Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T16:41:36.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Richtmyer–Meshkov instability on a quasi-single-mode interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2019

Yu Liang ,
Zhigang Zhai Open the ORCID record for Zhigang Zhai [Opens in a new window] ,
Juchun Ding Open the ORCID record for Juchun Ding [Opens in a new window]  and
Xisheng Luo Open the ORCID record for Xisheng Luo [Opens in a new window]
Yu Liang
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Zhigang Zhai*
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Juchun Ding
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Xisheng Luo
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments on Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of quasi-single-mode interfaces are performed. Four quasi-single-mode air/$\text{SF}_{6}$ interfaces with different deviations from the single-mode one are generated by the soap film technique to evaluate the effects of high-order modes on amplitude growth in the linear and weakly nonlinear stages. For each case, two different initial amplitudes are considered to highlight the high-amplitude effect. For the single-mode and saw-tooth interfaces with high initial amplitude, a cavity is observed at the spike head, providing experimental evidence for the previous numerical results for the first time. For the quasi-single-mode interfaces, the fundamental mode is the dominant one such that it determines the amplitude linear growth, and subsequently the impulsive theory gives a reasonable prediction of the experiments by introducing a reduction factor. The discrepancy in linear growth rates between the experiment and the prediction is amplified as the quasi-single-mode interface deviates more severely from the single-mode one. In the weakly nonlinear stage, the nonlinear model valid for a single-mode interface with small amplitude loses efficacy, which indicates that the effects of high-order modes on amplitude growth must be considered. For the saw-tooth interface with small amplitude, the amplitudes of the first three harmonics are extracted from the experiment and compared with the previous theory. The comparison proves that each initial mode develops independently in the linear and weakly nonlinear stages. A nonlinear model proposed by Zhang & Guo (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 786, 2016, pp. 47–61) is then modified by considering the effects of high-order modes. The modified model is proved to be valid in the weakly nonlinear stage even for the cases with high initial amplitude. More high-order modes are needed to match the experiment for the interfaces with a more severe deviation from the single-mode one.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 872 , 10 August 2019 , pp. 729 - 751
Copyright
© 2019 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

Aleshin, A. N., Lazareva, E. V., Chebotareva, E. I., Sergeev, S. V. & Zaytsev, S. G. 1997 Investigation of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced by the incident and reflected shock waves. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on the Physics of Compressible Turbulent Mixing, pp. 1–6. IUSTI, Universite de Provence.Google Scholar
Bakhrakh, S., Klopov, B., Meshkov, E., Tolshmyakov, A. & Yanilkin, Y. 1995 Development of perturbations of a shock-accelerated interface between two gases. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 36, 341–346.Google Scholar
Brouillette, M. 2002 The Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 445–468.Google Scholar
Brouillette, M. & Sturevant, B. 1993 Experiments on the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability: small-scale perturbation on a plane interface. Phys. Fluids A 5, 916–930.Google Scholar
Buttler, W. T., Oró, D. M., Preston, D. L., Mikaelian, K. O., Cherne, F. J., Hixson, R. S., Mariam, F. G., Morris, C., Stone, J. B., Terrones, G. et al. 2012 Unstable Richtmyer–Meshkov growth of solid and liquid metals in vacuum. J. Fluid Mech. 703, 60–84.Google Scholar
Collins, B. D. & Jacobs, J. W. 2002 PLIF flow visualization and measurements of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of an air/SF6 interface. J. Fluid Mech. 464, 113–136.Google Scholar
Dell, Z. R., Pandian, A., Bhowmick, A. K., Swisher, N. C., Stanic, M., Stellingwerf, R. F. & Abarzhi, S. I. 2017 Maximum initial growth-rate of strong-shock-driven Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Plasmas 24 (9), 090702.Google Scholar
Di Stefano, C. A., Malamud, G., Kuranz, C. C., Klein, S. R. & Drake, R. P. 2015 Measurement of Richtmyer–Meshkov mode coupling under steady shock conditions and at high energy density. High Energy Dens. Phys. 17, 263–269.Google Scholar
Dimonte, G., Frerking, C. E., Schneider, M. & Remington, B. 1996 Richtmyer–Meshkov instability with strong rdiatively driven shocks. Phys. Plasmas 3, 614–630.Google Scholar
Guo, X., Ding, J., Luo, X. & Zhai, Z. 2018 Evolution of shocked multimode interface with sharp corners. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 114004.Google Scholar
Hawley, J. F. & Zabusky, N. J. 1989 Vortex paradigm for shock-accelerated density-stratified interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (12), 1241–1244.Google Scholar
Holmes, R. L., Dimonte, G., Fryxell, B., Gittings, M. L., Grove, J. W., Schneider, M., Sharp, D. H., Velikovich, A. L., Weaver, R. P. & Zhang, Q. 1999 Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth: experiment, simulation and theory. J. Fluid Mech. 389, 55–79.Google Scholar
Isenberg, C. 1992 The Science of Soap Films and Soap Bubbles. Dover publications.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. W. & Krivets, V. V. 2005 Experiments on the late-time development of single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Fluids 17, 034105.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. & Jacobs, J. W. 1997 A membraneless experiment for the study of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of a shock-accelerated gas interface. Phys. Fluids 9, 3078–3085.Google Scholar
Jourdan, G. & Houas, L. 2005 High-amplitude single-mode perturbation evolution at the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 204502.Google Scholar
Lindl, J., Landen, O., Edwards, J., Moses, E. & Team, N. 2014 Review of the national ignition campaign 2009–2012. Phys. Plasmas 21, 020501.Google Scholar
Liu, L., Liang, Y., Ding, J., Liu, N. & Luo, X. 2018 An elaborate experiment on the single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. J. Fluid Mech. 853, R2.Google Scholar
Lombardini, M. & Pullin, D. I. 2009 Startup process in the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Fluids 21 (4), 044104.Google Scholar
Luo, X., Dong, P., Si, T. & Zhai, Z. 2016 The Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of a ‘V’ shaped air/SF6 interface. J. Fluid Mech. 802, 186–202.Google Scholar
Luo, X., Liang, Y., Si, T. & Zhai, Z. 2019 Effects of non-periodic portions of interface on Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. J. Fluid Mech. 861, 309–327.Google Scholar
Luo, X., Wang, X. & Si, T. 2013 The Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of a three-dimensional air/SF6 interface with a minimum-surface feature. J. Fluid Mech. 722, R2.Google Scholar
Mariani, C., Vandenboomgaerde, M., Jourdan, G., Souffland, D. & Houas, L. 2008 Investigation of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability with stereolithographed interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 254503.Google Scholar
McFarland, J. A., Greenough, J. A. & Ranjan, D. 2011 Computational parametric study of a Richtmyer–Meshkov instability for an inclined interface. Phys. Rev. E 84 (2), 026303.Google Scholar
McFarland, J. A., Greenough, J. A. & Ranjan, D. 2013 Investigation of the initial perturbation amplitude for the inclined interface Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Scr. 2013 (T155), 014014.Google Scholar
McFarland, J. A., Reilly, D., Black, W., Greenough, J. A. & Ranjan, D. 2015 Modal interactions between a large-wavelength inclined interface and small-wavelength multimode perturbations in a Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. E 92 (1), 013023.Google Scholar
McFarland, J., Reilly, D., Creel, S., McDonald, C., Finn, T. & Ranjan, D. 2014 Experimental investigation of the inclined interface Richtmyer–Meshkov instability before and after reshock. Exp. Fluids 55 (1), 1640–1653.Google Scholar
Meshkov, E. E. 1969 Instability of the interface of two gases accelerated by a shock wave. Fluid Dyn. 4, 101–104.Google Scholar
Mikaelian, K. O. 2005 Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of arbitrary shapes. Phys. Fluids 17, 034101.Google Scholar
Mohaghar, M., Carter, J., Musci, B., Reilly, D., McFarland, J. & Ranjan, D. 2017 Evaluation of turbulent mixing transition in a shock-driven variable-density flow. J. Fluid Mech. 831, 779–825.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. V., Aure, R., Stockero, J. D., Greenough, J. A., Cabot, W., Likhachev, O. A. & Jacobs, J. W. 2012 On the late-time growth of the two-dimensional Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities in shock tube experiments. J. Fluid Mech. 712, 354–383.Google Scholar
Niederhaus, C. E. & Jacobs, J. W. 2003 Experimental study of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of incompressible fluids. J. Fluid Mech. 485, 243–277.Google Scholar
Prasad, J. K., Rasheed, A., Kumar, S. & Sturtevant, B. 2000 The late-time development of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Fluids 12, 2108–2115.Google Scholar
Ranjan, D., Niederhaus, J., Oakley, J., Anderson, M. & Bonazza, R. 2009 Experimental investigation of shock-induced distortion of a light spherical gas inhomogeneity. In Shock Waves, pp. 1175–1180. Springer.Google Scholar
Ranjan, D., Oakley, J. & Bonazza, R. 2011 Shock-bubble interactions. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 43, 117–140.Google Scholar
Richtmyer, R. D. 1960 Taylor instability in shock acceleration of compressible fluids. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths 13, 297–319.Google Scholar
Rikanati, A., Oron, D., Sadot, O. & Shvarts, D. 2003 High initial amplitude and high Mach number effects on the evolution of the single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. E 67, 026307.Google Scholar
Sadot, O., Erez, L., Alon, U., Oron, D., Levin, L. A., Erez, G., Ben-Dor, G. & Shvarts, D. 1998 Study of nonlinear evolution of single-mode and two-bubble interaction under Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1654–1657.Google Scholar
Sadot, O., Rikanati, A., Oron, D., Ben-Dor, G. & Shvarts, D. 2003 An experimental study of the high Mach number and high initial-amplitude effects on the evoltion of the single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Laser Part. Beams 21, 341–346.Google Scholar
Shimoda, J., Inoue, T., Ohira, Y., Yamazaki, R., Bamba, A. & Vink, J. 2015 On cosmic-ray production efficiency at Supernova remnant shocks propagating into realistic diffuse interstellar medium. Astrophys. J. 803, 98–103.Google Scholar
Vandenboomgaerde, M., Gauthier, S. & Mügler, C. 2002 Nonlinear regime of a multimode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability: a simplified perturbation theory. Phys. Fluids 14 (3), 1111–1122.Google Scholar
Vandenboomgaerde, M., Rouzier, P., Souffland, D., Biamino, L., Jourdan, G., Houas, L. & Mariani, C. 2018 Nonlinear growth of the converging Richtmyer–Meshkov instability in a conventional shock tube. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 014001.Google Scholar
Vandenboomgaerde, M., Souffland, D., Mariani, C., Biamino, L., Jourdan, G. & Houas, L. 2014 An experimental and numerical investigation of the dependency on the initial conditions of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Fluids 26, 024109.Google Scholar
Velikovich, A., Herrmann, M. & Abarzhi, S. 2014 Perturbation theory and numerical modelling of weakly and moderately nonlinear dynamics of the incompressible Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. J. Fluid Mech. 751, 432–479.Google Scholar
Vetter, M. & Sturtevant, B. 1995 Experiments on the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of an air/SF6 interface. Shock Waves 4, 247–252.Google Scholar
Wang, M., Si, T. & Luo, X. 2013 Generation of polygonal gas interfaces by soap film for Richtmyer–Meshkov instability study. Exp. Fluids 54, 1427–1435.Google Scholar
Wang, T., Liu, J. H., Bai, J. S., Jiang, Y., Li, P. & Liu, K. 2012 Experimental and numerical investigation of inclined air/SF6 interface instability under shock wave. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 33 (1), 37–50.Google Scholar
Zhai, Z., Wang, M., Si, T. & Luo, X. 2014 On the interaction of a planar shock with a light SF6 polygonal interface. J. Fluid Mech. 757, 800–816.Google Scholar
Zhai, Z., Zou, L., Wu, Q. & Luo, X. 2018 Review of experimental Richtmyer–Meshkov instability in shock tube: from simple to complex. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs 232, 2830–2849.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. & Guo, W. 2016 Universality of finger growth in two-dimensional Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities with all density ratios. J. Fluid Mech. 786, 47–61.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. & Sohn, S. I. 1996 An analytical nonlinear theory of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Lett. A 212, 149–155.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. & Sohn, S. I. 1997 Nonlinear theory of unstable fluid mixing driven by shock wave. Phys. Fluids 9, 1106–1124.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. 2017a Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. I. Phys. Rep. 720–722, 1–136.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. 2017b Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. II. Phys. Rep. 723–725, 1–160.Google Scholar