2021
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2021.818
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistical characteristics of turbulent mixing in spherical and cylindrical converging Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities

Abstract: In this paper, the Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities in spherical and cylindrical converging geometries with a Mach number of approximately 1.5 are investigated by using the high resolution implicit large eddy simulation method, and the influence of the geometric effect on the turbulent mixing is investigated. The heavy fluid is sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and the light fluid is nitrogen (N2). The shock wave converges from the heavy fluid into the light fluid. The Atwood number is 0.678. The total structured and… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
2
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, we employ the standard third-order Runge-Kutta method as the time-marching scheme. The software Opencfd-Comb has been widely validated in our previous work, including supersonic jet flows (Fu et al 2019a,b) and RMI (Fu, Yu & Li 2020;Li et al 2021).…”
Section: Numerical Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, we employ the standard third-order Runge-Kutta method as the time-marching scheme. The software Opencfd-Comb has been widely validated in our previous work, including supersonic jet flows (Fu et al 2019a,b) and RMI (Fu, Yu & Li 2020;Li et al 2021).…”
Section: Numerical Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of the flow cross-section area, RM instability can be categorized into two types: area-invariant RM instability and area-varied RM instability. The former usually refers to planar shock-induced RM instability, which has been extensively studied by experimentalists (Biamino et al 2015;Reese et al 2018;Liang et al 2021;Sewell et al 2021), theorists (Richtmyer 1960;Zhang & Sohn 1997;Dimonte & Ramaprabhu 2010;Zhang & Guo 2016) and numerical experts (Schilling & Latini 2010;Lombardini, Pullin & Meiron 2014;Wonga & Lelea 2017;Li et al 2022). It is widely accepted that pressure disturbance (caused by pressure waves behind the refracted shock) and baroclinic vorticity (caused by the misalignment of pressure and density gradients) are the major mechanisms for the growth of area-invariant RM instability (Brouillette 2002;Ranjan, Oakley & Bonazza 2011;Zhou 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2021), theorists (Richtmyer 1960; Zhang & Sohn 1997; Dimonte & Ramaprabhu 2010; Zhang & Guo 2016) and numerical experts (Schilling & Latini 2010; Lombardini, Pullin & Meiron 2014; Wonga & Lelea 2017; Li et al. 2022). It is widely accepted that pressure disturbance (caused by pressure waves behind the refracted shock) and baroclinic vorticity (caused by the misalignment of pressure and density gradients) are the major mechanisms for the growth of area-invariant RM instability (Brouillette 2002; Ranjan, Oakley & Bonazza 2011; Zhou 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An important issue of these classical hydrodynamic instabilities is how these finger structures on an unstable interface grow in time and space. There have been sets of experimental (Jacobs & Catton 1988;Luo, Wang & Si 2013;Liu et al 2018;Luo et al 2018;Liang et al 2019;Lherm et al 2022) and numerical (Ristorcelli & Clark 2004;Ramaprabhu, Dimonte & Andrews 2005;Li et al 2021;Yan et al 2022) data available for their growth rate and shape evolution since Taylor's pioneering work in 1950, and yet there is still a lack of a unified and accurate theory to characterize them.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%