Upload
germane-craft
View
34
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Numerically constrained one-dimensional interaction of a propagating planar shock wave. A. Chatterjee. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Mumbai 400076, INDIA. Shock Wave. u(x, t). u c (x, t). x 2. x 1. x sw. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Numerically constrained one-dimensional interaction of a propagating planar shock wave
Department of Aerospace Engineering,Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Mumbai 400076, INDIA
A. Chatterjee
1D problem – numerically constrained interaction of a propagating planar shock wave
Shock Wave
x1 x2xsw
u(x, t) uc(x, t)
• Rightward planar propagating shock wave• uc(x, t) : arbitrary imposed flowfield downstream of shock wave constrains development of flowfield (u(x,t)) behind propagating shock wave
• xsw : current position of shock wave
Algorithm:
Proposed algorithm :
Unsteady 1D Euler equations in [x1 , x2] :
x1 < x < x2 x1 < xsw ( t + t ) < x2
(t + t )= Position of shock wave in [x1 , x2] at obtained from a pressure based sensor
xsw ( t + t )
H [u(x, t)]
= Explicit solution in [x1 , x2] at (t + t )
uc (x,t) = constraining flowfield downstream of moving shock wave
(3rd order ENO and 2nd order TVD Runge-Kutta)
u( x , t+ t) = H [u(x, t)] x < xsw ( t + t )
t + t )uc (x , x > xsw ( t + t )
(t + t )t
Test Case:
Constrained Interaction of Planar (rightward) Propagating Shock wave • Unsteady interaction of Mach 3 shock wave with Sine entropy wave
(Shu & Osher)
Initial Conditions:
V(x,0) =Vl x < - 4
Vr x - 4
Vl lul,pl)=(3.8571143, 2.629369, 10.333333)
Vr rur,pr)=(1+ 0.2sin(5x), 0, 1) x [-5 : 5]
Validation:
= H [u(x,
t)]
u( t + t )
Without Constrain (regular solution)
With Constrain
in [-5 : 5]
u( x , t+ t) = H [u(x, t)]
( t + t )x xsw
Solution Methodologies:
c(x, )uc(x, ), pc(x , ) ) = ( 1+0.2sin(5x), 0, 1 ) t + t t + t t + t
( t + t )x > xsw
Shock/entropy wave interaction( time=1.8)
Numerical Validation:
Shock/entropy wave interaction( time=1.8)
Numerical Validation:
Application: 2D Shock-vortex interaction problem
An initially planar shock wave interacts with a 2D compressible vortex superposed on ambient resulting in creation of acoustic waves and secondary shock structures.
U(r) = r1
BU(r) = Ar + r
0 < r < r1
rUmax
r1 r r2
Experimental Condition: (Dosanjh & Weeks, 1965)
Ms = 1.29Umax= 177 m/s (Mv=0.52)r1 = 0.277 cm
r2 = 1.75 cm
( Compressible vortex model )
Strong interaction with secondary shock formation
Application: a possible “constrained numerical experiment”:
• Solving numerically a reduced model of complex unsteady shock wave
phenomenon with appropriate constrains
• Demonstrate role of purely translational motion of an initially planar shock
wave in secondary shock structure formation when interacting with 2D
compressible vortex
• Planar shock wave interact with 1D flow field (uc)
• uc represents initial flowfield along vortex model normal to shock wave
.x1 x2
uc (x)
xsw
Computational Domain: [ 0, 20]
Initial position of shock = 8. 25 cm
Properties behind the shock : R-H condition
No. of cells : 900 equally spaced
uc constraining flowfield ahead of shock centered at 10.0 cm
• uc controls development of the flowfield behind shock wave (example of an
arbitrary constraining flowfield)
• Ignores shock wave (and vortex) deformation
Application …..
uc downstream of normal shock
Velocity distribution along horizontal lines (cases 1 to 4)
Case 1 & 2 : y 0.45
Case 3 & 4 : y 1.25
Vortex center y=0.0
Results:
Pressure Profiles (Case 1)
T1 = Start of the simulationT6 = Shock wave almost out of domain
Pressure Profiles (Case 2)
Case 1 & 2 : 1.25 (farther from vortex center)
generation of acoustic waves
Results: Case 3 & 4 : 0.45 (near vortex center)
Pressure Profiles (Case 3)
Pressure Profiles (Case 4)generation of upstream moving shocklet
• An algorithm proposed for constrained one dimensional interaction of a planar propagating shock wave.
• Validated for 1D shock-entropy wave interaction.
• Constraining flowfield can be “arbitrary”.
• Allows setting up a “constrained numerical experiment” otherwise not possible.
Conclusions: