Convergence of strong shock waves in non-ideal magnetogasdynamics

Antim Chauhan, Rajan Arora, and Amit Tomar

Citation: Physics of Fluids 30, 116105 (2018); doi: 10.1063/1.5051589

View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5051589
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/phf/30/11
Published by the American Institute of Physics

Articles you may be interested in

Oscillation of the shock train in an isolator with incident shocks
Physics of Fluids 30, 116102 (2018); 10.1063/1.5053451

Unsteady shock interactions on V-shaped blunt leading edges

Physics of Fluids 30, 116104 (2018); 10.1063/1.5051012

Oil-water displacements in rough microchannels

Physics of Fluids 30, 112101 (2018); 10.1063/1.5053625

Letter: Galilean invariance of Rortex

Physics of Fluids 30, 111701 (2018); 10.1063/1.5058939

Letter: Evolution of coherent vortical structures in a shock wave/turbulent boundary-layer interaction flow
Physics of Fluids 30, 111702 (2018); 10.1063/1.5058278

Direct numerical simulation of particle dispersion in a three-dimensional spatially developing compressible

mixing layer
Physics of Fluids 30, 113301 (2018); 10.1063/1.5054744
 PHYSICS OF FLUIDS 30, 116105 (2018)

Convergence of strong shock waves in non-ideal magnetogasdynamics

Antim Chauhan,1,a) Rajan Arora,1,b) and Amit Tomar2,c)
1 Department of Applied Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee 247667, India
2 Department of Mathematics, Amity University, Noida 201303, India

(Received 10 August 2018; accepted 30 October 2018; published online 20 November 2018)

The problem of a strong cylindrical shock wave collapsing at the axis of symmetry is studied in non-
ideal magnetogasdynamics. The perturbation approach used in this work provides a global solution to
the shock implosion problem in non-ideal magnetogasdynamics in contrast to Guderley’s asymptotic
solution that holds in the vicinity of the axis of implosion. We analyze the flow parameters by expanding
the solution in powers of time and found the similarity exponents as well as the corresponding
amplitudes in the vicinity of the shock-collapse. Along with the higher-order terms in Guderley’s
asymptotic solution, the leading similarity exponents have been refined near the center of convergence.
The flow parameters and the shock trajectory have been drawn in the region extending from the piston
to the center of collapse for different values of the adiabatic coefficient, shock cowling number, and
non-ideal parameter. Published by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5051589

I. INTRODUCTION by Guderley.3 The annular self-similar solutions in magne-

togasdynamics were studied by Lock and Mestel.17 Hafner 35
The problem of a strong shock wave converging in a
presented a Lagrangian formulation of the self-similar con-
gas has been a field of great interest from both mathemati-
vergent shock problem for a quiescent perfect gas of zero
cal and physical points of view. The practical importance of
pressure by assuming that the initial density is either constant
these waves has increased in last decades due to their particular
or decreasing toward the center according to a power law.
applications in fusion reaction, astrophysics, nuclear science,
The influence of the magnetic field upon the collapse of the
and geophysics and their applications to the motion of satel-
cylindrical shock wave was studied by Singh et al.1 Radha and
lites. Nowadays, shock waves are being successfully applied
Sharma21 presented the self-similar solutions to a problem in
to medical therapy: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
radiative magnetogasdynamics with strong shocks. In order to
(ESWL), in this process, infinitely weak shock waves are
obtain the asymptotic solution, Arora9 applied the method of
focused on kidney stones of a patient. The pressure concen-
multiple time scales to the spherically and cylindrically sym-
tration breaks the stones, which can exit through the urinary
metric flow in an ideal gas with magnetic field. Madhumita
tract of the patient in a natural way.
and Sharma8 investigated the problem of strong converging
Studies of shock waves are of great interest from the stand-
shock waves in an ideal gas of varying density. Chisnell20 pro-
points of both fundamental research and practical application.
vided an analytical description of the flow parameters behind
Shock wave phenomena arise when large energy is deposited
converging shock waves and investigated the shock behavior
in a small volume over a short time interval, as in the case of
when the specific heat ratio tends to zero or infinity.
spark discharges in air. The propagation of shock waves under
The Majda-Rosales theory of resonantly interacting waves
the influence of a strong magnetic field constitutes a problem
was applied by Ali and Hunter 15 to weakly nonlinear hyper-
of great interest to the researchers in many branches of science
bolic waves in one space dimension to the equations in
especially in studies of coronal heating problem which relates
magnetohydrodynamics. Convergence of cylindrical shocks
to the question of why the temperature of the Sun’s corona
in ideal magnetohydrodynamics is investigated by Pullin
is millions of Kelvins higher than that of its surface. A solar
et al.33 by applying a finite-volume, shock-capturing method.
flare, accompanied by enhanced coronal temperatures, gives
Doroshchenko et al.28 studied the dynamics of the gas flow
rise to the ejection of plasma at a velocity of 500-1500 km/s
discontinuities after pulse ionization of a half space in front of
into interplanetary space and to a shock wave propagating out-
a flat shock wave moving in a channel. A dynamic model of a
ward from the Sun reaching the orbit of the Earth one or two
shock train with complex background waves was predicted by
days later.34
Li et al.29 A soap film technique was adopted by Zhai et al.30
The collapse of an imploding shock wave, which is a
to form a discontinuous flat interface which suppresses diffu-
self-similar solution of the second kind, was first studied
sion, and a rippled shock wave is produced by a planar shock
wave propagating over multiple solid cylinders. The studies of
Jeffrey,18 Sari et al.,16 Boyd et al.,19 Lazarus and Richtmyer,6
a) Email: antimchauhan1@gmail.com
b) Electronic
Whitham,22 Ramsey et al.,31 Teymourtash and Salimipour,32
addresses: rajan a100@yahoo.com and rajanfpt@iitr.ernet.in.
Tel.: +91 133286563. Nath et al.,24 Hirschler and Gretler,11 and Ponchaut et al.7 are
c) Email:amitmath14@gmail.com major contributions toward the study of shock phenomena.

1070-6631/2018/30(11)/116105/10/$30.00 30, 116105-1 Published by AIP Publishing.

116105-2 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

The study of shock wave phenomena in a van der Waals magnetogasdynamics can be written in the following
gas is more complicated than the ideal gas fluid (See Refs. form:1,9,12,14,22
10, 13, 23, 25, and 27). In the present work, we have applied ∂ρ ∂ρ ∂v ρv
the technique proposed by Van Dyke and Guttmann5 which +v +ρ + = 0, (2.2)
∂t ∂r ∂r r
provides a global solution to the shock implosion problem
in non-ideal magnetogasdynamics in contrast to Guderley’s ∂v ∂v 1 ∂p ∂h
+v + ( + ) = 0, (2.3)
asymptotic solution that holds in the vicinity of the axis of ∂t ∂r ρ ∂r ∂r
implosion. From this global solution, we extracted Guderley’s ∂p ∂p ∂ρ ∂ρ
local self-similar solution near the axis with good accuracy. +v − a2 ( + v ) = 0, (2.4)
∂t ∂r ∂t ∂r
From this perturbation approach, we successfully computed
the first three similarity exponents and the corresponding ∂h ∂h ∂ρ ∂ρ
+v − c2 ( + v ) = 0, (2.5)
amplitudes for different values of the adiabatic coefficient γ, ∂t ∂r ∂t ∂r
the shock cowling number C 0 , and the non-ideal parameter where t is the time, r is the single spatial coordinate being
b, and found that our solutions match well with Guderley’s radial in cylindrically symmetric flow, h = µH 2 /2 is the mag-
solution. Also, we calculated the similarity exponents and netic pressure with H as the magnetic field strength, and µ is
corresponding amplitudes for a van der Waals gas as well the magnetic permeability. The speed of sound a and Alfven
as for an ideal gas (b = 0) in the absence of magnetic fields speed c are defined as a = (γp/ρ(1 − bρ))1/2 and c = (2h/ρ)1/2 ,
(C 0 = 0), and our results confirm that they recover the exist- respectively. The equation of state is
ing solutions in the absence of magnetic fields (C 0 = 0) for
p(1 − bρ) = ρRT , (2.6)
a van der Waals gas10 and for an ideal gas (b = 0).5 Here,
we considered two cases for a cylindrical piston with specific where T is the absolute temperature and R is the gas constant.
heat ratio γ = 7/5 and 5/3. We mainly concentrate on the sin- In the limit of an infinite shock Mach number, the bound-
gle global quantity, namely, the location of the shock wave, ary conditions just behind the shock front r = R(t) are given
although we provide the flow profiles for the flow variables ρ, by the Rankine-Hugoniot (R-H) relations,
u, p, and h starting from the piston and extended to the shock
2(1 − b̄)
before its collapse and almost up to the instant of collapse in v1 = Ṙ,
Sec. VI. γ+1
The detailed mathematical formulation of the model and γ+1
results are presented in the following manner: In Sec. II, we ρ1 = ρ0 ,
γ − 1 + 2b̄
have introduced the basic equations of magnetogasdynamics
2(1 − b̄) 2C0 ((γ − 1)b̄ − γ)
!
with the van der Waals equation of state and Rankine-Hugoniot p1 = + ρ0 Ṙ2 at r = R(t),
(R-H) conditions. We analyze the flow parameters by expand- γ+1 (γ − 1 + 2b̄)2
ing the solution in powers of time. In Sec. III, we have written !2
C0 (γ + 1)
programs in software package “Mathematica” to find the coef- h1 = ρ0 Ṙ2 , (2.7)
ficients of Taylor’s series for flow parameters and shock wave 2 (γ − 1 + 2b̄)
position. In Sec. IV, we analyze the radius of shock waves as where b̄ = bρ0 , C 0 = 2h0 /ρ0 V 2 is the shock cowling number,
shock reaches the axis and time of collapse for different val- and Ṙ(t) is the shock speed. The no flow condition through the
ues of γ, C 0 , and b. Section V is devoted to the comparison piston gives
of the computed values of the leading similarity exponents
v = −V at r = R0 − Vt. (2.8)
with the similarity exponents obtained by Guderley,3 Arora
and Sharma,10 and Van Dyke and Guttmann.5 Finally, Sec. VI For convenience, we evaluate the distance inward; let
concludes the paper. x = R0 − r and let u = −v be the corresponding velocity directed
inward. We introduce a new variable
II. BASIC EQUATIONS WITH SOLUTIONS 2 x 
ξ= −k , (2.9)
(γ − 1) Vt
Here, we consider a cylindrical piston whose initial radius
is R0 and which bounds a quiescent non-ideal gas of density which varies from −2(k − 1)/(γ − 1) at the piston to unity at
ρ0 with infinite electrical conductivity permeated by an axial the basic position of the shock wave, where the constant k is
magnetic field. At time t = 0, the piston starts to contract with to be determined.
very high constant velocity V producing a strong shock wave All the variables are non-dimensionalized by referring
with cylindrical symmetry whose position R(t) has to be found lengths to R0 , speed to V, density to ρ0 , pressure to ρ0 V 2 , mag-
out. Let the initial conditions be as follows: netic pressure to h0 , van der Waals excluded volume b to 1/ρ0 ,
and time to R0 /V. Then, the system of differential equations
v = 0, ρ = ρ0 , p = p0 , h = h0 , (2.1) (2.2)–(2.5) becomes
where v is the outward radial velocity, ρ is the density, p is ∂u 1 ∂ρ
! !
1
the pressure, and h is the magnetic pressure; ρ0 , p0 , and h0 are 1 − k + (γ − 1)ξ t ρ + (γ − 1)t
2 ∂ξ 2 ∂t
suitable positive constants.
∂ρ
! !
1 1
The basic equations for unsteady one-dimensional + u − k − (γ − 1)ξ = (γ − 1)t ρu, (2.10)
adiabatic cylindrically symmetric motion in non-ideal 2 ∂ξ 2
116105-3 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

∂u 1 ∂u ∂p ∂h
! !
1 1 1 1
ρ u − k − (γ − 1)ξ + (γ − 1)t ρ = 0, R1 U20 − k − 1 + γ − 1 ξ R20 + (γ − 1) = (γ − 1)R1 U1 ,


+ +
2 ∂ξ 2 ∂t ∂ξ ∂ξ 2 2 2
(2.11) (2.19)
∂p ∂ρ
! !
1 !
u − k − (γ − 1)ξ ρ(1 − bρ)
− γp 1 1
∂ξ ∂ξ (γ − 1)R1 U2 − k − 1 + γ − 1 ξ R1 U20 + P20 + H20 = 0,


2
2 2
∂p ∂ρ
!
1 (2.20)
+ (γ − 1)t ρ(1 − bρ) − γp = 0, (2.12)
2 ∂t ∂t
!
(γ − 1) 1
1 ∂h
!
∂ρ
! ((1 − bR1 )R1 P2 − γP1 R2 ) − k − 1 + (γ − 1)ξ
u − k − (γ − 1)ξ − 2h ρ 2 2
2 ∂ξ ∂ξ  
× (1 − bR1 )R1 P20 − γP1 R20 = 0, (2.21)
∂h ∂ρ
!
1
+ (γ − 1)t ρ − 2h = 0. (2.13)
2 ∂t ∂t (γ − 1)
(R1 H2 − 2H1 R2 )
The boundary condition (2.7) and (2.8) becomes 2
!
2(1 − b) (γ + 1) 1 
u= Ẋ, ρ= , − k − 1 + (γ − 1)ξ R1 H20 − 2H1 R20 = 0. (2.22)
(γ + 1) (γ − 1 + 2b) 2
2(1 − b) 2C0 ((γ − 1)b − γ) 2 Here, a prime denotes the first order derivative with respect
!
p= + Ẋ , (2.14) to ξ. The boundary condition (2.15) on the piston yields
(γ + 1) (γ − 1 + 2b)2
!2 −2(k − 1)
C0 γ+1 Un (ξ) = 0, at ξ= for n = 2, 3, 4, . . .
h= Ẋ 2 γ−1
2 γ − 1 + 2b (2.23)
Also, the boundary conditions (2.14) give
 
at ξ = (γ−1)
2 X
t − k and
4(1 − b)
−2(k − 1) U2 (1) = X2 , R2 (1) = 0,
u=1 at ξ= . (2.15) (γ + 1)
(γ − 1)
C0 (γ + 1)((γ − 1)b − γ)
!
Suppose that the solution is analytic in time, and then P2 (1) = 4 1 + X2 , (2.24)
the unknown position of the shock wave can be written in the (1 − b)(γ − 1 + 2b)2
Taylor series form as C0 (γ + 1)3
H2 (1) = X2 .
∞
X (γ − 1 + 2b)2 (1 − b)
X(t) = Xn t n , (2.16) From (2.19)–(2.23), we find that
n=1

and likewise we can expand the flow variables as U200(ξ) = R200(ξ) = P200(ξ) = H200(ξ) = 0, (2.25)
∞
X ∞
X ∞
X which together with the boundary conditions (2.23) and (2.24)
u= Un t n−1 , ρ= Rn t n−1 , p= Pn t n−1 , yields
n=1 n=1 n=1 " #
(2.17) 4(1 − b) (1 − b)(γ − 1)
∞ U2 = b+ ξ X2 , (2.26)
γ+1
X
h= Hn t n−1
. (γ − 1 + 2b)
n=1
2(1 − b)(γ − 1) γ + 1 4(1 − b)2
" #
Substituting (2.17) into (2.10)–(2.13) and using R2 = − X2 (1 − ξ),
(γ − 1 + 2b)2 2 (γ − 1 + 2b)
(2.14)–(2.16), we found the coefficients U 1 , R1 , P1 , and H 1 (2.27)
for a first-order approximation by equating the coefficients of "
4X2
like power of t as follows: P2 = ((b − γ + 2γb) + (1 − b)(2γ − 1)ξ)
(γ − 1 + 2b)
(γ + 1)
U1 = 1, R1 = γ(γ + 1) C0 (γ + 1)((γ − 1)b − γ)
#" #
,
(γ − 1 + 2b) + (1 − ξ) 1 + ,
2(1 − b) (1 − b)(γ − 1 + 2b)2
C0 (γ + 1)2 ((γ − 1)b − γ)
!
(γ + 1)
P1 = + , (2.28)
2(1 − b) 2(1 − b)2 (γ − 1 + 2b)2
(2.18)
C0 (γ + 1)4 (γ + 1) C0 (γ + 1)3
H1 = , X1 = , H2 = X2
8 (γ − 1 + 2b)2 (1 − b)2 2(1 − b) (γ − 1 + 2b)2 (1 − b)
2 + b(γ − 1) "
γ(γ + 1) 4X2 (1 − b)(2γ − 1)
#
k= . − −
2(1 − b) 2(1 − b) (γ − 1 + 2b)
The coefficients U 2 , R2 , P2 , and H 2 for the second-order
C0 (γ + 1)((γ − 1)b − γ)
" #
approximation satisfy the following first-order linear ordinary × 1+ (1 − ξ), (2.29)
differential equations: (γ − 1 + 2b)2 (1 − b)
116105-4 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

γ(γ + 1)(γ − 1 + 2b) C0 (γ + 1)4 (γ − 1) C0 γ(γ + 1)2 ((γ − 1)b − γ)

+ +
4(1 − b) 8(1 − b)2 (γ − 1 + 2b)2 4(1 − b)3 (γ − 1 + 2b)
X2 = . (2.30)
4
C0 (γ + 1) (γ − 1) C0 (2γ − 1)(γ + 1)((γ − 1)b − γ)(γ − 1 + γb + 3b)
2(2γ − 1) + +
2(γ − 1 + 2b)3 (1 − b) 2(γ − 1 + 2b)3 (1 − b)

