $`\mu `$, however, leads to major qualitative changes, as it does in other aspects of Taylor-Couette flow. Studies encompassing a wide range of parameter values Meseguer  are clearly desirable.

In the words of Faisst & Eckhardt Eckhardt , Taylor-Couette flow provides an ”embedding” of plane Couette flow. Numerical simulations and laboratory experiments have extensively documented the way in which plane Couette flow changes as its single non-dimensional parameter, the Reynolds number, is increased. Taylor-Couette flow provides an ensemble of other parameter paths along which to approach or to step back from plane Couette flow. Our hope is that this preliminary study and that of Meseguer  of transient growth and pseudospectra in Taylor-Couette flow, will help to increase understanding of both Taylor-Couette flow and of the effects of non-normality.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Thomas Wright for use of his code for calculating pseudospectra, and Satish Reddy for use of his code for calculating optimal growth. PJS thanks Patrick Huerre and the people at LadHyX for their warm hospitality during his sabbatical stay.


format: text

text:
# Quantized massive scalar fields in the spacetime of a charged dilatonic black hole

## I introduction

According to our present understanding the physical content of quantum field theory formulated in a spacetime describing black hole is contained in the renormalized stress-energy tensor, $`T^{ab},`$ evaluated in a physically motivated state . And although interesting in its own, the stress-energy tensor plays a crucial role in various applications, most important of which is the problem of back reaction on the metric. Indeed, treating the stress-energy tensor as a source term of the semi-classical Einstein fields equations, one may, in principle, investigate the evolution of the system unless the quantum gravity effects become dominant. Unfortunately, this programme is hard to execute as the semi-classical field equations comprise rather complicated set of nonlinear partial differential equations, and, moreover, it requires knowledge of functional dependence of $`T^{ab}`$ on a wide class of metrics. It is natural therefore that in order to answer – at least partially – this question, one should refer either to approximations or to numerical methods.

It seems that for the massive fields in a large mass limit, i.e., when the Compton length, $`l_C,`$ is much smaller than the characteristic radius of curvature, $`𝕃,`$ (where the latter means any characteristic length scale of the spacetime), the approximation based on the asymptotic Schwinger-DeWitt expansion is of the required generality . Since the nonlocal contribution to the effective action could be neglected it is expected that the method yields reasonable results provided the gravitational field is weak and its temporal changes remain small. Despite of the above restrictions there are still a wide class of geometries in which the approximation could be successfully applied.

For a neutral massive scalar field with an arbitrary curvature coupling satisfying

$$\left(\mathrm{}\xi Rm^2\right)\varphi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(1)
where $`\xi `$ is the coupling constant and $`m`$ is the mass of the field, the approximate renormalized effective action, $`W_R,`$ may be expanded in powers of $`m^2`$ . The n-th term of the expansion involves coincidence limit of the ‘HaMiDeW’ coefficient $`\left[a_n\right]`$  constructed solely from the curvature tensor its covariant derivatives up to $`2n2`$ order and contractions . As the complexity of the ‘HaMiDeW’ coefficients rapidly grows with increasing $`n`$ their practical use is limited to $`n=3,`$ perhaps $`n=4`$. Moreover, it should be emphasised that the Schwinger-DeWitt expansion is asymptotic and adding more terms does not necessarily improve the approximation. Here we shall confine ourselves to the simplest yet calculationally involved case $`n=3,`$ in which the approximate effective action could be written as

$$W_R=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}d^4x\sqrt{g}\frac{1}{m^2}\left[a_3\right].$$
(2)
Having at one’s disposal the approximation of the renormalized effective action, the stress-energy tensor could be evaluated by means of the standard formula

$$\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta }{\delta g_{ab}}W_R=T^{ab}.$$
(3)
Since the coefficient $`\left[a_3\right]`$ is rather complicated so is the stress-energy tensor and the question arose of a practical applicability of the thus obtained results. Fortunately it could be used in a number of physically interesting and important cases. The method has been employed by Frolov and Zel’nikov in a series of papers  devoted to construction of $`T^{ab}`$ of the massive scalar, spinor and vector fields in vacuum type-D spacetimes and generalized recently to arbitrary geometries in . General formulas describing $`T^{ab}`$ consist of over 100 local terms.

The effective action technique that we employ in this paper requires the metric of the spacetime to be positively defined. Hence, to obtain the physical stress-energy tensor one has to analytically continue at the final stage of calculations its Euclidean counterpart.

An alternative approach based on the WKB approximation of the solutions to the radial equation and summation of the mode functions has been developed by Anderson, Hiscock, and Samuel , who, among other things, succeeded in construction of the general form of the stress-energy tensor of the scalar field in a large mass limit in a static and spherically-symmetric geometry. Both approaches give, as expected, identical results and the detailed numerical analyses carried out by this authors show that for $`mM2`$ ($`M`$ is the black hole mass) the accuracy of the Schwinger-DeWitt approximation in the Reissner-Nordström geometry is quite good (1% or better) . The Schwinger-DeWitt method has been employed in various contexts in . The case of the massive spinor field is currently actively investigated .

In this article we shall study the stress-energy tensor of the quantized massive scalar field with an arbitrary curvature coupling in a background of the charged dilatonic black holes which is the solutions of the coupled system of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton equations. A complete set of this equations may be easily derived from the action:

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R2\left(\varphi \right)^2e^{2a\varphi }F^2\right],$$
(4)
where $`\varphi `$ is the massless dilatonic field, $`F`$ is the strength of the Maxwell field ($`F_{ab}=2_{[a}A_{b]}`$) and $`a`$ is the coupling constant. For each value of the parameter $`a`$ there exists a black hole solution depending on the electric charge and the mass . The choice $`a=1`$ corresponds to low energy limit of the string effective action, $`a=\sqrt{3}`$ to the four dimensional effective model reduced from the Kaluza-Klein theory in five dimensions, and the Einstein-Maxwell system is obtained with $`a=0.`$ Here we ignore the higher curvature contribution to $`S`$ , as for example the Gauss-Bonnet term.

