Shock-turbulence interaction: What we know and what we can learn from peta-scale simulations

被引:22
|
作者
Lele, Sanjiva K. [1 ]
Larsson, Johan [2 ]
机构
[1] Stanford Univ, Dept Aeronaut & Astronaut, Durand Bldg, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Ctr Turbulence Res, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
DIRECT NUMERICAL-SIMULATION; ISOTROPIC TURBULENCE; WAVE;
D O I
10.1088/1742-6596/180/1/012032
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Many applications in engineering and physical sciences involve turbulent flows interacting with shock waves. High-speed flows around aerodynamic bodies and through propulsion systems for high-speed flight abound with interactions of shear driven turbulence with complex shock waves. Supernova explosions and implosion of a cryogenic fuel pellet for inertial confinement fusion also involve the interaction of shockwaves with turbulence and strong density variations. Numerical simulations of such physical phenomena impose conflicting demands on the numerical algorithms. Capturing broadband spatial and temporal variations in a turbulent flow suggests the use of high-bandwidth schemes with minimal dissipation and dispersion; while capturing the flow discontinuity at a shock wave requires numerical dissipation. Results from three promising shock-capturing schemes a) high order WENO, b) nonlinear artificial diffusivity with compact finite differences, and c) a hybrid approach combining high-order central differencing with WENO near the shocks are compared using the Taylor-Green problem and compressible isotropic turbulence with eddy-shocklets. The performance of each scheme is characterized in terms of an effective bandwidth. The comparison highlights the damaging effect of numerical dissipation when the WENO scheme is applied everywhere. The hybrid approach is found to be best suited for studying shock-turbulence interactions. Results from previous DNS and LES studies of the canonical shock-turbulence interaction problem, i.e. the interaction of isotropic turbulence with a (nominally) normal shock and comparison with available theory and experimental data are recalled. The principal physical effects include the amplification of turbulent kinetic energy across the shock and its anisotropy, change in turbulence length scales across the shock, departure from the common assumption of strong Reynolds analogy (used in modeling turbulence in high-speed flows), and the distortion of the shock due to its interaction with the incident turbulence. In this context new results from our SciDAC sponsored project are shown and open issues are mentioned. New DNS results achieve a significantly larger turbulence Reynolds number and allow an exploration of the nonlinear effects. While the linear interaction theory of Ribner provides useful estimates of the amplification of vorticity fluctuations across the shock, it misses the strong nonlinear dynamics of the energized and highly anisotropic vorticity downstream of the shock. It is found that previous DNS studies also underestimated this effect. The simulations show that turbulent self-stretching and tilting mechanisms bring about a relatively rapid return to isotropy in the turbulent vorticity field. The turbulent velocity field, however, does not show any appreciable tendency towards isotropy. It is further observed that when the turbulence interacting with the shock is sufficiently energetic the instantaneous shock structure is significantly modified; local regions of significant over-compression are found as well as regions where the mean shock compression is nearly isentropic. Estimates for the computational resources necessary for studying this fundamental shock-turbulence interaction problem at higher Reynolds number on peta-scale computing systems are given.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] The Insurability Framework Applied to Agricultural Microinsurance: What Do We Know, What Can We Learn?
    Gehrke, Esther
    GENEVA PAPERS ON RISK AND INSURANCE-ISSUES AND PRACTICE, 2014, 39 (02): : 264 - 279
  • [32] The Insurability Framework Applied to Agricultural Microinsurance: What Do We Know, What Can We Learn?
    Esther Gehrke
    The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 2014, 39 : 264 - 279
  • [33] Prevention of bacterial infection in pediatric oncology: What do we know, what can we learn?
    Alexander, Sarah
    Nieder, Michael
    Zerr, Danielle M.
    Fisher, Brian T.
    Dvorak, Christopher C.
    Sung, Lillian
    PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2012, 59 (01) : 16 - 20
  • [34] Immune privilege of skin stem cells: What do we know and what can we learn?
    Agudo, Judith
    EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY, 2021, 30 (04) : 522 - 528
  • [35] What have we learned? What can we learn?
    Strack, Fritz
    Stroebe, Wolfgang
    BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 2018, 41
  • [36] AIDS in Childhood and Adolescence: Will we learn from what we know?
    Zawadzki, Nestor
    PEDIATRIA-ASUNCION, 2006, 33 (02): : 96 - 97
  • [37] What can we know?
    Welz, A.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR HERZ THORAX UND GEFASSCHIRURGIE, 2019, 33 (04): : 229 - 230
  • [38] Quasicrystals. what do we know - what can we know?
    Steurer, Walter
    ACTA CRYSTALLOGRAPHICA A-FOUNDATION AND ADVANCES, 2017, 73 : C142 - C142
  • [39] WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE SUPERNOVA
    不详
    NEW SCIENTIST, 1987, 113 (1550) : 15 - 15
  • [40] What Can We Learn From Children?
    Stempien-Otero, April
    Farris, Stephen
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE, 2017, 23 (04) : 325 - 326