A comparison of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth

The growth dynamics of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability are compared systematically using data from high-resolution implicit large-eddy simulations of a model of the Mach 1.3 air(acetone) and sulfur hexafluoride (Jacobs and Krivets, 2005) shock tube expe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Physica. D 2020-01, Vol.401 (C), p.132201, Article 132201
Hauptverfasser: Latini, Marco, Schilling, Oleg
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue C
container_start_page 132201
container_title Physica. D
container_volume 401
creator Latini, Marco
Schilling, Oleg
description The growth dynamics of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability are compared systematically using data from high-resolution implicit large-eddy simulations of a model of the Mach 1.3 air(acetone) and sulfur hexafluoride (Jacobs and Krivets, 2005) shock tube experiment. The vorticity deposition by the incident shock and the dynamics of interface evolution are examined quantitatively and qualitatively. The perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations are compared to the experimental data and to the predictions of several nonlinear instability growth models. It is shown that the perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations with matching initial Richtmyer velocity are in excellent agreement with the experimental data. In addition, the dynamics of reshock (not considered in the experiment) are described in detail, and the post-reshock mixing layer amplitude growth rate is compared to the predictions of several reshock models. It is shown that using two-dimensional simulations to understand three-dimensional dynamics is valid only at early-to-intermediate times before reshock; at intermediate-to-late times after reshock the three-dimensional growth is generally larger than the corresponding two-dimensional growth. The reshock dynamics are also different between two and three dimensions. The quantitative results, together with visualizations of the flow field, were also used to contrast the difference between two- and three-dimensional vorticity and enstrophy dynamics.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.physd.2019.132201
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>elsevier_osti_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1569308</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0167278919303756</els_id><sourcerecordid>S0167278919303756</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f58d223968ed918486c9c37d9731d3fc8f95c2b8779d3077e92eb238b2ab478e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKtP4Ca4nzE_bZMsXJTiH1QE0XWYSe500naSkoSW7nwH39AncWpduzpw7jmHy4fQNSUlJXRyuyw37T7ZkhGqSspZrydoQKVghSSMnaJBnxIFE1Kdo4uUloQQKrgYoMUUm9BtquhS8Dg0OO9CgStvcW4jQGFdBz654Ks1Ts4v1lB0wQKOkNpgVmDxmzNt7vYQvz-_Xnp3FbbY-ZSr2q1d3uNFDLvcXqKzplonuPrTIfp4uH-fPRXz18fn2XReGC7GuWjG0jLG1USCVVSO5MSo_mKV4NTyxshGjQ2rpRDKciIEKAY147JmVT0SEvgQ3Rx3Q8pOJ-MymNYE78FkTccTxYnsQ_wYMjGkFKHRm-i6Ku41JfoAVC_1L1B9AKqPQPvW3bEF_f9bB_EwD96AdfGwboP7t_8Dk92CEA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Latini, Marco ; Schilling, Oleg</creator><creatorcontrib>Latini, Marco ; Schilling, Oleg</creatorcontrib><description>The growth dynamics of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability are compared systematically using data from high-resolution implicit large-eddy simulations of a model of the Mach 1.3 air(acetone) and sulfur hexafluoride (Jacobs and Krivets, 2005) shock tube experiment. The vorticity deposition by the incident shock and the dynamics of interface evolution are examined quantitatively and qualitatively. The perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations are compared to the experimental data and to the predictions of several nonlinear instability growth models. It is shown that the perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations with matching initial Richtmyer velocity are in excellent agreement with the experimental data. In addition, the dynamics of reshock (not considered in the experiment) are described in detail, and the post-reshock mixing layer amplitude growth rate is compared to the predictions of several reshock models. It is shown that using two-dimensional simulations to understand three-dimensional dynamics is valid only at early-to-intermediate times before reshock; at intermediate-to-late times after reshock the three-dimensional growth is generally larger than the corresponding two-dimensional growth. The reshock dynamics are also different between two and three dimensions. The quantitative results, together with visualizations of the flow field, were also used to contrast the difference between two- and three-dimensional vorticity and enstrophy dynamics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-2789</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-8022</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.physd.2019.132201</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Nonlinear instability growth models ; Reshock ; Richtmyer–Meshkov instability ; WENO method</subject><ispartof>Physica. D, 2020-01, Vol.401 (C), p.132201, Article 132201</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f58d223968ed918486c9c37d9731d3fc8f95c2b8779d3077e92eb238b2ab478e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f58d223968ed918486c9c37d9731d3fc8f95c2b8779d3077e92eb238b2ab478e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2019.132201$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.osti.gov/biblio/1569308$$D View this record in Osti.gov$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Latini, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schilling, Oleg</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth</title><title>Physica. D</title><description>The growth dynamics of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability are compared systematically using data from high-resolution implicit large-eddy simulations of a model of the Mach 1.3 air(acetone) and sulfur hexafluoride (Jacobs and Krivets, 2005) shock tube experiment. The vorticity deposition by the incident shock and the dynamics of interface evolution are examined quantitatively and qualitatively. The perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations are compared to the experimental data and to the predictions of several nonlinear instability growth models. It is shown that the perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations with matching initial Richtmyer velocity are in excellent agreement with the experimental data. In addition, the dynamics of reshock (not considered in the experiment) are described in detail, and the post-reshock mixing layer amplitude growth rate is compared to the predictions of several reshock models. It is shown that using two-dimensional simulations to understand three-dimensional dynamics is valid only at early-to-intermediate times before reshock; at intermediate-to-late times after reshock the three-dimensional growth is generally larger than the corresponding two-dimensional growth. The reshock dynamics are also different between two and three dimensions. The quantitative results, together with visualizations of the flow field, were also used to contrast the difference between two- and three-dimensional vorticity and enstrophy dynamics.</description><subject>Nonlinear instability growth models</subject><subject>Reshock</subject><subject>Richtmyer–Meshkov instability</subject><subject>WENO method</subject><issn>0167-2789</issn><issn>1872-8022</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEUhYMoWKtP4Ca4nzE_bZMsXJTiH1QE0XWYSe500naSkoSW7nwH39AncWpduzpw7jmHy4fQNSUlJXRyuyw37T7ZkhGqSspZrydoQKVghSSMnaJBnxIFE1Kdo4uUloQQKrgYoMUUm9BtquhS8Dg0OO9CgStvcW4jQGFdBz654Ks1Ts4v1lB0wQKOkNpgVmDxmzNt7vYQvz-_Xnp3FbbY-ZSr2q1d3uNFDLvcXqKzplonuPrTIfp4uH-fPRXz18fn2XReGC7GuWjG0jLG1USCVVSO5MSo_mKV4NTyxshGjQ2rpRDKciIEKAY147JmVT0SEvgQ3Rx3Q8pOJ-MymNYE78FkTccTxYnsQ_wYMjGkFKHRm-i6Ku41JfoAVC_1L1B9AKqPQPvW3bEF_f9bB_EwD96AdfGwboP7t_8Dk92CEA</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Latini, Marco</creator><creator>Schilling, Oleg</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>OTOTI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>A comparison of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth</title><author>Latini, Marco ; Schilling, Oleg</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-f58d223968ed918486c9c37d9731d3fc8f95c2b8779d3077e92eb238b2ab478e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Nonlinear instability growth models</topic><topic>Reshock</topic><topic>Richtmyer–Meshkov instability</topic><topic>WENO method</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Latini, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schilling, Oleg</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>OSTI.GOV</collection><jtitle>Physica. D</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Latini, Marco</au><au>Schilling, Oleg</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth</atitle><jtitle>Physica. D</jtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>401</volume><issue>C</issue><spage>132201</spage><pages>132201-</pages><artnum>132201</artnum><issn>0167-2789</issn><eissn>1872-8022</eissn><abstract>The growth dynamics of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability are compared systematically using data from high-resolution implicit large-eddy simulations of a model of the Mach 1.3 air(acetone) and sulfur hexafluoride (Jacobs and Krivets, 2005) shock tube experiment. The vorticity deposition by the incident shock and the dynamics of interface evolution are examined quantitatively and qualitatively. The perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations are compared to the experimental data and to the predictions of several nonlinear instability growth models. It is shown that the perturbation amplitudes from the two- and three-dimensional simulations with matching initial Richtmyer velocity are in excellent agreement with the experimental data. In addition, the dynamics of reshock (not considered in the experiment) are described in detail, and the post-reshock mixing layer amplitude growth rate is compared to the predictions of several reshock models. It is shown that using two-dimensional simulations to understand three-dimensional dynamics is valid only at early-to-intermediate times before reshock; at intermediate-to-late times after reshock the three-dimensional growth is generally larger than the corresponding two-dimensional growth. The reshock dynamics are also different between two and three dimensions. The quantitative results, together with visualizations of the flow field, were also used to contrast the difference between two- and three-dimensional vorticity and enstrophy dynamics.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.physd.2019.132201</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0167-2789
ispartof Physica. D, 2020-01, Vol.401 (C), p.132201, Article 132201
issn 0167-2789
1872-8022
language eng
recordid cdi_osti_scitechconnect_1569308
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Nonlinear instability growth models
Reshock
Richtmyer–Meshkov instability
WENO method
title A comparison of two- and three-dimensional single-mode reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability growth
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T04%3A30%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-elsevier_osti_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20two-%20and%20three-dimensional%20single-mode%20reshocked%20Richtmyer%E2%80%93Meshkov%20instability%20growth&rft.jtitle=Physica.%20D&rft.au=Latini,%20Marco&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=401&rft.issue=C&rft.spage=132201&rft.pages=132201-&rft.artnum=132201&rft.issn=0167-2789&rft.eissn=1872-8022&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.physd.2019.132201&rft_dat=%3Celsevier_osti_%3ES0167278919303756%3C/elsevier_osti_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0167278919303756&rfr_iscdi=true