Various properties of charged dilatonic black holes have been examined in a numerous papers. On the other hand however, quantum effects in 4D dilatonic black hole are – to the best of my knowledge – practically unexplored. This does not mean that this group of problems is uninteresting: belonging to the realm of the low-energy approximation to string theory ($`a=1)`$ or the Kaluza-Klein theory ($`a=\sqrt{3}`$), the dilatonic black holes would interact with various quantized fields. The main obstacle preventing construction of the renormalized stress-energy tensor is the computational complexity of the problem.

The evaporation process of the massless scalar field noninteracting with a dilaton field has been analysed in  whereas the field fluctuation, $`\varphi ^2,`$ of the minimally coupled massless scalar field in the vicinity of the event horizon of the dilatonic black hole has been studied by Shiraishi . Specifically, it was shown that the emission rate of the Hawking radiation blows up near the extremality limit for $`a>1.`$ On the other hand it is finite for $`a=1`$ and zero for $`a<1.`$ The field fluctuation diverges for $`a>0`$ for the extremal configuration.

## II The geometry

Functionally differentiating $`S`$ with respect to the metric tensor, dilaton field, and Maxwell field one obtains the system of equations of motion that could be solved exactly. Static and spherically-symmetric solution has been found by Gibbons and Maeda , and by Garfinkle, Horowitz and Strominger :

$$ds^2=A\left(r\right)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{A\left(r\right)}+B^2\left(r\right)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(5)
where

$$A\left(r\right)=\left(1\frac{r_+}{r}\right)\left(1\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1a^2}{1+a^2}}}$$
(6)
and

$$B^2=r^2\left(1\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2a^2}{1+a^2}}}.$$
(7)
The integration constants $`r_+`$ and $`r_{}`$ are related to the mass and charge of the dilatonic black hole according to

$$2M=r_++\left(\frac{1a^2}{1+a^2}\right)r_{}$$
(8)
and

$$Q^2=\frac{r_+r_{}}{1+a^2}.$$
(9)
The dilaton field is given by

$$e^{2a\varphi }=\left(1\frac{r_{}}{r}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2a^2}{1+a^2}}},$$
(10)
whereas the electric field is simply $`F={\displaystyle \frac{Q}{r^2}}dtdr.`$ Inspection of the line element shows that the event horizon is located at $`r_+;`$ at $`r=`$ $`r_{}`$ one has a coordinate singularity that could be ignored so long one considers region $`rr_+>r_{}.`$ The choice $`a=0`$ leads to the Reissner-Nordström solution. At $`\left|Q\right|/M=\left(1+a^2\right)^{1/2}`$, a case usually addressed to as an extremal black hole, the event horizon and $`r_{}`$ coincides and in this limit the surface $`r=r_+`$ $`=r_{}`$ is zero except $`a=0.`$ Although more realistic models require massive $`\varphi `$ field, the dilatonic solutions (5-7) are of principal interest as they provide useful models for studies of the consequences of modifications of the geometries of the classical black holes. Finally, observe that the Kretschmann scalar $`K`$ computed at the event horizon near the extremality limit behaves as

$$K\left(r_+r_{}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4a^2}{1+a^2}}}.$$
(11)
## III The renormalized stress-energy tensor

### A Approximate effective action

In the framework of the Schwinger-DeWitt approximation the first order effective action of the massive scalar field is constructed from the coincidence limit of the coefficient $`a_3(x,x^{}).`$ Inserting $`\left[a_3\right]`$ as given in Appendix into (2), integrating by parts and finally making use of the elementary properties of the Riemann tensor, after necessary simplifications one has :

$`W_{ren}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi ^2m^2}}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\eta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{315}})R\mathrm{}R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{140}}R_{pq}\mathrm{}R^{pq}\eta ^3R^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}\eta RR_{pq}R^{pq}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}\eta RR_{pqab}R^{pqab}`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{945}}R_q^pR_a^qR_p^a+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{315}}R^{pq}R_{ab}R_{pq}^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1260}}R_{pq}R_{cab}^pR^{qcab}+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{7560}}R_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{pq}R_{pq}^{}{}_{}{}^{cd}R_{cd}^{}{}_{}{}^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{270}}R_{pq}^{ab}R_{cd}^{pq}R]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{192\pi ^2m^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}\alpha _iW_{\left(i\right)},`$ (14)
were $`\eta =\xi 1/6`$ and $`\alpha _{i\text{ }}`$ are equal to the numerical coefficients that stand in front of the geometrical terms in the right hand side of the equation (14).

Differentiating functionally $`W_{ren}^{\left(1\right)}`$ with respect to a metric tensor one obtains rather complicated expression which schematically may be written as

$$T^{ab}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}\alpha _i\stackrel{~}{T}^{\left(i\right)ab}=\frac{1}{96\pi ^2m^2\sqrt{g}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}\alpha _i\frac{\delta W_{\left(i\right)}}{\delta g_{ab}}=T^{\left(0\right)ab}+\eta T^{\left(1\right)ab}+\eta ^2T^{\left(2\right)ab}+\eta ^3T^{\left(3\right)ab},$$
(15)
where each $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{\left(i\right)ab}`$ is constructed solely from the curvature tensor, its covariant derivatives and contractions. Because of the complexity of the resulting stress-energy tensor it will be not presented here and for its full form as well as the technical details the reader is referred to . The result may be easily extended to fields of other spins as the appropriate tensors differ by numerical coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ only.

The coincidence limit of $`a_4(x,x^{})`$ is also known: it has been calculated by Avramidi  and by Amsterdamski, Berkin and O’Connor . In principle, the above procedure could be extended to include $`m^4`$ terms and the general structure of $`\left[a_4\right]`$ indicates that the second-order stress-energy tensor divides naturally into five terms $`_{i=0}^4\eta ^iT^{\left(i\right)ab}.`$ Unfortunately, since the effective action constructed from $`\left[a_4\right]`$ is extremely complicated, so is its functional derivative and the practical use of the thus obtained result may be a real challenge. However, $`\left[a_4\right]`$ still could be employed in the analyses of the field fluctuation.

In order to simplify our discussion let us define $`q=\left|Q\right|/M`$, $`x_\pm =r_\pm /M`$ and $`x=r/M`$. The Schwinger-DeWitt technique may be used when the characteristic radius of curvature in much greater than the Compton length. Simple considerations indicate that for $`rr_+`$ it could be used for arbitrary value of $`a.`$ Assuming that $`𝕃`$ is related to the Kretschmann scalar as

$$R_{abcd}R^{abcd}𝕃^4$$
(16)
the condition of applicability of the approximation near the event horizon could be written as

$$\frac{2c}{M^2x_+^3}\left(x_+x_{}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2a^2}{1+a^2}}}m^2,$$
(17)
where $`c^2=2x_{}^2+\left[x_{}\left(1+a^2\right)x_+\right]^2.`$ It is evident that for $`a>0`$ the Schwinger-DeWitt approximation is inapplicable for $`r_+`$ close to $`r_{}.`$ For the extremal Reissner-Nordström black hole this condition becomes $`M^2m^22\sqrt{2}.`$

The temperature of the dilatonic black hole obtained by means of standard methods is given by

$$T_H=\frac{1}{4\pi Mx_+}\left(1\frac{x_{}}{x_+}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1a^2}{1+a^2}}}$$
(19)
and for given $`q`$ it depends on the dilatonic coupling. Inspection of (19) shows that

$`T_H`$ $`<`$ $`(8\pi M)^1\left(a<1\right),`$
$`T_H`$ $`=`$ $`\left(8\pi M\right)^1\left(a=1\right),`$
$`T_H`$ $`>`$ $`\left(8\pi M\right)^1\left(a>1\right).`$
The temperature of the extremal configuration is zero for $`a<1,`$ takes the same value as for a Schwarzschild black hole for $`a=1,`$ and diverges for $`a>0.`$ Moreover, it is easily seen that the condition $`T_Hm`$ is violated for $`a>1`$ near the extremality limit.

### B General case

Solving the system (8) and (9) one easily obtains

$$x_+=1+\sqrt{1\left(1a^2\right)q^2}$$
(20)
and

$$x_{}=\frac{1+a^2}{1a^2}\left(1\sqrt{1\left(1a^2\right)q^2}\right).$$
(21)
Before proceeding further let us observe that $`R=0`$ for $`a=0,`$ and, consequently, $`\delta W_{\left(1\right)}/\delta g_{ab}`$ and $`\delta W_{\left(3\right)}/\delta g_{ab}`$ is zero. The stress-energy tensor has therefore a simple form

$$T_a^b^{a=0}=T_a^{\left(0\right)b}+\eta T_a^{\left(1\right)b}.$$
(22)
On the other hand, the curvature scalar vanishes at the event horizon for any $`a`$ and is $`𝒪\left(q^4\right)`$ for small $`q`$ elsewhere. Moreover, since $`_rR`$ is the only nonzero component of $`_aR`$ one concludes that $`T_a^{\left(3\right)b}\left(r_+\right)=0`$ and is negligible in the closest vicinity of $`r_+.`$ It is because the only nonvanishing in this limit term is proportional to

$$_aR^bR\left(R\right)^2\delta _a^b.$$
(23)
A closer examination indicates that $`T_a^{\left(3\right)b}`$ is $`O\left(q^8\right).`$ Similarly, one expects that for small $`q`$ the term $`T_a^{\left(2\right)b}`$ is of order $`O\left(q^4\right).`$ On the other hand, the contribution of the last two terms in the right hand side of equation (15) could be made arbitrarily large by a suitable choice of the curvature coupling. It should be noted however that such values of $`\eta `$ are clearly unphysical and should be rejected.

Restricting to the exterior region and calculating components of the Riemann tensor, its contractions and covariant derivatives to the required order, after some algebra one arrives at the rather complicated result, that for obvious reasons will not be presented here. However it could be schematically written in surprisingly simple form

$$T_a^b=\frac{p}{\left(1+a^2\right)x^{15}}\left(1\frac{x_{}}{x}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\left(3a^2+1\right)}{1+a^2}}}\underset{ijk}{}d_{ijkb}^a[\eta ,a^2]x^ix_+^jx_{}^k$$
(24)
with $`0i7`$, $`0j3`$ and $`0k6`$ subjected to the condition $`i+j+k=9.`$ Here

$$p=\frac{1}{192\pi ^2m^2M^6}.$$
(25)
and $`d_{ijkb}^a`$ for given $`a`$ and $`\eta `$ are numerical coefficients. Some extra work shows that the tensor (24) is covariantly conserved and is regular for regular geometries. Moreover, the difference $`T_t^tT_r^r`$ factors

$$T_t^tT_r^r=\frac{p}{\left(1+a^2\right)x^{14}}\left(1\frac{x_+}{x}\right)\left(1\frac{x_{}}{x}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\left(3a^2+1\right)}{1+a^2}}}f\left(x\right),$$
(26)
where the regular function $`f(x_+x_{})^2`$ as $`x_{}x_+`$ and consequently within the domain of applicability of the Schwinger-DeWitt approximation the stress-energy tensor is regular in a freely falling frame.

