Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T11:25:00.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observation and analysis of the Mach reflection of weak uniform plane shock waves. Part 2. Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2006

J. M. Dewey  and
D. J. Mcmillin
J. M. Dewey
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada V8W 2Y2
D. J. Mcmillin
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada V8W 2Y2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A non-stationary approach to the reflection of weak plane shocks is suggested as an alternative to the usual pseudo-stationary transformation. For regular reflection the non-stationary model produces results which are identical to those obtained using the pseudo-stationary assumption, but with simpler algebra. For weak Mach reflections, where the predictions of the pseudo-stationary model are in disagreement with experimental results, the non-stationary model predicts accurately the observed shapes and positions of the reflected and Mach stem shocks and the spatially varying flow properties behind these shocks. However, the non-stationary model predicts that the gas flows above and below the contact surface, relative to the triple point, are not quite parallel. Parallel flows could be obtained only in the limiting case of grazing incidence, when the reflected shock was sonic. The model is based on the experimental results presented in Part 1 of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 152 , March 1985 , pp. 67 - 81
Copyright
© 1985 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

Bargmann, V. & Montgomery, D. 1945 O.S.R.D. No. 5011.
Ben-Dor, G. & Glass, I. I. 1978 AlAA J. 16, 1146.
Ben-Dor, G. & Glass, I. I. 1979 J. Fluid Mech. 92, 459.
Dewey, J. M. & McMillin, D. J. 1985 J. Fluid Mech. 152, 49–66.
Gurderly, K. G. 1947 Wright Field Report F-TR-2168-ND.
Henderson, L. F. 1980 J. Fluid Mech. 99, 801.
Henderson, L. F. & Lozzi, A. 1975 J. Fluid Mech 68, 139.
Henderson, L. F. & Lozzi, A. 1979 J. Fluid Mech. 94, 541.
Henderson, L. F. & Siegenthaler, A. 1980 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 369. 537.
Hornung, H. G. & Robinson, M. L. 1982 J. Fluid Mech. 123, 155.
Jones, D. M., Martin, P. M. E. & Thornhill, G. K. 1951 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 209, 238.
Liepmann, H. W. & Roshko, A. 1957 Elements of Gas Dynamics. Wiley.
Neumann, J. Von 1943 See. Collected Works 6, 1963 Pergamon. p. 239.Google Scholar
Polachek, H. & Seeger, R. J. 1951 Phys. Rev. 84, 922.
Sternberg, J. 1959 Phys. Fluids 2, 179.