Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-03T01:23:48.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fluid density effects in supersonic jet-induced cratering in a granular bed on a planetary body having an atmosphere in the continuum regime

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2021

Kaushik Balakrishnan  and
Josette Bellan Open the ORCID record for Josette Bellan [Opens in a new window]
Kaushik Balakrishnan
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA91109, USA
Josette Bellan*
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA91109, USA California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA91125, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To investigate the effect of atmospheric density and jet-fluid density during supersonic jet-induced cratering on a granular particle bed, large eddy simulation (LES) for the fluid phase coupled with a granular flow model based on kinetic theory is used. Coupling accounts for momentum and energy interaction between particles and fluid. Several simulations are conducted that enable discriminating between the crater characteristics which depend on the atmospheric (or jet) density, and those which depend on the ratio between jet-fluid density and atmospheric density. The crater cross-sectional shapes are controlled by the density ratio between jet fluid and atmosphere. For large such ratios, the craters have a parabolic cross-section shape, are relatively shallow, have large diameters and have subdued ejecta. In contrast, for ratios close to unity, the craters have a conical cross-section, are relatively deep, have relatively small diameters and have substantial ejecta; these craters also display ripples on their walls. The physics leading to these differences is explained. Considerations of particle momentum flux indicate that at same fraction of the crater depth and same radial distance from the jet axis, the radial and vertical components have larger magnitudes for conical craters than for parabolic craters. The spatial distribution of the ratio between the drag force and the force due to the particles resistance to compaction are compared and it is found to be dependent on the jet-to-atmospheric fluid density ratio. A few features of the crater, in particular its depth, only depend on the atmospheric (or jet) fluid density.

JFM classification

Aerodynamics: High-speed flow Granular media: Granular media
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 915 , 25 May 2021 , A29
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Badr, S., Gauthier, G. & Gondret, P. 2016 Crater jet morphology. Phys. Fluids 28, 033305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, M.R. & Nunziato, J.W. 1986 A two-phase mixture theory for the deflagration-to-detonation transition (ddt) in reactive granular materials. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 12 (6), 861–889.10.1016/0301-9322(86)90033-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balakrishnan, K. 2010 On the high fidelity simulation of chemical explosions and their interaction with solid particle clouds. PhD thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Balakrishnan, K., Bell, J.B., Kuhl, A.L. & Howard, W.M. 2012 Riemann solver for the Nigmatulin model of two-phase flow. AIP Conf. Proc. 1426, 1507–1510.10.1063/1.3686569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balakrishnan, K. & Bellan, J. 2018 High-fidelity modeling and numerical simulation of cratering induced by the interaction of a supersonic jet with a granular bed of solid particles. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 99, 1–29.10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2017.08.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balakrishnan, K. & Bellan, J. 2019 A multi-phase, multi-species modeling framework for describing cratering in a granular bed by a supersonic jet. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 118, 205–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunier-Coulin, F., Cuellar, P. & Philippe, P. 2017 Erosion onset of a cohesionless granular medium by an immersed impinging round jet. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 034302.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.034302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, S. & Cowling, T.G. 1970 The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Colwell, J.E., Batiste, S., Horányi, M., Robertson, S. & Sture, S. 2007 Lunar surface: dust dynamics and regolith mechanics. Rev. Geophys. 45, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, J. & Gidaspow, D. 1990 A bubbling fluidization model using kinetic theory of granular flow. AIChE J. 36 (4), 523–538.10.1002/aic.690360404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ern, A. & Giovangigli, V. 1998 Thermal diffusion effects in hydrogen–air and methane–air flames. Combust. Theor. Model. 2, 349–372.10.1088/1364-7830/2/4/001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, R.O. 2014 On multiphase turbulence models for collisional fluid particle flows. J. Fluid Mech. 742, 368–424.10.1017/jfm.2014.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, J.B. 2001 Noise sources in a low-Reynolds-number turbulent jet at Mach 0.9. J. Fluid Mech. 438, 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fullmer, W.D., Liu, G., Yin, X. & Hrenya, C.M. 2017 Clustering instabilities in sedimenting fluid-solid systems: critical assessment of kinetic-theory-based predictions using direct numerical simulation data. J. Fluid Mech. 823, 433–469.10.1017/jfm.2017.295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidaspow, D. 1994 Multiphase Flow and Fluidization. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harstad, K. & Bellan, J. 2004 a Mixing rules for multicomponent mixture mass diffusion coefficients and thermal diffusion factors. J. Chem. Phys. 120 (12), 5664–5673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harstad, K. & Bellan, J. 2004 b High-pressure binary mass-diffusion coefficients for combustion applications. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 43 (2), 645–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C. 2007 Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows: The Fundamentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hirshfelder, J., Curtis, C. & Bird, R. 1964 Molecular Theory of Gases and Liquids. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hosseinzadeh-Nik, Z., Subramaniam, S. & Regele, J.D. 2018 Investigation and quantification of flow unsteadiness in shock-particle cloud interaction. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 101, 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houim, R.W. & Oran, E.S. 2016 A multiphase model for compressible granular-gaseous flows: formulation and initial tests. J. Fluid Mech. 789, 166–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huilin, L., Yurong, H., Wentie, L., Ding, J., Gidaspow, D. & Bouillard, J. 2004 Computer simulations of gas-solid flow in spouted beds using kinetic-frictional stress model of granular flow. Chem. Engng Sci. 59, 865–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Igci, Y., Andrews IV, A.T., Sundaresan, S., Pannala, S. & O'Brien, T. 2008 Filtered two-fluid models for fluidized gas-particle suspensions. AIChE J. 54 (6), 1431–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, L.D. 1971 Blowing of Lunar soil by Apollo 12: surveyor 3 evidence. Science 171, 798–799.10.1126/science.171.3973.798CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, J.T. & Savage, S.B. 1983 A theory for the rapid flow of identical, smooth, nearly elastic, spherical particles. J. Fluid Mech. 130, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, G. & Shu, C.W. 1996 Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 126, 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P.C. & Jackson, R. 1987 Frictional-collisional constitutive relations for granular materials, with application to plane shearing. J. Fluid Mech. 176, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaMarche, C.Q., Moran, A.B., van Wachem, B. & Curtis, J. 2017 Two-fluid modeling of cratering in a particle bed by a subsonic turbulent jet. Powder Tech. 318, 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lhuillier, D., Chang, C.-H. & Theofanous, T.G. 2013 On the quest for a hyperbolic effective-field model of disperse flows. J. Fluid Mech. 731, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Guo, Y. & Lin, W. 2015 Simulation of shock-powder interaction using kinetic theory of granular flow. Powder Tech. 273, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X.D., Osher, S. & Chan, T. 1994 Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 115, 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mars Science Laboratory http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00000/mrdi/0000MD9999000526E1_DXXX.jpg.Google Scholar
Metzger, P.T., Latta, R.C., Schuler, J.M. & Immer, C.D. 2009 Craters formed in granular beds by impinging jets of gas. Proc. 6th Intl Conf. Micromech. Granular Media. AIP Conf. Proc. 1145, 767–770.Google Scholar
Metzger, P.T., Smith, J. & Lane, J.E. 2011 Phenomenology of soil erosion due to rocket exhaust on the Moon and the Mauna Kea Lunar test site. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 116, E06005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milioli, C.C., Milioli, F.E., Holloway, W., Agrawal, K. & Sundaresan, S. 2013 Filtered two-fluid models of fluidized gas-particle flows: new constitutive relations. AIChE J. 59 (9), 3265–3275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffatt, H.K. 1969 The degree of knottedness of tangled vortex lines. J. Fluid Mech. 35, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffatt, H.K. 2014 Helicity and singular structures in fluid dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3663–3670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moffatt, H.K. & Tsinober, A. 1992 Helicity in laminar and turbulent flow. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 24, 281–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, W.C. & Balachandar, S. 2019 Lagrangian investigation of pseudo-turbulence in multiphase flow using superposable wakes. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 114301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, A.B, Goldstein, D.B., Varghese, P.L. & Trafton, L.M. 2012 Modeling the interaction between a rocket plume, scoured regolith, and a plume deflection fence. Earth Space: Proc. 189–198.Google Scholar
Morris, A.B., Goldstein, D.B., Varghese, P.L. & Trafton, L.M. 2015 Approach for modeling rocket plume impingement and dust dispersal on the moon. AIAA J. Spacecr. Rockets 52 (2), 362–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigmatulin, R.I. 1979 Spatial averaging in the mechanics of heterogeneous and dispersed systems. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 5, 353–385.10.1016/0301-9322(79)90013-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigmatulin, R.I. 1991 Dynamics of Multiphase Media. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Ouriemi, M., Aussillous, P., Medale, M., Peysson, Y. & Guazzelli, E. 2007 Determination of the critical Shields number for particle erosion in laminar flow. Phys. Fluids 19, 061706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panicker, N., Passalacqua, A. & Fox, R.O. 2018 On the hyperbolicity of the two-fluid model for gas-liquid bubbly flows. Appl. Math. Model. 57, 432–447.10.1016/j.apm.2018.01.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmentier, J.F. & Simonin, O. 2012 A functional subgrid drift velocity model for filtered drag prediction in dense fluidized bed. AIChE J. 58 (4), 1084–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. & Polling, B.E. 1987 The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Rusanov, V.V. 1961 Calculation of interaction of non-steady shock waves with obstacles. J. Comput. Math. Phys. USSR 1, 267–279.Google Scholar
Scott, R.F. & Ko, H.Y. 1968 Transient rocket-engine gas flow in soil. AIAA J. 6 (2), 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sengupta, A., Kulleck, J., Van Norman, J. & Mehta, M. 2011 Thermal coating erosion in a simulated Martian landing environment. Wear 270, 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shallcross, G.S., Fox, R.O. & Capecelatro, J. 2020 A volume-filtered description of compressible particle-laden flows. Intl. J. Multiphase Flow 122, 103138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirignano, W.A. 1999 Fluid Dynamics and Transport of Droplets and Sprays. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirignano, W.A. 2005 Volume averaging for the analysis of turbulent spray flows. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 31, 675–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smagorinsky, J. 1963 General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Part I, basic experiments. Mon. Weath. Rev. 91, 99–164.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, S. 2020 On modeling shear layers in dense granular flows. J. Fluid Mech. 892, F1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundaresan, S., Ozel, A. & Kolehmainen, J. 2018 Toward constitutive models for momentum, species, and energy transport in gas-particle flows. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Engng 9, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The Verge 2019 https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/17/18663203/apollo-11-anniversary-moon-dust-landing-high-speed.Google Scholar
Theofanous, T.G. & Chang, C.-H. 2017 The dynamics of dense particle clouds subjected to shock waves. Part 2. Modeling/numerical issues and the way forward. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 89, 177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toublanc, D., Parisot, J.P., Brillet, J., Gautier, D., Raulin, F. & McKay, C.P. 1995 Photochemical modeling of Titan's atmosphere. Icarus 113, 2–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilcox, D.E., Weir, A., Nicholls, J.A. & Dunlap, R. 1957 Location of Mach discs and diamonds in supersonic air jets. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 24 (2), 145–160.Google Scholar
Yoshizawa, A. 1986 Statistical theory for compressible turbulent shear flows, with the application to subgrid modelling. Phys. Fluids 29 (7), 2152–2164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar