Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T01:38:38.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shock wave interaction with a polygonal bubble containing two different gases, a numerical investigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2020

D. Igra Open the ORCID record for D. Igra [Opens in a new window]  and
O. Igra
D. Igra*
Affiliation:
RAFAEL, Aerodynamics Group, Israel
O. Igra
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel
*
†Email address for correspondence: danigra@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interaction between a planar shock wave propagating in air and a polygonal bubble (composed of two triangles) containing two different gases is studied numerically. Studying the interaction between an oncoming shock wave with front- and rear-facing triangles containing light and heavy gases is of great importance in understanding the complex shock wave propagation, interaction and hydrodynamic instabilities as well as their effect on mitigating or enhancing the colliding shock/blast wave. Two different cases were studied: in the first case, the front triangle contained sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and the rear one contained helium (He); while in the second case, He is in the front and SF6 in the rear triangle. As the speed of sound in He is significantly higher than that in SF6 and in air, different flow fields were evolved. When SF6 is placed in the front triangle, the shock wave transmitted through the SF6 is reflected back from the interface separating the two gases and starts propagating downstream; over the He segment of the bubble, the incident shock wave (in the open air) is already seen over the He section and it submits compression waves into the He gas. These compression waves travel upstream and downstream; in their upstream movement they generate compression waves into the ambient air ahead of the incident shock wave. The part moving downstream will hit the interface separating SF6 and He, resulting in a complex wave pattern. A completely different wave pattern is visible when He is placed in the front triangle. Now the fastest shock is the transmitted shock wave in the He section; it reaches the membrane separating the two gases well before the incident shock wave reaches this location. Unlike the previous case, now the resulting flow in the rear triangle of the bubble is affected not only by the incident shock wave but also by the transmitted compression waves from the helium section. Furthermore, when helium is placed in the front section of the bubble, the compression waves in the He impacts the rear triangle of the bubble (containing SF6) almost like a planar shock wave. This is different from the previous case where SF6 was in the front section; then the shock wave impacting on the rear bubble containing He had a completely different shape due to its propagation into the SF6 bubble. This resulted in completely different peak pressures.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Gas dynamics Compressible Flows: Shock waves
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 889 , 25 April 2020 , A26
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abd-El Fattah, A. M. & Henderson, L. F. 1978a Shock waves at a fast–slow gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 86, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abd-El Fattah, A. M. & Henderson, L. F. 1978b Shock waves at a slow–fast gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 89, 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, J. F. & Sturtevant, B. 1987 Interaction of weak shock waves with cylindrical and spherical gas in-homogeneities. J. Fluid Mech. 181, 41–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haehn, N., Ranjan, D., Weber, C., Oakley, J., Rothamer, D. & Bonazza, R. 2012 Reacting shock bubble interaction. Combust. Flame 159, 1339–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosseini, S. H. R. & Takayama, K. 2005 Experimental study of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced by cylindrical shock waves. Phys. Fluids 17, 084101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igra, D. & Igra, O. 2018 Numerical investigation of the interaction between a planar shock wave with square and triangular bubbles containing different gases. Phys. Fluids 30, 056104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layes, G., Jourdan, G. & Houas, L. 2009 Experimental study on a plane shock wave accelerating a gas bubble. Phys. Fluids 21, 074102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luo, X., Wang, M., Si, T. & Zhai, Z. 2015 On the interaction of a planar shock with an SF6 polygon. J. Fluid Mech. 773, 366–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, J. J. & Karni, S. 1996 On the dynamics of a shock–bubble interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 318, 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranjan, D., Anderson, M., Oakley, J. & Bonazza, R. 2005 Experimental investigation of a strongly shocked gas bubble. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 184507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ranjan, D., Niederhaus, J. H. J., Oakley, J., Anderson, M. H., Bonazza, R. & Greenough, J. A. 2008 Shock–bubble interactions: features of divergent shock-refraction geometry observed in experiments and simulations. Phys. Fluids 20, 036101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Si, T., Zhai, Z., Luo, X. & Yang, J. 2012 Experimental studies of reshocked spherical gas interfaces. Phys. Fluids 24, 054101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, Z., Si, T., Luo, X. & Yang, J. 2011 On the evolution of spherical gas interfaces accelerated by a planar shock wave. Phys. Fluids 23, 084104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, Z., Wang, M., Si, T. & Luo, X. 2014 On the interaction of a planar shock with a light polygonal interface. J. Fluid Mech. 757, 800–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Zou, L., Zheng, X. & Wang, B. 2019 Numerical study on the interaction of a weak shock wave with an elliptic gas cylinder. Shock Waves J. 29, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, L., Liao, S., Liu, C., Wang, Y. & Zhai, Z. 2016 Aspect ratio effect on shock-accelerated elliptic gas cylinders. Phys. Fluids 28, 036101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar