Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:57:42.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct numerical simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak shock wave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

Sangsan Lee ,
Sanjiva K. Lele  and
Parviz Moin
Sangsan Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Sanjiva K. Lele
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Also with the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University
Parviz Moin
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Also with NASA-Ames Research Center.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interaction of isotropic quasi-incompressible turbulence with a weak shock wave was studied by direct numerical simulations. The effects of the fluctuation Mach number Mt of the upstream turbulence and the shock strength M21 — 1 on the turbulence statistics were investigated. The ranges investigated were 0.0567 ≤ Mt ≤ 0.110 and 1.05 ≤ M1 ≤ 1.20. A linear analysis of the interaction of isotropic turbulence with a normal shock wave was adopted for comparisons with the simulations.

Both numerical simulations and the linear analysis of the interaction show that turbulence is enhanced during the interaction with a shock wave. Turbulent kinetic energy and transverse vorticity components are amplified, and turbulent lengthscales are decreased. The predictions of the linear analysis compare favourably with simulation results for flows with M2t < a(M21 — 1) with a ≈ 0.1, which suggests that the amplification mechanism is primarily linear. Simulations also showed a rapid evolution of turbulent kinetic energy just downstream of the shock, a behaviour not reproduced by the linear analysis. Investigation of the budget of the turbulent kinetic energy transport equation shows that this behaviour can be attributed to the pressure transport term.

Shock waves were found to be distorted by the upstream turbulence, but still had a well-defined shock front for M2t < a(M21— 1) with a ≈ 0.1). In this regime, the statistics of shock front distortions compare favourably with the linear analysis predictions. For flows with M2t > a(M21— 1 with a ≈ 0.1, shock waves no longer had well-defined fronts: shock wave thickness and strength varied widely along the transverse directions. Multiple compression peaks were found along the mean streamlines at locations where the local shock thickness had increased significantly.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 251 , June 1993 , pp. 533 - 562
Copyright
© 1993 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

Andreopoulos, J. & Muck, K.-C. 1987 Some new aspects of the shock-wave boundary-layer interaction in compression ramp corner. J. Fluid Mech. 180, 405–428.Google Scholar
Anyiwo, J. C. & Bushnell, D. M. 1982 Turbulence amplification in shock-wave boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 20, 893–899.Google Scholar
Blaisdell, G. A., Mansour, N. N. & Reynolds, W. C. 1990 Numerical simulations of compressible homogeneous turbulence. Rep. TF-50. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
Bradshaw, P. 1977 Compressible turbulence shear layers. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 9, 33–54.Google Scholar
Buell, J. C. & Huerre, P. 1988 Inflow/outflow boundary conditions and global dynamics of spatial mixing layers. Center for Turbulence Research Proc. Summer Program 1988. Stanford/NASA Ames.Google Scholar
Chang, C.-T. 1957 Interaction of a plane shock and oblique plane disturbances with special reference to entropy waves. J. Aero. Sci. 24, 675–682.Google Scholar
Coleman, G. N. & Mansour, N. N. 1991 Simulation and modeling of homogeneous compressible turbulence under isotropic mean compression. Proc. Eighth Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flows, Munich (ed. F. Durst, R. Friedrich, B. E. Launder, F. W. Schmidt, U. Schumann & J. H. Whitelaw). Springer.
Debieve, F.-R., Gouin, H. & Gaviglio, J. 1982 Momentum and temperature fluxes in a shock wave-turbulence interaction. In Structure of Turbulence in Heat and Mass Transfer (ed. Z. P. Zarić). Hemisphere.
Debieve, J. F. & Lacharme, J. P. 1986 A shock-wave/free turbulence interaction. In Turbulent Shear Layer/Shock Wave Interactions (ed. J. D élery). Springer.
Dolung, D. S. & Or, C. T. 1985 Unsteadiness of the shock wave structure in attached and separated compression ramp flows. Exp. Fluids 3, 24–32.Google Scholar
Favre, A. 1965 Equations des gaz turbuknts compressibles I. J. Méc. 4, 361–390.Google Scholar
Favre, A., Kovasznay, L. S. G., Dumas, R., Gaviglio, J. & Coantic, M. 1976 La Turbulence en Mécanique des Fluides. Gauthier-Villars.Google Scholar
Giles, M. B. 1990 Nonreflecting boundary conditions for Euler equation calculations. AIAA J. 28, 2050–2058.Google Scholar
Hesselink, L. & Sturtevant, B. 1988 Propagation of weak shocks through a random medium. J. Fluid Mech. 196, 513–553.Google Scholar
Hinze, J. O. 1975 Turbulence, 2nd Edn. McGraw-Hill.
Honkan, A. & Andreopoulos, J. 1992 Rapid compression of grid-generated turbulence by a moving shock wave. Phys. Fluids A 4, 2562–2572.Google Scholar
Jacquin, L., Bun, E. & Geffroy, P. 1991 Experiments on free turbulence/shock wave interaction. Proc. Eighth Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flows, Munich ed. F. Durst, R. Friedrich, B. E. Launder, F. W. Schmidt, U. Schumann & J. H. Whitelaw. Springer.
Keller, J. & Merzkirch, W. 1990 Interaction of a normal shock wave with a compressible turbulent flow. Exp. Fluids 8, 241–248.Google Scholar
Kerrebrock, J. L. 1956 The interaction of flow discontinuities with small disturbances in a compressible fluid. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology.
Kovasznay, L. S. G. 1953 Turbulence in supersonic flow. J. Aero. Sci. 20, 657–682.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1991a Direct numerical simulation and analysis of shock turbulence interaction. AIAA Paper 91-0523.
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1991b Eddy-shocklets in decaying compressible turbulence. Phys. Fluids A 3, 657–664.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 1992a Simulation of spatially evolving compressible turbulence and the applicability of Taylor's hypothesis. Phys. Fluids A 4, 1521–1530.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Moin, P. & Lele, S. K. 1992b Interaction of isotropic turbulence with a shock wave. Rep. TF-52. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Lele, S. K. 1992a Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution. J. Comput. Phys. 103, 16–42.
Lele, S. K. 1992b Shock-jump relations in a turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids A 4, 2900–2905.Google Scholar
Lighthill, M. J. 1953 On the energy scattered from the interaction of turbulence with sound or shock waves. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 49, 531–551.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, F. E. 1990 Development and evaluation of continuum models for translational-rotational nonequilibrium. PhD thesis, Stanford University.
McKenzie, J. F. & Westphal, K. O. 1968 Interaction of linear waves with oblique shock waves. Phys. Fluids 11, 2350–2362.Google Scholar
Moore, F. K. 1953 Unsteady oblique interaction of a shock wave with a plane disturbances. NACA TN-2879. Also NACA Rep. 1165.Google Scholar
Morkovin, M. V. 1962 Effects of compressibility on turbulent flows. In Mechanique de la Turbulence, CNRS.
Ribner, H. S. 1953 Convection of a pattern of vorticity through a shock wave. NACA TN-2864. Also NACA Rep. 1164.Google Scholar
Ribner, H. S. 1954 Shock-turbulence interaction and the generation of noise. NACA TN-3255. Also NACA Rep. 1233.Google Scholar
Ribner, H. S. 1969 Acoustic energy flux from shock-turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 35, 299–310.Google Scholar
Ribner, H. S. 1987 Spectra of noise and amplified turbulence emanating from shock-turbulence interaction. AIAA J. 25, 436–442.Google Scholar
Rotman, D. 1991 Shock wave effects on a turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids A 3, 1792–1806.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S., Erlebacher, G., Hussaini, M. Y. & Kreiss, H. O. 1991 The analysis and modeling of dilatational terms in compressible turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 227, 473–493.Google Scholar
Sherman, F. S. 1955 A low-density wind-tunnel study of shock-wave structure and relaxation phenomena in gases. NACA TN-3298.Google Scholar
Smits, A. J. & Muck, K.-C. 1987 Experimental study of three shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 182, 294–314.Google Scholar
Taulbee, D. & Osdol, van J. 1991 Modeling turbulent compressible flows: the mass fluctuating velocity and squared density. AIAA Paper 91-0524.
Tavoularis, S., Bennett, J. C. & Corrsin, S. 1978 Velocity-derivative skewness in small Reynolds number, nearly isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 176, 33–66.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. W. 1987 Time dependent boundary conditions for hyperbolic systems. J. Comput. Phys. 68, 1–24.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. A. 1971 Compressible-Fluid Dynamics. McGraw-Hill.
Trefethen, L. N. 1982 Group velocity in finite difference schemes. SIAM Rev. 24, 113–136.Google Scholar
Vichnevetsky, R. 1986 Invariance theorems concerning reflection at numerical boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. 63, 268–282.Google Scholar
Wray, A. A. 1986 Very low storage time-advancement schemes. Internal Rep. NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.Google Scholar