This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
A multiphase buoyancy-drag model for the study of Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities in dusty gases
Computing Sciences, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
(RECEIVED 16 October 2010; ACCEPTED 4 January 2011)
Abstract A new multiphase buoyancy-drag model is developed for the study of Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities in dusty gases, extending on a counterpart single-phase model developed in the past by Srebro et al. (2003). This model is applied to single- and multi-mode perturbations in dusty gases and both Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities are investigated. The amplitude for Rayleigh-Taylor growth is observed to be contained within a band, which lies within limits identified by a multiphase Atwood number that is a function of the fluid densities, particle size, and a Stokes number. The amplitude growth is subdued with (1) an increase in particle size for a fixed particle number density and with (2) an increase in particle number density for a fixed particle size. The power law index for Richtmyer-Meshkov growth under multi-mode conditions also shows dependence to the multiphase Atwood number, with the index for the bubble front linearly decreasing and then remaining constant, and increasing non-linearly for the spike front. Four new classes of problems are identified and are investigated for Rayleigh-Taylor growth under multi-mode conditions for a hybrid version of the model: (1) bubbles in a pure gas rising into a region of particles; (2) spikes in a pure gas falling into a region of particles; (3) bubbles in a region of particles rising into a pure gas; and (4) spikes in a region of particles falling into a pure gas. Whereas the bubbles accelerate for class (1) and the spikes for class (4), for classes (2) and (3), the spikes and bubbles, respectively, oscillate in a gravity wave-like phenomenon due to the buoyancy term changing sign alternatively. The spike or bubble front, as the case may be, penetrates different amounts into the dusty or pure gas for every subsequent penetration, due to drag effects. Finally, some extensions to the presently developed multiphase buoyancy-drag model are proposed for future research. Keywords: Buoyancy-Drag model; Dusty gas; Hydrodynamic instability; Rayleigh-Taylor; Richtmyer-Meshkov
1. INTRODUCTION The Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instability occurs when an interface between two fluids with different densities is accelerated in a direction normal to the interface from the heavy to the light fluid. This instability was first investigated by Lord Rayleigh (1883) and later by Taylor (1950). The RichtmyerMeshkov (RM) instability occurs when the interface is impulsively accelerated, such as for instance by a shock wave. This instability was first theoretically shown by Richtmyer (1960) and later experimentally verified by Meshkov (1969). Both single-mode as well as multi-mode RT and
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Kaushik Balakrishnan, Computing Sciences Department, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: email@example.com
RM have been investigated in the past, where single-mode refers to the presence of only one wavelength, λ, in the initial spectrum of perturbation length scales, and multimode refers to the presence of multiple wavelengths. In the case of multimode perturbations, smaller structures compete and merge, resulting in the formation of larger structures—an inverse cascade process. Here, competition and coalescence of coherent structures dictates the overall evolution of the mixing layer, because of the reduced drag per unit volume of the larger structures (Alon et al., 1995). In both RT as well as RM, for multi-mode perturbations, small hydrodynamic structures grow into larger scales, and later result in a turbulent mixing layer. Across an interface separating two fluids with densities ρ1 and ρ2, the Atwood number, defined as A = (ρ2 − ρ1)/(ρ2 + ρ1), 201
Detailed theoretical analysis of perturbation growth can also be found in the classical work of Chandrasekhar (1981). including the linear as well as the non-linear regimes for a range of Atwood numbers. A. Doing so enables the evaluation of RT and RM evolution fronts in dusty gases. analytical expressions based on Bessel function solutions were derived. hydrodynamic instabilities have also been investigated theoretically. (1994. Very recently. 2011. Menon et al. and investigated the linear and non-linear stages of the evolution. 1995) used theoretical models applicable for all A to study RT and RM. (2003) to dusty gases. 2001). this is now a well established result and serves as a useful model/simulation validation for multi-mode RT. Different mixing layer growth trends were reported for 2D and 3D scenarios. Both RT and RM mixing fronts grow as “bubbles” of lighter fluid “rising” into the heavier fluid. thereby drawing a similarity between the observations reported earlier for RT in supernovae. 1984. thereby opening up a new class of problems involving RT and RM in dusty gases. In another recent study. and presented late time turbulent kinetic energy spectra among other results. Ukai et al. when the bubble amplitude (hB) grows in proportion to the wavelength (hB/λ = b(A)). confirming the h ∼ t2 growth. thereby resulting in a mixing layer. 2003) to more generic RT and RM cases. Self-similar growth was reported at late times. Ukai et al. (2010) extended this model to the investigation of RM instabilities in dusty gases. Balakrishnan. with the proportionality constant. and later transition to a linear growth regime (Oron et al.25 in 3D. they extended the buoyancy-drag model (Srebro et al. analytical. RT and RM have also been investigated theoretically and numerically under blast wave driven conditions. Both bubbles and spikes grow with time. b.. 1989. Doing so enables the investigation of RT and RM in many two-phase natural . 2010). with the first and the last study also focusing on re-shocked RM. being only a function of A. for future comparisons with numerical simulations. including partial retention of memory of the initial conditions. theoretical models that can predict growth rates can be very useful. 1994). including also for dusty gases. etc. and chemical explosions. the RM mixing front grows as h ∼ tθ. Layzer (1955) investigated the rise of a single bubble in a heavy fluid using a potential flow model. Experiments on RT have also been carried out by Dalziel (1993) and Dimonte & Schneider (2000). the mixing zone amplitude. Balakrishnan & S. 2002). Experiments on RM have also been carried out by Erez et al. interphase interaction effects. numerically. (2010) investigated RM in dilute gasparticle mixtures by extending studies applied earlier for Kelvin-Helmoltz (KH) instabilities in dusty gases.. (2000). Saffman (1962) developed a theoretical two-phase model to study perturbation growth in dusty gases. Extending on Layzer’s work. A theoretical model was derived and the predicted growth rates were in accordance with 2D simulations. The bubble and spike fronts in the classical single-mode RT grow exponentially initially. These studies also confirm that the growth rates and the overall mixing phenomena are different for 2D and 3D simulations. A detailed review of the theory of RM growth can be found in Brouillette (2002). such as flow acceleration effects on bubbles and spikes. Michael (1964) applied this theory to plane Poisuelle flow of dusty gases. i. these studies were extended to the investigation of RT ensuing from multiphase chemical explosions by the current authors (Balakrishnan & Menon. Goncharov. drag effects as bubbles rise and spikes fall. Chapman and Jacobs (2006). Later. and showed that whereas the RT mixing front grows as h ∼ t2. 2010. and later at constant rates. but limited to A = 1. (2) buoyancy-drag model to investigate RT and RM (Oron et al. was reported to grow as ∼t2 for RT. accounting for the spherical nature of the problem. for the remainder of this paper. Then. (2009). The primary motivation of this study is to extend ideas from these three studies and develop a simple. Later.. 1991. To complement experiments and simulations. 2009) studied the growth of RT and RM in supernova explosions using a bubble merger and a buoyancy-drag model.. two-phase model that can predict perturbation growth rates in both RT and RM instabilities in dusty gases. Miles (2004. (2007) and Schilling et al.. Recently.e. h. Such theoretical models can be easily used to predict growth rates and offer valuable insights into the dust induced mixing of fluids. Furthermore. Balakrishnan et al. Self-similar growth was reported at late times. Wilkinson and Chapman (2007) and Leinov K. It was shown for a bubble rising between parallel plates that the vertex height increases exponentially initially. Concurrent to the above studies. as well as by experiments. the same research group employed numerical simulations as well as two different theoretical models: (1) a statistical mechanics bubble-merger model. and partial memory retention of the initial perturbations was reported. particle/dust loading effects. Latini et al. Of particular interest in this study is to extend the Buoyancydrag model developed by Srebro et al. Past numerical studies of multimode RT have also reported memory loss of the perturbations with time (Youngs.4 in 2D and ∼ 0. and “spikes” of heavier fluid “falling” into the lighter fluid. where the shock wave reflects from an end wall and re-shocks the mixing zone. (2007) have also studied the reshocked RM using robust numerical simulations. Alon et al. where a spectrum of short initial wavelength grow into fewer perturbations corresponding to larger wavelengths at later times due to the competition and coalescence of the coherent structures. 2001. See Sharp (1984) for a detailed review on RT. Theoretical models must account for the different physical phenomena that are of relevance to the dusty gas RT and RM. with θ ∼ 0. where t denotes the time. we will interchangeably use the words “dust” or “particles” with the understanding that both refer to the same.202 has been identified in past studies to play a significant role in the overall growth trends of the mixing layer. Mikaelian (2003) investigated RT and RM bubble growths using analytical expressions.
respectively. In this section. During the early linear growth regime. dt λ (1) (2) Srebro et al. we focus on extending the classical BD model of Srebro et al.6 (2D). Based on the experiments of Dimonte and Schneider (2000) and theoretical observations of Oron et al. 2003): ⎧ ˆ dλ ⎨ 0.e. (2001). λ (6) with the coefficient. spray combustion engines. (3) The bubble amplitude. Cd = 2π(3D). with the identification of new classes of dusty gas problems. Srebro et al. λ (Ca E (t ) + 1)ρ2 + (Ca + E (t ))ρ1 duS dt (5) u2 = (1 − E (t )) ρ2 − ρ1 g(t ) − Cd ρ1 S . (2003) is first discussed. the results obtained by the multiphase BD model are presented and the intricacies of the twophase mixing phenomena are elucidated. METHOD OF STUDY In this study. Buoyancy-Drag Model of Srebro et al. (2003) generalized the BD model to obtain the following equations for the bubbles and spikes: ρ1 + Ca ρ2 ρ2 + Ca ρ1 duB u2 = ρ2 − ρ1 g(t ) − Cd ρ2 B . Finally. i. followed by the 1D multiphase Euler equations. from which the interface acceleration profiles can be obtained to serve as an input to the BD/MBD models. a function of the Atwood plitude. 203 the fluid that is pushed by the rising bubble or falling spike). In Section 2. for impulsive or time varying acceleration flows. In Section 3. this requires the solution of the 1D multiphase/dusty gas Euler equations in order to compute the “unperturbed” interface motion. dt ⎩ b(A) ˆ b(A). the governing equations and the numerics are presented. nuclear explosions. hB. thereby obtaining the generalized BD model equations: (Ca E (t ) + 1)ρ1 + (Ca + E (t ))ρ2 duB dt u2 = (1 − E (t )) ρ2 − ρ1 g(t ) − Cd ρ2 B .. The primary assumption behind the use of ˆ for bubbles and spikes is that they have the the same λ same periodicity. where k = 2π/λ is the wavenumber. in Section 5. g(t) is the time varying interface acceleration. etc. λ governing equations. mutatis mutandis to the formulation presented by Srebro et al.. but during the late time asymptotic regime. (2003). dt dt (4) 2. hB ≥ λ (8) . Cd = 6π(2D).5 1. 2 (3D). respectively. in proportion to the bubble amˆ = b(A). (2003) use the following values for b(A): b(A) = 0 . Eqs.e. (2003). Parametric studies are also conducted. and λ is the perturbation wavelength. hB < λ ˆ b(A). (2003) Extending on Layzer’s (1955) work. Srebro et al. the velocities of the bubbles and spikes. the conclusions drawn from this study are elaborated. which results from the fact that the dominant bubbles inevitably generate the dominant spikes. hB and the spike amplitude. these equations state that the net acceleration or deceleration of a bubble or spike is the difference between the buoyancy and drag forces acting.. essentially. In Section 4. λ ˆ remains modified λ ˆ grows constant. to derive and apply a multiphase Buoyancy-Drag (MBD) model. i. For multimode perturbations.A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model and engineering applications such as internal confinement fusion. uB = .. the classical BD model as proposed by Srebro et al. Thus. Ce = 3 (2D). with the assumption that the BD model teristic wavelength. For constant and continuous acceleration flows. dt λ duS u2 = ρ2 − ρ1 g(t ) − Cd ρ1 S . The left-hand side represents the total inertia of the bubble or spike and the inertia of the added mass (i. chemical explosions. including a brief overview of the baseline buoyancy-drag (BD) model developed for single phase flows by Srebro et al. it is essential to compute the exact acceleration profile as it changes with time. (2003) to the study of RT and RM in multiphase mixtures. The BD model described hitherto is valid for single mode perturbations only. the added mass and bubble or spike drag coefficients. we can directly apply the BD/MBD models with a chosen acceleration.1. hB /λ number only. λ in a self-similar fashion. b(A) = (3D). uS = . (1995) and Srebro et al. (2003) for more discussions. 2. 2003): Ca = 2(2D). (2003) replace λ in the above equations with a characˆ . the multiphase buoyancy-drag model is derived. the mass of The characteristic wavelength for multimode perturbations grow as (Srebro et al. However. and the numerical methodology that is employed to solve these governing equations. are applicable with this ˆ . (2003) then extend the BD model by including the amplitude dependence through the parameter E(t ) = e−CekhB.. The coefficients Ca and Cd take the following values depending on 2D or 3D (Srebro et al. Srebro et al. This paper is organized as follows. Ca = 1(3D). hS are then obtained by integrating the expressions: uB = dhB dhS .e. see Alon et al. (5)–(6). 1+A 1+A (7) where uB and uS denote. Ca and Cd denote.
8 Q = πdp Nuκ (T − Θ). m ∂ σ Cm Θ + (1/2)v2 ∂t σ = (vF + Q). CD and Nu denote. or can change in time if the interface is driven by a blast wave (Balakrishnan & Menon. where Re is the Reynolds number computed as Re = ρ|u − v|dp/μ. Overall. (5) value λ and (6) for the multimode perturbation cases. and a grid resolution of 1000 is considered to resolve a 1 m long domain. Balakrishnan & S. 2010) and the spectral difference (Liang et al. 1961). and μ is the viscosity of the gas assumed to be 1. by using an appropriate acceleration g(t ) profile. where R is the gas constant. here. It is worth mentioning that Kannan was able to obtain extremely accurate solutions with substantially lesser . where Cp is the specific heat of the gas at constant pressure.687 . The particles are assumed to be perfectly spherical of uniform size. since this study focuses on RT and RM in dusty gases. g(t ) can remain constant such as for instance in a gravitational field. Θ. since they (1) utilize a spatially high order representation to resolve the physics in a better fashion.204 ˆ starts to increase through bubble Under this assumption. For RT.5 Pr 0. 2010. g(t ) is impulsive and therefore starts from a non-zero value. the multiphase Euler equations are considered and are now elaborated.. In summary. 2. many canonical tests have been performed. For RM. respectively. 1979) with a flattening procedure to reduce post-shock oscillations (Colella & Woodward. temperature. 2009). 1000 grid points are used for resolving a 1 m long domain. ∂t ∂x ∂σ ∂(σv) + = 0. The gas fluxes are computed using the HLLC Riemann solver (Toro. 2009) methods.e.2. v. only after the bubble amplitude hB has reached the ˆ b(A). it is required to solve the 1D Euler equations. ∂t ∂x ∂ ρu ∂ ρu2 ∂p σ + + = − F. and these terms are computed as follows: π 2 F = dp ρ(u − v)|u − v|CD . Cm) are the (density. obtained as Cp = Cv + R. and are assumed to obey continuum laws. Re (17) (18) Nu = 2 + 0. but rapidly decays to zero. Thermodynamic closure is obtained from the perfect gas equation of state: p = ρRT . Numerical methodology To solve the 1D multiphase Euler equations. the gas is assumed to behave perfect. the formulation presented by Miura and Glass (1982) is used in this study. (2) can deliver very accurate solutions with smaller degrees of freedom. the 1D multiphase Euler equations for the continuity. coalescence/merging of contiguous bubbles. Cv) and (σ. Furthermore. we use the MUSCL scheme (Monotone Upstream-centered Schemes for Conservation Laws) (van Leer. the scheme is second order accurate in time and space. κ is computed as κ = μ Cp/Pr. The terms that appear on the righthand side of the above equations are the inter-phase interaction terms. Pr is the Prandtl number which is assumed to be 0. and one such study is presented in the Appendix. (19) ∂ pu ∂x (13) ∂ σv Cm Θ + (1/2)v2 ∂x (14) where (ρ. m ∂t ∂x ∂x ∂(σ v) ∂ σv2 σ + = F. and are computed as: CD = 24 1 + 0. on the other hand. m ∂t ∂x ∂ ρ Cv T + (1/2)u2 ∂ ρu Cv T + (1/2)u2 + ∂t ∂x σ = − (vF + Q). velocity. T. the generalized BD model described here is suitable for the study of both RT and RM. In order to obtain profiles for g(t ) that will be inputs to the BD model. and σp m = (π/6)dp To solve the above governing equations. Stated in these terms. i. respectively. 1984). and viscosity and heat conductivity are neglected except for the computation of the interaction terms. the parameters of interest are insensitive with their corresponding values predicted with the 1000 grid. a predictor-corrector scheme is used for time integration. u.333 . Analysis shows that with 5000 grid points used to resolve a 1 m long domain.7. momentum and energy equations for both phases are: ∂ρ ∂ ρu + = 0. the drag coefficient and Nusselt number. In this formulation. obtained as 3 σp .5 × 10−5 Kg/ms. 1999) and the dust/particle fluxes are evaluated using the Rusanov flux scheme (Rusanov. Thus.6Re0. One can also employ high order accurate methods like the spectral volume (Kannan & Wang. This equation is solved in addition to Eqs. m is the dust/particle mass. the volume fraction of the particles are neglected. and p is the gas pressure. The 1D numerical methodology presented here is used to determine the initial conditions for the BD and MBD models used in the study of RM. specific heat) of the gas and dust. Menon material density of the dust particles. 2009. F is the drag force acting on a particle and Q is the heat transfer rate between the two phases. where dp is the particle diameter. (15) (16) where κ is the thermal conductivity of the gas. To validate the 1D two-phase methodology. m + + (9) (10) (11) (12) K.15Re0. Miles. The RM studies considered in this paper correspond to a shock-tube configuration.. λ competition.
