Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T06:24:32.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the dynamics of a shock–bubble interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

James J. Quirk  and
S. Karni
James J. Quirk
Affiliation:
Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681, USA Present address: Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA 91125, USA.
S. Karni
Affiliation:
Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a detailed numerical study of the interaction of a weak shock wave with an isolated cylindrical gas inhomogeneity. Such interactions have been studied experimentally in an attempt to elucidate the mechanisms whereby shock waves propagating through random media enhance mixing. Our study concentrates on the early phases of the interaction process which are dominated by repeated refractions and reflections of acoustic fronts at the bubble interface. Specifically, we have reproduced two of the experiments performed by Haas & Sturtevant: a Mach 1.22 planar shock wave, moving through air, impinges on a cylindrical bubble which contains either helium or Refrigerant 22. These flows are modelled using the two-dimensional compressible Euler equations for a two-component fluid (air-helium or air–Refrigerant 22). Utilizing a novel shock-capturing scheme in conjunction with a sophisticated mesh refinement algorithm, we have been able to reproduce numerically the intricate mechanisms that were observed experimentally, e.g. transition from regular to irregular refraction, cusp formation and shock wave focusing, multi-shock and Mach shock structures, and jet formation. The level of agreement lends credibility to a number of observations that can be made using information from the simulations for which there is no experimental counterpart. Thus we can now present an updated description for the dynamics of a shock-bubble interaction which goes beyond that provided by the original experiments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 318 , 10 July 1996 , pp. 129 - 163
Copyright
© 1996 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abd-el-Fattah, A. M. & Henderson, L. F. 1978a Shock waves at a fast slow gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 86, 15–32.Google Scholar
Abd-el-Fattah, A. M. & Henderson, L. F. 1978b Shock waves at a slow fast gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 89, 79–95.Google Scholar
Abgrall, R. 1988 Generalisation of the Roe scheme for the computation of mixture of perfect gases. La Recherche Aérospatiale 6, 31–43.Google Scholar
Bell, J., Berger, M., Saltzman, J. & Welcome, M. 1994 Three-dimensional adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 15, 127–138.Google Scholar
Ben-Dor, G. & Takayama, K. 1985 Analytical prediction of the transition from Mach to regular reflection over cylindrical concave wedges. J. Fluid Mech. 158, 365–380.Google Scholar
Berger, M. J. & Colella, P. 1989 Local adaptive mesh refinement for shock hydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 82, 67–84.Google Scholar
Berger, M. J. & Oliger, J. 1984 Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equations. J. Comput. Phys. 53, 482–512.Google Scholar
Catherasoo, C. J. & Sturtevant, B. 1983 Shock dynamics in nonuniform media. J. Fluid Mech. 127, 539–561.Google Scholar
Colella, P., Glaz, H. M. & Ferguson, R. E. 1989 Multifluid algorithm for Eulerian finite difference methods. Manuscript (unpublished).
Drummond, J. P. & Givi, P. 1994 Suppression and enhancement of mixing in high-speed reacting flow fields. In Combustion in High Speed Flows (ed. J. Buckmaster, T. L. Jackson & A. Kumar), pp. 191–229. Kluwer.
Glimm, J. & McBryan, O. 1985 A computational Model for interfaces. Adv. Appl. Maths 6, 422–435.Google Scholar
Graham, R. L. 1969 Bounds on certain multiprocessing anomalies. SIAM J. Appl. Maths 17, 416–429.Google Scholar
Grove, J. W. & Menikoff, R. 1990 Anomalous reflection of a shock wave at a fluid interface. J. Fluid Mech. 219, 313–336.Google Scholar
Haas, J.-F. & Sturtevant, B. 1987 Interaction of weak shock waves with cylindrical and spherical gas inhomogeneities. J. Fluid Mech. 181, 41–76.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. F., Colella, P. & Puckett, E. G. 1991 On the refraction of shock waves at a slow-fast gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 224, 1–27.Google Scholar
Hillier, R. 1991 Computation of shock wave diffraction at a ninety degrees convex edge. Shock Waves 1, 89–98.Google Scholar
Hou, T. Y. & Le Floch, Ph. 1994 Why nonconservative schemes converge to wrong solutions: Error analysis. Math. Comput. 62, 497–530.Google Scholar
Karni, S. 1992 Viscous shock profiles and primitive formulations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 29, 1592–1609.Google Scholar
Karni, S. 1994 Multi-component flow calculations by a consistent primitive algorithm. J. Comput Phys. 112, 31–43.Google Scholar
Karni, S. 1995 A level-set capturing scheme for compressible interfaces. In Numerical Methods for Wave Propagation Phenomena (ed. E. F. Toro). Kluwer.
Larrouturou, B. 1991 How to preserve the mass fractions positive when computing compressible multi-component flows. J. Comput. Phys. 95, 59–84.Google Scholar
Lax, P. D. 1954 Weak solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic equations and their numerical computation. Commum. Pure Appl. Maths 7, 159–163.Google Scholar
Lax, P. D. 1972 Hyperbolic Systems of Conservation Laws and the Mathematical Theory of Shock Waves. SIAM Monograph Series.
Löhner, R., Picone, J. M. & Boris, J. P. 1988 Wave structure produced by shock propagation through a dense bubble gas. In Proc. 16th Intl Symp. on Shock Tubes and Waves, Aachen Germany 1987, Weinheim, Germany, 1988. (ed. by H. Gronig), pp. 613–619. VCH, Weinheim.
Marble, F. E., Hendricks, G. J. & Zukoski, E. E. 1987 Progress toward shock enhancement of supersonic combustion processes. AIAA Paper 87-1880.Google Scholar
Meshkov, Y. Y. 1970 Instability of a shock wave accelerated interface between two gases. NASA Transl. TT F-13, 074 R.F.Google Scholar
Neumann, J. von 1963 Collected Works, vol. 6. Pergamon Press.
Picone, J. M. & Boris, J. P. 1988 Vorticity generation by shock propagation through bubbles in a gas. J. Fluid Mech. 189, 23–51.Google Scholar
Puckett, E. G. & Saltzman, J. S. 1992 A 3-D adaptive mesh refinement algorithm for multi-material gas dynamics. Physica D 60, 84–104.Google Scholar
Quirk, J. J. 1991 An adaptive mesh refinement algorithm for computational shock hydrodynamics. PhD Thesis, Cranfield Institute of Technology, UK.
Quirk, J. J. 1994 A contribution to the great Riemann solver debate. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 18, 555–574.Google Scholar
Quirk, J. J. 1996 A parallel adaptive mesh refinement algorithm for computational shock hydrodynamics. To appear in Appl. Numer. Maths.Google Scholar
Richtmyer, R. D. 1960 Taylor instability in shock acceleration of compressible fluids. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths 23, 297–319.Google Scholar
Roe, P. L. 1982 Fluctuations and signals - A framework for numerical evolution problems. In Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics (ed. K. W. Morton & M. J. Baines), pp. 219–257. Academic.
Rupert, V. 1992 Shock-interface interaction: current research on the Richtmyer-Meshkov problem. In Shock Waves, Proc. 18th Intl. Symp. on Shock Waves, Sendai, Japan 1991 (ed. K. Takayama), pp. 83–94. Springer.
Samtaney, R. & Zabusky, N. J. 1994 Circulation deposition on shock-accelerated planar and curved density-stratified interfaces: models and scaling laws. J. Fluid Mech. 269, 45–78.Google Scholar
Schwendeman, D. W. 1988 Numerical shock propagation in non-uniform media. J. Fluid Mech. 188. 383–410.Google Scholar
Shercliff, J. A. 1977 Vector Fields, p. 276. Cambridge University Press.
Strang, G. 1968 On the construction and comparison of finite-difference schemes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 5, 506–517.Google Scholar
Ton, V. T., Karagozian, A. R., Engquist, B.-E. & Osher, S. J. 1991. Numerical simulation of inviscid detonation waves with finite rate chemistry. Proc. Combustion Inst. 1991 Fall Meeting. UCLA, Paper WSS/C91-101, pp. 482–512.
Van Dyke, M. 1982 An Album of Fluid Motion p. 148, The Parabolic Press, Stanford, California.
Wang, J. C. T. & Widhopf, G. F. 1990 Numerical simulation of blast flowfields using a high resolution TVD finite volume scheme. Computers & Fluids 18, 103–137.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. B. 1957 A new approach to problems of shock dynamics. Part 1. Two dimensional problems. J. Fluid Mech. 2, 145–171.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. B. 1958 On the propagation of shock waves through regions of non-uniform area or flow. J. Fluid Mech. 4 337–360.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Kubota, T. & Zukoski, E. E. 1993 Applications of shock-induced mixing to supersonic combustion. AIAA J. 31, 854–862.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Kubota, T. & Zukoski, E. E. 1994 A model for characterization of a vortex pair formed by shock passage over a light-gas inhomogeneity. J. Fluid Mech. 258, 217–244.Google Scholar
Zwas, G. & Roseman, J. 1973 The effect of nonlinear transformations on the computation of weak solutions. J. Comput. Phys. 12, 179–186.Google Scholar