158 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Peter Delmont

- ENPE 523 Assignment _2 Solution
- Computational MHD
- Magneto Hydrodynamics
- CHEM1020 Module 1 2011 Notes
- ecov
- Subject Matter Budget (Chemistry)
- Chemistry Lab Report
- States of Matter - Everything is Mind
- Projet Proposal for the Construction of a Marcet Boiler
- Free Convective Heat Transport in a Porous Media bounded by an isothermal vertical plate with thermal Radiation and Magnetohydrodynamic effects: an Exact Solution
- chpt1
- Solution of Paper 9
- EFFECT OF THERMAL RADIATION ON MELTING HEAT TRANSFER IN STAGNATION POINT FLOW OF MHD MICROPOLAR FLUID TOWARDS A STRETCHING SURFACE
- Molar Mass of a Volatile Liquid
- Intro Plasma
- tfm12medium
- rr369
- low-temperature atmospheric pressure plasma
- Depressuring Flow.docx
- G5 - DLL - CLASSIFICATION OF MATTER.doc

Anda di halaman 1dari 167

Faculty of Science

Department of Mathematics

Centre for Plasma Astrophysics

and magnetohydrodynamics

Peter Delmont

fulﬁllment of the requirements for

the degree of Doctor

in the Sciences

On regular shock refraction in hydro-

and magnetohydrodynamics

Peter Delmont

Prof. Dr. R. Keppens fulﬁllment of the requirements for

Jury: the degree of Doctor

Prof. Dr. Ir. G. Lapenta (Chairman) in the Sciences

Prof. Dr. S. Poedts (Secretary)

Prof. Dr. M. Goossens

Prof. Dr. W. Van Assche

Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Baelmans

Prof. Dr. Ir. B. Koren (CWI, Amsterdam)

© Katholieke Universiteit Leuven – Faculty of Science

Celestĳnenlaan 200 B, B-3001 Leuven (Belgium)

Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd

en/of openbaar gemaakt worden door middel van druk, fotocopie, microﬁlm,

elektronisch of op welke andere wĳze ook zonder voorafgaande schriftelĳke

toestemming van de uitgever.

All rights reserved. No part of the publication may be reproduced in any form by

print, photoprint, microﬁlm or any other means without written permission from

the publisher.

ISBN 978-90-8649-356-2

Preface

Four years ago, Tom Van Doorsselaere invited me for his public PhD defense at

the Arenberg castle in Heverlee. He gave a presentation which I didn’t understand

at all, but which made me conclude that plasma physics is a mysterious but

interesting discipline. A few months later, I applied for a PhD position myself,

with this dissertation as a result. I would like to thank everybody who contributed

to it in any way. More explicitly, my gratefulness goes out to the following people.

First of all, I sincerely thank Prof. Rony Keppens. He has always been available

with good advice and critical suggestions, but at the same time he gave me the

freedom to focus on my own interests. He has shown patience with my speciﬁc

talent for creating chaos. I am sure that his guidance has led me to scientiﬁc

contributions and insights, which would never have been possible without it.

Also I thank Dr. Tom Van Doorsselaere for being my helpdesk. In the ﬁrst two

years of this project, I have often annoyed him with technical computer and physics

problems. He has been very patient and was (almost) always willing to help. Next

to him, also Dr. Dries Kimpe, Dr. Bart van der Holst, Dr. Zakaria Meliani and

Dr. Allard Jan van Marle have oﬀered me good technical support.

I have experienced the CPA, and the department of mathematics, as a pleasant

working environment. I appreciate the nice conversations with my former oﬃce

mates Prof. Andria Rogava, Dr. Emmanuel Chané, Prof. Giga Gogoberidze,

Giorgi Dalakishvili, Andrey Divin and Alkis Vlasis. I thank the Alma/Coffee

Team for the agreeable lunch/coﬀee breaks. Further, the CPA deserves a word

of gratefulness for the stimulating international atmosphere.

Next to the research, I have enjoyed being a teaching assistant for the

courses "Hogere Wiskunde I", "Hogere Wiskunde II" and "Wiskunde voor

bedrĳfseconomen" in the didactic team led by Prof. Johan Quaegebeur. I

appreciate the didactic insights I gained through this experience. It was a pleasure

teaching mathematics to the bachelor students in economical engineering.

i

ii Contents

Of course I thank the members of the examination committee for investing time

to read this work and giving useful comments, interesting suggestions and critical

feedback. I hope they are pleased by the way I have processed their input.

Since the bow should not be bent too often, I like spending time with my friends

in various ways. I think about the many times we went out drinking and the many

times we shared our thoughts, about the walks and the dinners we shared and the

darts and table games we played.

I thank my family for the mental support along the way.

Finally, Char, you complete this list. I am grateful for the inspiration and energy

you’ve given me during this period by my side. I truly appreciate your way of

looking at life, and I especially love how it balances my own approach.

Contents

Contents ii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The equations of magnetohydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.1 Plasma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.2 Fluid mechanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1.3 Adiabatic equation of state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.1.4 Electromagnetism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.1.5 Magnetohydrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.1.6 Scale independence of the MHD equations . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2 Shock waves in (M)HD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2.1 The Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2.2 Characteristic speeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1.2.3 Characteristic speeds in HD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1.2.4 Characteristic speeds in ideal MHD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

1.2.5 Wave steepening: an HD example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1.2.6 Wave steepening: an MHD example . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.3 The Richtmyer-Meshkov instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1.3.1 Shock tube problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1.3.2 Shock refraction: a 1D example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

iii

iv CONTENTS

1.3.4 Vorticity evolution equation for inviscid compressible MHD

ﬂows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1.4 AMRVAC and the VTK ﬁle format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1.4.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1.4.2 Adaptive Mesh Reﬁnement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

1.4.3 The VTK ﬁle format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

1.5 Outline of the thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2.2 Conﬁguration and governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.2.1 Problem setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.2.2 Stationary MHD equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2.2.3 Planar stationary Rankine-Hugoniot condition . . . . . . . 45

2.3 Riemann Solver based solution strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.3.1 Dimensionless representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.3.2 Relations across a contact discontinuity and an expansion fan 48

2.3.3 Relations across a shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.3.4 Shock refraction as a Riemann problem . . . . . . . . . . . 51

2.3.5 Solution inside of an expansion fan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2.4 Implementation and numerical details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.4.1 Details on the Newton-Raphson iteration . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.4.2 Details on AMRVAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.4.3 Following an interface numerically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2.5.1 Fast-Slow example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

2.5.2 Slow-Fast example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

CONTENTS v

2.5.4 Abd-El-Fattah and Hendersons experiment . . . . . . . . . 59

2.5.5 Connecting slow-fast to fast-slow refraction . . . . . . . . . 60

2.5.6 Eﬀect of a perpendicular magnetic ﬁeld . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3.2 Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.3 MHD shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.4 Riemann Solver based solution strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.4.1 Dimensionless representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

3.4.2 Path variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.4.3 Tackling the signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.5 Demonstration of result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.6 Suppression of the Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability . . . . . . . . . . 82

3.7 Wave conﬁguration transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.1.1 Intermediate shocks in MHD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.1.2 The Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions . . . . . . . . . . . 89

4.1.3 MHD shock types: classical 1 − 2 − 3 − 4 classiﬁcation . . . 90

4.2 Solution to the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4.3 Physical meaning of Ω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.4.1 (θ, M )-diagrams at ﬁxed β . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

vi CONTENTS

4.4.3 Positive pressure requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

4.4.4 Switch-on shocks and switch-oﬀ shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

4.4.5 Parameter ranges for 1 → 3 shocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4.4.6 Parameter ranges for 2 → 3 shocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

4.4.7 Parameter ranges for 1 → 4 shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

4.4.8 Parameter ranges for 2 → 4 shocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4.4.9 Relationship between pre- and post-shock magnetic ﬁeld . . 112

4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

6 Conclusions 121

B Compilation 125

C USR-file 127

Bibliography 145

Education and Research History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

List of Scientiﬁc Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1.1 Plasma

In 1927, the term plasma was introduced by Langmuir & Jones [52] to refer to

ionized gases, which are characterized by their two-ﬂuid nature consisting of freely

moving electrons and ions. They were probably inspired by the similarity of this

ﬂuid with the blood plasma, consisting of red and white corpuscles. At ﬁrst,

we deﬁne a plasma as a completely ionized gas. Since the freely moving ions

and electrons are charged particles allowing for electric currents, electromagnetic

forces will play a central role in the description of a plasma, which is therefore

fundamentally diﬀerent from the description of ordinary gases. It leads us to

consider plasma as a fourth phase, next to the well-known phases of solid, liquid

and gas.

As shown in ﬁgure 1.1, plasmas do exist in the physical world under a wide

range of temperatures and number densities. In fact, as Goedbloed & Poedts

[32] put it: "Astronomers agree that, ignoring the more speculative nature of

dark matter, matter in the Universe consists more than 90% of plasma. Hence

plasma is the ordinary state of matter in the Universe." The environment in which

plasmas occur allows us to classify them into two major categories, namely (i)

astrophysical or (ii) laboratory plasmas. At the Centre for Plasma Astrophysics,

research is done on, e.g., (relativistic) astrophysical jets, coronal mass ejections

(CME’s) or space weather. Figure 1.2 shows an example of those typical plasma

environments. The left frame shows a satellite (TRACE) observation of the solar

atmosphere (taken from [6]). The picture was taken on November 9th, 2000, one

1

2 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1: Plasmas exist in the physical world under a wide range of plasma

parameters. They mostly occur in astrophysical or laboratory environments

(Taken from [67]).

day after a solar storm. The right panel shows a laboratory plasma, namely

a conﬁned plasma created within the TEXTOR tokamak (taken from [28]). In

such tokamaks, research on controlled nuclear fusion is performed. The typical

values for characteristic parameters in these diﬀerent environments can diﬀer by

orders of magnitude, but the theory of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) describes

the dynamical behaviour of any plasma, satisfying certain conditions which we

describe later on.

The Sun is by astrophysicists sometimes refered to as an excellent natural

plasma laboratory. Since its distance to the earth is only one astronomical

unit, it is the star best observed. This human interest in the sun is

nothing recent: next to worshiping it, many cultures before ours have made

observations of the sun and have studied it. Ghezzi & Ruggles [34] discovered

e.g. a 2300-year old solar observatory in coastal Peru. Despite this old

interest in the sun, which mainly focused on large scale phenomena such as

gravity, plasma physics is a relatively young discipline. This of course is not

THE EQUATIONS OF MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS 3

coronal loop on the solar surface. (taken from [6]) Right: A picture taken in the

tokamak TEXTOR in Jülich. (taken from [28])

surprising, since in order to describe the large scale motion of a plasma, one

uses the equations of ideal magnetohydrodynamics. Ideal MHD is in essence

a generalization of hydrodynamics (HD), where one allows for non-vanishing

magnetic ﬁelds. Therefore MHD is basically founded on (i) fluid mechanics and

(ii) electromagnetism.

Fluid mechanics is a discipline with a long history. While in the ancient Greek era,

Archimedes mainly focused on equilibria, medieval Arab physicists like Al-Bı̄rūnı̄

and Al-Khazini augmented this work with dynamical aspects. Fluid mechanics

reached the west through da Vinci, and ﬁnally, it was Bernoulli who introduced

a mathematical description in his Hydrodynamica (1738). This led Euler to

publish his "Principes generaux du mouvement des fluides" in 1757, where he

introduced one of the ﬁrst published systems of partial diﬀerential equations,

nowadays referred to as the Euler equations. The Euler equations in their original

form describe conservation of mass and momentum, and are therefore not fully

determined. Indeed, there are only two equations in three independent variables.

We therefore need a third equation to close the system. This equation is called the

equation of state. At ﬁrst, one added the equation of incompressibility to close the

system, but later on also more realistic equations of state for gaseous environments

were introduced. One often exploit the so-called adiabatic equation of state, which

we will brieﬂy describe in the next section. A derivation of these Euler equations

can be found in any textbook on ﬂuid mechanics. When the adiabatic equation is

4 INTRODUCTION

used as an equation of state, the Euler equations take the following form:

∂U ∂F ∂G ∂H

+ + + = 0, (1.1)

∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z

where the vector of conserved variables

!t

ρ(vx2 + vy2 + vz2 ) p

U= ρ, ρvx , ρvy , ρvz , + (1.2)

2 γ−1

ρvx

2

ρvx +p

F=

ρv x vy ,

(1.3)

ρv x vz

2

+vy2 +vz2 )

ρ(vx γ

vx 2 + γ−1 p

ρvy

ρvx vy

ρvy2 + p

G= , (1.4)

ρvy vz

2

+vy2 +vz2 )

ρ(vx γ

vy 2 + γ−1 p

and

ρvz

ρvx vz

H=

ρvy vz .

(1.5)

ρvz2 + p

2

+vy2 +vz2 )

ρ(vx γ

vz 2 + γ−1 p

These equations should hold at any time over the complete domain. t represents

time and the ratio of specific heat, γ, is a dimensionless equation parameter

(explained in a little more detail in the next section), but the meaning of ρ, v

and p are not that straightforward. All those quantities are deﬁned statistically

by the following reasoning in phase space. Every particle at any time t has an

exact position r = (x, y, z) and velocity w = (wx , wy , wz ) (in any arbitrary

chosen Cartesian frame). In the classical case, it is usual to deﬁne the phase

space now as R6 , such that it contains a combination of locations and velocities

(x, y, z, wx , wy , wz ). One then deﬁnes a distribution function f : R7 → R+ , such

THE EQUATIONS OF MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS 5

that in any inﬁnitesimal volume element, drdv, in phase space, the probable

number of particles, N , in that volume element at time t is given by

Z Z

N (t) ≡ f (r, w, t)drdw. (1.6)

The exact deﬁnition of mass density ρ, velocity v and thermal pressure p are now

given by averaging only over the velocity dimensions of phase space:

Z

ρ(r, t) ≡ Mp f (r, w, t)dw, (1.7)

R

wf (r, w, t)dw

v(r, t) ≡ R , (1.8)

f (r, w, t)dw

Mp

Z

p(r, t) ≡ (w − v)2 f (r, w, t)dw, (1.9)

3

where Mp is the mass of a single particle. When the gas consists of multiple

diﬀerent particles (as is the case in MHD) a generalization has to be made. For

this we refer to any textbook on ﬂuid mechanics. The Euler equations thus express

the conservation of mass (i.e. the ﬁrst line), the conservation of momentum

(mx , my , mz ) ≡ m ≡ ρv = (ρvx , ρvy , ρvz ) (i.e. the next three lines) and the

2

ρ(vx +vy2 +vz2 ) p

conservation of energy e ≡ 2 + γ−1 (i.e. the ﬁfth line).

In 1834, Clapeyron was the ﬁrst to formulate the ideal gas law, which is valid

under relatively mild conditions. The equation, as it reads nowadays, is given by

pV = nRT. (1.10)

Here p denotes the thermal pressure as before, V is the volume of the gas element,

n is the amount of gas, R is the universal gas constant and T is the absolute

temperature. It follows that under isothermal conditions pV is constant. Now,

taking derivatives of equation (1.10) leads to

When a gas element expands, it decreases its internal energy and performs work.

Now, the adiabatic equation of state concerns, as the name suggests, adiabatic

processes where no heat is absorbed. The ﬁrst law of thermodynamics is thus

valid for any volume element of gas, stating that the internal energy of a gas

6 INTRODUCTION

element balances out with the work done on it. The loss of internal energy in the

gas element is proportional to the amount of gas and the change in temperature.

The proportionality constant cv is called the specific heat for constant volume.

The work done by the gas element equals pdV . Therefore the ﬁrst law of

thermodynamics reads

cv + R dV dp

+ = 0. (1.13)

cv V p

is by deﬁnition nothing else than the ratio of

speciﬁc heats, γ, which we introduced in the previous section.

We are now ready to deﬁne the entropy S. Consider a gas element with initial

pressure p0 and initial volume V0 . Say the gas has expanded and forms a state of

pressure p1 and volume V1 . Then we deﬁne the entropy S

p1 V1

S ≡ cv ln + (cv + R) ln (1.14)

p0 V0

It is clear that the adiabatic equation of state now reduces as dS = 0.

Anyhow, this law should clearly only hold when the expansion is continuous.

This text is also concerned about discontinuous expansion, where the second law

of thermodynamics should hold: dS ≥ 0. This last expression is completely

d p p

equivalent with dt ργ ≥ 0, and from now on, we will refer to ργ as being the

entropy S.

1.1.4 Electromagnetism

According to Stringari & Wilson [79], one of the ﬁrst published experiments

that proved the relation between electricity and magnetism was performed by

Romagnosi in 1802 (and thus not by Oersted, who experimented in the 1820’s).

This led to a cascade of strong discoveries throughout the nineteenth century,

which in 1865 eventually led to Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. Maxwell’s

THE EQUATIONS OF MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS 7

τ

∇·E = , (1.15)

ǫ0

∇·B = 0, (1.16)

∂B

∇×E = − , (1.17)

∂t

∂E

∇×B = µ0 ǫ0 + µ0 j. (1.18)

∂t

vacuum (ǫ0 = 8.85·10−12F ·m−1 ) and the permeability of vacuum (µ0 = 4π10−7 T ·

m · A−1 ). τ denotes the charge density, E is the electric ﬁeld, j the current density,

and ﬁnally B is the magnetic ﬁeld. The ﬁrst equation is called Poisson’s law,

while the second equation implies that no magnetic monopoles exist. The third

equation is called Faraday’s law, and the last equation is Ampère’s law, extended

with the displacement current distribution. Since µ0 ǫ0 = c−2l << 1(s2 m−2 ) (where

cl denotes the light speed), one often drops the displacement current ǫ0 ∂E ∂t from

Ampère’s law, which then becomes ∇ × B = µ0 j.

1.1.5 Magnetohydrodynamics

magnetic ﬁelds play an important role in plasmas and should not be neglected. In

order to describe the dynamical behavior of such plasmas, one needs to generalize

the Euler equations by including a magnetic ﬁeld. The mathematical relation

between the magnetic ﬁeld and the conserved HD variables is given by the ideal

MHD equations: after noting that a current is in direct relation with the speed

of the electrons, one can eliminate the current j from Ampère’s law. Extending

Euler’s equations with the Lorentz force and Maxwell’s equations leads to the

equations of ideal MHD. For details we refer to Goedbloed & Poedts [32], Goossens

[36] or any introductory textbook on MHD. In this dissertation we will consistently

use the conservational form of the ideal MHD equations, which in Cartesian vector

notation becomes:

∂U ∂F ∂G ∂H

+ + + = 0, (1.19)

∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z

8 INTRODUCTION

!t

ρ(vx2 + vy2 + vz2 ) p Bx2 + By2 + Bz2

U= ρ, ρvx , ρvy , ρvz , + + , Bx , By , Bz

2 γ−1 2µ0

(1.20)

ρvx

Bx2 By2 +Bz2

ρvx2 + p − + 2µ0

2µ0

Bx By

ρvx vy − µ0

ρvx vz − Bµx B z

F=

ρ(vx2 +vy2 +vz2 ) 2 2

0 , (1.21)

γ B +B (vy By +vz Bz )Bx

(

2 + γ−1 p + y2µ0 z )vx − µ0

0

vy Bx − vx By

vz Bx − vx Bz

ρvy

B B

ρvx vy − µx 0 y

B2 B 2 +B 2

ρvy2 + p − 2µy0 + x2µ0 z

B B

G= ρvy vz − µy 0 z

, (1.22)

ρ(vx2 +vy2 +vz2 ) γ B 2 +B 2 (v B +v B )B

(

2 + γ−1 p + x2µ0 z )vy − x x µ0z z y

vx By − vy Bx

0

vz By − vy Bz

and

ρvz

ρvx vz − BxµB0

z

By Bz

ρvy vz − µ0

B2 B 2 +B 2

ρvz2 + p − 2µz0 + x2µ0 y

H=

2 2 2 2 2

. (1.23)

( ρ(vx +vy +vz ) + γ p + By +Bz )vz − (vx Bx +vy By )Bz

2 γ−1 2µ0 µ0

vx Bz − vz Bx

vy Bz − vz By

0

pressure and B = (Bx , By , Bz ) denotes the magnetic ﬁeld. Since these conserved

THE EQUATIONS OF MAGNETOHYDRODYNAMICS 9

variables are often used, they have a particular name and notation. As before, the

ρ(v 2 +v 2 +v 2 )

p B 2 +B 2 +B 2

momentum m = ρv and the total energy density e ≡ x

2

y z

+ γ−1 + x 2y z .

The ﬁrst line of the MHD equations expresses the conservation of mass. The next

three lines express the conservation of momentum, taking the Lorentz force into

account. The ﬁfth line expresses the conservation of energy, which includes the

magnetic energy, and the last three lines ﬁnally express Faraday’s law, where the

electric ﬁeld is eliminated by use of Ohm’s law, which under ideal (non-resistive)

MHD conditions reduces to E = −v × B. The ideal MHD system consists now of

eight partial diﬀerential equations in the eight primitive variables ρ, v, p, B. Once

the values of these variables are found, the pre-Maxwell equations are used to

solve for the electric ﬁeld E and the current j. Note that when the magnetic ﬁeld

vanishes, the MHD equations reduce to the Euler equations. Finally also note that

as in the Maxwell equations, the no-monopole equation is still an initial condition.

Thus

∇·B=0 (1.24)

Finally note that some conditions need to be satisﬁed, in order to validate this

macroscopic plasma description, namely

of charged particles. Therefore we conclude that typical time scales should

be negligible in comparison with the time scales of collisions with neutrals

or

interactions;

• the plasma should be quasi-neutral. When using for the typical lengthqscales

ǫ0 T

of particle interaction the Debye length, which is deﬁned as λD ≡ ne e2

(where ne is the electron density, T is the plasma temperature and e is the

electron charge), we conclude that

the typical length scales should be much larger than the Debye length;

• and ﬁnally, the particles should be close enough to each other such that

there are enough charged particle interactions. Deﬁning a Debye sphere as

a sphere with radius λD , this means that

10 INTRODUCTION

Since the MHD equations are scale independent, one can give a dimensionless

representation. We will do so, following Goedbloed & Poedts [32]. They argue

that one needs to make three independent scalar scalings. One can e.g. scale the

magnetic ﬁeld components to a typical value B̂, the length to a typical length l̂,

and the density to a typical density ρ̂, i.e.:

ρ

ρ̄ ≡ , (1.25)

ρ̂

B

B̄ ≡ , (1.26)

B̂

¯ l

l ≡ . (1.27)

l̂

In order to get rid of the inconvenient constant µ0 , we now scale the velocities

to v̂ ≡ √B̂µ0 ρ̂

, such that the times are scaled to t̂ ≡ v̂l̂ . We arbitrarily scale p to

2

p̂ ≡ ρ̂v̂ . Finally, from the scaling of length and time, it is now trivial that the

the diﬀerential operators ∇ and ∂t are respectively scaled to ∇ ¯ ≡ l̂∇ and t̂∂t . In

other words: if one deﬁnes the dimensionless variables p̄ ≡ pp̂ and v¯ι ≡ vv̂ι , the

MHD equations can now be re-written in exactly the same form as 1.19, but now

every symbol ♦ in equations (1.19)-(1.23) should now be replaced by ♦, ¯ and all

the µ0 ’s should be dropped. From now on we will exploit this dimensionless form,

but we will consistently drop the bars from the notation, and exploit the newly

introduced dimensionless variables. Recovering the physical values from the set of

dimensionless variables is now straightforward (taking into account that t = t̂t̄).

Our research deals with shocks in HD and ideal MHD. Let us brieﬂy discuss

the concept of characteristic speeds of a (hyperbolic) system of conservation laws

(such as HD and ideal MHD), and its connection to so-called weak solutions to

the system. For simplicity, we restrict our analysis to the one-dimensional case.

But ﬁrst let us mention that shock waves are relevant. Figure 1.3 shows two

shocks. The left frame (taken from [73]) shows the HD shock wave which caused

the Sailor Hat Explosion crater on the Hawaiian island Kahoolawe, in a US army

experiment in 1965. A movie of the experiment can be seen on [74]. The middle

and right pictures of ﬁgure 1.3 are taken by the SOHO satellite observatory (taken

SHOCK WAVES IN (M)HD 11

Figure 1.3: The left picture shows a hydrodynamical shock wave during a US army

experiment (taken from [73]). The middle and right picture show a solar MHD

shock wave (taken from [6]).

from [6]) and shows an MHD shock wave on the solar surface. The picture is

taken on September 24, 1997. Solar shock waves are accompanied by violent

events like solar ﬂares or CME’s, which can aﬀect Earth’s magnetosphere and its

orbiting satellites. These are two examples which are meant to justify (M)HD

shock research. However, in this dissertation, we strife for a more mathematical

description of shock waves.

Consider a solution U(x, t0 ) of a hyperbolic system of conservation laws Ut +Fx =

0 at a certain time t0 . Suppose U is constant at both sides of a continuous

transition layer (as shown in the left frame of ﬁgure 1.4), i.e.:

Ul , −δ/2 > x

U= U(x), −δ/2 < x < δ/2 (1.28)

Ur , x > δ/2

In the limit of δ → 0, we call the solution a weak solution to the hyperbolic system.

Note that at |x| > δ, the conservation law is trivially satisﬁed. in the limit case for

δ → 0, we derive the so-called Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions (RH) at x = 0,

which describe solutions to the integral form of the MHD equations.

Let ui be a i-th conserved variable, and let Fi be the corresponding ﬂux term.

Take an inﬁnitesimal volume element [x0 , x1 ] × [t0 , t1 ] in the (x, t)-plane such that

at time t0 the shock is located at x0 , and at time t1 the shock is located at x1 , as

shown in the right frame of ﬁgure 1.4. The i-th line of the one dimensional MHD

equations now reads as ∂U ∂Fi

∂t + ∂x = 0. Now: denoting x̃ = (t, x), F̃i = (Ui , Fi )

i

ZZ

˜ F̃i dx̃ = 0,

∇ (1.29)

(x,t)

12 INTRODUCTION

Ur

Ul

−δ/2 δ/2 x

Figure 1.4: Left: Two constant states connected through a transition layer of

thickness δ. In the limit case δ → 0, a discontinuity appears. Right: Integration on

an inﬁnitesimal volume element [x0 , x1 ] × [t0 , t1 ] leads to the RH jump conditions.

I

F̃i · ndS = 0. (1.30)

Here S is the boundary of the volume element and n is the normal vector on

S pointing outwards. It is now straightforward to evaluate the left hand side of

equation (1.30), and ﬁnd that

where the index r refers to the right region and the index l refers to the left region.

Rewriting equation (1.31) and collecting all the values of i, we arrive at

x1 −x0

where the jump [[·]] = ·r − ·l , and s ≡ t1 −t0 is the shock speed.

For now, it is suﬃcient to note that in (M)HD, these discontinuities are called

shocks whenever the normal velocity jumps across the discontinuity do not vanish:

[[ux ]] 6= 0. Otherwise, the discontinuity is called a linear discontinuity. An example

of such a linear discontinuity, both in HD and ideal MHD, is a contact discontinuity

(CD), where the only primitive variable which jumps across it is the density ρ.

Discontinuous solutions, which thus only satisfy the RH conditions, are called weak

solutions.

SHOCK WAVES IN (M)HD 13

can rewrite this system in quasilinear form as

Ut + FU Ux = 0. (1.33)

(x, t) 7→ U(x, t) is a homogeneous function, i.e. ∀µ ≥ 0 : U(µx, µt) = U(x, t).

these solutions are in ﬂuid mechanics often referred to as self-similar solutions:

the vector of conserved variables U(ξ) is a function of ξ only.

we can rewrite this quasilinear form again, now as an eigenvalue problem

FU Uξ = ξUξ , (1.34)

from which it is clear that wherever U is not locally constant (Uξ 6= 0), ξ must

be an eigenvalue of the ﬂux Jacobian FU . Since the system is hyperbolic, all n

eigenvalues must be real, by deﬁnition of hyperbolicity.

We can ﬁnd such self-similar solutions if at t = 0, U is constant everywhere, except

at x = 0. This initial setup is called a Riemann problem. A ﬁrst observation is

that the eigenvalues λi (1 ≤ i ≤ n, and λ1 ≤ λ2 ≤ ...λi ≤ λi+1 ≤ ... ≤ λn ) are a

function of space and time. When solving such a Riemann problem, the appearing

signals are located where ξ = xt = λi (x, t) and that is why we call the eigenvalues

of the Jacobian of the ﬂux matrix with respect to the conserved variables (or any

other set of independent variables) the characteristic speeds. These characteristic

speeds can be used to deﬁne characteristic curves σi,κ : si (x, t) = κ in the (x, t)-

plane as follows:

∂si ∂si

+ λi = 0. (1.35)

∂t ∂x

From the implicit function theorem, it now follows that (x0 , t0 ) ∈ σi,κ can be

locally expressed as x(t), such that x(t0 ) = x0 and

dx

(t0 ) = λi . (1.36)

dt

More compactly, these characteristic curves are also called characteristics, and

from equation (1.36), these characteristics describe the path at which information

travels at the i-th characteristic speed λi , while from equation (1.35) we know

that along this i-th characteristic, the value of si is invariant. si is said to be a

Riemann invariant.

The characteristics of the Riemann problem are schematically shown in ﬁgure 1.5.

The signals separate two regions of constant U, and can (for a non-linear system)

14 INTRODUCTION

t

λ1 λi λn

characteristic speeds divide the (x, t)-plane in up to n + 1 regions of constant

U. The transitions can both be continuous or discontinuous. The continuous case

is represented by multiple lines, while the discontinuous signals are represented by

a single line. The signals travel at speed dx x

dt = t . The regions separated by the

signals have constant speed.

form a continuous case by wave steepening, which we will explain in more detail in

Section 1.2.5. Consider now two (x, t)-regions in the space-time plane, separated

by a single (the i-th) signal which is traveling at speed s, it can be shown (and is

shown by e.g. Lax [53]) that for discontinuous signals we must have

When one of the inequalities is a strict inequality, also the other inequality is a

strict inequality. Those discontinuous solutions are called shocks. On the other

hand, when λi (Ul ) = s = λi (Ur ), we say that the solution a linear discontinuity.

Across continuous signals, s varies from λi (Ul ) to λi (Ur ).

Figure 1.6 shows the characteristics in both the discontinuous and the continuous

case. In the left panel, λi (Ul ) > λi (Ur ). This means that the characteristics

SHOCK WAVES IN (M)HD 15

t t

x x

Figure 1.6: Left: The i-th characteristics at both sides of a shock. Since

characteristics can not cross, wave steepening leads to shock formation. Right:

The i-th characteristics at both sides of an expansion fan.

in Ul and Ur should meet and a shock is formed. The exact value of s is not

a priori known from λi (Ul ) and λi (Ur ), but we do know that it is bounded by

λi (Ul ) > s > λi (Ur ). The right panel shows the situation where λi (Ul ) < λi (Ur ).

Therefore the characteristics never meet. The dotted characteristics do not exist

at t = 0.

Let us now derive the characteristic speeds of the Euler system. We follow the

approach of Courant & Friedrichs [14], which can also be found in textbooks as

e.g. Leveque [54], Gombosi [35] or Batchelor [7]. First of all, the one-dimensional

version of these equations becomes in conservational form Ut + Fx = 0 with

2

U = (ρ, ρv, ρ v2 + γ−1 1

p)t and the ﬂux term becomes

ρv

F= ρv 2 + p . (1.38)

ρv 2 γ

v( 2 + γ−1 p)

To ﬁnd the eigenvalues of FU , we solve

λ−v −ρ 0

−v 2 λ − 2ρv −1

= 0. (1.39)

3 γ γ

− v2 − γ−1 p − 32 ρv 2 λ − γ−1 v

where we introduced the sound speed

γp

r

c≡ . (1.40)

ρ

16 INTRODUCTION

Note that c > 0 such that v − c < v < v + c. Since the system is hyperbolic, we

can diagonalize the Jacobian matrix as FU = RΛR−1 , where the i-th column of

R is the right eigenvector belonging to λi , and Λ the diagonal matrix with λi on

the (i, i)-th entry. The quasilinear form simpliﬁes thus as Ut + RΛR−1 Ux = 0, or

by denoting that the p-th column of R−1 (i.e. the p-th left eigenvector of the FU )

as lp , this statement is equivalent to (lp · dU)dx=λp dt = 0. Rewriting this in terms

of total derivatives dρ, dv and dp, we ﬁnd the characteristic equations

is given by

2 p 2

s = (s1 , s2 , s3 ) = v − c, S(= γ ), v + c . (1.44)

γ−1 ρ γ−1

Denoting ξ = xt , we can even derive relations across continuous signals. We will

do so in chapter 2, but now it suﬃces to mention the relations holding across

continuous signals: [li · dU]dx=λj dt = 0, when i 6= j. This means that sj is

invariant across the i-th signal, whenever i 6= j.

(1.19) can be performed in one-dimensional MHD (see e.g. Courant & Hilbert

[16] or Jeﬀrey & Taniuti [46]). This leads to the conclusion that the characteristic

speeds of 1D ideal MHD are given by {vx ± vf,x , vx ± va,x , vx ± vs,x , vx } where we

introduced the normal and total Alfvén speed, respectively given by

s

Bx2

va,x ≡ , (1.45)

ρ

s

Bx2 + By2 + Bz2

va ≡ , (1.46)

ρ

SHOCK WAVES IN (M)HD 17

r

1 2 q

vf,x ≡ c + va2 + (c2 + va2 )2 − 4c2 va,x

2 , (1.47)

2

r

1 2 q

vs,x ≡ c + va2 − (c2 + va2 )2 − 4c2 va,x

2 . (1.48)

2

Here, again c denotes the sound speed as introduced in equation (1.40). The

MHD system is thus a non-strictly hyperbolic system with three diﬀerent highly

anisotropic wave speeds. Here the non-strictness of the hyperbolicity means that

the characteristic speeds are not necessarily distinct. Indeed, when for example

(p, Bx , By , Bz ) = (γ −1 , 1, 0, 0), it follows that vf,x = va,x = vs,x . This anisotropy

makes the MHD system much richer than the Euler system, where the only wave

speed is the isotropic sound speed.

Also, if the initial setup of a certain problem is planar, in the sense that the

streamlines and magnetic ﬁeld lines lay in a single plane, one can again perform

the same procedure. Now, the spectrum of this system has only 5 characteristic

speeds, namely {vx ± vf,x , vx ± vs,x , vx }. Note that this is a subset of the full 1D

MHD spectrum.

As mentioned above, the HD equations are nonlinear, and thus allow for

large amplitude waves. In the wave steepening limit, these waves can become

discontinuous and a shock can be formed. The necessary conditions are stated

in equation (1.37) and shown in the left panel of ﬁgure 1.6: since crossing

characteristics are impossible, they lead to shock formation through wave

steepening.

We illustrate this by a 1-dimensional numerical simulation where we connect two

constant states continuously through a transition region. We assume that γ = 35 .

As initial conditions, we set

ρ = γ, (1.49)

v = 3/2, (1.50)

1, ∀x < 1,

p = x2 , ∀x ∈ [1, 2], (1.51)

4, ∀x > 2.

18 INTRODUCTION

1/2 ∀x < 1,

v−c = 3/2 − x ∀x ∈ [1, 2], (1.52)

−1/2 ∀x > 2.

v = 3/2, (1.53)

5/2 ∀x < 1,

v+c = 3/2 + x ∀x ∈ [1, 2], (1.54)

7/2 ∀x > 2.

The upper left panel of ﬁgure 1.7 shows the initial primitive variables and the

upper right panel shows the initial characteristic speeds over the domain. Since

the characteristic speed u − c is decreasing in function of x, it is clear that it leads

to crossing 1-characteristics, and we expect one shock to be formed. The lower left

and right signals show respectively the primitive variables at t = 0.5 and t = 1. As

predicted, the most left signal, located at x ≈ 1.5 has steepened, and a stationary

shock will form. Furthermore, notice that the sign changing of v − c is equivalent

to a transition from Ms ≡ v/c > 1 to Ms < 1. Here Ms is called the sonic Mach

number. Also, at x ≈ 2.2 a linearly degenerate signal is being formed. Since only

the mass density jumps across it, it is a CD.

When a magnetic ﬁeld is applied, the system has 3 anisotropic characteristic speeds,

instead of one single isotropic sound speed. Just as in HD, the MHD equations are

nonlinear, and thus allow for large amplitude waves. In the wave steepening limit,

these waves can become discontinuous and a shock can be formed. The necessary

conditions are stated in equation (1.37) and shown in the left panel of ﬁgure 1.6:

since crossing characteristics are impossible, they lead to shock formation through

wave steepening.

We illustrate this by a 1-dimensional numerical simulation where we connect two

constant states continuously through a transition region. Again, we assume that

γ = 53 and as initial conditions we set on the x-axis:

SHOCK WAVES IN (M)HD 19

Figure 1.7: Upper Left: The initial conﬁguration for the primitive variables for the

HD wave steepening AMRVAC simulation. Note that all variables are continuous.

Only the pressure is non-constant in the transition region. Upper Right: The

initial characteristic speeds. Only v − c is decreasing and will thus lead to crossing

characteristics. Therefore the left signal will steepen and in the limit case a shock

will be formed. Lower Left: The primitive variables at t = 0.5. Lower Right: The

primitive variables at t = 1.

20 INTRODUCTION

ρ = γ, (1.55)

q √

4+ γ2 + γ2 4γ+1+1

∀x < 1,

2

r

q

2

vx = 3−2x+ 2γ+2 2

γ x +2+2 ( γ+1

γ ) x4 − γ−1 2

γ x +1 (1.56)

∀x ∈ [1, 2],

q2

r

10+ γ8 +2 9+ 40 16

γ + γ 2 −1

∀x > 2.

2

vy = 0 (1.57)

1, ∀x < 1,

p = x2 , ∀x ∈ [1, 2], (1.58)

4, ∀x > 2.

√

Bx = γ (1.59)

1, ∀x < 1,

By = x, ∀x ∈ [1, 2], (1.60)

2, ∀x > 2.

(1.61)

In the upper left frame of ﬁgure 1.8, the initial distribution of ρ, vx , p and By

are plotted, while in the upper right frame the initial characteristic speeds of the

planar 1D MHD system are plotted. Note that vx − vf,x is decreasing and will

lead to crossing characteristics. Therefore we expect that the most left signal will

steepen and a MHD shock will be formed. This will be a fast MHD shock, which

we will introduce in Section 3.3.

The two lower panels of ﬁgure 1.8 show ρ, vx , p and By at respectively t = 1 and

t = 2. We indeed notice that the most left signal has become discontinuous.

which is caused by the interaction of this CD with a hydrodynamical shock is

referred to as a Richtmyer-Meshkov instability (RMI). We will give a brief literature

review of the RMI.

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 21

Figure 1.8: The initial conﬁguration for the HD wave steepening AMRVAC

simulation. Upper Left: The initial conﬁguration for the primitive variables for

the MHD wave steepening AMRVAC simulation. Note that all variables are

continuous. Upper Right: The initial characteristic speeds. Only vx − vf,x is

decreasing and will thus lead to crossing characteristics. Therefore the left signal

will steepen and in the limit case a shock will be formed. Lower left: The AMRVAC

snapshot at t = 1. Lower Right: The AMRVAC snapshot at t = 2.

22 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.9: Snapshots of the density in an AMRVAC RMI simulation. The ﬁrst

snapshot shows the initial setup. The second frame shows the vorticity deposition

phase, and the latter snapshot shows the vorticity evolution phase. Here the

interface has become RM-unstable.

(M)HD shocks appear, and are extensively studied, in a wide range of astrophysical

environments. van Eerten et al.[25] studied the encounter between the relativistic

blast wave from a gamma-ray burster and a stellar wind termination shock,

De Sterck et al.[23] performed 3D simulations of stationary slow shocks in the

magnetosheath for solar wind conditions, Chané et al.[15], Jacobs et al.[44] and

many others study the interaction of the background wind and interplanetary

shocks. However, astrophysical experiments are very diﬃcult to perform, one

has to restrict oneself to observations. Therefore shock experiments are usually

performed in a laboratory environment, such as a shock tube. In this dissertation,

we will not perform those kind of experiments ourselves. We will analyse these

experiments mathematically and perform numerical simulations. Our goal is in

the ﬁrst place to understand shocks from a more mathematical perspective.

Since the numerical experiments we perform are all shock tube experiments,

we will ﬁrst brieﬂy review the literature on shock tubes and shock refraction.

Shock refraction happens whenever a shock interacts with an interface. When a

hydrodynamical shock refracts at an oblique density discontinuity, typically three

signals will arise and the interface will become unstable. Physical experiments can

be performed in a so-called shock tube, where a shock is generated and the set-up

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 23

is such that it will impinge on density discontinuity. Figure 1.11 shows a schematic

representation of such a shock tube. We performed numerical experiments with

the numerical code AMRVAC (see Section 1.4) and ﬁgure 1.9 shows the typical

behavior of the shock refraction process .in three density snapshots Shown is the

density of a numerical simulation for The ﬁrst snapshot shows the initial setup of

the experiment. Left and right sides of the domain are modeled open, while the

upper and lower boundaries are rigid walls. On the left side of the domain, there

is a genuine right-moving shock, moving towards an inclined density discontinuity,

separating two gases at rest. When the shock and the CD touch each other at

the bottom wall, the shock will refract and disturb the CD. Now the ﬁrst vorticity

deposition phase has started. Vorticity is deposited on the interface, causing it

to roll up. The refraction is typically centered around one single point, called

the triple point, as indicated in the middle snapshot of ﬁgure 1.9. When this

point reaches the upper wall, it will reﬂect, and after this reﬂection the vorticity

evolution phase begins. Now the vorticity changes sign, and the interface rolls up.

In the HD case, the shock will disturb the CD interface, and refract in a reﬂected

(R) and a transmitted (T) signal. The pattern created by these three signals

can vary, and it is far from trivial to predict which pattern will arise under a

given set of gas parameters. An overview of diﬀerent refraction patterns at a slow-

fast CO2 /CH4 interface is given in ﬁgure 1.10 (based on Nouragliev et al.[64]).

Regular shock refraction means that the three signals meet at a single point, called

the triple point. Since we can solve those problems exactly, we focus on those

patterns. A more detailed description of irregular shock refractions is given by,

e.g., Henderson [41] or Nouragliev et al.[64]. The upper frame of ﬁgure 2.9 shows a

numerical simulation Schlieren plot of a regular shock refraction pattern, while the

lower frame shown an irregular refraction pattern. Research on hydrodynamical

shock refraction has been performed since the 1940’s. The highly analytical work

of von Neumann [62] was pioneering in this ﬁeld. He was for example the ﬁrst

one to predict critical angles for regular shock refraction. In 1947, Taub [81]

suggests a solution strategy in the same highly analytical tradition: for the regular

refraction with reﬂected shock (RRR) pattern he rewrites the Rankine-Hugoniot

shock conditions as a polynomial of degree 12, and solving this polynomial is then

done numerically. Later on, shock tube experiments started to be performed. A

schematic representation of a shock tube is shown in ﬁgure 1.11. In such a shock

tube, a shock is generated, often by a piston system, and it propagates through

the tube at a certain sonic (upstream/downstream) Mach number Ms . Here the

shocks (upstream/downstream) sonic Mach number is deﬁned as the ratio of the

shock speed s, and (upstream/downstream) sound speed. For shock refraction

experiments, inside of the tube, a membrane mimics a CD separating 2 gases at

rest. Such simulations where performed by Jahn [45] to study regular refraction

24 INTRODUCTION

→ Increasing α →

Very Weak F N R → F P R → BP R → RRR → RRE

Weak T N R → T RR → F N R → BP R → RRR → RRE

Strong T M R → BP R → RRE

Notation:

RRR Regular Refraction with Reflected shock

RRE Regular Refraction with reflected Expansion fan

BPR Bound Precursor Refraction

FPR Free Precursor Refraction

FNR Free precursor von Neumann Refraction

TRR Twin Regular Refraction

TNR Twin von Neumann Refraction

pattern transitions at a slow-fast CO2 /CH4 interface. All these patterns and

transitions have been observed in shock tube experiments by Abd-El Fattah &

Henderson [1, 2, 3]. We focus on the regular shock refraction patterns RRR and

RRE, since these can be solved exactly. The ﬁgure is based on Nouragliev et al.[64].

of a plane shock, and later on also by, e.g., Henderson [40], and Abd-El Fattah

et al.[1, 2, 3] for irregular shock refraction or by, e.g., Haas en Sturtevant [37] and

more recently by Kreeft & Koren [50] for shock-bubble interaction.

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 25

t

R CD T

U2 U3

M0−1

U1 U4

U0

S CD x

0 1

Riemann problem occurs.

Let us ﬁrst consider the most trivial interaction of a shock and a CD, and therefore

the most trivial shock tube problem. Consider therefore a 1D domain, with a

stationary shock located at x = 0. At x = 1, we place a genuine left-moving CD

(see ﬁgure 1.12). Therefore, we have initially three region, i.e.,

• u1 ≡ (ρ1 , v1 , p1 ) at x < 0;

• u0 ≡ (ρ0 , v0 , p0 ) at x ∈ [0, 1];

• u4 ≡ (ρ4 , v4 , p4 ) at x > 1.

In general, one has three degrees of freedom for nondimensionalization (see e.g.

Goedbloed & Poedts [32]) but since we will look for a self-similar solution the

nondimensionalization is uniquely determined by ﬁxing two variables in a certain

region. We choose to set

• ρ0 = γ;

• p0 = 1.

Now, the speeds are scaled with respect to the downstream sound speed, i.e. c0 ≡

q

γp0

ρ0 = 1.

26 INTRODUCTION

The CD is completely determined by the density ratio η ≡ ρρ40 across it. Since all

speeds are scaled with respect to the sound speed in region u0 , this region moves

with its sonic Mach number towards the shock. Therefore, we now know that

• (ρ4 , v4 , p4 ) = (ηγ, −M0 , 1).

through the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. At time t = M0−1 , the shock and the

CD interact, and a Riemann problem occurs. The shock will refract in a reﬂected

(R) and a transmitted (T) shock, separated by the shocked contact discontinuity.

Across any signal, the 1D HD Rankine-Hugoniot (RH) conditions should hold. We

discuss these conditions in more depth later on, but for now it suﬃces to know

that in any stationary shock frame, these conditions reduce to

(γ + 1)Mk2

ρu = ρk , (1.62)

(γ − 1)Mk2 + 2

(γ − 1)Mk2 + 2

vu = uk , (1.63)

(γ + 1)Mk2

2γMk2 + 1 − γ

pu = pk . (1.64)

γ+1

Here the indices u and k refer respectively to the unknown and the known state.

Therefore we know that the initial upstream state is given by

(γ + 1)M02 (γ − 1)M02 + 2 2γM02 + 1 − γ

(ρ1 , v1 , p1 ) = ρ 0 , − , .

(γ − 1)M02 + 2 (γ + 1)M0 γ+1

We can express the known sonic Mach number at both the reﬂected R (Ms,l ) and

transmitted T (Ms,r ) signals respectively as

v1 − ξl

Ml = q , (1.65)

γp1

ρ1

v4 − ξr

Mr = q . (1.66)

γp4

ρ4

Here the newly introduced variables ξl and ξr respectively denote the speeds at

which R and T are traveling. When we apply relations (1.63-1.64) both across the

reﬂected and transmitted signal we arrive at the following solution:

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 27

` ´

p2 = ` ´ , (1.67)

(γ + 1) (γ − 2)M02 M02 + 2

2ηγ(M0 + ξr )2 − γ + 1

p3 = , (1.68)

γ+1

v2 = + ξl , (1.69)

(γ + 1)((γ − 1)M02 + (γ + 1)ξl M0 + 2)

v3 = . (1.70)

η(γ + 1)(M0 + ξr )

Both the pressure and the velocity remain invariant across a CD. Therefore,

solving

p2 = p3 ,

(1.71)

v2 = v3 .

ζ

ξl = , (1.72)

M0

16ζ 2 M02 + M02 + 12ζM0 + 8M04 ζ 2 − 3M04 + 4M03 ζ + 8ξl3 M03 − M06 + 3

ξr = ` ´` ´ , (1.73)

M0 M02 + 2ζM0 + 3 M02 + 3 + 4ζM0

where ζ should satisfy the quartic equation Σ4i=0 ti ζ i , where the coeﬃcients are

given by

4 2

t3 = (56η − 96)M0 + (208η − 288)M0 + 120η, (1.75)

6 4 2

t2 = (60η − 52)M0 + (288η − 312)M0 + (364η − 468)M0 + 120η, (1.76)

t1 = (18η − 12)M08 + (132η − 108)M06 + (312η − 324)M04 + (252η − 324)M02 + 54η, (1.77)

t0 = −M010 + (9η − 12)M08 + (60η − 54)M06 + (118η − 108)M04 + (60η − 81)M02 + 9η.(1.78)

For Ms,0 = 2, the solution for ξl and ξr is plotted in ﬁgure 1.13. Also the speed of

the shocked contact, ξc , is plotted. First of all we notice that the shock will slow

down the CD. The lower the density ratio, the bigger the slowdown of the CD.

28 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.13: Plotted are ξl , ξr and ξc in function of the density ratio η across the

unshocked CD. The sonic Mach number is kept constant, Ms,0 = 2. The black

line shows ξl , the red line represents ξr and the blue line shows ξc , the speed at

which the shocked contact is traveling.

9 0 6

ρ u p

8

5

7 -0.5

6 4

-1

5

3

4

-1.5

3 2

2 -2

1

1

0 -2.5 0

-3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5

x x x

Figure 1.14: The exact solution at t = 3/2 to the simple shock tube problem.

Left: ρ(x). Center: v(x). Right: p(x). Note that indeed velocity and pressure are

invariant across the contact, as we claimed before and will show later.

the values of U2 and U3 . For η = 2, we plot the solution at t = 3 in ﬁgure

1.14. Note that this solution is exact. The analysis above is performed using the

mathematical software package MAPLE 11.0.

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 29

Figure 1.15: The AMRVAC solution to the introductory shock tube problem. The

eﬀective resolution in this simulation is 30720. Note that indeed this results

conﬁrms our exact solution. The exact solution is overplotted, but not visible.

The next ﬁgure show zoomed in plots of the mass density proﬁle of the exact

solution, and the mass density proﬁle of the numerical solution.

Let us compare this exact result with the result of a numerical simulation

performed by the code AMRVAC, which is described in more detail in the next

section. Figure 1.15 shows that this numerical solution agrees with the exact

solution.

Note that, according to ﬁgure 1.13 for η < 1 no exact solution exists. This

is because we only looked for RRR refraction patterns, but the output of the

numerical experiment with η = 0.5 shows that no RRR solution is possible in this

case. Indeed the reﬂected signal is then continuous. This kind of signal is called

an expansion fan (see ﬁgure 1.17).

Comparing the slow-fast case (η < 1) to the fast-slow case (η > 1), we note the

following three transitions at η = 1:

• The initial shock was in both cases located at x = 0. Note that in the fast-

slow case the transmitted signal is decelerated (and thus located at x > 0)

while in the slow-fast case this signal is accelerated (and thus located at

x < 0);

• The nature of the shocked contact remains unchanged. By this we mean

that the shocked contact is slow-fast if the initial contact is slow-fast, and

the shocked contact is fast-slow only if the initial contact is fast-slow. Also

note that the pressure p and velocity v do not jump across the shocked

contact;

30 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.16: Upper : The mass density proﬁle of the exact solution compared to the

mass density proﬁle of the numerical solution across the reﬂected signal. Middle:

The mass density proﬁle of the exact solution compared to the mass density proﬁle

of the numerical solution across the CD. Lower : The mass density proﬁle of the

exact solution compared to the mass density proﬁle of the numerical solution across

the reﬂected signal.

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 31

Figure 1.17: The numerical solution to the introductory shock tube problem with

η = 0.5, with the reﬂected signal becoming an expansion fan. The eﬀective

resolution in this simulation is again 30720.

• In the fast-slow case, the reﬂected signal is a shock, and the numerical

solution coincides with our exact solution. In the slow-fast case, on the

other hand, the reﬂected signal is not a shock, but a continuous rarefaction

fan. Note that the jumps in p, ρ and v all change sign.

signals in ﬁgure 1.18. The left panel presents the fast-slow case, while the right

panel presents the slow-fast case. R and T stand for respectively the reﬂected

and the transmitted shock, while S is the initial shock and CD is the contact

discontinuity. In Chapter 2 of this dissertation we will generalize these facts to

the case where the CD is inclined, and the problem is thus 2D. In this section we

have solved the 1D shock refraction. We will also need to generalize our solution

strategy. We will not be able to give a closed form solution, but a numerical

iteration will converge to the exact solution of the problem. We will also allow for

out-of-plane magnetic ﬁelds. In Chapter 3, we will allow for magnetic ﬁelds which

are aligned with the shock normal, such that 5 signals will arise.

