Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T21:40:39.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topology-based characterization of compressibility effects in mixing layers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2019

S. Arun Open the ORCID record for S. Arun [Opens in a new window] ,
A. Sameen Open the ORCID record for A. Sameen [Opens in a new window] ,
B. Srinivasan  and
S. S. Girimaji
S. Arun
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600036, India
A. Sameen*
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600036, India
B. Srinivasan
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600036, India
S. S. Girimaji
Affiliation:
Department of Ocean Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: sameen@ae.iitm.ac.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Direct numerical simulations of high-speed mixing layers are used to characterize the effects of compressibility on the basis of local streamline topology and vortical structure. Temporal simulations of the mixing layers are performed using a finite volume gas-kinetic scheme for convective Mach numbers ranging from $M_{c}=0.2$ to $M_{c}=1.2$. The focus of the study is on the transient development and the main objectives are to (i) investigate and characterize the turbulence suppression mechanism conditioned upon local streamline topology; and (ii) examine changes in the vortex vector field – distribution, magnitude and orientation – as a function of Mach number. We first reaffirm that kinetic energy suppression with increasing Mach number is due to a decrease in pressure–strain redistribution. Then, we examine the suppression mechanism conditioned upon topology and vortex structure. Conditional statistics indicate that (i) at a given Mach number, shear-dominated topologies generally exhibit more effective pressure–strain redistribution than vortical topologies; and (ii) for a given topology, the level of pressure–strain correlation mostly decreases with increasing Mach number. At each topology, with increasing Mach number, there is a corresponding decrease in turbulent shear stress and production leading to reduced kinetic energy. Further, as $M_{c}$ increases, the proportion of vortex-dominated regions in the flow increases, leading to further reduction in the turbulent kinetic energy of the flow. Then, the orientation of vortical structures and direction of fluid rotation are examined using the vortex vector approach of Tian et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 849, 2018, pp. 312–339). At higher $M_{c}$, the vortex vectors tend to be more aligned in the streamwise direction in contrast to low $M_{c}$ wherein larger angles with streamwise direction are preferred. The connection between vortex orientation and kinetic energy production is also investigated. The findings lead to improved insight into turbulence suppression dynamics in high Mach number turbulent flows.

JFM classification

Turbulent Flows: Compressible turbulence Turbulent Flows: Shear layer turbulence
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 874 , 10 September 2019 , pp. 38 - 75
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2019 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.)

References

Barone, M. F., Oberkampf, W. L. & Blottner, F. G. 2006 Validation case study: prediction of compressible turbulent mixing layer growth rate. AIAA J. 44 (7), 1488–1497.Google Scholar
Birch, S. F. & Eggers, J. M. 1972 A critical review of experimental data for developed free turbulent shear flows. In Free Turbulent Shear Flows, vol. I, pp. 11–40. NASA SP-321.Google Scholar
Bertsch, R. L., Suman, S. & Girimaji, S. S. 2012 Rapid distortion analysis of high Mach number homogeneous shear flows: characterization of flow-thermodynamics interaction regimes. Phys. Fluids 24 (12), 125106.Google Scholar
Chong, M. S., Perry, A. E. & Cantwell, B. J. 1990 A general classification of three-dimensional flow fields. Phys. Fluids A 2 (5), 765–777.Google Scholar
Epps, B. 2017 Review of vortex identification methods. In AIAA SciTech Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
Foysi, H. & Sarkar, S. 2010 The compressible mixing layer: An LES study. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 24 (6), 565–588.Google Scholar
Freund, J. B., Lele, S. K. & Moin, P. 2000 Compressibility effects in a turbulent annular mixing layer. Part 1. Turbulence and growth rate. J. Fluid Mech. 421, 229–267.Google Scholar
Fu, S. & Li, Q. 2006 Numerical simulation of compressible mixing layers. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 27 (5), 895–901.Google Scholar
Gatski, T. & Bonnet, J. P. 2013 Compressibility, Turbulence and High Speed Flow. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hadjadj, A., Yee, H. C. & Sjögreen, B. 2012 LES of temporally evolving mixing layers by an eighth-order filter scheme. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 70 (11), 1405–1427.Google Scholar
Hunt, J. C. R., Wray, A. A. & Moin, P. 1988 Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. In Proceedings of the Center for Turbulence Research Summer Program CTR-S88. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jahanbakhshi, R. & Madnia, C. K. 2016 Entrainment in a compressible turbulent shear layer. J. Fluid Mech. 797, 564–603.Google Scholar
Jahanbakhshi, R., Vaghefi, N. S. & Madnia, C. K. 2015 Baroclinic vorticity generation near the turbulent/non-turbulent interface in a compressible shear layer. Phys. Fluids 27 (10), 105105.Google Scholar
Jeong, J. & Hussain, F. 1995 On the identification of a vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 285, 69–94.Google Scholar
Karimi, M. & Girimaji, S. S. 2016 Suppression mechanism of Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in compressible fluid flows. Phys. Rev. E 93, 041102.Google Scholar
Karimi, M. & Girimaji, S. S. 2017 Influence of orientation on the evolution of small perturbations in compressible shear layers with inflection points. Phys. Rev. E 95, 033112.Google Scholar
Kolár, V. 2009 Compressibility effect in vortex identification. AIAA J. 47 (2), 473–475.Google Scholar
Kumar, G., Girimaji, S. S. & Kerimo, J. 2013 WENO-enhanced gas-kinetic scheme for direct simulations of compressible transition and turbulence. J. Comput. Phys. 234, 499–523.Google Scholar
Lavin, T. A., Girimaji, S. S., Suman, S. & Yu, H. 2012 Flow-thermodynamics interactions in rapidly-sheared compressible turbulence. J. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 26 (6), 501–522.Google Scholar
Lee, K. & Girimaji, S. S. 2013 Flow-thermodynamic interactions in decaying anisotropic compressible turbulence with imposed temperature fluctuations. J. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 27, 115–131.Google Scholar
Lele, S. K. 1994 Compressibility effects on turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 26, 211–254.Google Scholar
Liu, C., Gao, Y., Tian, S. & Dong, X. 2018 Rortex – A new vortex vector definition and vorticity tensor and vector decompositions. Phys. Fluids 30 (3), 035103.Google Scholar
Ma, Z. & Xiao, Z. 2016 Turbulent kinetic energy production and flow structures in compressible homogeneous shear flow. Phys. Fluids 28 (9), 096102.Google Scholar
May, G., Srinivasan, B. & Jameson, A. 2007 An improved gas-kinetic BGK finite-volume method for three-dimensional transonic flow. J. Comput. Phys. 220 (2), 856–878.Google Scholar
Moin, P. & Kim, J. 1985 The structure of the vorticity field in turbulent channel flow. Part. I – Analysis of istantaneous fields and statistical correlations. J. Fluid Mech. 155, 441–464.Google Scholar
Normand, X. & Lesieur, M. 1992 Direct and large-eddy simulations of transition in the compressible boundary layer. J. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 3 (4), 231–252.Google Scholar
Ohwada, T. 2002 On the construction of kinetic schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 177 (1), 156–175.Google Scholar
Ong, L. & Wallace, J. M. 1998 Joint probability density analysis of the structure and dynamics of the vorticity field of a turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 367, 291–328.Google Scholar
Pantano, C. & Sarkar, S. 2002 A study of compressibility effects in the high-speed turbulent shear layer using direct simulation. J. Fluid Mech. 451, 329–371.Google Scholar
Papamoschou, D. & Roshko, A. 1988 The compressibile turbulent shear layer: an experimental study. J. Fluid Mech. 197, 453–477.Google Scholar
Pirozzoli, S., Bernardini, M., Marié, S. & Grasso, F. 2015 Early evolution of the compressible mixing layer issued from two turbulent streams. J. Fluid Mech. 777, 196–218.Google Scholar
Pope, S. B. 2000 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, M. M. & Moin, P. 1987 The structure of the vorticity field in turbulent channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 176, 33–66.Google Scholar
Sandham, N. D. & Reynolds, W. C. 1990 Compressible mixing layer-linear theory and direct simulation. AIAA J. 28 (4), 618–624.Google Scholar
Sandham, N. D. & Reynolds, W. C. 1991 Three-dimensional simulations of large eddies in the compressible mixing layer. J. Fluid Mech. 224, 133–158.Google Scholar
Sarkar, S., Erlebacher, G., Hussaini, M. Y. & Kreiss, H. O. 1991 The analysis and modelling of dilatational terms in compressible turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 227, 473–493.Google Scholar
Slessor, M. D., Zhuang, M. & Dimotakis, P. E. 2000 Turbulent shear-layer mixing; growth-rate compressibility scaling. J. Fluid Mech. 414, 35–45.Google Scholar
Soria, J., Sondergaard, R., Cantwell, B. J., Chong, M. S. & Perry, A. E. 1994 A study of the fine-scale motions of incompressible time-developing mixing layers. Phys. Fluids 6, 871–884.Google Scholar
Suman, S. & Girimaji, S. S. 2010 Velocity gradient invariants and local flow-field topology in compressible turbulence. J. Turbul. 11 (2), 1–24.Google Scholar
Tian, S., Gao, Y., Dong, X. & Liu, C. 2018 Definitions of vortex vector and vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 849, 312–339.Google Scholar
Vaghefi, N. S. & Madnia, C. K. 2015 Local flow topology and velocity gradient invariants in compressible turbulent mixing layer. J. Fluid Mech. 774, 67–94.Google Scholar
Vaghefi, N. S., Nik, M. B., Pisciuneri, P. H. & Madnia, C. K. 2013 A priori assessment of the subgrid scale viscous/scalar dissipation closures in compressible turbulence. J. Turbul. 14 (9), 43–61.Google Scholar
Venugopal, V. & Girimaji, S. S. 2015 Unified gas kinetic scheme and direct simulation Monte Carlo computation of high-speed lid driven microcavity flows. Commun. Comput. Phys. 17 (5), 1127–1150.Google Scholar
Wang, L. & Lu, X. Y. 2012 Flow topology in compressible turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 703, 255–278.Google Scholar
White, F. M. 2006 Viscous Fluid Flow. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Xu, K., Mao, M. & Tang, L. 2005 A multidimensional gas-kinetic BGK scheme for hypersonic viscous flow. J. Comput. Phys. 203 (2), 405–421.Google Scholar
Zhou, Q., He, F. & Shen, M. Y. 2012 Direct numerical simulation of a spatially developing compressible plane mixing layer: flow structures and mean flow properties. J. Fluid Mech. 711, 437–468.Google Scholar