0
Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Scaling Interface Length Increase Rates in Richtmyer–Meshkov Instabilities

[+] Author and Article Information
V. Kilchyk

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indiana University–Purdue University,
723 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202;Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
585 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907

R. Nalim

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indiana University–Purdue University,
723 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202

C. Merkle

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
585 Purdue Mall, West Lafayette, IN 47907

Manuscript received February 25, 2012; final manuscript received December 7, 2012; published online February 22, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Ye Zhou.

J. Fluids Eng 135(3), 031203 (Feb 22, 2013) (7 pages) Paper No: FE-12-1091; doi: 10.1115/1.4023191 History: Received February 25, 2012; Revised December 07, 2012

The interface area increase produced by large-amplitude wave refraction through an interface that separates fluids with different densities can have important physiochemical consequences, such as a fuel consumption rate increase in the case of a shock–flame interaction. Using the results of numerical simulations along with a scaling analysis, a unified scaling law of the interface length increase was developed applicable to shock and expansion wave refractions and both types of interface orientation with the respect to the incoming wave. To avoid a common difficulty in interface length quantification in the numerical tests, a sinusoidally perturbed interface was generated using gases with different temperatures. It was found that the rate of interface increase correlates almost linearly with the circulation deposited at the interface. When combined with earlier developed models of circulation deposition in Richtmyer–Meshkov instability, the obtained scaling law predicts dependence of interface dynamics on the basic problem parameters.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Rupert, V., 1991, “Shock-Interface Interaction: Current Research on the Richtmyer–Meshkov Problem,” Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Shock Waves, Sendai, Japan.
Brouillette, M., 2002, “The Richtmyer–Meshkov Instability,” Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 34, pp. 445–468. [CrossRef]
Zabusky, N., 1999, “Vortex Paradigm for Accelerated Inhomogeneous Flows: Visiometrics for the Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov Environments,” Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 31, pp. 495–536. [CrossRef]
Matsuoka, C., Nashihara, K., and Fukuda, Y., 2003, “Nonlinear Evolution of an Interface in the Richmyer–Meshkov Instability,” Phys. Rev. E., 67, p. 036301. [CrossRef]
Richtmyer, R. D., 1960, “Taylor Instability in Shock Acceleration of Compressible Fluids,” Commun. Pure Appl. Math., 13, pp. 297–319. [CrossRef]
Markstein, G. H., 1964, Nonsteady Flame Propagation, MacMillan, New York.
Hasegawa, T., Morooka, T., and Nishiki, S., 2000, “Mechanism of Interaction Between a Vortex Pair and a Premixed Flame,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 150 (1–6), pp. 115–142. [CrossRef]
Scarinci, T., Lee, J. H., Thomas, G. O., Bambrey, R., and Edwards, D. H., 1991, “Amplification of a Pressure Wave by Its Passage Through a Flame Front,” Proceedings of the 13th International Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 3–24.
Khokhlov, A., Oran, E. S., Chtchelkanova, A. Y., and Wheeler, J. C., 1999, “Interaction of a Shock With a Sinusoidally Perturbed Flame,” Combust. Flame, 117(1–2), pp. 99–116. [CrossRef]
Ming-Shin, W., and Driscoll, J. F., 1992, “Numerical Simulation of a Vortex Convected Through a Laminar Premixed Flame,” Combust. Flame, 91(3–4), pp. 310–322. [CrossRef]
Li, C., and Book, D. L., 1991, “Rayleigh–Taylor Instability Generated by Rarefaction Waves: Comparison With Richtmyer–Meshkov Instability,” Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium, Sendai, Japan, July 21–26, pp. 313–318.
Li, D., Sankaran, V., Fakhari, K., and Merkle, C., 2001, “Convergence Assessment of General Fluid Equations on Unstructured Hybrid Grids,” Proceedings of the 15th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Anaheim, CA, AIAA, Paper No. 2001-2557.
Sankaran, V., and Merkle, C. L., 2003, “Artificial Dissipation Control for Unsteady Computations,” Proceedings of the 16th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Orlando, FL. [CrossRef]
Li, D., Xia, G., and Merkle, C. L., 2003, “Analysis of Real Fluid Flows in Converging Diverging Nozzles,” Proceedings of the 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Orlando, FL, AIAA, Paper No. 2003-4132. [CrossRef]
Kilchyk, V., Nalim, R., and Merkle, C., 2010, “Baroclinic Vorticity Production by Shocks and Expansion Waves,” J. Shock Waves, 20(5), pp. 367–380. [CrossRef]
Barth, T. J., and Jespersen, D. C., 1989, “The Design of Application of Upwind Schemes on Unstructured Grids,” AIAA, Paper No. AIAA-89-0366.
