Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T07:45:18.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nonlinear coupling of interfacial instabilities with resonant wave interactions in horizontal two-fluid plane Couette–Poiseuille flows: numerical and physical observations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2016

Bryce K. Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Kelli Hendrickson
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Yuming Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: yuming@mit.edu

Abstract

We investigate mechanisms governing the initial growth and nonlinear evolution of interfacial waves in horizontal two-fluid plane Couette–Poiseuille flows. Nonlinear coupling of the Kelvin–Helmholtz interfacial instability with resonant wave interactions has been shown to be capable of rapidly generating long waves through the transfer of energy from linearly unstable short waves to stable long-wave components within the context of potential flow theory. The objective of this work is to determine whether that coupled mechanism persists in laminar and turbulent viscous flows. Utilizing both theoretical and computational methods, we analyse the initial Orr–Sommerfeld instability to quantify the frequencies and growth/decay rates of each wave mode for two-fluid laminar and turbulent channel flows. The obtained dispersion relation allows for the identification of resonant and/or near-resonant triads among (unstable and damped) wave components in an interfacial wave spectrum. We perform direct numerical simulations (DNS) of the two-phase Navier–Stokes equations with a fully nonlinear interface to formally establish the validity of our theoretical predictions for viscous flows. DNS results show the existence of a nonlinear energy cascade from unstable short- to damped long-wavelength waves due to resonant subharmonic and/or triadic interactions in both laminar Couette and turbulent Poiseuille flows. Spectral analysis of the interfacial evolution confirms that the combined instability–resonance mechanism persists in the presence of viscosity despite being derived under the assumption of potential flow theory. Finally, we perform a detailed examination of experimentally measured wave power spectra from Jurman et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 238, 1992, pp. 187–219) and carry out a numerical sensitivity study of the flow conditions to demonstrate and verify the existence of the coupled instability–resonance mechanism in physical systems. Our analysis accurately predicts the initial instability and the resulting nonlinear energy cascade through subharmonic and triadic interfacial wave resonances.

Information

Type
Papers
Copyright
© 2016 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1.Definition sketch showing the fluid interface separating a turbulent gas blowing over a laminar/turbulent liquid layer within a horizontal channel flow, where $U$ points to the direction of two-phase mean flows.

Figure 1

Figure 2.Time evolution of the amplitudes of three resonantly interacting wave components. The plotted curves represent the simulation results for $a_{1}$ (- - - -), $a_{2}$ (), $a_{3}$ (— ⋅ —), and the linear theory prediction (——).

Figure 2

Figure 3.Time evolution of the amplitudes of three resonantly interacting wave components with larger initial amplitudes. The plotted curves represent the simulation results for $a_{1}$ (- - - -), $a_{2}$ (), $a_{3}$ (— ⋅ —) and the linear theory prediction (——).

Figure 3

Figure 4.Time evolution of the individual $(k_{1},k_{2},k_{3})$ Orr–Sommerfeld wave component (without resonant interaction with other wave components). The plotted curves represent the simulation results for $a_{1}$ (- - - -), $a_{2}$ (), $a_{3}$ (— ⋅ —), and the linear theory prediction (——).

Figure 4

Table 1.Computational parameters used in the direct numerical simulations where the $(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}x,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}y,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}z)^{+}=(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}x,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}y,\unicode[STIX]{x0394}z)u_{\ast i}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}_{u}$.

Figure 5

Figure 5.Mean-velocity profile for (a) interfacial region and (b) wall region: numerical simulation (○) and asymptotic approximation (- - -) for viscous sublayer and log layers. Note that in (a) the mean velocity approaches the interface velocity as $z_{i}^{+}\rightarrow 0$, while in (b) the mean velocity approaches zero (due to the stationary wall boundary condition) as $z_{w}^{+}\rightarrow 0$.

Figure 6

Table 2.Characterization of the time-averaged streamwise velocity profile.

Figure 7

Figure 6.Time evolution of the interfacial elevation at (a) $t=0.2209$, (b) $t=23.253$, (c) $t=44.9588$, (d) $t=71.7444$, (e) $t=100.3539$, and (f) $t=127.0727$. Note that (a,b) share a common colour-bar range while (c–f) share a different common colour-bar range.

Figure 8

Figure 7.Linear wave frequency and growth-rate spectrum computed using the quasilaminar hypothesis and with the mean-velocity profile obtained through direct numerical simulation.

Figure 9

Figure 8.Time evolution of the linearly unstable two-dimensional Fourier interfacial modes obtained from direct numerical simulation of turbulent wave growth for (a) $k_{4}$, (b) $k_{5}$, (c) $k_{6}$, and (d) $k_{7}$.

Figure 10

Table 3.Comparison of Orr–Sommerfeld theory to two-dimensional modal frequencies obtained from surface reconstruction from direct numerical simulations of turbulent wave growth identified through fast Fourier transform (FFT) and half-wave period (HWP) analysis of $|2\text{Re}\{a_{j}(t)\}|$.

Figure 11

Figure 9.Distribution of two-dimensional triad resonance $(k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}=k_{1}-k_{2}>0)$ strength measured by the frequency detuning parameter $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}\equiv \unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{3}$.

Figure 12

Figure 10.Time evolution of two-dimensional wavenumber modal amplitudes $|a_{j}(t)|=|\hat{\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}}(k_{x}=j,k_{y}=0,t)|$ for $j=1,2,\ldots ,15$.

Figure 13

Table 4.Selected case conditions from Jurman et al. (1992) for a 2.54 cm deep channel with $\text{d}\bar{p}/\text{d}x$ being found using the analytic models developed by Naraigh et al. (2011) (equation 14). Experimental and numerically defined values are denoted by superscript $(E)$ and $(N)$. Liquid viscosity and surface tension are set to be $\unicode[STIX]{x1D707}_{L}=10$ cP and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}=0.06~\text{N}~\text{m}^{-1}$.

Figure 14

Figure 11.Numerically computed (a) wave frequency and (b) growth rate in Case 1 with the gas $Re$ being increased by $(0,10,20,30,40)\,\%$ with $h_{L}=0.44~\text{cm}$ (——) and $h_{L}=0.48~\text{cm}$ (– – –). (Note that in (a), all of the curves for a given liquid depth (but different values of $Re$) are graphically indistinguishable from each other.)

Figure 15

Table 5.Peak growth rate ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max}$) and corresponding wavelength ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max})$) and frequency ($f(\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max})$) as a function of gas Reynolds number perturbation ($\unicode[STIX]{x0394}Re$) and liquid equilibrium depth ($h_{L}$) in Case 1. $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\{Re\}=Re_{G,mean}^{(E)}(1+(\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}/100))$. The fifth column represents the frequency band of linearly unstable waves (with a line indicating a stable spectrum). The sixth column represents the wavelength ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$) and frequency ($f$) of the unstable fundamental mode corresponding to the strongest subharmonic resonance (shown in figure 12 for which $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}_{min}\equiv \min |\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}|$). The last column represents the magnitude of the subharmonic resonance detuning parameter ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$) for the fundamental mode of peak growth rate. ($h_{L}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$: cm; $f$: Hz; $\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$: $\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$.)

Figure 16

Figure 12.Computed value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}=|\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}/2|$ for Case 1 from table 4 with gas $Re$ being increased by 0 % (○), 10 % (♢), 20 % (*), 30 % (▫), and 40 % (⨯) for (a) $h_{L}=0.44~\text{cm}$ and (b) $h_{L}=0.48~\text{cm}$.

Figure 17

Figure 13.Computed value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}_{triad}=|\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{3}|$ for Case 1 from table 4 with a 40 % perturbation of $Re$ and $h_{L}=0.44~\text{cm}$. Shown is $(k_{1},k_{2})$-space with $k_{1}>k_{2}$, with the space reduced to include only linearly unstable $k_{1}$ or $k_{2}$ modes.

Figure 18

Figure 14.Numerically computed (a) wave frequency and (b) growth rate corresponding to Case 2 with gas $Re$ being increased by $(0,5,10,15,20)\,\%$ with $h_{L}=0.36~\text{cm}$ (——) and $h_{L}=0.38~\text{cm}$ (– – –). (Note that in (a), all of the curves for a given liquid depth but different values of $Re$ are graphically indistinguishable from each other.)

Figure 19

Table 6.Peak growth rate ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max}$) and corresponding wavelength ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max})$) and frequency ($f(\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max})$) as a function of gas Reynolds number perturbation ($\unicode[STIX]{x0394}Re$) and liquid equilibrium depth ($h_{L}$) in Case 2. $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\{Re\}=Re_{G,mean}^{(E)}(1+(\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}/100))$. The fifth column represents the frequency band of linearly unstable waves (with a line indicating a stable spectrum). The sixth column represents the wavelength $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D706})$ and frequency $(f)$ of the unstable fundamental mode corresponding to the strongest subharmonic resonance (shown in figure 15 for which $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}_{min}\equiv \min |\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}|$). The last column indicates the magnitude of the subharmonic resonance detuning parameter ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$) for the fundamental mode of peak growth rate. ($h_{L}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$: cm; $f$: Hz; $\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$: $\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$.)

Figure 20

Figure 15.Computed value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}=|\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}/2|$ for Case 2 from table 4 with the Reynolds number being increased by 0 % (○), 5 % (♢), 10 % (*), 15 % (▫), and 20 % (⨯) for (a) $h_{L}=0.36~\text{cm}$ and (b) $h_{L}=0.38~\text{cm}$.

Figure 21

Figure 16.Computed value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}_{triad}=|\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{3}|$ for Case 2 from table 4 with a 15 % perturbation of $Re$ and $h_{L}=0.36~\text{cm}$. The shown is $(k_{1},k_{2})$-space with $k_{1}>k_{2}$, with the space reduced to include only linearly unstable $k_{1}$ or $k_{2}$ modes.

Figure 22

Figure 17.Numerically computed (a) wave frequency and (b) growth rate corresponding to Case 3 with the Reynolds numbers being increased by $(0,5,10,15,20)\,\%$ for $h_{L}=0.55~\text{cm}$ (——) and $h_{L}=0.59~\text{cm}$ (- - -). Note that in (a), all of the curves for a given liquid depth are graphically indistinguishable from each other.

Figure 23

Table 7.Peak growth rate $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max})$ and corresponding wavelength $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}(\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max}))$ and frequency as a function of gas Reynolds number perturbation $(\unicode[STIX]{x0394}Re)$ and liquid equilibrium depth $(h_{L})$ in Case 3. $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}\{Re\}=Re_{G,mean}^{(E)}(1+(\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}/100))$. The fifth column represents the frequency band of linearly unstable waves (with a line indicating a stable spectrum). The sixth column represents the wavelength $(\unicode[STIX]{x1D706})$ and frequency $(f)$ of the unstable fundamental mode corresponding to the strongest subharmonic resonance (shown in figure 18 for which $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}_{min}\equiv \min |\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}|$). The last column indicates the magnitude of the subharmonic resonance detuning parameter ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$) for the fundamental mode of peak growth rate. ($h_{L}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$: cm; $f$: Hz; $\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{I,max}$, $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}$: $\text{rad}~\text{s}^{-1}$.)

Figure 24

Figure 18.Computed value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}=|\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}/2|$ for Case 3 from table 4 with the Reynolds number being increased by 0 % (○), 5 % (♢), 10 % (*), 15 % (▫), and 20 % (⨯) for (a) $h_{L}=0.55~\text{cm}$ and (b) $h_{L}=0.59~\text{cm}$.

Figure 25

Figure 19.Computed value of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70E}_{triad}=|\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{1}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{2}-\unicode[STIX]{x1D714}_{3}|$ for Case 3 from table 4 with a 20 % perturbation of $Re$ and $h_{L}=0.55~\text{cm}$. The shown is $(k_{1},k_{2})$-space with $k_{1}>k_{2}$, with the space reduced to include only linearly unstable $k_{1}$ or $k_{2}$ modes.