4.2 Article

Shock interactions in inviscid air and CO2-N2 flows in thermochemical non-equilibrium

期刊

SHOCK WAVES
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 239-253

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00193-021-00999-8

关键词

Non-equilibrium shock interaction; Inviscid hypersonic CO2 flow

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/K000586/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study provides insights into shockwave interference patterns in gas flows with different gas mixtures. It reveals that freestream temperature significantly influences the non-equilibrium shock interaction patterns.
The present study aims at providing insights into shockwave interference patterns in gas flows when amixture different than air is considered. High-energy non-equilibrium flows of air and CO2-N-2 over a double-wedge geometry are studied numerically. The impact of freestream temperature on the non-equilibrium shock interaction patterns is investigated by simulating two different sets of freestream conditions. To this purpose, the SU2 solver has been extended to account for the conservation of chemical species as well as multiple energies and coupled to the Mutation++ library (Multicomponent Thermodynamic And Transport properties for IONized gases in C++) that provides all the necessary thermochemical properties of the mixture and chemical species. An analysis of the shock interference patterns is presented with respect to the existing taxonomy of interactions. A comparison between calorically perfect ideal gas and non-equilibrium simulations confirms that nonequilibrium effects greatly influence the shock interaction patterns. When thermochemical relaxation is considered, a type VI interaction is obtained for the CO2-dominated flow, for both freestream temperatures of 300 K and 1000 K; for air, a type V six-shock interaction and a type VI interaction are obtained, respectively. We conclude that the increase in freestream temperature has a large impact on the shock interaction pattern of the air flow, whereas for the CO2-N-2 flow the pattern does not change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据