It could be demonstrated by that the trace of the stress-energy tensor of the massive scalar field has a simple form

$$T_a^a=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2m^2}\left\{3\left(\xi \frac{1}{6}\right)\mathrm{}[a_2][a_3]\right\}.$$
(27)
This equation together with

$$_bT_a^b=0$$
(28)
may serve as an independent check of the calculations. For conformally coupled fields the trace is proportional to the coincidence limit of $`[a_3].`$ We remark here that for conformally invariant massless scalar field the anomalous trace is proportional to $`[a_2];`$ it should be noted however, that (27) has been calculated for $`T_a^b`$ given by (15) whereas the trace of the conformally invariant massless fields is a general property of the regularized stress-energy tensor.

Since the practical use of the general result is severely limited, it is instructive to analyse the stress-energy tensor in some specific cases. In the latter we shall confine our analysis to $`0a\sqrt{3}`$ with the special emphasis put on the case $`a=1.`$ However, before proceeding to examination of some concrete choices of $`a`$ let us analyse $`T_a^b`$ for small $`q.`$

### C Arbitrary $`a,`$ $`q1`$

Assuming $`q1`$, expanding $`T_a^b`$ into a power series, and finally collecting the terms with the like powers of $`q`$ one has

$$T_a^b=T_a^b^{a=0}+\frac{a^2}{96\pi ^2m^2x^{10}M^6}(q^2t_a^{\left(1\right)b}+q^4t_a^{\left(2\right)b}+q^6t_a^{\left(3\right)b}+\mathrm{}),$$
(29)
where $`T_b^b^{a=0}`$ is evaluated for $`a=0`$ and coincides with the expression describing the stress-energy tensor in the geometry of the Reissner-Nordström black hole . The explicit expressions for the coefficients $`t_a^{\left(i\right)b}`$ as well as the components of $`T_b^b^{a=0}`$ are listed in the appendix. A closer examination shows that for $`q0.7`$ the expansion (29) reproduces the general result satisfactorily, and, moreover, for $`q1/3`$ the results weakly depend on the coupling $`a.`$ From (29) it is evident that for $`a=0`$ and $`q=0`$ the stress-energy tensor reduces to the expression derived by Frolov and Zel’nikov in the geometry of the Schwarzschild black hole .

### D Dilatonic black hole $`a=1`$

In this subsection we shall construct and investigate the stress-energy tensor of the massive scalar field resulting from (24) for the particular combinations of couplings. Consider $`a=1.`$ Since the second factor in $`A\left(r\right)`$ vanishes, we expect considerable simplifications as the event horizon is now located at $`2M`$ whereas the ‘inner’ one at $`q^2M`$. Indeed, defining $`y=r/r_+,`$ equation (24) could be written in a simple form:

$$T_a^b=\frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}\underset{ij}{}b_{ija}^b\left[\eta \right]q^{2i}y^{j2}$$
(30)
with $`0i6`$ and $`0j7,`$ where $`b_{ija}^b`$ are numerical coefficients. From (26) it could be shown that for any $`\eta `$ the difference $`T_t^tT_r^r`$ factorizes as

$$T_t^tT_r^r=\frac{1y}{y^9\left(q^22y\right)^6}f\left(y\right),$$
(31)
where, for $`0q<\sqrt{2}`$ the function $`f\left(y\right)`$ is regular at the event horizon. Equation (30) could be contrasted to the analogous expression evaluated in the Reissner-Nordström geometry $`\left(a=0\right):`$

$$T_a^b=\frac{p}{y^6}\underset{ij}{}c_{ija}^b\left[\eta \right]q^{2i}y^{j2},$$
(32)
where $`0i3`$, $`0j4`$, and $`c_{ija}^b`$ are another set of numerical coefficients.

To perform quantitative analysis however, we have to refer to exact formulas. For $`\eta =0`$ it suffices to compute only $`T_a^{\left(0\right)b}`$ as the others terms do not contribute to the final result. After some algebra one has

$`T_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{313}{210y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{19}{14y^2}}q^2({\displaystyle \frac{61}{30y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{31}{70y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{7y^2}})+q^4({\displaystyle \frac{143}{840y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7313}{2520y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{577}{210y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{28y^2}})`$ (35)
$`+q^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{1381}{1120y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{6607}{1680y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1813}{720y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{28y^3}}\right)q^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{9277}{10080y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{43837}{20160y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1007}{840y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{139}{10080y^4}}\right)`$
$`+q^{10}({\displaystyle \frac{1817}{6720y^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{479}{840y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{559}{1920y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2880y^5}})q^{12}({\displaystyle \frac{1783}{60480y^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{473}{8064y^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{384y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6912y^6}})]`$
$`T_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{30y^3}}+q^2({\displaystyle \frac{47}{42y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{353}{210y^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{35y^2}})q^4({\displaystyle \frac{481}{280y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{7267}{2520y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{43}{45y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{140y^2}})`$ (39)
$`+q^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{895}{672y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{11687}{5040y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{103}{112y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{11}{140y^3}}\right)q^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{61}{112y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{2143}{2240y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2053}{5040y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{53}{1440y^4}}\right)`$
$`+q^{10}({\displaystyle \frac{2269}{20160y^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{397}{2016y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{233}{2688y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{173}{20160y^5}})q^{12}({\displaystyle \frac{139}{15120y^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{91}{5760y^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{144y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6912y^6}})]`$
and