From Eqs. (2.26)–(2.30), we observe that the coefficients Substituting these values into the differential equations
U n , Rn , Pn , and H n are polynomials in ξ of degree n − 1, of [(2.10)–(2.13)] and the shock conditions (2.14), and equating
the form the like powers of ξ as well as t, we have for the nth-order
n n approximation a system of 4n + 1 linear algebraic equations in
4n + 1 coefficients U nj , Rnj , H nj , Pnj ( j = 1, 2, . . ., n) and X n . We
X X
Un (ξ) = Unj ξ j−1 , Rn (ξ) = Rnj ξ j−1 ,
j=1 j=1 found the third-order approximation by solving the system of
n n
(2.31) ordinary differential equations and associated boundary con-
X X
Pn (ξ) = Pnj ξ j−1
, Hn (ξ) = Hnj ξ j−1
. ditions for the third approximation. The position of the shock
j=1 j=1 wave up to the second-order approximation is given by

γ(γ + 1)(γ − 1 + 2b) C0 (γ + 1)4 (γ − 1) C0 γ(γ + 1)2 ((γ − 1)b − γ)

+ +
(γ + 1) 4(1 − b) 8(1 − b)2 (γ − 1 + 2b)2 4(1 − b)3 (γ − 1 + 2b)
X(t) = t+ t 2 + · · · . (2.32)
[2(1 − b)] 4
C0 (γ + 1) (γ − 1) C0 (2γ − 1)(γ + 1)((γ − 1)b − γ)(γ − 1 + γb + 3b)
2(2γ − 1) + +
2(γ − 1 + 2b)3 (1 − b) 2(γ − 1 + 2b)3 (1 − b)

III. COMPUTATION OF COEFFICIENTS X n , U n , R n , P n ,
AND H n
To find the coefficients of X n , U n , Rn , Pn , and H n for
n ≥ 3, we have written programs in two parts in software
package Mathematica. In the first part, a system of alge-
braic equations has been generated by using Eqs. (2.17) and
(2.31). In the second part, these equations have been solved
for the values X nk , U nk , Rnk , Pnk , and H nk . All the calcula-
tions have been performed for cylindrical geometry with the
adiabatic coefficient γ = 7/5, 5/3, non-ideal parameter b = 0,
0.001, 0.002, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.25, and shock cowling number
C 0 = 0.00, 0.02, 0.05. Table I lists the first 41 coefficients
in the series expansions for shock location for γ = 7/5, 5/3,
b = 0.1, 0.01, and C 0 = 0.02, 0.05. In order to reduce the effects
of round-off and truncation errors, the coefficients are rounded
to 12 significant digits and all the subsequent calculations have
been performed using 32 significant digits.
IV. REFINEMENT OF THE RADIUS OF CONVERGENCE
The coefficients of the first 41 terms in the series expan-
sion (2.16) for the position of shock waves are positive and
have steady increment which shows that the radius of conver-
gence of the series is less than unity. At the instant t = 1, the
piston itself reaches to the axis and hence the power-series
solution breaks down. Now, we shall examine whether this
singularity corresponds to Guderley’s singularity. We assume
that the shock wave admits Guderley’s similarity solution near
the collapse of the shock wave, and its position is given by
! δ1
X t
R(t) = 1 − X(t) = 1 − Xn t n ∼ A1 1 −
tc
where δ1 is the leading similarity exponent and A1 is the
corresponding amplitude.
Therefore,
1 + δ1
!
Xn 1
∼ 1− as n → ∞. (4.2)
Xn−1 tc n
From Eq. (4.2), it follows that the ratio X n /X n−1 approxi-
mates the value of 1/t c for a large value of n. Using this result,
a sequence of ratios X n /X n−1 for the values of n = 32, 38, . . .,
41 is constructed; thereafter, we refined this estimate of 1/t c
by forming a Neville table.2 For a given sequence e0n , we can
construct a triangular array of elements ern , where n labels the
rows and r = 0, 1, 2, . . ., n labels the columns. We generated
the elements of the rth column from the (r − 1)th column by
using the iterative formula,2
ner−1 r−1
n − (n − r)en−1
ern = . (4.3)
r
Here, r = 1 corresponds to the linear intercepts, r = 2 to the
quadratic intercepts, r = 3 to the cubic intercepts, and so on.
We enumerate the sequence X n /X n−1 (n = 32, 33, . . ., 41) and
consider this as the initial sequence e0n which is the first column
of Table V (see the Appendix). Then, by using Eq. (4.3), we
compute the sequence e1n (n = 33, 34, . . . , 41), which forms
the second column of Table V (see the Appendix). Again,
by making use of the obtained sequence e1n , we evaluate the
sequence e2n (n = 34, 35, . . . , 41), which forms the third col-
umn of Table V (see the Appendix). In a similar manner, other
columns of the Neville table are constructed, which shows
that the sequences e0n , e1n , e2n , . . . approach a limiting value
of 1/t c .
From Neville Tables II, III, and V (see the Appendix), we
as t → tc ,
see that the values of δ1 , t c , and 1/t c for a cylindrical piston
(4.1) are 0.8060, 0.689 44, and 1.450 43, respectively, with γ = 7/5,
116105-5 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

TABLE I. Coefficients X n in the series expansion (2.16) for the shock TABLE II. Neville table for estimating δ 1 for γ = 7/5, C 0 = 1/20, and
position. b = 0.01.

