Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-wr9vw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-20T09:35:02.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manipulation of single-mode perturbation growth driven by co-directional rarefaction and shock waves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2025

Zhigang Zhai Open the ORCID record for Zhigang Zhai [Opens in a new window] ,
Xing Gao ,
Yue Li ,
Xu Guo Open the ORCID record for Xu Guo [Opens in a new window]  and
Xisheng Luo Open the ORCID record for Xisheng Luo [Opens in a new window]
Zhigang Zhai
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Xing Gao
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Yue Li
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Xu Guo*
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China
Xisheng Luo
Affiliation:
Advanced Propulsion Laboratory, Department of Modern Mechanics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230026, PR China State Key Laboratory of High Temperature Gas Dynamics, Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, PR China
*
Corresponding author: Xu Guo, clguoxu@ustc.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rayleigh–Taylor (RT) stability occurs when a single-mode light/heavy interface is accelerated by rarefaction waves, exhibiting a sustained oscillation in perturbation amplitude. If the perturbation is accelerated again by a shock propagating in the same direction as the rarefaction waves, the interface evolution will shift from RT stability to Richtmyer–Meshkov (RM) instability. Depending upon the interface state when the shock arrives, the perturbation growth can be actively manipulated through controlling the magnitudes of vorticity deposited by rarefaction and shock waves. The present work first theoretically analyses the 12 different growth possibilities of a light/heavy interface accelerated by co-directional rarefaction and shock waves. A theoretical model is established by combining the RT growth rate with the RM growth rate, providing the conditions for the different possibilities of the perturbation growth. Based on the model, extensive experiments are designed and conducted in the specially designed rarefaction-shock tube. By precisely controlling the shock arrival time at the interface, the different growth possibilities, including promotion, reduction and freeze-out, are realised in experiments. This work verifies the feasibility of manipulating the light/heavy perturbation via co-directional rarefaction and shock waves, which sheds light on control of hydrodynamic instabilities in practical applications.

