i / !

/z

NASA ICASE

Contractor Report

Report No. 94-75

194978

.-? <:;:....,, :.'/

S
ON THE DYNAMICS SHOCK-BUBBLE OF A INTERACTION

James J. Quirk
Smadar Karni

(NASA-CR-194978) OF A SHOCK-BUBbLE Report (ICASE)

ON THE DYNAMICS INIERACTION Final 38 p

N95-22325

Unclas

G3/64

0039171

Contract September

NAS

1-19480

1994

Institute for Computer Applications NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23681-0001

in Science

and

Engineering

Operated

by Universities

Space

Research

Association

On

the

dynamics

of a shock-bubble
James J. Quirk 1 and

interaction

Institute

for

Computer NASA

Applications Langley

in Science Center USA.

Engineering

Research VA 23681, and

Hampton,

Smadar Courant Institute New 251 Mercer

Karni

1,2 Sciences

of Mathematical York St.,New University York, NY

10012

Abstract

We present cylindrical elucidate ing. Our

a detailed

numerical Such whereby

study

of the interaction

of a weak

shock

wave

with

an isolated to mix-

gas inhomogeneity. the mechanisms concentrates and

interactions shock early waves phases

have been studied propagating of the fronts

experimentally random process

in an attempt media enhance

through interaction at the

study

on the reflections experiments air,

which

are dominated Specifically, we

by repeated

refractions

of acoustic performed

bubble

interface. a Ms

have reproduced shock wave,

two of the through flows fluid

by Haas

and Sturtevant: which

1.22 planar helium equations wave Unfrom by or

moving 22. These

impinges

on a cylindrical using the

bubble

contains

either Euler

Refrigerant for a two phenomena fortunately, spurious employing ticated

are modelled (air-helium

two-dimensional, 22). Although

compressible simulations

component

or air-Refrigerant they are mostly

of shock flows. suffer problems

are now fairly multi-component oscillations a novel, which

commonplace, extensions are generated

restricted

to single

component often such

of successful at material

single

component Here

schemes we avoid

interfaces. scheme.

nonconservative refinement cheaply.

shock-capturing algorithm Thus which

In addition, extremely

we have utilized

a sophisto

adaptive

mesh relatively

enables

high resolution numerically regular

simulations all the intricate

be performed mechanisms cusp formation

we have been (e.g.

able to reproduce transition from

that

were observed

experimentally

to irregular

refraction, etc.),

and shock wave focusing, an updated

multi-shock

and Mach shock

structures,

jet formation interaction.

and we can now present

description

for the dynamics

of a shock-bubble

IThis research was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under NASA Contract No. NAS1-19480 while the authors were in residence at the Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering (ICASE), NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681. 2Supported in part by an NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship, NSF grant #DMS92 03768, ONR grant #N0001492-J-1245, DOE _:ontract #DEFG0288ER25053 and a Packard Fellowship to Leslie Greengard.

Introduction

In an extremely interaction or cylindrical complex

lucid

paper,

Haas with

and

Sturtevant

(1987)

presented that

an experimental took the form

study

of the

of weak

shock

waves

isolated that

inhomogeneities experiments waves end,

of either

spherical on the can suc-

bubbles.

They

argued behaviour

idealized shock To this

were necessary through

to shed random

light

phenomenological

whereby

propagating their

media

alter the structure cess. A number such distortion certain

of fluid inhomogeneities. of shadowgraphs as transition of the bubble subtleties

experiments much insight folding However,

were into

a resounding several

were produced from regular

which

provide

important shock wave of the

mechanisms focusing, experiments,

to irregular and vortex process since

refraction, formation. were they that

processes, given

interface

the nature

of the interaction difficult occurs across

inevitably

left unexplained. under

Note that condi-

such experiments tions. precise For example, properties when

are extremely diffusion

to control

are conducted forms

imperfect

the membrane are not known bubble 1992), the

the bubble

interface

and so the 1978a,b). cleanly

of the gas inhomogeneity the shock with impinges on the

(Abd-El-Fattah does

& Henderson not always rupture

Moreover,

membrane

and it can interfere bubble in place.

the flow (Rupert

as does the

support

structure

needed

to hold the

There shock

are also difficulties strength (Haas

with the repeatability 1987),

of the experiment

due to variations of the Other of

in the incident flow visualization problems their arise

& Sturtevant

and problems effects

with the interpretation (Wang & Widhopf directly either 1990).

images in that

due to unwanted certain quantities

three-dimensional of interest cannot

be measured limitations

because setup. to which

intrinsic Given this

nature

(e.g.

vorticity)

or because

of practical study

in the experimental the and extent

background,

the purpose could

of the present complement that govern such

was to explore of Haas of shocks bridge the

modern

computational the basic

method

the experiments the propagation could help

Sturtevant

(1987)

in elucidating gases. theories Sturtevant their

mechanisms

through gap

nonuniform existing Haas of

Additionally, of shock were

it was thought reflection-refraction able to use the

that

a study

between although

phenomena theory this

and experiment. acoustics wave theory

For example, to gain a good

of geometrical ignores

understanding to account

experimental

observations, Similarly,

theory

nonlinearities (1963) is exact,

and so it fails within

for all flow features. it cannot interactions theory (1957, cope

while

yon Neumann

its assumptions, to shock Whitham's 1988) account behind can of the

with regions

of non-uniform (Ben-Dot

flow and therefore & Takayama

it is not strictly On the other

applicable hand,

at curved 1958)

interfaces and its

1985).

extensions but

(Catherasoo

& Sturtevant and

1983, it does

Schwendeman not take proper

cope with reflected incident provide artifacts

curved waves. and

interfaces, Moreover,

the theory

is approximate

this

approach

cannot provide

any details

for the flow structure simulations from

refracted

shock

fronts.

Hence

the need for direct genuine flow

numerical

- simulations experimental the idealized, interface, to improve (Abdat a

a controlled and they

environment can provide provided have

in which to isolate global details Indeed,

flow phenomenology dynamics

of the for the that

to supplement refraction

local descriptions Henderson

by theory. already

case of shock careful

at a planar can be used

et a1.(1991)

demonstrated phenomena Here we aim

simulations

the classification E1-Fattah

of reflection-refraction 1978a,b).

which to shed

arose from experiment more light on the

and analysis process

& Henderson

refraction

curved interface. Haas _ Sturtevant's experiments have already inspired several numerical studies. For example,

both Picone
determining investigated

& Boris

(1988)

and

Yang

et a/.(1993,

1994)

have performed while However, system

computations LShner in these used

aimed

at

the long-time the early-time using whilst

evolution dynamics a single

of the bubble

inhomogeneities, process.

et al. (1987) earlier studies

have the

of the interaction than

flow was modelled This simplification, studied these

gas rather

the exact reduced

binary the

by the experiment. results. Admittedly, extent, jump cannot Indeed, the can be must be the

expedient,

inevitably so introduced are fortuitous. with

accuracy

of the and,

for the cases tolerated. be imposed in thermal error

here the errors circumstances the bubble with

are not catastrophic Note that since some

to some

But

desired the

density bubble

across

interface,

a single

gas component case with

model the

equilibrium

its surroundings, large,

as was the dependent

experiments. ratio (for

in temperature here the

will be arbitrarily temperature within

on the

density

air-helium Now one of whereby combustion field studies air

case studied the and motivations

the bubble 'interactions transit

would

be 2.08 _imes

too high). mechanisms

for studying

shock-bubble

is to investigate times available gross

fuel can be mixed (Marble not

efficiently

in the short in such

with errors

supersonic

systems could

et al. 1987).

Clearly,

circumstances,

in the temperature these previous

be tolerated. and

In addition are therefore study avoids the

to the shortcomings prone both

of the flow model,

are under-resolved Our of the computational separate gas

to misinterpretation. of the above shortcomings. by the First, proper Euler upon account equations the is taken for a

components; (air & helium this

flow is modelled

compressible depending

two-component being simulated).

fluid

or air & Refrigerant represents schemes but a small

22 (R22)

experiment component flows such they

Although

generalization satisfactorily (e.g.

over the

single

case, most in that numerical are

popular

shock-capturing spurious can have Here

do not perform at material affect upon novel

for multi-component Abgrall 1988). Since

they

produce

oscillations a significant

interfaces the

artifacts

evolution

of a material this error

interface,

to be avoided. 1994a).

we employ the scheme

a somewhat allows

scheme

to avoid

numerical

difficulty

(Karni

In essence,

for a controlled

conservation While

so as to maintain of strict

the correct conservation waves poor scheme allows (Lax

pressure runs 1954,

equilibrium against 1972),

between

different

fluid components. of numerical Second,

this relaxation

perceived

wisdom

in the design results.

schemes

for flows with shock the shortcoming (Quirk simulations 1991). and of This so it

it does produce a sophisticated hundred-fold

excellent

we overcome scheme detailed expensive. provides

resolution

by utilizing by several that

adaptive the cost

mesh

refinement

can reduce for simulations

of performing

would

otherwise our

prove to be prohibitively computational experiment. other machinery

As will be shown simulations purpose in some The and detail which could

in this

paper,

a means

of producing is general it

agree

remarkably

well with

Since much quite different

of this machinery phenomena,

be profitably

used to investigate are necessarily paper

we describe

(although

the minutiae for the rest

skipped). In the next section that we present schemes the which

organization Euler applied

of this

is as follows. fluid case and

compressible are routinely case. In

equations in the the

for a two-component single-component major components the sections

we demonstrate work satisfactorily method for the

do not

in this

generalised multiwe have a

3 we describe flows, This then

of our

numerical set-up and

for simulating that

component simulated. qualitative

in 4 we detail by four

computational of results concentrating one section

experiments First,

is followed

discussion.

in 5 we present Then we present

comparison

against

experiment with

on flow visualization. deals with the

two quantitative

comparisons

experiment,

velocities

of certain

key

flowfeatures, the
the axis vorticity discussion resulting

other

deals

with These

the measurement comparisons of the shock

of pressure

traces

at various

locations

along of this aimed general

of flow symmetry. from

are followed through

by a discussion

on the production Although studies some

the passage the main time

the bubble

inhomogeneity. to several recent with

goes beyond the long

purpose

of this paper of the bubble.

it is pertinent Finally,

at determining remarks

evolution study.

in 9 we close

concerning

our numerical

Multicomponent
multicomponent equations. just

Flows
flows using the compressible in this paper Euler we focus equations augmented by a requisite components components

We model number

of species

For clarity,

on flows with

only two to several

and so we employ follows

a single species

equation;

the extension

of our discussion

straightforwardly. using Cartesian coordinates (z, y), the governing equations may be written

In two-dimensions, in conservation form

w, + r(w), + G(W) = 0
pv

pu
W

pu 2 + P

pvu

(1)

pv I E p pY

; r(w)=

puv
pu( S + p) puY

G(W)

pv 2 + P pv( E + P) prY

Note

that

these

equations

are written

in mixture one and

form,

p is the

density two.

of a binary It is assumed

mixture that both

whose fluid

mass fractions components

are Y for component are in pressure

1 - Y for component they move with

equilibrium

and that respectively. components

a single velocity of no velocity

whose

components

are u and v in the z and y directions, only if the density Here, perfect E is the total gases, by variation energy between

This assumption is moderate volume.

slip is reasonable

as is generally Both

the case with two gases. are taken to be

of the mixture heat

per unit _/'1 =

Cpl/CVl

fluid components Therefore,

with ratios

of specific

and 3'2 = Cp2/Cv2.

the pressure,

p, is given

1 p=(7(Y)-I)(E-_pu where standard the effective 7 for the mixture reasoning depends to be
71CvlY

1 2 - _pv ) concentration, Y, and is found

(2) from

on the species

thermodynamic

"4- 72Cv_(1

Y)

.fir) =
It is well known governing equation equations that solutions to (1) may valid in their

+ Cv2(1- Y)
develop discontinuous form. remains shock fronts, across which

(3)
the

are no longer

differential which

Using valid

Gauss's at a shock

divergence

theorem,

(1) may be recast

into an integral

form

-_

O//o

Wdzdy

Fdy - Gdz

= 0

(4)

and which can be used to deduce Numerically, which Over

the Rankine-Hugoniot to produce

jump

conditions conservative G are used

(Courant

& Friedrichs

1948). in

(4) may be discretized approximations a whole to these scheme

a so-called F and

shock-capturing to evolve the field

scheme solution.

numerical recent years

to the flux vectors has grown (Roe

new industry numerical necessarily fluxes

up around

the problem

of how best

to compute however, rather than

approximations a shock-capturing a perfect that

1986).

Irrespective

of the flux formulation, which is smeared But

results

in a 'viscous' coincides

shock profile

discontinuity

(unless

the discontinuity ensures strength that

with a cell interface). captured shock,

it can be shown artificially may

a conservative has both

discretization the correct

a numerically conversely, ttou

although

smeared,

and speed; (Lax

a nonconservative 1991).

discretization

give physically Given the starting

inconsistent

solutions property,

1954,1972;

& Le Floch

this fundamental point for devising

a conservative

formulation and

is almost many

universally successful in extending

accepted schemes

as have

a shock-capturing flows. is ensuring

scheme, However, that

to date

been so developed schemes between

for single-component flows across et al.

a major

obstacle pressure Abgrall

conservative is maintained et al. 1989; difficulty across from and is

to multi-component fluid components 1991; in Figure interface, pressure. the solution computation given Ton

the correct interface Bell

equilibrium

a diffused 1991; Karni each that

material 1994a;

(e.g.

1988; Colella numerical remain

Larrouturou illustrated the smeared the equilibrium contaminate conservative helium case

et al.

1994).

This

1. Even

though

of the conserved corresponds such to the

variables artificial pressure

might

monotone state differs

the pressure Once field.

intermediate fluctuations from

generated For example,

erroneous

can propagate a one-dimensional,

Figure

2 (a) shows a snapshot where bubble the start is marked has passed

of a shock-bubble

interaction position time of the after

data

is identical

to the airlines and and

in 4. Here the initial field is shown some

by the vertical through

the computed several

pressure

the shock

the bubble are clearly

reflections sets

and refractions of reasonable unstable, (Karni data,

have taken such

place.

Spurious

pressure

oscillations Now since

visible.

For other

oscillations numerical are therefore alter

get even larger. perturbations to be avoided. the local release can

material completely in a reactive energy

interfaces incorrect system

can be physically interfacial behaviour

even slight 1994b) and could

trigger

Note that of chemical

such pressure compound

perturbations the error.

significantly

and so might

Density

Momentum____

Energy PresslU'e_

___

Figure

1: Pressure

fluctuation

at a material

interface

due

to numerical

diffusion.

Numerical

problems

with

smeared

interfaces 4

can

be avoided

if fronts

are fitted

rather

than

1.6 l ' S_

1.6 mmmmam_

!.5

t 1.4

o 1.4

1.3 Babble [=0 1.2 at

13

, ibo i_o _o l_o i_o 2

Mesh (_ll

1.2 Mesh Cell

o 1,1oi_o i_o : (b) Primitive scheme (Karni 1994a)

(a) Conservative

scheme

(Roe

1982)

Figure

2: Pressure

profiles

for a one

dimensional

'shock-bubble'

interaction.

captured adopt Euler

(e.g.

Grove & Meinkoff approach

1990),

but

front

fitting

introduces equations

its own difficulties. in so-called primitive

Here form.

we The

an alternative system

and consider form is given

the governing by + BP(U)Uy

(1) in primitive

U_ + AP(U)U_

= 0

It
V

v P Y

AP(U)=

! 000 l0 00/ /
0 0 0 0 u 0 0 u p-1 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 v

(5)

BP(U)=

0 0 0

p-1 v

7P 0

0 0

7P 0

To see the direction of velocity reduces u remain which

advantages

of this _

formulation, -- 0. Across u, are

consider

a planar both

material

interface

aligned

in the

with data normal

such that to the

the interface, constant.

the pressure, that locally

p, and the component the primitive that both system p and

interface, decoupled

It follows equations

to three constant.

completely Thus,

linear advection discretization interface, near shocks

in p, v and Y and

any reasonable near

of (5) can be expected without introducing

to produce conservation is taken

solutions errors. to control by

are free of oscillations errors, variable (1973),

the material will occur

Conservation them, Zwas a primitive & Roseman

however,

and unless some Building

measure

formulation Karni (1992) order novel

will prove has

inadequate. a set

on an idea first correction a 'nearly'

proposed terms

developed errors

of high-order

which

can be used primitive shocks scheme. that

to remove

leading This

conservation scheme are rests

so as to produce

conservative, captured

variable have

scheme.

on two observations: by the truncation 'viscous'

(i) Numerically error shock the profile of the profile

'viscous'

profiles

which

determined produces strength

discretization in the sense

(ii) A conservative shock employs has

discretization both the correct terms

a consistent and speed.

a captured scheme

In essence, shock

present

primitive

variable scheme.

correction

so as to mimic

the 'viscous'

of a conservative that 2 (a)

In the next section,

we outline

the derivation problem

of this scheme. oscillation

But first,

we demonstrate cf. Figure

for the one-dimensional and (b).

shock-bubble

it produces

free solutions,

Numerical
describe

Method
the major components These are: of our numerical (i) the primitive flows; method variable for investigating discretization adaptive whilst the - this mesh dynamics provides refinement low the a

We now

of a shock-bubble sound basis

interaction.

for the integration

of multicomponent in order

(ii) the parallel, flow features,

implementation computational phenomena

- this is essential costs; under (iii) graphical

to resolve

intricate

maintaining of elucidating

flow visualization

- this facilitates

the process

investigation.

3.1

A Non-Conservative Strang that (1968), correction

Shock-Capturing we employ terms errors. dimensional

Scheme splitting to integrate the system (5) with the so

Following refinement

are applied Thus,

to the right

hand side (RHS) integrating

of each split

equation

as to control

conservation

we alternate

between

U: + AP(U)U_ The precise hand that (Roe side the

At = -_-Dx terms, Dx

and and Dy,

U_ + BP(U)Uy depends

At = -_-Dy.

(6) for the left assuming scheme system

form of the correction (LHS) of each split

upon the discretization the correction Roe's terms, Dx,

equation. operator

We shall now derive has been discretized the x-sweep

LHS of the x-sweep In essence,

using

first-order

upwind

1982).

this is done by comparing x-sweep discretization

discretization system

for the primitive (1).

(5) with

the analogous scheme

for the conservative is a first-order

If Roe's second-order

is used to solve to the

(1), the scheme equivalent

approximation

to (1) but it is a

approximation

equation

W, where A = At/Ax matrix

F(W)x is the ratio _

0W "

= W, + Ac(W)W" of the time step

=Y\At ('(IAIW.)_.
and mesh size used the leading terms viscous correct equation determine path

w.)
for the order integration terms and

(7)
A is

the Jacobian error

The RHS of (7) constitutes order, these dissipative

in the truncation path across since the it

of the scheme. shock

To leading

the viscous

numerical is produced

transition.

In this

case,

the numerical

is physicMly speeds

consistent

by a conservative if Roe's to the upwind equivalent

scheme scheme

and so it produces is applied to solve

shock

and jumps. is a second-order

Similarly, approximation

(5), the scheme

equation

=T
In general, discretization, enforce the two viscous yields shocks forms that (7) and (8) are different. the Rankine-Hugoniot solution, the

v,,

.
arising the

(8)
from a conservative latter the does not. To

The former, conditions difference

satisfy

consistent

shock

profiles

on the primitive

between

two viscous for the

expressions primitive

(appropriately system

transformed)

has to be added

to the RHS of the x-sweep

operator

to give (6) where

(9)
and T is the conservative to primitive transformation 6 matrix oU o-'_V"

If (6)is solved Roe's by

procedure be written is conservative entirely in terms

upwind

scheme,

with its RHS (9) appropriately approximation.

discretized, The correction

the solution terms may

to the order

of the numerical variables

of the primitive

Dx

T(T-1)=[AP[U= A

- T(T-1)_Ut.

(10)

Straightforward given by

algebra

shows

that

for the extended

Euler

system

(5), the

correction

terms

are

D X =

(11)

( c2pxv +l4lulp=v=+ c4e" =v" - 4p,v,> u

where

and a is the sound The following

speed. can be made:

observations

If (5) is used by either

to replace

time

derivatives

by space Dx

derivatives, near

all terms contact may

within

Dx

are scaled

one or both terms,

of ux and p_, hence although derived

vanishes

surfaces.

Consequently,

the correction order upwinding

for first-order

upwinding, resolution

also be used for secondsurfaces (Karni anyway,

without Note that where

degrading such schemes

the latter's

superior

of contact

1992, 1994a). which

often reduce terms

to first-order play.

accuracy

near shocks

is precisely

the correction

come into

The error. Floch

correction

terms

are derived errors,

using

asymptotic

arguments

based

on the scheme to the method

truncation (Hou & Le

Conservation 1991, Karni

while significantly

reduced,

are inherent

1992) and are not completely

eliminated.

At 3. The correction terms depend on the ratio A = A-zx' and so some variation in their effect is to be expected with changes in Courant number (wave speed* A). It is our experience that the correction size of time terms step work best at Courant numbers process close to one, which is the upper bound on the

for the integration

to be stable.

The correction

terms

for the y-sweep

operator

(6) may

be similarly

derived

and

are given

by

0
i
2p 1 Dy = _p clpyvv

_c2py v + 41_l,ovuy c,,_v_y -+,_v + -'7c9 vPv +c4 a )_ \ v

-4p, u+

- 4ptvt

(12)

7--1

( c3pv_ + _c4p_v"

+ 2'v'pu_ 0

where

the coefficients the derivation

c1-c4

are the same

as those terms,

in (11) but our basic

with u replaced

by v. is as follows.

Given

of the correction

method

of flow integration Roe scheme derivatives

The LHS for each split equation and-signal derivatives used form which (Roe are 1982). then The

(6) is discretized For the correction

using a second-order terms, temporal

cast in fluctuationby spatial values time takes

are replaced

centrally correction operator

differenced, terms

and pointwise contribute

values

take

the cell-centred Euler scheme

by Roe's

scheme.

to cell-updates conservative

via a forward variable

integration. the form

Thus

the x-sweep

of our 'nearly'

primitive

,_, U_+X = __ FRe(I'."_ j+ where _o, is the standard Roe evolution operator.

At [--_ Dx(U_ The y-sweep

)] operator scheme follows (Strang by analogy, 1968). and

the two operators

are alternated

so as to arrive

at a two-dimensional

3.2

The

AMR Mesh partial

Algorithm Refinement differential

An

Overview algorithm is a general purpose to reduce scheme for integrating systems

The Adaptive of hyperbolic

(AMR) equations.

It attempts

the costs of integration of the solution

by matching being sought. of

the local resolution For example, shock the they

of the computational of gas dynamic

grid to the local requirements flows, a fine mesh is generally elsewhere a relatively coarse

in simulations

used only in the vicinity mesh is employed. problem Although dependent,

waves and other

flow discontinuities, which savings (Quirk & Oliger employs rectangular accrue of more

computational are often

savings

from local mesh than

refinement

are totally

significant; phenomena

five hundred-fold 1993). The

have been obtained of the AMR

for simulations algorithm (1991). refers of such lie

of detonation

& Hanebutte (1984), but

foundations outlined

with the work of Berger The AMR to a single patches. domain. grid mesh G1. algorithm

the derivative grid system.

here is due to Quirk the term

a hierarchical patch

In the following, term 'grid'

'mesh'

topologically

of cells and the a set of coarse

refers to a collection delineates that locally the there

At the bottom These patches

of the hierarchy form the grid patches. grid

mesh

patches

computational is continuity of finer

Go and This

they

are restricted may patches

such

lines between patches Each into

neighbouring the coarse patch

domain

be refined form

by embedding grid

Go. These

embedded

the next

in the hierarchy, patches that

embedded The patches. grid tiers

is effectively

formed ratio

by subdividing is arbitrary,

the coarse but it must

cells of the be the same

it overlaps. embedded of adding

choice Thus,

for the

refinement

for all the This process 3.

by construction,

the grid G1 also has continuity may be repeated as often

of grid lines. as desired,

to effect local refinement

see Figure

From stabilityconsiderations, manynumerical schemes have

that time time which avoids given may step. steps waves the be used to integrate the a system AMI_ of equations. refines grids Consequently, are taken algorithm in time

a restriction

on the size of time step the smaller More that the allowable but smaller at

The finer the mesh,

as well as space. which ensures

on fine grids

than

on coarse (the

in a fashion

the rate

move

relative

to the mesh where

Courant grids

number)

is comparable

for all grid levels. Courant

This

undesirable step

situation

coarse

are integrated constraints:

at very small some schemes

numbers

the time

set by the finest for small Courant on each grid

grid's

stability

(e.g.

Lax-Wendroff)

give poor The

accuracy field solution

numbers. is retained of integration in both time even in regions is always and space different of grid coarse overlap and so all grid levels

in the hierarchy to interpolate overlying

coexist. a coarse The

The order grid solution various over which

from

to fine since it is necessary boundary conditions for its

to provide grid levels

fine grid. the

integrations any

at the

are recursively place.

interleaved for coarse level grid

to minimize consistency grid. Figure

span

temporal to project

interpolation a fine grid steps and

need solution back

take

Periodically, underlying

purposes, 4 shows with

it is necessary the sequence ratios

on to its

of integration of 2 and 4. grid

projections

for a three

{Go, G1, G2} The

refinement

integration of dummy

of an individual cells. Prior which

is extremely

simple the

in concept. dummy

Each

mesh

is surrounded mesh that patch in

by borders the grid be met. integrator developed

to integrating is consistent

a grid,

cells for every conditions

are primed Each that mesh

with data patch

with the various

boundary

have to

is then

integrated

independently boundary. mesh Thus,

by an application in principle, any

dependent, cell-centred

black-box scheme process. flow

never

actually

sees a mesh rectangular the

for a single

topologically

can form grid Monitor

the basis for the integration to the functions changes based

In general solution

it is necessary

to adapt

computational in nature. refinement

in the evolving

and so the grid structure automatically 1991). wave

is dynamic where

on the local solution small from scale the

are used to determine phenomena simulation mesh patches (Quirk

needs to take place 5 shows Each several

so as to resolve snapshots shows the taken

For a simple diffracting

example, around grid. and

Figure a corner. This the grid

of a shock which the

snapshot conforms at the

outlines main

of the of (van have

go to make diffracted

the finest shock front

clearly located here

to the apex

features corner

the flow,

namely

vortex shown

of the

Dyke 1982). taken place

Although between

the changes each frame. cells. the

in grid structure Note that while they

are dramatic, small,

many

adaptions patch

might

appear

each mesh because the than

actually

contains process proceeds

several dovetails

hundred with

A large

number process, that

of small

grid movements 4.

occurs that

the adaption always

integrations

see Figure there grid.

Also note a drop

adaption

from fine to coarse

so as to ensure

is never A grid

of more essentially

one grid level at a new set

the edge of a fine grid of mesh process patches which

to the underlying must Where data be primed

coarse with

adaption

produces before

data

from

the old set of patches an old patch old patch

the integration grid level, for

can proceed. of overlap, overlap,

a new patch may be simply field

partially shovelled

overlaps from the

of the same

the region of no such

to the new patch. from

In regions coarse

the

required

solution

is found

by interpolation

the underlying

grid solution. In a typical patch application the finest grid of data will contain several hundred The Multiple mesh parallel Data patches. AMR Thus, algorithm model. the mesh (Quirk Each

is a sufficiently 1993)

fine unit

for efficient using a Single

parallelism. Program

Hanebutte

is implemented

(SPMD)

I Illl1111111tll I IIIIllllt_llll I111111111gl_ll l llllllll_J_lll III !!!I I Ill_

I'F,','// : ; ; : :- i

F I F F I l

A
I # I f I / 1 I / l/ I I / / I I

/ I I_';_'
/ / / I I I I I I I I ! I_11 gltf Illl Ill| IJ IIII Ig| I | I I

;
II

I llll _11111 _t1111 _11111

iiiiiiiii[iiiii_lllll

, \\ \
!

1/1111_'
l I / I I I I I I I I I I

I
I I

lll_lllll Illllllllllll I I I Illltlllllll III Figure

I till

////////
employs a hierarchical
PROJECTION

i\\\\\
grid system.
ADAPTION

3: The AMR, algorithm

GRID

INTEGRATION

TIME

STEP

Go G1 4xG2

At A_/2
4 x At8 G_ _ G_
62

GI 4 x G_

Atl2 4 x At/8
G2 ---* G_

G1 _ Go
62

Ga

Figure

4: Grid operations

are recursively

interleaved

(to

be read from top to bottom).

Figure

5: The AMR

algorithm

employs 10

a dynamic

grid system.

processing except that

node

executes

the

basic

serial

algorithm are sent that

(Quirk between

1991) the

in isolation nodes

from

all other information the

nodes, that

at a few key points node deems point

messages

to supply during

an individual of a grid, priming

to be missing, at which

is off-processor. needs to know

For example, about other

integration the

the only of the

a processor

processors fetches receiving

is during

dummy computation Each

cells.

Whereas

in a serial memory

computation and some

all data necessitate

are from

memory, from have

for a parallel another

some

are from

a message of tasks that

processor.

time the grid adapts, correctly the

the algorithm dummy of those cells tasks

generates of a given that of their

a schedule grid.

to be performed this schedule

so as to prime to produce

If running off-processor

in parallel, fetches.

is parsed individual node

a schedule

necessitate fetch

At which so that Thus,

point, every

processors

can exchange

subsets

schedules,

as appropriate, later date.

can construct process is carried

a schedule

of messages

that

it must

send

out at some fetches

the priming

out in two phases.

First,

all the local data that

are performed of it. The node

as for the serial

case.

Second,

each node sends

out the data

has been requested message

then waits for those data from arrive grid its own schedules is unimportant. levels also necessitate

items it has requested. what The to do with adaption the

For each incoming data,

it can readily in which

determine messages between fashion

off-processor and the

and so the order

process amounts

back projection these

of the field solution are handled in a similar

sizeable cells.

of communication,

to the priming The problem

of the dummy of load

balancing

the

AMR

algorithm before

rests the

on determining new field solution procedures (Quirk

the best

distribution from bear

of the new patches the old field strong that solution.

amongst

the processing

nodes

is interpolated 1994b) which

Currently, 'Bin

this is done Packing'

using

heuristic (Graham of data

similarities they must

to classical account

algorithms costs

1969) with the added between nodes.

complication

for the communication

transfer

3.3

Flow

Visualization to make

Images comparison (Liepmann between our numerics 1957). Such and experiment, are useful that we present for identifying the sensitivity is little to a

In _5, in order number

a qualitative images

of schlieren-type which

& Roshko contour plots.

images

weak features of our numerical be gained warrant. from

are often lost within exceeds to match that

It should

be appreciated

images trying

which the

can be obtained experimental the

experimentally images as some

and so there other applications

exactly tried their

might from

Instead

we have simply results. Despite the various in Figures

to elicit simplicity,

maximum

amount

of information provide

possible a very

our numerical means The

our schlieren-type that comprise shock

images refraction

effective

of assimilating plots shown

mechanisms 7 and 9 depict

phenomena. of the density field,

the magnitude

of the gradient

IVpl=
and hence gradient. following they The may density be viewed derivatives as idealized schlieren images; the darker the image the larger the

were computed _b, was used

using straightforward to accentuate weak

central-differencing, flow features,

and the

nonlinear

shading

function,

(_klvpl - exp\ IVpI. o=)'

11

where

k is a constant colour

that graphics

took the value 600 for the light fluid and 120 for the heavy system the grey shades outside the bubble were produced

fluid. using

Usthe

ing a 24 bit

< R, G, B > triplet < 204_, 204_, 255_ We also present useful for determining

< 255_b, 255_b, 255_b >, >. a number of realistically

and the shades

within

the bubble

were produced

using

lit surface

plots,

see Figures But

8,10

anci 15, which prevents

are

the strengths

of certain

flow features.

lack of space

us from

describing

how these plots

were produced.

Computational

Set-up
of the dynamics performed wave, of a shock-bubble by interaction (1987). we have reproduced Namely, bubble the numerically of a or

For our investigation two of the experiments Ms = 1.22 planar R22

Haas _z Sturtevant through the helium air, with bubble

interactions helium

shock

moving

a cylindrical is lighter and

of either

Refrigerant so acts acoustic

(CHCIF2). acoustic

Whereas lens,

than

the surrounding

air and

as a divergent

the R22 bubble

is heavier

therefore

acts as a convergent

lens. As will be seen in 5, these the bubbles

two cases lead to very different by inflating a cylindrical

flow behaviour. former whose walls were

In the experiments

were produced of nitrocellulose.

made from a very thin membrane of the bubble and the resultant

Thus good control two-dimensional, the experiments

was exercised

over the shape which

flows were almost to mimic

and so our computations fairly closely. Haas

are two-dimensional produced for certain

can be expected

_z Sturtevant (ii) velocities along

three sets of results: key flow features;

(i) flow visualization (iii) pressure

in the form of spark shadowgraphs; at points downstream

traces measured similar results

of the bubble

the axis of flow symmetry. it should be appreciated

We have produced that the experimental represent could

sets of results

from our simulations. and velocities),

However, unlike their case. was

(shadowgraphs from a series

computational Only formed image. a single

counterparts, spark

a compilation be taken

of runs for each bubble record

shadowgraph the experiment

from each run, and so the complete delay times to the exposure the accuracy

by repeating While

with different excellent

of the shadowgraph measurements it is sensitive to

this method

produced

images, is derived

of the velocity of images

necessarily

suffered:

since each measurement

from a sequence in the velocity it is thought

the repeatability

of the experiment.

The general

uncertainty for which

measurements

is thought

to be 11%, with the exception _z Sturtevant 1987).

of a few instances

to be as large as 30% (Haas

A schematic field is symmetric was computed. DA were treated

of our computational about

set-up

is shown

in Figure

6. We have assumed

that the flow

the axis of the shock tube and so only the top half of the flow field (ABCD) boundary conditions a standard were applied reflecting to the flow domain: procedure sides BC and the

The following

as solid walls using

boundary

(Quirk

1991);

inflow along side CD was specified zeroth-order downstream relevance profile extrapolation boundary

using the exact along

flow conditions Note

behind neither

the incident

shock wave; nor the Of more

was used

the side AB.

that

the upstream

treatment

is critical

since no physical

waves reach these boundaries. when a shock 1991). smears

are the so-called

'start-up'

errors which as starting

are generated

to its natural that

given an exact shock

discontinuity

conditions to the right

(Hillier

It is for this reason so that these

the incident manifest

was placed

some distance

of the bubble

errors, which (Quirk

themselves

as a pair of low frequency

waves moving

on the passive

characteristics

12

1991), All specific

would gas heats

not have a chance components were

to interfere modelled

with the shock-bubble gases; volume the

interaction appropriate heat

process. values for Cv, the ratio of

as perfect constant

7, the gas constant are given in Table

R, and the 1. The initial

specific

capacity

used for the relations of the and

simulations given the

flow field was determined (Ms = 1.22), taking

from standard the density

shock

strength flow ahead

of the incident of the shock

shock

wave

and'pressure thermal

quiescent mechanical

to be unity.

The bubble air, therefore that the

was assumed its initial density

to be in both was simply with

equilibrium bubble

with the surrounding case, it was assumed

R_ir/Rb_,b_te.

For the helium mass as indicated properties to model components. states

contamination

of helium Table (1991),

air was 28% by the gas

by Haas

and Sturtevant Given

(1987).

As can be seen from of Henderson et al.

1, this modifies no attempt to separate

substantially. the effects

the experiences which

was made the two gas

of the membrane ahead

was needed each mesh

in the

experiment

Therefore,

of the shock, its centre

cell was simply of the bubble.

initialised

with

one of two

depending

on whether

lay inside

or outside

_mm

222J mm

Figure

6: A schematic

of the

computational

domain

(not

to scale).

Gas Component air R.22 He He+28% air

R
kJ/kg K

cv
kJ/kg 0.72 0.365 3.11 2.44 K

1.4 1.249 1.67 1.648

0.287 0.091 2.08 1.578

Table

1: Gas

properties

for the

simulations.

The a square factor

computational

domain

was discretized

using

20 coarse

mesh

patches

each of which both with

formed

of 50 by 50 cells. of 4, in order mesh

Additionally,

two levels of refinement Thus the effective resolution

were used, computational of 0.056

a refinement to

to resolve

flow details. cells with

grid mm.

is equivalent Both simulations Model

a uniform were run and took

of 16,000

by 800

a spatial cluster

as parallel two evenings

computations each

on a small

of workstations we make

(8 Sun no claims

Sparcl0

51s)

to complete. numerical uniform

In this method, mesh

paper,

as to the that

excellent R22

computational bubble

efficiency

of our

but it is sobering calculation would

to consider require

for the

computation

the equivalent

3.26 1011 cell updates

13

(16 x I,592 iterations a mesh 16,000 by 800 cells). on For our flow solver, singleprocessorof a a CKAY Y-MP might manage one cellupdate every 10ps in which case it would need 905 hours to

run the simulation.Brute forcecomputations on super computers do not representa sensibleoption for investigationsf shock wave phenomena. o

Results

and

Discussion:

_Flow

Visualization
images which reveal the experiment certain subtleties of the

In this section shock-bubble studies.

we present interactions

a number of flow visualization which were not apparent

from either

or previous

numerical

5.1 Figure

R22

Bubble

Convergent of schlieren-type

Case images from the simulation images of the R22 bubble is also shown. In order case, by Pleasingly, out the describe recall

7 shows

a sequence

way of comparison, the simulation quality clearly

the corresponding reproduces

sequence

of experimental features

all the salient

of the interaction. the experiment, correctly that

to bring now

of the simulation, in some shock

and to show detail. is moving But first,

how it complements so as to interpret

we shall which

this interaction that the incident

the images

follow,

from

right to left and note images and

the original looks

position

of the bubble circle with a

is marked T-shaped Frame shock What bottom bubble

by a light support

circle

in the

numerical images.

by what

like a dark

in the experimental 7 shows

(a) of Figure

a view of the R22 bubble that appears the bubble

some 55ps after it is first hit by the incident has already vertical undergone a slight near deformation. the top and the for

wave from which remains of the

it can be seen incident These shock segments shock shock

as two short

line segments shock

of the bubble. and a curved moment

are joined which hits

by a curved refracted the Bubble. suggests that

which

runs inside analysis

reflected the incident

lies outside the bubble

A one-dimensional the reflected of these 8 (a)); shock

the precise weaker than

is 6.4 times can be wave is because (1987) was

the refracted the surface

shock.

An appreciation density that

of the relative fields

strengths (Figure

two waves

gained from

plots for the Note

and pressure

the reflected shock

so weak it is hardly the sound observed given weaker speed that

discernible. the bubble

the refracted that

shock

lags behind the bubble.

the incident

inside

is lower than is slightly

outside

Haas and Sturtevant but no explanation shock

the refracted this

shock From

thickened plots

at its two endpoints, it is clear that surfaces matches appear

as to why

was so. both

the surface

the refracted slightly

is slightly Thus the

at its endpoints, is indicative parts of the

the pressure

and density system that

chamfered. between

thickening and strong As time becomes side limbs

of a compression refracted shock.

the pressure

jumps

the weak

moves

on, the difference and by 115ps normal instant

in sound (Figure

speeds 7 (b))

between

the

bubble shock surface

and the surrounding has folded plots of the such that

air two and in its ramp.

more

apparent,

the refracted The that

now run roughly fields for this In essence, time for the

to its central (Figure 8 (b))

portion. reveal the

density

pressure strength. Thus

each side

limb varies forms almost

markedly a concave ninety

flow inside waves

the bubble,

air-R22 the

interface

a series

of compression

are required

to turn

flow through but

degrees:

each side limb is nearly

horizontal

and so the induced

flow is vertical,

the induced

flow behind

14

the central incident bubble

portion have

of the refracted started

shock

is largely the

horizontal. downstream vorticity is inviscid,

Note half

that

the

two segments bubble, and

of the that the

shock interface

to diffract

around roll-ups

of the

shows shock by

signs of incipient wave. Now since numerical such

where

has been the

generated

by the passage of these resolution roll-ups of the whether to

of the incident

the flow model diffusion roll-ups matters and

development upon the

will be controlled computational a viscous resolve grid.

vestigial Nevertheless would

so will depend realistic

are qualitatively since a prohibitively

and it is doubtful would

flow model the appropriate

improve

fine mesh

be required

scales accurately. of compression and waves which turns the flow around in the surface each of the two bends density with and the wave

By 135ps in the refracted pressure side shows images, curvature the the limbs

the system shock

has steepened 8 (c)). Thus

is clearly

visible

plots

for the

fields (Figure

the refracted eta/.

wave does not extend (1988). Whilst the than

beyond

its junction of the

as was suggested more starkly

by LShner

thickening

refracted

up much it should

in the experimental that across

shadowgraphs

it does in the numerical represents tube an integration used will the within to make

schlieren of the

be remembered density field

an experimental the entire width

shadowgraph of the shock

of the

facility flow field

to perform subtly alter

experiment. recorded image

Consequently, in ways that

any small are not

three-dimensionality always easy to fathom. referring image

in the

Here we believe to Figure 7 (c),

exaggerated the upper

thickening of the which

is one such

experimental that

artifact.

Because,

two thickened matches

limbs

appear

in experimental image.

it is just

possible

out a line

the front

shown

by the numerical are much 7 (c) that

Other

artifacts

of the experiment Figure

more obvious the bubble's tube,

and so do not cause support structure reflections Looking

undue

confusion.

For example, of spurious and study, blockage Figure The

it is clear from waves.

gave rise to a number from the tube's the influence walls present such

As did the walls of the shock waves also appear to perform dynamics

but we model images.

so these

particular

in the a series

numerical

beyond what

it would effects

be interesting have on the that

of simulations process. shock

to determine

of interaction

7 (d) shows in peak

by 187ps the refracted caused by this

has almost is seen

been

focused

down

to a point. plots behind shock and have shock started bubble along surface

increase

pressure

focusing is 2.1 times

in the

corresponding the expected of the

surface pressure incident bubble,

(Figure an Ms

8 (d)); at this time, = 1.22 shock wave.

the peak pressure Outside the bubble, their

larger than

the top and bottom around These part bottom the

segments

wave have two weak

now crossed, contact

following

diffraction

downstream separate

half of the regions part

discontinuities

are now visible. the diffracted the top and shocks

contacts

of fluid that

been induced wave. to pass because the The

into motion reflected the

by either from Again

or the undisturbed walls of the their shock

of the incident have outside The now the

shocks bubble.

tube

through

these

lag behind the light

counterparts fluids.

of the difference interface have

in the sound become

speeds

between

and heavy are very

roll-ups in the

bubble

much they

more

pronounced as tiny scallops

and

prominent Note

plot for the pressure of the number top and bottom of cylindrical front

field where reflected acoustic

appear through

(Figure bubble

8 (d)).

that

the passage rise to a

shocks waves

the corrugated recombine

interface

has given

which

then

to form

a shock

in a manner

reminiscent

of Huygen's Once

reconstruction. shock which has been focussed is cylindrical (Figure it emerges 7 (e)). from the downstream The downstream interface to become bubble

the refracted wave

a transmitted

interface

of the

15

necessarily alignsitselfith the resultantvelocityfieldwhich isalmost radialand so it takes on w a wedge-likeshape. Note that the cylindricalransmitted wave is in the stages of catchingup the t two diffracted segments of the incidentshock front. Although the agreement between experiment and computation is poor at thismoment in time, it isworth remembering that each shadowgraph

was produced from a separate experimental run. Therefore,the fact that we are generallyable to match our numerical schlierens closely the shadowgraphs istestimony to the repeatability f so to o the experiment. In thisone instance, itwould appear that the experimental run was relativelyoor p and that the grossfeaturesof the computation are correctly positioned. If there is any criticism the simulation,itshould be directedat a few subtle shortcomings of on the small scale.For example, the two-pronged featureemanating from the left-handsideof the bubble (Figure 7 (e)onwards), seems unduly exaggerated in our simulation.This featureis caused by a narrow jet of fluidwhich isshot forward during the focusingof the refractedwave. As yet, we cannot categoricallytate the cause of thisexaggeration. It is probably due to the lack of real s viscosity our flow model. In the experiment viscosity in causes the jet to spread thus reducing its range of influence. the simulation, In which isinviscid, any spreading of the jet issimply clown to residualnumerical diffusion. iven the resolution our computation, thisresidualdiffusion svery G of i small and so the spreading of the jetwillbe underdone giving itan exaggerated range of influence. However, itisconceivablethat the exaggerationisyet another obscure numerical failing the type of catalogued by Quirk (1994a). By 342/_s the bubble has moved appreciably from itsoriginalpositionand it has started to elongate (Figure 7 (g)).Inside the bubble there is a backward moving shock which was born from the internal reflection ofthe refracted shock from the downstream interface. n the numerical image a I number of weaker waves are alsoapparent,these are caused by waves which pass through the bubble because of reflections from the wailsof the shock tube and which subsequentlylead to other internal reflections from the bubble interface. Outside the bubble, the transmitted wave has reflected rom f the wallsof the shock tube. Interestingly, can be seenfrom the surfaceplotsfor thistime (Figure as 7 (g)),spikes in the pressure and density fields still persist where the transmitted wave intersects the bubble interface. The apparent featheringof the transmitted shock isdue to itspassage over what isnow a corrugated surfacegiven the many roll-upsalong the bubble interface. The internally back-reflected shock wave eventually emerges from the upstream interfaceto

become a backscatteredwave (Figure 7 (h)). While the waves resulting from the reflectionf the o transmitted shock from the top and bottom walls of the shock tube in their turn start to pass

through the bubble, furtherpromoting the generation of vorticity along the interface. The bubble continues to elongateand by much latertimes itevolvesintoa largevortex pair(Figure 7 (h)).For these late times,when viscous effectsight be expected to dominate proceedings,itisremarkable m that an inviscid simulation givessuch qualitatively ood agreement with experiment. g

16

_-

_L

_i_:i _

Fi_;ure 19R7) R22

7: N,,,erical from tho

schlieren

images

and

experimental shock wave (c)

shadowgrapt,7 moving 135 its, from (d)

(!Iaas right

& Sturteva,l t.o lef! over 217 Its. au

interaction bubble.

of a.n A.t_ = Times: (a)

1.22 (b)

cylindrical

5.S ys,

11.5 ys,

1_7 ItS, (e)

17

F'igure 7: (C,ontd.) StuE'tev_ult

Numerical

schlieren

images of an Ms

and

experimental

shadowgraphs wave moving

(llaa,s

&

1987) from the interaction bubble.

= 1.22 shock

from right to

left over an 1{22 cylindrical Exl)erimetltal C,ambridge images Uxtiversity

Times:

(f) 318 #s, (g) 342 tts, (h) 417 #s, (i) 1020 its. Press 1987. Reprinted with permission of

QCambridge Press.

University

18

Figure 8: Surface shock

plots of the density

and pressure bubble, q'imes:

fields for tile interaction

of nn Ms

= 1.22

w_Lve with ;tn R22 cylindrical

(a) 55 tLs, (b) 115 #s, (c) 135 its.

19

Figure8: (Contd.) Surfaceplotsof the densityand pressure fieldsfor tile interactiollof an

Ms = 1.22 shock wave with all 1[22 cylindrical bubble. Times: (d) 187 lLs, (e) 247 iLs, (g) 3,12 ps.

2O

5.2

Helium

Bubble

- Divergent

Case images from the simulation of the Helium bubble process. shock case,

Figure 9 shows a sequence of schlieren-type again the simulation reproduces

all the features of the shock-bubble

interaction

Figure 9 (a) shows a view of the helium bubble 32 ps after it is first hit by the incident wave. As before, there is a curved refracted shock which lies inside the bubble, helium has a higher sound speed than the surrounding moves ahead of the incident shock. Outside shock nor a simple expansion wave. A one-dimensional across this wave is 19% of the density jump between air). Indeed, the surface plots for the pressure air (aair/aHe = 0.35), the refracted

however, since the shock now

the bubble, the curved reflected wave is neither a simple analysis for the precise moment the incident (the density jump the undisturbed bubble and the surrounding is

shock hits the bubble suggests that the reflected wave should be a weak expansion

and density

field confirm that this expectation

true near the axis of flow symmetry(Figure deformation

10 (a)). However, away from this axis there is very little acts as a solid surface giving rise to a reflected system which accounts for the lower pressure to be

of the bubble and the point of reflection

shock. Behind this shock there is an expansion

found behind the rest of the reflected wave due to the collapse of the bubble. The difference in sound speeds between parent by 52 ps (Figure A four shock configuration reflection-refraction the relative intersection (TRR). has formed A schematic the bubble and the surrounding air becomes more apwave.

9 (b)) where the refracted

shock has run well ahead of the incident

which Henderson et al. (1991) have termed twin regular for this shock configuration contact is shown in Figure 11. Given emanates from their discontinuity

positions of the four shocks no discernible

point as would be expected in the general case; although one does become visible by 72 Around 62 ps (Figure 9 (c)) the refracted wave emerges from the left-hand internally side reflected wave appears as 10 (d)). By

ps (Figure 9 (d)).

of the bubble to become the transmitted wave and the resultant

two cusps. As can be seen from Figure 9 (d), this reflected wave is convergent and is being focused along the axis of the bubble but the local increase in pressure is quite small (Figure 82 ps (Figure 9 (e)) the internally reflected waves have crossed and are now diverging, here they

appear as a small loop. The two branches of the transmitted (Figure 9 (f)), along the axis of flow symmetry merged. Meanwhile, the walls of the shock tube. Interestingly, can lead to large increases wall and eventually has just started interacts the shock tube's walls, is reinforced to diffract around reflected

shock have also now crossed. At 102/_s shock have almost shock have reflected from shock, where it meets of the incident shock in

the side shock and the transmitted

both the original reflected wave and the transmitted in local pressure. with the bubble. interface

as can be seen from Figure 10 (f), such spurious reflections Here the foot of the incident At this time, what remains side of the bubble, as a weak back scattered This spike then proceeds to move away from the and the internally reflected

substantially. the downstream

wave has emerged from the upstream a very weak internally

wave. This has resulted

wave, so weak in fact that it does not appear in the experimental and spreads laterally in the process When this than structures

images. As time moves on, the bubble becomes kidney shaped (Figure 10 (g)). This change in shape is driven by vorticity jet impinges (Figure on the air at the downstream it spreads laterally

generated

at the edge of the bubble due

to the passage of the shock which induces a jet of air along the axis of flow symmetry. edge of the bubble, the lighter helium, 10 (i)). 21 and the bubble forms a pair of distinct vortical

which is less easily displaced

l:'igure 9: Numerical 1987) from llelitml

schlieren

images

and experimental = 1.22 shock

shadowgraphs wave moving

(ltaa.s

& Sturtevant to left over a

tim iEiteractioa bubl)le.

of ;LZlMS Times:

from right

cyliml['h'a.l

(a)32

its, (b) 52/ts, 22

(c) 62 ItS, (d) 7:2 ps, (e) 8:2 ItS.

Figure9: (Contd.) Numericalschlieren imagesandexl)erimental hadowgraphs s (llaas & Sturtev_tnt 987_ 1 from the intera.ction an Ms = 1.22 shock wave moving from right to of
left over a tlelium Experimental Cambridge cylindrical bubble. Times: University (f) 102 #s, (g) 245 #s, (h) 427 tts, (i) 674 #s. Press 1987. Reprinted with permission of images University @Cambridge Press.

23

l.'igu,'e Surface lO: plotsof tile densityandpressureieldsfor theinteractionofan Ms t

shock v,,_ve with an lle cylindrical bubble, l'imes: (a) a2 ILs, (b) 52 tls, (c) 62 tLs.

= 1.22

24

id

(d)

l"igur('

10: (('onld.)

Surface

plots

of the density

and

pressure Times:

Iields for tile i,lteraction

of

all M._' = 1.22 shl,('k w_lve wilh azL lie cylindrical 2,1Y_ its.

bubb[(,.

(d) 72 #s, (f) 102 ItS, (g)

25

_Ur

._

_i..._-

...

--,, ",
Figure 6 Results and 11: Schematic Discussion: for twin regular reflection-refraction Velocities correct, Here, images. Whereas For each (TRR).

The results from the previous section clearly indicate that our simulations are qualitatively however, any serious numerical this included simulation, a quantitative investigation should contain some form of validation exercise. of several prominent flow features. check on the velocities

the positions of certain features were digitized from a sequence of schlieren-type x-t diagrams were then constructed velocities had an estimated so as to find the velocities. measured

Using these measurements, the experimentally is much smaller. the computational

uncertainty of 11%, here the uncertainty given the resolution of This equates to an to within +0.17 mm.

A shock might be smeared

over 3 mesh cells, therefore

grid its location can be determined

uncertainty of less that 1% in the worst case velocity measurement. to conservation errors is also small at less than 3%.

The uncertainty in velocity due

6.1

R22

Bubble

- Convergent

Case

The x - t diagramfortheshock interaction with theR22 cylindrical bubbleisshown in Figure12. Also shown in thisfigure isa schematicwhich identifies various the flowfeatures thathave been digitized.comparison A ofour computed velocities withtheir xperimentally e measured counterparts (Haas & Sturtevant 987)isgiveninTable2. The agreementbetweenthetwo setsofresults well 1 lies within thegiven11% experimentalrror;heworstcase(Vr)is e t just5.8%. Note thatwe haveignored thelarge discrepancy forVdisince theexperimentalalue v appearstohavebeen tabulated ncorrectly; i the experimental - t diagram indicates x that Vdiisclose 130 m/s which isin fairagreement to with the computation. Overall, thegeneral agreementbetween the two setsof velocities confirms theexperimentalists' thatthecontamination view ofR22 by airwas so small(theyestimated itat 3.4% by mass) as tobe negligible.

6.2

Helium

Bubble

- Divergent

Case with the helium bubble is shown in Figure 13, and

The x - t diagram for the shock interaction a comparison with experiment

is made in Table 3. As with the R22 case, the two sets of results are now significant. As detailed

are in close agreement.

However, the effects of air contamination 26

in Section account

4, we have

assumed

that

the

contamination results

of helium are very different

by air is 28% even though

by

mass.

If no

is taken

of contamination, For example,

the velocity the velocity

the flow remains alternatively, correction Since for this

qualitatively with zero

similar. contamination

VR with 28% contamination m/s; an increase

is 943 m/s, The

it is found assumes case in the

to be I073 that the

of 13.5%.

contamination would

necessarily the

air and

helium

are homogeneously

mixed.

not have been affects

experiment,

our correction

can only be viewed

as accounting

for the gross Note the kink which the that

of contamination. flow features move more near or less at constant velocity; in Figure to the point 13, at

all the measured

in the x - t path incident shock

of the incident is engulfed

shock

front

x = 40 mm corresponds shock wave.

by the curved

transmitted

+ 4 + 4+

@ e 0 0

! HE E II

200

++
+ +

_ 4 0 ,1, 0 @ @ @ @ @ 111

M X> X X X X

Vui

150

100

+
4+ + + 4+

@ @ + 44+

X X X x X X

,I,X qK X@ X @ X @ X @ @ @ @ @ 4, @ e @ ! ,

50

+
+ +

; X + X t.X It< ! !

10

20

30 40 50 x from) for the Key: edge final R22

60

70

Figure

12: x-

t diagram the diagram.

cylinder

case shock; initial

with

a schematic

showing shock; Vii,

the

points

used

to construct shock; edge

Va - incident of bubble, times.

Vn - refracted and final times;

VT - transmitted Vdy downstream

V_,i, V,_] - upstream of bubble, initial and

Velocity Computation Experiment % Discrepancy

V, 420 415 +1.2

VR 254 240 +5.8

560 540 +3.7

V_
70 73 -4.1

y_ s
90 90 +0.0

vd_
116 78 N/A 82 78 +5.1

Table measured

2:

A comparison experimentally

of the by

computed and

velocities Sturtevant

for (1987);

the

R22

cylinder see Figure

case 12.

with

those

Haas

for key,

27

250

20O + Vui 150

vj
I00

5O
All '

IO 20

30 40 50 60 70 x (r_m)

Figure

13: z - t diagram the diagram.

for the He cylinder Key: V, - incident

case with a schematic shock, Vn - refracted

showing shock,

the points

used

to construct shock,

V7 - transmitted _ - air jet head.

V,,i - upstream

edge of bubble,

Vdi - downstream

edge of bubble,

Velocity Computation Experiment

V8 422 410

VR 943 900 +4.8

VT 377 393 -4.1

V,,i 178 170 +4.7

V,_i 146 145 +0.7

Vj 227 230 -1.3

% Discrepancy +2.9 Table 3: A comparison of the computed experimentally by Haas and Sturtevant

velocities for the He cylinder case with those measured

(1987); for key, see Figure 13.

Results

and

Discussion: shadowgraphs,

Pressure

Traces recorded pressure histories at several of the shock-

In addition stations

to producing

Haas and Sturtevant in the heavy bubble

along the axis of flow symmetry process. a smooth position, For example, pressure

so as to build up a more complete picture

bubble interaction wave generated initial bubble

case, they noted that the diffracted station 3 mm downstream of the

disturbance

at a measuring disturbance

and not a discontinuous

as might be expected

from a shock

wave. In fact, as was shown in 5, the diffracted of the bubble interface: ramps up gradually of the measured Although informative behind the diffracted

front barely constitutes

a shock wave in the vicinity hence the smooth nature

the surface plots in Figure 8 reveal that along the interface the pressure field wave and is not discontinuous,

disturbance. pressure traces only provide a local view of events and so are not as

the experimental

as the present pressure

surfaces, it was hoped that they could be used to provide further 28

quantitative relied upon

evidence to provide was mounted

as to the

accuracy

of the simulations. since

Unfortunately, process shock

the

traces

cannot

be

an accurate

benchmark endwall

the measuring within the

was invasive. tube (Haas

A pressure & Sturtevant off the to gave

transducer 1987), endwall produce the peak 5.1 bar. thus

on a movable actually pressure

placed the

the transducer

measured as desired. This agrees

pressure

disturbances

for waves would

reflecting

and not the local readings pressure

Consequently,

the transducer For example,

be expected

on the high side. in the heavy

with our findings.

the experiment that

bubble indicated

case as 7.7 bar, that

but the simulation pressure,

suggests

it is close to have = 1.22 Here, of the

Also, the experiment 2.2 bar.

the long time should

once all the

disturbances a Ms

died away, to be about shock wave which

But this pressure

be close to the pressure

behind

is only 1.56 bar (the simulation a quantitative assessment

gave the long time pressure of the errors introduced by the

to be 1.6 bar). practicalities

the numerics experimental Although the numerical Haas

provide setup.

we cannot pressure

make traces

a useful from

comparison

against case,

experiment, see Figure

for completeness 14 below (cf.

we present Figure 16 of

the heavy

bubble

& Sturtevant,

1987)

4.5 1

't

(a)
2.25

zp = 3mm 21

1.75

1.5

1.25

55O

(d)
Figure 14: Pressure histories for several stations downstream of the tt22 cylinder.

29

Results

and it takes

Discussion: the main

Vorticity purpose

Generation of this paper, recent we can use our studies numerical results mixing: flow that to the has

Although make present been

us beyond

some observations two-dimensional,

which are pertinent unsteady

to several

on shock-induced steady

flow is analogous efficient

to a three-dimensional,

proposed (Marble

as a mechanism et al. 1987,

to ensure Drummond

mixing

of air and fuel in supersonic Essentially, drives a mixing vorticity process Rupert which

combustions is impulsively

systems generated

& Givi 1994). the bubble 1960;

by the passage

of the shock through instability

which is reminiscent 1992). Thus the

of the Richtmyer-Meshkov effectiveness

(Richtmyer

Meshkov

1970;

of this type of mixing interaction,

rests on the amount it would

of vorticity

generated

during the early stages the vorticity

of a shock-bubble produced

therefore

be useful to have a means

of predicting

from a given set of initial which

conditions. the vorticity, w, is not in doubt. equation, Recall that the vorticity the baroclinic

The basic mechanism evolution torque equation,

produces

which is derived from the curl of the momentum

contains

term

This

term may be recast so as to write the vorticity D_o

equation 1

in the form

-N- -from which it can be seen that of the density misMignment largely and pressure occurs because of the have from vorticity fields (Shercliff

...
1977).

+ p-vp vp,
whenever there is a misalignment in the gradients interaction, gradient such which a is In the case of a shock-bubble wave imposes a local pressure

is produced

the propagating local density simple

shock

independent authors produced simplifying of the models, cases, while

gradient analytic

imposed

by the bubble which serve

inhomogeneity. to predict this the amount by making bubble Of the for two of

Several vorticity enough the

devised

expressions interaction. torque 1987

an isolated that (e.g.

shock-bubble the baroclinic

Typically,

is done over 1994). the

assumptions interaction

can be integrated and Yang et al.

duration

Picone

& Boris

referenced of interaction simulation, claim that

the one due to Yang it provides

et al. appears prediction

to provide which

the better

predictions. found

For a range by direct et al.

a vorticity

is within

15% of that than a factor

the Picone

& Boris model of their But model

is sometimes stems from

out by more the fact that that

of 2. Yang

the performance interaction.

it retains

the essential is debatable.

features Consider

of a shock-bubble the following Picone to track

our simulations produced

indicate

this claim bubble

observations & Boris (1987)

on the vorticity noted that

by the helium of vorticity arose this

case. interface resolution appeared of their correct. point a on point term, side of

the production wave, the

along the bubble from the low

the

fastest Our vorticity

moving more

shock detailed

uncertainty show that

computations. Most Figure of the

simulations where

observation the stem bubble

is essentially interface,

is produced amount

the side shock where from

intersects the Mach surface

11. But a sizeable 11. These are just

is also produced were gleaned spikes

crosses

the interface, torque

b on Figure for which the bubble as it diffracts

observations two localized

plots

of the

baroclinic

there

at the points

a and b. However, amount of vorticity:

over the leeward the Mach much

only the side shock around the bubble

produces

any significant

stem weakens vorticity, see

and it eventually

becomes

too weak to generate

30

Figure10(f). Figure15showswosnapshots t oftheaccumulated vorticity,cf. the surface plotsof thepressurenddensityields a f shown Figure in 10.Notethatverylittle vorticityisgenerated dueto plainshock curvature. Alsonotethatthedistribution vorticityis not symmetric. of Morevorticity is deposited onthewindward sideofthebubble thanontheleeward side. Theabove observations undermine theassumptions which upon mostvorticityprediction odels m arebased. y wayofexample, B taketheYangel al. (1994) model. Since vorticity is predominantly
generated the bubble. by the side Note that shock, the production incident But shock effectively shock has assumes the ceases only that bubble once the transmitted half the bubble wave by emerges the time from this traversed vorticity (i.e.

happens, time

see Figure the

9 (c).

the model to traverse

is generated as long

continuously as is necessary), of 2.

for the thus this two the

it takes

incident

twice

it might

be expected

to over predict

the final that

amount on the

of vorticity windward

by a factor side of the

In part, there are that

overprediction major pressure and that sources

is counteracted of vorticity responsible

by the fact production and

bubble

not one as in the model. torque remains shock. that across But

It is further throughout is not the shock

assumed

gradient

for the baroclinic across

constant this

the interaction Early on, the 10 (a)), because case

it is equal pressure

to the jump

the incident larger smaller than

case.

relevant while

jump

is significantly

the incident Other In fact, interface,

(see Figure arise

at later

times that

it is significantly this pressure

(see Figure

10 (f)).

inaccuracies in the heavy see Figure seem

it is assumed it generally In view assumptions

gradient which

always

acts horizontally. to the bubble interaction,

bubble 8 (b)-(d).

acts in a direction of the which at complex

is tangential

nature

of a shock-bubble a simple interaction. Therefore, manner.

it would

that

any set

of

are sufficient all moments often partially

to yield of the cancel.

analytic In

expression practice, the

for the vorticity individual

are unlikely from the

to be justifiable separate predictions assumption albeit

errors

some models

can provide

reasonable

vorticity

in a slightly

fortuitous

31

Concluding

Remarks results provide a comprehensive view of the complex phenomenological behaviour of

Our numerical shock-bubble

interactions.

For example,

in the case of a weak shock interacting with a heavy bubble, that was observed experimentally. were marred Previous

they reveal the precise nature

of the refracted shock front within the bubble and thereby identify

for the first time the cause of the shock thickening computational efforts to reveal this internal structure artifacts the necessary

by both a lack of grid resolution computing adaptive

and by numerical

which interfered with the flow. Despite having only modest high resolution by using a sophisticated that this algorithm led to between Here, we estimate computation artifacts

resources, we were able to obtain mesh refinement algorithm. fold decrease in computational each simulation as a parallel

a forty and fiftywe took In

effort. The actual computation time was further reduced by running on a small cluster of workstations. Additionally, which generally plague multicomponent simulations are able to match simulations.

great care to avoid the numerical at material interfaces. parts both qualitatively experimental Simulations

essence, we elected to suffer a small, controlled conservation Thus the present and quantitatively, time-dependent

error so as to avoid spurious oscillations their experimental counter-

at least to the limits set by the physical model and by phenomena usually prove difficult to decipher, since numerical study we chose to present schlieren-type

uncertainties. of complex of data. Therefore, in part, the clarity of the present For this paper

they generate huge amounts images of the computed

rests with its careful use of computer graphics.

flow since they enable us to compare our results directly against experiment. weak features which are often lost on contour the various mechanisms that anumber plots and so shock

Such images are useful for identifying they provide refraction phenomena.

a very effective means for assimilating We have also presented of individual analytic

comprise

of realistically lit, surface plots which are Here, for example, the amount they are used to

invaluable for gauging the strengths expose the weaknesses of current by a shock-bubble interaction.

flow features.

models for predicting

of vorticity produced

Finally, while the present is general purpose preferably

computational

machinery is capable of producing investment

excellent results, it is

only fair to point out that it represents a considerable hope to apply our machinery

of effort. However, the machinery Looking to the future, we that are not yet fully understood, study.

and so the large development costs can be defrayed. to other shock wave phenomena

as part of a combined theoretical-numerical-experimental

Acknowledgements The authors hospitality would like to thank R.Abgrall, improve this paper. M.J. Berger and K.G. Powell for their perceptive comJJQ would like to thank the Courant Institute for their of this work. The authors also wish to thank

ments which helped

during his visit which laid the foundations

Prof. B. Sturtevant

and Cambridge University Press for granting permission from the Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

to reprint the experi-

mental results by Haas and Sturtevant

32

References

ABGRALL,

R. 1988 Generalisationof the Roe scheme for the computation of mixture of perfect

gases. La Recherche A_rospatiale 31-43. 6, ABD-EL-FATTAH, A.M. & HENDERSON, L.F. 1978a Shock waves at a fastslow gas interface. J.

Fluid Mech. 86, 15-32. ABD-EL-FATTAH, A.M. & HENDERSON, L.F. 1978b Shock waves at a slow fastgas interface. J.

Fluid Mech. 89, 79-95. BELL, J.,BERGER, M., SALTZMANN, J.& WELCOME, M. 1994 Three-dimensionM adaptive mesh J. Sci. Compul. 15, 127-138.

refinement for hyperbolicconservationlaws. SIAM BEN-DOR, G. &

TAKAYAMA,

Z. 1985 Analyticalprediction the transition of from Mach to regular

reflectionver cylindricaloncave wedges. J. Fluid Mech. 158,365-380. o c

BERGER,

M.J. &

OLIOER,

J. 1984 Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partialdifferential

equations, jr. Comp.

CATHERASOO,

Phys. 53, 482-512. B. 1983 Shock dynamics in nonuniform media. J. Fluid

C.J. &

STURTEVANT,

Mech. 127, 539-561. COLELLA P., HENDERSON L. & PUCKETT E.G. 1989 A numerical study ofshock wave refractions 9th CFD Conference, Buffalo,NY,

at a gas interface. AIAA 426-439.

COURANT, R. & FRIEDRICIiS,

paper 89-1973-CP, Proc. AIAA

K.O.

1948 Supersonic ,flowand shock waves, Interscience, New

York. DRUMMOND, J.P. & GIVI, P. 1994 Suppression and enhancement of mixing in high-speed reacting

flow fields. Combuslion in high speed,flows, In 191-229. Edited by Buckmaster, J.,Jackson, T.L. & Kumar,
GRAHAM,

A., Kluwer, Dordrecht. J. Appl. Math. 17,

R.L. 1969 Bounds on certainmultiprocessinganomalies. SIAM

416-429. GROVE, J.W. & MENIKOFF, 219,313-336. B. 1987 Interaction 181, of weak shock 41-76. E.G. 1-27. 1991 On the refraction of shock waves at a waves with cylindrical and spherical R. 1990 Anomalous reflectionf a shock wave at a fluidinterface. o

J. Fluid Mech. HAAS J.-F.

& STURTEVANT

gas inhomogeneities.
HENDERSON,

J. Fluid Mech.
P. &

L.F.,

COLELLA

PUCKETT 224,

slow-fast
HILLIER,

gas interface.

J. Fluid Mech.

R. 1991 Computation of shock wave diffractiont a ninety degrees convex edge. Shock a

Waves 1, 89-98. Hou, T.Y. & LE FLOCH, Error analysis.Comm. PH. 1991 Why nonconservativeschemes converge to wrong solutions:

Pure AppI. Math. (submitted).

33

KARNI,

S. 1992

Viscous

shock

profiles

and

primitive

formulations.

SIAM

Num.

Anal.

29,

1592-1609. KARNI, S. 1994a Multi-component 112, 31-43. instabilities in multicomponent the mass fractions 95, 59-84. hyperbolic equations and their numerical computation. fluids (in preparation). positive when computing compressible flow calculations by a consistent primitive algorithm. Y. Comp.

Phys. KARNI,

S. 1994b Interracial

LARROUTUROU,

B. 1991 How to preserve flows, a'. Comp.

multi-component LAX, P.D. Comm. LAX, P.D. waves. LIEPMANN, p. 157. LOHNER, R., through Aachen, MARBLE,

Phys.

1954 Weak solutions Pure Appl. 1972 SIAM H.W. Math.

of nonlinear 7, 159-163.

Hyperbolic Monograph

systems series.

of conservation

laws

and the mathematical

theory

of shock

& ROSHKO,

A. 1957 Elements

of Gasdynamics

John Wiley

& Sons,

Chichester,

PICONE, J.M. a dense Germany bubble 1987.

& BORIS, gas.

J.P.

1988 Wave structure I6th Intl. Syrup.

produced Tubes

by shock propagation and Waves, held at

In Proc.

on Shock Germany,

Edited G.J.

by H. Gronig, & ZUKOSKI, AIAA

Weinheim, E.E.

1988. toward

613-619. shock enhancement

F. E.,

HENDRICKS, combustion 1970 Instability TT F-13,

1987 Progress 87-I880. interface

of supersonic MESHKOV, Y.Y.

processes

Paper wave

of a shock

accelerated

between

two gases.

NASA

translation PICONE, J.M.

074 K.F. J.P. 189, 1988 Vorticity 23-51. An adaptive Institute mesh refinement U.K. Mesh Refinement Phys.). Debate. Intl. J. Num. Meth. algorithm. NASA CRalgorithm for computational shock generation by shock propagation through bubbles in

& BORIS, Fluid 1991 Mech. PhD

a gas..1. QUmK, J.J.

Thesis,

hydrodynamics. QUIRK, J.J.

Cranfield

of Technology, Adaptive

& HANEBUTTE ICASE 1994a Report

1993 A Parallel No. 93-63

191530, QUIRK, J.J.

(submitted Great

to J. Comput. Riemann Solver

A Contribution

to the

Fluids QUIRK, J.J.

18, 555-574. 1994b Dynamic load balanc!ng strategies for parallel adaptive mesh refinement (in

preparation). RICHTMYER, R..D. 1960 23, Taylor instability in shock acceleration of compressible fluids. Comm.

Pure Appl. ROE, P.L. 1982

Math.

297-319. and signals dynamics. - A framework Edited for numerical K.W. evolution problems. M.J., 219-257, In

Fluctuations methods

Numerical Academic ROE, P.L. 337-65.

for fluid

by Morton,

and Baines,

Press,

New York. schemes for the Euler Equations Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18,

1986 Characteristic-based

34

RUPERT,

V. 1992 Shock-interface interaction:urrentresearchon the Richtmyer-Meshkov problem. c

In Shock Waves, Proceedings of the 18th Intl.Symp. on Shock Waves, Held at Sendal,Japan 1991. Edited by Takayama, K., Springer-Ver!ag, Berlin,1992. 83-94. SCHWBNDEMAN, D.W. 1988 Numerical shock propagation in non-uniform media Y. Fluid Mech.

188,383-410. SHERCLIFF, J.A. 1977 Vector Fields, Cambridge UniversityPress,p. 276.

STRANG,

G. 1968 On the construction and comparison of finite-difference schemes. SIAM

J. Num.

Anal. 5, 506-517. TON, V.T., KARAGOZIAN 101, Proc. Combustion An A.R., ENGQUIST Institute of fluid B.E. & OSHER, S.J. 1991 482-512. paper WSS/C191UCLA. Press, Stanford, Press. of blast 18, flowfields using a high California, p. 148.

1991 Fall Meeting, motion The

VAN DYKE, M. 1982 VOW NEUMANN, WANG, J.C.T.

album

Parabolic

J. 1963

Collected G.F.

Works vol. 6, Pergamon 1990 Numerical Computers

& WIDOP,Z, TVD finite

simulation _ Fluids of shock

resolution WHITHAM,

volume

scheme.

103-137. Part I Two dimensional

G.B.

1957 A new Mech.

approach 2, 145-171.

to problems

dynamics.

problems. W,rTHAM, flow. YANO J., G.B.

J. Fluid

1958 On the propagation 4 337-360. E.E.

of shock

waves through

regions

of non-uniform

area or

J. Fluid Mech.

KUSOTA T. & ZUKOSKt AIAA

1993 Applications

of shock-induced

mixing

to supersonic

combustion. YANG J., KUSOTA by shock

J. 31,854-862. 1994 A model inhomogeneity. for characterization J. Fluid Mech. transformations of a vortex pair formed

T. & ZUKOSKI E.E. over a light-gas

passage

258,217-244. on the computation of

ZWAS, G. & ROSEMAN, weak solutions.

J. 1973 The effect Phys. 12,

of nonlinear

J. Comp.

179-186

35

REPORT

DOCUMENTATION

PAGE

For,. Approved
OMB No 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information ts estimated to average | hour gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection collection of information, Including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washinglon Davis Highway, Su te 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management

per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching ex st ng data sources, of information Send comments regard ng th s burden estimate or any other aspect of this Headquarters Serv ces, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Pro)ect (0704-0188), Washington. DC ?0503.

L AGENCY

USE ONLY(Leave

b/an/<)

2. REPORT September

DATE 1994

3. REPORT Contractor

TYPE

AND

DATES COVERED

Report 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

4. TITLE

AND

SUBTITLE

ON THE DYNAMICS

OF A SHOCK-BUBBLE

INTERACTION
C NAS1-19480 WU 505-90-52-01

6. AUTHOR(S) James Smadar J. Quirk Karni

7. PERFORMING Institute and Mail for

ORGANIZATION Computer

NAME(S)

AND ADDRESS(ES) in Science

Applications

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER ICASE Report No. 94-75

Engineering Stop 132C, VA NASA 23681-0001 Langley Research Center

Hampton,

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING National Langley Hampton, Aeronautics Research VA and Center 23681-0001

AGENCY Space

NAME(S)

AND

ADDRESS(ES)

Administration

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NASA ICASE CR-194978 Report No. 94-75

!11. SUPPLEMENTARY Langley Technical

NOTES Monitor: to the Journal Michael F. Card Mechanics. 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Final Report To be submitted 12a.

of Fluid STATEMENT

DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY U nclassified-U Subject Category nlimited 64

13.

ABSTRACT

(Maximum

200

words)

We

present

a detailed Such shock waves the interaction interface. planar 22. fluid single avoid they such shock

numerical interactions propagating process Specifically, wave, flows or mostly by These are

study have

of

the

interaction studied media by two impinges the Although component spurious

of

weak

shock in an

wave attempt

with to

an

isolated

cylindrical the mechanims

gas

inhomogeneity. whereby phases the Ms or = of

been

experimentally enhance repeated of the on

elucidate

through which are we moving are have modelled to

random dominated reproduced air, using 22). single from a novel,

mixing. refractions experiments a cylindrical

Our study concentrates on and reflections of acoustic performed bubble compressible wave are which Euler multi-component generated scheme. at In material addition, by Haas contains equations are and either

the early fronts at Sturtevant: helium for now a two fairly of have

bubble 1.22 Refrigerant

through

two-dimensional, simulations flows. oscillations

component commonplace, successful Here we

(air-helium component problems

air-Refrigerant restricted often employing suffer

of shock Unfortunately, which shock-capturing

nphenomena

extensions interfaces. we simulations mechanisms and an shock updated

schemes adaptive cheaply.

nonconservative algorithm been able from jet

utilized a sophisticated to be performed relatively that were observed wave focusing, description for

mesh refinement Thus we have (e.g. transition

which enables extremely to reproduce numerically to irregular etc.), refraction, and we formation,

high resolution all the intricate cusp can now formation present

experimentally

regular

multi-shock the dynamics

and Mach shock of a shock-bubble

structures, interaction.

14. SUBJECT numerical

TERMS simulation, shock-bubble interaction

15. NUMBER

OF PAGES

37
16. PRICE CODE

A03
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT Unclassified MSN 7540-01-280-5500 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE Unclassified 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Standard
Prescribed 298-I02

Focm 298(Rev.
by ANSI Std. Z39-18

249)