γ = 7/5, b = 0.01, γ = 7/5, b = 0.1, γ = 5/3, b = 0.1, n e0n Linear Quadratic Cubic Quartic
n C 0 = 1/20 C 0 = 1/50 C 0 = 1/50
37 0.805 424 62 0.806 084 77 0.805 921 91 0.806 076 59 0.805 981 09
1 1.212 121 212 121 1.333 333 333 333 1.481 481 481 481 38 0.805 441 79 0.806 076 81 0.805 933 51 0.806 068 93 0.806 003 83
2 0.105 869 915 649 0.171 654 913 284 0.253 019 371 155 39 0.805 457 89 0.806 069 98 0.805 943 58 0.806 064 33 0.806 024 05
3 0.091 021 314 106 0 0.151 843 398 613 0.229 852 129 487 40 0.805 473 05 0.806 064 10 0.805 952 46 0.806 062 03 0.806 041 38
4 0.077 858 480 922 9 0.143 036 809 034 0.237 295 260 187 41 0.805 487 34 0.806 059 04 0.805 960 44 0.806 061 46 0.806 056 20
5 0.070 776 805 425 2 0.150 577 671 422 0.281 497 604 860
6 0.070 143 539 472 2 0.174 174 819 067 0.367 324 306 412
TABLE III. Neville table for estimating t c for δ = 7/5, C 0 = 1/20, and
7 0.074 788 570 346 3 0.214 570 371 812 0.509 705 670 744 b = 0.01.
8 0.083 801 430 869 1 0.275 836 228 469 0.738 280 861 124
9 0.097 104 244 299 1 0.365 901 044 015 1.104 107 353 67 n e0n Linear Quadratic Cubic Quartic
10 0.115 366 731 229 0.497 382 526 110 1.692 616 735 20
37 0.689 435 01 0.689 461 35 0.689 443 24 0.689 450 93 0.689 445 07
11 0.139 835 044 587 0.689 467 494 234 2.646 548 429 21
38 0.689 435 68 0.689 460 42 0.689 443 81 0.689 450 39 0.689 445 82
12 0.172 301 961 188 0.971 133 537 736 4.205 305 446 89
39 0.689 436 29 0.689 459 59 0.689 444 28 0.689 449 98 0.689 446 40
13 0.215 224 267 515 1.386 188 784 30 6.772 299 869 41
40 0.689 436 86 0.689 458 85 0.689 444 68 0.689 449 67 0.689 446 85
14 0.271 944 246 106 2.001 027 393 94 11.030 507 787 0
41 0.689 437 38 0.689 458 17 0.689 445 03 0.689 449 42 0.689 447 17
15 0.347 000 892 938 2.916 571 161 11 18.141 381 037 6
16 0.446 552 398 306 4.286 698 314 83 30.088 306 732 2
17 0.578 954 852 212 6.346 742 363 21 50.271 398 453 1 V. Guderley’s local singular solution
18 0.755 559 172 489 9.457 652 290 84 84.540 381 322 6
19 0.991 808 889 034 14.174 557 106 9 142.992 896 406 According to Guderley’s theory,3 the radius of the shock
20 1.308 751 984 39 21.353 426 411 5 243.113 041 597 in the neighborhood of collapse can be expressed as
21 1.735 124 157 16 32.317 298 312 3 415.261 477 116 !δ
X t j
22 2.310 222 618 66 49.115 792 404 1 712.299 567 077 R(t) = 1 − X(t) ∼ Aj 1 − . (5.1)
23 3.087 875 142 42 74.930 927 073 6 1 226.494 434 98 j=1
tc
24 4.141 928 084 46 114.712 716 824 2 119.269 426 13
He determined only the first similarity exponent δ1 , but
25 5.573 842 998 09 176.176 136 394 3 673.654 237 83
the other exponents were unknown. By using the method pro-
26 7.523 223 094 77 271.367 118 340 6 386.910 720 09
posed by Baker and Hunter,4 all the real exponents and their
27 10.182 414 395 3 419.125 680 722 11 134.369 139 9
28 13.816 778 747 2 648.965 100 177 19 459.659 211 6
corresponding amplitudes were determined by Van Dyke and
29 18.792 868 583 4 1 007.188 675 33 34 089.582 003 3
Guttmann5 and Arora and Sharma10 for an ideal gas and van
30 25.617 618 874 8 1 566.546 011 54 59 848.737 675 9 der Waals gas, respectively.
31 34.992 912 057 6 2 441.493 964 76 105 286.384 384 By substituting the value of t c , which has been calculated
32 47.891 609 969 4 3 812.340 917 46 185 573.704 073 in Sec. IV, into Eq. (5.1), rewriting the series for R(t) in the
33 65.663 584 350 1 5 963.484 170 86 327 669.562 020 power of a new variable τ defined by t = t c [1 − exp(−τ)], and
34 90.183 697 522 0 9 344.025 582 76 579 541.200 986 then multiplying the nth term by n! and sum over n, we obtain
35 124.058 486 178 14 663.951 751 0 1.026 640 340 07∗ 106 the series for a new auxiliary function as
36 170.915 045 292 23 046.881 561 9 1.821 373 553 15∗ 106 X Aj
37 235.805 087 072 36 272.858 438 0 3.235 866 319 04∗ 106 <(τ) = , (5.2)
(1 + δj τ)
38 325.770 476 621 57 164.586 022 5 5.756 519 955 32∗ 106 j=1
39 450.635 293 712 90 202.340 112 0 1.025 361 494 54∗ 107
which has simple poles at τ = − δ1j with corresponding residues
40 624.115 856 667 142 503.691 207 1.828 578 128 68∗ 107
41 865.377 299 453 225 385.610 098 3.264 702 726 67∗ 107
Aj /δj . Here, δj and Aj are calculated by using the Pade approx-
imation26 to <(τ). In the Pade approximation, a power series
S(w) is replaced by PN −1 (ω)/QN (ω), where PN −1 (ω) and
QN (ω) are polynomials of degree N − 1 and N, respectively.
b = 0.01, and C 0 = 0.05. As we observed earlier, it is also clear By equating the like powers of ω in Eq. (5.3), we calculate the
from Table III that the radius of convergence t c of the series coefficients of PN −1 (ω) and QN (ω),
(2.16) is less than unity. PN−1 (ω)
S(ω) − = O(ω2N ), (5.3)
In order to verify that the nearest singularity of the shock QN (ω)
position X(t) corresponds to the collapse of the shock wave where N can be varied up to 20 at the most. The exponents
onto the axis, we evaluate the time t 0 for X(t) to reach unity. δj and the corresponding amplitudes Aj are listed in Table VII
We construct a Neville table, Table III, by using these val- (see the Appendix).
ues of t 0 as the initial sequence e0n . Therefore, the values of
t c obtained from Tables III and V (the see Appendix) are
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
almost the same. Table VI (see the Appendix) lists the time
of shock collapse for different values of parameters γ, b, By using the perturbation-series technique proposed by
and C 0 . Van Dyke and Guttmann,5 we obtained a global solution to the
116105-6 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

TABLE IV. The computed values of the leading similarity exponents and comparisons with Guderley, Arora and
Sharma, and Van Dyke and Guttmann similarity exponents.

γ b C0 Computed δ 1 Guderley3 Arora and Sharma10 Van Dyke and Guttmann5

7/5 0.25 0.00 0.711 468 85 0.715 962 0.715 770 3

7/5 0.2 0.00 0.731 637 70 0.730 108 0.728 344 0
7/5 0.1 0.00 0.775 549 56 0.775 678 0.774 110 4
7/5 0.1 0.02 0.780 903 69 0.785 550
7/5 0.01 0.02 0.818 717 66 0.810 568
7/5 0.01 0.05 0.806 564 86 0.807 667
7/5 0.002 0.02 0.821 328 68 0.825 931
7/5 0.002 0.05 0.804 820 67 0.802 000
7/5 0.001 0.00 0.835 140 71 0.830 200
7/5 0.001 0.02 0.821 355 51 0.827 700
7/5 0.00 0.00 0.835 243 00 0.830 295 0.835 324
5/3 0.2 0.00 0.752 898 38 0.751 790 0.751 708 1
5/3 0.1 0.00 0.779 854 18 0.778 730 0.779 399 1
5/3 0.1 0.02 0.782 229 77 0.780 799
5/3 0.02 0.00 0.815 175 47 0.816 966
5/3 0.02 0.02 0.811 846 51 0.817 000
5/3 0.001 0.00 0.815 573 22 0.816 966
5/3 0.001 0.05 0.807 883 40 0.806 318

imploding shock wave problem. The global solution confirms
Guderley’s local self-similar solution near the axis and gives
the values of the leading similarity exponents along with higher
order terms in Guderley’s expansion. In Sec. IV, as we have
shown Neville Tables II, III, and V (see the Appendix) only for
one set of parameters γ = 7/5, b = 0.01, and C 0 = 0.05, we see
that the values of the leading similarity exponents (δ1 ) obtained
in Neville Table II and by Pade approximation in Table VII
(see the Appendix) are in good agreement up to three decimal
places. Guderley’s local self-similar solution gives only the
first dominant similarity exponent, while by using this method,
we obtained other less dominant similarity exponents and the
corresponding amplitudes which are shown in Table VII (see
the Appendix). The values of the leading exponent δ1 have

FIG. 1. Flow profiles of (a) velocity, (b) pressure, (c) density, and (d) magnetic pressure behind a strong cylindrical shock wave in a non-ideal gas for γ = 7/5,
b = 0.01.
116105-7 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

FIG. 2. Flow profiles of (a) velocity, (b) pressure, (c) density, and (d) magnetic pressure behind a strong cylindrical shock wave in a non-ideal gas for C 0 = 0.02,
b = 0.1.

FIG. 3. Flow profiles of (a) velocity, (b) pressure, (c) density, and (d) magnetic pressure behind a strong cylindrical shock wave in a non-ideal gas for C 0 = 0.02,
γ = 7/5.
116105-8 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar
FIG. 4. Shock trajectory [(a) and (b)] for γ = 7/5 and [(c) and (d)] for γ = 5/3.
been computed for different values of parameters γ, b, and C 0
and listed in Table IV; the results obtained by us match well
with the numerical results obtained by Guderley’s method.3
Also, we calculated the similarity exponents and correspond-
ing amplitudes for a van der Waals gas in the absence of
magnetic field (C 0 = 0), and our results confirm that they
recover the existing solutions in the absence of magnetic field.
The comparison of the values of our calculated similarity expo-
nents with the values obtained by Arora and Sharma10 for a
van der Waals gas in the absence of magnetic field (C 0 = 0)
is presented in Table IV for the following values: γ = 7/5;
b = 0.25, 0.2, 0.1; C 0 = 0.00 and γ = 5/3; b = 0.2, 0.1;
C 0 = 0.00. Furthermore, for the specific heat ratio γ = 7/5,
we have calculated the values of the leading similarity expo-
nents for ideal gas (b = 0) in the absence of magnetic field
(C 0 = 0) and made comparison with the relevant previous work
performed by Van Dyke and Guttmann5 for cylindrical sym-
metry and found that they are in good agreement, as shown in
Table IV.
From Table IV, we see that with the increase in either of
the parameters γ and C 0 , the value of the dominant similarity
exponent δ1 begins to decrease for b = 0.001, 0.01 which causes
the increment in shock acceleration as it approaches the axis.
We observe that the value of δ1 is less than unity due to which
the shock is accelerated continuously; also as t → t c , the speed
of shock becomes unbounded but less rapidly than (t − tc )−1 .
We have also computed the flow variables for parameters
γ = 7/5, 5/3; b = 0.1, 0.01, 0.02, 0.001; and C 0 = 0.00, 0.02,
0.05, which are shown in Figs. 1–3; from these figures, we
observe that the general behavior of these flow variable profiles
remains unchanged due to the presence of magnetic field in a
non-ideal gas.
Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)
From Figs. 1(a)–1(d), 2(a)–2(d), and 3(a)–3(d), we see
that the velocity, pressure, and magnetic pressure decrease
monotonically behind the shock waves as we move toward
the piston, while density remains constant in most of the
regions except in the vicinity of the front; this is on account of
area contraction of the shock wave, which causes the veloc-
ity to decrease. The gas which is highly compressed by the
shock gets cooled down in the region behind the shock and
causes the pressure to decrease. Also, we observe that as C 0
increases, the velocity and magnetic pressure [Figs. 1(a) and
1(d)] increase, while pressure and density [Figs. 1(b) and 1(c)]
get decreased. From Figs. 2(a)–2(d), we see that the veloc-
ity, pressure, density, and magnetic pressure get increased
as the adiabatic constant γ decreases. As the value of the
van der Waals excluded volume b increases, the velocity and
pressure increase monotonically, while density and magnetic
pressure decrease, which can be seen from Figs. 3(a)–3(d).
From Table VI (see the Appendix), we see that an increase
in either of the parameters γ and b causes the time of shock
collapse t c to decrease, i.e., the shock reaches the axis much
faster with the increase in γ and b. Figures 4(a) and 4(b)
show that the shock path is an increasing function of time
t. Also, this growth is further enhanced by an increase in the
value of b.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The first author is thankful to the “University Grant
Commission (UGC),” Government of India, for the finan-
cial support under Sr. No. 2121541039 with Ref. No.
20/12/2015(ii)EU-V.
116105-9 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)

APPENDIX: TABLES 1 L. P. Singh, A. Husain, and M. Singh, “A self-similar solution of exponential

shock waves in non-ideal magnetogasdynamics,” Meccanica 46, 437–445

(2011).
TABLE V. Neville table for estimating 1/t c for γ = 7/5, C 0 = 1/20, and 2 D. S. Gaunt and A. J. Guttmann, “Asymptotic analysis of coefficients,”

b = 0.01. in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, edited by C. Domb and

M. S. Green (Academic, New York, 1974), Vol. 3, pp. 181–243.
3 G. Guderley, “Starke kugelige und zylindrische verdichtungsstosse in der
n e0n Linear Quadratic Cubic Quartic
nahe des kugelmittelpunktes bzw der zylinderachse,” Luftfahrtforschung
37 1.379 662 54 1.450 410 40 1.450 443 75 1.450 430 40 1.450 441 19 19, 302–312 (1942).
4 G. A. Baker and D. L. Hunter, “Methods of series analysis II. Generalized
38 1.381 524 37 1.450 412 10 1.450 442 77 1.450 431 38 1.450 439 77
39 1.383 290 77 1.450 413 63 1.450 441 95 1.450 432 13 1.450 438 66 and extended methods with applications to the Ising model,” Phys. Rev. B
7, 3377–3392 (1973).
40 1.384 968 87 1.450 415 01 1.450 441 26 1.450 432 70 1.450 437 83 5 M. Van Dyke and A. J. Guttmann, “The converging shock wave from a
41 1.386 565 15 1.450 416 27 1.450 440 67 1.450 433 14 1.450 437 20 spherical or cylindrical piston,” J. Fluid Mech. 120, 451–462 (1982).
6 R. B. Lazarus and R. D. Richtmyer, “Similarity solutions for converg-

ing shocks,” Report LA-6823-MS, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los

Alamos, NM, 1977.
7 N. F. Ponchaut, H. G. Hornung, D. I. Pullin, and C. A. Mouton, “On implod-
TABLE VI. Values of t c , the time taken by the shock to collapse.
ing cylindrical and spherical shock waves in a perfect gas,” J. Fluid Mech.
γ b t c (C 0 = 0) t c (C 0 = 0.02) t c (C 0 = 0.05) 560, 103–122 (2006).
8 G. Madhumita and V. D. Sharma, “Propagation of strong converging shock

7/5 0.001 0.712 745 0.705 281 0.696 799 waves in a gas of variable density,” J. Eng. Math. 46, 55–68 (2003).
9 R. Arora, “Non-planar shock waves in a magnetic field,” Comput. Math.
7/5 0.01 0.702 061 0.696 326 0.689 447
Appl. 56, 2686–2691 (2008).
7/5 0.1 0.603 086 0.604 866 0.607 693 10 R. Arora and V. D. Sharma, “Convergence of strong shock in a Van der
5/3 0.001 0.620 597 0.618 624 0.615 933 Waals gas,” SIAM J. Appl. Math. 66(5), 1825–1837 (2006).
5/3 0.01 0.612 391 0.610 925 0.608 893 11 T. Hirschler and W. Gretler, “Similarity analysis of strong converg-
5/3 0.1 0.534 592 0.535 764 0.537 556 ing spherical shock waves in radiating gas,” Acta Mech. 154, 159–177
(2002).
12 V. P. Korobeinikov, Problems in the Theory of Point Explosion in Gases

(American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1974).

TABLE VII. Similarity exponents and corresponding amplitudes for differ- 13 L. P. Singh, S. D. Ram, and D. B. Singh, “Quasi-similar solution of the

ent values of γ, b, and C 0 . strong shock wave problem in non-ideal gas dynamics,” Astrophys. Space
Sci. 337(2), 597–604 (2012).
14 S. D. Ram, R. Singh, and L. P. Singh, “An exact analytical solution of the
γ b C0 Exponents Amplitudes
strong shock wave problem in nonideal magnetogasdynamics,” J. Fluids
7/5 0.001 0 δ1 = 0.835 140 711 975 A1 = 0.988 301 546 226 2013, 810206.
15 G. Ali and J. K. Hunter, “Wave interactions in magnetohydrodynamics,”
δ2 = 2.200 701 930 363 A2 = 0.015 138 047 465
7/5 0.001 1/50 δ1 = 0.821 355 512 634 A1 = 0.984 431 893 225 Wave Motion 27, 257–277 (1998).
16 R. Sari, N. Bode, A. Yalinewich, and A. MacFadyen, “Slightly two-
δ2 = 2.162 025 441 767 A2 = 0.019 200 571 868
or three-dimensional self-similar solutions,” Phys. Fluids 24(8), 087102
7/5 0.001 1/20 δ1 = 0.804 649 689 014 A1 = 0.979 460 499 075 (2012).
δ2 = 2.045 858 851 962 A2 = 0.024 204 193 343 17 R. M. Lock and A. J. Mestel, “Annular self-similar solutions in ideal

7/5 0.01 0 δ1 = 0.829 158 970 482 A1 = 0.987 429 142 888 magnetogasdynamics,” J. Plasma Phys. 74(4), 531–554 (2008).
18 A. Jeffrey, “The formation of magnetoacoustic shocks,” J. Math. Anal. Appl.
δ2 = 2.152 871 244 158 A2 = 0.016 059 660 599
7/5 0.01 1/50 δ1 = 0.818 717 665 206 A1 = 3.415 910 271 993 11, 139–150 (1965).
19 Z. M. Boyd, S. D. Ramsey, and R. S. Baty, “On the existence of self-similar
δ2 = 2.129 727 169 482 A2 = 0.096 577 061 422
converging shocks for arbitrary equation of state,” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math.
7/5 0.01 1/20 δ1 = 0.806 564 862 769 A1 = 0.982 476 113 377 70(4), 401–417 (2017).
δ2 = 2.148 808 246 764 A2 = 0.021 159 622 114 20 R. F. Chisnell, “An analytic description of converging shock waves,” J. Fluid
7/5 0.1 0 δ1 = 0.775 549 568 133 A1 = 0.977 816 474 522 Mech. 354, 357–375 (1998).
21 Ch. Radha and V. D. Sharma, “Imploding cylindrical shock in a per-
δ2 = 1.673 530 316 909 A2 = 0.022 148 443 950
7/5 0.1 1/50 δ1 = 0.780 903 691 638 A1 = 0.982 663 197 040 fectly conducting and radiating gas,” Phys. Fluids B 5(12), 4287–4294
(1993).
δ2 = 1.896 977 951 411 A2 = 0.021 115 103 579 22 G. B. Whitham, Linear and Nonlinear Waves (Wiley-Interscience, New
5/3 0.001 0 δ1 = 0.815 573 226 458 A1 = 0.995 952 040 603 York, 1974).
δ2 = 2.308 628 577 147 A2 = 0.007 956 282 339 23 N. Zhao, A. Mentrelli, T. Ruggeri, and M. Sugiyama, “Admissible shock
5/3 0.001 1/50 δ1 = 0.812 138 015 225 A1 = 0.995 511 586 603 waves and shock induced phase transitions in a Van der Waals fluid,” Phys.
δ2 = 2.305 879 377 900 A2 = 0.008 411 281 690 Fluids 23(8), 086101 (2011).
24 T. Nath, R. K. Gupta, and L. P. Singh, “Evolution of weak shock
5/3 0.001 1/20 δ1 = 0.807 471 135 892 A1 = 0.994 981 400 691
δ2 = 2.308 877 681 941 A2 = 0.008 947 883 013 waves in non-ideal magnetogasdynamics,” Acta Astronaut. 133, 397–402
(2017).
5/3 0.002 0 δ1 = 0.815 175 471 487 A1 = 0.995 954 673 676 25 C. C. Wu and P. H. Roberts, “Structure and stability of a spherical shock
δ2 = 2.308 374 844 611 A2 = 0.007 957 555 845 wave in a Van der Waals gas,” Q. J. Mech. Appl. Math. 49, 501–543
5/3 0.002 1/50 δ1 = 0.811 846 515 541 A1 = 0.995 539 057 600 (1996).
δ2 = 2.305 972 951 330 A2 = 0.008 388 014 159 26 G. A. Baker, “The theory and application of the Pade approximant method,”

5/3 0.002 1/20 δ1 = 0.807 883 408 161 A1 = 0.780 972 958 255 in Advances in Theoretical Physics, edited by K. A. Brueckner (Academic,
δ2 = 2.343 800 824 883 A2 = 0.018 562 442 725 1965), Vol. 1, pp. 1–58.
27 R. Arora, A. Tomar, and V. P. Singh, “Similarity solutions for strong
δ2 = 16.233 314 650 409 A2 = 0.006 211 435 105
shocks in a non-ideal gas,” Math. Modell. Anal. 17(3), 351–365
5/3 0.1 0 δ1 = 0.779 854 184 648 A1 = 0.997 742 665 700 (2012).
5/3 0.1 1/50 δ1 = 0.782 229 775 066 A1 = 0.998 272 564 616 28 I. Doroshchenko, I. Znamenskaya, D. Koroteev, and T. Kuli-zade, “When
5/3 0.1 1/20 δ1 = 0.785 789 856 927 A1 = 0.998 995 429 928 shock is shocked: Riemann problem dynamics at pulse ionization of a shock
wave,” Phys. Fluids 29, 101701 (2017).
116105-10 Chauhan, Arora, and Tomar
29 N. Li, J.-T. Chang, K.-J. Xu, Y. Da-Ren, B. Wen, and Y.-P. Song, “Prediction
dynamic model of shock train with complex background waves,” Phys.
Fluids 29, 116103 (2017).
30 Z. Zhai, Y. Liang, L. Liu, J. Ding, X. Luo, and L. Zou, “Interaction of
rippled shock wave with flat fast-slow interface,” Phys. Fluids 30, 046104
(2018).
31 S. D. Ramsey, E. M. Schmidt, Z. M. Boyd, J. F. Lilieholm, and R. S. Baty,
“Converging shock flows for a Mie-Grüneisen equation of state,” Phys.
Fluids 30(4), 046101 (2018).
Phys. Fluids 30, 116105 (2018)
32 A. R. Teymourtash and S. E. Salimipour, “Compressibility effects on the
flow past a rotating cylinder,” Phys. Fluids 29, 016101 (2017).
33 D. I. Pullin, W. Mostert, V. Wheatley, and R. Samtaney, “Converging cylin-
drical shocks in ideal magnetohydrodynamics,” Phys. Fluids 26, 097103
(2014).
34 R. Arora, “Spherical shock waves in magneto-gas-dynamics,” Can. Appl.
Math. Q. 15(1), 1–12 (2007).
35 P. Hafner, “Strong convergent shock waves near the center of convergence:
A power series solution,” SIAM J. Appl. Math. 48(6), 1244–1261 (1988).