Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 17 (2012) 40174022

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cnsns

Short communication

Asymptotic bubble evolutions of the RayleighTaylor instability

Sung-Ik Sohn
Department of Mathematics, Gangneung-Wonju National University, 7 Jukhungil, Gangneung 210-702, South Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
We examine the multiple harmonic model for the single-mode RayleighTaylor instability, and present a new class of the asymptotic solution for the bubble evolution. Previously reported solutions for the bubble curvature and velocity from the model were quantitatively different from other theoretical models and numerical results, for small density jumps. The discrepancy between the theoretical models is resolved by our new approach to the model. Our solution agrees with the LayzerGoncharov model, and gives the independence of the bubble curvature on the density ratio. 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 31 January 2012 Received in revised form 4 March 2012 Accepted 8 March 2012 Available online 15 March 2012 Keywords: RayleighTaylor instability Multiple harmonic model Layzer model Asymptotic solution

1. Introduction Fluid mixing occurs frequently in basic science and engineering applications. When a heavy uid is supported by a lighter uid in a gravitational eld, the interface between the uids is unstable under small disturbances, and is known as the RayleighTaylor (RT) instability [1]. The RT instability plays important roles in many elds ranging from astrophysics to inertial connement fusion [2]. The hydrodynamic instability leads to development of spikes, penetrating of the heavy uid into the light uid, and bubbles, rising of the light uid through the heavy uid. At a later time, a bubble in the RT instability attains a constant growth rate. Eventually, a turbulent mixing caused by vortex structures around spikes breaks the ordered uid motion. Several theoretical models for the nonlinear evolution of the single-mode RT instability have been proposed. However, disagreements between the solutions of the models have been found, and argued in the literatures. In this paper, we resolve the discrepancy between the theoretical models, and present the asymptotic solution for the RT bubble. Layzer [3] rst proposed a potential-ow model for comprehensive descriptions of the motion of the interface in the uids of innite density ratio. The Layzer model has been extended to the interface of a nite density contrast in various ways [48]. Among several approaches, people have had preferences for Goncharovs solution [4], owing to the simplicity. The asymptotic bubble curvature and velocity from the LayzerGoncharov model in two dimensions is given by

k n! ; 6

s 2Ag ; V! 31 Ak

where k 2p=k is the wavenumber of the interface, k the wave-length of the interface, and g the gravitational acceleration. The Atwood number A is dened by A qh ql =qh ql , where qh and ql are the densities of the heavy and light uids, respectively. The solution (1) gives the independence of the asymptotic bubble curvature on the density ratio. It has been shown that the bubble velocity (1) is in good agreements with numerical and experimental results, over all Atwood numbers
E-mail address: sohnsi@gwnu.ac.kr 1007-5704/$ - see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.03.006

4018

S.-I. Sohn / Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 17 (2012) 40174022

[4,9,10]. The bubble velocity (1) also agrees with the prediction from the drag-buoyancy model [11], which is a phenomenological model. Another theoretical model for the single-mode RT instability is the multiple harmonic model developed by Abarzhi [12 14]. This model employs multiple harmonics for the ow, and describes the bubble velocity as a function of the bubble curvature. The bubble curvature is a key parameter in this model. Among a continuous family of the solution, the fastest stable solution is chosen as a physically signicant one. A crucial difference between the Layzer-type models and the multiple harmonic model, for the case of a nite density jump, is on the zero velocity boundary condition at negative innity. The Layzertype models give good descriptions for the ow near the bubble tip, but allow a mass ux at negative innity. The multiple harmonic model forces the ow to satisfy the boundary condition at the negative innity. The solution of the multiple harmonic model is quantitatively different with the solution (1) of the LayzerGoncharov model, for low Atwood numbers. In two dimensions, the solution of the multiple harmonic model is obtained by the following set of equations [13]:

48A

 4  3  2 n n n 64 24A A 0; k k k !1 = 2 r 3 g 2An=k1 4n=k2 2 V : 2 k A 4n=k 4An=k2

2 3

This solution gives the dependence of the bubble curvature on the Atwood number. By comparing the solutions of the two models, natural questions and issues arise as the followings: (1) Why the solution of the multiple harmonic model is quantitatively different with the Layzer-type models, and where does the difference come from? (2) Why does the multiple harmonic model fail for the prediction for the bubble motion for low Atwood numbers, and how can it be cured? (3) Does the asymptotic bubble curvature depend on the density ratio, or not? Although there were numerical and experimental studies [9,10] on comparisons with the solutions of the theoretical models, investigations on these fundamental issues have not been attempted. The main purpose of this paper is to answer the questions and issues above, by giving a new approach to the multiple harmonic model. We present a new class of the asymptotic solution for the bubble motion from the multiple harmonic model. We will show that our solution from the multiple harmonic model agrees with the LayzerGoncharov model.

2. Model description We consider a single-mode interface between two incompressible uids in two dimensions. We take the moving frame of reference x; y with the bubble tip. The kinematic condition and the Bernoulli equation on the interface y gx; t are

@g @g @g uh v h ul v l; @ t @x  @x       @ /h 1 dV @ /l 1 dV qh g ql g ; jr/h j2 g jr/l j2 g 2 dt dt @t @t 2
with the boundary conditions

4 5

v h y ! 1 V ; v l y ! 1 V ;

where ui and v i ; i h; l, are x and y components of the interface velocity taken from the heavy and light uids, and g is the gravitational acceleration. The kinematic condition implies the continuity of the normal component of uid velocity across the interface. In the laboratory frame of reference, the boundary condition (6) becomes v h v l 0 as y ! 1. We take the velocity potentials from the multiple harmonic model [13],

/h

  1 cosmkxemky y ; /m t mk m1   1 P ~ m t 1 cosmkxemky y : /l / mk m1
1 P

7 8

The interface near the bubble tip is approximated as g nt x2 . The failure of the multiple harmonic model for the prediction for the bubble motion is due to the potential (8) for the light uid. This potential does not give an appropriate description for the ow near the bubble, although it satises the boundary condition at the negative innity. It was shown that, for a moderate Atwood number, the velocity eld behind the bubble was atten [4]. The potential of the light uid thus gives a negligible inuence on the motion of the bubble. From this physical behavior, our idea to overcome the limitation of the potential (8) for the ow behind the bubble is the neglect of the higher-order contribution of the term jr/l j2 in the Bernoulli Eq. (5).

S.-I. Sohn / Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 17 (2012) 40174022

4019

3. Validation of the approximation To validate our approach for the model, we perform a numerical simulation for the RT instability for a case of small density jump and examine the velocity eld near the bubble tip. For a numerical simulation, we employ the point vortex method [15,16]. The interface is approximated by a vortex sheet across which the tangential velocity is discontinuous. The motion of the vortex sheet is governed by the BirkhoffRott integral equation [17], which is derived from the Euler equation. In the vortex method, the interface is considered as a set of point vortices, and these vortices are computed in Lagrangian manner, not solving equations in whole two-dimensional grids. This advantage of the vortex method provides highly accurate solutions for the evolution of unstable interfaces. Numerical results and validation of the vortex method for the RT instability, in agreements with the solution of the Euler equation, were presented by many authors [15,16,18]. Details of the numerical method can be found in Sohn [16]. Fig. 1 is the velocity proles from the numerical simulation for the incompressible inviscid uids of A = 0.05 (density ratio 1.1:1). The initial amplitude of the interface is set to a0 k 0:5, and the gravitational acceleration g 1. In Fig. 1, the velocities are evaluated at x 0:02k. The proles of ulin and v lin corresponds to the velocity in the linear regime, ak 0:54, and the proles of unonlin and v nonlin are the velocity in the nonlinear regime, ak 1:39. When the bubble amplitude becomes around ak $ 1:4, the bubble velocity tends to saturate to a constant limit. Fig. 1 shows that, at the linear regime, the velocity elds decay exponentially from the interface to the heavy and light uids, but at the nonlinear regime, they are attened behind the bubble. This result validates that the velocity gradients are very small behind the bubble, while steep ahead of the bubble, even for the uids of a low Atwood number. The physical behavior of the attening of the velocity elds behind the bubble suggests to suppress high-order contributions from jr/l j2 in the Bernoulli equation. In fact, second-order contributions of the velocity potentials (7) and (8) to the term jr/j2 in the Bernoulli equation come only from @ /=@ x2 . (See also Eq. (12).) The term @ /=@ y2 gives fourth-order contributions to the equation. Therefore, more precisely, from the attening of the transverse velocity behind the bubble, one may suppress @ /l =@ x2 , and in turn disregard jr/l j2 in the second-order expansion of the model. Note that our approach is also consistent with the drag-buoyancy model [11], which is given by

ql C a qh

dV Cd qh ql g qh V 2 ; dt k

where C a is an added mass coefcient and C d a drag coefcient. In Eq. (9), the drag force depends only on the density of the heavy uid. The drag-buoyancy model was successfully applied to the modelling of the RT turbulent mixing [11,19,20]. 4. Asymptotic solution in two dimensions We now derive the asymptotic solution for the RT bubble from the new approach to the model. We dene the moments by

M n t

1 P m1

/m tkmn ;

1 e n t P / ~ m t kmn ; M m1

10

e 0 t V t . Substituting the potentials into Eqs. (4) and where n is an integer. The boundary condition (6) gives M 0 t M (5), and expanding up to second order in x, we have a system of differential equations for n and the moments. Neglecting the e 2 =2, one has second order term from jr/l j2 , which is M 1

Fig. 1. Velocity proles near the bubble tip from the numerical simulation for A = 0.05. The proles of ulin and v lin represent the velocity in the linear regime, and the proles of unonlin and v nonlin are the velocity in the nonlinear regime. The dashed and dash-dotted lines correspond to the locations of the bubble at x 0:02k.

4020

S.-I. Sohn / Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 17 (2012) 40174022

e 1n 1 M e 2; _ 3M 1 n 1 M 2 3 M n 2 2     1 _ 1 2 1e _ _ _ e M 1 nM qh M ql 1 nM 0 M 1 g n 0 gn : 2 2 2
From Eq. (11), the bubble curvature is written as

11 12

n1

M2 ; 6M 1

13

where the superscript 1 represents the asymptotic solution. Retaining the rst and second harmonics in the potentials, we have M 0 /1 /2 3M 1 =2k1 M 2 =3M 1 k. The asymptotic bubble velocity is then given by

V1

  3 n1 M1 1 2 : 2k k

14

1 Eq. (12) becomes 1 AM 2 1 4Ag n , since all time derivatives are set to zero, as t ! 1, and ql =qh 1 A=1 A. Then, we have the bubble velocity as a function of the curvature,

 s  1  Ag n n1 : 3 12 1 A k k k

15

The critical solutions in the family (15) are on the values n1 c k=6; k=2, by solving @ V =@ n 0. The asymptotic velocity 1 2 2 becomes 0 for n1 c k=2. On the value nc k=6, the second-order derivative @ V =@ n is less than 0, and it gives the fastest solution for the velocity. Therefore, we nd the asymptotic bubble curvature and velocity as

k n! ; 6

s 2Ag : V! 31 Ak

16

Surprisingly, the solution (16) coincides with Eq. (1) of the LayzerGoncharov model. Unlikely as the previous multiple harmonic model [13], the asymptotic bubble curvature is independent on the Atwood number. Eqs. (13) and (14) for the bubble curvature and velocity are written solely by the moments for the heavy uid, and the moments for the light uid are not used in the derivation of Eq. (15). The potential /l thus does not give inuences on the bubble motion, in our approach. We compare the solutions of the multiple harmonic models with numerical simulations. Fig. 2 is the asymptotic bubble velocity of the present model, the previous model [13], and numerical results. The bubble velocity of the previous model is taken from Eqs. (2) and (3). The numerical results for the RT instability, using the point vortex method, are given in Sohn [16] for several Atwood numbers, and we run more simulations for low Atwood numbers, for comparisons. For A > 0, numerical and physical parameters are set to the same as [16]. For A = 0, the Boussinesq limit, g ! 1 and Ag ! 1, is taken for the simulation. In Fig. 2, the results for the bubble velocity are given in terms of the Froude number. The bubble Froude number is dened by

0.7

0.6

0.5

Fr
0.4 0.3 0.2 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 2. Bubble Froude number vs. Atwood number. The solid curve corresponds to the solution (16) of the present multiple harmonic model, the dashed curve to the solution of the previous multiple harmonic model, and the symbol to the numerical results.

S.-I. Sohn / Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 17 (2012) 40174022

4021

V1 Fr q ;
Ag k 2

17

where k represents the wave-length of the interface. Fig. 2 shows that the solution of the present model agrees well with the numerical results over all Atwood numbers. The agreement indicates the trend of the dependence of the Froude number on 1=1 A. On the other hand, the solution of the previous model deviates from the numerical results as the Atwood number decreases. The relative differences of the previous model from the numerical results are 24% for A = 0.1, and 34% for A = 0. Fig. 3 is the comparison of the asymptotic bubble curvature of the present model and the previous model, with the numerical results. In Fig. 3, the bubble curvature is non-dimensionalized to f 2n1 =k. The numerical results for the asymptotic bubble curvature are between 0.5 and 0.55, and this suggests that the RT bubble may have a constant limit of the curvature, independent on the density ratio. The present model predicts the constant asymptotic bubble curvature, supporting the independence on the density ratio. The difference of the curvature of our model from the numerical results is relatively large, and it might be reduced by higher-order expansions of the model, although the procedure would be complicated. Fig. 3 shows that the bubble curvature from the previous model varies with the Atwood number, and has large differences with the numerical results for low Atwood numbers. Especially for A ! 0, the bubble curvature of the previous model becomes 0, which means the attening of the interface. This contradicts to our numerical result, which gives a nite bubble curvature. 5. Asymptotic solution in three dimensions The procedure described above for the two-dimensional ow can be extended to the bubble evolutions in three-dimensional (3D) geometries. The multiple harmonic models in various types of symmetric 3D ows were presented in [14,21]. Assuming a 3D ow with hexagonal symmetry, the velocity potentials in the heavy and light uids take the form

/h

 3 1 mky P e cosmki r z ; 3mk m1 i1   1 3 P P 1 ~ m t / /l emky cosmki r z ; 3mk m1 i 1

1 P

/m t

18 19

p p where r x; y, and p ki are the vectors of the reciprocal lattice with k1 k 3=2; 1=2, k2 k 3=2; 1=2; k3 k1 k2 , and k jki j 4p= 3k. At the bubble tip, the interface is approximated as z nx2 y2 . Substituting the potentials (18) and (19) into the kinematic condition and Bernoulli equation, and neglecting the second order term from jr/l j2 , one has

e 2; e 1n 1 M _ 2M 1 n 1 M 2 2 M n 4 4     1 _ 1 2 1e _ _ e _ M 1 nM qh M ql 1 nM 0 M 1 g n 0 gn : 4 8 4
The bubble velocity is then given by

20

21

Fig. 3. Asymptotic bubble curvature vs. Atwood number. The bubble curvature is non-dimensionalized to f 2n1 =k. The solid curve corresponds to the solution (16) of the present multiple harmonic model, the dashed curve to the solution of the previous model, and the symbol to the numerical results.

4022

S.-I. Sohn / Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 17 (2012) 40174022

 s  1  4Ag n 8n1 3 : 1 1 A k k 3k s 2Ag V! : 1 Ak

22

We nd the asymptotic bubble curvature and velocity, which is the fastest solution of Eq. (22),

k n! ; 8

23

The solution (23) agrees with the LayzerGoncharov model in 3D [4], changing k 2b0 =k for a tabular ow, where b0 is the rst zero of the Bessel function J 0 . Ramaprabhu and Dimonte [9] conducted three-dimensional numerical simulations for the RT instability, and showed that the numerical results for the asymptotic bubble velocity were in agreements with the solution (23). They also reported that the bubble curvature had nearly a constant limit, insensitive to the density ratio. 6. Conclusion We summarize the conclusion regarding the issues raised in the Introduction of the paper. Basically, the difference of the solutions of the Layzer-type models and the previous multiple harmonic model comes from different types of the potentials. The multiple harmonic model gives inappropriate descriptions for the near ow eld behind the bubble. We have presented the new approach to the multiple harmonic model, suppressing the contribution of the potential of the light uid. The present model gives a new family of the solution for the bubble motion. The asymptotic bubble curvature is found to be independent on the density ratio. The solution of the present multiple harmonic model agrees with the LayzerGoncharov model, and the discrepancy between two models is resolved by our approach. Acknowledgments This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant No. 2012-0002995). References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Rayleigh L. Scientic papers, vol II. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1900. Sharp D. An overview of RayleighTaylor instability. Physica D 1984;12:310. Layzer D. On the instability of superposed uids in a gravitational eld. Astrophys J 1955;122:112. Goncharov VN. Analytical model of nonlinear, single-mode classical RayleighTaylor instability at arbitrary Atwood numbers. Phys Rev Lett 2002;88:134502. Mikaelian KO. Explicit expressions for the evolution of single-mode RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov instabilities at arbitrary Atwood numbers. Phys Rev E 2003;67:026319. Sohn S-I. Density dependence of a Zuria-type model for RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov bubble fronts. Phys Rev E 2004;70:045301. Sohn S-I. Bubble interaction model for hydrodynamic unstable mixing. Phys Rev E 2007;75:066312. Rollin B, Andrews MJ. Mathematical model of RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov instabilities for viscoelastic uids. Phys Rev E 2011;83:046317. Ramaprabhu P, Dimonte G. Single-mode dynamics of the RayleighTaylor instability at any density ratio. Phys Rev E 2005;71:036314. Wilkinson JP, Jacobs JW. Experimental study of the single-mode three-dimensional RayleighTaylor instability. Phys Fluids 2007;19:124102. Oron D, Arazi L, Kartoon D, Rikanati A, Alon U, Shvarts D. Dimensionality dependence of the RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov instability latetime scaling laws. Phys Plasmas 2001;8:28839. Abarzhi SI. Stable steady ows in RayleighTaylor instability. Phys Rev Lett 1998;81:33740. Abarzhi SI, Glimm J, Lin A-D. Dynamics of two-dimensional RayleighTaylor bubbles for uids with a nite density contrast. Phys Fluids 2003;15:21907. Abarzhi SI, Nishihara K, Glimm J. RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov instabilities for uids with a nite density ratio. Phys Lett A 2003;317:4706. Baker GR, Meiron DI, Orszag SA. Vortex simulations of the RayleighTaylor instability. Phys Fluids 1980;23:148590. Sohn S-I. Vortex model and simulations for RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov instabilities. Phys Rev E 2004;69:036703. Birkhoff G. Helmholtz and Taylor instability. Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics, vol. 13. Providence: American Mathematical Society; 1962. p. 5576. Tryggvason G. Numerical simulation of the RayleighTaylor instability. J Comput Phys 1988;75:25382. Dimonte G. Spanwise homogeneous buoyancy-drag model for RayleighTaylor mixing and experimental evaluation. Phys Plasmas 2000;7:225569. Cheng B, Glimm J, Sharp DH. Density dependence of RayleighTaylor and RichtmyerMeshkov mixing fronts. Phys Lett A 2000;268:36674. Abarzhi SI, Nishihara K, Rosner R. Multiscale character of the nonlinear coherent dynamics in the RayleighTaylor instability. Phys Rev E 2006;73:036310.