Shock Waves

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 325–343 | Cite as

Multi-component Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability and mixing induced by reshock at different times

  • J. T. Morán-López
  • O. SchillingEmail author
Original Article


Turbulent mixing generated by shock-driven acceleration of a perturbed interface is simulated using a new multi-component Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) model closed with a two-equation \(K\)\(\epsilon \) model. The model is implemented in a hydrodynamics code using a third-order weighted essentially non-oscillatory finite-difference method for the advection terms and a second-order central difference method for the gradients in the source and diffusion terms. In the present reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability and mixing study, an incident shock with Mach number \(M\!a_{\mathrm{s}}=1.20\) is generated in air and progresses into a sulfur hexafluoride test section. The time evolution of the predicted mixing layer widths corresponding to six shock tube test section lengths are compared with experimental measurements and three-dimensional multi-mode numerical simulations. The mixing layer widths are also compared with the analytical self-similar power-law solution of the simplified model equations prior to reshock. A set of model coefficients and initial conditions specific to these six experiments is established, for which the widths before and after reshock agree very well with experimental and numerical simulation data. A second set of general coefficients that accommodates a broader range of incident shock Mach numbers, Atwood numbers, and test section lengths is also established by incorporating additional experimental data for \(M\!a_{\mathrm{s}}=1.24\), \(1.50\), and \(1.98\) with \(At=0.67\) and \(M\!a_{\mathrm{s}}=1.45\) with \(At=-0.67\) and previous RANS modeling. Terms in the budgets of the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate equations are examined to evaluate the relative importance of turbulence production, dissipation and diffusion mechanisms during mixing. Convergence results for the mixing layer widths, mean fields, and turbulent fields under grid refinement are presented for each of the \(M\!a_{\mathrm{s}}=1.20\) cases.


Richtmyer–Meshkov instability Reshock Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) Turbulence modeling 



This work was funded by the US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under the Predictive Science Academic Alliances Program by grant DE-FC52-08NA28616 and performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract number DE-AC52-07NA27344.


  1. 1.
    Chassaing, P., Antonia, R.A., Anselmet, F., Joly, L., Sarkar, S.: Variable Density Fluid Turbulence. In: Fluid Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 69. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhou, Y., Remington, B.A., Robey, H.F., Cook, A.W., Glendinning, S.G., Dimits, A., Buckingham, A.C., Zimmerman, G.B., Burke, E.W., Peyser, T.A., Cabot, W., Eliason, D.: Progress in understanding turbulent mixing induced by Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities. Phys. Plasmas 10, 1883–1886 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grun, J., Stamper, J., Manka, C., Resnick, J., Burris, R., Crawford, J., Ripin, B.H.: Instability of Taylor–Sedov blast waves propagating through a uniform gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2738–2741 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuranz, C.C., Drake, R.P., Leibrandt, D.R., Harding, E.C., Robey, H.F., Miles, A.R., Blue, B.E., Hansen, J.F., Louis, H., Bono, M., Knauer, J., Arnett, D., Meakin, C.A.: Progress toward the study of laboratory scale, astrophysically relevant, turbulent plasmas. Astrophys. Space Sci. 298, 9–16 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hurricane, O.A., Smalyuk, V.A., Raman, K., Schilling, O., Hansen, J.F., Langstaff, G., Martinez, D., Park, H.-S., Remington, B.A., Robey, H.F., Greenough, J.A., Wallace, R., Di Stefano, C.A., Drake, R.P., Marion, D., Krauland, C.M., Kuranz, C.C.: Validation of a turbulent Kelvin–Helmholtz shear layer model using a high-energy-density OMEGA laser experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 155004 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brouillette, M.: The Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 445–468 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schilling, O., Jacobs, J.W.: Richtmyer–Meshkov instability and re-accelerated inhomogeneous flows. Scholarpedia 3, 6090 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Collins, B.D., Jacobs, J.W.: PLIF flow visualization and measurements of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of an air/SF\(_{6}\) interface. J. Fluid Mech. 464, 113–136 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Atzeni, S., Meyer-ter-Vehn, J.: The Physics of Inertial Fusion: Beam Plasma Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense Matter. In: International Series of Monographs on Physics, vol. 125. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindl, J.D.: Inertial Confinement Fusion: The Quest for Ignition and Energy Gain Using Indirect Drive. AIP Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brouillette, M., Sturtevant, B.: Experiments on the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability: single-scale perturbations on a continuous interface. J. Fluid Mech. 263, 271–292 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vetter, M., Sturtevant, B.: Experiments on the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of an air/SF\(_{6}\) interface. Shock Waves 4, 247–252 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poggi, F., Thorembey, M.-H., Rodriguez, G.: Velocity measurements in turbulent gaseous mixtures induced by Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Fluids 10, 2698–2700 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leinov, E., Malamud, G., Elbaz, Y., Levin, L.A., Ben-Dor, G., Shvarts, D., Sadot, O.: Experimental and numerical investigation of the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability under re-shock conditions. J. Fluid Mech. 626, 449–475 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Balakumar, B.J., Orlicz, G.C., Ristorcelli, J.R., Balasubramanian, S., Prestridge, K.P., Tomkins, C.D.: Turbulent mixing in a Richtmyer–Meshkov fluid layer after reshock: velocity and density statistics. J. Fluid Mech. 696, 67–93 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber, C., Haehn, N., Oakley, J., Anderson, M., Bonazza, R.: Richtmyer–Meshkov instability on a low Atwood number interface after reshock. Shock Waves 22, 317–325 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hill, D.J., Pantano, C., Pullin, D.I.: Large-eddy simulation and multiscale modeling of a Richtmyer–Meshkov instability with reshock. J. Fluid Mech. 557, 29–61 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Latini, M., Schilling, O., Don, W.S.: Effects of WENO flux reconstruction order and spatial resolution on reshocked two-dimensional Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. J. Comput. Phys. 221, 805–836 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schilling, O., Latini, M., Don, W.S.: Physics of reshock and mixing in single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. E. 76, 026319 (2007). Erratum, Phys. Rev. E 85, 049904 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schilling, O., Latini, M.: High-order WENO simulations of three-dimensional reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability to late times: dynamics, dependence on initial conditions, and comparisons to experimental data. Acta Mech. Scientia 30B, 595–620 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grinstein, F.F., Gowardhan, A.A., Wachtor, A.J.: Simulations of Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities in planar shock-tube experiments. Phys. Fluids 23, 034106 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hahn, M., Drikakis, D., Youngs, D.L., Williams, R.J.R.: Richtmyer–Meshkov turbulent mixing arising from an inclined material interface with realistic surface perturbations and reshocked flow. Phys. Fluids 23, 046101 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thornber, B., Drikakis, D., Youngs, D.L., Williams, R.J.R.: Growth of a Richtmyer–Meshkov turbulent layer after reshock. Phys. Fluids 23, 095107 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morán-López, J.T., Schilling, O.: Multicomponent Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov instability-induced mixing. High Energy Density Phys. 9, 112–121 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morán-López, J.T.: Multicomponent Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Modeling of Reshocked Richtmyer–Meshkov Instability-Induced Turbulent Mixing Using the Weighted Essentially Nonoscillatory Method. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ph.D. dissertation (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gauthier, S., Bonnet, M.: A \(k\)\(\epsilon \) model for turbulent mixing in shock-tube flows induced by Rayleigh–Taylor instability. Phys. Fluids A 2, 1685–1694 (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valerio, E., Jourdan, G., Houas, L., Zeitoun, D., Besnard, D.C.: Modeling of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability-induced turbulent mixing in shock-tube experiments. Phys. Fluids 11, 214–225 (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grégoire, O., Souffland, D., Gauthier, S.: A second-order turbulence model for gaseous mixtures induced by Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. J. Turbul. 6, 29 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dimonte, G., Tipton, R.: \(K\)-\(L\) turbulence model for the self-similar growth of Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities. Phys. Fluids 18, 085101 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chiravalle, V.P.: The k-L turbulence model for describing buoyancy-driven fluid instabilities. Laser Particle Beams 24, 381–394 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Banerjee, A., Gore, R.A., Andrews, M.J.: Development and validation of a turbulent-mix model for variable density and compressible flows. Phys. Rev. E 82, 046309 (2010) Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schwarzkopf, J.D., Livescu, D., Gore, R.A., Rauenzahn, R.M., Ristorcelli, J.R.: Application of a second-moment closure model to mixing processes involving multicomponent miscible fluids. J. Turbul. 12, 49 (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Malamud, G., Elbaz, Y., Leinov, E., Sadot, O., Shvarts, D., Ben-Dor, G.: Bubble dynamics effects in re-shock system. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Workshop on the Physics of Compressible Turbulent Mixing (IWPCTM) (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilcox, D.C.: Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd edn. DCW Industries (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pope, S.B.: Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cloutman, L.D.: A new estimate of the mixing length and convective overshooting in massive stars. Astrophys. J. 313, 699–710 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cloutman, L.D.: Compressibility corrections to closure approximations for turbulent flow simulations. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report UCRL-ID-147757 Rev. 1 (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Andronov, V.A., Bakhrakh, S.M., Mokhov, V.N., Nikiforov, V.V., Pevnitskiĭ, A.V.: Effect of turbulent mixing on the compression of laser targets. Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. 29, 56–59 (1979)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Latini, M., Schilling, O., Don, W.S.: High-resolution simulations and modeling of reshocked single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability: comparison to experimental data and to amplitude growth model predictions. Phys. Fluids 19, 024104 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lombardini, M., Hill, D.J., Pullin, D.J., Meiron, D.I.: Atwood ratio dependence of Richtmyer–Meshkov flows under reshock conditions using large-eddy simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 670, 439–480 (2011)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (outside the USA)  2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological SciencesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  3. 3.US Department of Energy National Nuclear Security AdministrationWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations