4.7 Article

Large-eddy simulation and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes modeling of three Rayleigh-Taylor mixing configurations with gravity reversal

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
Volume 106, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.106.025101

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High-fidelity large-eddy simulations were conducted to study Rayleigh-Taylor mixing in three different configurations involving gravity reversal. The results showed a deficiency in a commonly used transport equation for mass-flux velocity, which could lead to significant errors in predicting mixing layer growth after gravity reversal. An alternative formulation for this equation was proposed to capture the stabilization effect more accurately.
High-fidelity large-eddy simulation (LES) is performed of Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) mixing in three different configurations involving gravity reversal. In each configuration, LES results are compared with one-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) results, and a deficiency in a commonly used transport equation for the mass-flux velocity, a(j), is identified. In the first configuration, a classical two-component RT mixing layer is allowed to develop before it is subjected to rapid acceleration reversal. In the second configuration, a three-component RT mixing layer with an intermediate density layer is allowed to develop before being subjected to rapid acceleration reversal. Finally, in the third configuration, a light layer is interposed between two heavy layers; in this configuration, only one interface is RT-unstable at a time as it undergoes rapid acceleration reversal. In all cases, a commonly used buoyancy production closure in the a(j) transport equation is shown to lead to significant over-prediction of mixing layer growth after gravity reversal. An alternative formulation for this closure is then presented which is shown to more accurately capture the stabilization effect of gravity reversal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available