JFM classification

Compressible Flows: Shock waves

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 1015 , 25 July 2025 , A36
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aglitskiy, Y., et al. 2010 Basic hydrodynamics of Richtmyer–Meshkov-type growth and oscillations in the inertial confinement fusion-relevant conditions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 368 (1916), 1739–1768.10.1098/rsta.2009.0131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouillette, M. 2002 The Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34 (1), 445–468.10.1146/annurev.fluid.34.090101.162238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charakhch’yan, A.A. 2000 Richtmyer–Meshkov instability of an interface between two media due to passage of two successive shocks. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 41 (1), 23–31.10.1007/BF02465232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C., Wang, H., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. 2023 a Attenuation of perturbation growth of single-mode SF $_6$ –air interface through reflected rarefaction waves. J. Fluid Mech. 969, R1.10.1017/jfm.2023.578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C., Xing, Y., Wang, H., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. 2023 b Freeze-out of perturbation growth of single-mode helium–air interface through reflected shock in Richtmyer–Meshkov flows. J. Fluid Mech. 956, R2.10.1017/jfm.2023.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimonte, G. & Ramaprabhu, P. 2010 Simulations and model of the nonlinear Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Fluids 22 (1), 014104.10.1063/1.3276269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, J., Si, T., Chen, M., Zhai, Z., Lu, X. & Luo, X. 2017 On the interaction of a planar shock with a three-dimensional light gas cylinder. J. Fluid Mech. 828, 289–317.10.1017/jfm.2017.528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, R.E., Harlow, F.H. & Hirt, C.W. 1962 Effects of diffusion on interface instability between gases. Phys. Fluids 5 (4), 417–425.10.1063/1.1706634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. & Jacobs, J.W. 2024 The influence of the shock-to-reshock time on the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability in reshock. J. Fluid Mech. 999, A68.10.1017/jfm.2024.795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, X., Guo, X., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. 2024 Interfacial instabilities driven by co-directional rarefaction and shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 980, A20.10.1017/jfm.2024.24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, X., Si, T., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. 2022 Large-amplitude effects on interface perturbation growth in Richtmyer–Meshkov flows with reshock. Phys. Fluids 34 (8), 082118.10.1063/5.0105926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z. & Yin, X. 1993 Shock Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers and Science Press.10.1007/978-94-017-2995-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurricane, O.A., Patel, P.K., Betti, R., Froula, D.H., Regan, S.P., Slutz, S.A., Gomez, M.R. & Sweeney, M.A. 2023 Physics principles of inertial confinement fusion and U.S. program overview. Rev. Mod. Phys. 95 (2), 025005.10.1103/RevModPhys.95.025005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeLevier, R.E., Lasher, G.J. & Bjorklund, F.R. 1955 Effect of a density gradient on Taylor instability. Report (UCRL-4459). University of California Radiation Laboratory.Google Scholar
Li, C., Kailasanath, K. & Book, D.L. 1991 Mixing enhancement by expansion waves in supersonic flows of different densities. Phys. Fluids A 3 (5), 1369–1373.10.1063/1.858066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J., Cao, Q., Wang, H., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. 2023 New interface formation method for shock-interface interaction studies. Exp. Fluids 64 (11), 170.10.1007/s00348-023-03710-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Y. & Luo, X. 2023 Review on hydrodynamic instabilities of a shocked gas layer. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 (10), 104701.10.1007/s11433-023-2162-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, E.C., 2023 Same-sided successive-shock HED instability experiments. Phys. Plasmas 30 (7), 072108.10.1063/5.0148228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meshkov, E.E. 1969 Instability of the interface of two gases accelerated by a shock wave. Fluid Dyn. 4 (5), 101–104.10.1007/BF01015969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikaelian, K.O. 1985 Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities in stratified fluids. Phys. Rev. A 31 (1), 410–419.10.1103/PhysRevA.31.410CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikaelian, K.O. 2009 a Nonlinear hydrodynamic interface instabilities driven by time-dependent accelerations. Phys. Rev. E 79 (6), 065303.10.1103/PhysRevE.79.065303CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikaelian, K.O. 2009 b Reshocks, rarefactions, and the generalized Layzer model for hydrodynamic instabilities. Phys. Fluids 21 (2), 024103.10.1063/1.3073746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikaelian, K.O. 2010 Analytic approach to nonlinear hydrodynamic instabilities driven by time-dependent accelerations. Phys. Rev. E 81 (1), 016325.10.1103/PhysRevE.81.016325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mirels, H. 1956 Boundary layer behind shock or thin expansion wave moving into stationary fluid. Tech. Rep. TN 3712. NACA.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D.S., et al. 2018 Design considerations for indirectly driven double shell capsules. Phys. Plasmas 25 (9), 092706.10.1063/1.5042478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R.V., Cabot, W.H., Greenough, J.A. & Jacobs, J.W. 2018 Rarefaction-driven Rayleigh–Taylor instability. Part 2. Experiments and simulations in the nonlinear regime. J. Fluid Mech. 838, 320–355.10.1017/jfm.2017.893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, R.V., Likhachev, O.A. & Jacobs, J.W. 2016 Rarefaction-driven Rayleigh–Taylor instability. Part 1. Diffuse-interface linear stability measurements and theory. J. Fluid Mech. 791, 34–60.10.1017/jfm.2016.46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qiao, X. & Lan, K. 2021 Novel target designs to mitigate hydrodynamic instabilities growth in inertial confinement fusion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (18), 185001.10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.185001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayleigh, L. 1883 Investigation of the character of the equilibrium of an incompressible heavy fluid of variable density. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 14, 170–177.Google Scholar
Richtmyer, R.D. 1960 Taylor instability in shock acceleration of compressible fluids. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths 13 (2), 297–319.10.1002/cpa.3160130207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rikanati, A., Oron, D., Sadot, O. & Shvarts, D. 2003 High initial amplitude and high Mach number effects on the evolution of the single-mode Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. E 67 (2), 026307.10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schill, W.J., et al. 2024 Suppression of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability via special pairs of shocks and phase transitions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2), 024001.10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.024001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, G.I. 1950 The instability of liquid surfaces when accelerated in a direction perpendicular to their planes. I. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 201 (1065), 192–196.Google Scholar
Urzay, J. 2018 Supersonic combustion in air-breathing propulsion systems for hypersonic flight. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 50 (1), 593–627.10.1146/annurev-fluid-122316-045217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenboomgaerde, M., Mugler, C. & Gauthier, S. 1998 Impulsive model for the Richtmyer–Meshkov instability. Phys. Rev. E 58, 1874–1882.10.1103/PhysRevE.58.1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, H., Cao, Q., Chen, C., Zhai, Z. & Luo, X. 2022 Experimental study on a light–heavy interface evolution induced by two successive shock waves. J. Fluid Mech. 953, A15.10.1017/jfm.2022.945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Q., Chang, J. & Bao, W. 2014 Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced mixing enhancement in the scramjet combustor with a central strut. Adv. Mech. Engng 6, 614189.10.1155/2014/614189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, Z., Chen, C., Xing, Y., Li, J., Cao, Q., Wang, H. & Luo, X. 2025 Manipulation of Richtmyer–Meshkov instability on a heavy–light interface via successive shocks. J. Fluid Mech. 1003, A9.10.1017/jfm.2024.1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y. 2017 a Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. I. Phys. Rep. 720–722, 1–136.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y. 2017 b Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instability induced flow, turbulence, and mixing. II. Phys. Rep. 723–725, 1–160.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y., Clark, T.T., Clark, D.S., Glendinning, S.G., Skinner, M.A., Huntington, C.M., Hurricane, O.A., Dimits, A.M. & Remington, B.A. 2019 Turbulent mixing and transition criteria of flows induced by hydrodynamic instabilities. Phys. Plasmas 26 (8), 080901.10.1063/1.5088745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y., Sadler, J.D. & Hurricane, O.A. 2025 Instabilities and mixing in inertial confinement fusion. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 57 (1), 197–225.10.1146/annurev-fluid-022824-110008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, Y., et al. 2021 Rayleigh–Taylor and Richtmyer–Meshkov instabilities: a journey through scales. Physica D 423, 132838.10.1016/j.physd.2020.132838CrossRefGoogle Scholar