Advertisement

Shock Waves

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 101–115 | Cite as

Dynamics of shock wave diffraction over sharp splitter geometry using entropy-based artificial viscosity method

  • A. Chaudhuri
  • G. B. Jacobs
Original Article

Abstract

This paper reports the numerical analysis of shock wave diffraction over a convex sharp splitter geometry, focusing on the mechanism of the shock diffraction and the longtime behavior of shock–vortex dynamics. The flow evolution with shock–vortex dynamics for incident shock Mach number, \({M}_{{\mathrm {s}}} = 1.59\), is found to be in excellent agreement with the previous experimental results. We use a recent entropy-generation-based artificial viscosity (AV) method in conjunction with a high-order explicit discontinuous spectral element method (DSEM) to resolve these complex interactions. The AV is coupled with a shock sensor switch to attain optimal dissipations. Simulations capture the essential wave diffraction, transverse wave interaction with the deforming and growing primary vortex, and weaker secondary vortices arising from the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. A quantification of the artificial dissipation of the numerical scheme is made by comparing the components of the kinetic energy dissipation rate and the pressure dilatation term. A new detailed transient flow analysis is also presented to address the shock dynamics, shock–vortex interaction, and the evolution of the flow topology with the probability density functions of various parameters of the enstrophy transport equation and the invariants of the velocity gradient tensor. The analysis reveals the mechanism of unwinding of vortices and its link with the divergence of the Lamb vector. A positive correlation is found between enstrophy and the imaginary part of the eigenvalues. Real parts of the two eigenvalues are associated with high dilatation shock regions and the outer edges of the vortices, respectively.

Keywords

Shock diffraction High-order numerical scheme Shock–vortex interaction Artificial viscosity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work used the resources of Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) [27] supported by National Science Foundation of USA, Grant No. ACI-1053575. The authors greatly acknowledge the collaboration with W. S. Don of Ocean University of China and F. Mashayek of University of Illinois at Chicago.

References

  1. 1.
    Sun, M., Takayama, K.: A note on numerical simulation of vortical structures in shock diffraction. Shock Waves 13(1), 25–32 (2003). doi: 10.1007/s00193-003-0195-0 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sun, M., Takayama, K.: Vorticity production in shock diffraction. J. Fluid Mech. 478, 237–256 (2003). doi: 10.1017/S0022112002003403 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halder, P., De, S., Sinhamahapatra, K.P., Singh, N.: Numerical simulation of shock–vortex interaction in Schardins problem. Shock Waves 23(5), 495–504 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s00193-013-0448-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murugan, T., De, S., Sreevatsa, A., Dutta, S.: Numerical simulation of a compressible vortex–wall interaction. Shock Waves (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00193-015-0611-2 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ripley, R.C., Lien, F.-S., Yovanovich, M.M.: Numerical simulation of shock diffraction on unstructured meshes. Comput. Fluids 35(10), 1420–1431 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2005.05.001 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abate, G., Shyy, W.: Dynamic structure of confined shocks undergoing sudden expansion. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 38(1), 23–42 (2002). doi: 10.1016/S0376-0421(01)00016-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fomin, N.A.: 110 years of experiments on shock tubes. J. Eng. Phys. Thermophys. 83(6), 1118–1135 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10891-010-0437-9 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Law, C., Muritala, A.O., Skews, B.W.: Unsteady flow with separation behind a shock wave diffracting over curved walls. Shock Waves 24(3), 283–294 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s00193-013-0486-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skews, B.W.: Shock wave diffraction on multi-facetted and curved walls. Shock Waves 14(3), 137–146 (2005). doi: 10.1007/s00193-005-0266-5 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinn, M.K., Kontis, K.: Pressure-sensitive paint measurements of transient shock phenomena. Sensors 13(4), 4404–4427 (2013). doi: 10.3390/s130404404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reeves, J.O., Skews, B.: Unsteady three-dimensional compressible vortex flows generated during shock wave diffraction. Shock Waves 22(2), 161–172 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s00193-012-0353-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skews, B.W., Bentley, J.J.: Merging of two independent diffracting shock waves. Shock Waves (2016). doi: 10.1007/s00193-016-0620-9 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chaudhuri, A., Hadjadj, A., Sadot, O., Ben-Dor, G.: Numerical study of shock-wave mitigation through matrices of solid obstacles. Shock Waves 23(1), 91–101 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s00193-012-0362-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chaudhuri, A., Hadjadj, A., Sadot, O., Glazer, E.: Computational study of shock-wave interaction with solid obstacles using immersed boundary methods. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 89(8), 975–990 (2012). doi: 10.1002/nme.3271 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shadloo, M.S., Hadjadj, A., Chaudhuri, A.: On the onset of postshock flow instabilities over concave surfaces. Phys. Fluids (1994 Present) 26(7), 076101 (2014). doi: 10.1063/1.4890482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chaudhuri, A., Hadjadj, A., Chinnayya, A.: On the use of immersed boundary methods for shock/obstacle interactions. J. Comput. Phys. 230(5), 1731–1748 (2011). doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.11.016 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chaudhuri, A., Jacobs, G.B., Don, W.S., Abbassi, H., Mashayek, F.: Explicit discontinuous spectral element method with entropy generation based artificial viscosity for shocked viscous flows. J. Comput. Phys. 332, 99–117 (2017). doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.11.042
  18. 18.
    Gnani, F., Lo, K., Zare-Behtash, H., Kontis, K.: Experimental investigation on shock wave diffraction over sharp and curved splitters. Acta Astronaut. 99, 143–152 (2014). doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anderson, J.D.: Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Basics with Applications, Mechanical Engineering Series, International edn. Mcgraw-Hill, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spurk, J.H., Aksel, N.: Fluid Mechanics. Springer, Berlin (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73537-3 zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ducros, F., Ferrand, V., Nicoud, F., Weber, C., Darracq, D., Gacherieu, C., Poinsot, T.: Large-eddy simulation of the shock/turbulence interaction. J. Comput. Phys. 152(2), 517–549 (1999). doi: 10.1006/jcph.1999.6238 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Takayama, K., Inoue, O.: Shock wave diffraction over a 90 degree sharp corner—posters presented at 18th ISSW. Shock Waves 1(4), 301–312 (1991). doi: 10.1007/BF01418886 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skews, B., Law, C., Muritala, A., Bode, S.: Shear layer behavior resulting from shock wave diffraction. Exp. Fluids 52(2), 417–424 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s00348-011-1233-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kleine, H., Klioutchnikov, I., Olivier, H.: Onset of shear layer instability in shock diffraction processes. In: 29th International Symposium on Shock Waves, vol. 2, pp. 1315–1320. Springer (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16838-8_84
  25. 25.
    Tseng, T.I., Yang, R.J.: Numerical simulation of vorticity production in shock diffraction. AIAA J 44(5), 1040–1047 (2006). doi: 10.2514/1.16196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chaudhuri, A., Hadjadj, A.: Numerical investigations of transient nozzle flow separation. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 53, 10–21 (2016). doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2016.03.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Towns, J., Cockerill, T., Dahan, M., Foster, I., Gaither, K., Grimshaw, A., Hazlewood, V., Lathrop, S., Lifka, D., Peterson, G.D., et al.: XSEDE: Accelerating scientific discovery. Comput. Sci. Eng. 16(5), 62–74 (2014). doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2014.80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and Energy TechnologyHiOA (Oslo And Akershus University College of Applied Sciences)OsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace Engineering and Engineering MechanicsSan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations