Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:31:41.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reynolds- and Mach-number effects in canonical shock–turbulence interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

Johan Larsson ,
Ivan Bermejo-Moreno  and
Sanjiva K. Lele
Johan Larsson*
Affiliation:
Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Ivan Bermejo-Moreno
Affiliation:
Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Sanjiva K. Lele
Affiliation:
Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
*
†Present address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA. Email address for correspondence: jola@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interaction between isotropic turbulence and a normal shock wave is investigated through a series of direct numerical simulations at different Reynolds numbers and mean and turbulent Mach numbers. The computed data are compared to experiments and linear theory, showing that the amplification of turbulence kinetic energy across a shock wave is described well using linearized dynamics. The post-shock anisotropy of the turbulence, however, is qualitatively different from that predicted by linear analysis. The jumps in mean density and pressure are lower than the non-turbulent Rankine–Hugoniot results by a factor of the square of the turbulence intensity. It is shown that the dissipative scales of turbulence return to isotropy within about 10 convected Kolmogorov time scales, a distance that becomes very small at high Reynolds numbers. Special attention is paid to the ‘broken shock’ regime of intense turbulence, where the shock can be locally replaced by smooth compressions. Grid convergence of the probability density function of the shock jumps proves that this effect is physical, and not an artefact of the numerical scheme.

JFM classification

Turbulent Flows: Compressible turbulence Compressible Flows: Shock waves Turbulent Flows: Turbulent Flows
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 717 , 25 February 2013 , pp. 293 - 321
Copyright
©2013 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

Agui, J. H., Briassulis, G. & Andreopoulos, Y. 2005 Studies of interactions of a propagating shock wave with decaying grid turbulence: velocity and vorticity fields. J. Fluid Mech. 524, 143–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barre, S., Alem, D. & Bonnet, J. P. 1996 Experimental study of a normal shock/homogeneous turbulence interaction. AIAA J. 34 (5), 968–974.Google Scholar
Donzis, D. A. 2012a Amplification factors in shock–turbulence interactions: effect of shock thickness. Phys. Fluids 24, 011705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donzis, D. A. 2012b Shock structure in shock–turbulence interactions. Phys. Fluids 24, 126101.Google Scholar
Ducros, F., Laporte, F., Souleres, T., Guinot, V., Moinat, P. & Caruelle, B. 2000 High-order fluxes for conservative skew-symmetric-like schemes in structured meshes: application to compressible flows. J. Comput. Phys. 161, 114–139.Google Scholar
Grube, N. E., Taylor, E. M. & Pino Martín, M. 2011 Numerical investigation of shock-wave/isotropic turbulence interaction. In 49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 4–7 January 2011, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
Hannappel, R. & Friedrich, R. 1995 Direct numerical simulation of a Mach 2 shock interacting with isotropic turbulence. Appl. Sci. Res. 54, 205–221.Google Scholar
Hesselink, L. & Sturtevant, B. 1988 Propagation of weak shocks through a random medium. J. Fluid Mech. 196, 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, L., Cambon, C. & Blin, E. 1993 Turbulence amplification by a shock wave and rapid distortion theory. Phys. Fluids 5 (10), 2539–2550.Google Scholar
Jamme, S., Cazalbou, J.-B., Torres, F. & Chassaing, P. 2002 Direct numerical simulation of the interaction between a shock wave and various types of isotropic turbulence. Flow Turbul. Combust. 68, 227–268.Google Scholar
Johnsen, E., Larsson, J., Bhagatwala, A. V., Cabot, W. H., Moin, P., Olsson, B. J., Rawat, P. S., Shankar, S. K., Sjögreen, B., Yee, H. C., Zhong, X. & Lele, S. K. 2010 Assessment of high-resolution methods for numerical simulations of compressible turbulence with shock waves. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 1213–1237.Google Scholar
Keller, J. & Merzkirch, W. 1990 Interaction of a normal shock wave with a compressible turbulent flow. Exp. Fluids 8, 241–248.Google Scholar
Kovasznay, L. S. G. 1953 Turbulence in supersonic flow. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 20 (10), 657–674 [reprinted 2003 AIAA J. 41 (7), 219–237].Google Scholar
Larsson, J. 2009 Blending technique for compressible inflow turbulence: algorithm localization and accuracy assessment. J. Comput. Phys. 228, 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, J. 2010 Effect of shock-capturing errors on turbulence statistics. AIAA J. 48 (7), 1554–1557.Google Scholar
Larsson, J. & Gustafsson, B. 2008 Stability criteria for hybrid difference methods. J. Comput. Phys. 227, 2886–2898.Google Scholar
Larsson, J. & Lele, S. K. 2009 Direct numerical simulation of canonical shock/turbulence interaction. Phys. Fluids 21, 126101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1993 Direct numerical simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 251, 533–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1994 Corrigendum: direct numerical simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 264, 373–374.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1997 Interaction of isotropic turbulence with shock waves: effect of shock strength. J. Fluid Mech. 340, 225–247.Google Scholar
Lele, S. K. 1992 Shock-jump relations in a turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids 4 (12), 2900–2905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh, K., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1997 The influence of entropy fluctuations on the interaction of turbulence with a shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 334, 353–379.Google Scholar
Pirozzoli, S. 2002 Conservative hybrid compact-WENO schemes for shock–turbulence interaction. J. Comput. Phys. 178, 81–117.Google Scholar
Ribner, H. S. 1953 Convection of a pattern of vorticity through a shock wave. NACA Report 1164.Google Scholar
Ribner, H. S. 1954 Shock–turbulence interaction and the generation of noise. NACA Report 1233.Google Scholar
Sesterhenn, J., Dohogne, J. F. & Friedrich, R. 2005 Direct numerical simulation of the interaction of isotropic turbulence with a shock wave using shock-fitting. C. R. Méc. 333, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, K. 2012 Evolution of enstrophy in shock/homogeneous turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 707, 74–110.Google Scholar
Sinha, K., Mahesh, K. & Candler, G. V. 2003 Modelling shock unsteadiness in shock/turbulence interaction. Phys. Fluids 15 (8), 2290–2297.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D. C. 2000 Turbulence Modelling for CFD. DCW Industries.Google Scholar
Wouchuk, J. G., Huete Ruiz de Lira, C. & Velikovich, A. L. 2009 Analytical linear theory for the interaction of a planar shock wave with an isotropic turbulent vorticity field. Phys. Rev. E 79, 066315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed