Annurev Shock Turb

Copyright
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2000. 32:309345 2000 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
SHOCK WAVETURBULENCE INTERACTIONS

Yiannis Andreopoulos, Juan H. Agui, and George Briassulis
Experimental Aerodynamics and Fluid Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The City College of the City University of New York, New York, New York 10031; e-mail: andre@me-mail.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Key Words compressible ows, ow structure Abstract The idealized interactions of shock waves with homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, homogeneous sheared turbulence, turbulent jets, shear layers, turbulent wake ows, and two-dimensional boundary layers have been reviewed. The interaction between a shock wave and turbulence is mutual. A shock wave exhibits substantial unsteadiness and deformation as a result of the interaction, whereas the characteristic velocity, timescales and length scales of turbulence change considerably. The outcomes of the interaction depend on the strength, orientation, location, and shape of the shock wave, as well as the ow geometry and boundary conditions. The state of turbulence and the compressibility of the incoming ow are two additional parameters that also affect the interaction.
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2000.32:309-345. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Prof. J. Blair Perot on 12/20/11. For personal use only.
1. INTRODUCTION
The interaction of shock waves with turbulent ows is of great practical importance in engineering applications. A fundamental understanding of the physics involved in this interaction is necessary for the development of future supersonicand hypersonic-transport aircraft, and advances in combustion processes as well as high-speed rotor ows. In such ows the interaction between the shock wave and turbulent ow is mutual, and the coupling between them is very strong. Complex linear and nonlinear mechanisms are involved, that can cause considerable changes in the structure of turbulence and its statistical properties and alter the dynamics of the shock-wave motion. Amplication of velocity uctuations and substantial changes in length scales are the most important outcomes of interactions of shock waves with turbulence. This indicates that such interactions may greatly affect mixing. The use of shock waves, for instance, has been proposed by Budzinski et al (1992) as a means of enhancing the mixing of fuel with oxidant in ramjets. Turbulence amplication through shock wave interactions is a direct effect of the Rankine-Hugoniot relations. However, this type of amplication should be decoupled from other effects that also contribute to turbulence amplication such as destabilizing streamline
00664189/00/01150309$12.00
309
310
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
curvature, ow separation, dilatational effects, or longitudinal pressure gradients that may be present in ow before or after the interaction with the shock. The outcomes of the shock-turbulence interaction depend on (a) the characteristics of the interacting shock-wave-like strength, relative orientation to the incoming ow, and location and shape, (b) the state of turbulence of the incoming ow as it is characterized by the uctuation levels of velocity, density, pressure, and entropy and length scales, (c) the level of compressibility of the incoming ow, and (d) the ow geometry and boundary conditions. Basic understanding of the physics of such complex interactions has been obtained through investigations of conveniently selected and reasonably simplied ow congurations. The ows to be considered here include shear free ows, shear layers, and wall-bounded ows. Most of the work in this review is conned to the following cases: (a) homogeneous and isotropic turbulence interactions with shock waves (see Figure 1a), (b) constant shear homogeneous turbulence interactions with shock waves (see Figure 1b), (c) circular jet ows interacting with shock waves (see Figure 1c), (d) plane shear layers interacting with oblique shock waves (see Figure 1d), (e) wake ows interacting with oblique or normal shock waves (see Figure 1e), and ( f ) boundary layer interactions with oblique shock waves (see Figure 1f). This classication of the interactions also reects the level of increasing complexity from the rst to the last ow conguration. We restrict our review to nominally two-dimensional interactions, albeit keeping in mind that all of these interactions are three-dimensional in nature because turbulence in all its complexity is characterized by instantaneous ow variables that exhibit a variation in time and space. Shock waveboundary layer interactions have been reviewed in the past by Green (1970), Adamson & Messiter (1980), and Settles & Dodson (1991). Compressibility effects of turbulence, including some shock wave interactions, have been recently reviewed by Lele (1994). Compressibility effects in turbulent boundary layers and shear layers in the absence of shock interactions have been reviewed by Spina et al (1994) and Gutmark et al (1995), respectively. Birch & Eggers (1972) and Bradshaw (1977) reviewed compressibility effects in shear layers, whereas Bradshaw (1996) provided a more recent review of physical and modeling aspects of turbulence in compressible ows. The reader is also referred to Morkovins (1962, 1992) reviews of compressibility effects on boundary layers and shear layers. Interactions of shock waves with boundary layers in three-dimensional geometries have been reviewed by Settles & Dolling (1992) and Dolling (1993). The textbook by Smits & Dussauge (1996) also provides an excellent account of compressibility effects in turbulent shear layers, with chapter 10 devoted to boundary layershock wave interactions. Kovazsnay (1953) suggested the decomposition of turbulent uctuations into the vorticity, acoustic, and entropy modes. He performed a small perturbation analysis, valid for weak uctuations of density, pressure, and entropy, to show how acoustic waves may accompany vorticity uctuations and how entropy is changed in regions of different shear. In Kovazsnays decomposition the three
SHOCK-TURBULENCE INTERACTIONS
311
Figure 1 Schematic of ow conguration interactions with shock waves. (a) Homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, (b) constant shear homogeneous turbulence, (c) turbulent jet, (d) free shear layer, (e) turbulent wake, and (f) two-dimensional turbulent boundary layer.
modes of uctuations are dynamically decoupled from each other to a rst-order approximation. However, interaction of the modes can take on a second-order approximation of uctuations, in which mode couplings arise as one mode can be generated from the interaction of the other two modes (Chu & Kovazsnay 1958). An interaction of the modes can take place when a shock wave is present in the ow if conversion of one mode into either of the other two is possible. In
312
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
the present work, particular emphasis is given to interactions during which the vorticity mode dominates the incoming ow. The fundamental concept behind interactions of shock waves with turbulence is the transfer of vorticity through shock waves. Longitudinal vorticity, for instance, is expected to be transferred unchanged through a normal planar shock, whereas the other components of vorticity parallel to the shock surface should change substantially. Discussion of the following unanswered questions is attempted in this review: 1. How much of the amplication of turbulence in interactions with shock waves is caused entirely by the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions? 2. Why are small-size eddies amplied more than large eddies? 3. Are the length scales of the incoming turbulence reduced or amplied through such interactions? 4. Is the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy also reduced? 5. Why are vorticity uctuations amplied more than velocity uctuations? The ability of existing theoretical models to predict the ow after interactions with shock waves is also considered: Linear interaction analysis (LIA), rapid distortion theory (RDT), large eddy simulations, direct numerical simulations (DNS), and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes give different results even in the simplest of ow.
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The shock wave, from a simplistic point of view, can be considered as a steep pressure gradient. Information from experiments and simulation of low-speed ows with such pressure gradients indicate that rapid-distortion concepts hold and, in the limit of extremely sharp gradients, the Reynolds stresses and turbulent intensities are frozen, because there is insufcient residence time in the gradient for the turbulence to alter these quantities at all (Hunt 1973, 1978; Hunt & Carruthers 1990). The rst attempt to consider theoretically the passing of a turbulent eld through a shock wave is attributed to Ribner (1953), who decomposed the incident disturbance shear wave into acoustic, entropy, and vorticity waves. In his LIA, Ribner formulated the interaction of a plane vorticity wave with a shock wave as a boundary-value problem. Figure 2 shows a schematic of the incident plane sinusoidal shear wave crossing the shock. The wave number vector is refracted across the shock owing to the changes in thermodynamic properties and therefore emerges at a different angle from the incident. The condition that the phases should remain unchanged across the shock yields that the frequency, as well as the component of the wave number vector parallel to the shock front, are the same upstream and downstream of the shock. Ribners analysis obtained the rst
313
Figure 2 Schematic of the incident shear wave crossing the shock.

evidence of turbulence enhancement through interactions with shock waves. His predictions were veried by Sekundov (1974) and Dosanjh & Weeks (1964). Several analytical and numerical studies of this phenomenon by Morkovin (1960, 1962), Zang et al (1982), Anyiwo & Bushnell (1982), Rotman (1991), and Lee et al (1991, 1993, 1994) show very similar turbulence enhancement. Goldstein (1978) and Goldstein & Durbin (1980) formulated a decomposition of the disturbances into a vortical and an acoustic or potential part. This formulation was used by Durbin & Zeman (1992) to study numerically the response of homogeneous turbulence to bulk compression. Helmholtzs decomposition into a vortical part, which is rotational, and a dilatational part, which is irrotational, has been also used extensively. Finally Lee et al (1992, 1993, 1994) and Hannappel & Friedrich (1995) demonstrated a very successful DNS of a homogeneous and isotropic turbulence interacting with a plane shock wave. The time-dependent, three-dimensional equations governing the interactions that describe the conservation of mass, momentum, and total energy are Dq Dt q (qEt) t DUi Dt q Ui xi p xi (pUi) xi 0, sij , xj (sijUi) xj qi . xi (1)
(2)
(qEtUi) xi
(3)
1 Et is the total energy per unit mass, dened as Et e 2 UiUi, qi is the rate of heat added by conduction, and e is the internal energy, sij is the stress tensor,
314
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
equal to 2lSij kdijSkk, where k is the second coefcient of viscosity that is related to the bulk viscosity lb through k lb 2/3 l.
2.1 Dissipation Rate of Kinetic Energy

The transport equation for the instantaneous kinetic energy 12 Ui Ui in compressible ows is D q 1 UU 2 i i Dt
Ui
p xi
Ui
sij . xj
(4)
Equation 4 can be manipulated to yield 1 D UiUi 2 Dt
( pUj xj
sijUi)
pSkk
sijSij,
(5)
where the last term on the right-hand side contains the dissipation rate of kinetic energy E converted into thermal/internal energy. Sij is the strain tensor, and the term pSkk represents the work done by pressure forces during compression or expansion of the ow. Both terms, the dissipation rate E sij Sij and the pressure work term, also appear with opposite sign in the transport equation for internal energy. Since the dissipation rate is always positive or zero at any given point in space and time, the pressure-dilatation term can, in principle, be positive or negative. The dissipation rate is given by E sij Ui xj sijSij 2lSijSij k Uk Ui dij . xk xj (6)
After invoking Stokess hypothesis, which suggests that the bulk viscosity is negligible, lb 0, Equation 6 becomes E 2lSijSij
2 3
Uk Um . xk xm
(7)
The second term in the right-hand side of Equation 7 represents the additional contribution of compressibility to the dissipation rate of kinetic energy. This term vanishes for incompressible ows. ( Uk/ xk)2, this term is always positive, and the Because Uk/ xk Um/ xm negative sign in front of this term in Equation 7 may erroneously suggest that compressibility reduces dissipation. This is incorrect because the term SijSij also contains contributions from dilatation effects, which can be revealed if one considers that
315
SijSij
1 XX 2 k k
Ui Uj , xj xi
where Xk Xk is the enstrophy rate. The second term in the right-hand side represents the inhomogeneous contribution for incompressible ows. For compressible ows, terms related to dilatation can be extracted, and the dissipation rate then becomes E l XkXk
4 3
lS 2 kk
2l
Ui Ui xj xi
S2 . kk
(8)
The second term on the right-hand side of Equation 8 describes the direct effects of compressibility, that is, dilatation on the dissipation rate. It is obviously zero for incompressible ows. The rst two terms on the right-hand side of Equation 8 are quadratic with positive coefcients and positive signs, and they are, therefore, always positive or zero. The last term on the right-hand side indicates the contributions to the dissipation rate by the purely nonhomogeneous part of the ow. Its time-averaged contribution disappears in homogeneous ows. This term, in principle, can result in negative values, and thus it can reduce the dissipation rate. This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as long as the total dissipation remains positive or zero at any point in space and time. It should be noted that the dissipation term appears as a source term in the transport equation for entropy s, which, for ideal gases, is qT Ds Dt qi xi E. (9)
It has been customary in the past [see, for instance, Zeman (1990)] to decompose E into a solenoidal part Es, which is the traditional incompressible dissipation and the dilatational part Ed. In this case E Es Ed, Es l XkXk 2l Ui Uj xj xj S2 , kk Ed 4/3 lS 2 . kk
3. VORTICITY TRANSFER THROUGH SHOCK WAVES

A better understanding of the nature of the interaction of turbulent structures and vortex motions of turbulent ows with shock waves requires information on important quantities such as vorticity, rate-of-strain tensor and its matrix invariants, and dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy. These ow quantities, although computationally as well as experimentally very demanding to obtain, if resolved to proper scales are well suited for describing physical phenomena in vortical ows. One of the fundamental questions is how vorticity is transferred through
316
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
shock waves. Ribner (1953) considered the case of a vorticity wave that is transmitted through the shock governed by Snells law. Hayes (1957) derived an equation for the vorticity jump across a surface of discontinuity in unsteady ows by considering the thermodynamic relations upstream and downstream of it. The vorticity changes are given as follows: r dXn r dXt r n 1 q 0, (Dtrt v vsDtr q) n)d( . ( qvn) (10)
(qvr )d
(11)
Here the subscripts n and t represent components in the directions normal and tangential to the surface of discontinuity, the vector r being the unit vector normal n to the surface of discontinuity. The vector r represents the relative normal velocv r ity component with respect to the surface of discontinuity that is rr v vn r . The operator D is the tangential part of the total derivative operator or the vs t material derivative for an observer moving with and along the shock surface with r , where D r r r and dr /dt velocity r s nv vt [drt /dt]t v vt xt tvt tvt r/ t r / n and D r r K, where K is the curvature tenvt vs v t n vs vt t t r. sor K n The rst relation (Equation 10) indicates that the surface normal-vorticity component is not affected by the shock. This is a direct outcome of the RankineHugoniot relations, which show that velocity components parallel to the shock surface remain unchanged through it. Equation 11 shows that the vorticity change across the shock is determined by the density jump and by the gradients, tangential to the surface of discontinuity, of the incoming-ow-velocity. Although Hayess theory is very signicant, in many cases it is not useful because it provides information in reference to a local system of coordinates attached to the shock front, which may change position and shape with time during the interaction. The position and shape of the shock wave must emerge as part of the solution of the mathematical system of equations and is not known a priori. Nevertheless, this theory has shown that vorticity parallel to the shock front will be affected by the interaction with the shock. The transport equation of vorticity is very useful in understanding the mechanisms associated with compressible uid motions (in tensor notation): DXi Dt SikXk XiSkk eiqg 1 q p q2 xq xg eiqg xq 1 sgj . q xj (12)
It describes four dynamically signicant processes for the vorticity component Xi, namely that of stretching or compression and tilting by the strain Sik, vorticity generation through dilatation, baroclinic generation through the interaction of pressure and density gradients, and viscous effects expressed by the viscous stress term. The viscous term may also describe reconnection of vortex lines at very
317
small scales owing to viscosity. If the viscous term can be ignored because its magnitude, very often, is small, then the change of vorticity of a uid element in a Lagrangian frame of reference can be entirely attributed to vortex stretching and/or tilting, to dilatational effects, and to baroclinic torque. If Equation 12 is multiplied by Xi, then the transport equation for the enstrophy 1 2 Xi Xi can be obtained: D(1/2XiXi) Dt SikXkXi eiqg XiXiSkk Xi 1 sgj q xj eiqg 1 q p Xi 2 q xq xg eiqg 1 Xj sgj . q xq xj (13)
xq
The physical mechanisms associated with the time-dependent changes of enstrophy of a uid element in a Lagrangian frame are similar to those responsible for the generation or destruction of vorticity. Enstrophy is a very signicant quantity in uid dynamics because it is related not only to the solenoidal dissipation as was mentioned in Section 2, but also to the invariants of the strain-of-rate matrix Sij. In addition, enstrophy is a source term in the transport equation of dilatation Skk: D(Skk) Dt SikSki 1 XX 2 k k 1 q p q2 xk xk 1 2p q xk xk 1 skq . xk q xq (14)
This transport equation relates the change of dilatation along a particle path, which can be caused by the straining action of the dissipative motions (SikSik), as well as by the rotational energy of the spinning motions as it is expressed by the enstrophy 12XkXk. Pressure and density gradients, as well as viscous diffusion, can also affect dilatation. It should be noted that transport Equation 14 reduces to the well-known Poisson equation 1 2p q xk xk SikSki 1 XX, 2 k k 0). (15)
for incompressible ows of constant density (Skk
3.1 A Demonstration
The transport equations of vorticity and enstrophy can be used to gain further insight into the processes involved in the interactions of shock waves with turbulence, by looking at the instantaneous signals of the various quantities involved. To demonstrate how vorticity is being transmitted through shock waves, several experiments were carried out at City College of New York by Agui (1998), in which a subminiature multiwire probe was used to measure vorticity and other velocity gradients in an interaction of a grid-generated turbulence with a traveling normal shock. This probe, a modication of the probe used by Honkan & Andreopoulos (1997), is capable of measuring time-dependent velocity gradients with a
318
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
resolution of 1020 Kolmogorov viscous scales in these high-speed ows. Figure 3 shows signals of longitudinal velocity component U1, lateral velocity component U3, and longitudinal and lateral vorticity components X1 and X2, 1/qDq/Dt, dilatational dissipation Ed SkkSkk, respectively, dilatation Skk and solenoidal dissipation/enstrophy Es XiXi. Each signal has been normalized by its rms value upstream of the interaction so that signals with relatively large uctuations are reduced and signals with relatively small uctuations are enhanced. Thus all signals have been brought to about the same level. This normalization also helps to observe whether the signal is amplied after the interaction because the rms value of this portion of the signals is the gain G, which Qrms,d /Qrms,u, where is dened in terms of a representative variable Q as GQ the superscripts u and d denote upstream and downstream of the interactions, respectively. Each of the signals, with the exception of that of U1, has been displaced by multiples of 10 rms units to provide better visual aid. The shock wave location is evident on the longitudinal velocity signal, where its value drops substantially. An inspection of the level of uctuations, after the passage of the shock and the actual computation of their rms values, indicates that some signals are amplied and some are not. The longitudinal vorticity X1 and lateral velocity U3 signals are only slightly affected by the interaction. The computed data also show a 2 5% reduction in the rms values, which practically indicates that within the experimental uncertainty, no changes occur in the transmission of X1 and U3 through the shock, as is expected from the Rankine-Hugoniot relations. Longitudinal velocity uctuations and lateral vorticity uctuations X2 are substantially amplied through the interaction, with gains of 1.4. Fluctuations of dilatational dissipation SkkSkk and solenoidal dissipation also show gains of the order of 1.2. These two dissipation signals exhibit strong intermittent behaviors that are characterized by bursts of high-amplitude events. These, sometimes, reach values of up to 8 rms units after which less violent time periods occur. It should be mentioned that uctuations of dilatation Skk are very small in this experiment, only 10% of the uctuations of vorticity. These values are typical in ows with low uctuations of Mach number. Consequently, baroclinic vorticity generation is negligible because pressure uctuations are also small. Thus, the only source of vorticity change, in addition to viscous diffusion, is through the stretching or compression and tilting term SikXk. A closer look at the components of this vector indicates that the level of uctuations of the terms S11X1, S22X2, and S33X3, which are the terms indicating vortex stretching or compression, decreases by 30% on average. Clearly, compression by the shock wave reduces the level of vorticity uctuations associated with the so-called mechanism of vortex line compression on all vorticity components. However, tilting of vorticity components by the action of the shear Sik increases through the interaction by various amounts on each of the three vorticity components so as to compensate for the decit caused by the vortex line compression and to further increase in the case of the two components parallel to the shock front. Thus, the complete stretching term
319
Figure 3 Time-dependent signals in grid turbulence-shock interactions at Ms 1.2.
320
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
increases after the shock. It should be noted that the DNS of Lee et al (1992) agree with this nding.
4. SHOCK INTERACTIONS WITH HOMOGENEOUS AND ISOTROPIC TURBULENCE

The interaction of an isotropic and homogeneous turbulent ow with a strong axisymmetric disturbance, such as a normal shock, is the best paradigm case of a ow where the geometry is reasonably simplied and basic physics of such interactions can be investigated. Traditionally, this ow has been used as a test case where a turbulence model of the large eddy simulations or Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes class can be evaluated. The absence of turbulence production and the simplied ow geometry can expose the models strengths and weaknesses. Experimental realization of a homogeneous and isotropic ow interacting with a normal shock in the laboratory is a formidable task. There are two major difculties associated with this: setting up a compressible and isotropic turbulent ow is the rst one, and the generation of a normal shock interacting with ow is the second. These two problems may not be independent from each other. As a result of these difculties, two different categories of experiments have been performed. The experimental arrangement in shock tubes offers the possibility of unsteady shock interactions with isotropic turbulence of various length scales and intensity. This category includes the experiments of Hesselink & Sturtevant (1988), Keller & Merzkirch (1990), and Honkan & Andreopoulos (1992). In the last experiments the induced ow behind the incident shock wave passes through a turbulence-generating grid and then interacts with the shock reected off the end wall. A unique facility has been developed at City College of New York in which the ow Mach number can, to a certain extent, be controlled independently from the shock wave strength. This has been achieved by replacing the end wall of the shock tube with a porous wall of variable porosity. The large size of this facility allows measurements of turbulence with high spatial and temporal resolution (see Briassulis & Andreopoulos 1996; G Briassulis, JH Agui and J Andreopoulos, submitted for publication; Agui 1998). Thus, even shock interactions with incompressible ows can be generated. Conguring a homogeneous and isotropic turbulence interacting with a normal shock in a supersonic wind tunnel appears to be more difcult than in a shock tube. A turbulence-generating grid or other device is usually placed in the ow upstream of the converging-diverging nozzle. The ow then interacts with a stationary shock produced by a suitable shock generator located farther downstream in the working section. The problem with such congurations is that the ow anisotropy is substantially increased through the nozzle.
321
Although DNS of homogeneous and isotropic turbulence interacting with the shock waves are restricted to low Reynolds numbers, they have been very useful in providing physical insights of the mechanisms involved. These computations can provide results that sometimes are very difcult to obtain experimentally, or they can be used as diagnostic tools. Lee et al (1992), for instance, computed results containing pressure uctuations inside the ow or entropy uctuations through shocks, which currently seem impossible to obtain experimentally because of lack of appropriate experimental techniques for measuring these quantities. There are three different experiments of homogeneous isotropic turbulence interactions with shocks all carried out in supersonic wind tunnel arrangements in France. Debieve & Lacharme (1985) carried out an oblique shock interaction with turbulence generated inside the plenum chamber and developed in a ow with a Mach number of 2.3. A threefold amplication of turbulence was measured close to the shock, which was attributed to shock oscillations and distortions caused by the incoming turbulence. Farther downstream, a residual gain of turbulence uctuations of 1.25 was measured. In the work of Blin (1993), described by Jacquin et al (1993), the grid used to generate turbulence was also acting as a sonic throat to accelerate the ow to Mach number 1.4. The position of the shock was controlled by a second throat downstream and by the suction of the wall boundary layer. The tabulated data provided by O Leuchter (private communication, 1997) indicated a considerable deceleration of the incoming ow before the shock. The longitudinal mean velocity from 469 m/s at x 0.03 m becomes 380 m/s at x 0.32 m. This deceleration is most probably caused by Mach waves present in the ow or by pressure waves, as they are called by Jacquin et al, which emanate from the grid. As a result, the turbulence level of the incoming ow may be higher than it ought to be because it is known that supersonic ow deceleration through gradual compression is associated with turbulence augmentation. This may also explain the lack of turbulence amplication through the shock found in this work. Jacquin et al, however, attribute this to the role of pressure uctuations in the energy exchange between kinetic energy and potential energy in pressure uctuations. In addition, the use of laser Doppler anemometry to obtain the data may have contributed to this because it is known that laser Doppler anemometry in compressible ows overestimates turbulence intensities. The probe volume of the laser Doppler anemometry was 10 mm 5 mm, and it is considered rather large to resolve accurately the turbulence of the ow eld. In terms of Kolmogorov length scales, the probe volume appears to be 500 250. Thus, the existence of Mach waves inside the ow has contaminated the ow, and instrumentation problems may have biased the results, which did not show the expected amplication of turbulence after the interaction with the shock. A multinozzle turbulence generator was used in the Mach 3 experiments of Alem (1995) published by Barre et al (1996). A normal shock was formed by the interaction of two oblique shock waves of opposite directions. The ow after the
322
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
interaction is highly accelerated because of the two shear layers/slip lines in the boundaries of the useful ow region. The velocity is 200 m/s at x 10 mm after the shock and increases to 250 m/s at x 20 mm, which results in an acceleration of u/ x 5400 s 1. This level of acceleration is very strong and is expected to reduce turbulence intensities after the interaction. Thus, the amplication levels found in this work are probably contaminated by the additional effects of acceleration in the subsonic ow downstream of the interaction. Another weakness of this data set is that the level of turbulence intensity at the location of the shock is extremely low, 0.4%.
4.1 Turbulence Amplication Through the Interaction

Amplication of turbulence is one of the major features of shock-turbulence interactions. LIA predicts amplication of turbulence as long as uctuations of pressure, velocity, and temperature upstream of the shock are small so that the shock front is not substantially distorted and the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions can be linearized. In interactions in which strong distortions of the shock front are evident because of higher turbulence intensity, the use of LIA is fully justied. DNS data in interactions with weak shocks (Lee et al 1993, Hannappel & Friedrich 1995) and Euler simulations (Rotman 1991) also predict amplication of turbulence. Almost all experiments conrm qualitatively this analytical and computational result. The experiments of Jacquin et al (1993) report no signicant enhancement of turbulent kinetic energy. However, as was mentioned earlier, the deceleration in the ow upstream of the interaction because of the existence of Mach waves may have contributed toward overestimating the level of turbulence upstream of the interaction. In the recent experimental work of Zwart et al (1997), a clear increase in turbulent intensities is reported. These authors, in their study of the decay behavior of compressible gridgenerated turbulence, encountered shock waves in the range of ow Mach numbers of 0.7 M 1.0. They attributed the increased turbulent intensities in this regime to shock wave unsteadiness. Typically, the amplication of turbulent uctuations depends on the shock wave strength, the state of turbulence of the incoming ow before the interaction, and its level of compressibility. Figures 4 and 5 show the amplication of velocity and vorticity uctuations, respectively, as a function of the shock strength Ms. The experimental data have been obtained by Agui (1998). Two different grids were used in these experiments at two different Mach numbers each. The data shown in Figure 4 clearly suggest an amplication of longitudinal velocity uctuations, whereas the uctuations of the other two components are slightly decreased or remain unchanged through the interactions. The amplication data of vorticity, shown in Figure 5, indicate a substantial enhancement of vorticity uctuations in the direction parallel to the shock front with no amplication or small attenuation of longitudinal vorticity uctuations. The amplication data of the lateral component of vorticity uctuations shown in Figure 5 represent the
323
Figure 4 Amplication of velocity uctuations in grid turbulenceshock interactions. Experimental data of Agui (1998), LIA data of Lee et al (1993), RDT data of Jacquin et al (1993), and DNS data of Lee et al (1993).
average of the two components parallel to the shock front. The results of the LIA of Lee et al (1993) as well as their DNS data are also plotted in Figure 5. LIA shows that lateral vorticity uctuations increase with the shock strength after the interaction with the shock, and the experimental data tend to conrm this. The DNS data of Hannappel & Friedrich (1995) show that the amplication of the vorticity uctuations in the lateral direction increases with compressibility in the upstream ow, whereas the amplication of longitudinal velocity uctuations is reduced by the same effect. They also found that longitudinal vorticity uctuations are slightly reduced through the shock, as it has been found in the experiments of Agui (1998). If the damping effects of pressure are ignored, the RDT of Jacquin et al (1993) leads to the following simple relations for the amplications of longitudinal velocity and lateral vorticity uctuations: G u2 where C is the density ratio C C 2, G x2 1 3 2C 2 ,
qd /qu. The results of the RDT are also plotted
324
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
Figure 5 Amplication of vorticity uctuations in grid turbulenceshock interactions. Experimental data of Agui (1998), LIA data of Lee et al (1993), RDT data of Jacquin et al (1993), and DNS data of Lee et al (1993).
in Figures 4 and 5. The density ratio in the experiments by Agui (1998) was between 1.25 and 1.7. The early work of Honkan & Andreopoulos (1992) showed that amplication of urms, Gu, also depends on the turbulence intensity and length scale of the incoming isotropic turbulence. The work of Briassulis and Andreopoulos (1996a,b) and Agui (1998) also conrm this nding. The amplication of turbulent kinetic energy across shocks seems to decrease with increasing Mt. Both experimental data from the above-mentioned studies and the DNS data of Lee et al (1993) and Hannappel & Friedrich (1995) agree with this nding. Thus, the outcome of the shock turbulence interaction depends also on the compressibility level of the incoming ow. The effect of the shock strength on the velocity uctuations is shown in Figure 6, where the data of Briassulis (1996) are plotted. For the 1 1 (cells/in2) grid, it appears that the amplication of turbulence uctuations dened as Gu urms,d / urms,u increases with downstream distance for a given ow case and interaction. Thus, turbulence amplication depends on the evolution of the ow downstream. As the Mow increases, Gu also increases. For ner grids the effects of shock interaction are felt differently. For the 2 2 grid, for instance, the data show
325
Figure 6 Amplication of velocity uctuations in interactions of grid-generated turbulence with a normal shock. Experimental data of Briassulis (1996).
that, for a practically incompressible upstream ow interacting with a rather weak shock, amplication of turbulence occurs at x/M 35. The amplication is greater when Mow increases to 0.436. However, when compressibility effects in the upstream ow start to become important, no amplication takes place (Gu is 1). Some more dramatic effects of compressibility are illustrated in Figure 7, in 5. The which the amplication Gu is plotted for a ner grid with mesh size 5 interaction of a weak shock with a practically incompressible turbulent ow produces the highest amplication of velocity uctuations, with Gu reaching a value 0.576 a slight close to 2. As the Mow increases, Gu decreases, and at Mow attenuation occurs at downstream distances. It is, therefore, plausible to conclude that for high shock strength (high Mach number), compressibility effects control the velocity uctuations, which are generated by ne grids, and no amplication of turbulent kinetic energy is observed. Hannappel & Friedrich (1995) have also shown in their DNS work that compressibility effects in the upstream reduce turbulence amplication signicantly. The LIA of Ribner (1953), which was initially developed for an incompressible isotropic turbulent eld, predicts amplication of turbulence uctuations. Recently, Mahesh et al (1997) have shown that LIA as well as DNS may show a complete suppression of amplication of kinetic energy if the upstream correlation between velocity and temperature uctuations is positive. It is therefore pos-
326
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
Figure 7 Amplication or attenuation of velocity uctuations in grid-generated turbulence with a normal shock. Experimental data of Briassulis (1996).
sible that, for very ne grids and high Mach number ows in which the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy is high, entropy or pressure uctuations may be responsible for completely suppressing turbulence amplication. Briassulis (1996) found amplication of velocity uctuations after the interaction in all cases involving turbulence produced by coarse grids. This amplication increases with shock strength and ow Mach number. For ne grids, amplication was found in all interactions with low Mow, whereas at higher Mow, amplication was reduced, or no amplication of turbulence was evident. These results indicate that the outcome of the interaction depends strongly on the upstream turbulence of the ow.
4.2 Turbulence Length Scales Through the Interaction

As mentioned by Lele (1994), there is some disagreement between experimental results and DNS data as far as how the various length scales of turbulence are affected by the interaction with the shock wave. The DNS data of Lee et al (1993) and Hannappel & Friedrich (1995) indicate that all characteristic length scales, namely longitudinal- and lateral-velocity, integral-length scales, longitudinalvelocity microscales, and dissipation-length scales, as well as integral-length scales and microscales of density uctuations, decrease through shock interactions. The experimental data of Keller & Merzkirch (1990) show that the density microscale increases across the shock. Hannappel & Friedrich (1995) also show that the reduction in the Taylor microscale parallel to the shock front is weaker
327
by a factor of 2 when the compressibility level of the incoming turbulence is high. On the other hand, the dissipation length scale in the experiment of Honkan & Andreopoulos (1992) was also found to increase after the interaction. DNS results of Lee et al (1994) have indicated a small increase of dissipative-length scales through weak shock interactions. Thus, there is no agreement among various researchers on how shock interactions affect the length scales. Intuitively, one should expect that compression should reduce length scales. To resolve the disagreement between experiments and DNS, Briassulis (1996) carried out detailed space-time correlation measurements by using a rake of six parallel wires and three temperature wires separated by 1 mm. To estimate the length scales in the longitudinal n1 direction and normal n2, the cross correlation coefcients rij (nk) ui (x)uj (x nk)/ u2(x) u2(x nk) were evaluated by twoi j point measurement in the n2 direction and from autocorrelations in the n1 direction after invoking Taylors hypothesis. The data show that the integral length scale L11(n1) increases with downstream nondimensional distance x/M for all investigated cases in the ow before the 0.475 is higher than for interaction. It is also shown that L11 for Mow Mow 0.36. However, if the ow Mach number increases to Mow 0.6 and, therefore, stronger compressibility effects are present, then the integral-length scale drops. After the interaction with the shock wave, the distribution of L11(n1) is more complicated. All the scales are reduced considerably. However, the reduction of the larger scales is greater. This is shown in Figure 8, where the attenuation ratio GL11 L11,d (n1)/L11,u(n1) is plotted. At large x/M, where the initial scales were the largest, the reduction is dramatic. Thus, once again, it is found that amplication or attenuation is not the same for all initial length and velocity scales. It is interesting to observe that the stronger the shock strength, the greater the attenuation of the longitudinal-length scales. The two-point correlation r11(n2) in the lateral direction n2 of the longitudinalvelocity uctuations is shown in Figure 9. Not all the curves cross the zero line, and, therefore, it is very difcult to integrate them to obtain the classically dened length scale in the lateral direction. However, the slopes of these curves are indicative of their trend. It is rather obvious that the length scales before interaction are reduced with increasing ow Mach number. This behavior is very similar to that of L11(n1). After the interaction, however, the length scale L11(n2) increases in the rst two cases and decreases in the strongest interaction. To investigate the effect of initial conditions on this correlation at the highest ow and shock Mach number, where the lateral scales are shown to reduce (Figure 9), various grids were used. The data shown in Figure 10 indicate that the correlation increases substantially in the nest grid, 8 8 with the lowest Rek, after the interaction for the range of length scales investigated. However, the coarser 737 shows the greatest attenuation in the 2 2 grid with the highest Rek lateral integral scale of turbulence after the interaction.
328
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
Figure 8 Ratio of the longitudinal integral-length scales for various experiments in gridgenerated turbulence interactions with a normal shock. Experimental data of Briassulis (1996).
Figure 9 Spatial correlation in the lateral direction for three different ow cases in gridgenerated turbulence interactions with a normal shock. Experimental data of Briassulis (1996).
329
Figure 10 Spatial correlation in the lateral direction for three different downstream locations in grid-generated turbulence interactions with a normal shock. Experimental data of Briassulis (1996).
Thus, integral-length scales in the longitudinal direction were reduced after the interaction in all investigated ow cases. The corresponding length scales in the normal direction increased at low Mach numbers and decreased during stronger interactions. It appears that, in the weakest of the present interactions, the eddies are compressed in the longitudinal direction drastically, whereas their extent in the normal direction remains relatively the same. As the shock strength increases, the lateral length scale increases, whereas the longitudinal-length scale decreases. At the strongest interaction of the present cases, the eddies are compressed in both directions. However, even at the highest Mach number case, the issue is more complicated because amplication of the lateral scales has been observed in ne grids. Thus, the outcome of the interaction strongly depends on the initial conditions. The dissipative length scale was found to increase in several cases, and the disagreement with the DNS remains an issue, although it may be attributed to the difference in Rek. The Rek of the DNS was between 12 and 22, which is considerably lower than the values between 200 and 750 achieved in the experiments of Briassulis (1996) and may be the cause of this disagreement between experiments and DNS. The difference between experiments and DNS is also noticeable if the Reynolds number
330
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
ReT
(quiui)2 le
is considered. ReT in the experiments is 4000, whereas in DNS it is only 750. As a result, the timescale of turbulence uiui/e and its ratio to the timescale imposed by the shock 1/S11, uiuiS11/e, are quite different between DNS and experiments. The results of the experiments of Briassulis (1996) clearly show that most of the changes, either attenuation or amplication of quantities involved, occur for large x/M distances in which the length scales of the incoming ows are high and turbulence intensities are low. Thus, large eddies with low-velocity uctuations are affected the most by the interaction with the shock.
5. HOMOGENEOUS SHEARED TURBULENCE THROUGH SHOCKS

The only work available in this type of interactions is that of Mahesh et al (1997), who used RDT to demonstrate that the amplication of turbulent kinetic energy depends on anisotropy of the Reynolds stress tensor of the incoming ow and the ratio of shearing rate to that of compression. The dependence of turbulence amplication on the initially anisotropy is reduced with the obliqueness of the shock wave. A change in the sign of the initial shear stress has been observed for sufciently strong interactions. This type of idealized interaction has yet to be congured experimentally.
6. TURBULENT JET FLOWS AND SHOCK WAVE INTERACTIONS

Interactions of jets with shock waves are considerably more complex than the previously considered homogeneous ow interactions because inhomogeneity and anisotropy are additional parameters to consider, which may change the ow physics completely. The variable shear, for instance, in the shear layer emanating from the jet is an additional parameter that is responsible for the production of large amounts of turbulent kinetic energy before the interaction. One obvious question is how this shear is affected by the interaction with the shock wave. Jacquin & Geffroy (1997) have shown that this shear is decreased through the interaction. Parameters such as the convective Mach numbers Mc, the velocity ratio UJ / Ua, and density ratio qJ /qa have been considered in this type of interaction in addition to the shock strength, compressibility level, and velocity and length scale of the incoming turbulence. A schematic of the ow interaction and the parameters involved is shown in Figure 11. Baroclinic generation of vorticity may take place due to the nonalignment of the density and pressure gradients. Density
331
Figure 11 Schematic of the turbulent jetshock interaction.
gradients can be generated by heating the jet ow, as in the experiments of Jacquin & Geffroy (1997), or by using different gases, as in the case of Cetegen & Hermanson (1995), Hermanson & Cetegen (1998) or Hermening (1999). The pressure gradient across the shock interacts with the density gradient across the interface between the jet and the ambient uid to generate additional vorticity. Two types of congurations have been used in the past to study experimentally shock-jet interactions: steady interaction in supersonic wind tunnels and unsteady interaction with traveling shock waves in shock tube. Jacquin & Geffroy (1997) designed a facility with a jet ow exiting at the throat of a nozzle. The jet and the sonic coowing stream were further expanded to M 1.6. Density ratios from 0.33 to 1 were achieved through heating of the jet ows. The velocity ratio ranged from 0.58 to 1 and the convective Mach number was 0.42. Turbulence amplication was measured in the quasihomogeneous region of the jet, whereas turbulence kinetic energy was decreased in the mixing layer region of the ows. According to Jacquin and Geffroy, this is, most probably, caused by baroclinic vorticity effects resulting from a reduction in the near shear by a factor of 2.0. No substantial effects of jet temperature, that is, density ratio on amplication or reduction of turbulent kinetic energy, were identied in experiments. Their ow visualization indicated that the shock front is not distorted by the shock. Thus, baroclinic vorticity generation or destruction can take place in the absence of shock front deformations. Substantial shock front deformations, Mach reections, and additional shocks can be developed when an overexpanded jet interacts with a normal shock (see Jacquin et al 1991). Large amplication of turbulence has been found in this case.
332
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
Considerable generation of baroclinic vorticity is reported by Hermanson & Cetegen (1998) in their experiments on nonuniform-density jets interacting with traveling shock waves. Density ratios of 0.0595 (helium jet) through 1.31 (CO2 jet) were achieved in these shock tube experiments. Figure 12 shows an image of the ow containing a vortical structure produced behind the traveling shock wave for a helium jet interaction obtained at x/d 50 (from JC Hermanson & BM Cetegen, private communication, 1999). Planar Mie scattering of planar laser light was used to visualize the ow, which was seeded with mineral oil. The structure contains vorticity with a sign corresponding to that of jet-like vortices formed by jets with velocities considerably higher than the coowing uid velocity behind the traveling shock wave. The formation of this structure is attributed by Hermanson & Cetegen to baroclinic generation of vorticity. There is some apparent inconsistency between the experiments of Jacquin & Geffroy (1997), who found that baroclinic effects reduce vorticity after the interaction with the
Figure 12 Helium jetshock interaction in a shock tube (JC Hermanson & BM Cetegen, private communication, 1999).
333
shock, and the experiments of Hermanson & Cetegen (1998), who found that the same effects enhance vorticity after the interaction. This disagreement may be resolved if the baroclinic term of the vorticity transport Equation 12 BXi eiqg 1 q p q2 xq xg px 1 q
is considered. BXi reaches maxima or minima when the two gradients p and (1/q) are at 90 or 270 to each other. If only vorticity X3 is considered, then BX3 1 q2 q p x1 x2 q p x2 x1 1 q p . q2 x2 x1
The rst term can be neglected because pressure is expected to change very little in the normal direction owing to the thin shear layer approximation. In the experiments of Jacquin & Geffroy (1997), p/ x1 is positive across the shock and q/ x2 is positive in the upper half of the ow (see also Figure 11) and negative in the lower half of the ow. This shows that BX is negative in the upper half, where the initial vorticity X3 is positive, and positive in the lower half of the ow, where X3 is negative. Therefore, for stationary shocks such as in the experiments of Jacquin & Geffroy, baroclinic effects tend to suppress vorticity; that is, the baroclinic torque tends to bring the vorticity toward zero values. In the experiments by Hermanson & Cetegen, the shock wave travels in the same direction as the jet ow, and it introduces a negative pressure gradient p/ x1 into the ow (for a stationary observer traveling with the shock), and, because the density gradient is the same as in the previous case, all contributions from BX tend to enhance vorticity X3. In that respect, there is no disagreement between the two experiments. Hermanson & Cetegen found no such vortical structures in their experiments with air or CO2 jets. No distinct vortex structures were observed in the experiments by Hermening (1999), who used helium, air, and krypton gases to generate baroclinic vorticity of various signs because helium is lighter than air and krypton is heavier than air. Two jet congurations were used in these experiments. In the rst one, the jet uid owed in the same direction as the traveling shock wave. In the second conguration the shock traveled in the opposite direction to that of the jet ow. Figure 13 shows several images of the interaction of a shock wave moving in the same direction as the air jet ow obtained by Hermening. The images were obtained from different experiments with the same bulk ow parameters and with the shock wave located at different positions from the jet exit. The jet ow had a Mach number Mj 0.9, and the shock wave was traveling with a Mach number 1.33. Talcum powder with particles 1 lm in diameter was used to of Ms seed the ow, and a Nd:YAG laser was used to visualize the ow. The rst image (Figure 13a) shows the jet ow before the interaction. The jet ows downstream, while it spreads laterally and its velocity decreases. The complexity of the interaction is shown in Figure 13b and c. Figure 13b shows the ow during the inter-
334
Figure 13 (ac) Images of the interaction of a MS Hermening (1999). (d) Schematic of the interaction.
1.34 shock wave with a MJ
0.9 coowing jet. Flows from left to right. Images are from
335
action with the shock wave located at 5 diameters downstream of the jet exit; traveling from left to right. Figure 13c shows the ow considerably after passage of the shock, which is located outside the viewing area. There are three regions of interest in the ow during the interaction as shown in Figure 13b. The rst region is characterized by a stenosis of the jet cross section observed at a distance between 2 and 3 diameters downstream of the exit. This region is followed by a region closer to the exit, with a jet stream of apparently larger diameter than the previous one, and it is proceeded by a third region immediately behind the shock wave, where spreading of the ow can be observed. This structure of the jet can be explained if one considers the time-dependent motion of the shock from the time it is located at the jet exit until the time it has left the near-eld region. The shock wave is characterized by an induced ow with higher pressure and higher density behind it than ahead of it. This changes the velocity, pressure, and density of the ambient uid, which is now put into motion. Thus, the imposition of higher ambient pressure compresses the jet uid to a higher density, which reduces its cross section and causes the apparent stenosis. At the same time, the higher ambient pressure requires a reduction of the exit Mach number Mj because the pressure ratio of the ambient pressure to the jet stagnation pressure, pa /poJ, has increased. Thus, the jet velocity UJ is reduced because the stagnation pressure of the jet is maintained as constant by a plenum pressure controller. The new velocity of the jet is sightly lower than the new ambient velocity Ua, which results in no spreading of the jet into the ambient coowing uid and the formation of a wakelike vortex between the readjusted jet and the region with the stenosis, as shown in Figure 13c. The downstream region, however, exhibits a different behavior, which indicates no stenosis of the jet ow after the shock. Before the interaction with the shock, this region is characterized by a decaying mean velocity, high shear, and increased spreading of the jet, which results in the production of substantial levels of turbulence. It appears that, after the interaction, considerable mixing has taken place, and the turbulence most probably has increased. Figure 13d depicts a schematic illustration of the interaction of the jet ow with the shock wave, which includes all three regions of the ow discussed above. Images of the counterow conguration of a jet-shock interaction, obtained by Hermening (1999), are shown in Figures 14a and b. The air jet ows from right to left, whereas the shock travels in the opposite direction. The jet and shock Mach numbers are the same as in the previous conguration. The most striking feature of this interaction is the substantial level of spreading of the jet ow observed after the shock, which is accompanied by high levels of turbulence. Flow reversal is also expected at some distance from the jet exit. The experiments of Hermening (1999) with helium and krypton indicated some similar behavior. The initial spreading rate of the helium jet before the interaction was higher than that of the air jet. As a result, substantially more mixing was observed after the interaction with the shock than in the case of air. The spreading rate of the krypton jet, which was initially smaller than that of the
336
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
Figure 14 Airjet interaction with a traveling shock wave in a counterow conguration. Jet ows from right to left, while shock wave travels from left to right; MJ 0.9, MS 1.33. Images are from Hermening (1999).
air jet. The shock interaction in the coowing conguration increased the mixing compared with the initial jet. However, substantially more mixing was observed in the counterow conguration, which supports the notion explained above that baroclinic effects, in this case of a heavier-than-ambient jet, enhance the vorticity of the jet. In this case the interaction of the density and pressure gradients brings about additional vorticity into the ow, which enhances the mixing. The mixing enhancement shown in the experiments of a helium jet interacting with a traveling shock wave has been also veried by the calculations of Obata & Hermanson (1998), who used a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokesbased model to calculate the turbulent jet before the interaction and a TVD scheme to simulate the passage of the shock.
7. PLANE SHEAR LAYER INTERACTIONS WITH SHOCK WAVES

Interactions of plane shear layers with shock waves have been congured in supersonic wind tunnels where a boundary layer ow separates over a backwardfacing step formed by a cavity in the tunnel wall. A ramp, located at some distance downstream, is used to generate an oblique shock. This conguration has been used in the experiments by Settles et al (1982), Hayakawa et al (1984), and Samimy et al (1986). The separated shear layer develops over the cavity as a compressible shear ow under the inuence of a recirculating zone beneath it and subsequently undergoes compression by the shock system and then reattaches to the ramp. The phenomena appear complicated within the reattachment region, showing a great degree of unsteadiness, which is characterized by large uctuations of wall pressure and mass ux in the ow above. The location of the shock
337
wave is also time dependent, which further complicates our understanding. All measurements of turbulence reported in the papers mentioned above indicate substantial amplication of turbulence intensities that depend on the Mach number. It is not clear, however, how these results are affected by the shock oscillation and the unsteady phenomena associated with the reattachment region. Standard Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes methods also have been used to calculate the ow (see Horstman et al 1982, Visbal & Knight 1984) with moderate success in predicting the mean ow behavior. Turbulence is considerably overestimated in these calculations.
8. TURBULENT WAKESHOCK INTERACTIONS

This type of interaction is very often found inside compressors or turbines of turbomachinery, where a shock may be formed and very often may travel downstream. The shock can subsequently interact with wakes of individual blades of stators or rotors and alter their structure. As a result of this interaction, blade wakes carrying more turbulence impinge on the surface of blades of downstream stages and can cause additional fatigue of the blades. No previous experimental or analytical work could be identied on these types of interactions.
9. BOUNDARY LAYERSHOCK WAVE INTERACTIONS

The majority of the previous work in turbulenceshock interactions belongs in this category, and it mainly includes interactions of boundary layers with oblique shock waves. Usually, an oblique shock wave is generated either at the opposite wall to that of the boundary layer by a sharp edge or protrusion (see Rose & Johnson 1975) or on the same wall of the boundary-layer ow by a compression turning, which can be a sharp turning as for a compression corner or a gradual turning by a smooth change in curvature. In the rst conguration the incident shock emanating from the opposite side of the wall is also reected over the boundary-layer wall, and therefore the ow interacts with two oblique shocks. In the second conguration the ow after the interaction is further compressed by the new boundary imposed by the ramp slope, whereas concave curvature of the streamlines has a destabilizing effect on turbulence. Thus, turbulence can not only be affected by the shock interaction but also by the spatiotemporal oscillation of the shock system, the destabilizing effects of the concave streamline curvature, and the continuing downstream compression. All these effects contribute to an increasing level of turbulence. In addition, unsteady ow separation and ow reversal take place at the corner region, which at large turning angles can affect the shock system upstream through a feedback mechanism. One of the major characteristics of the turbulent boundary-layer interaction with an oblique shock over a compression ramp is the unsteady motion of the
338
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
shock system, which has been observed to occur over a signicant distance in the longitudinal and lateral directions. The shock system itself may at times consist of multiple shocks, a K shock, or a single shock. In addition, shocks are deformed by the interaction and therefore no longer remain planar. Figure 15 shows a sequence of two images obtained by a double-pulse planar laser scattering technique at the University of Texas at Austin by NT Clemens & DS Dolling
Figure 15 A hypersonic compression ramp interaction is visualized using planar laser scattering imaging of a condensed alcohol fog (NT Clemens & DS Dolling, private communication, 1999). The ramp angle is 28 and the eld of view is 75 mm in the streamwise direction by 36 mm in the transverse direction. The upstream boundary layer is turbulent, and the free stream Mach number and velocity are 4.95 and 765 m/s, respectively. These two images are of a double-pulse sequence with a time delay between pulses of 30 ls. In these images the free stream is rendered gray, boundary layer uid is darker gray, very low velocity uid is black (owing to evaporation of the particles), and the separation shock is the thin white interface, as labeled. Note that these images are somewhat difcult to interpret owing to the potential for evaporation and condensation of the alcohol seed. For reference, arrows point to the same structure in both images.
339
(private communication, 1999). The images are from an M 5 interaction over a 28 C compression ramp. They very clearly show a substantial deformation of the shock front, which changes signicantly from the rst to the second image as a result of the mutual interaction with the incoming turbulence. A turbulent structure going through the system is also visible. The outer part of the eddy seems to go through the shock without substantial changes. The shock itself, however, seems to have moved upward, although its extent toward the wall remains strong. The rst evidence of the grossly unsteady nature of the shock wave system came from measurements of the time-dependent pressure at the wall beneath the region of interaction. Kistler (1959) provided one of the rst measurements of pressure uctuations in a supersonic boundary layer approaching a forward-facing step. Coe (1969), Dolling & Murphy (1982), Dolling & Or (1983), and Muck et al (1985) measured the uctuating wall pressure in compression corners of different geometries. These studies, as well as the studies of Smits & Muck (1987), Muck et al (1988), and Selig et al (1989), clearly demonstrated that the instantaneous structure of the shock wave system is quite different from that of the time-averaged system. Two possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the shock system unsteadiness: the rst one is the turbulence of the incoming boundary layer (Plotkin 1975, Andreopoulos & Muck 1987), and the second is that the separated shear layer amplies the low frequencies of the contracting/ expanding bubble motion, which are felt upstream through the large subsonic region of the separated zone. The experimental work of Andreopoulos & Muck (1987) suggested that the frequency of the shock wave system unsteadiness may scale on the bursting frequency of the incoming boundary layer. This nding supports the notion that the incoming turbulence plays a dominant role in triggering the shock unsteadiness. Since this work, several other experiments have provided support for one or the other of the two proposed mechanisms. Erengil & Dolling (1991) found that some of the low-frequency oscillations of the shock are caused by the contraction and expansion cycle of the separated zone. Unalmis & Dolling (1994) also showed that the large-scale structures of the incoming boundary layer also contribute to low-frequency oscillations of the shock. The latest work of Beresh et al (1999) concludes that the small-scale motion of the shock results from the individual turbulent uctuations, whereas the large-scale motion is caused by the large-scale structures of the boundary layer. Thus, this evidence supports the notion that the small and large scales of the incoming boundary layer play a dominant role in the shock system unsteadiness. Spanwise variation of several time-averaged quantities, such as the intermittency factor or correlation coefcient, for instance, in the region of the interaction points to the supposition that Taylor-Gortler vortices formed by the concave streamline curvature may exist and contribute to increased complexity of the phenomena involved (see Ardonceau 1984).
340
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS
10. FINAL REMARKS

