Advertisement

Shock Waves

pp 1–13 | Cite as

Computation of shock wave structure using a simpler set of generalized hydrodynamic equations based on nonlinear coupled constitutive relations

  • Z. Jiang
  • W. Zhao
  • W. Chen
  • R. K. AgarwalEmail author
Original Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Generalized hydrodynamic equations were originally proposed to describe the rarefied non-equilibrium flows beyond the Navier–Stokes–Fourier (NSF) equations by constructing a non-equilibrium canonical distribution function for the mesoscopic Boltzmann equation. Subsequently, nonlinear coupled constitutive relations (NCCR) were developed under the adiabatic assumption, the Eu’s closure, and Myong’s simplification. NCCR+ was also proposed to include the omitted terms in Myong’s simplification. The goal of this paper is to assess the improvements in the accuracy due to NCCR+ and the influence of the bulk viscosity in one-dimensional steady shock wave structure for monatomic and diatomic gases. In order to solve NCCR+ equations, a coupled solution process based on the time-independent method for non-conserved variables is employed, which is different from the previous uncoupled solution process used for the NCCR equations. Shock structures in argon and nitrogen are calculated up to Mach 50, where the shock profile, inverse shock thickness, asymmetry parameter, and temperature–density separation distance are validated by DSMC and available experimental measurements. The results show that NCCR+ could not provide much improvement in accuracy compared to NCCR but adds to the computational cost, suggesting that Myong’s simplification used in NCCR is satisfactory. Both NCCR and NCCR+ perform better than NSF in computing the one-dimensional shock wave structure at high Mach numbers. It is also shown that the bulk viscosity has significant influence on the accuracy of prediction of the shock wave structure in a diatomic gas using both NSF and NCCR. Stokes’ hypothesis in conventional NSF is valid only for flows in a monatomic gas and for very low Mach number flows in a diatomic gas. Additionally, it is also found that the viscosity exponent s = 0.81 in variable-hard-sphere model provides a good fit with the experimental data for shock wave in argon using NCCR.

Keywords

Nonlinear constitutive relations Rarefied non-equilibrium flows Bulk viscosity Uncoupled and coupled solution methods 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11502232, 51575487, 11572284, and 61627901) and the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No. 2014CB340201). The first author of this paper (Zhongzheng Jiang) gratefully acknowledges the support of China Scholarship Council (Grant No. 201706320214). Furthermore, he would also like to thank Manuel Torrilhon and his group for their hospitality and Mathematics Division in the Center for Computational Engineering Science at RWTH Aachen University for providing the resources during his stay as joint-training Ph.D. student.

References

  1. 1.
    Alsmeyer, H.: Density profiles in argon and nitrogen shock waves measured by the absorption of an electron beam. J. Fluid Mech. 74(3), 497–513 (1976).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112076001912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steinhilper, E.A.: Electron beam measurements of the shock wave structure. Part I. The inference of intermolecular potentials from shock structure experiments. Part II. The influence of accommodation on reflecting shock waves. PhD Dissertation, California Institute of Technology (1972)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bird, G.A.: Aspects of the structure of strong shock waves. Phys. Fluids 13(5), 1172–1177 (1970).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1693047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ohwada, T.: Structure of normal shock waves: Direct numerical analysis of the Boltzmann equation for hard-sphere molecules. Phys. Fluids A 5(1), 217–234 (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.858777 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Torrilhon, M., Struchtrup, H.: Regularized 13-moment equations: shock structure calculations and comparison to Burnett models. J. Fluid Mech. 513, 171–198 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112004009917 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiscko, K.A.: Study of continuum higher order closure models evaluated by a statistical theory of shock structure. PhD Dissertation, Stanford of University (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xu, K., Huang, J.-C.: An improved unified gas-kinetic scheme and the study of shock structures. IMA J. Appl. Math. 76(5), 698–711 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1093/imamat/hxr002 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bird, G.A.: Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows. Issue 42 of the Oxford Engineering Science Series. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grad, H.: Asymptotic theory of the Boltzmann equation. Phys. Fluids 6(2), 147–181 (1963).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1706716 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhatnagar, P.L., Gross, E.P., Krook, M.: A model for collision processes in gases. I. Small amplitude processes in charged and neutral one-component systems. Phys. Rev. 94(3), 511–525 (1954).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.94.511 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Broadwell, J.E.: Study of rarefied shear flow by the discrete velocity method. J. Fluid Mech. 19(3), 401–414 (1964).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112064000817 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, A.B., Giddens, D.P., Bagnal, C.W.: Rarefied gas flow between parallel plates based on the discrete ordinate method. Phys. Fluids 10(3), 498–502 (1967).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1762143 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Burnett, D.: The distribution of molecular velocities and the mean motion in a non uniform gas. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 40(1), 382–435 (1936).  https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s2-40.1.382 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao, W., Chen, W., Agarwal, R.K.: Formulation of a new set of Simplified Conventional Burnett equations for computation of rarefied hypersonic flows. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 38, 64–75 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2014.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grad, H.: On the kinetic theory of rarefied gases. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 2(4), 331–407 (1949).  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160020403 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Struchtrup, H., Torrilhon, M.: Regularization of Grad’s 13 moment equations: Derivation and linear analysis. Phys. Fluids 15(9), 2668–2680 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1597472 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gu, X., Emerson, D.R.: A high-order moment approach for capturing non-equilibrium phenomena in the transition regime. J. Fluid Mech. 636, 177–216 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1017/S002211200900768X MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Comeaux, K.A., Chapman, D.R., Maccormack, R.W.: An analysis of the Burnett equations based on the second law of thermodynamics. 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 1995-0415 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1995-415
  19. 19.
    Grad, H.: The profile of a steady plane shock wave. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 5(3), 257–300 (1952).  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160050304 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grad, H.: Principles of the kinetic theory of gases. In: Thermodynamik der Gase/Thermodynamics of Gases, pp. 205–294. Springer, Berlin (1958).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45892-7_3
  21. 21.
    Torrilhon, M.: Characteristic waves and dissipation in the 13-moment-case. Contin. Mech. Thermodyn. 12(5), 289–301 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001610050138 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Torrilhon, M.: Modeling nonequilibrium gas flow based on moment equations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 48(1), 429–458 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034259 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eu, B.C.: Kinetic Theory and Irreversible Thermodynamics. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eu, B.C.: Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics: Ensemble Method, vol. 93. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2438-8 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Myong, R.S.: A generalized hydrodynamic computational model for rarefied and microscale diatomic gas flows. J. Comput. Phys. 195(2), 655–676 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.10.015 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Myong, R.S.: Thermodynamically consistent hydrodynamics computational models for high-Knudsen-number gas flows. Phys. Fluids 11(9), 2788–2802 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.870137 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Myong, R.S.: A computational method for Eu’s Generalized Hydrodynamic Equations of rarefied and microscale gasdynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 168(1), 47–72 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2000.6678 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jiang, Z., Chen, W., Zhao, W.: Numerical simulation of three-dimensional high-speed flows using a second-order nonlinear model. 21st AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonics Technologies Conference, Xiamen, China, AIAA Paper 2017-2346 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-2346
  29. 29.
    Jiang, Z., Chen, W., Zhao, W.: Numerical analysis of the micro-Couette flow using a non-Newton–Fourier model with enhanced wall boundary conditions. Microfluid. Nanofluid. 22(1), 10 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10404-017-2028-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Al-Ghoul, M., Eu, B.C.: Generalized hydrodynamic theory of shock waves: Mach-number dependence of inverse shock width for nitrogen gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86(19), 4294 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.4294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Al-Ghoul, M., Eu, B.C.: Generalized hydrodynamics and shock waves. Phys. Rev. E 56, 2981–2992 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.56.2981 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Myong, R.S.: On the high Mach number shock structure singularity caused by overreach of Maxwellian molecules. Phys. Fluids 26(5), 056102 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4875587 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Liou, M.-S.: A sequel to AUSM: AUSM+. J. Comput. Phys. 129(2), 364–382 (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1996.0256 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wada, Y., Liou, M.-S.: An accurate and robust flux splitting scheme for shock and contact discontinuities. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 18(3), 633–657 (1997).  https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827595287626 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim, K.H., Kim, C., Rho, O.-H.: Methods for the accurate computations of hypersonic flows: I. AUSMPW+ scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 174(1), 38–80 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2001.6873 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Camac, M.: Argon shock structure. In: de Leeuw, J.H. (ed.) The Fourth International Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics, Toronto, 1965 1964, p. 240Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Robben, F., Talbot, L.: Measurement of shock wave thickness by the electron beam fluorescence method. Phys. Fluids 9(4), 633–643 (1966).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1761728 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Linzer, M., Hornig, D.F.: Structure of shock fronts in argon and nitrogen. Phys. Fluids 6(12), 1661–1668 (1963).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1711007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boyd, I.D., Chen, G., Candler, G.V.: Predicting failure of the continuum fluid equations in transitional hypersonic flows. Phys. Fluids 7(1), 210–219 (1995).  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.868720 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Aeronautics and AstronauticsZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Washington University in St. LouisSaint LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations