Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-24T22:45:54.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sound wave structures downstream of pseudo-steady weak and strong Mach reflections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

J. J. Liu
J. J. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering Science, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan ROC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sound wave structures, downstream of moving incident shocks reflecting from straight compressive wedges, are analysed for both weak and strong Mach reflections (MR) using existing experiments. It is shown that the reflected waves can be well described by using the acoustic criterion or the weak oblique shock approximation, when the classical three-shock theory gives forward-facing reflected shock solutions. The predicted triple-point trajectory angles are found to be in close agreement with the experiments. The distinction between the applicabilities of the two methods is given by an analytically defined ‘smallness’ for the angle of reflecting wedges. The physics of the success of the two methods is discussed. It is concluded that forward-facing reflected shock solutions of pseudo-steady MR should be ruled out physically because sound waves cannot coalesce into Mach waves that propagate upstream of the triple point. In their place, MR-like phenomena occur with the reflected waves being normal Mach waves or finite compression waves for ‘small’ or ‘not-small’ reflecting wedge angles, respectively, and they are classified as the first- or second-king von Neumann reflections, respectively. Boundaries separating regimes between the first and second kinds of von Neumann reflections, and backward-facing MR are determined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 324 , 10 October 1996 , pp. 309 - 332
Copyright
© 1996 Cambridge University Press

Access options

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

References

AMES 1953 Equations, tables and charts for compressible flow. Ames Aeronautical Lab. Rep. 1135. NASA.
Bargmann, V. 1945 On nearly glancing reflection of shocks. NDRC AMP Rep. 108. 2R.Google Scholar
Ben-Dor, G. 1978 Regions and transitions of nonstationary oblique shock wave diffractions in perfect and imperfect gases. UTIAS Rep. 232.Google Scholar
Ben-Dor, G. 1987 A reconsideration of the three-shock theory of a pseudo-steady Mach reflection. J. Fluid Mech. 181, 467–484.Google Scholar
Ben-Dor, G. 1992 Wave Reflection Phenomena. Springer-Verlag.
Bleakney, W. & Taub, A. H. 1949 Interaction of shock waves. Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 584–605.Google Scholar
Colella, P. & Henderson, L. F. 1990 The von Neumann paradox for the diffraction of weak shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 213, 71–94.Google Scholar
Deschambault, R. L. 1984 Nonstationary oblique-shock-wave reflections in air. UTIAS Rep. 270.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. M., Olim, M., Van Netten, A. A. & Walker, D. K. 1989 The properties of curved oblique shocks associated with the reflection of weak shock waves. Proc. 18th Intl Symposium on Shock Waves, Bethlehem, pp. 192–197.
Fletcher, C. H., Taub, A. H. & Bleakney, W. 1951 The Mach reflection of shock waves at nearly glancing incidence. Rev. Mod. Phys. 23, 271–286.Google Scholar
Griffith, W. C. 1981 Shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 106, 81–101.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. F. & Siegenthaler, A. 1980 Experiments on the diffraction of weak blast waves: the von Neumann paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 369, 537–555.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. F. 1980 On the Whitham theory of shock wave diffraction at concave corners. J. Fluid Mech. 99, 801–811.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. F. 1987 Regions and boundaries for diffracting shock wave systems. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 67, 1–14.Google Scholar
Hornung, H. G. 1986 Regular and Mach reflection of shock waves. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 33–58.Google Scholar
Law, C. K. & Glass, I. I. 1971 Diffraction of strong shock waves by a sharp compressive corner. CASI Trans. 4, 2–12.Google Scholar
Liepmann, H. W. & Roshko, A. 1957 Elements of Gasdynamics. Wiley.
Lighthill, M. J. 1949 The diffraction of blast. I. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 198, 454–470.Google Scholar
Mach, E. 1878 Uber den Verlauf von Funkenwellen in der Ebene und im Raume.Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien. 78, 819–838.Google Scholar
Neumann, J. von 1945 Refraction, interaction and reflection of shock waves. NAVORD Rep. 203–45. Navy Dept, Bureau of Ordinance, Washington, DC.
Olim, M. & Dewey, J. M. 1992 A revised three-shock solution for the Mach reflection of weak shocks (1.1 < Mi < 1.5). Shock Waves Intl J. 2, 167–176.Google Scholar
Sakurai, A. 1964 On the problem of weak Mach reflection. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 19, 1440–1450.Google Scholar
Sakurai, A., Henderson, L. F., Takayama, K., Walenta, Z. & Colella, P. 1989 On the von Neumann paradox of weak Mach reflection. Fluid Dyn. Res. 4 333–345.Google Scholar
Schmidt, B. 1985 Shock-wave transition from regular to Mach reflection on a wedge-shaped edge. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 65, 234–236.Google Scholar
Smith, L.G. 1945 Photographic investigation of the reflection of plane shocks in air. OSRD Rep. 6271. Off. Sci. Res. Dev., Washington, DC.
Sternberg, J. 1959 Triple-shock-wave interactions. Phys. Fluids 2, 179–206.Google Scholar
Ting, L. & Ludloff, H. F. 1951 Aerodynamics of blasts. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 18, 143.Google Scholar
Walenta, Z. A. 1983 Formation of the Mach-type reflection of shock waves. Arch. Mech. 35, 187–196.Google Scholar
Whitham, G. B. 1957 A new approach to problems of shock dynamics. Part 1. Two dimensional problems. J. Fluid Mech. 2, 145–171.Google Scholar