$`T_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{367}{210y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2y^2}}q^2({\displaystyle \frac{367}{70y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1129}{210y^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{35y^2}})+q^4({\displaystyle \frac{65}{8y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{4379}{420y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{146}{45y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{33}{140y^2}})`$ (43)
$`q^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{11099}{1680y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{11749}{1260y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1423}{420y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{33}{140y^3}}\right)+q^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{59011}{20160y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{29209}{6720y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1907}{1120y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{643}{5040y^4}}\right)`$
$`q^{10}({\displaystyle \frac{13589}{20160y^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{6943}{6720y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8551}{20160y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{173}{5040y^5}})+q^{12}({\displaystyle \frac{7669}{120960y^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{143}{1440y^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{97}{2304y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{25}{6912y^6}})]`$
In fact it suffices to know only one component of the stress-energy tensor, say $`T_\theta ^\theta ,`$ as the remaining ones could be easily obtained solving equations (27) and (28) and putting the integration constant to zero.

Despite its similarity with the Schwarzschild line element, the nonextremal $`a=1`$ dilatonic black holes have much in common with the Reissner-Nordström solution. We shall, therefore, address the question of how the differences between the geometry of the Reissner-Nordström black hole on the one hand and the dilatonic black hole on the other are reflected in the overall behaviour of our approximate stress-energy tensors. First, from (LABEL:dilconf1-LABEL:dilconf3) it could be easily inferred that $`T_a^b`$ evaluated for the extremal configuration is divergent as $`y1`$. Indeed, for $`q=\sqrt{2}`$ the components of the stress-energy tensor behave as $`\left(y1\right)^3.`$ This is in a sharp contrast with the Reissner-Nordström case, in which the stress-energy tensor approaches

$$T_a^b=\frac{1}{2880\pi ^2m^2M^6}\left[\frac{16}{21}\left(\xi \frac{1}{6}\right)\right]\mathrm{diag}[1,1,1,1]$$
(45)
as $`y1`$. It should be noted however, that, except $`a=0,`$ the region in the vicinity of the degenerate horizon of the extremal geometry is beyond the applicability of the Schwinger-DeWitt approximation. On the other hand, however, one expects that in the opposite limit, i.e. for $`q1`$, the appropriate components of the stress-energy tensor are almost indistinguishable.

To analyse $`T_a^b`$ for intermediate values of $`q`$ let us refer to the numerical calculations. The plots of the time radial and angular components of the stress-energy tensor of the quantized massive scalar field as a function of the rescaled radial coordinate for five exemplar values of $`q=`$0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.65 and 0.85 are displayed in figures 1–3. Inspection of the figures and comparison with the analogous results obtained for the Reissner-Nordström geometry indicates that even for the intermediate values of $`q`$ there are still qualitative similarities. Indeed, the time and angular components attain (positive) maximum at the event horizon, decrease with r and approach (negative) minimum. The magnitude of the maximum and the modulus of the minimum increase with increasing $`q,`$ and, consequently, so does the slope of the curves.

Before proceeding to physically interesting and important case $`\eta =1/6`$, it is useful to study a role played by each $`T_a^{\left(i\right)b}`$ separately. First, it could be easily shown that $`T_a^{\left(3\right)b}`$ is negligible with respect to other terms, and, therefore, it does not contribute to the final result for reasonable values of the curvature coupling. The run of the resulting stress-energy tensor depends on a competition between remaining components. Indeed, inspection of figure 4 in which we exhibited $`T_t^{\left(i\right)t}`$ as a function of the rescaled radial coordinate for four exemplar values of $`q`$ indicates that the term $`T_a^{\left(1\right)b}`$ produces the most prominent maximum at the event horizon for $`q0.9`$ whereas for greater values of $`q`$ this role is played by $`T_a^{\left(2\right)b}.`$ General features of $`T_r^{\left(i\right)r}`$ and $`T_\theta ^{\left(i\right)\theta }`$ are essentially the same.

Now the run of the stress-energy tensor as a function of $`q`$ could be easily anticipated. The general structure remains, of course, of the form (30), but now the dominant contribution to the result is provided initially by the term $`\eta T_a^{\left(1\right)b}`$ and subsequently with increasing $`q`$ by the sum $`1/6T_a^{\left(1\right)b}+1/36T_a^{\left(2\right)b}.`$ Moreover, since oscillatory-like behavior of $`T_a^{\left(3\right)b}`$ does not play a significant role we have also qualitative similarities with the tensor evaluated for the conformal coupling.

Having computed $`\stackrel{~}{T}_a^{\left(i\right)b}`$ and combining them with appropriate values of the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ for $`i=\mathrm{1..10},`$ after simplifications and rearrangement one has

