5 views

Uploaded by Sandra Powers

dgf

dgf

© All Rights Reserved

- AERODYNAMICS 2
- Fluid Mechanics : Streeter 6th
- s8 syllabus
- rr779
- Estimation-of-Natural-Frequency-of-the-Bearing-System-under-Periodic-Force-Based-on-Principal-of-Hydrodynamic-Mass-of-Fluid.pdf
- Akışkanlar Mekaniği Kitap Çözümleri
- sem4_chem
- Two Phase Flow in Pipes
- The Solution Visualizing Fluid Flow Inside the Modified Inlet Duct
- ME06 Spoiler With VGs
- R. Menikoff- Hot Spot Formation from Shock Reflections
- Andrew J. Higgins et al- Initiation of Detonation in Liquid Explosives by a Reflected Shock Wave
- AUSM (5)
- 003872076153539963a29067323118fc777a.pdf
- 7.-IEEE-format (1)
- Final Report Format 20142
- 1254221292_VIRTUE_BPG_integrated_Final.pdf
- McCabe's_synthesis_hyd_packages.pdf
- CEP08-09-2
- Hybrid CFDBEM Approach to Predict Flow Induced Noise

You are on page 1of 12

325336 (2007)

MULTI-MATERIAL INTERFACE ON UNSTRUCTURED MOVING GRIDS

Bing Wang* and Houqian Xu

College of Power Engineering, Nanjing University of Science & Technology,

Nanjing, P.R. China 210094

* E-Mail: evancfd@163.com (Corresponding Author)

ABSTRACT: The material interface is tracked by solving the arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) formulation during

the simulation of the compressible multi-material flow. The material interface is looked upon as a Lagrangian interface

which can move freely and is composed of a number of edges of the unstructured grids and the state vectors of the points

on the interface have two different definitions corresponding to the two different fluids. Then, Riemann problem is

solved by the two-shock approximation method for general form of equation of state on both sides of the interface to

track the interface accurately and the grids are moving automatically with the motion of the interface. The 1D

spherically symmetric underwater explosion model is computed by using ALE method and the numerical results agree

well with the experimental data, which indicates that the interface tracking method is reasonable. Furthermore,

interaction between shock and water surface is also simulated to show that this method is suitable for solving microdeforming interface problem.

Keywords: multi-material interface, unstructured moving grids, Riemann problem, ALE method, HLLC scheme,

underwater explosion

micro-deforming interface.

In this paper, an ALE method based on moving

grids (Hirt, Amsden and Cook, 1974) is used during

the simulation of the compressible multi-material

flow. The material interface is looked upon as a

Lagrangian interface which can move freely and is

composed of a number of edges of the unstructured

grids and the state vectors of the points on the

interface

have

two

different

definitions

corresponding to the two different fluids. Then, the

Riemann problem is solved on both sides of the

interface to track the interface accurately and the

grids are moving automatically with the motion of

the interface. The 1D spherically symmetric

underwater explosion model is computed by using

ALE method and the numerical results agree well

with the experimental data, which indicates that the

interface tracking method is reasonable.

Furthermore, interaction between shock and water

surface is also simulated to show that this method is

suitable for solving micro-deforming interface

problems.

1. INTRODUCTION

Multi-material flow, where a freely moving

interface exists between two immiscible fluids, can

be found in many engineering problems. It is still

difficult to track the material interface accurately

and efficiently in computational fluid dynamics.

There are a number of numerical methods

developed to solve the interface problems, such as

VOF method (Hankin, 2001; Wang et al., 2004;

Tang, Wrobel and Fan, 2004), Level-set method

(Xiao and Ebisuzaki, 1998; Xu, 1997), Gamma

based model method (Abgrall, 2003), etc. However,

some common problems are encountered in using

these methods. First, the interfaces location is

obtained with all of these methods by solving some

special formulations, which cannot show directly

the motion of the interface. Second, these methods

are all based on the stationary grids, where the state

vectors near the interface are obtained through

interpolation, and even a small error may lead to

collapse or meaningless computation (Fedkiw,

Marquina and Merriman, 1999; Blom, 2000) unless

some special method is introduced at the interface,

such as Ghost Fluid Method (Fedkiw et al.,

1999). Lastly, it is difficult for all of these methods

Received: 16 Apr. 2007; Revised: 7 Jun. 2007; Accepted: 10 Jul. 2007

325

2. ALE FORMULATIONS

3. NUMERICAL METHODS

free deformable finite control volume (t) are

written as

()

t

Ud +

()

t

(F x& U ) nd =

Sd

(t )

(1)

U n +1

defined by

U = v

E

v

F = v v + p

Ev + pv

(2)

on their common

j

boundary i, j can be obtained by

FiHLLC

,j

(3)

j

( S j un j ) j

1

*

( S j un j )( v) j + ( p p j )n

U j = ( v) j =

( E ) S j S M

( S j un j )( E ) j p j un j + p S M

(9)

arbitrarily, the conservation of ALE formulation (1)

will probably collapse unless the following

geometric conservation law (Nkonga, 2000;

Thomas and Lombard, 1978) (GCL) is satisfied.

()

t

(7)

(8)

(4)

x& nd = 0

SM 0 S j

Sj < 0

i

( S i u ni ) i

1

*

U i = ( v ) i =

( Si uni )( v)i + ( p pi )n

( E ) Si S M ( S u )( E ) p u + p S

i

ni

i

i ni

M

Si > 0

Si 0 < S M

F(Ui )

F ( U )

i

=

F (U j )

F (U j )

where

the specific total energy by

v

E =e+

2

(6)

the control volume at the time t n , and N is the

number of the volumes boundaries. F HLLC is the

numerical flux vector computed in the HLLC

method (Toro, Spruce and Speares, 1994), which is

a numerical method based on the approximate

Riemann problems.

When j is one of the neighboring volumes of i ,

flow and otherwise S = 0 . , v, p and E are density,

vector of velocity, pressure and specific total energy

of the fluid, respectively. n denotes the unit outward

normal vector to the moving boundary of the

volume (t), whose moving velocity is x& . If x& = 0 ,

Eqs. (1) and (2) correspond to the Eulerian

description of the flow problem. If x& = v , the

equations correspond to the Lagrangian description

of the flow problem, where the control volume

moves instantaneously with the fluid.

This set of formulations is completed by the

addition of an equation of state (EOS) which

establishes the relationship between, at most, three

thermodynamic variables. Here, the general simple

EOS form is

p = p( , e )

n n N HLLC

i t + n U n

S Fi

i =1

=

n +1

(5)

from Eq. (5) during the iteration in solving Eq. (1).

S M i

Fi F(U i ) =

S M ( v )i + p n

S ( E ) + ( S + x& n) p

i

M

M

(10)

S M j

F j F(U j ) =

S M ( v) j + p n

S M ( E ) j + ( S M + x& n) p

(11)

)(

p = i u n Si u n S M + pi

i

= j u n S j u n S M + p j

j

j

326

(12)

uni = ( vi x& ) n

SM =

un j = ( v j x& ) n

j un ( S j un ) iun ( Si un ) + pi p j

j

j ( S j un ) i ( Si u n )

j

(13)

Interface

A

(14)

( )

(15)

( )

(16)

S i = max u n j + c j , v x& n + c

Fig. 1

velocity and sound speed.

One dimension

a kind of contact discontinuity, motion of the

material interface can be tracked by solving a

Riemann problem (Cocchi and Saurel, 1997; Koren

et al., 2002; Colella, 1985) at the interface. Fig. 1

shows the Riemann problem at the material

interface between fluid A and B in one dimension.

The interface node has two different definitions

corresponding to different fluids. The two variable

vectors of fluid A and B at the interface node are

U A and U B , which define the initial condition of

the Riemann problem at the interface.

vA

vB

pA )

pB )

(17)

the material interface

also the moving boundary of the grids near the

interface and its velocity v* is already obtained by

solving the Riemann problem defined at the

interface. So x& in the ALE formulation (1) at the

material interface is equal to v* and the numerical

flux at the material interface F MI can be written as

follows:

The two state vectors of (A*, v*, p*)T and (B*, v*,

p*)T can be obtained by solving the Riemann

problem (see Appendix: Approximate Riemann

solution for general EOS), where v* is the velocity

of the contact discontinuity, that is to say, the

velocity of the material interface and p* is the

pressure at the material interface.