Gülder, O., and Smallwood, G. J., 1995, “Inner Cutoff Scale of Flame Surface Wrinkling in Turbulent Premixed Flames,” Combust. Flame, 103, pp. 107–114. [CrossRef]
Lim, H., Yu, Y., Glimm, J., Li, X. L., and Sharp, D. H., 2008, “Chaos, Transport and Mesh Convergence for Fluid Mixing,” Acta Math. Appl. Sin., 24, pp. 355–368. [CrossRef]
Dong, G., Fan, B., and Ye, J., 2008, “Numerical Investigation of Ethylene Flame Bubble Instability Induced by Shock Waves,” Shock Waves, 17(6), pp. 409–419. [CrossRef]
Kilchyk, V., Nalima, R., and Merkle, C., 2011, “Laminar Premixed Flame Fuel Consumption Rate Modulation by Shocks and Expansion Waves,” Combust. Flame, 158(6), pp. 1140–1148. [CrossRef]
Akbari, P., and Nalim, M. R., 2009, “Review of Recent Developments in Wave Rotor Combustion Technology,” AIAA J. Propul. Power, 25(4), pp. 833–844. [CrossRef]
Samtaney, R., and Zabusky, N., 1993, “On Shock Polar Analysis and Analytical Expressions for Vorticity Deposition in Shock-Accelerated Density-Stratified Interfaces,” Phys. Fluids A, 5(6), pp. 1285–1287. [CrossRef]
Samtaney, R., Ray, J., and Zabusky, N., 1998, “Baroclinic Circulation Generation on Shock Accelerated Slow/Fast Gas Interfaces,” Phys. Fluids, 10(5), pp. 1271–1285. [CrossRef]
Zucrow, M. J., and Hoffman, J. D., 1976, Gas Dynamics, Vol. 1, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sadot, O., Erez, L., Alon, U., Oron, D., Levin, L. A., Erez, G., Ben-Dor, G., and Shvarts, D., 1998, “Study of Nonlinear Evolution of Single-Mode and Two-Bubble Interaction Under Richtmyer–Meshkov Instability,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, pp. 1654–1657. [CrossRef]
Peng, G.-Z., Zabusky, N. J., and Zhang, S., 2003, “Vortex-Accelerated Secondary Baroclinic Vorticity Deposition and Late Intermediate Time Dynamics of a Two-Dimensional Richtmyer–Meshkov Interface,” Phys. Fluids, 15(12), pp. 3730–3744. [CrossRef]
Jacobs, J. W., and Sheeley, J. M., 1996, “Experimental Study of Incompressible Richtmyer–Meshkov Instability,” Phys. Fluids, 8, pp. 405–416. [CrossRef]
Saffman, P. G., 1992, Vortex Dynamics, Cambridge Monographs on Mechanics and Applied Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Howe, M. S., 2007, Hydrodynamics and Sound, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Poinsot, T., and Veynante, D., 2005, Theoretical and Numerical Combustion, R.T.Edwards, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A schematic of the sinusoidal interface evolution following shock refraction. Initial interface was produced as y = aosin(2πx/λ).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Typical interface length and perturbation amplitude change in a Richtmyer–Meshkov instability (fast/slow Mach 1.7 shock, all values are normalized by the initial interface length)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Normalized residual unsteady calculations in a fast/slow M1.5 shock refraction. Every physical time step has 10 inner iterations.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The numerical setup (a) and grid (b) for the two-dimensional computations. Dimensions are scaled by a reference length of 0.5 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Density interface in a Mach 1.5 shock density interaction at 0.33 msec in the computation with three grid resolutions: (a) 24,090, (b) 64,561, and (c) 222,580 nodes (ao/λ = 0.5). Dimensions are scaled by a reference length of 0.5 m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of analytically predicted and numerical results for the perturbation amplitude change in a fast/slow Mach 1.7 shock refraction over a sinusoidal interface (ao/λ = 0.25). Values are normalized by the initial interface length (interface length of a half wave 1.38 cm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Interface evolution following Mach 1.7 shock fast/slow refraction (ao/λ = 0.25). Time is shown in milliseconds at the bottom. Dimensions are shown in 0.5 × m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Interface evolution following Mach 1.5 shock slow/fast refraction at interface with a - 0.125 and b - 0.5 amplitude-to-wavelength ratio (ao/λ). Initial interface profile is shown with a dashed line. Time is shown in milliseconds at the bottom. Dimensions are shown in 0.5 × m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Interface length change in fast/slow (a) and slow/fast (b) refractions with various shock strengths (ao/λ = 0.5). In slow/fast refraction cases, the interface increase was preceded by a short decrease. The decrease was caused by the interface inversion that started the interface deformation in these cases. Values are normalized by the initial interface length (half-wavelength is 1.38 cm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Sinusoidal interface length increase (ao/λ = 0.25) following expansion wave refraction. Values are normalized by the initial interface length (half-wavelength is 1.38 cm).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Dependence of the dimensionless growth velocity on the amplitude-to-wave length ratio in Mach 1.5 shock refractions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Rate of interface length change as a function of generated circulation

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In