Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T20:29:34.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Domains and boundaries of non-stationary oblique shock-wave reflexions. 2. Monatomic gas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2006

G. Ben-Dor  and
I. I. Glass
G. Ben-Dor
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T6
I. I. Glass
Affiliation:
Institute for Aerospace Studies, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interferometric data were obtained in the 10 cm × 18 cm hypervelocity shock tube of oblique shock-wave reflexions in argon at initial temperatures and pressures of nearly 300 °K and 15 Torr. The shock Mach-number range covered was 2 ⩽ Ms ⩽ 8 over a series of wedge angles 2° ⩽ θw ⩽ 60°. Dual-wavelength laser interferograms were obtained by using a 23 cm diameter field of view Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In addition to our numerous results, the available data for argon and helium obtained over the last two decades were also utilized. It is shown analytically and experimentally that in non-stationary flows six domains exist in the (Ms, θw) plane where regular reflexion (RR), single-Mach reflexion (SMR), complex-Mach reflexion (CMR) and double-Mach reflexion (DMR) can occur. The transition boundaries between these regions were all established analytically. The experimental results from different sources substantiate the present analysis, and areas of disagreement which existed in the literature are now clarified and resolved. It is shown that real-gas effects have a significant influence on the size of the regions and their boundaries. In addition, isopycnics (constant density lines) are given for the four types of reflexion, as well as the density distribution along the wedge surface. This data should provide a solid base for computational fluid dynamicists in comparing numerical techniques with actual experimental results.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 96 , Issue 4 , 27 February 1980 , pp. 735 - 756
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Present address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Neger, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

References

Auld, D. J. & Bird, G. A. 1976 A.I.A.A. Paper no. 76–322.Google Scholar
Bazhenova, T. V., Fokeev, V. P. & Govzdeva, L. G. 1976 Acta Astronautica 3, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Dor, G. 1978a UTIAS Rep. no. 232.Google Scholar
Ben-Doe, G. 1978b UTIAS Rep. no. 237.Google Scholar
Ben-Dob, G. & Glass, I. I. 1978 A.I.A.A. J. 16, 1146–1153.Google Scholar
Ben-Dob, G. & Glass, I. I. 1979 J. Fluid Mech. 92, 459–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Dob, G., Whitten, B. T. & Glass, I. I. 1979 Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 1 (2), 77–91.10.1016/0142-727X(79)90014-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleakney, W. & Taub, A. H. 1949 Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 584–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, C. H. 1951 Dept. Phys., Princeton Univ. Tech. Rep. II-4.Google Scholar
Glass, I. I. & Liu, W. S. 1978 J. Fluid Mech. 84, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gvozdeva, L. G., Bazhenova, T. V., Predvoditeleva, O. A. & Fokeev, V. P. 1969 Astronautica Acta 14, 503–508.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. F. 1964 Aero. Quart. 15, 181–197.10.1017/S0001925900003115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, L. F. & Lozzi, A. 1975 J. Fluid Mech. 68, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornung, H. G., Oertel, H., Jr. & Sandeman, R. J. 1979 J. Fluid Mech. 90, 541–560.10.1017/S002211207900238XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. A., Martin, P. M. & Thornhill, C. K. 1951 Proc. Roy. Soc. A 205, 238–248.Google Scholar
Kawamura, R. & Saito, H. 1956 J. Phys. Soc. Japan 11, 584–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, C. K. 1970 UTIAS Tech. Note no. 150.Google Scholar
Law, C. K. & Glass, I. I. 1971 CASI Trans. 4, 2–12.Google Scholar
Liu, W. S., Whitten, B. T. & Glass, I. I. 1979 J. Fluid Mech. 87, 609–640.10.1017/S0022112078001792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mach, E 1878 Akad. Wiss. Wien 77, II, 1228.Google Scholar
Molder, S. 1960 UTIAS Tech. Note no. 38.Google Scholar
Molder, S. 1979 CASI Trans. 25, 45–49.Google Scholar
Neumann, J. von 1943 Dept. Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, Re. 2c, Washington, D.C. Explosive Res. Rep. no. 12.Google Scholar
Neumann, J. von 1945 Dept. Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, Washington, D.C. NAVORD Rep. no. 203–45.Google Scholar
Seeger, R. J. & Polacheck, H. 1943 Dept. Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, Re. 2c, Washington, D.C. Explosive Res. Rep. no. 13.Google Scholar
Smith, L. G. 1945 Office Scientific Res. & Development, Washington, D.C. Rep. no. 4943.Google Scholar
Taub, A. H. 1947 Phys. Rev. 72, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D. R. 1951 Dept. Phys., Princeton Univ. Tech. Rep. no. II-10.Google Scholar
White, D. R. 1952 Proc. 2nd Midwestern Conf. Fluid Mech.Google Scholar