Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:33:33.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The structure of shock waves as a test of Brenner's modifications to the Navier–Stokes equations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2007

CHRISTOPHER J. GREENSHIELDS  and
JASON M. REESE
CHRISTOPHER J. GREENSHIELDS
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UKjason.reese@strath.ac.uk
JASON M. REESE
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XJ, UKjason.reese@strath.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brenner (Physica A, vol. 349, 2005a, b, pp. 11, 60) has recently proposed modifications to the Navier–Stokes equations that are based on theoretical arguments but supported only by experiments having a fairly limited range. These modifications relate to a diffusion of fluid volume that would be significant for flows with high density gradients. So the viscous structure of shock waves in gases should provide an excellent test case for this new model. In this paper we detail the shock structure problem and propose exponents for the gas viscosity–temperature relation based on empirical viscosity data that is independent of shock experiments. We then simulate monatomic gas shocks in the range Mach 1.0–12.0 using the Navier–Stokes equations, both with and without Brenner's modifications. Initial simulations showed that Brenner's modifications display unphysical behaviour when the coefficient of volume diffusion exceeds the kinematic viscosity. Our subsequent analyses attribute this behaviour to both an instability to temporal disturbances and a spurious phase velocity–frequency relationship. On equating the volume diffusivity to the kinematic viscosity, however, we find the results with Brenner's modifications are significantly better than those of the standard Navier–Stokes equations, and broadly similar to those from the family of extended hydrodynamic models that includes the Burnett equations. Brenner's modifications add only two terms to the Navier–Stokes equations, and the numerical implementation is much simpler than conventional extended hydrodynamic models, particularly in respect of boundary conditions. We recommend further investigation and testing on a number of different benchmark non-equilibrium flow cases.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 580 , 10 June 2007 , pp. 407 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

REFERENCES

Aeschliman, D. P. & Cambel, A. B. 1970 Properties of gases at very high temperatures. Phys. Fluids 13, 2466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alsmeyer, H. 1976 Density profiles in argon and nitrogen shock waves measured by the absorption of an electron beam. J. Fluid Mech. 74, 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amdur, I. & Mason, E. A. 1958 Properties of gases at very high temperatures. Phys. Fluids 1, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcelo, B. T. 1971 Electron beam measurements of the shock wave structure. Part 1. Determination of the interaction potential of the noble gases from shock wave structure experiments. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar
Bardow, A. & Öttinger, H. C. 2007 Consequences of the Brenner modification to the Navier–Stokes equations for dynamic light scattering. Physica A 373, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, G. A. 1970 Aspects of the structure of strong shock waves. Phys. Fluids 13, 1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, H. 2005 a Kinematics of volume transport. Physica A 349, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, H. 2005 b Navier–Stokes revisited. Physica A 349, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cercignani, C., Frezzotti, A. & Grosfils, P. 1999 The structure of an infinitely strong shock wave. Phys. Fluids 11, 2757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S. & Cowling, T. G. 1970 The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herwig, H. & Hausner, O. 2003 Critical view on ‘new results in micro-fluid mechanics’: An example. Intl J. Heat Mass Transfer 46, 935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C. 1990 Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows, vol. 2. Wiley.Google Scholar
Issa, R. I. 1986 Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-splitting. J. Comput. Phys. 62, 40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Leer, B. 1979 Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov's method. J. Comput. Phys. 32, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levermore, C. D. & Morokoff, W. J. 1998 The Gaussian moment closure for gas dynamics. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 59, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumpkin, F. E. & Chapman, D. R. 1991 Accuracy of the Burnett equations for hypersonic real gas flows. AIAA Paper 91-0771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrossan, M. N. & Lilley, C. R. 2003 Viscosity of argon at temperatures > 2000 K from measured shock thickness. Phys. Fluids 15, 3452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitland, G. C. & Smith, E. B. 1972 Critical reassessment of viscosities of 11 common gases. J. Chem. Engng Data 17, 150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muckenfuss, C. 1962 Some aspects of shock structure according to the bimodal model. Phys. Fluids 5, 1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myong, R. S. 2001 A computational method for Eu's generalized hydrodynamic equations of rarefied and microscale gas. J. Comput. Phys. 168, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narasimha, R. & Das, P. 1986 The infinitely strong shock. In 15th International Symposium on Rarefied Gas Dynamics (ed. Boffi, V. & Cercignani, C.), pp. 293–307. Teubner.Google Scholar
OpenCFD Ltd 2004 http://www.openfoam.org.Google Scholar
Öttinger, H. C. 2005 Beyond Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reese, J. M. 1993 On the structure of shock waves in monatomic rarefied gases. PhD thesis, Oxford University, UK.Google Scholar
Reese, J. M., Woods, L. C., Thivet, F. J. P. & Candel, S. M. 1995 A second-order description of shock structure. J. Comput. Phys. 117, 240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhie, C. M. & Chow, W. L. 1982 A numerical study of the turbulent flow past an isolated airfoil with trailing edge separation. AIAA Paper 82-0998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaaf, S. A. & Chambré, P. L. 1961 Flow of Rarefied Gases. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Steinhilper, E. A. 1972 Electron beam measurements of the shock wave structure. Part 1. The inference of intermolecular potentials from shock structure experiments. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar
Struchtrup, H. 2005 Macroscopic Transport Equations for Rarefied Gas Flows. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Struchtrup, H. & Torrilhon, M. 2003 Regularization of Grad's 13 moment equations: Derivation and linear analysis. Phys. Fluids 15, 2668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, B. & Steinhilper, E. A. 1974 Intermolecular potentials from shock structure experiments. In 8th Intl Symp. on Rarefied Gas Dynamics (ed. Karamcheti, K.), p. 159. Academic.Google Scholar
Torrilhon, M. & Struchtrup, H. 2004 Regularized 13–moment equations: Shock structure calculations and comparison to Burnett models. J. Fluid Mech. 513, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, K. & Tang, L. 2004 Nonequilibrium Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook model for nitrogen shock structure. J. Comput. Phys. 16, 3824.Google Scholar
Zhong, X., MacCormack, R. W. & Chapman, D. R. 1991 Stabilisation of the Burnett equations and application to high-altitude hypersonic flows. AIAA Paper 91-0770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar