A comparison of mix models for the Rayleigh–Taylor instability
Four mix models, implemented into an Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) multi-physics code, are compared on simulations of the Rayleigh–Taylor instability. The specific models of interest are a mass diffusion model, the k – L turbulence model, the BHR turbulence model, and a multifluid interpenetra...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Computer physics communications 2012, Vol.183 (1), p.70-79 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Four mix models, implemented into an Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) multi-physics code, are compared on simulations of the Rayleigh–Taylor instability. The specific models of interest are a mass diffusion model, the
k
–
L
turbulence model, the BHR turbulence model, and a multifluid interpenetration mix model. The bubble growth rates produced by the different models are compared to experimentally determined growth rates. The diffusion model reproduces the characteristic
t
1
/
2
growth for diffusion processes and therefore does not reproduce instability growth rates, as expected. The
k
–
L
and BHR turbulence models reproduce the nominal instability growth rates at multiple Atwood numbers with a single set of model parameters. The multifluid interpenetration model exhibits diffusion-like behavior and therefore does not reproduce instability growth rates. All four models exhibit Cauchy-like convergence in the mixing layer width with decreasing mesh size, although the multifluid model exhibits both a larger error for a given mesh size and a slower convergence rate than the turbulence models.
► Four mix models have been compared on a Rayleigh–Taylor instability problem. ► The models span a range of physical processes from diffusion to turbulent mixing. ► The results suggest that multiple processes may drive mix in RT-unstable state. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0010-4655 1879-2944 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.cpc.2011.08.018 |