F MI

known, the moving grid system is employed to

avoid the negative grid volumes near the material

interface. In this paper, the spring analogy (Blom,

2000) is applied to obtain other grids velocities so

that the whole fluids grid nodes are moving

together with the material interface. Then the

motion of the material interface is tracked at any

time. For some multi-fluid flow with large-scale or

complex deformations of material interface, the

interface rebuilding technology and the local

remeshing method are more effective, which is the

authors current work.

To solve the integral Eq. (1) on the control volume

adjacent to the material interface, the numerical flux

at the material interface must be solved. After the

Riemann problem is resolved, two different

methods to compute the numerical flux at the

material interface can be considered here.

MATERIAL INTERFACE

U = ( A

U0 = A

U B = ( B

UB

S i = min u ni ci , v x& n c

4.1

UA

* v*

0

* *

* * *

*

= (F x& U ) n = v v + p n x& v n = p * n

*E

* E * v* + p* v*

p * v *

327

(18)

shock tube problems are computed on grids with

202 points and CFL = 0.8.

flux at the material interface is decided only by the

moving velocity of the interface v* and the pressure

at the interface p*, which also shows the

conservation of mass, momentum and energy near

the material interface. It is reasonable that there is

no mass exchange through the material interface

and the exchange of momentum and energy is

brought up by pressure and velocity at the interface.

y

This problem is a simple common problem with no

large pressure gradient. The shock tube contains

two different kinds of gas labeled as A and B. The

initial conditions in this computation are the

following:

side of the material interface

boundary where a virtual fluid is defined at the

other side of each material (Fig. 2). Such as

material A, whose state vector is (A, vA, pA)T, there

is a virtual fluid A* on the other side of it. Here, the

fluid state vector of A* at the interface is equal to

(A*, v*, p*)T. Then the numerical flux at the

material interface FMIA between A and A* can be

computed by HLLC scheme (7), that is, FMIA =

F HLLC(UA, UA*). Similarly for material A, FMIB can

be obtained by B and B*. Obviously, F MIA F MIB.

However, they are approximately the same in the

numerical point of view as in the Ghost Fluid

Method (GFM) (Fedkiw et al., 1999).

A

UA

Fig. 2

A*

(A*, v*, p*)

B*

(B*, v*, p*)

uA = 0

p A = 1.0

A = 1.667

PA = 0

0 x < 0.5

B = 0.125

uB = 0

PB = 0

0.5 x 1

B = 1.200

pB = 0.1

results at t = 0.2 computed by Method I and II. Both

numerical results agree well with the analytic

solution and the gas interface (x = 0.667) is sharply

captured.

2) Gas/water shock tube problem

A two-phase gas-liquid shock tube problem is

considered here, with a large pressure gradient near

the gas-liquid interface. The air in the left of the

tube is labeled as A and the water in the right is

labeled as B. The initial conditions in this

computation are the following:

B

UB

interface.

A = 1.271

uA = 0

p A = 9.11925 10 9

A = 1.4

PA = 0

0 x < 0.5

B = 1.0

uB = 0

p B = 1.01325 10 6

B = 7.0

P B = 3.03975 10 9

0.5 x 1

Methods I and II at t = 1.55910-4. As a whole, the

two numerical results agree well with the analytic

solution. However, in the density distribution

computed by Method I, there is obviously a small

oscillation near the gas/water interface (x = 0.543)

and Method II performs better. This phenomenon

shows that the Lagrangian method results in some

numerical oscillations at the interface and cannot

deal with material problems with a large pressure

gradient near the interface.

Although Method I seems more reasonable than

Method II and performs well enough in dealing

with the common material interface, it dose not

work well for the problem with large pressure

gradient near the interface. In this paper, Method II

computing of the flux at the material interface.

Here, two simple shock tube problems with free

material interface are introduced to examine the two

methods. Stiffened Gas EOS is used in both

problems:

p = ( 1)( e P ) P

A = 1.000

(19)

prescribed pressure-like constant about the material.

For all ideal gases, P = 0; for water,

P = 3.03975109 d/cm2. Analytic solutions to

shock tube problems based on Stiffened Gas EOS

can be obtained by solving the Riemann problem

328

problem which has a large pressure gradient near

bubble and the ambient water.

(a) Density

Fig. 3

(b) Pressure

Computed results for gas/gas shock tube problem at t = 0.2 by Method I and II.

(a) Density

Fig. 4

(b) Pressure

Computed results for air/water shock tube problem at t = 1.55910-4 by Method I and II.

vBn

v*

vBt

v An

v At

Interface

Fig. 5

at the 2D material interface.

329

Fig. 6

t +t

interface.

4.2

= 1.00037984 g/cm3

p = 1.00107 d/cm2

Two dimension

similar to that in 1D. The difference between them

is the definition of the velocitys direction. In 2D,

the Riemann problem is determined in the normal

direction of the material interface, as shown in

Fig. 5. The initial condition of the Riemann

problem in 2D at the material interface can be

written as

U = ( A

U0 = A

U B = ( B

v An

v Bn

pA )

1999) (EOS) are used to describe the water and

bubble (gaseous detonation products), respectively:

Trait:

(20)

x i

t

(22)

0 = 1.0 g/cm3

condition is (A*, v* + vAt, p*) and (B*, v* + vBt, p*)

respectively for fluids A and B. vAt and vBt are the

distributions of different material velocities in the

tangential direction of the material interface edge.

As shown in Fig. 6, v* is the velocity of the moving

material interface edge in the normal direction and

the moving velocity of material interface point can

be obtained by

vi =

p = B 1 + A

where

pB )

u = 0 cm/s

3.5287 r 5000 cm

JWL:

A = 1.0 10 6 d/cm

= 7.15

R

p = A1

exp 1 0

R1 0

R

+ B 1

exp 2 0 + e

R2 0

(23)

where

2

(21)

displacement of the material interface point i. The

numerical flux at the 2D material interface is

computed by Method II, same as the 1D multimaterial problem. At the same time, the spring

analogy is employed to obtain the velocity of other

grid points to ensure the quality of the whole grid

system.

R1 = 4.15

R2 = 0.95

= 0.30

0 = 1.63 g/cm3

bubble domain and 4964 grids in the water domain.

Fig. 7(a)(c) show the evolution of the computed

solution through different phases of spherically

symmetric underwater explosion model. The initial

phase, illustrated in Fig. 7(a), starts with a primary

shock wave traveling to the right into the water and

an expansion wave moving to the left toward the

bubble origin. The expansion wave reflects from the

origin, resulting in a region of very low pressure

near the origin. The outward inertia of the

expanding gas is eventually overcome by the

centripetal pressure gradient and the gas reverses

direction, forming an inward moving shock wave

which in turn reflects as a shock wave from the

origin. This reflected secondary shock wave then

propagates outward toward the gas/water interface.

Fig. 7(b) shows the shock and free-surface

interaction phase, where the secondary shock wave

propagates to the gas/water interface and interacts

with it. This interaction generates a reflected shock

wave moving back into the bubble toward the

origin, and a transmitted shock wave traveling

outward from the bubble into the water, as showed

in Fig. 7(c). This process repeats numerous times

and each time at a reduced shock strength. At the

5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

5.1 1D spherically symmetric underwater

explosion model

Simulation of underwater explosion is an essential

component of platform vulnerability and weapon

lethality assessments. The computational conditions

of this model are: detonation of a 300 g of TNT

sphere (radius of 3.5287 cm) at a depth of 91.4 m

(ambient pressure of 1.0107 d/cm2, where

1 d/cm2 = 0.1 Pa). Then the initial conditions can be

given by

= 1.63 g/cm3 u = 0 cm/s p = 8.385631010 d/cm2

0 r 3.5287 cm

330

experiment data from Andrew, Wardlaw and Hans

(1998), as showed in Table 1. It is indicated that the

ALE method illustrated here is feasible and

rigorous.

reduced level (Fig. 7(d) and (e)) and the impulsive

pressure gradient at the interface results in the

impulsion of the bubble. Fig. 7(f) shows that the

radius of the bubble impulses with time. The

computed maximum radius and impulsing period of

Fig. 7

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(f): Bubbles impulsing with time.

331

Axis

Water tank

experiment on bubble pulse.

3.5287 cm

23 cm

TNT

8 cm

15 cm

Fig. 8

Experiment

Computation

Error

Period (ms)

29.8

29.92

0.4027%

48.1

48.9662

1.80%

symmetric underwater explosion model.

(a) t = 0.86403E-5 s

(b) t = 0.25200E-4 s

(c) t = 0.45615E-4 s

(d) t = 0.58542E-4 s

(e) t = 0.86561E-4 s

(f) t = 0.96446E-4 s

Fig. 9

332

at the top and wall of the tank and then generates

two reflected shock waves moving toward the

bubble (Fig. 9(d)). Then the reflected shock waves

interacts with the bubble interface (Fig. 9(e)) and

results in a complex set of contours (Fig. 9(f)). The

interactions between shock waves and the bubble

interface make the bubble unsymmetrical. In this

computation, there are no spurious oscillations at

the bubble interface, which clearly indicates that the

ALE method has a satisfactory performance in the

simulation of 2D cylindrically symmetric

underwater explosion model.

explosion model

We examine the ALE method in a 2D cylindrically

symmetric underwater explosion problem. The

initial physical conditions of this problem are

described by Fig. 8. A 300 g of TNT sphere denotes

in water tank which is at a depth of 91.4 m in the

water (ambient pressure is 1.0107 d/cm2). The

same JWL and Tait equations of state with the 1D

spherically symmetric underwater explosion model

are used for the gaseous detonation products and the

water. Fig. 9(a)(f) are the pressure contours at

different times in the water tank with 4748 grids in

the bubble domain and 73892 grids in water

domain. The black bold curve stands for the bubble

interface. Fig. 10 shows the grids of the whole

computational domain at the moment of 0.964465 s.

surface

This model is designed to examine the performance

of the ALE method in the micro-deforming

interface problem. We simplify the aerofoil as an

ellipse of diameters 3 by 5 m. The aerofoil travels

with a Mach number of 1.47 at an altitude of 5 m

above a flat body of water. The air is regarded as an

ideal gas at 15 C. In this model, the perfect gas

equation of state is used for air, that is,

p = ( 1) e

(24)

equations of state are used for the water. The

computational domain contains 80484 grids and the

pressure contours are displayed in Fig. 11. Good

resolution of shock waves and reflected shock

waves is clearly showed. Fig. 12 shows the shape of

air/water interface, where the micro-deformation is

well resolved. It is clearly difficult for other

capturing method to capture such small

deformation. So ALE method is more advantageous

in solving micro-deforming interface problems.

t = 0.96446 s.

into the water and an expansion wave moves in the

bubble and toward the bubble origin. The primary

shock wave then hits the bottom of the tank, which

generates a reflected shock wave moving toward

the gas/water interface (Fig. 9(b)). After the

interaction with the interface, this reflected shock

wave is diffracted into two waves: a reflected

rarefaction wave moving into the water and a

transmitted shock wave in the bubble (Fig. 9(c)).

The rarefaction wave then hits the bottom of the

tank and generates a second-reflected rarefaction

wave moving toward the bubble interface with a

333

accurate CFD approximations for moving

meshes and moving boundaries. Computer

Methods

in

Applied

Mechanics

And

Engineering 190(13):18011825.

4. Chang CH and Liou MS (2007). A robust and

accurate approach to computing compressible

multiphase flow: stratified flow model and

AUSM+-up scheme. Journal of Computational

Physics 225(1):840873.

5. Cocchi JP and Saurel R (1997). A Riemann

problem based method for the resolution of

compressible multimaterial flows. Journal of

Computational Physics 137(2):265298.

6. Toro EF, Spruce M and Speares W (1994).

Restoration of the contact surface in the HLLRiemann solver. Shock Waves 4(1):2534.

7. Fedkiw RP, Aslam T, Merriman B and Osher S

(1999). A non-oscillatory Eulerian approach to

interfaces in multimaterial flows (the ghost

fluid method). Journal of Computational

Physics 152(2):457492.

8. Fedkiw RP, Marquina A and Merriman B

(1999). An isobaric fix for the overheating

problem in multimaterial compressible flows.

Journal of Computational Physics 148(2):545

578.

9. Blom FJ (2000). Considerations on the spring

analogy. International Journal for Numerical

Methods in Fluids 32(6):647668.

10. Hankin RKS (2001). The Euler equations for

multiphase compressible flow in conservation

form: simulation of shock-bubble interactions.

Journal of Computational Physics 172(2):808

826.

11. Hirt WC, Amsden AA and Cook LJ (1974). An

arbitrary

LagrangianEulerian

computing

method for all flow speeds. Journal of

Computational Physics 14(3):227253.

12. Koren B, Lewis MR, van Brummelen EH and

van Leer B (2002). Riemann-problem and

level-set approaches for homentropic two-fluid

flow computations. Journal of Computational

Physics 181(2):654674.

13. Liu TG, Khoo BC and Yeo KS (2001a). The

simulation of compressible multi-medium flow.

Part I: A new methodology with test

applications to 1D gasgas and gaswater

cases. Computers & Fluids 30(3):291314.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The material interface is tracked by solving ALE

formulations on the compressible multi-material

flow. The material interface is considered as a

Lagrangian interface which is composed by a

number of edges of the unstructured grids and state

vectors of the points on the interface have two

definitions according to the two different fluids.

Then, Riemann problem is solved on both side of

the interface to track the interfaces movement

accurately and the grids are moving automatically

with the motion of the interface.

1D spherically symmetric underwater explosion

module is computed using ALE method and the

numerical results agree well with the experimental

data, which indicates that the interface tracking

method is reasonable. Furthermore, interaction

between shock and water surface is also simulated

to show that this method is suitable for solving

micro-deforming interface problems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work described in this paper is supported by

the National Natural Science Foundation of China

(Project No. 10476011).

REFERENCES

1. Abgrall R (2003). Efficient numerical

approximation of compressible multi-material

flow for unstructured meshes. Computers &

Fluids 32(4):571605.

2. Andrew B, Wardlaw Jr and Hans UM (1998).

Spherical solutions of an underwater explosion

bubble. Shock and Vibration 5(2):89102.

334

where the JWL EOS must be used. And in many

situations Tait EOS for water is much more

vigorous than stiffened EOS. At the same time, no

exact Riemann solutions for either JWL EOS or

Tait EOS exists in CFD domains because their

forms are non-linear and complex.

General EOS is used to describe any material in this

paper, similar in form to Mie-Grneisen EOS

(Shyue, 2001). The general EOS is written by

simulation of compressible multi-medium flow.

Part II: Applications to 2D underwater shock

refraction. Computers & Fluids 30(3):315337.

15. Nourgaliev RR, Dinh TN and Theofanous TG

(2006).

Adaptive

characteristics-based

matching for compressible multifluid dynamics.

Journal of Computational Physics 213(2):500

529.

16. Thomas PD and Lombard CK (1978).

Geometric conservation law and its application

to flow computations on moving grids. AIAA

Journal 17(10):10301037.

17. Colella P (1985). A direct Eulerian MUSCL

scheme for gas dynamics. SIAM Journal on

Scientific and Statistical Computing 6(1):104

117.

18. Wang SP, Anderson MH, Oakley JG, Corradini

ML

and

Bonazza

R

(2004).

A

thermodynamically consistent and fully

conservative

treatment

of

contact

discontinuities

for

compressible

multicomponent

flows.

Journal

of

Computational Physics 195(2):528559.

19. Shyue K (2001). A fluid-mixture type algorithm

for compressible multicomponent flow with

Mie-Grneisen equation of state. Journal of

Computational Physics 171(2):678707.

20. Tang H, Wrobel LC and Fan Z (2004).

Tracking of immiscible interfaces in multiplematerial mixing processes. Computational

Materials Science 29(1):103118.

21. Xiao F and Ebisuzaki T (1998). An efficient

numerical model for multi-phase fluid

dynamics. Advances in Engineering Software

29(36):345352.

22. Xu K (1997). BGK-based scheme for

multicomponent flow calculations. Journal of

Computational Physics 134(1):122133.

e = f () p + g ()

(A1)

. The sound speed c can be obtained by the

following formulation:

pf + g p(1 + f ) + g

+

f

f

c2 =

and f =

(A2)

f

g

, g =

.

method is applied to solve the Riemann problem,

whose main idea is to consider rarefaction as a

simple shock jump during iteration schemes. This

method is efficient for general EOS with only a

small loss of accuracy. Consider the following

initial conditions in the Riemann problem:

(

(

uL

uR

pL

pR

)

)

x<0

x>0

(A3)

(L*, R*, u*, p*)T. Then two sets of energy state

formulations can be obtained from the Hugoniot

relations:

W L2 =

APPENDIX

WR2 =

GENERAL EOS

p*2 p L2

2 e*L e L

, W L2 = *L L

p* p L

*L L

p*2 p R2

p* p R

, WR2 = *R R *

R R

2 e*R eR

(A4)

(A5)

specific internal energy, defined by Eq. (A1). Then

Eqs. (A4) and (A5) can be simplified to two sets of

equations:

The stiffened EOS is applied in quite a lot of multifluid computations as the exact Riemann solution

exists (Chang and Liou, 2007). It is certainly

efficient in tracking the material interface.

However, stiffened EOS cannot describe all kinds

of material accurately enough, such as the explosion

( )

f1 x, y = e x, p* e x K , p K

) y 12 p

*2

p K2 = 0

(A6)

335

1 1

f 2 x, y =

y p* p K = 0

xK x

( )

where

(A7)

and

p* =

WL p R + WR p L + WLWR (u L u R )

WL + W R

(A8)

where

y = WK2

x = *K

(A9)

K = L, R

and (A7), to obtain the steady results of x and y.

That is,

n +1

1

=x n

J

f1 x n , y n

f 2 x n , y n

f1 x n , y n

1

n +1

n

x

y

=y n

J f x n , y n

x

f1 x n , y n

x

n

J =

f 2 x n , y n

f1 x n , y n

y

f 2 x n , y n

y =

yn < q

yn + 1 yn

yn + 1 yn

yn

xn q

yn q

W u + WR u R (p R p L )

u* = L L

WL + WR

f1 x n , y n

(A11)

f 2 x n , y n

f1 x n , y n

y

f 2 x n , y n

(A12)

where

f1 (x, y )

e

= y

x

x

f1(x, y)

= e x, p* e xK , p K (A13)

y

f 2 (x, y ) y

= 2

x

x

f 2 (x, y ) 1 1

=

xK x

y

(A14)

iteration is finished. The error condition can be

written as

max x , y <

xn < q

(A16)

to choose for relative error or absolute error. In the

authors computer codes, = 10-5 and q = 10-3.

When the iteration is finished, most of the

approximate Riemann resolutions, that is, L*, R*

and p* are obtained. Then the velocity of the contact

u* can be known by

(A10)

xn + 1 xn

x = xn + 1 x n

xn

(A15)

336

(A17)

- AERODYNAMICS 2Uploaded bySaurabh Deshmukh
- Fluid Mechanics : Streeter 6thUploaded byEngRafal Samarra
- s8 syllabusUploaded byAnirudh Sreeraj
- rr779Uploaded byrfmendes21
- Estimation-of-Natural-Frequency-of-the-Bearing-System-under-Periodic-Force-Based-on-Principal-of-Hydrodynamic-Mass-of-Fluid.pdfUploaded bykeepmoshing2
- Akışkanlar Mekaniği Kitap ÇözümleriUploaded bysefacancakmak
- sem4_chemUploaded byVivek Singh
- Two Phase Flow in PipesUploaded byHassanKM
- The Solution Visualizing Fluid Flow Inside the Modified Inlet DuctUploaded byHi-Tech CFD
- ME06 Spoiler With VGsUploaded byariekoprianto
- R. Menikoff- Hot Spot Formation from Shock ReflectionsUploaded byGinertg
- Andrew J. Higgins et al- Initiation of Detonation in Liquid Explosives by a Reflected Shock WaveUploaded byGinertg
- AUSM (5)Uploaded byamir_ms81
- 003872076153539963a29067323118fc777a.pdfUploaded byJhon Cerón
- 7.-IEEE-format (1)Uploaded byOscar Escandon Ruiz
- Final Report Format 20142Uploaded byVicous Nurin
- 1254221292_VIRTUE_BPG_integrated_Final.pdfUploaded bysplicosaki
- McCabe's_synthesis_hyd_packages.pdfUploaded byATQ
- CEP08-09-2Uploaded byZakri Ghazalli
- Hybrid CFDBEM Approach to Predict Flow Induced NoiseUploaded byxiaochi36
- Analisis Numerico de Los Efectos de Viento en EstructurasUploaded byJonathan Cardenas 'biOlogo'
- 229Uploaded byMircea Bocioaga
- Batch 8 Review 2Uploaded bySai Abhinav
- AdvancesintheTheoryofFluidMotioninPorousMedia.pdfUploaded byMartin. Riascos
- Heat Chap06 039Uploaded byKerem Gönce
- 08_aivc_kyoto_mirsadeghi.pdfUploaded byAli AH
- MMF2pe2012Uploaded byAurel Zimbru
- HydrodynamicsUploaded byAngelicaAncheta
- MCE 326_Stagnation ConditionsUploaded byekene
- 6fe3e87f965084f90d410eb50891beaeb56b.pdfUploaded byTrelospapasse Baftisedenyparxeis

- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 000hgUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers
- 00aa avb zUploaded bySandra Powers

- Assignments.www.noandishaan.com.pdfUploaded byOlga Joy Labajo Gerasta
- Bicknell, P. J. - The Shape of the Cosmos in EmpedoclesUploaded byJean-Claude Picot
- deck slabUploaded byAhsan Sattar
- 242Uploaded byraisya farah monica
- 11490313 Presentation SdhUploaded byKhaled Shimi
- doc36784.pdfUploaded bykadam_nitsi2046
- Brake AdjustersUploaded byMarlon Montenegro
- Varactor Tuned Loop AntennaUploaded byHenry Pal
- Section 1006-Drilled ShaftsUploaded bygjanero
- A.J. Ayer - The Concept of a Person 1963Uploaded byJYDeGroot
- Chapter 2 Coulombs Law and Electric FieldUploaded byJohn Eugene Fernandez
- Power ElectronicsUploaded byvinoth1128
- JEE_Main_Paper_1_Code_D_Solutions_v2.pdfUploaded byvishnu
- Chapter 05. Nondeterministic AutomataUploaded bykims3515354178
- A Constant Gain Kalman Filter Approach for the Prediction of Re-Entry Risk ObjectsUploaded bynadamau22633
- EfficiencyUploaded byDanielGuimarãesCosta
- Pricing of MBS StripUploaded byapi-3765980
- JSW GGBS by Shailesh GosaviUploaded byRohan Bagadiya
- logsswest.txtUploaded byShoaib Shaikh
- service-sak-functions-en-jan2015.pdfUploaded byKelber David Murgas Miranda
- DRAFT IEA DHC CHP AnnexVIII 8DHC 08 02 Improved on and Heat Utilization in DH Networks Updated 04Apr2008Uploaded bysebascian
- Aipmt 2010 ScreeningUploaded byManjunath@116
- EngineeringUploaded byLiz Benhamou
- MDU B.tech Computer Science 4th Sem SyllabusUploaded byVaibhav Agochiya
- Determine the Specific Gravity of SoilUploaded bySeason Ch'ng
- math lesson 4-3-17Uploaded byapi-354124545
- Lecture Notes 03 PptUploaded bystephen562001
- 252OSS_ch1prob_r8718 (1)Uploaded byMariam El-fahoum
- Culture Media & Culture MethodsUploaded byIka Niswatul Chamidah
- SICAM SAT 1703 ACP_RTU.pdfUploaded bytdusko