Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T11:26:17.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Boundary-layer structure in a shock-generated plasma flow: Part 1. Analysis for equilibrium ionization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2009

Stellan Knöös
Stellan Knöös
Affiliation:
Aerophysics Laboratory, Institute for Plasma Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The structures of some laminar boundary layers in high-density, shock heated, 1 eV argon plasma flows have been investigated theoretically. The analysis is based upon a three-fluid continuum formulation. Boundary-layer equations have been solved numerically on a digital computer by a finite difference technique for the case of thermochemical equilibrium and no radiation and applied electromagnetic fields. The induced electric field has been considered and shown to be important. It strongly couples the diffusive motions of the electron and ion fluids, thus forming ambipolar motion except in a sheath region adjacent to the wall. Argon transport properties, calculated from simple kinetic theory, have been used in the analysis. Important parameters, such as the Prandtl number and the density-viscosity product have been found to vary one or two orders of magnitude in the argon plasma boundary layer, a finding in sharp contrast with results for classical, non-ionized boundary layers. Solutions have been developed for the simple Rayleigh's boundary layer (forming over an infinite flat plate with an impulsively started motion in its own plane) and for the shock-tube side-wall boundary layer (forming behind a plane, ionizing shock wave moving over an infinite, plane wall). Even in terms of appropriate similarity parameters, solutions (for e.g. velocity and temperature profiles) exhibit strong dependence upon free- stream conditions. Assumptions of chemical and temperature equilibria have been checked from the equilibrium solution. Results indicate equilibrium ionization would not be present in typical argon boundary layers, e.g. at temperatures below 9000 °K, at a pressure of 1 atm. Similarly, due to ineffective energy transfer rates between the electron and the heavy-particle fluids and the difference in electron and ion–atom thermal conductivities, the electron temperature would deviate from the heavy-particle temperature in the same temperature region. The electron temperature has been calculated in a linearized model and found to be larger than the ion–atom temperature.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Plasma Physics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1968 , pp. 207 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Allis, W. P. 1956 Handb. Phys. p. 383. Band XXI. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Amdur, I. & Mason, E. A. 1958 Phys. Fluids 1, 370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braginskii, S. I. 1958 Soviet Phys. JETP 6, 358.Google Scholar
Camac, M., Fay, . A., Feinberg, R. M. & Kemp, N. H. 1963 Proceedings of the 1963 Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Camac, M. & Kemp, N. H. 1963 AIAA preprint, 63–460.Google Scholar
Cambel, A. B., Duclos, D. P. & Anderson, T. P. 1963 Real Gases. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, S. & Cowling, T. G. 1961 The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chung, P. M. 1964 Phys. Fluids, 7, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalgarno, A. 1958 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A 250, 426.Google Scholar
Devoto, R. S. 1967 Phys. Fluids, 10, 354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dix, D. M. 1964 AIAA J. 2, 2081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drellishak, K. S., Knopp, C. F. & Cambel, A. B. 1963 Phys. Fluids 6, 1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, J. A. 1962 Avco-Everett Research Lab. Rept. AMP 71.Google Scholar
Fay, J. A. & Kemp, N. H. 1963 AIAA J. 1, 2741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, L. S. & Phelps, A. V. 1964 Phys. Rev. 136, 1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, L. 1951 Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 46, 400.Google Scholar
Jaffrin, M. 1965 Phys. Fluids, 8, 606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knöös, S. 1966 Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Lam, S. H. 1964 AIAA J. 1, 256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landau, L. 1936 Phys. Z. SowjUn. 10, 154.Google Scholar
Petschek, H. & Byron, S. R. 1957 Ann. Phys. 1, 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollin, I. 1964 Phys. Fluids 7, 1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayleigh, Lord 1911 Phil. Mag. 21, 697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, D. J. & Clark, M. 1961 Plasmas and Controlled Fusion. M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Rose, & Stankevics, 1963 AIAA J. 1, 2752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, M. P. 1963 Princeton Univ. Dept. Aero Engng Report, 673.Google Scholar
Spitzer, L. & Härm, R. 1953 Phys. Rev. 89, 977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, C. & Lam, S. H. 1963 Phys. Fluids, 6, 1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyre, M. D. 1952 Z.A.M.P. 3, 343.Google Scholar