to the multiphase Atwood number. the dust particles are spherical in shape and are of a uniform size. Having summarized the BD model and the 1D code methodology.. (2010). (2010). the effect of dust is described by two parameters—the dust concentration (or number density. This formulation can be generalized with the use of the particle Stokes number. or equivalently. and No is the initial dust concentration in number per unit volume. for a generic St. the dust particles do not cause additional perturbations in the gas. since the crux of the current article is not on the above. A. 6. which need not necessarily be always true. also deriving ingredients from Ukai et al. ρ 2 1 + f2 + ρ 1 1 + f1 (22) which. St1 and St2 ≪ 1. the gas-particle mixture is assumed to be incompressible for the analysis.. the multiphase replacement for ρ simply becomes ρ(1 + f ). (23). the number density of the particles is constant everywhere before the disturbance starts to evolve. and Ukai et al. The basic assumptions involved in the current formulation are summarized as follows: 1. as defined above in Eq. small perturnations are considered for the flow variables and the governing equations are linearized. resulting in Am → A. 2011 for more discussions on clustering). wavenumber k (= 2π/λ). . respectively. but rather only modify the waves which already exist in the gas (see Saffman. (2010). Eq. we now focus on developing the MBD model. 7. the bulk concentration of the dust particles. and so the mean velocities of the dust and the local gas are identical. 2010 for a detailed derivation): ρ1 1 + f1 f2 g − kc2 = ρ2 1 + 1 − ik τ1 c 1 − ikτ2 c × g + kc2 . The relaxation times are obtained as τ1 = τ2 = m/(6π rpμ). wave speed c.’s (2003) work to formulate the MBD model. we will limit our approach to using classical second order solvers and will consider the above mentioned high order methods in the future. The above references then apply boundary conditions at the far-field and at the species interface. where m is the dust particle mass. as also done so in Saffman (1962) and Ukai et al. 8. we extend on Srebro et al. the dust particles move along the gas streamlines. Furthermore. The choice of boundary conditions are not of relevance in this analysis. The basic formulation stems from the dusty gas investigations of Saffman (1962). we generalize the formulation of Ukai et al. Stated in these terms. is negligible. is small. under the small St (≪1) limit as: Am = ρ 2 1 + f2 − ρ 1 1 + f1 . Following this. following which the first order general expression applicable for RT as well as RM involving dusty gases is obtained as (see Ukai et al. (2003) is now extended to account for multiphase effects. obtained as St = −ikτc (see the derivation in Ukai et al.e. 3. the multiphase effect in the formulation leads to the extension of the classical Atwood number. (2010). respectively). 2010. can be written as: Am = ρ2 1 + ( f2 /(1 + St2 )) − ρ1 1 + ( f1 /(1 + St1 )) . after which the model predicts subsequent growth trends. Here.. (20) can also be written as: ρ1 1 + f1 f2 g − kc2 = ρ2 1 + 1 + St1 1 + St2 g + kc2 . i. Am. Michael extended this work to the study of plane Poisuelle flow of dusty gases. 4. St. f → 0. 2009. (2010). the dust volume fraction. applied the formulation to two kinds of dusty gas Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities. and i is the complex number √(−1). Saffman applied the formulation to laminar flow by deriving the multiphase OrrSommerfeld equation. 3. Ukai et al. However. St). the particle mass loading in the light and heavy gases and are evaluated as f1 = mNo/ρ1 and f2 = mNo/ρ2. N ) and a relaxation time (essentially Stokes number. note that we have assumed τ1 = τ2. When τ1 and τ2. sedimentation effects are assumed to not occur and so the gas-particle mixture stays as a mixture at all times. the vortex rings around the RT and RM hydrodynamic structures are assumed to not cluster the particles (see Balakrishnan & Menon. on the other hand. and Ukai et al. when the particle number density. (20) where f1 and f2 denote. (20) represent the acceleration g(t ). Balakrishnan et al. We note that essentially ρ is replaced by ρ(1 + ( f /1 + St)) in the multiphase formulation. 2010 for RM). (2010) define a multiphase Atwood number.A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model degrees of freedom for a variety of problems (Kannan & Wang. 2010). N. Thus.. (2010) in which the small |kτc| limit was assumed. Michael (1964). the other assumption made is that Stokes drag is valid. ρ2 1 + ( f2 /(1 + St2 )) + ρ1 1 + ( f1 /(1 + St1 )) (23) Thus. 5. 2. as also done so by Saffman (1962) and Ukai et al. since the 1D code is used only to determine the immediate post-shock parameters that are inputs to the BD and MBD models for RM analysis. 1962 for more discussions on this). Am. The other terms in Eq. particle relaxation time scale τ (subscripts 1 and 2 correspond to fluids 1 and 2. Recalling the formulation of 205 Saffman (1962) and Ukai et al. these equations are not summarized here for brevity. (21) where St1 = St2 is assumed in this study. THE MULTIPHASE BUOYANCY-DRAG MODEL The BD model of Srebro et al. Furthermore. and is appropriately referred to as the MBD model.
.1. in addition. the effective multiphase bubble and spike masses per unit volume are ρm 1 = ρ1 (1 + ( f1 /(1 + St1 ))) = ρ ( 1 + ( f / ( 1 + St ))) . following which the MBD model is tested. (2003) to demonstrate the validity of the baseline BD model for both linear as well as the asymptotic stages of evolution. the multiphase correction for ρ will be simplify to ρ(1 + f/St). N1. and drag effects. During the early linear perturbation growth. Balakrishnan & S. hB < λ ˆ b(Am ). with the only Here. λ (26) = (1 − E(t )) ρm 2 − ρm 1 g(t ) − Cd ρ m 2 m (Ca E(t ) + 1)ρm 2 + (Ca + E (t ))ρ1 duS dt u2 S . For RM. For RT. we then extend the formulation to include amplitude dependence through the parameter E(t ) = e−Ce khB : m (Ca E(t) + 1)ρm 1 + (Ca + E (t ))ρ2 duB dt u2 B . the baseline BD model of Srebro et al. dt duS = Am khS g(t ). (2003) BD model First. knowledge of g(t ) as well as the post-shock ρ1. since the particles have a delay in response due to finite relaxation time scales (i. hB ≥ λ (29) ˆ . for the MBD model. the spike mass per unit volume augmented by particles with number density No present within it can be expressed as ρ2(1 + f2). Thus. This is because in the linear stage. on the other hand. the perturbation evolution equations for bubbles and spikes take the form: duB = Am khB g(t ). In summary. (2003) is verified for both RT and RM involving both single and multi-mode perturbations. (23) to formulate the MBD model. khB is small. 4. we are using the same definitions for λ replacement for A by Am. We use the definition of Am as presented in Eq. (26) and (27) and.5 1. b(Am ) = (3D). we verify the efficacy of the baseline BD model as developed by Srebro et al. defined as: b(Am ) = 0. multi-mode RT (MMRT). 2 − ρ1 g(t ) − Cd ρ1 dt λ (25) where. we can analogously and intuitively obtain the following two equations for the bubble and spike motion in dusty gases: m ρm 1 + Ca ρ2 K. These limiting cases conform to Michael’s (1964) results. For multimode perturbations. (24) m ρm 2 + Ca ρ1 2 duS m m uS = ρm . g(t ) is the time varying interface acceleration.206 when St is very large. but increases to larger values thereafter as the perturbation switches to the asymptotic stage. Following and ρm 2 2 2 2 Srebro et al. dt ⎩ b(Am ) ˆ b(Am ). (23). but the the early linear growth. respectively. buoyancy. respectively. N1. uB and uS denote. with subscripts 1 and 2 used as appropriate. expanding Eqs. the definition b(Am) is used in place of b(A). the velocities of the bubbles and spikes. Here. Even though the equations derived above for both BD as well as MBD models are nonlinear. noting that ρ can be replaced by ρ[1 + f/(1+St)]. (2003) by considering the added mass term. However. (29) for multimode cases.e. only a fraction of the total particle mass can be used to drive the bubble or spike. respectively. A similar reasoning was used by Srebro et al. the early-time linear regime can also be captured. λ growth is self-similar in the asymptotic stage. To this end. During equations are equivalent to h ˆ is not changed with time.2. (2003) for RT and RM applications. We choose this factor as (1 + St) in order to be consistent with Eq. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4. and N2 denote. 1 + Am 1 + Am (28) which is consistent with theoretical behavior since the ¨ (t ) = Amkg(t )h(t ). The total mass per unit volume of a bubble enhanced by the particles with number density No present in it is ρ1 + mNo = ρ1(1 + f1). Thus. and λ is the wavelength. λ (27) = (1 − E(t )) ρm 2 − ρm 1 g(t ) − Cd ρm 1 with the coefficient Ce remaining the same as before. we extend Eq. (2003). and N2 are also required. We assume that Ca and Cd remain unaffected by the presence of the particles and use the same values as before. similarly. the post-shock particle number densities in the fluids 1 and 2. single-mode RM and also appropriately modify the characteristic wavelength for multimode perturbations to account for multiphase . dλ uB = . as before. Thus. we solve Eq. As done in Srebro et al. In the following sections. (26–27) to first order in khB. we focus on single-mode RT (SMRT). the MBD model can be directly applied to evaluate bubble and spike growth. St ≠ 0). dt (30) duB m = ρm 2 − ρ1 g(t ) − dt u2 B Cd ρm 2 λ . which are evaluated from the 1D simulations described in Section 2. Furthermore. (8) by also accounting for multiphase effects through the b(Am) parameter.6 (2D). ρ2. we solve Eqs. the generalized MBD model described here is suitable for the study of both RT and RM in dusty gases. Menon effects: ⎧ ˆ ⎨ 0. Verification of the Srebro et al. the nonlinear Buoyancy-Drag theory is also applicable for the ˆ early linear stages with the small khB and constant λ approximations.
5. As evident. we consider the experimental results of Wilkinson and Jacobs (2007). Figure 2 shows the bubble height (hb). we are interested in the experiments of Erez et al.5. 2002). in particular. Next.0487 0. we ensure that Δt ≪ τRT. and multi-mode RM (MMRM). Multi-mode RT: hb. spike height (hs). predicted by the current BD model and as obtained by Youngs (1991) Case ρ2/ρ1 1. 1 2 3 . an average measured acceleration was used). where Δv is the velocity of the interface after the shock passage. the initial velocity of the interface after the passage of the incident shock.052 0. (2000). For RT.1 mm as initialization. the initial amplitude. and for RM.15. is sufficiently small so that the BD model simulation results are meaningful. and will have to be addressed in the future. along with the corresponding slopes obtained in the simulations carried out by Youngs (1991). so that the initial ka = 0. the BD model reasonably predicts the overall growth trends although slight deviations are observed at later times.06 ≪ 1. a classical RT result. (Akg)1/2t ∼ 3. which correspond to A ∼ 0. amplitude vary linearly with Agt2.. we use λ 1cm and hb = hs = 0. 2010). ρ2/ρ1 = 1. where τRT and τRM denote. ao was in the range 0. Thus.0473 α from Youngs (1991) 0. we apply the baseline BD model to investigate MMRT. α. For the BD model. g. is computed for the three chosen ρ2/ρ1 values.. hb. we apply the 2D and 3D versions of the BD model as appropriate.5 3 20 BD Model α 0. (2000) and the analysis done by the same research group in Shvarts et al. the heights and the 207 Fig. in agreement with theory (Goncharov. as A→ 1. The slope. This study verfiies the baseline BD model for MMRT. 1. Single-mode RT. the overall growth trends of the amplitude are in reasonable agreement both with experiments as well as theory. resulting in linear growth rates. k = 2π/λ) versus non-dimensional time for a constant acceleration. Δt ≪ τRM. and amplitude (a) versus Agt2. with the deviations widening for higher ρ2/ρ1 ratios. We next focus on SMRM. α. It is customary to ensure that the choice of the time step.25 and an initial λ =26 mm. As evident. (2000).e. as evident. the BD model predictions are in reasonable agreement with the experiments. For SMRT. hs and a versus Agt2 for ρ2/ρ1 = 20. where three different density ratios. Figure 1 shows the non-dimensional amplitude (ka. 1998) and τ RM = λ/2πAΔv (Ukai et al. even the BD model α predictions are in reasonable agreement with Youngs (1991). Here. RM experiments involving both 2D and 3D perturbations in air/SF6 combinations are considered. respectively. thereby exemplifying the efficacy of the BD model to predict SMRT. From this result. (2000) and Shvarts et al. of the bubble height.0519 0. Δt.718 mm. In their experiment. The 1D code described in Section 2. thereby verifying the application of the baseline Table I MMRT slopes. 2. we believe that the BD model is better suited for lower density ratios (and lower A). with an incident shock Mach number of 1. after which transitions to a linear variation with t.05. given by τRT = λ/2πAg (Ramshaw. and are summarized in Table 1. the time scales for RT and RM. 3 ˆ= and 20 were considered. focusing on the simulation results of Youngs (1991).25 mm for the BD model analysis as the exact value from the experiment is not known. that is used as an input to the BD model. a well established classical result for MMRT. ΔV.050 0.248–2. Figure 3 presents the BD model results along with experimental results of Erez et al. i.054 Fig. we assume ao = 0. or presumably from acceleration on the fluid not being exactly constant (in the experiment of Wilkinson and Jacobs (2007). The growth trend of ka conforms to an exponential variation with t until ka ∼ 1.2 is used to estimate the initial interface velocity. α ≈ 0. Experimental results are from Wilkinson and Jacobs (2007).A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model (SMRM). These discrepancies may result from differences in the choice of the initial amplitude used in the experiments and the current BD model. some modifications may be required. As evident.
This trend is expected. BD model for SMRM. MMRT.1 SMRT We apply the MBD model for the above chosen parameters. we have verified the ability of the baseline BD model to predict the growth trends encountered in SMRT. As expected. therefore. To this end. and θa = 0. first for SMRT. and particle radius. We consider a baseline particle-free (N = 0 m−3) case in addition to N in the range 108—1013 m−3. initial ˆ for MMRT) and wavelength. On the other hand.. λ0 =1 cm (λ for SMRT. a ∼ tθa. 1 + f/(1 + St) → f/(1 + St).262.294. N. and θa = 0. Figure 5 shows the amplitude. 2003). Of particular interest is to investigate the effect of particle loading.32. (28) is used.2. These values compare reasonably well with Srebro et al. and particle size. hb for the 3D initial perturbation is about 25% greater vis-à-vis the 2D initial perturbation. Srebro et al. b(Am ) = hb /λ 4. as N increases. h. Experimental results are from Erez et al. Fig. For MMRT. (2003). (2000). This study exemplifies the applicability of the baseline BD model for MMRM. the corresponding values with the 2D version are θb = 0.. Multi-mode RM: hb +hs versus time. and then for MMRT. and MMRM. Although the origianl experiments of Erez et al. λ initial amplitude. rp. versus time. a grows slower for higher N. respectively. as also done in Srebro et al. With the 3D version. spike height hs. . the BD model for re-shocked systems needs to be revisited so as to ascertain the model’s prediction of the expected phase reversal growth trends. focus only on the incident shock in this study. θs = 0. we obtain θb = 0.297. N. for the same initial conditions. i. Experimental results are from Erez et al.164. with the 3D and 2D models.327. In the future. we.24 and their numerical θa = 0. ˆ as defined in Eq.29 and 0.208 K. We apply the MBD model for cases corresponding to A = 0. Balakrishnan & S. two sets of experiments from Erez et al. focusing on the air/SF6 experiments of Erez et al. rp = 40 μm is considered. (2003). and therefore terminate the BD model 4. the ratio.e. (2000) and Shvarts et al. first.1 mm. since particles serve as an obstruction to the bubble and spike motion. Dusty Gas RT Using the MBD Model The role played by solid particles in the mixing layer growth in RT is investigated.07 cm results in reasonable agreeλ ment with the experimental data. the term 1 + f/(1 + St) → 1 as N → 0. 1995). SMRM. (2000) and Srebro et al. (2000) involved both incident and re-shocks. hb ∼ tθb. however. due to the smaller drag coefficient for 3D (Alon et al. Single-mode RM: hb for 2D and 3D initial perturbations. the ˆ and h = hb + hs are varied to match with initial choice of λ the experiments along with the assumption hb = hs initially (a similar approach was undertaken by Srebro et al.2. We curve-fit the bubble height hb. 3. Due to the lack of exact information on the nature of the initial perturbation. a. For N = 108 m−3. who state that the experimental θa = 0. on the amplitude growth trends. (2003) are presented. the amplitude growth tends to the particle-free growth as too few particles are present to offer resistance to the growth of the mixing layer. ρ1 =1 Kg/m3. The focus now is to test the MBD model for similar cases and to understand the underlying physics. thus. θs = 0. Analysis shows that ˆ = 0.5.. we investigate the effect of N on the amplitude growth.05 cm and h = 0. a0 = 0. no experimental results exist for RT and RM growth in dusty gases. the next section focuses on applying the MBD for the study of similar problems in dusty gases.222. We also compute the late time slopes of the bubble and spike amplitudes to obtain Fig. rp. g = 1 m/s2. Figure 4 presents the total mixing zone width. and this corresponds to St ∼ 1. Menon simulation just before the arrival of the reshock. (2003). 4. In summary. It is emphasized that to the best of the authors’ knowledge. we are unable to compare MBD model predictions with any dusty gas experiments. and amplitude a = 1/2(hb + hs ) as power laws with time. since only f depends on N and rp is independent. versus time using both the 2D and 3D versions of the baseline BD model. It is of interest to study the effects of particle loading. we verify the baseline BD model for the study of MMRM. (2000). Finally. (2000). hs ∼ tθs.
we investigate the effect of rp for a fixed N = 1010 m−3. Multiphase single-mode RT: amplitude versus time for different particle loading with rp = 40 μm. the respective late time constant bubble and spike terminal velocities (URT(B/S )). 6. (31) consistent with the results obtained by Oron et al.2. Figure 7 shows the non-dimensional amplitude versus non-dimnesional time.2. Thus. . It is interesting to note that as N increases. MMRT To investigate multiphase MMRT. The legend denotes the value of N in number per m3. and so the results conform to the particle-free case (Am = A). The study is repeated for a different choice of rp and similar ka trends are observed. For very small rp. rp = 40 μm to St ∼ 1. f ∼ r3 p and St ∼ rp. Again. On the other hand. a band of solutions is identified for the growth of the non-dimensional amplitude versus non-dimensional time. independent of ρ. Figure 8 displays the growth of amplitude.. ˆ instead of λ. and so for a different rp. corresponding to different St. when very large particle sizes are considered. Fig. It is also of interest to consider the trends in the growth of the non-dimensional amplitude (ka) versus non-dimensional time (t (Amkg)1/2). a. Am → A (upper limit) and Am → 0 (lower limit). This study demonstrates that a band of solutions is observed also for the MMRT in dusty gases. Multiphase single-mode RT: non-dimensional amplitude versus non-dimensional time for different particle loading with rp = 40 μm.01. Thus. The legend denotes the value of N in number per m3. for too large an rp.e. Even the bubble and spike steady-state velocities at late times are observed to conform to Eq. (2001). Here. for dusty gas SMRT. f/(1 + St) will follow a different trend for a given N. Fig.. and is plotted in Figure 6. Next. and rp = 400 μm to St ∼ 100. Fig. this is 4. albeit for a different range of N. (31). 5. as noted in Eq. too little particle mass is present to influence bubble and spike motion.A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model 209 2 because in the term f/(1 + St). the results are contained within the bands corresponding to Am → A and Am → 0. i. ρ[1 + f/(1 + St)] → 6π rpμ N.e. the upper limit. (29)). Note that for very small rp. Hence. However. these results for different rp are not presented here for brevity. The legend denotes the value of rp in μm. The result corresponding to N = 108 m−3 is coincident with N = 0 m−3 and so is not clearly visible. The same initial conditions are used for this study. The MBD model predictions for URT(B/S) are in accordance with the value obtained by equating the buoyancy and drag terms: URT (B/S) = 2Am /(1 ± Am )gλ/Cd . Multiphase single-mode RT: non-dimensional amplitude versus non-dimensional time for different particle sizes with N = 1010 m−3. thereby creating a band of solutions between Am → A and Am → 0. the initial density ratio loses significance and the mixing layer evolves tending to the Am → 0 limit (lower limit) for large particle sizes. 1 + f/(1 + St) → 6πrpμN/ρ. the nondimensional profiles also tend to converge. and that the choice of Am for dusty gases can be physically analogous to A for pure (dust-free) gases. (28). and the with the difference being the use of λ corresponding equation for the wavelength growth rate (Eq. as evident. We consider particle sizes in the range rp = 4–400 μm. the results are observed to still be contained within the same band. 1 + f/(1 + St) → 1. we use b(Am). i. 7. rp = 4 μm corresponds to St ∼ 0. albeit with Am in place of A (the + sign corresponds to the bubbles and the − sign for the spikes).
rp = 4 μm corresponds to St ∼ initial λ 0. The legend denotes the value of rp in μm. Figure 10 shows α = a/(Amgt2) versus Am for these different MMRT cases considered. For very small particle sizes. Menon Fig. 8. the total particle mass is negligible to have an effect on the bubble and spike growth and so the result converges to the particle-free case. Fig. for a range of N. and g. Furthermore. as evident. Multiphase multi-mode RT: amplitude versus Amgt2 for different particle loading with rp = 40 μm.210 K. 1989. 10.1. For instance. for the same ao. Multiphase multi-mode RT: amplitude versus Amgt2 for different particle sizes with N = 1011 m−3.01. due to which we believe that the MBD model may not be well suited for Am → 0. ˆ . 4. Note that these results correspond to a fixed A = 0.5. In Figure 10. As evident. Next. with the amplitudes contained within a band. versus Amgt2. however. for this directly indicates dependence of the t2 law for different particle sizes and loadings.0606 for the upper limit and α = 0. The slopes of these curves. higher N results in subdued mixing layer amplitude growth as more particles obstruct the rise of bubbles and the fall of spikes. 1991. for very large particle sizes. the MBD model needs further improvement for Am → 0 cases. Balakrishnan & S. it is observed that for Am> 0.3. some of the assumptions that were stated earlier in the formulation (Section 3) can fail.05 reported by Youngs (1984.0491 for the lower limit. Thus. Again. a linear trend is observed. The slopes of the band boundaries are determined to be α = 0. Figure 9 shows the amplitude variation versus Amgt2 and. we fix the particle loading at N = 1011 m−3 and vary particle sizes in the range rp = 4–400 μm.5 for all these cases. It is also of interest to consider the trends in the slope of the amplitude versus Amgt2 curves for the different 3D cases considered for the multiphase MMRT analysis. are evaluated to be α = 0. on the other hand. and rp = 400 μm to St ∼ 100. the assumption that the particle-gas mixture remains uniform at all times is of concern under high particle mass cases. it is possible that some of the established theories on hydrodynamic instability growth can be extended to multiphase systems as well by replacing A with Am. Dusty gas RM using the MBD model 4. linear trends (in t2) are observed at later times. ρ1. This is because when the total particle mass is large (as is for Am → 0 cases). a scatter is observed in the α predictions. In the future. with the upper limit corresponding to Am → A (for N → 0) and the lower limit to Am → 0 (for N → ∞). and investigate the bubble and spike Fig. we will be investigating the α trend versus Am for different choices of A. A = 0. for very small Am. Here. . rp = 40 μm to St ∼ 1. Interestingly. we extend on the 3D cases considered earlier for the single phase RM.0469 for the lower limit (Am → 0). Due to these effects. 1994). α. The legend denotes the value of N in number per m3. St ∼ 1). the results are contained within a band. Such banded solutions indicate that the slope.3. since the particle mass outweighs the gas mass.0606 for the upper limit (Am → A) and as α = 0. α. 9. SMRM Here. these values are similar to the classical result of α ∼ 0.2. the results again converge to the Am → 0 solution as before. The linear trend between a and Amgt2 suggests that the well established a ∼ t2 result also holds for multiphase systems with the use of Am in place of A. A. for a fixed rp = 40 μm (this corresponds to Stokes number. when Am → 0. Variation of α with Am for different cases considered in MMRT. increases with Am for a given A. the treatment of the dusty gas mixture as a fluid presumably fails.
presumably due to the higher inertia involved for the spikes. we investigate the effect of rp for a fixed N = 1013 m−3. only relatively weak shock (Mach number < 1.A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model growth when particles are present. 11.5 shocks. models that treat RM as an impulsive RT case need to be revisited in the future. Next. It is also interesting to note from Figure 12 that whereas the particle-free and small particle cases show a rapid increase in hb and hs at early times followed by slower exponential growth at later times—typical for RM instabilities. 12. comparing the results between RM with RT for the same rp or N does not correspond to any physical significance.5 μm for different values of N. but rather switches gradually to a more continuous growth. the spike heights show more pronounced variations. Figure 11 shows the (a) hb and (b) hs growth with time for a fixed rp = 1. This study illustrates that the spike growth shows higher sensitivity to the presence of particles than the bubbles. Multiphase single-mode RM: (a) bubble amplitude and (b) spike amplitude growth with time for a fixed N = 1013 m−3. the range of rp and N of interest to the analysis is thus different between RT and RM for the same reason. (2010) based on 2D simulations. It is noteworthy of mention that the MBD model is able to predict this particle-size sensitivity on the bubble and spike growth trends at early times. Multiphase single-mode RM: (a) bubble amplitude and (b) spike amplitude growth with time for a fixed rp = 1. As evident. on the other hand. with impulsive predictions showing deviations even for Mach 1. For very strong shocks. This observation was also made in Ukai et al. the growth trends are more gradual even at early times—similar to RT growth. Thus. for larger particles. with the spikes showing a higher dependence. with perhaps the use of a g(t ) profile varying over a finite albeit small time interval. The choice of rp or N used in these cases will be different from those considered for RT due to different time scales involved for RT and RM. Even for these cases. it has been demonstrated by Wouchuk (2001) that RM involving weak shocks behave as an impulsive case of RT. Essentially. The legend denotes different values for rp in μm. . Fig. due to which the bubble and spike growth does not stay impulsive. In both the BD and MBD models. both hb and hs show subdued growth with time as the number of particles increases. the bubble and spike heights are presented in Figure 12. slow response times) behave in some physical sense similar to RT. with hs being only one-fourth for the denser cases considered vis-à-vis the particle-free case. both hb and hs show subdued growth with an increase in rp. In the present investigation. and is owing to the slow response of the larger particles.5) RM cases are considered. For instance. In (a). Fig.5 μm. Whereas the bubble height is only affected by ∼ 20% for the particle number density 211 range considered. the acceleration profile can be crucial in deciding whether RM can be assumed to be an impulsive case of RT. the N = 1012 case is coincident with the “No particles” case and is thus not clearly visible. studies to this end will be considered in the future. Such profiles may be essential for strong shock RM in order to more accurately predict the perturbation growth rates. The legend denotes different values for N in m−3. this means that RM with large particle sizes (therefore.
17 to 0.4. a ∼ tθa. As before. the physics of these parametric studies are not elaborated. Although only A = 0. and the MBD model in dusty regions.. we shift our focus to the investigation of multiphase MMRM. corresponding to single. and stays nearly constant with Am for Am> 0. The legend denotes different values for rp in μm.2. Multiphase multi-mode RM: (a) bubble amplitude and (b) spike amplitude growth with time for a fixed N = 1016m−3.165. not shown here for brevity.1 to 0. the MBD model can be used to obtain power law dependence for multiphase MMRM. 4. 14. we develop a hybrid BD/MBD model that uses BD in pure (dust-free) regions and MBD in dusty gas regions. 4 new classes of problems are identified that are tractable to analysis with such a hybrid BD/MBD model. when RT or RM involves pure gases in certain regions. A = 0. Based on the current analysis of multiphase RT and RM. and in dusty gas mixtures using the MBD model. into a dusty (pure) gas. RT or RM. 2. thereby leading to a hybrid model. MMRM Finally. Similar trends were reported for the single-phase MMRM considered in Oron et al. the BD model must be used for pure gas regions. Bubbles in a pure gas RT or RM rising into a region of particles. These are summarized as: 1. Menon Fig.or multimode. and A considered in the MMRT analysis from Section 2. as the goal of the current analysis is to demonstrate the application of the BD/MBD hybrid model and identify four new classes of problems related to dusty gas MMRT. ˆ . bubbles or spikes. in a pure gas (or dusty gas) can rise or fall. and dusty gases otherwise.e. Here. Spikes in a pure gas RT or RM falling into a region of particles. are observed to non-linearly increase with Am in the Am = 0. Balakrishnan & S. to the best of the author’s knowledge. rp = 40 μm is used as it corresponds to St ∼ 1. Bubbles in a multiphase RT or RM rising into a region of pure gas. as the case may be. In addition. new in the literature.7 range.212 4. In this sub-section. (2001). Four New Classes of Problems We have hitherto analysed RT and RM in pure gases using the BD model. SMRM. Thus. ao. In the future. .5. 13. hs.7. for a fixed A = 0. with differences in the particle distribution in space. K. As observed. here. in the future such power law coefficients for a wider range of A can be investigated. which is of interest Fig. with the spikes showing a higher sensitivity to the presence of particles. ρ2.3. on the other hand. 3. such possibilities for SMRT.7 is considered in this study. The effect of rp on the growth of hb and hs are investigated for a fixed N = 1016 m−3 in Figure 13. θb linearly decreases for low Am from ∼ 0. i. Similar results are observed also for higher N for a fixed rp. Thus. with the increase in particle size—and therefore particle mass—subdued hb and hs are observed. Under such scenarios. hs ∼ tθs.7 is fixed. respectively. and MMRM needs to be revisited. 4. Variation of θ with Am for different 3D cases considered in MMRM. Power law growth trends with time are observed for hb. and θa. This leads to a hybrid scenario wherein a combination of the two studies is possible. and a for the different 3D multiphase MMRM cases considered. only the MMRT will be studied for these identified possibilities. g. which are. and these are plotted versus Am in Figure 14. hb ∼ tθ b. as the goal here is to demonstrate the efficacy of the hybrid solver for the study of such kinds of RT and RM. Spikes in a multiphase RT or RM falling into a region of pure gas. θs. We consider the same set of initial conditions for λ ρ1.
It is observed that even though hs > hb at early times as expected. For this analysis. the MI is located on the side of the spikes (side of ρ1).1. we assume. For ease of discussion. since only the bubbles encounter the dusty gas region. and a. the local maxima and minima in the spike front decays for every subsequent penetration into the dusty gas due to drag effects. Even the oscillation frequency decreases for every subsequent penetration.” and the interface between the pure fluids and the dusty gases as “multiphase interface (MI). resulting in continued hb ∼ t2 growth. a = ao) simply as “interface. Bubbles in a Multiphase MMRT Rising into a Region of Pure Gas We now investigate the rise of bubbles in a multiphase MMRT into a region of pure gas. the spikes again enter the pure gas region. the dependence of this oscillation frequency on rp and N needs to be revisited.5 m from the initial pure gas interface that separates the two fluids corresponding to ρ1 and ρ2. 213 4. and causes the kink in the velocity profile. for spikes falling into a region of particles. Bubbles in a Pure Gas MMRT Rising into a Region of Particles First. as the buoyancy effects decrease for every subsequent penetration.5 s. and such oscillations are repeated. In the future.4. Thus. Spikes in a Pure Gas MMRT Falling Into a Region of Particles Next. the interface between the pure and dusty gases are located at a height of 1. The parameter b(Am) is used as this case involves bubbles encountering both pure fluids as well as dusty gases. For the BD/MBD analysis. This oscillation of the spike front is owing to Am becoming negative for the spikes inside the dusty gas. due to which the spikes require lesser time to slow down to rest and thereafter reverse direction. causing the spikes to fall again into the dusty region.5 m) they slow down and oscillate about the MI (located at 1. once the spikes enter the dusty gas region (hs > 1. thereby reversing the buoyancy force. albeit small. we analyze the rise of pure gas bubbles into a region of dusty gas located 1.4. Likewise. hs and a. albeit only to a small extent in the present case. As evident. after which the MBD model is employed for the bubbles. since the parameter b is related to bubbles.4.5 m. we refer to the initial interface between the two fluids corresponding to ρ1 and ρ2 (when amplitude. The amplitude of the oscillation for every subsequent penetration decreases in time as the spikes lose momentum to the surrounding dusty gas due to drag. Subsequently. the sign of the buoyancy term again changes. Then. 15. ub only shows a minor “kink” around 7.2. using the same initial conditions noted. 4. we use the BD model for both bubbles and spikes until hb reaches 1. a and (b) ub. and as evident. but the BD model is continued for the spikes. so that the drag term always opposes its motion. the bubble amplitudes do not show noticable differences as they enter into the dusty gas region. Again. the pure gas is identified by the gas that is present on the same side as the bubble rise or spike fall. us.5 m). which rise only into pure gases for the present case. the MI is located 1. after which the buoyancy term once again changes sign.A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model here.5 m above the initial interface that separates the two Fig. (b) ub and us. hs. for bubbles rising or spikes falling into a region of particles. we focus our attention on the fall of spikes into a region of particles. .5 m away from the initial interface. This inevitably accelerates the bubble front. The buoyancy term in m the MBD model increases in magnitude as ρm 2 – ρ1 increases when the bubbles rise into the particle region. From Figure 15(b). 4. b(A) is used instead of b(Am). hs. the dusty gas region has an accelerating influence. the MI lies on the side of the bubbles (side of ρ2). For this analysis. and quickly adjusts to a linear velocity profile thereafter. Figure 15 shows (a) hb. on the rising bubbles for the case considered. Figure 16 displays hb. Bubbles in a pure gas MMRT rising into a region of particles: (a) hb. Similar distinction is emphasized for the analysis of bubbles rising or spikes falling from a dusty gas into a region of pure gas—here. MI is now switched to the side of the spike fall. the particle number density is taken to be N = 1010 m−3. We zoom hs in the vicinity of the MI and present in Figure 17 a closer view of the oscillatory nature of hs. leading to a gravity wave-like phenomenon.3. thereby allowing for hb > hs at later times.” Note that for the analysis of bubbles rising into a particle region. the sign of the drag term for the spikes is reversed based on the direction of motion.
we investigate spikes in a multiphase MMRT falling into a region of pure gas. The parameter b(Am) is used since this study involves bubbles encountering dusty gases. Bubbles in a multiphase MMRT rising into a region of pure gas. hence accelerating the spike front. As shown earlier. Furthermore. 19. hs and a versus time. Spikes in a multiphase MMRT falling into a region of pure gas. Figure 18 shows hb.e. The parameter b(Am) is used in the analysis since the bubbles always remain in a dusty gas for this case. the sign of the drag term is changed to ensure that it always opposes the bubble motion. For the BD/MBD analysis.4. SMRM and MMRM also needs to be investigated in the future. when the particle mass is much higher than the gas. As before. Extensions to the MBD Model Through the course of this paper. ρ1 and ρ2. as ρm 2 − ρ1 in the buoyancy term increases in magnitude. Since the goal of this paper is to demonstrate the ability of the MBD model for problems of this kind. The MBD model offers leverage for such problems. under this . Spikes in a Multiphase MMRT Falling into a Region of Pure Gas Finally. 16. studies along these lines for SMRT. Even for the bubbles considered here. experiments on multiphase RT and RM are limited in the literature and so the model predictions could not be directly verified with experiments. Fig. Oscillatory hs behavior as spikes in a pure gas MMRT fall into a region of particles. Overall. Fig. thereby changing the sign of 1 the buoyancy term. shows a gravity wave-like phenomenon as the term ρm 2 − ρm changes sign alternatively.5. 17.. and a versus time. However. i. these parametric studies have identified four new classes of problems that can be investigated using the currently developed MBD model. Figure 19 shows hb. hs. Spikes in a pure gas MMRT falling into a region of particles. 18. Fig. the bubble height.214 K. hb. both the oscillation amplitude and frequency decrease with time.5 m. The spike front accelerates as it enters into the pure gas m beyond hs> 1. we have formulated and applied the MBD model for a wide variety of RT and RM problems and the model is able to accurately predict the bubble and spike growths under different multiphase conditions. the MBD model needs to be revisited for Am → 0. fluids. Menon Fig. the four parametric studies are not studied in elaborate detail. Balakrishnan & S.4. 4. 4.
respectively. Whereas θ linearly decreases and then asymptotes to a constant value for higher Am for bubbles. For dusty gas Richtmyer-Meshkov growth under multi-mode conditions.. a new MBD model is developed and is applied to investigate the growth trends in Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities in dusty gases. for spikes. (1994). using a hybrid version of the model. Fig. with the classical BD model for pure (dust-free) gas. and so the MBD model needs further testing for re-shocked RM which causes phase-reversal (Srebro et al.A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model 215 growth.. θ. Balakrishnan et al. for which the MBD model needs to be extended to account for geometrical divergence effects. The amplitude growth with time is subdued when larger particle sizes and/ or larger particle number densities are used. the treatment of the gas-particle mixture as a pseudo-gas mixture is stretched. scenario. 2010. On the other hand. penetrates from the region of pure or dusty gas to the other. 2003. Such modifications can be investigated in future studies with the MBD model. 20. These new classes of problems are summarized as: (1) bubbles in a pure gas rising into a region of particles. the power law index. as well as for spikes in a region of particles falling into a pure gas region. Studies along these identified lines will be conducted in the near future. potential extensions to the presently developed multiphase buoyancydrag model are proposed for future research that can be applied for a range of problems. Israel and Dr. heat release effects associated with burning particles can also drive the bubble and spike growth due to volumetric expansion. Furthermore. and the currently developed MBD model in dusty gas regions. 2867–2870. CONCLUSIONS In this paper. Furthermore. particle size and Stokes number. Am. 2011. inter alia. Experimental results are from Sommerfeld (1985). Phys. For bubbles in a pure gas rising into a region of particles. we have applied the MBD model only for a single shock system. & SHVARTS. For Rayleigh-Taylor growth in dusty gases. for blast wave driven systems. . due to which the bubble or spike front. Both single. Other physical problems of interest include the application of the MBD model to reactive systems. a band of amplitude growth are observed. For strong shock RM in dusty gases. the bubble or spike front. as a function of the fluid densities. Such oscillations are caused due to the sign change in the buoyancy term as the bubble or spike front. re-shock systems. (2) spikes in a pure gas falling into a region of particles. HECHT. MUKAMEL. D. For this. for amplitude shows dependence to Am as well. which is a critical variable for the dusty gas analysis. Leinov et al. for spikes in a pure gas falling into a particle region. Finally. Scale invariant mixing rates of hydrodynamically unstable interfaces. Lett. where the Stokes number can change with time for burning particles. in addition. Oren Sadot of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. blast wave driven instabilities. which is directly related to Am. J. 72. U. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The first author acknowledges the private communications with Dr.. gravity wave-like oscillations are observed.and multi-mode perturbations in dusty gases are studied for Rayleigh-Taylor as well as Richtmyer-Meshkov REFERENCES ALON. Guy Malamud of the Negev Nuclear Research Center. rapidly grows after passing the multiphase interface. and (4) spikes in a region of particles falling into a pure gas. 2009).. which can also result in interesting results. a time-varying acceleration profile can be considered and the MBD model can be applied under such conditions as well to investigate blast driven RT and RM in dusty gases. and the upper and lower limits of this band lie within limits identified by Am. 5. Balakrishnan. the use of a non-impulsive g(t ) profile may be warranted in order to more accurately predict growth rates. for RM. etc. A multiphase Atwood number. indicating that the net acceleration of the bubble or spike front for every subsequent penetration is lesser. and bubbles in a particle region rising into a pure gas. is identified. Four new classes of problems are identified and investigated for Rayleigh-Taylor growth under multi-mode conditions. and these problems can also be investigated with the MBD model with some minor corrections incorporated. accelerates once it crosses the multiphase interface. Other applications include the study of explosions in multiphase environments (Balakrishnan & Menon. θ increases non-linearly with Am. The amplitude of these oscillations decays with time due to drag effects. as the case may be. Shock Mach number as it propagates through a dust-gas suspension. the decompression term introduced in Miles (2009) for the single-phase BD model can be used in the MBD model.. Israel. and so the model needs revisions for this limiting end. This is owing to an increase in the buoyancy term. (3) bubbles in a region of particles rising into a pure gas. 2010). D. as the case is. Rev.
Fluid Mech. Series A.. Fluid Dynam. Phys. Power laws and similarity of Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov mixing fronts at all density ratios. (1964). G. (1962). O. (1981). (2000). Balakrishnan & S. (1969). LAYZER. IAEA-CN-77. L. singlemode. COLELLA. Phys. 304–321. ALON. G.A. M.R. CHAPMAN. SOMMERFELD. 805–836.2010. Sci. & MENON. L.216 ALON. Phys. D. Experimental and numerical investigation of the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability under reshock conditions. Plasmas 8. Rev. ORON.. G. U. doi:10. SHVARTS. Math.1007/s10915-010-9391-0. ARAZI. ELBAZ. (2002). The piecewise parabolic method (PPM) for gas-dynamical simulations. Y. UKAI. Y. (2010). A p-multigrid spectral difference method with explicit and implicit smoothers on unstructured triangular grids. 267–279. On the stability of laminar flow of a dusty gas.J. O. 18th Fusion Energy Conference. (1961). K.. Fluids 22. Phys. The unsteadiness of shock waves propagating through gas-particle mixtures. Phys. Dynam. Phys. O.. SREBRO. J. KANNAN. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme.E. ELBAZ. VAN LEER. Phys. TORO. K. 14. E 58. & BEN-DOR. Instability of the interface of two gases accelerated by a shock wave. SADOT. Y. 498–514. Rev. E.D. Exper. S. SHVARTS. R. Phys.H. Georgia Institute of Technology. 056303. EREZ. Studies in the evolution of hydrodynamic instabilities and their role in inertial confinement fusion. Pure Appl.. OFER. MIURA. D. S. 2883–2889. K. A Study of viscous flux formulations for a p-multigrid spectral volume Navier Stokes solver. Proc. RUSANOV. J. LEVIN. 5140–5155. Z. 4–10 October. LATINI. 19–32. A. New York: Dover Publications.. D. Astrophys. Calculation of Interaction of Non-Steady Shock Waves With Obstacles.G.. The stability of plane Poisuelle flow of a dusty gas. Math. Proc. D. J. (1993). MESHKOV. E 47.I. S. P. HECHT. Phys.proci. D.. D.J. (1979). P. Phys. D. . 74.Fluids 38. S. Comput. D. L.. Sci. On turbulent chemical explosions into dilute aluminum particle clouds. Proc. Rev. classical Rayleigh-Taylor instability at arbitrary Atwood numbers. & DON. SAFFMAN. Lett. Experimental study of the single-mode three-dimensional Rayleigh-Taylor instability. D. L. (2009).F.. (2010). 13. U. (2009). R. 074101. 104103. CHANDRASEKHAR. (1995). Rev.S. E 76. Phys. ORON. J. D. A. WILKINSON. O. Fluids 19. E. & SHVARTS. Dimensionality dependence of the Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instability late-time scaling laws.R. Phys. SADOT. On the instability of superposed fluids in a gravitational field. L. (2010).. SADOT. Lett. E.. Fluids 3. RIKANATI. J. Rev... 534–537. LATINI. KARTOON. M. & WANG. The Richtmyer-Meshkov instability.. PhD Thesis. G. RIKANATI. (2009). 445–468. S. Italy. 174–201. Y. E 63. Rayleigh-Taylor instability: experiments with image analysis. I. MALAMUD. J. BALAKRISHNAN. 254–265. 41. LEVIN. (2003). (1985).. P. J. D.. (2011). (2007). Effects of WENO flux reconstruction order and spatial resolution on reshocked two-dimensional RichtmyerMeshkov instability. DIMONTE. Model. (2007). J. MICHAEL. Phys. & BEN-DOR. Taylor instability in a shock acceleration of compressible fluids. LIANG. On RichtmyerMeshkov instability in dilute gas-particle mixtures. (2004). 3–18. On a dusty-gas shock tube. V.. Comput. (2002). A second order sequel to Godunov’s method. LEINOV. V. 297–319. RICHTMYER. & MENON.. J. J. (2003). O. 449–475. SREBRO. Comput.. (2001). YEDVAB. Oceans 20. (1984). & WANG. & WOODWARD. 18. 626. Commun. WOUCHUK. KARTOON. 1–12. Y. (1999). Ann. D. L. 122. Y.. D. Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Practical Introduction. 34. Comput. Simple model for linear and nonlinear mixing at unstable fluid interfaces with variable acceleration. G. 373–388.J. & JACOBS. D. Rev. MIKAELIAN. G.. M. An overview of Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Fluids 18. BALAKRISHNAN.B...W. 88. 101–136. Phys. Explicit expressions for the evolution of single mode Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities at arbitrary atwood numbers.N. ELBAZ. ORON. Series A. LORD RAYLEIGH. W.. 4.D. ARAZI. Growth rate of the linear Richtmyer-Meshkov instability when a shock is reflected. Clustering and combustion of dilute aluminum particle clouds in a postdetonation flow field. KISHONY. (1982). of the Royal Society of London. ALON. TAYLOR. Menon MILES.1016/j. Beams 21. The.. U. 120–128. J. BALAKRISHNAN. Density ratio dependence of Rayleigh-Taylor mixing for sustained and impulsive acceleration histories. (1950). (2009). 5834–5840. & SHVARTS. The instability of liquid surfaces when accelerated in a direction perpendicular to their planes. R. D. New York: Springer. C.. (1883). 54. (2001). A. & MENON. Phys. R. K. 124102. S. BALAKRISHNAN. Experiments on the threedimensional incompressible Richtmyer-Meshkov instability..A. SARID. 347–353. 170–177. The blast-wave-driven instability as a vehicle for understanding supernova explosion structure. Z.R. Phys. Fluids 12. Bubble merger model for the nonlinear Rayleigh-Taylor instability driven by a strong blast wave. 165–199.. USSR 1. Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability. of the Royal Society of London. SCHILLING. (1984). Physics of reshock and mixing in single-mode Richtmyer-Meshkov instability.I.. Combustion Institute... Combu.P. Fluid Mech. Comput. 696.. of the London Mathematical Society 14.O. doi: 10. J. A. & GLASS. ARAZI. P. 101–104. UKAI. Plasmas 11. Shock Waves 10. 241–251. KANNAN. Phys. 192–196. M. J.. SCHILLING. Rev. & SHVARTS. (2010). (2006). 32. & SCHNEIDER. K.W. & WANG. Atmosph. & SADOT.G. BEN-DOR. 13. Z. KANNAN. & DON. Proc. & JACOBS. J. A general buoyancy-drag model for the evolution of the Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov innstabilities.064. J. SHVARTS. GONCHAROV.V. Study of the membrane effect on turbulent mixing measurements in shock tubes. M. W. (1955). Mathematical and Physical Sciences 201(1065). V. Fluid Mech. H. D. Comput. Investigation of the character of the equilibrium of an incompressible heavy fluid of variable density. 221. (2000). J. Laser Part. J. Analytical model on nonlinear. A variant of the LDG viscous flux formulation for the Spectral Volume method. LEVIN. Math. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 382(1783). 12.H. 026319. SHARP. (1998). B. 197–206. A. 134502. Astrophys.. DALZIEL.07. YOSEF-HAI. Sorrento. EREZ. 026319. (1960). Fluid Mecha. (2007).. RAMSHAW. 583–617. E.. MILES. K.A. Comput. O. S. L. On the high fidelity simulations of chemical explosions and their interaction with solid particle clouds. R. G. (2000).S. BROUILLETTE.R. 127–153.
The particles are assumed to be 27 μm in diameter (dp). σp = 2500 Kg/m3 and a specific heat. Cm of 766 J/Kg-K.L. Numerical simulation of mixing by Rayleigh-Taylor and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities. and the numerical predictions are presented in Figure 20 along with the experimental data from Sommerfeld (1985). Numerical simulation of turbulent mixing by Rayleigh-Taylor instability. 270–287. in accordance with results of Sommerfeld (1985). a 7. 217 n = 0.49. 725–750. Furthermore.76 m long section filled with a mixture of ambient air and dust particles. D. as expected. YOUNGS. Beams 12. Modelling turbulent mixing by Rayleigh-Taylor instability . 1312–1320. (1984). Three-dimensional numerical simulation of turbulent mixing by Rayleigh-Taylor instability.L. Here. a 4. (1991).A Multiphase buoyancy-drag model YOUNGS. APPENDIX The 1D two-phase code is validated using the experimental results of Sommerfeld (1985). YOUNGS. After the high pressure section is released. The shock wave Mach number as it attenuates with distance is of interest. Laser Part. (1989). Fluids A 3. YOUNGS. D.05 m long region filled with ambient air. These results validate the 1D two-phase code for applications of the like.L. As evident. D. Phys. Phys. with a material density. The Mach number of the incident shock is 1. Phys.5 m) the shock wave tends to attain an equilibrium Mach number as it propagates through the gasparticle mixture. (1994).L. . followed by a 1. D. and attenuates as it propagates through the gas-particle mixture because of momentum and energy loss to the particles.01 m is found to suffice for the analysis.63 and 1. 32–44. a resolution of ΔX = 0. the equilibrium shock Mach number is lower due to the greater momentum and energy loss from the shock wave to the particles.81 m long shock tube is considered and is divided into a sequence of three regions: a 2 m long high pressure driver section. the numerical predictions are in good accordance with the experiments. D 37.25. D 12. and last. for a higher particle mass loading ratio (n). In the far downstream regions (X > 3. and two different particle mass loading ratio are considered. a shock wave propagates into the low pressure region. Based on trial and error.