Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T05:01:41.514Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Single-mode Rayleigh–Taylor instability in time-dependent rarefaction-driven flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2025

Yue Li
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Xing Gao
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Xu Guo*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Zhigang Zhai*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Xisheng Luo
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR ChinaState Key Laboratory of High-Temperature Gas Dynamics, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China
*
Corresponding authors: Zhigang Zhai, sanjing@ustc.edu.cn; Xu Guo, clguoxu@ustc.edu.cn
Corresponding authors: Zhigang Zhai, sanjing@ustc.edu.cn; Xu Guo, clguoxu@ustc.edu.cn

Abstract

Rayleigh–Taylor instability (RTI) caused by rarefaction waves not only features variable acceleration but also incorporates time-dependent density, which introduces great challenges in predicting the finger growth behaviours. In this work, we propose a model for predicting the single-mode finger behaviours by extending the Layzer potential-flow framework to account for time-dependent acceleration and density. Relative to the previous models, the present model can evaluate the effect of time-dependent density on finger growth, and can describe the growth behaviours of both bubbles and spikes in rarefaction-driven RTI flows. In addition, the time-dependent curvature of the finger tip as it evolves from its initial value to the quasi-steady value is quantified. To validate the model, rarefaction-tube experiments and numerical simulations are conducted across a wide range of initial conditions. The results show that the present model can accurately capture the amplitude growth and curvature evolution of bubbles and spikes across various density ratios. Moreover, both the present model and experiments demonstrate that the continuous density reduction in rarefaction-driven flows causes larger asymptotic velocities of bubbles and spikes, leading to higher Froude numbers relative to those under constant or time-dependent acceleration.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1.Schematics of the experimental apparatus: the horizontal rarefaction tube ($a$), the clamp device used to secure the diaphragm ($b$) and the interface formation device ($c$). Here, SHO coating denotes the super-hydrophobic-oleophobic coating, used to confine the soap film to the designed shape.

Figure 1

Table 1.Initial experimental interface parameters. Here, $a_0$ and $\lambda$ represent the initial amplitude and wavelength of the single-mode interface.

Figure 2

Figure 2.Schlieren images of rarefaction-driven evolution of discontinuous single-mode CF$_4$/helium interfaces for cases 2-40 ($a$), 2-60 ($b$), 2-120 ($c$), 3-60 ($d$) and 6-120 ($e$). Numbers denote time in $\unicode {x03BC}$s.

Figure 3

Figure 3.Comparisons of finger growth between the experimental results and the theoretical predictions in different cases. The symbols represent the experimental results. The blue dashed lines represent the theoretical predictions from the model (4.1) and (4.2) of Mikaelian (2009), and the red solid lines represent the theoretical predictions of our model (2.24). The black dashed lines separate the linear stage from the nonlinear stage.

Figure 4

Figure 4.Comparison of curvature for bubbles ($a$) and spikes ($b$) between numerical simulations and our model (2.22) in different cases.

Figure 5

Figure 5.Comparison of Froude numbers for bubbles ($Fr_b$) and spikes ($Fr_s$) between experimental results and theoretical predictions. The present model with $\dot \rho$ = 0 considers variable acceleration only, which is achieved by setting the density derivative terms in (2.12)–(2.14) to zero.

Figure 6

Table 2.Quasi-steady velocities ($U_{b/s}^{qs}$) and Froude numbers ($Fr_{b/s}^{qs}$) for bubbles and spikes obtained from different potential-flow models. The models of Goncharov (2002) and Sohn (2003) are applicable only to bubbles, whereas the models of Zhang & Guo (2016) and Liu et al. (2023b) apply to both bubbles and spikes, with $A\gt 0$ corresponding to bubbles and $A\lt 0$ to spikes.

Figure 7

Table 3.Gas combinations and initial Atwood numbers for the numerical cases.

Figure 8

Figure 6.Comparison of amplitude growth for bubbles and spikes between numerical simulations and our model (2.24) at $A_0$ = 0.23 ($a$), 0.50 ($b$), 0.85 ($c$) and 0.95 ($d$). Experimental data of case 2-60 are included in panel ($c$) for comparison.

Figure 9

Figure 7.Comparison of finger growth between the theoretical prediction from our model (2.24) and the numerical results of a single-mode SF$_6$/air interface ($A_0$ = 0.67) from the 2-D Miranda simulations by Morgan et al. (2018).

Figure 10

Figure 8.Comparison of curvature for bubbles ($a$) and spikes ($b$) between numerical simulations and our model (2.22) at different Atwood numbers.

Figure 11

Figure 9.Distributions of flow regions in the rarefaction tube at different moments: ($a$) the moment before the diaphragm rupture, ($b$) the moment after the diaphragm rupture and ($c$) the moment after the rarefaction waves reach the interface. Here, RWH and RWT denote the head and tail of the rarefaction waves, respectively; CS denotes the contact surface; and RW$^t$ and CW$^r$ denote the transmitted rarefaction waves and reflected compression waves, respectively. ($d$) The $x$–$t$ plot of the 1-D rarefaction-tube flow.

Figure 12

Figure 10.($a$) The computational domain used for the rarefaction–interface interaction. Numerical results of case 2–40 under different mesh sizes: ($b$) density distribution along the symmetric line of the interface at $t$ = 911 $\unicode {x03BC}$s, and ($c$) temporal variations of the perturbation amplitude. Experimental data of case 2-40 are included in panel ($c$) for comparison.

Figure 13

Figure 11.Comparison between the experimental ($a$) and numerical ($b$) schlieren images of interface evolution for a single-mode CF$_4$/helium interface in case 2-40. Numbers denote time in $\unicode {x03BC}$s.