The information that is available now on the interaction of turbulence with shock waves appears to be limited. The phenomenology associated with the interactions is not very extensive, and the understanding of their physical attributes is not very thorough. Experiments or simulations for instance, of shock interactions with wake ows, do not exist, and experimental data in shock interactions with homogenous sheared turbulence are not available for comparison with existing DNS data. However, the understanding of the physics has been advanced in the last years owing to the synergy among theory, numerical simulations, and experiments. Despite this progress, a lot of questions remain unanswered, and more work is needed to illuminate the physics of the interactions. Ribners (1953) theory, for instance, which predicts turbulent amplication through shock waves, has, in principle, been veried by DNS and several experiments. There is new evidence, however, that suggests that under some conditions of the upstream compressible turbulence the interaction may not lead to increased uctuations of velocity. Thus, the nal word is not yet out. In addition, several of the questions posed in the introduction remain unanswered. The major impediment to understanding the physical aspects of the interactions is the difculty in simulating the interactions numerically or experimentally. For instance, it is very challenging to generate normal shock waves or homogenous ows inside wind tunnels. Similar difculties are attributed to DNS applied to ows with homogeneous or periodic boundary conditions and covering a relatively low range of Reynolds numbers. In addition, the lack of availability of proper experimental or numerical tools with adequate temporal and spatial resolution remains a severe limitation. The new generation of nonintrusive ow visualization and quantitative information techniques holds a lot of promise (see Miles & Lempert 1997) with the prospect of further increasing our physical understanding, although extensive development and verication of these techniques are still needed. This review of available information revealed that the interaction between a shock wave and turbulence is mutual and very complex: Turbulence is affected by the shock wave, and the shock wave is affected by the turbulence. Compressibility of the incoming ow and the characteristics of turbulence in the incoming ow, such as velocity and length scales, are some additional parameters that seem to affect the outcome of the interaction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The support from NASA Langley Research Center, NASA Lewis Research Center, National Science Foundation, U.S. Army TACOM/ARDEC, and Air Force Ofce of Scientic Research in carrying out some of the experiments described in this review and in writing up this article is greatly appreciated. The authors also thank J Hermanson and B Cetegen for providing the images of Figure 12
341
and N Clemens and D Dolling for providing the images of Figure 15. Useful comments provided by D Knight are also appreciated.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org.
LITERATURE CITED
Adamson TC, Messiter AF. 1980. Analysis of two dimensional interactions between shock waves and boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 12:10338 Agui JH. 1998. Shock wave interactions with turbulence and vortices. PhD thesis. City Univ. New York Alem D. 1995. Analyse experimentale dune turbulence homogene en ecoulement supersonoc soumise a un choc droit. These doc. Univ. de Poitiers, Poitiers, Fr. Andreopoulos J, Muck KC. 1987. Some new aspects of the shock-wave boundary layer interaction in compression ramp corner. J. Fluid Mech. 180:40528 Anyiwo JC, Bushnell DM. 1982. Turbulence amplication in shock-wave boundary layer interaction. AIAA J. 20:89399 Ardonceau PL. 1984. The structure of turbulence in a supersonic shock-wave/boundary layer interaction. AIAA J. 22:125462 Barre S, Allem D, Bonnet JP. 1996. Experimental study of normal shock/homogeneous turbulence interaction. AIAA J. 34:96874 Beresh SJ, Clemens NT, Dolling DS. 1999. The relationship between upstream turbulent boundary layer velocity uctuations and separation shock unsteadiness. AIAA Pap. 990295 Birch SF, Eggers JM. 1972. A critical review on the experimental data for developed free turbulent shear layers. NASA Spec. Publ. SP-321, pp. 1140. Washington, DC Blaisdell GA, Mansour NN, Reynolds WC. 1991. Numerical simulation of compressible homogeneous turbulence. Rep. TF-50, Thermosci. Div., Mech. Eng., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA Blin E. 1993. Etude experimentale de linteraction entre turbulence libre et une onde de choc. These doc. Univ. Paris, Paris Bradshaw P. 1974. The effect of mean compression or dilatation on the turbulence structure of supersonic boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 63:44964 Bradshaw P. 1977. Compressible turbulent shear layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 9:33 54 Bradshaw P. 1996. Turbulence in compressible owPhysics and modeling. Presented at 1st, Annu. Meet. Jpn. Soc. Fluid Mech., Tokyo Briassulis G, Honkan A, Andreopoulos J, Watkins BC. 1995, Applications of hot-wire anemometry in shock tube ows. Exp. Fluids 19:2937 Briassulis GK. 1996. Unsteady nonlinear interactions of turbulence with shock waves. PhD thesis. City Coll. City Univ. New York, NY Briassulis GK, Andreopoulos J. 1996. High resolution measurements of isotropic turbulence interacting with shock waves. Presented at AIAA, Aerospace Sci. Meet., 34th, Reno, NV, 96-0042 Buckingham AC. 1990, Interactive shock structure response to turbulence. AIAA Pap. 90-1642 Budwig R, Zwart PJ, Nguyen V, Bushnell DM, Johnson CB, et al. 1969. Comparison of prediction methods and studies of relaxation in hypersonic turbulent nozzlewall boundary layers. NASA Tech. Note D-5433 Budzinski JM, Zukoski EE, Marble FE. 1992. Rayleigh scattering measurements of shock enhanced mixing. AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE,
342
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS Dolling DS, Murphy M. 1982. Wall pressure uctuations in a supersonic separated compression ramp ow eld. AIAA and ASME. Joint Thermophys. Fluids, Plasma Heat Transfer Conf., 3rd, St Louis, MO, 82-0986 Dolling DS, Or CT. 1983. Unsteadiness of the shock wave structure in attached and separated compression ramp ow elds. Presented at Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astron., Fluid Plasma Dyn. Conf., 16th, Danners, MA, 831715 Dosanjh DS, Weeks TM. 1964. Interaction of a starting vortex as well as Karman vortex streets with traveling shock wave. Presented at Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astron., Annu. Meet., 1st, Washington, DC, 64-425 Durbin PA, Zeman O. 1992. Rapid distortion theory for homogeneous compressed turbulence with application to modeling. J. Fluid Mech. 242:34970 Dussauge JP, Gaviglio J. 1987. The rapid expansion of a supersonic turbulent ow: role of bulk dilatation. J. Fluid Mech. 174:81112 Elena M, Lacharme JP. 1988. Experimental study of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer using a laser Doppler anemometer. J. Mech. Theor. Appl. 7:17590 Erengil ME, Dolling DS. 1991. Correlation of separation shock motion with pressure uctuations in the incoming boundary layer. AIAA J. 29(11):186877 Goldstein ME. 1978. Unsteady vortical and entropic distortions of potential ows round arbitrary obstacles. J. Fluid. Mech. 89:433 68 Goldstein ME, Durbin PA. 1980. The effect of nite turbulence spatial scale on the amplication of turbulence by a contracting stream. J. Fluid Mech. 98:473508 Green JE. 1970. Interaction between shock waves and turbulent boundary layers. Prog. Aeronaut. Sci. 11:235340 Gutmark EJ, Schadow KC, Yu KH. 1995. Mixing enhancement in supersonic free shear ows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 27:375417 Hannappel R, Friedrich R. 1995. Direct numerical simulation of a Mach 2 shock interact-
Jt. Propulsion Conf., 28th, Nashville, TN, 92-3546 Cetegen BM, Hermanson JC. 1995. Mixing characteristics of compressible vortex rings interacting with normal shock waves. Combust. Flame 100:23240 Chang CT. 1957. Interaction of a plane shock and oblique plane disturbances with special reference to entropy waves. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 24:67582 Chen JH. 1993. The effect of compressibility on conserved scalar entrainment in a plane free shear layer. In Turbulent Shear Flows 8, ed. F Durst, R Friedrich, BE Launder, FW Schmidt, U Schumann, JH Whitelaw, pp. 297311. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Cheng RK, Ng TT. 1985. Conditional Reynolds stress in a strongly heated turbulent boundary layer with premixed combustion. Phys. Fluids 28:47388 Chu BT, Kovasznay LSG. 1958. Non-linear interactions in a viscous heat-conducting compressible ow. J. Fluid Mech. 3:494 514 Coe CF. 1969. Surface-pressure uctuations associated with aerodynamic noise. NASA Spec. Publ. SP 207. Washington, DC Coleman GN, Mansour NN. 1993. Simulation and modeling of homogeneous compressible turbulence under isotropic mean compression. In Turbulent Shear Flows 8, ed. F Durst, R Friedrich, BE Launder, FW Schmidt, U Schumann, JH Whitelaw, pp. 26982. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 8th ed. Coleman GN, Mansour NN. 1991. Modeling the rapid spherical compression of isotropic turbulence. Phys. Fluids A 3:225559 Debieve JF. 1986. Problemes de distorsion rapide en ecoulement compressible. Proc. Colloq. ONERA/DRET Ecoulements Turbulents Compressibles, Poitiers-Marseille Debieve JF, Lacharme JP. 1985. A shock wave free turbulence interactions. Presented at Int. Union Theor. Appl. Mech. Conf., Paris Dolling DS. 1993. Fluctuating loads in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction: tutorial and update. AIAA Pap. 93-0284
SHOCK-TURBULENCE INTERACTIONS ing with isotropic turbulence. Appl. Sci. Res. 54:20521 Hayakawa K, Smits AJ, Bogdonoff SM. 1984. Turbulence measurements in a compressible reattaching shear layer. AIAA J. 22:889 95 Hayes W. 1957. The vorticity jump across a gas dynamic discontinuity. J. Fluid Mech. 2:595600 Hermanson JC, Cetegen BM. 1998. Mixing enhancement of non-uniform density turbulent jets interacting with normal shock waves. Presented at Symp. Combust., Combust. Inst., 27th, Univ. Colo., Boulder Hermening K. 1999. Experimental investigation of shock wave interaction with jets. Diploma thesis. Tech. Univ. Berlin, Berlin, Ger. Hesselink L, Sturtevant B. 1988. Propagation of weak shocks through random medium. J. Fluid Mech. 196:51353 Honkan A, Andreopoulos J. 1992. Rapid compression of grid-generated turbulence by a moving shock wave. Phys. Fluids A 4:256272 Honkan A, Andreopoulos J. 1997. Vorticity strain-rate and dissipation characteristics in the near wall region of turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 350:2996 Honkan A, Watkins CB, Andreopoulos J. 1994. Experimental study of interactions of shock wave with free stream turbulence. J. Fluids Eng. 116:76369 Hortsman CC, Settles GS, Williams DR, Bogdonoff SM. 1982. A reattaching free shear layer in compressible turbulent ow. AIAA J. 20:7985 Hunt JCR. 1973. A theory of turbulent ow round two-dimensional bluff bodies. J. Fluid Mech. 61:62536 Hunt JCR. 1978. A review of the theory of rapidly distorted turbulent ow and its applications. Fluid Dyn. Trans. 9:12152 Hunt JCR, Carruthers DJ. 1990. Rapid distortion theory and the problems of turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 212:497532 Jacquin L, Blin E, Geffroy P. 1991. Experiments of free turbulence/shock wave inter-
343
action. Proc. Turbulent Shear Flows, 8, Tech. Univ., Munich, Ger. pp. 1-2-11-2-6 Jacquin L, Blin E, Geffroy P. 1993. An experimental study on free turbulence/shock wave interaction. In Turbulent Shear Flows 8, ed. F Durst, R Friedrich, BE Launder, FW Schmidt, U Schumann, JH Whitelaw, pp. 22948, Berlin: Springer-Verlag Jacquin L, Cambon C, Blin E. 1992. Turbulence amplication by a shock wave and rapid distortion theory. Phys. Fluids A 5:253950 Jacquin L, Geffroy P. 1997. Amplication and reduction of turbulence in a heated jet/ shock interaction. Journal L1217. Free Shear Flow Conf. Keller J, Merzkirch W. 1990. Interaction of a normal shock with a compressible turbulent ow. Exp. Fluids 8:24149 Kerrebrock JL. 1956. The interaction of ow discontinuities with small disturbances in a compressible uid. PhD thesis. Calif. Inst. Technol., Pasadena Kistler AL. 1959. Fluctuation measurements in a supersonic turbulent boundary layer. Phys. Fluids 2:29096 Kovasznay LSG. 1950. The hot-wire anemometer in supersonic ow. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 17:56584 Kovasznay LSG. 1953. Turbulence in supersonic ow. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 20:65774 Lee L, Lele SK, Moin P. 1993. Direct numerical simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 251:53362 Lee L, Lele SK, Moin P. 1994. Interaction of isotropic turbulence with a strong shock wave. AIAA Pap. 94-0311. Dept. Mech. Eng., Stanford Univ., CA Lee S, Moin P, Lele SK. 1992. Interaction of isotropic turbulence with a shock wave. Rep. TF-52. Dept. Mech. Eng., Stanford Univ., CA Lele SK. 1994. Compressibility effects on turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 26:21154 Mahesh KA, Lele SK, Moin P. 1997. The inuence of entropy uctuations on the inter-
344
ANDREOPOULOS
AGUI
BRIASSULIS Rose WC, Johnson DA. 1975. Turbulence in a shock-wave boundary-layer interaction. AIAA J. 13:88489 Rotman D. 1991. Shock wave effects on a turbulent ow. Phys. Fluids A 3:1792806 Samimy M, Addy AL. 1985. A study of compressible turbulent reattaching free shear layers. Presented at Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astron., Fluid Dyn. Plasmadyn. Laser Conf., 18th, Cincinnati, OH 85-1646 Samimy M, Petrie HL, Addy AL. 1986. A study of compressible turbulent reattaching free shear layers. AIAA J. 24:26167 Sekundov AN. 1974. Supersonic ow turbulence and interaction with a shock wave. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSR Mekh. Zhidk. Gaza, MarchApril, pp. 816 Selig MS, Andreopoulos J, Muck KC, Dussauge JP, Smits AJ. 1989. Turbulence structure in shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. AIAA J. 27:86269 Settles GS, Dodson LJ. 1991. Hypersonic shock/boundary layer interaction database. NASA Conf. Rep. CR 177577. Penn. State Univ., Univ. Park, PA Settles GS, Dolling DS. 1992. Swept shock wave boundary layer interaction. AIAA Prog. Ser. Vol. Tactical Missile Aerodyn. 141:50574 Settles GS, Fitzpatrick TJ, Bogdonoff SM. 1979. Detailed study of attached and separated compression corner ow elds in high Reynolds numbers supersonic ow. AIAA J. 17:57985 Settles GS, Williams DR, Baca BK, Bogdonoff SM. 1982. Reattachment of a compressible turbulent free shear layer. AIAA J. 20:60 67 Smits AJ, Dussuage JP. 1996. Turbulent Shear Layers in Supersonic Flow. New York: AIP Press. 358 pp. Smits AJ, Muck KC. 1987. Experimental study of three shock wave/boundary layer interactions. J. Fluid Mech. 182:291314 Spina EF, Smits AJ, Robinson SK. 1994. The physics of supersonic turbulent boundary layers. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 26:287 319
action of turbulence with a shock wave. J. Fluid Mech. 334:35379 McKenzie JF, Westphal KO. 1968. Interaction of linear waves with oblique shock waves. Phys. Fluids 11:235062 Miles RB, Lempert WR. 1997. Quantitative ow visualization in unseeded ows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 29:285326 Morkovin MV. 1960. Note on assessment of ow disturbances at a blunt body traveling at supersonic speeds owing to ow disturbances in free stream. J. Appl. Mech. 27:22329 Morkovin MV. 1962. Effects of compressibility on turbulent ows. In Mechanique de la Turbulence, ed. A Favre, pp. 36780. Paris: CNRS Morkovin MV. 1992. Mach number effects on free and wall turbulent structures in light of instability ow interactions. In Studies in Turbulence, ed. TB Gatski, S Sarkar, CG Speziale, pp. 26984. Berlin: SpringerVerlag Muck KC, Andreopoulos J, Dussuage JP. 1988. Unsteady nature of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction. AIAA J. 26:17997 Muck KC, Dussuage JP, Bogdonoff SM. 1985. Structure of the wall pressure uctuations in a shock-induced separated turbulent ow. AIAA Pap. 85-0179 Obata S, Hermanson JC. 1998. Shear layer mixing enhancement by shock passing. Presented at 36th Aircraft Symp., Jpn. Soc. Aeronaut. Space Sci., Yokosuka Plotkin KJ. 1975. Shock wave oscillation drive by turbulent boundary layer uctuations. AIAA J. 13:103640 Ribner HS. 1953. Convection of a pattern of vorticity through a shock wave. NACA Rep. 2864. Natl. Advis. Comm. Aeronaut., Cleveland, OH Ribner HS. 1969. Acoustic energy ux froze shock-turbulence interaction. J. Fluid Mech. 35:299310 Ribner HS. 1986. Spectra of noise and amplied turbulence emanating from shockturbulence interaction. AIAA J. 25:43642
SHOCK-TURBULENCE INTERACTIONS Trolier JW, Duffy RE. 1985. Turbulent measurements in shock-induced ows. Proc. Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astron., Fluid Dyn. Conf., 25th, Colorado Springs, CO 23:117278 Unalmis OH, Dolling DS. 1994. Decay of wall pressure eld and structure of a mach 5 adiabatic turbulent boundary layer. AIAA Pap. 94-2363 Visbal M, Knight D. 1984. The BaldwinLomax turbulence model for twodimensional shock-wave/boundary layer interactions. AIAA J. 22:92128
345
Zang TA, Hussaini MY, Bushnell DM. 1982. Numerical computations of turbulence amplication in shock wave interactions. AIAA Pap. 82-0293. Am. Inst. Aeronaut. Astron., Aerospace Sci. Meet., 20th, Orlando, FL Zeman O. 1990. Dilatation dissipation: the concept and application in modeling compressible mixing layers. Phys. Fluid A 2:17888 Zwart PJ, Budwig R, Tavoularis S. 1997. Grid turbulence in compressible ow. Exp. Fluids 23:52022
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Volume 32, 2000
CONTENTS
Scale-Invariance and Turbulence Models for Large-Eddy Simulation, Charles Meneveau, Joseph Katz Hydrodynamics of Fishlike Swimming, M. S. Triantafyllou, G. S. Triantafyllou, D. K. P. Yue Mixing and Segregation of Granular Materials, J. M. Ottino, D. V. Khakhar Fluid Mechanics in the Driven Cavity, P. N. Shankar, M. D. Deshpande
33
55 93 137 165 203 241 275 309 347
Active Control of Sound, N. Peake, D. G. Crighton Laboratory Studies of Orographic Effects in Rotating and Stratified Flows, Don L. Boyer, Peter A. Davies Passive Scalars in Turbulent Flows, Z. Warhaft Capillary Effects on Surface Waves, Marc Perlin, William W. Schultz Liquid Jet Instability and Atomization in a Coaxial Gas Stream, J. C. Lasheras, E. J. Hopfinger Shock Wave and Turbulence Interactions, Yiannis Andreopoulos, Juan H. Agui, George Briassulis Flows in Stenotic Vessels, S. A. Berger, L-D. Jou Homogeneous Dynamos in Planetary Cores and in the Laboratory, F. H. Busse Magnetohydrodynamics in Rapidly Rotating spherical Systems, Keke Zhang, Gerald Schubert Sonoluminescence: How Bubbles Turn Sound into Light, S. J. Putterman, K. R. Weninger The Dynamics of Lava Flows, R. W. Griffiths Turbulence in Plant Canopies, John Finnigan Vapor Explosions, Georges Berthoud Fluid Motions in the Presence of Strong Stable Stratification, James J. Riley, Marie-Pascale Lelong The Motion of High-Reynolds-Number Bubbles in Inhomogeneous Flows, J. Magnaudet, I. Eames Recent Developments in Rayleigh-Benard Convection, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Werner Pesch, Guenter Ahlers Flows Induced by Temperature Fields in a Rarefied Gas and their Ghost Effect on the Behavior of a Gas in the Continuum Limit, Yoshio Sone
383 409 445 477 519 573
613
659
709
779

Annurev Shock Turb

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Annurev Shock Turb

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Copyright

SHOCK WAVETURBULENCE INTERACTIONS

Figure 2 Schematic of the incident shear wave crossing the shock.

2.1 Dissipation Rate of Kinetic Energy

Equation 4 can be manipulated to yield 1 D UiUi 2 Dt

3. VORTICITY TRANSFER THROUGH SHOCK WAVES

for incompressible ows of constant density (Skk

4. SHOCK INTERACTIONS WITH HOMOGENEOUS AND ISOTROPIC TURBULENCE

4.1 Turbulence Amplication Through the Interaction

qd /qu. The results of the RDT are also plotted

4.2 Turbulence Length Scales Through the Interaction

5. HOMOGENEOUS SHEARED TURBULENCE THROUGH SHOCKS

6. TURBULENT JET FLOWS AND SHOCK WAVE INTERACTIONS

Figure 11 Schematic of the turbulent jetshock interaction.

1.34 shock wave with a MJ

7. PLANE SHEAR LAYER INTERACTIONS WITH SHOCK WAVES

8. TURBULENT WAKESHOCK INTERACTIONS

9. BOUNDARY LAYERSHOCK WAVE INTERACTIONS

10. FINAL REMARKS

Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Volume 32, 2000

55 93 137 165 203 241 275 309 347

383 409 445 477 519 573

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen