Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:30:42.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Richtmyer–Meshkov instability on a dual-mode interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2020

Xisheng Luo
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Lili Liu
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Yu Liang
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Juchun Ding*
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Chih-yung Wen
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Interdisciplinary Division of Aeronautical and Aviation Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, PR China
*
†Email address for correspondence: djc@ustc.edu.cn

Abstract

We report the first shock-tube experiments on dual-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability (RMI). An extended soap-film technique is adopted to generate a dual-mode gaseous interface such that its initial wavenumber ($k_0$) and phase of the fundamental waves are well controlled. By extracting interfacial contours from the distinct schlieren images, a Fourier analysis is performed from linear to weakly nonlinear stages and the growth of each basic wave is obtained. A noticeable difference between the growth of each basic mode and the corresponding single-mode RMI is observed, which suggests evident mode coupling effects in the dual-mode RMI. For dual-mode interfaces with in-phase $k_0$ and $k_0/2$ waves, the mode coupling suppresses (promotes) the growth of the $k_0$ ($k_0/2$) mode, while for interfaces with anti-phase $k_0$ and $k_0/2$ modes, the growth of the $k_0$ ($k_0/2$) mode is weakly influenced (evidently inhibited). However, for the combination of $k_0$ and $k_0/3$ waves, the mode coupling has a negligible influence on the growth of each basic wave. The modal theory of Haan (Phys. Fluids B, vol. 3, 1991, pp. 2349–2355), originally for multi-mode Rayleigh–Taylor instability, is reformulated for the dual-mode RMI, and it is found that this model overestimates the present experimental results for ignoring the nonlinear saturation. This model is then modified by accounting for both the mode coupling and nonlinear saturation, which well predicts the experimental results not only for the growth of the basic waves but also for the growth of second harmonics.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematics of experimental method and set-up: $(a)$ the test section, $(b)$ the soap-film technique and $(c)$ the schlieren photography adopted in the experiment.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Schematics of the four initial interface configurations studied in the present work (not drawn to scale). Here $h_0$ is the initial total width of the interface.

Figure 2

Table 1. Initial parameters of four dual-mode cases: $\lambda _{1}$ ($\lambda _{2}$) is the wavelength of the first (second) fundamental mode; $a_{01}$ ($a_{02}$) is the initial amplitude of the first (second) fundamental mode; $\phi$ is the relative phase between two fundamental modes; $h_0$ is the initial total width of the interface; $A^{+}$ is the post-shock Atwood number; $MF$ denotes the mass fraction of SF$_6$; $v_{i}$ is the incident shock velocity; $\Delta v$ is the interface jump velocity by the shock impact; and $v_{f}$ and $v_{t}$ are the velocities of reflected shock and transmitted shock, respectively. The units for length and velocity are mm and $\textrm {m}\ \textrm {s}^{-1}$, respectively.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Schlieren pictures illustrating the dual-mode interface evolution for cases 1–4. Numbers denote the time in $\mathrm {\mu }\textrm {s}$, and $t=0$ is defined as the moment when the incident shock arrives at the mean position of the initial interface. IS, incident shock; II, initial interface; SI, shocked interface; TS, transmitted shock. Arrows in the last row indicate the tilt of the spike during the evolution.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Comparison of the dimensionless amplitudes of the two fundamental modes in the four dual-mode cases from linear to nonlinear stages $(a)$ and only for the linear stage $(b)$. The impulsive model (Richtmyer 1960) and the ZG model (Zhang & Guo 2016) are represented by dashed and solid lines, respectively.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Normalized variations of the mixing width of the interface with dimensionless time for the four dual-mode cases. Here $h^{*}$ is the corresponding mixing width at the time $t^{*}$ and $v_{h}^{lin} = k \Delta v \,A^{+}h_0^{+}$ is the linear growth rate of mixing width, with $h_0^{+}$ being the interface width just after the shock passage; and $\bar {\lambda }$ denotes the weighted average wavelength according to Thornber et al. (2017).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Comparison of experimental results with the predictions of modal model (3.4) and the modified Zhang–Guo (mZG) model for the four cases. ‘CE’ denotes the mode coupling effect. Insets are the interface contours extracted from schlieren images with numbers in $\mathrm {\mu }\textrm {s}$.

Figure 7

Table 2. The amplitude signs of the new waves generated by mode coupling predicted by equations (3.4) for cases 1 and 2. The $+$ ($-$) indicates a positive (negative) amplitude and the $\downarrow$ ($\uparrow$) denotes the suppression (promotion) of the growth of the basic wave.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Comparison of experimental results with the predictions of the mZG model for the growth of the second harmonics for $(a)$ cases 1 and 2 and $(b)$ cases 3 and 4.