$`T_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1237}{210y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{75}{14y^2}}q^2({\displaystyle \frac{377}{30y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{703}{70y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{7y^2}})+q^4({\displaystyle \frac{3637}{140y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{5219}{140y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2259}{140y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{99}{28y^2}})`$ (48)
$`q^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{84407}{3360y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{11311}{280y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1177}{60y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{99}{28y^3}}\right)+q^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{218839}{17920y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1097669}{53760y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11479}{1120y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{3891}{2240y^4}}\right)`$
$`q^{10}({\displaystyle \frac{318457}{107520y^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{33919}{6720y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2639}{1024y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{273}{640y^5}})+q^{12}({\displaystyle \frac{24685}{86016y^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{42557}{86016y^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3139}{12288y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{515}{12288y^6}})]`$
$`T_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{21}{10y^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{47}{30y^3}}+q^2({\displaystyle \frac{767}{210y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1081}{210y^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{35y^2}})q^4({\displaystyle \frac{2951}{420y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{5851}{420y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{85}{12y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{207}{140y^2}})`$ (52)
$`+q^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{20267}{3360y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1469}{112y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{543}{70y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{207}{140y^3}}\right)q^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{26933}{10752y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{101963}{17920y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{23609}{6720y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{203}{320y^4}}\right)`$
$`+q^{10}({\displaystyle \frac{53287}{107520y^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{31429}{26880y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{26559}{35840y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{593}{4480y^5}})q^{12}({\displaystyle \frac{5219}{143360y^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{5531}{61440y^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{715}{12288y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{127}{12288y^6}})]`$
and

$`T_\theta ^\theta =`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\left(2yq^2\right)^6}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1543}{210y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{63}{10y^2}}q^2({\displaystyle \frac{649}{35y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3509}{210y^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{35y^2}})+q^4({\displaystyle \frac{40}{y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{2049}{35y^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{311}{12y^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{621}{140y^2}})`$ (56)
$`q^6\left({\displaystyle \frac{262747}{6720y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{210673}{3360y^5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1049}{35y^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{621}{140y^3}}\right)+q^8\left({\displaystyle \frac{342549}{17920y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{1695223}{53760y^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{68787}{4480y^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{607}{280y^4}}\right)`$
$`q^{10}({\displaystyle \frac{33375}{7168y^8}}{\displaystyle \frac{69651}{8960y^7}}+{\displaystyle \frac{410303}{107520y^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{593}{1120y^5}})+q^{12}({\displaystyle \frac{194797}{430080y^9}}{\displaystyle \frac{46747}{61440y^8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1537}{4096y^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{635}{12288y^6}})]`$
The qualitative behaviour of the stress-energy tensor of the minimally coupled scalar field is similar to the conformally coupled case, and, once again, for the intermediate values of $`q`$ one has quantitative similarities with the Reissner-Nordström case. Moreover, from figure 4 one can easily deduce the general behaviour of the stress-energy tensor for arbitrary coupling for $`q<0.9.`$

Finally we remark, that the dilatonic black holes with $`a=1`$ or $`a=0`$ do not exhaust physically important solutions. For example for $`a=\sqrt{3}`$ one has a four dimensional effective model reduced from the Kaluza-Klein theory in five dimensions. By (24) and the approximate stress-energy tensor expressed in term of $`x`$, $`x_+`$ and $`x_{}`$ could be schematically written as

$$T_a^b=\frac{p}{\left[x\left(xx_{}\right)\right]^{15/2}}\underset{ijk}{}d_{ijkb}^a\left[\eta \right]x^ix_+^jx_{}^k$$
(58)
where $`0i7`$, $`0j3`$ and $`0k6`$ subjected to the condition $`i+j+k=9.`$ The qualitative behaviour of the stress-energy tensor for both $`\eta =0`$ and $`\eta =1/6`$ is similar to $`T_a^b`$ constructed in the geometry of a dilatonic black hole with $`a=1`$ and its run for small $`q`$ could be easily inferred form (29).

## IV Concluding remarks

In this paper we have constructed and examined the approximate renormalized stress-energy tensor of the massive scalar field in the spacetime of the static electrically charged dilatonic black hole with the special emphasis put on the string inspired case $`a=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.`$ The method employed here is based on the observation that the lowest order of the expansion of the effective action in $`m^{2\text{ }}`$ could be expressed in terms of the integrated coincidence limit of coefficient $`a_3(x,x^{}).`$ Although the line element of the dilatonic black hole has a simple form, the analytical formulas describing the stress-energy tensor for a general $`a`$ constructed within the Schwinger-DeWitt framework are extremely complicated and hence hard to utilize. Fortunately, for a concrete choice of $`a`$ there are considerable simplification.

Expanding for $`q1`$ the stress-energy tensor into a power series it is possible to analyse the influence of $`a`$ on $`T_a^b.`$ For $`q=0`$ it reduces to the result derived by Frolov and Zel’nikov whereas for small values of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ the stress-energy tensor resembles that evaluated in the Reissner-Nordström geometry. The discrepancies between the tensors grow with $`\stackrel{~}{q}.`$ It should be stressed however that in the opposite limit the Schwinger-DeWitt technique is inapplicable.

The problem of the massless fields certainly deserves separate treatment, this however would require extensive numerical calculations as even for simplest case of the Schwarzschild geometry existing analytical approximations give, at best, only qualitative agreement with the exact results. At the moment we only know that the horizon value of the field fluctuation

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{1}{48\pi ^2M^2x_+^2}\left[1\frac{x_{}}{\left(1+a^2\right)x_+}\right]\left(1\frac{x_{}}{x_+}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{2a^2}{1+a^2}}},$$
(59)
which is divergent in the extremality limit for $`a>0.`$ This suggests that the stress-energy tensor is also divergent at $`r_+`$ of the extremal case. On the other hand, a first nonvanishing term of the approximation to the field fluctuation for a massive field is simply

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2m^2}\left[a_2\right]+𝒪\left(m^4\right),$$
(60)
and it could be easily shown that

$$\varphi ^2=\frac{f(a,r_+,r_{})}{720\pi ^2m^2M^4x_+^6}\left(1+a^2\right)^2\left(1\frac{x_{}}{x_+}\right)^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4a^2}{1+a^2}}}+𝒪\left(m^4\right),$$
(61)
where

$$f(a,r_+,r_{})=\left[4+3a^2\left(15\xi \right)\right]x_{}^26\left(1+a^2\right)x_+x_{}+3\left(1+a^2\right)^2x_+^2.$$
(62)
Finally, we make some comments regarding applications and generalizations of the results presented in this paper. The question of the massless field has been addressed above. A careful analysis carried out for $`a=0`$ in ref.  shows that at least up to $`𝒪\left(m^4\right)`$ the adapted method approximates well the field fluctuation of the massive field in the thermal state of temperature $`T_H.`$ It would be interesting to extend this analysis for any value of $`a.`$ We also remark that the derived stress-energy tensors may be employed as a source term of the semiclassical Einstein field equations. Indeed, preliminary calculations indicate that it is possible to construct the solution to the linearized semiclassical Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton equations. We hope that because of their simplicity presented results will be of use in subsequent applications. We intend to return to this group of problems elsewhere.

APPENDIX

### A Coincidence limits of the coefficients $`a_2(x,x^{})`$ and $`a_3(x,x^{})`$

In this appendix we list coincidence limits of the coefficients $`a_2(x,x^{})`$ and $`a_3(x,x^{})`$ for the scalar field equation (1). With the normalization employed in this paper the coefficient $`[a_2]`$ reads

$$[a_2]=\frac{1}{6}\left(\xi \frac{1}{5}\right)\mathrm{}R+\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi \frac{1}{6}\right)^2R^2+\frac{1}{180}\left(R_{abcd}R^{abcd}R_{ab}R^{ab}\right),$$
(63)
whereas $`[a_3]`$ could be written sa

$$[a_3]=\frac{b_3}{7!}+\frac{c_3}{360},$$
(64)
where

$`b_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{35}{9}}R^3+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}17}R_{;p}R^{;p}R_{qa;p}R^{qa;q}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}R_{qa;p}R^{pa;q}`$ (65)
$`+`$ $`9R_{qabc;p}R^{qabc;p}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}R\mathrm{}R+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}18}\mathrm{}^2R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}R_{pq}\mathrm{}R^{pq}{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}RR_{pq}R^{pq}`$ (66)
$`+`$ $`24R_{pq;a}^qR^{pa}{\displaystyle \frac{208}{9}}R_{pq}R^{qa}R_a^p+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}\mathrm{}R_{pqab}R^{pqab}+{\displaystyle \frac{64}{3}}R_{pq}R_{ab}R^{paqb}`$ (67)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}R_{pq}R_{abc}^pR^{qabc}+{\displaystyle \frac{80}{9}}R_{pqab}R_{cd}^{pa}R^{qcbd}+{\displaystyle \frac{44}{9}}R_{pqab}R_{cd}^{pq}R^{abcd}`$ (68)
and

$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`(5\xi 30\xi ^2+60\xi ^3)R^3(12\xi 30\xi ^2)R_{;p}R^{;p}(22\xi 60\xi ^2)R\mathrm{}R`$ (69)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\xi \mathrm{}^2R\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\xi R_{pq}R^{pq}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi RR_{pq}R^{pq}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\xi RR_{pqab}R^{pqab}.`$ (70)
### B $`T_a^b`$ of the massive scalar fields in the spacetime of the Reissner-Nordström black hole

Inserting curvature tensor and its covariant derivatives into the general formulas obtained form functional differentiation of the effective action (14) with respect to the metric tensor one obtains the approximate stress-energy tensor of massive fields. Since the curvature scalar of the Reissner-Nordström geometry is zero, one expects considerable simplifications. Indeed, it could be easily shown that the tensors $`\stackrel{~}{T}_a^{(1)b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_a^{(3)b}`$ do not contribute to the final result. The stress-energy tensor of the massive scalar field with arbitrary coupling with curvature in the Reissner-Nordström has the form (22), where

$$T_t^{(0)t}=\frac{313x^3}{7}\frac{285x^4}{14}+q^2\left(\frac{769x^2}{14}\frac{192x^3}{7}+\frac{135x^4}{7}\right)+q^4\left(\frac{514x}{7}\frac{101x^2}{21}\right)\frac{208q^6}{7},$$
(71)
$$T_r^{((0)r}=11x^3+\frac{15x^4}{2}+q^2\left(\frac{709x^2}{14}\frac{248x^3}{7}+\frac{27x^4}{7}\right)+q^4\left(46x+\frac{421x^2}{21}\right)+\frac{74q^6}{7},$$
(72)
$$T_\theta ^{(0)\theta }=\frac{367x^3}{7}\frac{45x^4}{2}+q^2\left(\frac{3303x^2}{14}+\frac{814x^3}{7}\frac{81x^4}{7}\right)+q^4\left(\frac{1726x}{7}\frac{1522x^2}{21}\right)73q^6,$$
(73)
$$T_t^{(1)t}=792x^3+360x^4+q^2\left(2604x^21008x^3\right)+q^4\left(2712x+728x^2\right)+819q^6,$$
(74)
$$T_r^{(1)r}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}216}x^3144x^4+q^2\left(588x^2+336x^3\right)+q^4\left(504x208x^2\right)117q^6$$
(75)
and

$$T_\theta ^{(1)\theta }=1008x^3+432x^4+q^2\left(3276x^21176x^3\right)+q^4\left(3408x+832x^2\right)+1053q^6.$$
(76)
### C Power expansion of the stress-energy tensor for $`q1`$

Repeating the calculations for the line element (5-6) one obtains components of the stress-energy tensor in the geometry of a general dilatonic black hole. Assuming $`q1`$ and expanding the result into a power series, after the necessary simplifications (29), where the coefficients $`t_a^{\left(i\right)b}`$ are given by

$$t_t^{\left(1\right)t}=\frac{939}{35}\frac{76x}{7}+\eta \left(192x\frac{2376}{5}\right),$$
(77)
$$t_r^{\left(1\right)r}=4x\frac{33}{5}+\eta \left(\frac{648}{5}\frac{384x}{5}\right),$$
(78)
$$t_\theta ^{\left(1\right)\theta }=\frac{1101}{35}12x\eta \left(\frac{3024}{5}\frac{1152x}{5}\right),$$
(79)
$`t_t^{\left(2\right)t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1207}{140}}{\displaystyle \frac{4359a^2}{140}}{\displaystyle \frac{9773}{210x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{939a^2}{14x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{181x}{105}}+{\displaystyle \frac{19a^2x}{7}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{14}}`$ (82)
$`+\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{2754a^2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1594}{15}}+{\displaystyle \frac{888}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1188a^2}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{436x}{5}}48a^2x+12x^2\right)`$
$`+\eta ^2\left(6076+{\displaystyle \frac{6000}{x}}+1908x180x^2\right),`$
$`t_r^{\left(2\right)r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12091}{1260}}+{\displaystyle \frac{213a^2}{20}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3793}{210x}}{\displaystyle \frac{33a^2}{2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{83x}{315}}a^2x+{\displaystyle \frac{11x^2}{70}}`$ (86)
$`+\eta \left(58{\displaystyle \frac{1026a^2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1032}{5x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{324a^2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{388x}{15}}+{\displaystyle \frac{96a^2x}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{24x^2}{5}}\right)`$
$`+\eta ^2\left(1556{\displaystyle \frac{1200}{x}}612x+72x^2\right)`$
$`t_\theta ^{\left(2\right)\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6841}{252}}{\displaystyle \frac{4881a^2}{140}}{\displaystyle \frac{18139}{210x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1101a^2}{14x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{227x}{315}}+3a^2x{\displaystyle \frac{33x^2}{70}}`$ (90)
$`+\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{3348a^2}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5572}{5x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1512a^2}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1628x}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{288a^2x}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{72x^2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{296}{3}}\right)`$
$`+\eta ^2\left(7232+{\displaystyle \frac{7200}{x}}+2268x216x^2\right),`$
$`t_t^{\left(3\right)t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4847}{840}}{\displaystyle \frac{4138a^2}{315}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4359a^4}{280}}+{\displaystyle \frac{20149}{420x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{24971a^2}{210x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3443a^4}{28x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9059}{420x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6026a^2}{105x}}{\displaystyle \frac{297a^4}{4x}}{\displaystyle \frac{79x}{210}}`$ (95)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{152a^2x}{105}}{\displaystyle \frac{19a^4x}{14}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{28}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^2x^2}{28}}+\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{5642a^2}{5x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1294}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{662a^2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1377a^4}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{4346}{5x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2178a^4}{x^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1936}{5x}}{\displaystyle \frac{278a^2}{15x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1314a^4}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{78x}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{198a^2x}{5}}+24a^4x+6x^26a^2x^2)`$
$`+\eta ^2\left(7634a^2658{\displaystyle \frac{2232}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{21984a^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{696}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{21596a^2}{x}}+534x1254a^2x90x^2+90a^2x^2\right)`$
$`t_r^{\left(3\right)r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1783}{840}}+{\displaystyle \frac{187a^2}{70}}{\displaystyle \frac{213a^4}{40}}{\displaystyle \frac{5009}{420x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5111a^2}{210x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{121a^4}{4x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{401}{60x}}{\displaystyle \frac{4352a^2}{315x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{93a^4}{4x}}`$ (100)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{109x}{630}}{\displaystyle \frac{2a^2x}{45}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a^4x}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11x^2}{140}}{\displaystyle \frac{11a^2x^2}{140}}+\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{86}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{188a^2}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{513a^4}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{158}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{250a^2}{x^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{594a^4}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{96}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{118a^2}{5x}}{\displaystyle \frac{450a^4}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{18x}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{66a^2x}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{48a^4x}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{12x^2}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{12a^2x^2}{5}})`$
$`+\eta ^2\left(1302442a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{288}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4656a^2}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{60}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5764a^2}{x}}166x+454a^2x+36x^236a^2x^2\right).`$
and

$`t_\theta ^{\left(3\right)\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2411}{360}}{\displaystyle \frac{7267a^2}{1260}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4881a^4}{280}}+{\displaystyle \frac{29963}{420x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{8857a^2}{70x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4037a^4}{28x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{11617}{420x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2792a^2}{63x}}{\displaystyle \frac{2361a^4}{28x}}`$ (105)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{13x}{315}}{\displaystyle \frac{31a^2x}{90}}{\displaystyle \frac{3a^4x}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{33x^2}{140}}+{\displaystyle \frac{33a^2x^2}{140}}+\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{1378a^2}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1252}{15}}{\displaystyle \frac{926a^2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1674a^4}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{5214}{5x^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2772a^4}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2052}{5x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{976a^2}{15x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1620a^4}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{108x}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{252a^2x}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{144a^4x}{5}}+{\displaystyle \frac{36x^2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{36a^2x^2}{5}})`$
$`+\eta ^2\left(9182a^2870{\displaystyle \frac{2970}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{26640a^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1098}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{26008a^2}{x}}+644x1508a^2x108x^2+108a^2x^2\right)`$
The terms containing $`\eta ^3`$ appear starting form $`q^8`$