Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T01:05:20.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An elaborate experiment on the single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2018

Lili Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Yu Liang
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Juchun Ding
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Naian Liu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Fire Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
Xisheng Luo*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China State Key Laboratory of Fire Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, China
*
†Email address for correspondence: xluo@ustc.edu.cn

Abstract

High-fidelity experiments of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability on a single-mode air/$\text{SF}_{6}$ interface are carried out at weak shock conditions. The soap-film technique is extended to create single-mode gaseous interfaces which are free of small-wavelength perturbations, diffusion layers and three-dimensionality. The interfacial morphologies captured show that the instability evolution evidently involves the smallest experimental uncertainty among all existing results. The performances of the impulsive model and other nonlinear models are thoroughly examined through temporal variations of the perturbation amplitude. The individual growth of bubbles or spikes demonstrates that all nonlinear models can provide a reliable forecast of bubble development, but only the model of Zhang & Guo (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 786, 2016, pp. 47–61) can reasonably predict spike development. The distinct images of the interface morphology obtained also provide a rare opportunity to extract interface contours such that a spectral analysis of the interfacial contours can be performed, which realizes the first direct validation of the high-order nonlinear models of Zhang & Sohn (Phys. Fluids, vol. 9, 1997, pp. 1106–1124) and Vandenboomgaerde et al. (Phys. Fluids, vol. 14 (3), 2002, pp. 1111–1122) in terms of the fundamental mode and high-order harmonics. It is found that both models show a very good and almost identical accuracy in predicting the first two modes. However, the model of Zhang & Sohn (1997) becomes much more accurate in modelling the third-order harmonics due to the fewer simplifications used.

Information

Type
JFM Rapids
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic of the single-mode interface formation. (a) Two transparent devices with sinusoidal-shaped boundaries. (b) The soap film interface made by a rectangular frame.

Figure 1

Table 1. Parameters of the initial conditions for different cases ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$–$a_{0}$) with $a_{0}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x1D706}$ standing for the preshock amplitude and wavelength of the sinusoidal interface, respectively, and $A^{+}$ for the postshock Atwood number. $v_{i}$, $v_{t}$ and $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}v$ are respectively the speeds of the incident shock, the transmitted shock and the shocked interface. ‘mfra ($\text{SF}_{6}$)’ denotes the mass fraction of the test gas.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Evolutions of single-mode air/$\text{SF}_{6}$ interfaces impacted by a planar shock. IS, incident shock; II, initial interface; TS, transmitted shock; SI, shocked interface. The numbers in the schlieren images are in units of $\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{s}$. The IS travels from left to right with a Mach number of $1.22\pm 0.01$. Note that the original images are cropped such that only the central part (160 mm in length and 80 mm in width) is shown.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Comparisons between experiments and model predictions for (a) the interface amplitude ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}$) and (b) the amplitudes of bubble and spike ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FC}_{b/s}$). Symbols stand for the experimental results and lines stand for the model predictions. Experimental results from Collins & Jacobs (2002) and Mariani et al. (2008) are compared with the current results and theoretical predictions. Nonlinear models are Sad (Sadot et al.1998), DR (Dimonte & Ramaprabhu 2010), Mik (Mikaelian 2003), ZS (Zhang & Sohn 1997), ZG (Zhang & Guo 2016) and Van (Vandenboomgaerde et al.2002).

Figure 4

Table 2. Comparison of the linear growth rate between experimental measurement and prediction from the impulsive model (Richtmyer 1960). The units are $\text{m}~\text{s}^{-1}$.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Temporal variations of the perturbation amplitude of the first three harmonics. Symbols denote the present experimental results and lines represent the theoretical predictions of the ZS model (Zhang & Sohn 1997) and the Van model (Vandenboomgaerde et al.2002).