ISSN:
1089-7674
Source:
AIP Digital Archive
Topics:
Physics
Notes:
Electron heat flow was computed in the context of a steadily propagating shock wave. Two problems were studied: a Mach 8 shock in hydrogen, simulated with an ion kinetic code, and a Mach 5 shock in lithium, simulated with an Eulerian hydrodynamic code. The electron heat flow was calculated with Spitzer–Härm classical conductivity, with and without a flux limit, and several nonlocal electron heat flow formulas published in the literature. To evaluate these, the shock's density, velocity, and ion temperature profiles were fixed, and the electron temperature and heat flow were compared to those computed by an electron kinetic code. There were quantitative differences between the electron temperature profiles calculated with the various formulas. For the Mach 8 shock in hydrogen, the best agreement with the kinetic simulation was obtained with the Epperlein–Short delocalization formula [Phys. Fluids B 4, 2211 and 4190 (1992)], and the Luciani–Mora–Bendib formula [Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2421 (1985)] gave good agreement. For the Mach 5 shock in lithium, both of these gave good agreement. The earlier Luciani–Mora–Virmont formula [Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1664 (1983)] gave fair agreement, while that of San Martin et al. [Phys. Fluids B 4, 3579 (1992); 5, 1485 (1993)] was even further off than the classical Spitzer–Härm [Phys. Rev. 89, 977 (1953)] formula for thermal conduction. To assess the effect of nonlocal electron heat flow on the shock's hydrodynamics and ion kinetics, each of the two problems was done with two different electron heat flow models: the classical Spitzer–Härm local heat conductivity, and the Epperlein–Short nonlocal electron heat-flow formula. In spite of the somewhat different electron temperature profiles, the effect on the shock dynamics was not important. © 1995 American Institute of Physics.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.871357