In the later phase of the shock-interface interaction process, the interface can

become unstable. This instability is called the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability

(RMI), and in contrast to the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (RTI), where an interface

becomes unstable due to an external force (e.g., gravity), the RMI is caused by

the interaction of an interface with a shock. Nonetheless, in 1960, Richtmyer

[69] generalized Taylor’s [82] analysis of the RTI to an impulsive acceleration,

32 INTRODUCTION

t t

R CD T R CD T

S CD x S CD x

Figure 1.18: The involved signals in 2 shock refraction cases in an (x, t)-plane.

Left: Fast-Slow refraction, Right: Slow-Fast refraction.

be Richtmyer-Meshkov unstable at all wavelengths, and independent of the

orientation of the impulse. Moreover, in contrast to most surface instabilities

(as the RTI), the RMI was predicted to grow linearly with time, Atwood number

( ρρ22 −ρ

+ρ1 , where the indices 1 and 2 refer respectively to the post and the pre-shock

1

regions), and with wave number k. This means that the interface is unstable for

all wavelengths, at least whenever the density ratio η ≡ ρρ12 > 1. By use of shock

tubes, Meshkov [58] experimentally validated Richtmyers predictions and the RMI

itself became a topic of extensive theoretical, numerical and experimental research.

The ﬁrst phase of the RMI process can be considered the vorticity (ω ≡ ∇ × v)

deposition phase. The magnitude of the deposited vorticity can be found through

shock polar analysis, as extensively described by Henderson [40] in 1966. After the

shock has passed the interface, the vorticity evolution phase begins. As Hawley &

Zabusky [38] described it in 1989: "The vortex layer diﬀuses laterally as it rotates

globally. The ends of the vortex layer begin to roll up. (...) The roll up of the lower

interface region proceeds as the vorticity binds with its mirror image. This is the

dominant mechanism for the formation of the wall vortex". This observation is in

agreement with various experimental results. Amongst many others, Sturtevant

[80] gives a good overview of these experiments in 1987. Figure 1.19 plots the

integrated vorticity of the AMRVAC RMI simulation presented by van der Holst

& Keppens [93] and conﬁrms that the instability grows linearly in the ﬁrst phase of

the process, while after reﬂection of the top wall, the vorticity deposition changes

sign. In what follows, we derive the MHD generalization of the vorticity evolution

THE RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY 33

Figure 1.19: The total vorticity evolution during the HD shock refraction process

described in van der Holst & Keppens [93]. The vorticity deposition is linear in

the vorticity deposition phase. When the triple point reaches the top wall, the

vorticity evolution phase starts and the vorticity deposition changes sign, causing

the interface to become RM-unstable.

flows

The evolution of the vorticity in ideal MHD can be quantiﬁed as follows. Let us

therefore rewrite the momentum equation as

∂ ∇p (∇ × B) × B

v + (v · ∇)v + − = 0. (1.79)

∂t ρ ρ

Then taking the curl of this expression leads to

∂ ∇p (∇ × B) × B

(∇ × v) + ∇ × ((v · ∇)v) + ∇ × −∇× = 0, (1.80)

∂t ρ ρ

or we ﬁnd

∂ v·v

ω + ∇ × (∇ − v × (∇ × v))

∂t 2

∇p (∇ × B) × B

+∇ × −∇× = 0, (1.81)

ρ ρ

which simpliﬁes to

∂ ∇p (∇ × B) × B

ω + ∇ × (ω × v) + ∇ × −∇× = 0. (1.82)

∂t ρ ρ

34 INTRODUCTION

− v · ∇ω + ω · ∇v − (∇ · v)ω

∇p (∇ × B) × B ∂

−∇ × +∇× = ω. (1.83)

ρ ρ ∂t

The latter two terms of the left hand side (LHS) can be simpliﬁed. Indeed,

∇p 1 1

−∇× = −∇ × ∇p − ∇ × ∇p

ρ ρ ρ

1

= (∇ρ × ∇p) , (1.84)

ρ2

and

(∇ × B) × B 1 1

∇× = ∇ × ((∇ × B) × B) + (∇ × [(∇ × B) × B])

ρ ρ ρ

1 1

= − (∇ρ × ((∇ × B) × B)) + (∇ × [(∇ × B) × B])

ρ2 ρ

1 1 B2

= − 2

(∇ρ × ((∇ × B) × B)) + (∇ × [∇ · BB − ∇ ])

ρ ρ 2

1 1

= − (∇ρ × ((∇ × B) × B)) + (∇ × (∇ · BB)). (1.85)

ρ2 ρ

∂

ω = −v · ∇ω + ω · ∇v − (∇ · v)ω

∂t

1 1

+ (∇ρ × (∇p − (∇ × B) × B)) + (∇ × (∇ · BB)). (1.86)

ρ2 ρ

D ω 1 D ω D

= ω− 2 ρ

Dt ρ ρ Dt ρ Dt

1 ∂ 1 ω

= ω + (v · ∇)ω + (∇ · v). (1.87)

ρ ∂t ρ ρ

AMRVAC AND THE VTK FILE FORMAT 35

Dt = ∂t + (v · ∇)ω leads

now to the vorticity evolution equations for inviscid compressible MHD ﬂows:

D ω ∇ρ × (∇p − (∇ × B) × B) ∇ × (∇ · BB) (ω · ∇)v

= + + . (1.88)

Dt ρ ρ3 ρ2 ρ

All shock refraction simulations and analyses performed in this dissertation are

2D. The latter term, (ω·∇)v

ρ , vanishes in that case, and therefore the vorticity

evolution equation in 2D compressible ﬂows reduces as

D ω ∇ρ × (∇p − (∇ × B) × B) ∇ × (∇ · BB)

= + . (1.89)

Dt ρ ρ3 ρ2

One could thus conclude that (i) the misalignment of pressure and density

gradients, (ii) the misalignment of the Lorentz force and the density gradient

and (iii) the non-uniformity of the magnetic field are responsible for vorticity

deposition in 2D ﬂows.

More information on the RMI can be found in review articles as Rupert [72],

Zabusky [104] or Bruillette [10].

experiments are expensive to perform, numerical codes gained popularity to

perform computer experiments. Interpreting and analyzing data produced by

a numerical experiment is also easier and accurate. All numerical simulation

discussed in this dissertation have been performed by (MPI)AMRVAC on the

K.U.Leuven HPC cluster VIC. Let us brieﬂy discuss the history and philosophy of

this code.

1.4.1 History

open source code for solving hyperbolic systems of conservation laws such as

advection, HD and MHD problems, initially developed by Tóth [87]. Often

astrophysical problems involve super-Alfvénic speeds (as explained later), which

give rise to discontinuous shock solutions to the MHD equations. A numerical

MHD tool should thus exploit appropriate shock capturing schemes. VAC

discretizes the physical domain in a regular recti- or curvilinear grid, and includes

shock-capturing schemes such as the Flux Corrected Transport (FCT), a Total

Variation Diminishing (TVD) scheme with a Roe-type approximate Riemann

36 INTRODUCTION

solver (see e.g. Roe [70] or Roe & Balsara [71], a Total Variation Diminishing

Lax-Friedrich scheme (TVDLF) and implicit and semi-implicit schemes (see Tóth

et al.[89], Keppens et al.[48]). VAC is written in Fortran, using a pre-processor,

which allows to program in any-dimensional manner. This Loop Annotation

Syntax is called the LASY-syntax (as introduced in Tóth [88]). More information

on VAC can be found in [92].

The higher the resolution in a numerical simulation, the more accurate the physics

are represented. Especially when discontinuities are involved, not all regions in the

complete domain require the same resolution in order to accurately represent the

physics. Berger & Colella [9] proposed the Adaptive Mesh Reﬁnement (AMR)

algorithm, and this principle is used in AMRVAC, as presented by Keppens

et al.[49]. Initially, the type of AMR exploited in AMRVAC was a patch-based

reﬁnement. Later on, it has been changed to a hybrid-block based reﬁnement (as

explained in van der Holst & Keppens [93]), and still later evolved to the present

form of the octree based block reﬁnement.

Historically, numerical simulations were ﬁrst performed on a regular uniform

equidistant grid. The main advantage of this approach is that inter- and

extrapolations are straightforward to perform. A major disadvantage on the other

hand, is that the resolution is equal on the whole domain, while the main physics

of a certain problem is often centered in certain "interesting regions". The idea

of AMR is now to tackle this by increasing the resolution in these interesting

regions. One therefore ﬁrst chooses a number n of AMR levels. On the ﬁrst level

one employs a regular grid structure. Every coarsest level grid again consists of

regularly distributed cells. On each of these cells, the conserved variables have a

certain value at each time step. One can then exploit various reﬁnement algorithms

to decide whether to ﬂag a certain grid for reﬁnement, but the basic idea is that

large gradients should lead to reﬁnement. On the second AMR level, one then

divides every grid in every dimension into 2, such that the grid is divided into 2d

sub-grids, as shown in ﬁgure 1.20. Here d is the number of dimensions. Exactly

the same reﬁnement happens to the cells in these ﬂagged grids. An interpolation

then allows to calculate the new values of the conserved variables in these new

cells. One recursively repeats this procedure n − 1 times.

In this AMR approach inter- and extrapolation are not as straightforward as on a

regular grid. In fact, there is a restriction to this reﬁnement: the proper nesting

requirement should not be violated. The proper nesting requirement states the

following. Let grids g1 and g2 be neighboring grids, with level respectively l1 and

l2 . Then l2 can diﬀer from l1 with at most 1. If this is not the case then, the

coarser of grids g1 and g2 is checked for reﬁnement, until the criterion is satisﬁed.

OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 37

Figure 1.20: The AMR grids generated at a Cartesian domain. Each of these grids

is divided into a number of uniformly regularly structured cells.

The exploited timestep, ∆t, is constant on each level. Moreover, the Courant

condition should be satisﬁed on all levels:

∆xi

≥ vmax , (1.90)

∆t

where ∆xi is the thickness of a cell in dimension i, ∆t is the timestep, and vmax

is the maximum speed reached in the simulation. The Courant condition ensures

that information travels at most one cell during one timestep, and is needed for

stability of explicit time integration schemes.

In Appendix A we describe the structure of AMRVAC in more detail. In Appendix

B we give more information on the compilation procedure, and in Appendix C we

show an example of a USR-ﬁle, as introduced in Appendices A and B.

simulations, and a major issue is the data visualization, which is preferably

done by parallel software. ParaView [66] is exactly such an open source parallel

visualization application. ParaView was developed by Kit ware, inc., and is able to

process a wide range of data types, amongst which VTK [95], which was especially

developed for ParaView. VTK provides several ﬁle formats, which are described

in [96]. We decided to use the VTK ﬁle format for unstructured grid, called VTU.

Therefore, we developed a Fortran subroutine which converts the AMRVAC output

to VTU output. It can also be read by several other visualization applications,

among which VisIt [94]. The output is saved in a binary format.

applied.

38 INTRODUCTION

problem of planar shock refraction at an oblique density discontinuity, separating

two gases at rest. When the shock impinges on the density discontinuity, it

refracts and in the hydrodynamical case 3 signals arise. Regular refraction

means that these signals meet at a single point, called the triple point. After

reﬂection from the top wall, the contact discontinuity becomes unstable due to

local Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, causing the contact surface to roll up and

develop the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability. We present an exact Riemann solver

based solution strategy to describe the initial self similar refraction phase, by

which we can quantify the vorticity deposited on the contact interface. We

investigate the eﬀect of a perpendicular magnetic ﬁeld and quantify how addition of

a perpendicular magnetic ﬁeld increases the deposition of vorticity on the contact

interface slightly under constant Atwood Number. We predict wave pattern

transitions, in agreement with experiments, von Neumann shock refraction theory,

and numerical simulations performed with the grid-adaptive code AMRVAC. These

simulations also describe the later phase of the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability.

Early results on the purely HD case were published in Delmont & Keppens [18].

Chapter 3 is based on Delmont et al.[20]. In this chapter we generalize our

results presented in Chapter 2 to planar ideal MHD. As mentioned earlier, in

the hydrodynamical case, 3 signals arise and the interface becomes Richtmyer-

Meshkov unstable due to vorticity deposition on the shocked contact, in ideal

MHD, on the other hand, when the normal component of the magnetic ﬁeld does

not vanish, 5 signals will arise. The interface then typically remains stable, since

the Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions in ideal MHD do not allow for vorticity

deposition on a contact discontinuity. Again, we present an exact Riemann solver

based solution strategy to describe the initial self similar refraction phase. Using

grid-adaptive MHD simulations, we show that after reﬂection from the top wall,

the interface remains stable.

Chapter 4, is based on Delmont & Keppens [21] and focuses on the mathematical

description of MHD shocks. Due to the existence of three anisotropic characteristic

speeds, the MHD shock classiﬁcation is much richer than in hydrodynamics,

where only the isotropic sound speed enters. One distinguishes slow, intermediate

and fast shocks, where intermediate shocks connect a sub-Alfvénic state to a

super-Alfvénic state. We investigate under which parameter regimes the MHD

Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, which describe discontinuous solutions to the MHD

equations, allow for certain types of intermediate MHD shocks. We derive limiting

values for the upstream and downstream shock parameters for which shocks of a

given shock type can occur. We revisit this classical topic in nonlinear MHD

dynamics, augmenting the recent time reversal duality ﬁnding by Goedbloed [33]

in the usual shock frame parametrization. Our results generalize known limiting

values for certain shock types, such as switch-on or switch-oﬀ shocks.

OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 39

Chapter 5 ﬁnally gives a popularized dutch summary of the work presented in the

other chapters.

Chapter 2

regular shock refraction

density discontinuity in hydrodynamics. When a shock refracts, three signals

will arrive. We develop an exact Riemann solver to predict the position of the

new-formed signals, and ﬁnd the values of the conserved variables in the new-

formed regions. We derive critical angles for regular shock refraction, which agree

with numerical AMRVAC simulations and shock tube experiments. Our approach

connects slow-fast and fast-slow refraction in a natural way. Finally, we investigate

the eﬀect of an out-of-plane magnetic ﬁeld.

After reﬂection from the top wall, the interface becomes unstable due to local

Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. This instability is called the Richtmyer-Meshkov

instability.

This work was published in Delmont et al.[19].

2.1 Introduction

density discontinuity. Long ago, von Neumann [62] deduced the critical angles for

regularity of the refraction, while Taub [81] found relations between the angles

of refraction. Later on, Henderson [40] extended this work to irregular refraction

by use of polar diagrams. An example of an early shock tube experiment was

performed by Jahn [45]. Amongst many others, Abd-El-Fattah & Henderson [2, 3]

performed experiments in which also irregular refraction occurred.

41

42 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

shock waves with density discontinuities, and concluded that the shock-accelerated

contact is unstable to perturbations of all wavelenghts, for fast-slow interfaces

(Richtmyer [69]). In hydrodynamics (HD) an interface is said to be fast-slow

if η > 1, and slow-fast otherwise, where η is the density ratio across the

interface (ﬁgure 2.1). The instability is not a classical ﬂuid instability in the

sense that the perturbations grow linearly and not exponentially. The ﬁrst

experimental validation was performed by Meshkov [58]. On the other hand,

according to linear analysis the interface remains stable for slow-fast interfaces.

This misleading result is only valid in the linear phase of the process and near

the triple point: a wide range of experimental (e.g. Abd-El-Fattah & Henderson

[3]) and numerical (e.g. Nouragliev et al.[64]) results show that also in this case

the interface becomes unstable. The growth rates obtained by linear theory

compare poorly to experimentally determined growth rates (Sturtevant [80]). The

governing instability is referred to as the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability (RMI)

and is nowadays a topic of research in e.g. inertial conﬁnement fusion ( e.g. Oron

et al.[65]), astrophysics (e.g. Kifonidis et al.[51]), and it is a common test problem

for numerical codes (e.g. van der Holst & Keppens [93]).

In essence, the RMI is a local Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, due to the deposition of

vorticity on the shocked contact. Hawley & Zabusky [38] formulate an interesting

vortex paradigm, which describes the process of shock refraction, using vorticity as

a central concept. Later on, Samtaney et al.[77] performed an extensive analysis

of the baroclinic circulation generation on shocked slow-fast interfaces.

A wide range of ﬁelds where the RMI occurs, involves ionized, quasi-neutral

plasmas, where the magnetic ﬁeld plays an important role. Therefore, more

recently there has been some research done on the RMI in magnetohydrodynamics

(MHD). Samtaney [78] proved by numerical simulations, exploiting Adaptive Mesh

Reﬁnement (AMR), that the RMI is suppressed in planar MHD, when the initial

magnetic ﬁeld is normal to the shock. Wheatley et al.[98] solved the problem of

planar shock refraction analytically, making initial guesses for the refracted angles.

The basic idea is that ideal MHD does not allow for a jump in tangential velocity, if

the magnetic ﬁeld component normal to the contact discontinuity (CD), does not

vanish (see e.g. Goedbloed & Poedts [32]). The solution of the Riemann problem

in ideal MHD is well-studied in the literature (e.g. Lax [53]), and due to the

existence of three (slow, Alfvén, fast) wave signals instead of one (sound) signal,

it is much richer than the HD case. The Riemann problem usually considers the

self similar temporal evolution of an initial discontinuity, while we will consider

stationary two dimensional conditions. The interaction of small perturbations

with MHD (switch-on and switch-oﬀ) shocks was studied both analytically by

Todd [84] and numerically by Chu & Taussig [17]. Later on, the evolutionarity of

intermediate shocks, which cross the Alfvén speed, has been studied extensively.

Intermediate shocks are unstable under small perturbations, and are thus not

CONFIGURATION AND GOVERNING EQUATIONS 43

evolutionary. Brio & Wu [11] and De Sterck et al.[22] found intermediate shocks

in respectively one and two dimensional simulations. The evolutionary condition

became controversial and amongst others Myong & Roe [60, 61] argue that the

evolutionary condition is not relevant in dissipative MHD. Chao et al.[12] reported

a 2 → 4 intermediate shock observed by Voyager 1 in 1980 and Feng & Wang [29]

recognized a 2 → 3 intermediate shock, which was observed by Voyager 2 in 1979.

On the other hand, Barmin et al.[8] argue that if the full set of MHD equations

is used to solve planar MHD, a small tangential disturbance on the magnetic ﬁeld

vector splits the rotational jump from the compound wave, transforming it into a

slow shock. They investigate the reconstruction process of the non-evolutionary

compound wave into evolutionary shocks. Also Falle & Komissarov [26, 27] do

not reject the evolutionary condition, and develop a shock capturing scheme for

evolutionary solutions in MHD, However, since all the signals in this paper are

essentially hydrodynamical, we do not have to worry about evolutionarity for the

setup considered here.

In this chapter, we solve the problem of regular shock refraction exactly,

by developing a stationary two-dimensional Riemann solver. Since a normal

component of the magnetic ﬁeld suppresses the RMI, we investigate the eﬀect of a

perpendicular magnetic ﬁeld. The transition from slow-fast to fast-slow refraction

is described in a natural way and the method can predict wave pattern transitions.

We also perform numerical simulations using the grid-adaptive code AMRVAC

(van der Holst & Keppens [93]; Keppens et al.[49]).

In section 2, we formulate the problem and introduce the governing MHD

equations. In section 3, we present our Riemann solver based solution strategy

and in section 4, more details on the numerical implementation are described.

Finally, in section 5, we present our results, including a case study, the prediction

of wave pattern transitions, comparison to experiments and numerical simulations,

and the eﬀect of a perpendicular magnetic ﬁeld on the stability of the CD.

is parametrized by 5 independent initial parameters: the angle α between the

shock normal and the initial density discontinuity CD, the sonic Mach number

M of the impinging shock, the density ratio η across the CD and the ratios of

speciﬁc heat γl and γr on both sides of the CD. The shock refracts in 3 signals: a

reﬂected signal (R), a transmitted signal (T) and a shocked contact discontinuity

(CD), where we allow both R and T to be expansion fans or shocks. Adding a

44 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

M α

Figure 2.1: Initial conﬁguration: a shock moves with shock speed M to an inclined

density discontinuity. Both the upper and lower boundary are solid walls, while

the left and the right boundaries are open.

region,

2p

β= , (2.1)

B2

which is in our setup a sixth independent parameter. As argued later, the shock

then still refracts in 3 signals (see ﬁgure 2.3): a reﬂected signal (R), a transmitted

signal (T) and a shocked contact discontinuity (CD), where we allow both R and

T to be expansion fans or shocks.

use the framework of ideal MHD. We thereby neglect viscosity and resistivity, and

suppose that the length scales of interest are much larger than the Debye length

and there are enough particles in a Debye sphere (see e.g. Goedbloed & Poedts

[32]). Written out in stationary, conservative form and for our planar problem, the

MHD equations (1.19) are reduced to

∂ ∂

F+ G = 0, (2.2)

∂x ∂y

where we introduced the ﬂux terms

!t

B2 γ vx2 + vy2

F= ρvx , ρvx2 + p + , ρvx vy , vx ( p+ρ + B 2 ), vx B, vx γρ , (2.3)

2 γ −1 2

CONFIGURATION AND GOVERNING EQUATIONS 45

y shocked 2

y

1

unshocked

v2

x

v1

atan(λi )

φ

x

n = (sinφ, −cosφ)

Figure 2.2: Left: A stationary shock, separating two constant states across an

inclined planar discontinuity. Right: The eigenvalues of the matrix A from (3.6)

correspond to the refracted signals.

and

!t

B2 γ vx2 + vy2

G= ρvy , ρvx vy , ρvy2 +p+ , vy ( p+ρ + B 2 ), vy B, vy γρ . (2.4)

2 γ−1 2

ﬂow and the velocity v = (vx , vy , 0). Note that the ratio of speciﬁc heats, γ, is

interpreted as a variable, rather than as an equation parameter, which is done

to treat gases and plasmas in a simple analytical and numerical way. The latter

equation of the system expresses that ∇ · (γρv) = 0. Also note that ∇ · B = 0 is

trivially satisﬁed.

We allow weak (i.e. discontinuous) solutions of the system, which are solutions

of the integral form of the MHD equations. The shock occurring in the problem

setup, as well as those that later on may appear as R or T signals obey the

Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. In the case of two dimensional stationary ﬂows

(see ﬁgure 2.2), where the shock speed s = 0, the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions

follow from equation (2.2). When considering a thin continuous transition layer

in between the two regions, withR thickness δ, solutions of the integral form of

2 ∂ ∂

equation (2.2) should satisfy lim 1 ( ∂x F + ∂y G)dl = 0. For vanishing thickness

δ→0

of the transition layer this yields the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions as

46 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

u1

u2 u5

φR

R CD T

u3 u4

Figure 2.3: The wave pattern during interaction of the shock with the CD. The

upper and lower boundaries are rigid walls, while the left and right boundaries are

open.

2

1 ∂ 1 ∂

Z

− lim F− G dl = 0 (2.5)

δ→0 1 sin φ ∂l cos φ ∂l

where ξ = tan φ and φ is the angle between the x-axis and the shock as indicated

in ﬁgure 2.2. The symbol [[ ]] indicates the jump across the interface.

In the initial refraction phase, the shock will introduce 3 wave signals (R, CD, T),

and 2 new constant states develop, as schematically shown in ﬁgure 3.3. We choose

a representation in which the initial shock speed s equals its sonic Mach number

M . We determine the value of the primitive variables in the post-shock region by

applying the stationary Rankine-Hugoniot conditions in the shock rest frame. In

absence of a magnetic ﬁeld, we use a slightly diﬀerent way to nondimensionalize

the problem. Note ui = (ρi , vx,i , vy,i , ptot,i , Bi , γi ), where the index i refers to the

RIEMANN SOLVER BASED SOLUTION STRATEGY 47

value taken in the i−th region (ﬁgure 3.3) and the total pressure

B2

ptot = p + . (2.7)

2

In the HD case, we deﬁne p = 1 and ρ = γl in u1 . Now all velocity components

are scaled with respect to the sound speed in this region between the impinging

shock and the initial CD. Since this region is initially at rest, the sonic Mach

number M of the shock equals its shock speed s. When the shock intersects

the CD, the triple point follows the unshocked contact slip line. It does so at a

speed vtp = (M, M tan α), therefore we will solve the problem in the frame of

the stationary triple point. We will look for self-similar solutions in this frame,

u = u(φ), where all signals are stationary. We now have that ṽx = vx − M and

ṽy = vy − M tan α, where ṽ refers to this new frame. From now on we will drop the

tilde and only use this new frame. We now have u1 = (γl , −M, −M tan α, 1, 0, γl )t

and u5 = (ηγl , −M, −M tan α, 1, 0, γr )t . The Rankine-Hugoniot relations now

immediately give a unique solution for u2 , namely

t

(γl2 + γl )M 2 (γl − 1)M 2 + 2 2γl M 2 − γl + 1

u2 = , − , −M tan α, , 0, γl .

(γl − 1)M 2 + 2 (γl + 1)M γl + 1

(2.8)

all velocity components are scaled with respect to the sound speed in this region.

t

We now have that u1 = γ2l β , −M, −M tan α, β+1 2 , 1, γl and from the deﬁnition

t

of η, u5 = ηγ2l β , −M, −M tan α, β+12 , 1, γr . The Rankine-Hugoniot relations

now give the following non-trivial solutions for u2 :

t

M 2 −M

−γl βM

u2 = , ω, −M tan α, p2 + , , γl , (2.9)

2ω 2ω 2 ω

where

C1 ω + C2

p2 = , (2.10)

C3 ω + C4

48 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

is the thermal pressure in the post shock region. We introduced the coeﬃcients

C1 = γl β 2 (4γl2 M 4 − 2γl M 2 − γl − 1)

(2.11)

C2 = (2.12)

C3 = (2.13)

The quantity

√

γl (γl − 1)βM 2 + 2γl (β + 1) ± W

ω = ω± ≡ − , (2.15)

2γl (γl + 1)βM

W

Note that ω must satisfy −M < ω < 0 to represent a genuine right moving shock.

We choose the solution where ω = ω+ , since the alternative, ω = ω− is a degenerate

solution in the sense that the hydrodynamical limit lim ω− = 0, which does not

β→+∞

represent a right-moving shock.

fan

ux + Fu −1 · Gu uy = 0.

(2.17)

In the frame moving with the triple point, we are searching for self-similar solutions

and we can introduce ξ = xy = tan φ, so that u = u(ξ). Assuming that ξ 7→

u(ξ) is diﬀerentiable, manipulating equation (2.17) leads to Auξ = ξuξ . So the

RIEMANN SOLVER BASED SOLUTION STRATEGY 49

signals and the negative x-axis. The matrix A is given by

vy ρvy vy

− v2 ρvx 1

0 0

vx 2 −v 2

vx −v 2 vx vx2 −v 2

ms x ms ms

vx vy v2 v 1

0 2 2

vx −vms − v2 −v

ms

2 − ρy v2 −v 2 0 0

x ms x ms

vy 1

0 0 0 0

vx ρvx

A ≡ F−1

u Gu = 2

ρvms vy 2

ρvms vx vx vy

. (2.18)

0 − v2 −v 2 2 −v 2

vx 2 −v 2

vx 0 0

x ms ms ms

Bv vy B vy

− v2Bv 1

0 − v2 −vy2 x

2 2 −v 2 0

x ms x −vms vx ρ vx ms vx

vy

0 0 0 0 0 vx

p p

vx vy + vms v 2 − vms

2 vy vy vy vy vx vy − vms v 2 − vms

2

λ1,2,3,4,5,6 ={ 2 2

, , , , , 2 2

},

vx − vms vx vx vx vx vx − vms

(2.19)

p

where the magnetosonic speed vms ≡ 2 2

q q c + va and as before the sound speed

c = γpρ and the Alfvén speed va =

B2

ρ . Since A has 3 diﬀerent eigenvalues, 3

diﬀerent signals will arise. When uξ exists and uξ 6= 0, i.e. inside of expansion

fans, uξ is proportional to a right eigenvector ri of A. Derivation of ξ = λi with

respect to ξ gives (∇u λi ) · uλ = 1 and thus we ﬁnd the proportionality constant,

giving

ri

uξ = . (2.20)

∇u λi · ri

While this result assumed continuous functions, we can also mention relations that

hold even across discontinuities like the CD. Denoting the ratio du ri = κ, it follows

i

that [li · du]dx=λj dy = (li · rj )κ = κδi,j , where li and ri are respectively left and

right eigenvectors corresponding to λi . Therefore, if i 6= j,

[li · du]dx=λj dy = 0. (2.21)

From these general considerations the following relations hold across the contact

dy v

or shear wave where the ratio dx = vxy :

√

v dv − v dv + vms v2 −vms 2

dptot = 0,

y x x y

√ρc22 2 (2.22)

v dv − v dv − vms v −vms dp = 0.

y x x y ρc2 tot

50 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

Since v 6= vms , otherwise all signals would coincide, it follows immediately that the

v

total pressure ptot and the direction of the streamlines vxy remain constant across

the shocked contact discontinuity.

These relations across the CD allow to solve the full problem using an iterative

procedure. Inspired by the exact Riemann solver described in Toro [85], we ﬁrst

guess the total pressure p∗ across the CD. R is a shock when p∗ is larger than

the post-shock total pressure and T is a shock, only if p∗ is larger than the pre-

shock total pressure. Note that the jump in tangential velocity across the CD is

a function of p∗ and it must vanish. A simple Newton-Raphson iteration on this

v

function [[ vxy ]](p∗ ), ﬁnds the correct p∗ . We explain further in section 3.5 how we

ﬁnd the functional expression and iterate to eventually quantify φR , φT , φCD and

the full solution u(x, y, t). From now on p∗ represents the constant total pressure

across the CD.

Similarly, from√the general considerations above, equation (2.21) gives that along

dy vx vy ±vms v 2 −vms

2

dx = 2 −v 2

vx ms

the following relations connect two states across expansion

fans:

dρ − v21 dptot = 0,

ms

v2

vx dvx + vy dvy + ρcms2 dptot = 0,

−ρdptot + ptot ρdγ + ptot γdρ = 0, (2.23)

2

−Bdp + γp + B dB = 0,

tot √

v dv − v dv ± vms v2 −vms 2

y x x y ρc2 dp = 0.

tot

solution through expansion fans, namely

R p∗

ρi = ρe + ptot,e v21 dptot ,

R p∗ ±vy √v2 −vms

ms

2 −v v

x ms

vx,i = vx,e + ptot,e ρv 2 vms dptot ,

√

R p∗ ∓vx v2 −vms 2 −v v

y ms

vy,i = vy,e + ptot,e ρv 2 vms dptot , (2.24)

∗

R p B

B = B + dp ,

i e 2

ρvms tot

R pptot,e

∗

c2

pi = pe + ptot,e v2 dptot ,

ms

γi = γe .

The indices i and e stand respectively for internal and external, the states at both

sides of the expansion fans. The upper signs hold for reﬂected expansion fans (i.e.

of type R), while the lower sign holds for transmitted expansion fans (i.e. of type

T).

RIEMANN SOLVER BASED SOLUTION STRATEGY 51

Since the system is nonlinear and allows for large-amplitude shock waves, the

analysis given thus far is not suﬃcient. We must include the possibility of one or

both of the R and T signals to be solutions of the stationary Rankine-Hugoniot

conditions (equation (2.6)). The solution is given by

p∗

γ−1

γ+1 + ptot,e

ρi = γ−1 p∗ ρe ,

γ+1 ptot,e +1

∗

ξ (p −p tot,e )

vx,i = vx,e − ρe ∓(vx,e ξ∓ −vy,e ) ,

p∗ −p

vy,i = vy,e + ρe (vx,e ξ∓tot,e

−vy,e ) ,

γ−1 p∗

γ+1 + ptot,e

(2.25)

Bi = γ−1 p∗ Be ,

γ+1 ptot,e +1

γi = γe ,

B2

pi = p∗ − 2i ,

φR/T = arctan(ξ+/− ),

where

p

ve,x ve,y ± ĉe ve2 − ĉ2e

ξ± = 2 − ĉ2

, (2.26)

ve,x e

and

(γ − 1)ptot,e + (γ + 1)p∗

ĉ2e = . (2.27)

2ρe

Again the indices i and e stand respectively for internal and external, the states

at both sides of the shocks. The upper signs holds for reﬂected shocks, while the

lower sign holds for transmitted shocks.

We are now ready to formulate our iterative solution strategy. Since there exist 2

invariants across the CD, it follows that we can do an iteration, if we are able to

express one invariant in function of the other. As mentioned earlier, we choose to

iterate on p∗ = ptot,3 = ptot,4 . This is the only state variable;e in the solution, and

it controls both R and T. We will write φR = φR (u2 , p∗) and φT = φT (u5 , p∗ ),

u3 = u3 (u2 , p∗ ) and u4 = u4 (u5 , p∗ ). The other invariant should match too,

v v

i.e. vx,3

y,3

− vx,4

y,4

= 0. Since u2 and u5 only depend on the input parameters, this

last expression is a function of p∗ . Iteration on p∗ gives p∗ and φR = φR (p∗ ),

vy,3 v

φT = φT (p∗ ), u3 = u3 (p∗ ) and u4 = u4 (p∗ ) give φCD = arctan vx,3 = arctan vy,4

x,4

,

which solves the problem.

52 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

The only ingredient not yet fully speciﬁed by our description above is how to

determine the variation through possible expansion fans. This can be done once

the solution for p∗ is iteratively found, by integrating equations (2.24) till the

appropriate value of ptot . Notice that

√ the location of the tail of the expansion fan

vy,i vx,i ±ci vi2 −c2i

is found by tan(φtail ) = 2 −c2

vx,i

and the position of φhead is uniquely

i

√ 2 2

vy,e vx,e ±vms,e ve −vms,e

determined by tan(φhead ) = 2 −v 2

vx,e . Inside an expansion fan we

ms,e

know u(ptot ), so now we need to ﬁnd ptot (φ), in order to ﬁnd a solution for u(φ).

We decompose vectors locally in the normal and tangential directions, which are

respectively referred to with the indices n and t. We denote taking derivatives

with respect to φ as ′ . Inside of the expansion fans we have some invariants given

by equations (2.23). The fourth of these immediately leads to Bpγ as an invariant.

Eliminating ptot from dρ − c12 dptot = 0 and −Bdptot + (γp + B 2 )dB = 0 yields the

invariant Bρ , and combining these 2 invariants tells us that the entropy S ≡ ρpγ

is invariant. The stationary MHD equations (2.2) can then be written in a 4 × 4-

system for vn′ , vt′ , p′tot and ρ′ as:

′

vn′ + vt + vn ρρ = 0,

p′

vn vt + vn vn′ + tot

ρ = 0, (2.28)

2 ′

vn − vn vt = 0,

2

vms ρ′ − p′tot = 0,

vanishes. The system leads to the dispersion relation

vn4 − vms

2

vn2 = 0, (2.29)

4ρvn3 vn′ +vn4 ρ′ −γvn2 p′tot −2γptot vn vn′ −(2−γ)Bvn2 B ′ −(2−γ)B 2 vn vn′ = 0. (2.30)

2

dptot vt vms − 2vn2 2

=2 ρvms . (2.31)

dφ vn 3vn2 + (γ − 2)vms

2

IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL DETAILS 53

We can generally note that ptot,pre < ptot,post , where the indeces pre and post

refer to respectively the pre- and the post-shock region. This implies that the

refraction has 3 possible wave conﬁgurations: 2 shocks, a reﬂected rarefaction

fan and a transmitted shock, or 2 expansion fans. Before starting the iteration

v v

on [[ vyx ]](p∗ ), we determine the governing wave conﬁguration. If [[ vyx ]](ǫ) and

vy v

[[ vx ]](ptot,5 −ǫ) diﬀer in sign, the solution has two rarefaction waves. If [[ vyx ]](ptot,5 +

vy

ǫ) and [[ vx ]](ptot,2 − ǫ) diﬀer in sign, the solution has a transmitted shock and a

reﬂected rarefaction wave. In the other case, the solution contains two shocks in

its conﬁguration. If R is an expansion fan, we take the guess

2

2ρe vx,e −(γe −1)ptot,e

min{ γ+1 |e ∈ {2, 5}} + ptot,5

p∗0 = (2.32)

2

as a starting value of the iteration. This guess is the mean of the critical value

ptot,crit , which satisﬁes

2

ve,x − ĉ2 (ptot,crit ) = 0, (2.33)

and p5 , which is the minimal value for a transmitted shock. As we explain in section

2

5.3, v2,x − ĉ2 (ptot,crit ) = 0 is equivalent to v52 − ĉ2 = 0 and v5,x

2

− ĉ2 (ptot,crit ) = 0

2 2

is equivalent to v2 − ĉ = 0, and is thus a maximal value for the existence of a

regular solution. If R is a shock, we take (1 + ǫ̂)ppost as a starting value for the

f (p∗ )

iteration, where ǫ̂ is 10−6 . We use a Newton-Raphson iteration: p∗i+1 = p∗i − f ′ (pi∗ ) ,

i

f (p∗ ∗

i +δ)−f (pi )

where f ′ (p∗ ) is approximated numerically by δ , where δ = 10−8 . The

p∗ ∗

i+1 −pi −8

iteration stops when p∗ < ǫ, where ǫ = 10 .

i

AMRVAC (van der Holst & Keppens [93]; Keppens et al.[49]) is an AMR code,

solving equations of the general form ut +∇·F(u) = S(u, x, t) in any dimensionality.

The applications cover multi-dimensional HD, MHD, up to special relativistic

magnetohydrodynamic computations. In regions of interests, the AMR code

dynamically reﬁnes the grid. The initial grid of our simulation is shown in ﬁgure 2.4.

The reﬁnement strategy is done by quantifying and comparing gradients. A Löhner

estimator is used, tolerance ǫl = 0.025, with reﬁnement triggered on ρ and auxiliary

variable ωz , in equal weights.

The AMR in AMRVAC is of a block-based nature, where every reﬁned grid

has 2D children, and D is the dimensionality of the problem. Parallelization is

54 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

Figure 2.4: The initial AMR grid at t = 0, for the example in section 5.1.

implemented, using MPI. In all the simulations we use 5 reﬁnement levels, starting

with a resolution of 24 × 120 on the domain [0, 1] × [0, 5], leading to an eﬀective

resolution of 384 × 1940. The shock is initially located at x = 0.1, while the

contact discontinuity is located at y = (x − 1) tan α. We used the fourth order

Runge-Kutta timestepping, together with a TVDLF-scheme (see Tóth & Odstrc̆il

[86]; Yee [102]) with Woodward-limiter on the primitive variables. The obtained

numerical results were compared to and in agreement with simulations using other

schemes, such as a Roe scheme and the TVD-Muscl scheme. The calculations were

performed on 4 processors.

approach. Implementing the equations as we introduced them here would lead

to excessive numerical diﬀusion on γ. According to equations 2.24 and 2.25 the

value of γ does not change through an expansion fan or across a shock. Therefore

γ is a discrete variable in the sense that it only takes a ﬁnite number of values (in

our case only 2, namely γ ∈ {γl , γr }), we know γ(x, y, t) exactly, if we are able to

follow the contact discontinuity in time.

Suppose thus that initially a surface, separates 2 regions with diﬀerent values of γ.

Deﬁne a function χ : D × R+ → R : (x, y, t) 7→ χ(x, y, t), where D is the physical

domain of (x, y). Writing χ̃(x, y) = χ(x, y, 0), we ask χ̃ to vanish on the initial

contact and to be a smooth function obeying

• γ = γl ⇔ χ̃(x, y) < 0,

• γ = γr ⇔ χ̃(x, y) > 0.

We take in particular ±χ̃ to quantify the shortest distance from the point (x, y) to

the initial contact, taking the sign into account. Now we only have to note that

(χρ)t = χρt + ρχt = −χ∇ · (ρv) − (ρv · ∇)χ = −∇ · (χρv).

RESULTS 55

a) b)

all shock solver right shock solver

6 6

4 4

2 2

[[vy/vx]]

[[vy/vx]]

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

p* p*

c) d)

no shock solver combined solver

6 6

4 4

2 2

[[vy/vx]]

[[vy/vx]]

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

p* p*

hh ii

vy

Figure 2.5: vx (p∗ ) for the reference case from Samtaney [78]: a) all shock

solver; b) right shock solver; c) no shock solver; d) shock ⇔ p∗ > pi . The all shock

solver is selected.

The implemented system is thus (2.2), but the last equation is replaced by

(χρvx )x +(χρvy )y = 0. Every timestep we reset the value of γ to γl or γr , depending

on the sign of χ.

It is now straightforward to show that we did not introduce any new signal. In

essence, this is the level set approach, as presented in e.g. Mulder et al.[59].

2.5 Results

as originally presented in Samtaney [78]. In ﬁgure 2.5, the ﬁrst 3 plots show

v

[[ vxy ]](p∗ ), when assuming a prescribed wave conﬁguration, for all 3 possible

v

conﬁgurations. The last plot shows the actual function [[ vyx ]](p∗ ), which consists of

56 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

0

14

12 -0.5

10

-1

8

vx

ρ

6 -1.5

4

-2

2

0 -2.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

φ φ

0

14

-0.5 12

10

-1

8

vy

-1.5 6

4

-2

2

-2.5 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

φ φ

0.8

1.4

0.7

1.2

0.6

1

0.5

0.8

vx/vy

0.4

S

0.6

0.3

0.2 0.4

0.1 0.2

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

φ φ

Figure 2.6: Solution to the fast-slow refraction problem, for the reference case from

Samtaney [78]. Notice that p and vvxy remain constant across the shocked contact.

RESULTS 57

120 50

100

40

80

30

60

S

p

20

40

10

20

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

φ φ

Figure 2.7: Solution to the slow-fast refraction problem from van der Holst &

Keppens [93]. Notice that S remains constant across R.

piecewise copies from the 3 possible conﬁgurations in the previous plots. The initial

guess is p∗0 = 4.111, the all shock solver is selected, and the iteration converges

after 6 iterations with p∗ = 6.078. The full solution of the Riemann problem is

shown in ﬁgure 2.6.

In ﬁgure 2.7 we show the full solution of the HD Riemann problem, in which the

reﬂected signal is an expansion fan,1 connected to the refraction with parameters

α, β −1 , γl , γr , η, M = π3 , 0, 57 , 75 , 10

, 10 from van der Holst & Keppens [93]. The

v

refraction is slow-fast, and R is an expansion fan. Note that p and vxy remain

constant across the CD, and the entropy S is an invariant across R.

Let us examine what the eﬀect of the angle of incidence,α, is. Therefore we get

−1 7 7

back to the example from Section 2.5.1, β , γl , γr , η, M = 0, ,

5 5 , 3, 2 and let

α vary: α ∈ 0, π2 . Note that α = π2 corresponds to a 1-dimensional Riemann

problem. The results are shown in ﬁgure 2.8. Note that for regular √ refraction

2 ve,x ve,y ±ĉe v 2 −ĉ2

vy,5 > ĉ25 . We can understand this by noting that ξ± = 2 −ĉ2

ve,x

e e

=

e

√ 2 2 −1

ve,x ve,y ∓ĉe ve −ĉe

v 2 −ĉ2 = ξˆ∓ , which are the eigenvalues of Gu −1 · Fu = (Fu −1 ·

e,y e

Gu )−1 . Note that we could have started our theory from the quasilinear form uy +

(Gu −1 · Fu )ux = 0 instead of equation (2.17). If we would have done so, we would

1

have found eigenvalues ξ̂, which would correspond to arctan φ . Moreover, both the

eigenvalues, ξ+ and ξ− , have 4 singularities, namely ĉ2 ∈ {−vx,2 , vx,2 , −vy,5 , vy,5 }

58 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

6.4

φR

1.4 φCD

6.35 φT

6.3 1.2

6.25 1

0.8

p*

6.2

φ

6.15 0.6

6.1 0.4

6.05 0.2

6 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

α α

2

0.7 |vy,5|

c5

0.6

1.8

0.5

1.6

0.4

[[vt]]

0.3 1.4

0.2

1.2

0.1

0 1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

α α

Figure 2.8: Upper Left : p∗ (α). Note that for α < 0.61, there are no solutions for p∗ :

the refraction is irregular; Upper Right: the wave pattern for regular refraction;

Lower Left : For α = π2 , the problem is 1-dimensional and there is no vorticity

deposited on the interface. For decreasing α, the vorticity increases. Lower right:

For regular refraction, |vy,5 | > ĉ5 .

for ξ− and ĉ5 ∈ {−vx,5 , vx,5 , −vy,2 , vy,2 } for ξ+ , where thus ĉ25 = v5,y

2

⇔ ĉ22 = v22

2 2 2 2

and ĉ2 = vy,2 ⇔ ĉ5 = v5 . It is now clear that it is one of the latter conditions

that will be met for αcrit . In the example, the transition to irregular refraction

2 2

occurs at −vy,5 = ĉ5 and lim p∗ = 2γr ηM tanγl +1 (αcrit )−γl +1

= 6.67. Figure 2.9

α→αcrit

shows Schlieren plots for density from AMRVAC simulations for the reference case

α = π4 , and the irregular case where α = 0.3. In the regular case, all signals meet

at the triple point, while for α < αcrit = 0.61, the signals do not meet at one triple

point, the triple point forms a more complex structure and becomes irregular. The

CD, originated at the Mach stem, reaches the triple point through an evanescent

wave, which is visible by the contour lines. This pattern is called Mach Reflection-

Refraction. Decreasing α even more, the reﬂected wave transforms in a sequence

of weak wavelets (see e.g. Nouragliev et al.[64]). This pattern, of which the case

α = 0.3 is an example, is called Concave-Forwards irregular Refraction. These

results are in agreement with our predictions.

RESULTS 59

irregular case.

[3]. It became a typical test problem for simulations (see e.g. Nouragliev et al.[64])

and refraction theory (see e.g. Henderson [42]). The experiment concerns a slow-

fast shock refraction at a CO2/CH4 interface. The gas constants are γCO2 =

µ

1.288, γCH4 = 1.303, µCO2 = 44.01 and µCH4 = 16.04. Thus η = µCH 4

CO2

= 0.3645.

A very weak shock, M = 1.12 is refracted at the interface under various angles.

von Neumann [62] theory predicts the critical angle αcrit = 0.97 and the transition

angle αtrans = 1.01, where the reﬂected signal is irregular if α < αcrit , a shock if

αcrit < α < αtrans and an expansion fan if αtrans < α. This is in perfect agreement

with the results of our solution strategy as illustrated in ﬁgure 2.10. There we show

60 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

1.38

p* 3 φR

ppost φCD

φT

1.36 2.5

1.34 2

p

φ

1.32 1.5

1

1.3

0.5

1.28

0

0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1 1.01 1.02 1.03 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

α α

Figure 2.10: Exact solution for the Abd-El-Fattah experiment. Left: p∗ (α)

conﬁrms αcrit = 0.97 and αtrans = 1.01. Right: φ(α).

the pressure p∗ compared to the post shock pressure ppost , as well as the angles

φR , φCD and φT for varying angle of incidence α. Irregular refraction means that

not all signals meet at a single point. The transition at αcrit is one between a

regular shock-shock pattern and an irregular Bound Precursor Refraction, where

the transmitted signal is ahead of the shocked contact and moves along the contact

at nearly the same velocity. This is also conﬁrmed by AMRVAC simulations. If

the angle of incidence, α, is decreased even further, the irregular pattern becomes

a Free Precursor Refraction, where the transmitted signal moves faster than the

shocked contact, and reﬂects itself, introducing a side-wave, connecting T to CD.

When decreasing α even further, another transition to the Free Precursor von

Neumann Refraction occurs.

Another example of how to trace transitions by the use of our solver is done by

changing the density ratio η across the CD. Let us start from the example given

in section 5.1 and let us vary the value of η.

Here we have α, β −1 , γl , γr , M = π4 , 0, 75 , 75 , 2 . The results are shown in

ﬁgure 2.11. Note that, since ppost = 4.5, we have a reﬂected expansion fan for fast-

slow refraction, and a reﬂected shock for slow-fast refraction. The transmitted

signal plays a crucial role in the nature of the reﬂected signal: for fast-slow

refraction φT < π2 , but for slow-fast refraction, φT > π2 and the transmitted

signal bends forwards. We ran our solver for varying values of M and α, and for

all HD experiments with γl = γr , we came to the conclusion that a transition from

fast-slow to slow-fast refraction, coincides with a transition from a reﬂected shock

to a reﬂected expansion fan, with φT = π2 . This result agrees with AMRVAC

simulations. In ﬁgure 2.12, a density plot is shown for η = 1.2 and η = 0.8.

RESULTS 61

6 2

p* φR

ppost φCD

φT

5.5 π/2

1.5

5

4.5 1

p

φ

4

0.5

3.5

3 0

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

η η

range of the density ratio η. Left: for η < 1 we have p∗ < ppost = 4.5 and thus a

reﬂected expansion fan, for η > 1 we have p∗ > ppost = 4.5 and thus a reﬂected

shock. Right: for η < 1: φT < π2 and for η > 1: φT > π2 .

fan. Right: A fast/slow refraction with η = 1.2. Note that φT < π2 and R is a

shock.

So far, none of our results include magnetic ﬁelds. We now consider the case where

a purely out-of-plane magnetic ﬁeld, where the ﬁeld is perpendicular to the shock

front and thus acts to increase the total pressure and the according ﬂux terms, is

added.

Note that it follows from equation 2.24 and 2.25 that Bρ is invariant across

shocks and rarefaction fans. Therefore, Bρ can only jump across the shocked and

unshocked contact discontinuity and B cannot change sign.

Revisiting the example from section 5.1, we now let the magnetic ﬁeld vary.

62 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

0.35 0

[[vt]] [[vt]]

0.3

-0.02

0.25

-0.04

0.2

[[vt]]

[[vt]]

0.15

-0.06

0.1

-0.08

0.05

0 -0.1

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

β β

Figure 2.13: Left: Solution for the fast-slow problem: strong perpendicular

magnetic ﬁelds decrease the instability of the CD. Right: Solution for the slow-fast

problem: strong perpendicular magnetic ﬁelds decrease the instability of the CD.

Figure 2.13 shows [[vt ]](β) across the CD. Also for η = 0.8, making it a slow-fast

problem, [[vt ]](β) is shown. First notice that no shocks are possible for β < 0.476,

since ω+ would not satisfy ω+ > −M . Manipulating equation (2.15), we know

that this is equivalent to

2

β > βmin ≡ . (2.34)

γl (M 2 − 1)

This relation is also equivalent to c1 > M , which means that the shock is

submagnetosonic, compared to the pre-shock region. Figure 2.14 shows density

plots from AMRVAC simulations at t = 2.0, for (α, γl , γr , η, M ) = π4 , 57 , 75 , 3, 2

with varying β −1 . First note that the interface is unstable for the HD case.

Increasing β −1 decreases the shock strength. For β −1 = 1 the shock is very

weak: the Atwood number At = 0.17, and the interface remains stable. here we

introduced the Atwood number, which is deﬁned in 2.35.

Shown in ﬁgure 2.13, is the vorticity across the CD. In the limit case of this minimal

plasma-β the interface is stable, both for fast-slow and slow-fast refraction. As

expected, in the fast-slow case, the reﬂected signal is an expansion fan, while it is

a shock in the fast-slow case. Also note that the signs of the vorticity diﬀer, causing

the interface to roll up clockwise in the slow-fast regime, and counterclockwise in

the fast-slow regime. When decreasing the magnetic ﬁeld, the vorticity on the

interface increases in absolute value. This can be understood by noticing that the

limit case of minimal plasma-β is also the limit case of very weak shocks. This can

for example be understood by noting that lim φCD = α (see ﬁgure 2.15). A

β→βmin

convenient way to measure the strength of a shock is by use of its Atwood number.

This is often done in the classical HD case (see, e.g., Sadot et al.[75])

ρ2 − ρ1

At = . (2.35)

ρ2 + ρ1

RESULTS 63

instability causes the interface to roll up. Center: β −1 = 12 . Although the initial

amount of vorticity deposited on the interface is smaller than in the HD case, the

wall reﬂected signals pass the wall-vortex and interact with the CD, causing the

RM I to appear. Lower: β −1 = 1. The shock is very weak and the interface

remains stable.

64 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

2.4

1.4

2.2

1.2

2

1

[[vt]]/At

1.8

φCD

0.8

0.6 1.6

0.4 1.4

0.2 1.2

0 1

0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

β β

Figure 2.15: The reference problem from Samtaney [78] with varying β. Left: The

dependence of φCD on β. Note that lim φCD = π4 = α, since this is the limit

β→βmin

to inﬁnitely weak shocks: lim At = 0. Right: The vorticity deposition in the

β→βmin

shocked contact scales as the Atwood number and lim [[vt ]] = 1.

β→βmin At

Figure 2.15 shows the jump across the shocked contact [[vt ]], scaled to the shocks

Atwood number. Note that in the limit case of very weak shocks the Atwood

number equals the jump in tangential velocity across the CD, in dimensional

notation:

[[vt ]]

c1

lim = 1. (2.36)

β→βmin At

When keeping the Atwood number constant, the shocks sonic Mach number is

given by

s

1 + At (2 − 2γ − γβ)At2 + (2γβ + 2γ)At − γβ − 2

M = (2.37)

1 − At (γ 2 β)At2 + (γ 2 β − γβ)At − γβ

s

(At + 1)((γβ + 2γ − 2)At − (γβ + 2))

= . (2.38)

γβ(1 − At)(γAt + 1)

s

γβ + 2

lim M = , (2.39)

At→0 γβ

which is equivalent to equation 2.34, and in the limit for strong shocks, M →

∞. Figure 2.16 shows the deposition of vorticity on the shocked contact, for a

constant Atwood number. We conclude that under constant Atwood number, the

RESULTS 65

1 6

5

0.9

4

0.8

[[vt]]

M

3

0.7

2

0.6

1

0.5 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

β β

Figure 2.16: Left: The dependence of the vorticity deposition on the shocked

contact in function of β, under constant Atwood number At = 0.17. Right: The

shocks Mach number in function of the plasma-β, under constant Atwood number

At = 0.17.

B 5

Figure 2.17: AMRVAC plots of ρ for At = 11 , with varying beta. Upper: β = 16.

Lower: β = 0.25.

ﬁeld increase the deposition of vorticity on the shocked contact slightly. This is

conﬁrmed by AMRVAC simulations (see ﬁgure 2.17).

66 AN EXACT RIEMANN SOLVER FOR REGULAR SHOCK REFRACTION

2.6 Conclusions

at an inclined density discontinuity. Our self-similar solutions agree with the early

stages of nonlinear AMRVAC simulations. We predict the critical angle αcrit for

regular refraction, and the results ﬁt with numerical and experimental results.

Our solution strategy is complementary to von Neumann theory, and can be used

to predict full solutions of refraction experiments, and we have shown various

transitions possible through speciﬁc parameter variations. For perpendicular ﬁelds,

the stability of the contact decreases slightly with decreasing β under constant

Atwood number. We will generalize our results for planar uniform magnetic ﬁelds,

where up to 5 signals arise. In this case we search for non-evolutionary solutions,

involving intermediate shocks.

Chapter 3

refraction in ideal MHD. While in the HD case three signals arise, in the planar

MHD case ﬁve signals arise. Our Riemann solver ﬁnds the exact position of these

ﬁve signals, and determines the values of the conserved variables in the new-formed

regions.

After reﬂection from the top wall the interface remains stable since MHD does not

allow for vorticity deposition on a contact discontinuity.

This Chapter is published as Delmont & Keppens [20].

3.1 Introduction

hydrodynamical (HD) shock tube problem. When the impinging shock refracts

at the density discontinuity, 3 signals arise: a reﬂected signal, a transmitted

signal and a shocked contact in between. Both the reﬂected and transmitted

signal can be continuous (rarefaction fans) or discontinuous (shocks). Due to

local Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, the shocked contact becomes unstable, and the

Richtmyer-Meshkov instability (RMI) forms. In Chapter 2 (or Delmont et al.

[19]), we solved the initial self similar phase of the problem exactly, exploiting

exact Riemann solver methods. In this chapter, we extend that study to planar

ideal magnetohydrodynamics (MHD).

For that planar case, Samtaney [78] showed by numerical grid-adaptive simulations

that addition of a uniform magnetic ﬁeld, aligned with the shock normal,

67

68 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

suppresses the RMI. The setup of the MHD problem is shown in ﬁgure 3.1. The

rectangular domain mimics a shock tube, thus the left and the right boundaries

are modeled as open, while the upper and the lower boundaries are rigid walls.

Completely to the left of the domain, there is a genuine right-moving shock, which

moves with sonic Mach number M . It moves towards a contact discontinuity,

which forms an inclination angle α with the shock normal and separates two gases

at rest, with a density ratio η across it. The ratio of speciﬁc heats, γ, is considered

a constant equation parameter, and the initially uniform applied magnetic ﬁeld

introduces a plasma-β (in the pre-shock region). These 5 parameters deﬁne the

problem uniquely. In the MHD case up to 5 signals arise: a fast (FR) and a slow

(SR) reﬂected signal, a contact discontinuity (CD), and a slow (ST) and a fast

(FT) transmitted signal, separating the 4 new formed states, as shown in ﬁgure

3.3.

Figure 3.2 shows simulation snapshots for the case where (α, γ, M, η) = ( π4 , 75 , 2, 3),

after reﬂection from the top wall. The upper snapshot shows the hydrodynamical

case (β −1 = 0) and the lower snapshot shows an MHD case where β = 2. In the

ﬁrst case the RMI has formed on the interface, while it is clearly suppressed in

the magnetohydrodynamical case. We refer to Delmont et al.[19] for an exact

solution of the HD case. In this paper we generalize the presented solution

strategy to planar ideal MHD. Our results are in agreement with results from

Wheatley et al.[98]. Our approach is inspired by Wheatley et al.[98]. However,

our solution strategy for the RH jump conditions is essentially diﬀerent and the

iteration method used is more detailed.

We also compare our results with numerical grid adaptive simulations. These

simulations are performed by the Adaptive Mesh Reﬁnement code AMRVAC (see

e.g. Keppens et al.[49]; van der Holst & Keppens [93]).

The suppression of the RMI in ideal MHD can be explained as a direct consequence

of the Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions across a shocked contact. It is well-

known that contact discontinuities do not allow for a jump in tangential velocity,

when the normal magnetic ﬁeld component does not vanish (see e.g. Goedbloed

& Poedts [32]).

In section 3.2, we introduce the equations employed in the analytical solution

strategy, namely the planar stationary MHD equations and the Rankine-Hugoniot

conditions from their integral form. In section 3.3, we summarize some important

features of MHD shocks. In section 3.4, we describe our solution strategy, which

is based on the Riemann solver for ideal MHD presented by Torrilhon [91] and

in section 3.5 we demonstrate the algorithm by solving a case presented ﬁrst

by Samtaney in [78]. In section 6 ﬁnally, we compare our results to AMRVAC

simulations.

INTRODUCTION 69

(ρ, v = 0, p, B) (ηρ, v = 0, p, B)

M α

Figure 3.1: Initial conﬁguration: a shock moves with shock speed M to an inclined

density discontinuity. Both the upper and lower boundary are solid walls, while

the left and the right boundaries are open.

a hydrodynamical shock impinges on a contact discontinuity, the discontinuity

becomes unstable due to local Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Down: β −1 = 12 .

When a normal magnetic ﬁeld is applied, the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions do not

allow for vorticity deposition on a contact discontinuity. Therefore, the interface

remains stable and the RMI is suppressed.

70 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

use the framework of ideal MHD. The initial conﬁguration sketched in ﬁgure 3.1

will lead to a refraction pattern as sketched in ﬁgure 3.3. Regular refraction means

that all signals meet at a single quintuple point. This quintuple point moves along

the unshocked contact at speed vqp = (M, M tan α). We will solve the problem

in a co-moving frame with the quintuple point. We can then assume that the

solution is self similar and time independent: ∂/∂t = 0. Therefore, we can exploit

the stationary MHD equations, which written out in conservative form and for our

planar problem, are given by

∂ ∂

F+ G = 0, (3.1)

∂x ∂y

where we introduced the ﬂux terms for the orthogonal x and y directions given by

ρvx

2

B2 B

ρvx2 + p − 2x + 2y

F=

ρvx vy − Bx By

(3.2)

2 2

v +v

vx ( γ p + ρ x y + By2 ) − Bx By vy

γ−1 2

Bx

and

ρvy

ρvx vy − Bx By

B2 B2

G=

ρvy2 + p + 2x − 2y .

(3.3)

2 2

vy ( γ p + ρ vx +vy + Bx2 ) − Bx By vx

γ−1 2

By

energy. The conserved variables and the components of the ﬂux terms are written

in terms of the mass density ρ, the velocity components vx and vy , the thermal

pressure p and the magnetic ﬁeld components Bx and By . Faraday’s law ensures

conservation of magnetic ﬂux, which in the stationary case becomes ∇ × E = 0.

The electric ﬁeld Ez is therefore a global Riemann invariant:

Ez = vy Bx − vx By . (3.4)

v B −E

This allows us to eliminate By = y vxx z from the system, which is reduced to a

5 × 5-system. We hereby exploit the fact that vx (x, t) < 0 in the co-moving frame

GOVERNING EQUATIONS 71

with the quintuple point. In the rest frame this means that the velocity in the

x-direction is bounded by the shock speed, during the refraction process.

We allow weak (i.e., discontinuous) solutions of the system, which are solutions

of the integral form of the MHD equations. The discontinuities occurring in the

problem setup (both the impinging shock and the initial contact discontinuity),

as well as those that may appear as F R, SR, ST or F T signals later on obey

the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. In Appendix D we give the planar stationary

Rankine-Hugoniot conditions and rewrite them as a 4 × 4-system in [[Bt ]], [[p]], [[ρ]]

and [[vt ]], where [[Q]] refers to the jump in the quantity Q across the CD, and

tangential vector components are referred to by a subscript t.

We now discuss the characteristics of the system (3.1), by writing it out in

quasilinear form

ux + Auy = 0, (3.5)

∂F

where the matrix A is computed from the ﬂux Jacobian matrices Fu ≡ ∂u and

Gu ≡ ∂G

∂u as follows:

A = F−1

u · Gu . (3.6)

(ρ, vx , vy , p, Bx ). As argued in Delmont et al.[19], the eigenvalues of A coincide

with the tangent of the refraction angles φF R , φSR , φCD , φST and φF T (see ﬁgure

3.3). Since the system has 5 distinct eigenvalues, the shock indeed refracts in 5

distinct signals.

Computing the eigenvalues λ of A, leads to the characteristic equation

(3.7)

v

This is a quintic with 5 solutions. One eigenvalue λ = vxy is linearly degenerate

and corresponds to the CD. The 4 other eigenvalues are found as roots of a quartic,

with coeﬃcients given by

2

, (3.8)

2

. (3.12)

72 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

u1

u2 u7

φF R = atan(λF R )

u3 u4 u5 u6

Figure 3.3: The wave pattern during interaction of the shock with the CD. The

eigenvalues of the matrix A coincide with the tangent of the refraction angles.

Since A has 5 distinct eigenvalues, 5 signals arise.

q

In these expressions we denote the sound speed c = γp ρ , the directional Alfvén

q 2 q 2

By

q

Bx 2 + v2 .

speeds va,x = ρ , va,y = ρ and the total Alfvén speed va = va,x a,y

2 2 2 2

v⊥ (v⊥ − vf,⊥ )(v⊥ − vs,⊥ ) = 0, (3.13)

2 (vx λ − vy )2

v⊥ = , (3.14)

1 + λ2

the (squared) fast speed by

s !

2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

(Bx λ − By )2

vf,⊥ = c + va + (c + va ) − 4c , (3.15)

2 ρ(1 + λ2 )

s !

2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2

(Bx λ − By )2

vs,⊥ = c + va − (c + va ) − 4c . (3.16)

2 ρ(1 + λ2 )

This then clearly shows that the MHD system has the fast and the slow

magnetosonic speeds in the direction perpendicular to the shock front as its basic

characteristic speeds.

All the refracted magnetosonic signals can be expansion fans or shocks.

MHD SHOCKS 73

MHD shocks are a topic of extensive research (see e.g. Liberman &qVelikhovich

Bn2

[56]; Goedbloed [33]). Introducing the normal Alfvén speed va,n ≡ ρ , which

is an eigenvalue

q of the full

q three dimensional stationary MHD equations, and

Bt2 2 + v 2 . The full set of eigenvalues of the full set

va,t ≡ ρ leads to va = va,n a,t

of MHD equations is given by {±vf,n , ±va,n , ±vs,n , 0}, where the fast speed vf,n

and the slow speed vs,n are respectively deﬁned as in equations (1.48) and (1.48).

Since 0 ≤ vs,n ≤ va,n ≤ vf,n , the full set of MHD equations is non-strictly

hyperbolic. Those speeds deﬁne the up- and downstream states into 4 types (and

3 transition types plus 1 stationary type for completeness), which in order of

increasing entropy S ≡ ρpγ :

• (1=2) fast: |vn | = vf,n ;

• (2) subfast: va,n < |vn | < vf,n ;

• (3) superslow: vs,n < |vn | < va,n ;

• (3=4) slow: |vn | = vs,n ;

• (4) subslow: |vn | < vs,n ;

• (∞) stationary: vn = 0.

The second law of thermodynamics enforces [[S]] > 0 across a shock. If this

inequality is satisﬁed, we call a shock admissible. When the upstream state is of

type i and the downstream state is of type j, then we deﬁne the shock to be of

type i → j. The RH conditions (D.1) now allow for the following types of shocks

(see also Falle & Komissarov[27], De Sterck et al.[22], Liberman & Velikhovich [56]

and many others):

• (1 → 2)-shocks are called fast shocks. They satisfy Bt,2 > Bt,1 > 0 or

Bt,2 < Bt,1 < 0, i.e. the magnetic ﬁeld gets refracted away from the shock

normal.

• (3 → 4)-shocks are called slow shocks. They satisfy Bt,1 > Bt,2 > 0 or

Bt,1 < Bt,2 < 0, i.e. the magnetic ﬁeld gets refracted towards the shock

normal.

74 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

i.e. the upstream magnetic ﬁeld is aligned with the shock normal.

• (2 = 3 → 4)-shocks are called switch-oﬀ shocks, since they satisfy Bt,2 = 0,

i.e. the downstream magnetic ﬁeld is aligned with the shock normal.

• (1 → 3), (1 → 4), (2 → 3) and (2 → 4)-shocks are called intermediate shocks.

They satisfy Bt,2 ≥ 0 ≥ Bt,1 or Bt,2 ≤ 0 ≤ Bt,1 , i.e. the upstream magnetic

ﬁeld is aligned with the shock normal.

• (1 → 4)-shocks for which Bt,1 = Bt,2 = 0 also satisfy vt,1 = vt,2 = 0 and

are essentially 1-dimensional. In this case both the u- and downstream

magnetic ﬁeld are aligned with the shock normal. These shocks are called

hydrodynamical shocks;

• (2 = 3 → 2 = 3)-discontinuities are called Alfvén discontinuities (or,

alternatively, rotational discontinuities). They satisfy Bt,1 + Bt,2 = 0 such

that the upstream and the downstream state are equal, except for a sign

change of Bt ;

• (∞ → ∞)-discontinuities can be contact discontinuities, where only ρ jumps

across them, or tangential discontinuities, where Bn and vn vanish.

The latter two cases are called linear discontinuities, since [[vn ]] vanishes. The

other cases are called MHD shocks. The set of planar MHD equations reduces

the number of possibilities, since we now only have characteristic speeds given by

{±vf , ±vs , 0}, making the planar system strictly hyperbolic.

The existence of intermediate shocks is controversial since they are believed to be

unstable under small perturbations. This topic is widely discussed in the literature

(theoretically in e.g. Barmin et al.[8]; Falle & Komissarov [26, 27]; Myong & Roe

[60, 61], observationally in e.g. Chao et al.[12]; Feng & Wang [29] and numerically

in e.g. Brio & Wu [11], De Sterck et al.[22]). We allow for intermediate shocks

in our solution strategy, since they form the central Alfvénic transition for MHD

shocks (Goedbloed [33]), and as we show later, they naturally emerge in high

resolution numerical simulations.

a representation in which the initial shock speed s equals its sonic Mach number

M . We determine the value of the primitive variables in the post-shock region

RIEMANN SOLVER BASED SOLUTION STRATEGY 75

vn > vf,n vf,n > vn > va,n va,n > vn > vs,n vs,n > vn

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

76 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

vn = 0 vn = 0 vn = 0 vn = 0

(g) (h)

vn > vf = an an = vs > vn

(i)

fast shock; b) slow shock; c) intermediate shock; d) switch-on shock; e) switch-oﬀ

shock; f)Alfvén discontinuity; g) contact discontinuity; h) tangential discontinuity;

i) hydrodynamical shock.

Note ui = (ρi , vx,i , vy,i , pi , Bx,i ), where the index i refers to the value taken in the

i−th region (ﬁgure 3.3). Note that we did not include By,i , since it is completely

determined by equation (3.4).

We arbitrarily scale by setting p1 = 1 and ρ1 = γ. Now all velocity components

are scaled with respect to the sound speed in this region between the impinging

shock and the initial CD. Since this region is initially at rest, the sonic Mach

number M of the shock equals its shock speed s. When the shock intersects

the CD, the quintuple point follows the unshocked contact slip line. It does so

at a ﬁxed speed vqp = (M, M tan α), therefore we will solve the problem in the

frame of the stationary quintuple point. We will look for self similar solutions

in this frame, u = u(φ), where all signals are stationary. We now have that

ṽx = vx − M and ṽy = vy − M tan α, where ṽ refers to this new frame. From

now on we will drop the tilde and only use this new frame. We now have u1 =

RIEMANN SOLVER BASED SOLUTION STRATEGY 77

q q

(γ, −M, −M tan α, 1, β2 )t and u7 = (ηγ, −M, −M tan α, 1, β2 )t . The Rankine-

Hugoniot relations now immediately give a unique planar solution for u2 , namely

r t

(γ 2 + γ)M 2 (γ − 1)M 2 + 2 2γM 2 − γ + 1

2

u2 = , − , −M tan α, , .

(γ − 1)M 2 + 2 (γ + 1)M γ+1 β

(3.17)

This then completely determines the initial condition, containing only states u1 , u2

and u7 in terms of the dimensionless parameters α, β, γ, M and η.

We know that v, B and p are continuous across the CD (see Appendix D). Since

By is uniquely determined by the other 4 (independent) variables, we have 4

independent scalars which should vanish. Hence we can guess 4 path variables,

1 across each magneto-acoustic signal, and express the vanishing quantities in

function of those path variables χ ≡ (χF R , χSR , χST , χF T ). The fast magneto-

acoustic signals are postulated to be shocks, while the slow magneto-acoustic

signals can be both shocks and expansion fans.

In the case of a shock, fast signals are postulated to be fast shocks, while slow

signals can be slow or intermediate shocks. We then select the correct solution to

the Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions as explained in Appendices D and E. In

the case of a rarefaction wave, we numerically integrate the MHD equations as

explained in Appendix G. In this manner we reduce the problem to solving

The function χ 7→ [[vx , vy , Bx , p]] is not partially diﬀerentiable in all points of its

domain. The price to pay is that we will postulate the wave conﬁguration.

As said before, every magneto-acoustic signal is controlled by one path variable,

such that uu (uk , χsignal ), where signal is the signal separating uu from uk . The

path variables should have a one-to-one relationship with the refraction angles

78 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

χF R = tan(φF R ), (3.19)

χF T = tan(φF T ), (3.20)

8 “ “ ” ”

tan φSR −tan φa,R

> tanh −1

2 − 1 , ∀φSR ∈ [φcr,R , φa,R ]

“ “ tan φcr,R −tan φa,R ”

>

>

< ”

tan φSR −tan φsl,R

χSR = tanh −1

2 −1 , ∀φSR ∈ [φa,R , φsl,R [ (3.21)

> “ “ tan φa,R −tan φsl,R ” ”

> tan φSR −tan φst,R

tanh −1

2 tan φsl,R −tan φst,R − 1 , ∀φSR ∈ [φsl,R , φst,R [

>

:

8 “ “ ” ”

tan φST −tan φa,T

>

>

> tanh−1 2 tan φcr,T −tan φ a,T ”

− 1 , ∀φSR ∈ [φa,T , φcr,T ]

< “ “ ”

tan φST −tan φsl,T

χST = tanh −1

2 −1 , ∀φSR ∈ [φsl,T , φa,T [ (3.22)

> “ “ tan φa,T −tan φsl,T ” ”

> tan φST −tan φst,T

tanh −1

2 tan φsl,T −tan φst,T − 1 , ∀φSR ∈ [φst,T , φsl,T [

>

:

where we introduced the Alfvénic angles, the critical angles, the slow angles and

the stationary angles. The Alfvénic angles are those for which the upstream state

is exactly Alfvénic and these are deﬁned by

√

B3,y − ρ3 v3,y

φa,R = arctan √ , (3.23)

B3,x − ρ3 v3,x

√

B6,y + ρ6 v6,y

φa,T = arctan √ , (3.24)

B6,x + ρ6 v6,x

and the critical angles at which the transition from 1 to 3 real solutions to the RH

conditions across the slow signal takes place, by

Finally, the slow angles φsl,R and φsl,T , are those for which the upstream state is

exactly slow (and are found numerically) and the stationary angles are deﬁned by

vy,3

φst,R ≡ arctan , (3.27)

vx,3

vy,6

φst,T ≡ arctan . (3.28)

vx,6

The functions N and D are deﬁned in Appendix F, and these critical angles are

dependent on the location of the fast signal.

RIEMANN SOLVER BASED SOLUTION STRATEGY 79

Figure 3.5: The wave postulation for the slow transmitted signal. Just as in

the HD case, the signal is postulated to be a shock, whenever there exists an

entropy increasing shock solution. This is the case whenever vn > vs,n . When the

known state is a 3-state, only a slow shock is possible, and the signal is trivially

postulated to be a slow shock. When the upstream state is super-Alfvénic, the

signal is postulated to be an intermediate shock.

vy,4

problem. A secant method iteration solves equation (3.18) and φSC = arctan vx,4

closes the procedure.

Once the wave conﬁguration is postulated, we know if the slow signal angles are

bigger or smaller than the Alfvénic angles. The initial values of the path variables

controlling the fast signals are taken such that the upstream states u2 and u7

are exactly fast. For the slow signals, initially we put χSR = χST = 0. In the

case of an intermediate shock, this means that our starting angles φSR and φST

respectively satisfy 2φSR = φa,R + φcr,R and 2φST = φa,T + φcr,T . The procedure

also ensures that in every iteration step φa,T < φST < φcr,T and φcr,R < φSR <

φa,R . Similarly, in the case of a slow shock, the initial guesses φSR and φST

respectively satisfy 2φSR = φsl,R + φa,R and 2φST = φsl,T + φa,T . Finally, when

the slow signal is located at φSR > φsl,R there is no shock solution possible which

satisﬁes the entropy condition, and in the case the signal is a slow rarefaction fan.

The initial iteration angles φSR and φST respectively satisfy 2φSR = φst,R + φsl,R

and 2φST = φst,T +φsl,T . We hereby postulated that the slow signals are expansion

2 2

fans when vn,3/6 (φSR/ST ) < vs,n,3/6 . In this case, the expansion fan is located

between φSR/ST and φsl,R/T . This criterion is equivalent to the criterion that a

rarefaction fan will only occur at a given position if no shock solutions satisfying

the entropy condition are possible, and is in this sense a generalization of the

criterion exploited in Delmont et al.[19]. For the slow transmitted signal, this

wave postulation is schematically presented in ﬁgure 3.5.

80 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

E. One problem is that the uniqueness of its solution is not guaranteed. We express

the tangential component of the magnetic ﬁeld in the downstream state, Bt,u , as

the root of a cubic, which coeﬃcients are expressed in terms of the known upstream

state. The unknown state is then expressed in terms of Bt,u .

It can be shown that if there is a unique solution to the RH conditions, it is a

fast or a slow shock. If on the other hand there are 3 solutions, they are all of a

diﬀerent shock type. Thus when the shock types of all magneto-acoustic signals

are known, the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions can be solved uniquely. We solve the

cubic analytically in Appendix F, noting that roots can be real or complex. In

principle this completes the solution algorithm for the RH conditions of a genuine

shock. However, the complications are that

• We need to select the appropriate root from the (up to) 3 mathematical

possibilities, at each magnetosonic signal;

• The analytical expressions contain a square root and a cube root in the

complex plane. These expressions are discontinuous in the negative real

numbers.

permutation of the root indices can make the analytical expressions for the roots

(F.6-F.8) continuous and diﬀerentiable, and hence allows for a secant iteration

method applied on equation (3.18). The only remaining discontinuities are reached,

when the refraction angles cross the critical angles φcr,R or φcr,T , where the

transition from a unique solution to 3 solutions for the RH conditions takes place.

Also [[p]] is discontinuous across the Alfvénic angles. This leads to the restriction

that we cannot cross those critical angles in subsequent iteration steps. This is

taken care of by our choice of path variables.

In Appendix G ﬁnally, we describe which relations hold across expansion fans and

how the numerical integration through the fan is performed.

in detail before by Samtaney [78] and Wheatley et al. [98]. For this case we have

that

DEMONSTRATION OF RESULT 81

The initial guesses for the iteration procedure are χF R , χSR , χST , χF T =

(0.5314, 0, 0, 3.7306). The iteration converges to the exact solution for the angles

φF R , φSR , φST , φF T = (0.40569, 0.91702, 1.19426, 1.27673). The corresponding

cubics whose roots need to be properly selected are shown in ﬁgure 3.6.

Discussing the solution of the refraction pattern in the order of integration, we

encounter:

• the fast reﬂected (FR) signal, located at φF R = 0.40569. The cubic across the

interface is then evaluated and found to be 0.0346B̂t3 −0.5184B̂t2 +7.2999B̂t +

3.9011 = 0, which has, as predicted, only one real solution B̂t = −0.5149,

such that

u3 = (4.424, −0.834, −1.774, 5.710, 1.159) ,

and By,3 = 0.0685. Note that F R is a fast shock;

• the slow reﬂected (SR) signal, located at φSR = 0.91702. The cu-

bic relation connected to this interface has 3 real solutions: B̂t ∈

{0.13075 10−3 , 0.34361, −0.02656}. Further physical argumentation is

needed to select the correct root. The ﬁrst possibility, B̂t = 0.13075 10−3 ,

leads to negative pressure. The second option, B̂t = 0.34361, corresponds to

an intermediate shock, and yields

u4,intermediate = (4.395, −1.290, 2.374, 5.656, 0.198) ,

γ

together with By,4 = 1.186. The entropy condition pp34 < ρρ43 is satisﬁed.

The last possible solution, B̂t = −0.02656 corresponds to a slow shock. In

this case

u4,slow = (4.596, −1.048, −2.028, 6.025, 0.736),

γ

and By = 0.484, which also satisﬁes the entropy condition pp43 < ρρ43 ;

relation across this fast interface again has a unique real solution B̂t =

−1.10819. This solution corresponds to a fast shock and leads to

u6 = (11.932, −1.213, −2.384, 5.275, 1.237),

and By,6 = 0.783;

82 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

80

12

0.006

0.001

10

0.004

60

8

0.002

F(B)

6

K

0.2 K 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

K K K

F(B) 40

4

K

0.002

B

20

2

K 0.001

K

0.004

K

1.0 K

0.5 0 0.5 1.0

F(B)

F(B) K

0.006

K B

K K 0

K

2 2 1 1 2

0.008 B

K K

K

0.002

K

4

0.010 20

K6

Figure 3.6: The cubic for respectively FR, SR, ST, FT.

• the slow transmitted (ST) signal, located at φST = 1.19426. The cubic

relation controlling this interface has 3 diﬀerent real solutions B̂t ∈

{0.44121, −0.70666 10−3 , 0.07837}. The ﬁrst possibility, B̂t = 0.44121 can

be eliminated since it does not lead to a solution which satisﬁes the entropy

condition. The second possibility, B̂t = −0.70666 10−3 would lead to

negative pressure. The remaining possibility, B̂t = 0.07837 corresponds to

an intermediate (2 → 4)-shock from u6 to u5 , and yields

We now notice that the correct reﬂected slow signal is the slow shock and uSR =

u4,slow , since the shocked contact must satisfy the matching conditions (D.7).

conditions simplify as

[[vt , p, Bt ]] = 0.

Therefore, they do not allow for vorticity deposition on the contact, and the

interface must remain stable. Figure 3.7 shows snapshots of a numerical simulation

of the parameter regime (α, β, γ, M, η) = π4 , 2, 75 , 2, 3 performed by the Adaptive

Mesh Reﬁnement code AMRVAC. The ﬁrst frame shows the density, ρ, during the

shock refraction. Note that the CD remains stable, since the jump in tangential

velocity, [[vt ]], vanishes. The second frame shows the tangential magnetic ﬁeld

component, Bt . The density is discontinuous in every new-formed signal, while

the CD is not visible in the Bt frame. SR is a slow shock, therefore Bt does not

change sign across this signal, while ST on the other hand is an intermediate shock

and Bt changes sign across it.

WAVE CONFIGURATION TRANSITIONS 83

in the stationary shock

frame, over a Schlieren plot of density (exp 200−|∇ρ|

250 is shown). The streamlines

are coloured by the density proﬁle. One sees that almost all the vorticity is

deposited on FT. The upper right panel of ﬁgure 3.8 Shows the magnetic ﬁeld

lines of this reference case. The lines are coloured by the magnetic ﬁeld strength.

One can see that Bt only changes sign at ST, which is the only intermediate signal

in the solution. Also one sees that the magnetic ﬁeld does not jump across the

CD: [[B]]CD = 0.

We now wonder under which values of the plasma-β the same wave conﬁguration

will be possible. We therefore ran our solver for varying values of the plasma-

β, postulating that SR is a slow shock, and ST is an intermediate shock. The

solver converges for β ∈ [1.0; 2.3]. For β ≈ 1.0, ST will be a switch-oﬀ shock, i.e.

φST = φa,T , and when we decrease β even more, the slow transmitted signal will

be located even further away from the CD, i.e. φST > φa,T , such that ST now

becomes a slow shock. On the other hand, when we decrease the magnetic ﬁeld

till β ≈ 2.3, SR will be located at φSR = φa,R , such that SR is a switch-oﬀ shock.

Decreasing the magnetic ﬁeld even more such that β > 2.3 will result in a solution

where both SR and ST are intermediate shocks.

We compare the reference case ((α, β, γ, η, M ) = π4 , 2, 75 , 3, 2 , see ﬁgure 3.7) to a

The magnetic ﬁeld lines of the case where β = 0.5 are plotted in the left frame of

ﬁgure 3.8. Here both the reﬂected and transmitted signals are slow shocks, as Bt

doesn’t change sign across them. Finally, the case where β = 4 is shown in the

right panel. As predicted, not only ST, but also SR is an intermediate shock now,

as Bt changes sign across both the slow signals. In both

cases the

magnetic ﬁeld

lines are plotted over a Schlieren plot of density (exp 200−|∇ρ|

250 is shown), and

the ﬁeld lines are coloured by |B|.

3.8 Conclusion

We developed an exact Riemann solver based solution for regular shock refraction

in planar ideal MHD. In this case, ﬁve signals arise: a CD separates two reﬂected

signals from two transmitted signals. We postulate both the fast signals to

be shocks, while the slow signals can be slow shocks, intermediate shocks or

rarefaction fans. In the presented case, the transmitted slow signal turns out to

84 SHOCK REFRACTION IN IDEAL MHD

Figure 3.7: Up: Density plot for (α, β, γ, η, M ) = π4 , 2, 57 , 3, 2 . Five signals arise

and their location is found by the iteration procedure. Iterating one more time

yields u(x) and solves the problem. Note that the CD remains stable. Middle: A

plot of the transverse magnetic ﬁeld, Bt . Note that the transverse magnetic ﬁeld

is continuous across the CD: [[Bt ]] = 0. Also note that Bt changes sign across ST.

Indeed, ST is an intermediate shock. Lower left: Streamlines in the stationary

shock frame, over a Schlieren plot of density. Lower Right: The magnetic ﬁeld

lines show ST is an intermediate shock, while SR is a slow shock.

CONCLUSION 85

Figure 3.8: Left: Magnetic ﬁeld lines fot the case (α, β, γ, η, M ) = π4 , 0.5, 75 , 3, 2 .

Both the slow signals are slow shocks. Right: Magnetic ﬁeld lines for the case

(α, β, γ, η, M ) = π4 , 4, 57 , 3, 2 . Both the slow signals are intermediate shocks.

In the hydrodynamical case, the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability will occur after

the shock reﬂects from the top wall. Since the MHD equations do not allow for

vorticity deposition on a contact discontinuity, this instability is suppressed in the

presence of magnetic ﬁelds (with a non-vanishing normal component).

Chapter 4

intermediate shocks

conditions, which describe discontinuous solutions to the MHD equations, allow

for slow, intermediate and fast shocks. We derive limiting values for the upstream

and downstream shock parameters for which shocks of a given shock type can

occur. We revisit this classical topic in nonlinear MHD dynamics, augmenting the

recent time reversal duality ﬁnding by Goedbloed [33] in the usual shock frame

parametrization.

This work is published in Delmont & Keppens [21].

4.1 Introduction

(MHD) equations, where a central role is played by the Alfvén speed. Discontinu-

ous solutions only satisfy the integral form of the MHD equations, i.e. the Rankine-

Hugoniot conditions (RH). These RH conditions have been studied extensively in

established as well as more recent literature (see e.g. Germain [30]; Anderson [5];

Jeﬀrey & Taniuti [46]; Liberman & Velikhovich [56]; Sturtevant [80]; Gombosi [35];

Goedbloed [33]) and just express the basic nonlinear conservation laws across a

discontinuity. Many authors have since paid attention to MHD shock stability as

well (amongst others Akhiezer et al.[4]). The interaction of small perturbations

87

88 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

with MHD (switch-on and switch-oﬀ) shocks was studied both analytically by

Todd [84] and numerically by Chu & Taussig [17]. Later on, the evolutionarity

of intermediate shocks, which cross the Alfvén speed, has been addressed. A

discontinuity is said to be evolutionary when small perturbations imposed on it

lead to an evolution that remains close to the initial discontinuity. According to

classical stability analysis, intermediate shocks are not evolutionary so one should

not obtain such shocks in physically realizable situations. On the other hand,

Wu [99], De Sterck et al.[22] and others found intermediate shocks in one and

two dimensional numerical simulations respectively. De Sterck & Poedts [23] were

the ﬁrst to ﬁnd intermediate shocks in three dimensional numerical simulations.

The evolutionary condition became controversial and Myong & Roe [60, 61],

amongst others, argue that the evolutionary condition is not relevant in dissipative

MHD. Wu [100, 101] also argued that intermediate shocks are admissible. Shock

observations in the heliosphere can be found in favor of their existence as well:

Chao et al.[12] reported a 2 → 4 intermediate shock observed by Voyager 1 in

1980 and Feng & Wang [29] recognized a 2 → 3 intermediate shock, which was

observed by Voyager 2 in 1979.

Intermediate shocks are not the only way to connect a sub-alfvénic state to a

super-alfvénic state. One can also encounter compound waves in ideal MHD.

These compound waves can consist of a slow shock which travels with its maximal

propagation speed and a rarefaction fan directly attached to it. Brio & Wu

[11] detected those compound waves in numerical simulations which have become

classical test problems for numerical codes. Another type of compound signal

consists of a slow shock layer, immediately followed by a rotational discontinuity

(Wheatley et al.[97]). The importance of compound waves is that they can be an

alternative to intermediate shocks to cross the Alfvén speed. Barmin et al.[8]

argue that if the full set of MHD equations is used to solve planar MHD, a

small tangential perturbation on the magnetic ﬁeld vector splits the rotational

jump from the non-evolutionary compound wave. This transforms the latter

one into a slow shock, such that the compound wave is non-evolutionary. They

investigate the reconstruction process of the non-evolutionary compound wave into

evolutionary shocks. Falle & Komissarov [26, 27] also reject intermediate shocks

on evolutionary grounds, and suggest a shock capturing scheme based on Glimm’s

method (Glimm [31]) for numerically obtaining purely evolutionary solutions in

MHD. Our goal in this chapter is to determine in which regions of parameter space

one might encounter intermediate shocks, which play such a prominent role in all

evolutionarity argumentation.

Recently, Goedbloed [33] classiﬁed the MHD shocks by rewriting the RH equations

in the de Hoﬀmann-Teller frame (De Hoﬀmann & Teller [39]) introducing the

existence of a distinct time reversal duality between entropy-allowed and entropy-

forbidden solutions. This work encouraged us to revisit the classical RH conditions

INTRODUCTION 89

and augment these results in terms of the commonly exploited shock parameters

in the shock frame. Therefore, another goal in this chapter is to determine in

which regions of parameter space slow, intermediate and fast shocks can appear

and how this relates to Goedbloed’s analysis, in particular regarding the duality

between solutions.

The ideal MHD equations are a system of partial diﬀerential equations. When

allowing for large amplitude waves, which in the limit case become discontinuous,

these equations are replaced by their (weak) discontinuous form: the RH relations.

These RH relations express jump conditions across the discontinuity. In any frame

where the shock is stationary, the MHD RH conditions become

ρvn

B2

ρvn2 + p + 2t

ρvn vt − Bn Bt

= 0, (4.1)

2 2

γ v +v 2

vn (

γ−1 p + ρ n

2

t

+ Bn ) − Bn Bt vt

vn Bt − vt Bn

Bn

where [[G]] expresses the jump G2 − G1 across the shock. In this chapter, index

2 refers to the downstream state, and index 1 refers to the upstream state, while

index n refers to the direction of the shock normal, and index t refers to the

tangential vector components in the plane spanned up by B1 and B2 . Further, ρ is

the mass density, v is the velocity, p the thermal pressure and B the magnetic ﬁeld.

The ratio of speciﬁc heats, γ, is considered a constant parameter, as we will assume

an ideal gas equation of state. For a derivation of these well-known expressions, we

refer to De Hoﬀmann & Teller [39]; Jeﬀrey & Taniuti [46]; Liberman & Velikhovich

[56], Goedbloed & Poedts [32]. The eight governing MHD equations have been

reduced to six jump conditions in equation (D.1). Three equations have been

dropped from the fact that tangential magnetic ﬁeld components are forced to

lie in the same plane perpendicular to the shock front itself: the conservation

of momentum reduced to two equations and Faraday’s law reduces to a single

equation. On the other hand, in the stationary case, the ∇ · B = 0 constraint

becomes a full equation and is added to equation (D.1).

These six jump conditions can be further restricted by noting that Bn is invariant

across the shock. Since the RH conditions are translation invariant, the exact

values of vt,1 and vt,2 can be eliminated for [[vt ]], which is completely determined

by [[Bt ]]. Therefore only four quantities really matter. Hence we now suppose

that one state, uk = (ρ, vn , p, Bt )k is known, where from now on we consistently

drop the subscript k from known state quantities. We want to express the other

90 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

three dimensionless parameters connected to the known state. First, the plasma-β,

which expresses the ratio of thermal and magnetic pressure. Then, the tangent θ

of the angle between the shock normal and the magnetic ﬁeld in the known state.

Finally the Alfvén Mach number M , which is the ratio of the normal velocity

component in the known state and the normal Alfvén speed in that region, thus

2p

β = , (4.2)

Bn2 + Bt2

Bt

θ ≡ , (4.3)

Bn

|vn |

M ≡ . (4.4)

va,n

q 2

Bn

Here, the normal Alfvén speed va,n ≡ is deﬁned as earlier (in section 3.2).

ρ

q 2

Bt

Analogously, we deﬁne the tangential Alfvén speed va,t ≡ ρ and the total

q

Alfvén speed va ≡ va,n 2 + v 2 as in section 3.2. The full set of characteristic

a,t

speeds of the full set of MHD equations is given by {vn ±vf,n , vn ±va,n , vn ±vs,n , vn },

where the fast speed vf,n and the slow speed vs,n are respectively deﬁned as in

equations (1.48) and (1.48). On the other hand, the restricted set of planar MHD

equations, describing MHD dynamics with all vector quantities restricted to lie

in the same plane, has only ﬁve characteristic speeds {vn ± vf,n , vn ± vs,n , vn }.

Ignoring cold MHD, where the thermal pressure p vanishes, and assuming that

the normal component of the magnetic ﬁeld Bn (which can be seen as an equation

parameter now) does not vanish, we conclude that the planar system is strictly

hyperbolic, since vf,n = vs,n would imply that both va and c would vanish.

Obviously c cannot vanish, and for the same reason also vs,n 6= 0.

to introduce another discrete characterization: the shock type i → j. It is well-

known (see e.g. Liberman & Velikhovich [56]) that once the shock type and one

state is given, if a solution exists, it must be unique. Since 0 ≤ vs,n ≤ va,n ≤ vf,n ,

the full set of MHD equations is hyperbolic, but non-strictly hyperbolic. Those

characteristic speeds categorize the up- and downstream states into the classical

1 − 2 − 3 − 4-classiﬁcation as explained in section 3.3.

We call a shock admissible if it satisﬁes the second law of thermodynamics: [[S]] >

0 and admissible versus inadmissible shocks can be related through the time duality

SOLUTION TO THE RANKINE-HUGONIOT CONDITIONS 91

principle from Goedbloed [33]. When the upstream state is of type i and the

downstream state is of type j, then the shock type is i → j. Furthermore, in

terms of these shock types, the admissibility condition translates as i < j. The

RH conditions (D.1) together with the admissibility condition (i < j) now lead to

the MHD shock classiﬁcation presented in section 3.3. All these diﬀerent shock

types are shown in ﬁgure 3.4.

The classiﬁcation given in section 3.3 is well-known and features in many classical

textbooks, such as Liberman & Velikhovich [56]. Recently, a contribution to this

classical theory was described by Goedbloed [33], where the RH conditions for

MHD shocks were rewritten in an insightful, symmetric form by changing to the

de Hoﬀmann-Teller frame, where [[vt ]] = [[Bt ]] (see De Hoﬀmann & Teller [39]). In

that work, the central role played by intermediate shocks was emphasized, and time

reversal duality arguments were introduced, linking admissible and inadmissible

shocks. Here we augment this recent study by paying attention to how the MHD

shocks appear in the shock reference frame, and analyzing under which conditions

intermediate shocks occur.

We scale densities to the known density ρ and magnetic ﬁelds to Bn (Bn is constant

and equal for known and unknown state, as seen in equation (D.1)). Since no

distances or times are involved, the problem is now uniquely scaled. Note that

velocities are scaled to the known normal Alfvén speed va,n . The known state is

now given by

β(1 + θ2 )

u ≡ (ρ, vn , p, Bt ) = 1, σM, ,θ , (4.5)

2

where σ ≡ −1 when the known state is upstream and σ ≡ 1 when the known state

is downstream, and σ just gives the proper sign to the known normal velocity

component.

92 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

the unknown state quantities

M 2ψ

ρu = , (4.6)

θ(M 2 − 1) + ψ

θ(M 2 − 1) + ψ

vn,u = σ , (4.7)

Mψ

ψ 2 + θψ + 2 γ − 1 β(1 + θ2 ) + (ψ − θ)2

2

pu = + 2

M2 − , (4.8)

γ+1 M −1 γ+1 2

Bt,u = ψ, (4.9)

C(ψ) ≡ ψ 3 + τ2 ψ 2 + τ1 ψ + τ0 = 0, (4.10)

−θ (γ − 1)(M 2 − 1) − M 2 ,

τ2 = (4.11)

(M 2 − 1) (γ − 1)(M 2 − 1) + γ(β(θ2 + 1) + θ2 ) − 2 ,

τ1 = (4.12)

θ−ψ

[[vt ]] = . (4.14)

M

We can now deﬁne the dimensionless parameters referring to the unknown state

in function of those in the known state. In our ﬁrst view, we will keep ψ in the

expressions, noting that the cubic equation (4.10) can be seen as a continuously

partially diﬀerentiable function of the known dimensionless parameters and ψ, thus

C(M, θ, β, ψ), such that the implicit function theorem ensures that locally ψ can be

seen as a ψ(M, θ, β). Moreover ψ(M, θ, β) is continuously partially diﬀerentiable

whenever ∂C∂ψ (M, θ, β, ψ(M, θ, β)) does not vanish. This latter restriction means

that ψ cannot be a double root of the cubic. As we will show later, this condition is

equivalent to the condition that none of the characteristic speeds in the unknown

region vanishes.

PHYSICAL MEANING OF Ω 93

s

(M 2 − 1)θ + ψ

Mu = , (4.15)

ψ

θu = ψ, (4.16)

2

` ´

βu = (4.17)

.

(M 2 − 1) (γ + 1) (1 + ψ 2 )

well-known (see e.g. Goedbloed [33]) invariants across a shock:

2M 2 + β(1 + θ2 ) + θ2

= 0, (4.19)

γ 2 2 2

( β + M )(1 + θ )M = 0. (4.20)

γ −1

When we deﬁne the new quantity Ω, computed from the coeﬃcients of the

governing cubic equation (4.10), as

it is well-known that the cubic C(ψ) has three real solutions when

Ω < 0. (4.22)

Note that this criterion is equivalent to equation (F.3).

Mathematically speaking, the RH conditions are thus governed by the existence

and multiplicity of the real roots of a cubic, hence Ω = 0 will play a crucial

role, as will be explained in section 3. It should be noted, however, that most

analytical expressions in this choice of frame and parametrization are complicated

expressions, e.g. one can note that Ω is a polynomial of degree 6 in M 2 , where

(M 2 − 1) appears as a double factor. The same governing equations, as expressed

in the de Hoﬀmann-Teller frame exploited by Goedbloed [33] give a much more

compact algebraic form along with an easier classiﬁcation.

Note that Ω = 0 is exactly the condition for having a real solution with multiplicity

two to C(ψ) = 0. Therefore, whenever Ω 6= 0, (Mu , θu , βu ) is a smooth function of

94 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

1

Figure 4.1: Left: The (θ, M ) state plane for β = 10 and γ = 35 . Shown are the

curves fast: vn = vf,n , Alfvén: vn = va,n and slow: vn = vs,n . These curves

separate the (θ, M ) plane in the classical 1 − 2 − 3 − 4 state regions. Right: Shown

is the curve Ω = 0. Note that states with M = 1 appear as a double zero of Ω.

Where Ω > 0, only one real solution to the RH conditions exist. On the other

hand, where Ω < 0, there exist three real solutions to the RH conditions. On

Ω = 0, the RH solutions allow for 2 distinct real solutions.

(M, θ, β). A related observation is that equation (4.22) is the analytical condition

for the existence of an intermediate shock, since when only one solution exists to

the RH jump conditions it must be a fast or a slow shock (see e.g. Liberman &

Velikhovich [56]).

We will argue that all the states, which can be connected to a state which is

exactly fast, slow or Alfvénic, satisfy Ω = 0. In other words: the surface

ω ≡ {(M, θ, β) |Ω(M, θ, β) = 0} in our 3D parameter space will be shown to

correspond to all states which can be connected by the RH conditions to known

states satisfying (vn − va,n )(vn2 − vf,n

2

)(vn2 − vs,n

2

) = 0. One can visualize these

concepts by drawing the corresponding curves in the (θ, M )-plane, for ﬁxed β and

γ. This is done in ﬁgure (4.1), where the plot at left concentrates on the 1−2−3−4

state regions, and the panel at right shows Ω = 0 curves.

First, we make some general observations. 1-states can be connected to a 2-state, a

3-state and a 4-state. Therefore, they can only appear as an upstream state. There

are at most three diﬀerent real solutions with a 1-state as an known upstream

state. When there is only one solution, this solution is a fast 1 → 2 shock. In the

transition case where two diﬀerent real solutions exist, these solutions include one

fast (1 → 2) shock, and two coinciding intermediate 1 → 3 = 4 shocks. Finally,

when there are three diﬀerent real solutions, one of these is a fast (1 → 2) shock and

PHYSICAL MEANING OF Ω 95

1 → 4 shock.

Similarly, 2-states can be connected to a 1-state, a 3-state and a 4-state. Therefore,

the admissibility condition which demands that i < j for an i → j shock, ensures

that a 2-state can, at most, occur in one downstream state solution and two

upstream state solutions to the RH conditions. Again, when only one real solution

exists, it is a fast (1 → 2) shock. In the transition case where two diﬀerent

real solutions exist, these solutions include one fast shock and two coinciding

intermediate 2 → 3 = 4 shocks. Finally, when there are three diﬀerent real

solutions, one of these is a fast shock, and the 2 other solutions are respectively

an intermediate 2 → 3 and an intermediate 2 → 4 shock.

The same reasoning states that generally speaking, 3-states can be connected to

a 1-state, a 2-state and a 4-state. The admissibility condition ensures that they

can, at most, occur in two downstream state solutions and one upstream state

solution to the RH conditions. Now, when only one real solution exists, it is a

slow (3 → 4) shock. In the transition case where two diﬀerent real solutions exist,

these solutions include one slow (3 → 4) shock and two coinciding intermediate

1 = 2 → 3 shocks. Finally, when there are three diﬀerent real solutions, one of

these is a slow shock, and the 2 other solutions are respectively an intermediate

1 → 3 and an intermediate 2 → 3 shock.

Generally speaking, 4-states can be connected to a 1-state, a 2-state and a 3-state.

Therefore, the admissibility condition ensures that they can, at most, occur in

three downstream state solutions to the RH conditions. Again, when only one

real solution exists, it is a slow (3 → 4) shock. In the transition case where two

diﬀerent real solutions exist, these solutions include one slow (3 → 4) shock and

two coinciding intermediate 1 = 2 → 4 shocks. Finally, when there are three

diﬀerent real solutions, one of these is a slow (3 → 4) shock and the 2 other

solutions are respectively an intermediate 1 → 4 and an intermediate 2 → 4 shock.

These general observations now allow us to consider the transition cases. A 1 = 2-

state, where vn = vf,n or a 3 = 4-state, where vn = vs,n , will always have the

trivial solution. Therefore they can only appear in none or two real non-trivial

intermediate solutions, depending on the sign of Ω. Both these solutions, labeled

as unknown state a and b, have uk as a double solution, thereby satisfying Ωu,a =

Ωu,b = 0, and as we will show in section 4.2 mutually satisfy the RH conditions.

This is argued in what follows.

Consider an upstream state which satisﬁes vn = vf,n . Straightforward algebra

shows that C(θ) = 0, so one of the solutions to the RH jump conditions is the

trivial one. By solving C(ψ)

ψ−θ = 0, one ﬁnds 2 solutions. Those solutions are real

only when Ω ≤ 0. In this case they lead to a 1 = 2 → 3 and a 1 = 2 → 4 solution,

which we respectively call uu,a and uu,b . These uu,a and uu,b mutually satisfy the

96 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

solutions have our speciﬁc known upstream state uk , where vn = vf,n , as a double

solution, and therefore satisfy Ωu,a = Ωu,b = 0.

Completely analogously, consider now a downstream state with vn = vs,n .

Straightforward algebra shows that C(θ) = 0, so one of the solutions to the RH

jump conditions is the trivial one. By solving C(ψ)ψ−θ = 0, one ﬁnds 2 solutions.

Those solutions are real only when Ω ≤ 0. In this case they lead to a 1 → 3 = 4 and

a 2 → 3 = 4 solution, which we respectively call uu,a and uu,b . We again ﬁnd that

uu,a and uu,b mutually satisfy the RH conditions and can therefore be separated

by a fast shock. Both these solutions have our speciﬁc known downstream state

uk , where vn = vs,n , as a double solution, and therefore satisfy Ωu,a = Ωu,b = 0.

Finally, consider a state where vn = va,n . Now C(ψ) simpliﬁes as ψ 3 + θi ψ 2 =

0, where i = 1, 2 selects respectively the up- or the downstream solution. The

solutions to the RH conditions are now a switch-on shock, a switch-oﬀ shock and

a rotational wave. The switch-on and the switch-oﬀ solution also mutually satisfy

the RH jump condition. This can be easily checked by straightforward algebra.

Note that in this case Ωu = 0 automatically.

4.4 Results

Since the governing expressions in the shock frame are complicated, all calculations

reported here are performed by a symbolic computational software package,

namely MAPLE 11.0. We search for critical values for the parameters in both

up- and downstream states, for which diﬀerent shock types can occur. These

critical values are found by simple geometrical arguments using the knowledge

obtained so far: namely that in the (θ, M )-plane, 2 families of curves as shown

in ﬁgure 4.1 split up the state plane in various regions. Unless explicitly stated

otherwise, we assume from now on that γ = 53 .

For varying β, we plot both the curves where the known upstream normal velocity

component vn is exactly fast, Alfvénic or slow (i.e. vn = vf,n , vn = va,n , vn =

vs,n ) and the curves ω : Ω = 0 in a (θ, M )-diagram in ﬁgure 4.2. Those curves

divide the (θ, M )-parameter space in regions, where certain types of shocks are

mathematically possible. An important transition occurs at β = γ2 . Here the

sound speed equals the Alfvén speed and the thermal pressure equals the magnetic

pressure. When β < γ2 , we call the plasma magnetically dominated. In this case,

the curves vn = vf,n and vn = va,n have a common point at (θ, M ) = (0, 1). When

RESULTS 97

2

the plasma is thermally dominated, β > γ, the curves vn = vs,n and vn = va,n

have a common point at (θ, M ) = (0, 1).

Every region is then coded with a latin number code for (θ, M ), indicative of an

upstream state, i.e. (θ1 , M1 ). This means:

• (I) One fast shock and two intermediate shocks of type 1 → 3 and 1 → 4 are

possible;

• (II) Only a fast shock is possible;

• (III) Two intermediate shocks of type 2 → 3 and 2 → 4 are possible;

• (IV) No shocks are possible;

• (V) Only a slow shock is possible.

We can interpret the graphs in terms of the downstream state in a similar manner,

where (θ, M ) = (θ2 , M2 ). Every region is also coded with a letter code, meaning

the following:

• (A) One slow shock and two intermediate shocks of type 2 → 4 and 3 → 4

are possible;

• (B) Only a slow shock is possible;

• (C) Two intermediate shocks of type 1 → 4 and 2 → 4 are possible;

• (D) No shocks are possible;

• (E) Only a fast shock is possible.

These regions are shown in ﬁgure 4.2, where the axes labels must be interpreted

as (θ2 , M2 ) instead of (θ1 , M1 ) from above.

The 1 − 2 − 3 − 4 classiﬁcation divides the (β, M, θ)-space into four regions. The

surface ω : Ω = 0 divides each of those regions into two: one region where Ω > 0

and one where Ω < 0, such that the (β, M, θ) space is divided into eight regions

by these curves.

The time reversal duality principle from Goedbloed [33] is hereby made visible

in the fact that every region corresponds to 1 or 3 mathematical solutions, but

the coding tells whether the state can appear as an upstream or as a downstream

region.

98 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

RESULTS 99

(a) (b)

Figure 4.2: Parameter space divided into various regions. Panels diﬀer in their

β-value: a) β = 0.1, b) β = 1.0, c) β = 1.2 = γ2 , d) β = 1.3, e) β = 1.3637, f)

β = 1.5. The latin cypher-letter code is explained in the text, and related to the

time reversal duality argument put forth by Goedbloed [33].

existence of three shock invariants. Therefore two states can be connected

through the stationary RH conditions if and only if they have the same value

for the expression ζ1 ≡ (M 2 − 1)θ, ζ2 ≡ 2M 2 + β(1 + θ2 ) + θ2 and ζ3 ≡

γ

( γ−1 β + M 2 )(1 + θ2 )M 2 . Denoting the relation "state A can be connected to

state B through the stationary RH conditions" as A 7→RH B, this relation 7→RH is

an equivalence. Indeed:

the stationary RH conditions.

• 7→RH is symmetric: A 7→RH B ⇒ B 7→RH A. If state A can be connected

to state B through the stationary RH conditions, then also state B can

be connected to state A by these conditions. Of course only one of these

connections satisﬁes the entropy condition.

• 7→RH is transitive: A 7→RH B ∧ B 7→RH C ⇒ A 7→RH C. Indeed: if A 7→RH B,

then ζi (A) = ζi (B), and if B 7→RH C, then ζi (B) = ζi (C). Hence A 7→RH

B ∧ B 7→RH C implies ζi (A) = ζi (B) = ζi (C), which means that A 7→RH C.

100 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

All these equivalence classes contain one, two, three or four states.

A state A is in an equivalence class with one element in the following cases:

switch oﬀ-solution and the rotational solution all coincide.

• If Ω > 0, and (vn2 − vs,n

2

)(vn2 − vf,n

2

) = 0. In this case, the only real solution

to the RH conditions is A itself.

2

)(vn2 − vf,n

2

) 6= 0. In this case the equivalence class

contains A itself, and the state introduced by the unique (non-trivial) real

solution to the cubic equation (4.10).

• If Ω = 0 and (vn2 − vs,n

2

)(vn2 − vf,n

2

) = 0. Since Ω = 0, the solutions to the

RH conditions crossing the Alfvén speed are coinciding. Since vn is exactly

fast or exactly slow, it appears itself as a solution to the cubic.

2

• if Ω = 0, but (vn2 − vs,n 2

)(vn2 − vf,n ) 6= 0. As explained earlier, in this case the

RH conditions have an exactly slow or fast state as a double solution, and a

single solution which also satisﬁes Ω = 0.

conditions have 2 diﬀerent solutions with Ω = 0, and the considered state

itself as a third solution.

• if Ω < 0 and vn 6= vf,n and vn 6= vs,n . As explained above, in this case the RH

conditions have three diﬀerent (non-trivial) solutions. Also, the considered

state itself is in the equivalence class.

• if vn = va,n . The RH conditions now have a switch-on shock, a switch-

oﬀ shock and a rotational wave as a solution. The considered state itself

completes the equivalence class.

exactly one other state. This state should be subfast, since we know that if only

RESULTS 101

one solution exists, it does not cross the Alfvén speed. Also, the solution state

has only one solution, therefore it also satisﬁes Ω > 0. Interpreting this result

on ﬁgure 4.2, we conclude that the II − C-region can only be connected to the

IV − E-region and the other way around.

Completely analogously we ﬁnd that a subslow state with Ω > 0 can only be

connected with a superslow state, also satisfying Ω > 0. Interpreting this again

on ﬁgure 4.2, we conclude that the IV − B-region can only be connected to the

V −D-region, and vice versa. Further, we conclude that for any state in the regions

I − D, III − E, V − C and IV − A, there exist states in the regions I − D, III − E,

V − C and IV − A respectively, which can be mutually connected through the

RH jump condition. The initial eight regions of parameter space have thus been

divided into two groups of two mutually connectable regions and one group of four

mutually connectable regions.

If we do not take into account that βu should be positive, these connections are

mappings. We know the entropy condition in an i → j shock reduces to j > i.

Thus, when we consider one equivalence class we have four or two states, such that

the entropy increases with state type. Therefore, we know that when one of the

mathematical solutions has negative pressure, it must be the 1-states. When two

of those states have negative pressure, it must be the 1-state and the 2-state, and

so on. In the next section, we will additionally consider the physical restriction

that all pressures should be positive.

Until now we have only used the nonlinear relations expressed by RH, as well

as the admissibility condition, to count the number of solutions in the (θ, M, β)

state space. The admissibility restriction is that [[S]] > 0, which is satisﬁed for an

i → j-shock if and only if j > i. Further restrictions are that the solution should

have positive thermal pressure, pu > 0 and density ρu > 0. The latter restriction

is trivially satisﬁed. In fact, we can only encounter problems when the known

state is a downstream state, because when the upstream pressure is positive the

upstream entropy is also positive. Hence, the downstream entropy is positive and

the downstream pressure too. Therefore, we can expect that for a given 1-state,

the positive pressure requirement is trivially satisﬁed. When the known state is

a 2-state, we expect to encounter one critical surface dividing the 2-state regions

into sub-regions where the fast (1 → 2) shock solution has positive versus negative

thermal pressure. When the given state is a 3-state, we expect to encounter two of

such critical surfaces. And when the given state is a 4-state we expect to encounter

three of such critical surfaces. Therefore, the parameter space is now divided in

16 regions, as summarized in table (4.1).

102 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

Ω<0 Ω>0

1-state 1 1

2-state 2 2

3-state 3 1

4-state 4 2

Table 4.1: The positive pressure requirement divides the eight regions in parameter

space in even more regions. The number of sub-regions in which the original regions

are divided are shown above. Since the region is only important when the given

state is downstream, it is not surprising that the total number of regions is doubled

from 8 to 16.

Figure 4.3 shows the regions in which pu > 0 for β = 0.1 and β = 2. The ﬁgure

now plots: (i) the three curves deﬁning vn = vs,n , vn = va,n and vn = vf,n ; (ii) the

curves where Ω = 0; and (iii) the lines deﬁning pu = 0. Finding these regions is

straightforward: pick the correct root of the cubic, ﬁll it out in the expression for

pu and make it vanish. The governing expressions can even be found analytically.

As mentioned above, the addition of these pu = 0 curves now divides the parameter

space into 16 regions, namely:

• (i) This state can occur as the upstream state of a fast shock;

• (ii) This state can occur as the downstream state of a fast shock;

• (iii) This state cannot occur, since the only solution has negative pressure;

• (iv) This state can occur as the upstream state of a fast shock, and as the

upstream state of an intermediate 1 → 3 and 1 → 4 shock;

• (v) This state can occur as the upstream state of an intermediate 2 → 3 and

2 → 4 shock, and as the downstream state of a fast shock;

• (vi) This state can occur as the upstream state of an intermediate 2 → 3

and 2 → 4 shock, but not as the downstream state of a fast shock, since the

solution would have a negative thermal pressure;

• (vii) This state can occur as the upstream state of a slow shock, or as the

downstream state of an intermediate 1 → 3 and 2 → 3 shock;

• (viii) In this region, one of the three solutions has negative pressure. This

will always be the 1 → 3-solution. Therefore this region can occur as the

upstream state of a slow shock, or as a downstream state of an intermediate

2 → 3 shock;

RESULTS 103

Figure 4.3: The 16 regions in parameter space where pu > 0, respectively for

β = 0.1 and β = 2.

104 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

• (ix) This region can occur as the upstream state of a slow shock;

• (x) This state has two solutions with negative pressure: namely both

intermediate solutions. Therefore it can only occur as the upstream state of

a slow shock;

• (xi) This state can occur as the downstream region of a slow shock;

• (xii) This state has two solutions with negative pressure: namely both

intermediate solutions. Therefore it can only occur as the downstream state

of a slow shock;

• (xiii) This state cannot occur, since the single real solution has negative

pressure.

• (xiv) This state cannot occur, since all 3 solutions have negative pressure.

• (xv) This state can occur as the downstream state of a slow shock, and

as the downstream state of an intermediate 2 → 4 shock, but not as the

downstream state of an intermediate 1 → 4 shock, since the solution would

have a negative thermal pressure;

• (xvi) This state can occur as the downstream state of a slow shock, and as

the downstream state of an intermediate 1 → 4 and 2 → 4 shock;

surfaces deﬁned by vn = vs,n , vn = va,n , vn = vf,n and the positive pressure

requirement hence provides a complete, but admittedly non-trivial, graphical

means to the many possibilities for the MHD shock transitions. We now continue

to exploit this knowledge to delimit possible parameter ranges for certain shock

types. As a matter of fact, in what follows, we will use ﬁgure 4.3 and how this

ﬁgure varies with β, to ﬁnd limiting values of the parameters at which diﬀerent

shock types can occur. By doing so, we will actually ﬁnd the equations of the

curves traced out in (θ, M, β) parameter space that are labeled with P, Q, R, S, T,

U and V as indicated in these plots. These points identify the intersections of the

various regions, and thus act to delimit realizable parameter ranges for shocks.

shocks to be possible is Ω < 0, since otherwise only fast shocks are possible. Note

that switch-on shocks are only possible when β < γ2 . In this case the plasma is

said to be magnetically dominated. Therefore the maximum value at which we can

RESULTS 105

ﬁnd switch-on shocks, is found by ﬁlling θ = 0 out in the expression for Ω. This

works out to be

s

γ(1 − β) + 1

1 < Ms-on < . (4.23)

γ−1

For the same reason, switch-oﬀ shocks can be found in a completely similar manner,

yielding

s

γ(1 − β) + 1

< Ms-off < 1, (4.24)

γ−1

whenever γ(1−β)+1

γ−1 > 0, i.e. when β < γ+1γ . This agrees with the well-known

expressions for these degenerate shock cases (e.g. Kennel et al.[47]).

When solving the RH conditions for θ = 0, when β < γ+1 γ , two switch-on or

5

switch-oﬀ solutions exist. For γ = 3 , these solutions are given by

1 − 2M 2 − β

βu = −1 (4.25)

(γ − 1)M 4 + (γ(β − 2))M 2 + γ(1 − β)

Mu = 1 (4.26)

p

θu = ± ((γβ − 2) − (γ − 1)(M 2 − 1))(M 2 − 1). (4.27)

solution is given by

r !

6M 2 − β 2M 2 + 5β

(βu , Mu , θu ) = , ,0 , (4.28)

4 8

Figure 4.4 shows the plane given by θ = 0 in parameter space. The graphs plotted

are (i) the curves given by Ω = 0; (ii) the curve vn = va,n ; (iii) the curve

given by pHD ≡ 6M 2 − β = 0, which is the limiting curve for the existence of

a hydrodynamical shock solution; and (iv) the curve given by ps-off ≡ −4 M 2 −

2 β + 2 + 5 M 2β + 2 M 4 = 0, which is a limiting curve for the existence of a switch-

oﬀ solution. The entropy condition ensures that there is no equivalent limiting

curve for switch-on solutions. Note that the known state of a switch-on shock,

where θ = 0 is always magnetically dominated, whereas the known state of a

switch-oﬀ shock, where θ = 0 is always thermally dominated. Also shown are the

curves where the hydrodynamical shock solutions and the switch-on and switch-oﬀ

106 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

are labeled with A, B, C and D and used in what follows.

We conclude that the maximum Mach number at which switch-on solutions exist,

is reached in point A, for which (θ, M, β) = (0, 2, 0), as indicated in ﬁgure 4.4,

while the maximum plasma-β for switch-on shocks is reached in point B, where

(θ, M, β) = (0, 1, γ2 = 1.2). Therefore the Mach number for the existence of a

switch on-shock is bounded by 1 < M < 2 and the plasma-β at which these

shocks can occur must satisfy 0 < β < γ2 = 1.2. For switch-oﬀ shocks, the

minimum plasma-β is reached in point B and is therefore β = 65 = 1.2. The

minimum value of the Mach number M is reached in point C whose coordinates

are found by solving

(

q pu = 0,

(4.29)

γ(1−β)+1

γ−1 = M.

q

γ−1 4

Therefore C satisﬁes (θ, M, β) = (0, γ+1 , γ+1 ) = (0, 0.5, 1.5), and switch-oﬀ

shocks satisfy

r

1 γ−1

= ≤ Ms-off < 1. (4.30)

2 γ+1

In fact, it is straightforward to show that in C, both the curves pHD = 0 and

ps-off = 0 touch, while ω : Ω = 0 also contains C.

Regarding HD shocks, the maximum plasma-β at which they can exist is reached

4

in D, where (θ, M, β) = (0, 1, γ−1 ) = (0, 1, 6), such that all HD shocks satisfy

β < 6.

q

Finally note that ps-off = 0 has M = γ−1 γ = 0.6325 as a horizontal asymptotic,

such that for θ = 0, the RH conditions always lead to at least one solution whenever

M > 0.6325.

We now search for critical values for the upstream parameters, for which the RH

conditions allow for 1 → 3 shocks. First, note that no 1 → 3 shocks are possible

for β > γ2 , since region (iv), as shown in ﬁgure 4.3 then no longer exists.

When, at ﬁxed β, implicitly taking derivatives of M to θ on the boundary Ω = 0,

it can be shown that ∂M

∂θ < 0, for θ > 0 and M > 1, and the other way around:

∂M

∂θ < 0, for θ < 0 and M > 1. Therefore the maximum value of M on Ω = 0

RESULTS 107

Figure 4.4: The regions where switch-on or switch-oﬀ shocks can occur are colored

in greyscale. By ﬁnding the coordinates of points A, B and C, we know the

limiting values for which these shocks can occur. More details are given in the

text.

is reached when θ = 0 (which in ﬁgure 4.3 coincides with point P). Hence the

maximum value of the upstream Mach number at which intermediate 1 → 3 shocks

can be found is reached at θ = 0. For varying β, the left panel of ﬁgure 4.5 shows

the maximum value of M1,1-3 . Therefore 1 < M1,1-3 < 2.

The maximum value of θ1 for which intermediate 1 → 3 shocks can be found, is

reached on the curve traced out by point Q for varying β in ﬁgure 4.3, and thus

requires solving the system

vn = vf,n ,

(4.31)

Ω = 0.

The analytical expression of the solution is again complicated, but the right panel

of ﬁgure 4.5 plots the solution in function of β. Since this critical value is decreasing

for increasing β, and the limit value for β = 0, equals 0.65633, we conclude that

−0.65633 < θ1,1→3 < 0.65633.

108 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

Figure 4.5: Left: The critical upstream Alfvén Mach number for the existence of

intermediate 1 → 3 shocks in function of the upstream β. Right: The critical

upstream θ number for the existence of intermediate 1 → 3 shocks in function of

the upstream β.

Figure 4.6: The critical downstream θ for which 1 → 3 shocks can occur, in

function of the downstream β.

We now search for critical values for the downstream parameters, for which the

RH conditions allow for 1 → 3 shocks.

RESULTS 109

The downstream region in which 1 → 3 shocks can occur, is region (vii) (as also

shown in ﬁgure 4.3. Hence, we ﬁnd the maximum downstream θ for 1 → 3 shocks

to be reached on the curve traced out by point S for varying β (as also shown in

ﬁgure 4.3). Therefore this value can be found by solving

M = 1,

(4.32)

pu = 0.

We ﬁnd this critical θ to be located at

s p

(γ − 1)β 2 + (γ − 3)β − 2 β(γβ + γ − 1)

θ= ,

(γ − 1)(β + 1)2

4 √1

for β ∈]0, γ−1 ]. Note that the maximum value γ−1

is reached for β = γ −1 .

−1/2

Therefore no 1 → 3 shocks are possible for θ > (γ − 1) = 0.77460.

4

As a bonus, we derived that for β > γ−1 = 0, no 1 → 3 shocks can occur. Figure

4.6 plots this critical value of θ in function of β.

We ﬁnd the maximum downstream M for 1 → 3 shocks to be reached on the

curve related to the intersections labeled as T or U (as also shown in ﬁgure 4.3),

depending on the value of β. At β = 0.1 this maximum downstream value is found

to be located at M = 0.94943, as seen in the top panel of ﬁgure 4.3..

The maximum value of M at which the RH conditions allow for 2 → 3 shocks, is

reached on the curve related to point Q, as shown in ﬁgure 4.3, and can thus be

found by solving equations (4.31). The left panel of ﬁgure 4.7 also shows a plot

of the Alfvén Mach number on Q for varying β. Since this value is decreasing

for increasing β, and the limit value for β = 0, equals 1.19615, we ﬁnd that

1 < M1,2→3 < 1.19615.

The maximum upstream value of θ at which 2 → 3 shocks can occur is reached on

the curve related to point R, as shown in ﬁgure 4.3. Hence, we need to solve the

following system:

pu = 0,

(4.33)

Ω = 0.

β = 0.44, and equals θ2 = 1.34283, hence −1.34283 < θ2,2→3 < 1.34283. The

110 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

1.4

1.2

0.8

θ

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

β

Figure 4.7: Left: The critical upstream Alfvén Mach number for the existence of

intermediate 2 → 3 shocks in function of the upstream β. Right: The critical value

of θ, for the upstream state of an intermediate 2 → 3 shock for varying β.

Since the downstream state of a 2 → 3 shock is located in region (vii) or (viii),

as also shown in ﬁgure 4.3, and the lower branch of the pu = 0 surface, starting

at T does not cross M = 1, it follows that there are no limiting values for the

downstream θ of an intermediate 2 → 3 shock.

We ﬁnd the maximum downstream M for 2 → 3 shocks to be reached on the curve

T or V (as also shown in ﬁgure 4.3), depending on the value of β. Therefore, at

β = 0.1 this critical value is found to be located at M = 0.94943 again.

The exact same reasoning we made for the upstream state of an intermediate 1 → 3

shock can be repeated, thus the limiting values for the upstream state of a 1 → 4

shock are exactly the same.

We search for critical values for the downstream parameters, for which the Rankine-

Hugoniot conditions allow for 1 → 4 shocks. The downstream state of a 1 → 4

RESULTS 111

We ﬁrst ﬁnd the minimal value of the Mach number M at which 1 → 4 can occur.

A ﬁrst important observation is that for all β > 1.2, the (θ, M )-parameter space

contains a region (xiv), since it can be shown that for all β, the pu = 0 curve

crosses the vn = vs,n .

At β = 32 , the pu = 0 curve crosses the Ω = 0 curve in θ = 0. Therefore, when

β > 1.5, the minimum value of M in region (xiv) is reached at θ = 0. When

1.2 < β < 1.5, this minimum value can be located at point T , as labeled in the

bottom panel of ﬁgure 4.3).

When β > 1.5, this value is reached on curve T, hence we need to solve

pu = 0;

(4.34)

θ = 0,

in order to ﬁnd the minimum Mach number forq1 → 4 √ intermediate shocks. For

4−5β+ 25β 2 −24β

ﬁxed β, this minimum value is found to be M = 4 . This function

reaches its minimum at β = 1.5, and the minimal value is 0.5. It can be shown

that for β < 1.5, this minimum value of M is bigger. Therefore 0.5 < M2,1→4 < 1.

For ﬁxed β2 , we can also ﬁnd the maximum value for θ2 . Therefore we solve the

system

pu = 0;

(4.35)

vn = vs,n .

For β = 2, we ﬁnd this critical value to be θ = 0.75604, as seen in ﬁgure 4.3.

The upstream state for an intermediate 2 → 4 shock should be located in region

(v). The limiting upstream values for 2 → 3 shocks are exactly the same as the

limiting upstream values for 2 → 3 shocks.

The downstream state of a 2 → 4 shock, must be located in region (xv) or (xvi).

Since on pu = 0, it can be shown that, for ﬁxed β, ∂M ∂θ > 0. Therefore M2,2,→4

will reach its minimum value in region (xvi), and it equals the minimum value for

M2,1→4 .

The maximum value of θ2,2→4 is reached on the curve corresponding to point V

in ﬁgure 4.3, and for β = 2, θ2,2→4 = 1.65654, as also shown in ﬁgure 4.3.

112 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

[14], Liepmann & Roshko [55], Anderson [5] and many others have studied the

relationship between the pre- and the post-shock streamlines in several initial

setups. Since in the MHD case, these are both dependent on the pre- and

post-shock magnetic ﬁeld, we will generalize these studies by investigating the

relationship between the pre- and the post-shock magnetic ﬁelds.

Therefore we plot (θ, ψ)-diagrams for ﬁxed (β, M ). We assume that the known

state is the upstream state. Figure 4.8 plots these relations for β = 0.1 and varying

M . In the ﬁrst plot, we have set M ∈ {1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 1.4}. In this range, both fast

and intermediate solutions are possible. In the second panel of ﬁgure 4.8, we show

the (θ, ψ)-diagram for M = 1.1, and divide it into certain regions. These regions

mean the following:

• Region B: There are no solutions with (M, β, θ) = (1.1, 0.1, θ) as upstream

state.

• Region C: There are no solutions with (M, β, θ) = (1.1, 0.1, θ) as upstream

state. The solution with (M, β, θ) = (1.1, 0.1, θ) even has negative pressure.

• Region D: There is an intermediate 1 → 4 solution.

• Region E: There is an intermediate 2 → 4 solution.

• Region F: There is an intermediate 2 → 3 solution.

• Region G: There is an intermediate 1 → 3 solution.

On the other hand, we can also assume that at ﬁxed (β, M ), the known state is the

downstream state. The third panel of ﬁgure 4.8 plots for β = 2 and varying M , the

curves connecting the known and unknown magnetic ﬁelds. The curves are shown

for M ∈ {0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9}. Here we did not worry about the admissibility of the

solution. In the fourth panel of ﬁgure 4.8, we only plot the physically admissible

parts of these curves.

4.5 Conclusion

conditions. These equations can be solved analytically, and doing so essentially

reduces to solving a cubic equation. This solution can have one or three real

CONCLUSION 113

Figure 4.8: The relation between up- and downstream Bt . In the upper panels,

the known state corresponds to the upstream state, and in the lower panels, the

known state corresponds to the downstream state. Upper left: β = 0.1 and M ∈

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4. According to ﬁgure 4.3, three solutions exist in this case. For

each M , the curve reaches its maximum value at Ω = 0. Upper right: Transitions

between certain shock types. In the fast branch, only region A leads to an upstream

state solution. In the intermediate branch, the solution changes shock type: region

D contains 1 → 4 solutions, region E contains 2 → 4 solutions, region F contains

2 → 3 solutions and ﬁnally region G leads to 1 → 3 shocks. Lower left: β = 2.

For M ∈ {0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9}, the relation between the known and unknown Bt

are plotted. The physical admissibility is not taken into account. Lower right:

β = 2. For M ∈ {0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9}, the relation between the known and unknown

Bt are plotted. The physical admissibility is taken into account now. The ﬁgure

corresponds to the lower panel of ﬁgure 4.3.

114 PARAMETER RANGES FOR INTERMEDIATE SHOCKS

solutions. When there is only one real solution, it corresponds to a fast or a slow

magneto-acoustic shock, but when there are three real solutions, also intermediate

shock solutions, which cross the Alfvén speed, can be found. Inspired by the time

reversal principle from Goedbloed [33], we revisited the RH shock relations in the

frequently employed shock frame, and made the duality visible in the (θ, M, β)

state space. Using the thus obtained graphical classiﬁcation of the state space,

augmented with a positive pressure requirement, we derived limiting values for

parameters in the shock rest frame at which intermediate shocks can be found.

Chapter 5

Nederlandstalige samenvatting

vertaling van de titel van dit proefschrift. Eerst leggen we de begrippen

hydrodynamica (HD) en magnetohydrodynamica (MHD) uit, daarna kunnen we

dieper ingaan op schokken, en schokbreking.

HD, ook wel vloeistofmechanica genoemd, is een wiskundig model dat dient om

het gedrag van fluïda te beschrĳven. Hoewel zowel gassen als vloeistoﬀen ﬂuïda

zĳn, gebruiken we in deze thesis HD enkel om het gedrag van gassen te beschrĳven.

Fluïda bestaan uit vele neutrale deeltjes die onderling interageren. In principe is

het mogelĳk om Newtoniaanse mechanica te gebruiken om de snelheid en positie

van ieder deeltje te berekenen doorheen de tĳd. Dit zou echter leiden tot een

enorm stelsel van vergelĳkingen. Zelfs voor zeer kleine systemen is het oplossen

van zo’n stelsel onbegonnen werk. We moeten dus verstandiger te werk gaan, willen

we het gedrag van ﬂuïda op een bruikbare manier beschrĳven. In plaats van de

beweging van elk deeltje afzonderlĳk te beschrĳven, wordt het ﬂuïdum beschouwd

als een continuüm. In deze continuümbeschrĳving spreken we over massadichtheid,

momentum en energiedichtheid, wat essentieel statistische begrippen zĳn. De

aannames die HD dan mogelĳk maken zĳn het behoud van massa, het behoud

van impuls en het behoud van energie.

Een fenomeen dat geïntroduceerd wordt door deze continuümbeschrĳving van

gassen is de golf. Een golf is een verstoring die zich voortplant in tĳd en

ruimte. Een verstoring is hier gedeﬁnieerd als een kleine afwĳking van een

achtergrondstoestand, in om het even welke grootheden (zoals dichtheid, snelheid,

temperatuur). Hierbĳ is het belangrĳk op te merken dat enkel de verstoring zich

verplaatst, niet noodzakelĳk de individuele deeltjes. Denk daarbĳ bĳvoorbeeld aan

een watergolf, een microgolf, een radiogolf of een geluidsgolf, of zelfs een mexican

wave.

115

116 NEDERLANDSTALIGE SAMENVATTING

Elk gas heeft een karakteristieke snelheid. Deze karakteristieke snelheid wordt

de geluidssnelheid van het gas genoemd. Het karakteristieke aan deze snelheid

is dat er een schokgolf onstaat wanneer het medium lokaal de geluidssnelheid

overschrĳdt. Dit is bĳvoorbeeld het geval wanneer een vliegtuig door de

geluidsmuur vliegt. Exacter uitgedrukt: een stationaire HD schok scheidt een

supersonische toestand van een subsonische toestand. Deze eigenschap wordt de

Prandtl-Meyer -eigenschap genoemd. Wiskundig valt dit te begrĳpen door op te

merken dat de HD vergelĳkingen in dit geval enkel discontinue oplossingen hebben,

die exact deze schokgolven beschrĳven. Verder kan aangetoond worden dat de

geluidssnelheid isotroop is: deze snelheid is namelĳk even groot in elke richting.

Daarom verplaatst een golf zich sferisch.

De temperatuur van een gas wordt feitelĳk bepaald door de random snelheid van

de elektronen: hoe hoger die snelheid, hoe hoger de temperatuur. Wanneer een

gas opgewarmd wordt, stĳgt de snelheid van de elektronen rond de protonen.

Wordt het gas voldoende opgewarmd, zodat de elektronen genoeg kinetische

energie bezitten opdat hun momentum de aantrekkingskracht van de protonen

kan overwinnen, dan komen de elektronen los van de ionen, zodat het gas bestaat

uit ionen en vrĳ bewegende elektronen. Een gas in deze toestand wordt een plasma

genoemd. Gezien elektronen en ionen respectievelĳk een negatieve en een positieve

elektrische lading hebben, induceren ze een elektrisch veld, dat op zĳn beurt een

magneetveld creëert. Dit magnetisch veld induceert een magnetische druk zodat de

fysica van het probleem essentieel verandert. Het wiskundig systeem dat plasma’s

beschrĳft heet MHD. Dit wiskundig systeem is nu zevendimensionaal, waar het HD

systeem driedimensionaal was. Dit heeft verregaande gevolgen. Terwĳl HD enkel

de geluidssnelheid als karakteristieke snelheid heeft, heeft MHD 3 karakteristieke

snelheden: de trage magnetosonische snelheid, de Alfvénsnelheid en de snelle

magnetosonische snelheid. Verder kan aangetoond worden dat geen van deze

drie snelheden isotroop is. Informatie plant zich dus niet in elke richting even

snel voort. De veralgemening van de Prandtl-Meyer-eigenschap is nu verre van

triviaal. In plaats van een sub- en een supersonische toestand, kan men met de

drie karakteristieke MHD snelheden nu vier verschillende toestanden deﬁniëren.

Men noemt deze toestanden respectievelĳk supersnel (1), subsnel (2), supertraag

(3) of subtraag (4). Een schok die een supersnelle toestand van een subsnelle

toestand scheidt wordt een snelle MHD-schok genoemd. Een schok die een

subtrage toestand van een supertrage toestand scheidt wordt een trage MHD-

schok genoemd, en alle andere schokken worden intermediaire schokken genoemd.

Intermediaire schokken zĳn zeker en vast oplossingen van de vergelĳkingen die

schokgolven beschrĳven (de Rankine-Hugoniot sprongvoorwaarden), maar er is

geen eensgezindheid over het bestaan van deze schokken in de fysische wereld.

Alleszins, in hoofdstuk 4 van deze thesis leiden we af welke wiskundige voorwaarden

het bestaan van zo’n intermediaire schokken toelaten. Ik beschrĳf kort onze

aanpak. De Rankine-Hugoniot sprongvoorwaarden (RHV) moeten op elk punt

NEDERLANDSTALIGE SAMENVATTING 117

onbekenden, maar gezien een MHD-schok lokaal bekeken een 2D fenomeen is,

is het mogelĳk om de RHV te reduceren tot 6 vergelĳkingen, in 6 onbekenden:

de massadichtheid ρ, de thermische druk p, twee componenten van de snelheid

(vn , vt ) en de twee componenten van het magneetveld (Bn , Bt ). Nu kunnen

we een schok volledig bepalen door drie dimensieloze parameters, zodat we de

RHV verder willen vereenvoudigen in essentieel drie vergelĳkingen. Uit één van

de Maxwell vergelĳkingen, ∇ · B = 0, weten we dat Bn constant is aan beide

kanten van de schok, zodat we Bn van de vergelĳkingen kunnen elimineren.

Uit het behoud van momentum kunnen we ρ van de vergelĳkingen elimineren,

en tenslotte: gezien de RHV translatieinvariant zĳn kunnen we vt van de

vergelĳkingen elimineren zodat we inderdaad tot drie vergelĳkingen komen in

drie onbekenden. We zetten dit stelsel nu om tot een stelsel in de dimensieloze

parameters, en versimpelen het verder tot 1 vergelĳking in 1 onbekende. Dit is

een derdegraadsvergelĳking. Verder wordt de redenering eenvoudig. Het oplossen

van een derdegraadsvergelĳking is gekend. Het wordt dikwĳls verkeerdelĳk

toegeschreven aan Cardano, een Italiaanse wiskundige uit de Renaissance, maar

feitelĳk was de Perzische wiskundige Khayyam (1048 - 1131) hem voor. In elk geval,

een derdegraadsvergelĳking kan één, twee of drie verschillende (reële) oplossingen

hebben, en we hebben een nodige en voldoende voorwaarde voor de uniciteit van de

oplossing. We gaan dat zelf ook na in Appendix F. Daarnaast is het niet zo moeilĳk

aan te tonen dat een oplossing van deze vergelĳking die tot een intermediaire schok

leidt enkel mogelĳk is wanneer de derdegraadsvergelĳking geen unieke oplossing

heeft. Dit leidt ons tot een wiskundige voorwaarde voor de mogelĳkheid tot

intermediaire schokken. Uit deze voorwaarde kunnen we bĳvoorbeeld aﬂeiden

dat geen intermediaire schokken mogelĳk zĳn wanneer de normale snelheid groter

is dan tweemaal de normale Alfvénsnelheid. Tot zover hoofdstuk 4.

Hoofdstuk 2 en 3 behandelen schokbreking in respectievelĳk het HD- en het

MHD-geval. Een contactdiscontinuïteit (CD) is het oppervlak dat twee gassen

of plasmas scheidt. In schoktubes worden CD’s nagebootst met behulp van een

heel dun membraan. In deze schoktubes kan men schokken creëren, en deze laten

interageren met een CD. Onze studie is echter niet experimenteel, maar semi-

analytisch. Dit betekent dat de oplossing exact is, maar er zĳn iteraties nodig om

deze exacte oplossing te benaderen. We voeren ook computerexperimenten uit met

de numerieke code AMRVAC en vergelĳken de exacte oplossing met de numerieke

oplossing. De oplossingen komen goed overeen.

In het HD-geval breekt de schok op de CD en drie signalen onstaan: een

gereﬂecteerd signaal, een overgebracht signaal en het geschokte contact daartussen.

In het MHD geval onstaan (in het pure planaire geval) vĳf signalen: twee

gereﬂecteerde signalen, twee overgebrachte signalen, en de geschokte CD er

tussenin. Onze bedoeling is de exacte locatie van deze nieuwe signalen te

voorspellen. Onze methode steunt feitelĳk op een methode die vooral in

118 NEDERLANDSTALIGE SAMENVATTING

eerst het idee uit in het HD geval, en daarna leg ik kort uit welke veralgemeningen

nodig zĳn om de Riemannoplosser te laten werken in MHD.

Eerst en vooral moeten we een assenstelsel kiezen waarin we het probleem zullen

oplossen. Als we dit slim doen, en een assenstelsel kiezen dat mee met de schok

reist, wordt het probleem sterk vereenvoudigd: Alle signalen zĳn nu immers

stationair. Tenminste wanneer we veronderstellen dat het meest eenvoudige

refractiepatroon gevormd wordt, namelĳk dat waarbĳ alle signalen samenkomen

in één enkel punt. Dit wordt reguliere refractie genoemd. Gezien de CD twee

verschillende gassen scheidt, moet de snelheid er lokaal gelĳk zĳn aan 0. Ook het

drukverschil tussen de twee kanten van de CD moet er 0 zĳn. Het idee is nu dat

we een gok wagen voor deze druk rond de CD. Na wat niet-triviale algebra weten

we tot welke fout op de snelheden rond de CD onze gok voor de druk leidt, en met

deze kennis kunnen we onze gok verbeteren, tot op de gewenste nauwkeurigheid.

Eens we de exacte druk kennen, kunnen we de posities van de signalen bepalen.

Wanneer de schok van een licht naar een zwaar medium reist, zal het overgebrachte

signaal trager bewegen dat de initiële schok. In dit geval zal het gereﬂecteerde

signaal tevens een schok zĳn. Het geschokte contact zal instabiel worden en

oprollen naar rechts. Deze instabiliteit wordt de Richtmyer-Meshkov instabiliteit

genoemd. Wanneer de schok daarentegen van een zwaar naar een licht medium

reist, zal het overgebrachte signaal sneller bewegen dan de initiële schok. Het

gereﬂecteerde signaal zal in dit geval geen schok meer zĳn, maar een continu

signaal dat een verdunningsgolf genoemd wordt. De geschokte CD zal ook in dit

geval Richtmyer-Meshkov instabiel worden, maar nu zal het contact oprollen naar

links. Figuur 2.12 toont een AMRVAC snapshot van deze beide gevallen.

Niet alle parameterkeuzes leiden tot reguliere schokrefractie. We tonen aan dat

wanneer de hoek tussen het schokfront en de CD een bepaalde kritische hoek

overschreidt, zo’n regulier refractiepatroon onmogelĳk is. Onze Riemannoplosser

maakt het mogelĳk deze kritische hoek te voorspellen, en dus op voorhand te

weten of de refractie al dan niet regulier zal zĳn. Figuur 2.9 toont een reguliere

en een irreguliere schokrefractie.

Het basisidee waarop de MHD Riemannoplosser steunt is in essentie hetzelfde. Er

zĳn enkel enkele technische complicaties die de implementatie van deze oplosser

moeilĳker maken. Waar we in het HD geval enkel een gok voor de druk rond

de CD maken, maken we hier gokken voor de magneetveldcomponenten, de

snelheidscomponenten en de thermische druk. Daardoor zal de numerieke iteratie

nu op een vierdimensionele functie uitgevoerd moeten worden. Bovendien is deze

functie niet overal continu, zodat het verbeteren van onze gokken niet triviaal is.

Erger nog: zoals we in hoofdstuk vier aantonen kunnen de RH sprongvoorwaarden

in MHD tot drie verschillende (reële) oplossingen hebben. Gezien we deze

vergelĳkingen tot viermaal oplossen leidt dit in elke tĳdstap tot hoogstens 81

NEDERLANDSTALIGE SAMENVATTING 119

doen: we postuleren de aard van de verschillende signalen vooraleer we de oplosser

aan het werk laten. Hierbĳ postuleren we steeds dat de snelle signalen snelle

schokken zĳn. De trage signalen daarentegen kunnen zowel verdunningsgolven,

trage schokken als intermediaire schokken zĳn. Tevens kunnen we transities

vaststellen tussen verschillende gevallen. We hebben parameterregimes gevonden

waaronder de oplosser zowel een overgebrachte als gereﬂecteerde intermediaire golf

voorspelt. De AMRVAC simulaties bevestigen dit resultaat. Figuur 3.8 toont de

magneetvelden in verschillende MHD gevallen.

Verder kan beargumenteerd worden dat de Richtmyer-Meshkov instabiliteit in het

MHD geval onderdrukt is, en de CD stabiel blĳft. Figuur 3.2 toont het verschil

tussen het HD en het MHD geval.

Chapter 6

Conclusions

at an inclined contact discontinuity (CD) in HD and ideal MHD.

In the HD case, our self-similar solutions agree with the early stages of nonlinear

AMRVAC simulations. We predict the critical angle αcrit for regular refraction,

and the results ﬁt with numerical and experimental results. Our solution strategy

is complementary to von Neumann theory, and can be used to predict full

solutions of refraction experiments, and we have shown various transitions possible

through speciﬁc parameter variations. After reﬂection from the top wall, the CD

becomes RM-unstable. Adding perpendicular magnetic ﬁelds leaves the contact

RM-unstable.

In planar ideal MHD, the shock refracts in ﬁve signals instead of three. After

reﬂection from the top wall, the CD remains RM-stable, since the ideal MHD

equations do not allow for vorticity deposition on a CD. We are able to reproduce

results from the literature and results by numerical simulations performed by

AMRVAC.

Magnetohydrodynamical shocks are governed by the Rankine-Hugoniot jump

conditions. These equations can be solved analytically, and doing so essentially

reduces to solving a cubic equation. This solution can have one or three real

solutions. When there is only one real solution, it corresponds to a fast or a slow

magnetoacoustic shock, but when there are three real solutions, also intermediate

shock solutions, which cross the Alfvén speed, can be found. Inspired by the time

reversal principle from Goedbloed [33], we revisited the RH shock relations in the

frequently employed shock frame, and made the duality visible in the (θ, M, β)

state space. Using the thus obtained graphical classiﬁcation of the state space,

augmented with a positive pressure requirement, we derived limiting values for

121

122 CONCLUSIONS

parameters in the shock rest frame at which intermediate shocks can be found.

We are generalizing this approach to shock refraction in relativistic hydrodynamics.

Next to this shock refraction research, we have also added a data conversion

subroutine to AMRVAC, such that the scientiﬁc data produced by the numerical

code AMRVAC (van der Holst & Keppens [93]; Keppens et al.[49]) can be read in

by visualization software as ParaView and VisIt.

Appendix A

Structure of AMRVAC

the main program: after compilation, this program is adapted to the

physics, numerical methods, dimensionality, etc.;

the physics subroutines: AMRVAC contains physics modules for

advection (for testing purposes) and classical and (special) relativistic hydro-

and magnetohydrodynamics. There is also a radiative cooling routine

implemented. We have developed classical HD and MHD modules which

allow for an interface separating two diﬀerent gases, i.e. gases with diﬀerent

values of γ (as described in Delmont et al.[19]);

the numerical methods: including TVD, TVDLF, HLLC, TVDMU,

approximate Roe solvers etc. and limiters including minmod, Woodward,

etc.;

IO subroutines;

Conversion subroutines: Conversion subroutines to idl [43], dx [24],

tecplot [83], vtu, ascii are included. I developed the VTU-conversion

subroutine as part of my PhD research.

• par: contains simulation dependent choices such as:

Input and output files. AMRVAC produces two kinds of output ﬁles.

The OUT-ﬁle saves all the conserved variables, and optionally also other

user deﬁned variables, at certain times. The log ﬁle saves global integrated

values of conserved variables at certain times, plus the number of cells at

each AMR-level.

123

124 STRUCTURE OF AMRVAC

Saving times. The user can decide at which moment an OUT ﬁle is

produced, and at which moment global integrated data are saved in the log

ﬁle.

The stop criterion.

The numerical methods. The user decides which numerical methods

should be used. This choice can be level dependent. Also the limiters and

∇ · B-control algorithm is chosen by the user.

Boundary conditions. The number of ghost cells is deﬁned here. Also

the physics dependent boundaries are deﬁned, for every boundary, for every

conserved variable. Pre-deﬁned choices include continuous to mimic open

boundaries, symmetric or antisymmetric to mimic rigid walls or periodic

for periodic problems (e.g., in cylindrical coordinates). The user has the

possibility to deﬁne other boundaries too.

AMR related choices, such as the number of AMR levels, the resolution

on the coarsest level, the size of the domain, the tolerance for the reﬁnement

criterion.

The Courant parameter.

• usr: contains the initial conditions. Appendix C gives the usr-ﬁle for the

HD shock tube problem presented in Delmont et al.[19], and in Chapter 2.

Appendix B

Compilation

Before creating the usr- and the par-ﬁle, the AMRVAC user knows the geometry,

dimensionality and physics of the problem. He also needs to deﬁne the values ci

that deﬁne the numbers of cells (per dimension i) in one grid block. Once this is

done, the compilation can be done as follows:

make c l e a n

seta mr va c −p=mhd −d=23 −g =16 ,16 −u=rimmhd23problem1

make amrvac

the example given above, the MHD module will be used for a 2.5D problem,

which means that vectors have three components on a two-dimensional -by default

Cartesian- domain. Every grid will consist of 16 × 16 cells, including ghost cells.

The usr-ﬁle used will be rimmhd23problem1.t, and is given in Appendix C. This

ﬁle is related to the RMI problem from Chapter 2.

125

Appendix C

USR-file

This appendix shows the USR ﬁle used for the simulation of the shock tube problem

presented in Delmont et al.[19], or in Chapter 2. It is written in LASY syntax, as

introduced in Tóth [88].

s u b r o u t i n e i n i t o n e g r i d _ u s r (w, ixG^L , x )

! i n i t i a l i z e one g r i d

include ’ amrvacdef . f ’

! scalars

integer : : ixG^L

! arrays

d o u b l e p r e c i s i o n : : w( ixG^S , 1 : nw ) , x ( ixG^T , 1 : ndim )

! local scalars

d o u b l e p r e c i s i o n : : xpi , vpost , r h o p o s t , ppost , xshock , xpi1 , xbound , tang

!−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

o k t e s t = i n d e x ( t e s t s t r , ’ i n i t o n e g r i d _ u s r ’)>=1

i f ( o k t e s t ) w r i t e ( unitterm , ∗ ) ’−> i n i t o n e g r i d _ u s r ( in ): ’ ,&

’ ixG^L : ’ , ixG^L

{^IFTHREED stop ’ This i s not a 3D problem ’ }

{^IFTWOD

! parameters

127

128 USR-FILE

eqpar (gamma_)=1.4 d0

M=10.0 d0

e t a =0.1 d0

tang=one

! l o c a t i o n shock and CD

xshock =0.1 d0

xbound=1.5 d0

r h o p o s t=−one ∗ ( v p o s t+M) ∗ eqpar (gamma_) ∗M

p p o s t =(2∗ eqpar (gamma_) ∗M∗∗2− eqpar (gamma_)+one ) / ( eqpar (gamma_)+one )

where ( x ( ixG^S ,1) > xshock . and . ( x ( ixG^S ,1) > x ( ixG^S , 2 ) / tang+xbound ) )

! p r e shock r e g i o n

w( ixG^S , rho_)= eqpar (gamma_) ∗ e t a

w( ixG^S , m1_)= z e r o

w( ixG^S , m2_)= z e r o

w( ixG^S , e_)=one / ( eqpar (gamma_)−one )

endwhere

where ( x ( ixG^S ,1) > xshock . and . ( x ( ixG^S,1)<=x ( ixG^S , 2 ) / tang+xbound ) )

! p r e shock r e g i o n

w( ixG^S , rho_)= eqpar (gamma_)

w( ixG^S , m1_)= z e r o

w( ixG^S , m2_)= z e r o

w( ixG^S , e_)=one / ( eqpar (gamma_)−one )

endwhere

where ( x ( ixG^S,1)<= xshock )

! p o s t shock r e g i o n

w( ixG^S , rho_)= r h o p o s t

w( ixG^S , m1_)= v p o s t ∗ r h o p o s t

w( ixG^S , m2_)= z e r o

w( ixG^S , e_)=one / ( eqpar (gamma_)−one )+0.5 d0∗ r h o p o s t ∗ v p o s t ∗∗2

endwhere

}

return

end s u b r o u t i n e i n i t o n e g r i d _ u s r

Appendix D

Stationary planar

Rankine-Hugoniot conditions

We allow weak solutions of the system, which are solutions of the integral form

of the MHD equations, that may contain discontinuities. The shock occuring in

the problem setup, as well as those that may appear as F R, SR, ST or F T

signals later on obey the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. In the case where the

shock speed s = 0, the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions follow from equation (3.1).

When considering a thin continuous transition layer in between the two regions,

with thickness δ, solutions for the integral form of equation (3.1) should satisfy

R2 ∂ ∂

lim 1 ( ∂x F + ∂y G)dl = 0. For vanishing thickness of the transition layer, this

δ→0

yields

ρvn

2 B2 B2

ρvn + p − 2n + 2t

ρvn vt − Bn Bt

= 0, (D.1)

γ v 2 +v 2

vn ( γ−1 p + ρ n 2 t + Bn2 ) − Bn Bt vt

vn Bt − vt Bn

Bn

where the index n refers to the direction normal to the shock front and the index t

refers to the direction tangential to the shock front (see e.g. Goedbloed & Poedts

[32]). From equations (D.1) we know that m ≡ ρvn and Bn are constant across a

129

130 STATIONARY PLANAR RANKINE-HUGONIOT CONDITIONS

1 1

m2 [[ ]] + [[p]] + [[Bt2 ]] = 0, (D.2)

ρ 2

Bt

m[[ ]] − Bn [[vt ]] = 0, (D.4)

ρ

γ p m2 1 B2 B2

[[ ]] + [[ 2 ]] + [[ t ]] − n2 [[Bt2 ]] = 0, (D.5)

γ−1 ρ 2 ρ ρ 2m

2

γ vn +vt2

where we used equation (D.4) to eliminate vt from [[vn ( γ−1 p+ρ 2 + Bn2 ) −

Bn Bt vt ]] = 0 to arrive at

γ p m3 1 B2 B2

m[[ ]] + [[ 2 ]] + m[[ t ]] − n [[Bt2 ]] = 0, (D.6)

γ−1 ρ 2 ρ ρ 2m

true for all magnetoacoustic signals.

dy v

Since the signal located at dx = vyx is a contact discontinuity, it clearly obeys

m = 0. This simpliﬁes equations (D.2-D.4) drastically:

t

[[(vt , Bt , p) ]] = 0. (D.7)

Hence, in terms of the primitive variables, this means that vx , vy , p and Bx , and

thus also By , remain constant across a contact discontinuity.

Appendix E

Suppose we know the primitive variables uk at one side of a stationary shock, and

denote the unknown primitive variables at the other side of the shock uu .

We will discuss the consequences of the RH condition relating up- and downstream

states, for the case where Bt,k 6= 0. After elimination of [[vt ]] from equation (D.4),

we arrive at the following 3 × 3-system (see also Torrilhon [91]):

1 1

p̂ − 1 + C( − 1) + (B̂t2 − A2 ) = 0, (E.1)

ρ̂ 2

B̂t

C( − A) − B 2 (B̂t − A) = 0, (E.2)

ρ̂

1 p̂ 1 1 1 1

( − 1) + ( − 1)(p̂ + 1) + ( − 1)(B̂t − A)2 = 0, (E.3)

γ − 1 ρ̂ 2 ρ̂ 4 ρ̂

v B

stream values given by ρ̂ = ρρuk , p̂ = ppuk , vˆt = ct,u

k

and B̂t = √t,u

pk and the

Bt,k

dimensionless parameters, quantifying the known values in state uk by A ≡ √ ,

pk

2

Bn,k ρk vn,k

B ≡ √

pk and C = pk . These parameters allow for simple criteria for fast,

B̂t

slow or intermediate shocks: fast shocks are characterised by A > 1, slow shocks

B̂t

are characterised by 0 < < 1 and intermediate shocks satisfy B̂At < 0, since

A

the known state is the upstream state and the unknown state is the downstream

state.

131

132 RELATIONS ACROSS A SHOCK

Note that super-Alfvénic ﬂow in the direction normal to the shock front in the

state uk now implies

C > B 2 ⇔ vn,k

2

> a2n,k . (E.4)

C B̂t

ρ̂ = , (E.5)

AC + B 2 (B̂t − A)

!

2C γ−1 (A − B̂t )2 B̂t C(A + B̂t )

p̂ = − +1 − , (E.6)

γ+1 γ+1 2 (γ + 1)(C − B 2 )

τ3 = B2, (E.8)

(γ − 1)(B 2 − C) + C A,

τ2 = (E.9)

Once the solution B̂t from equation (E.7) is determined, and used to calculate

p̂ and ρ̂ from equations (E.5)-(E.6), we ﬁnd the upstream state from ρu = ρ̂ρk ,

√

pu = p̂pk and Bt,u = B̂t pk . Finally equation (D.1) delivers vn,u and Bn,u , while

from equation (D.4), we know vt,u :

m

vn,u = , (E.12)

ρ̂ρk

Bn,k

vt,u = vt,k + (Bt,n − Bt,u ), (E.13)

ρk vn,k

Finally, note that the regular solution discussed above is only valid when B 2 6= C,

i.e., when the normal velocity in the known region does not equal the Alfvén

RELATIONS ACROSS A SHOCK 133

velocity, or equivalently when Bt,k does not vanish. In this special case the system

(E.1-E.3) has four mathematical solutions possible, one of which is the trivial

solution, one of which is a rotational shock (which is the limit case of solution

(E.5-E.6)) and ﬁnally the following non-trivial switch-oﬀ shock:

B̂t = 0, (E.15)

2(γ + 1)C

ρ̂ = q , (E.16)

2

γ(A2 + 2C + 2) ± (γ(A2 + 2)) + 4C(C + A2 − 2γ)

q

2

2 + 2C + A2 ∓ (γ(A2 + 2)) + 4C(C + A2 − 2γ)

p̂ = . (E.17)

2(γ + 1)

Appendix F

The cubic (E.7) is solved analytically by the following procedure. Deﬁning the

real quantities

one notes that D is the discriminant of the derivative of the cubic. When D > 0,

the inequality N 2 − D3 < 0 gives limiting values for τ0 , for which the 2 extrema

of the cubic have opposite signs. Since N 2 − D3 < 0 implies D > 0, the criterium

on the coeﬃcient of the cubic to have 3 diﬀerent real solutions is

N 2 − D3 < 0. (F.3)

quantities:

p 13

H = N 2 − D3 − N , (F.4)

D

J = . (F.5)

H

135

136 SOLVING THE CUBIC ANALYTICALLY

In terms of these introduced quantities, the 3 solutions of the cubic equation (E.7)

are given by

J + H − 2τ2

B̂t,0 = , (F.6)

6τ3

√

J + H + 4τ2 − 3(H − J)i

B̂t,1 = − , (F.7)

12τ3

√

J + H + 4τ2 + 3(H − J)i

B̂t,2 = − . (F.8)

12τ3

√

The evaluation of expressions (F.6 - F.8) requires the evaluation of N 2 − D3 and

√ 1 √

N 2 − D3 − N 3 . The principal square root : R → R is continuous, but the

√

principal cube root 3 : C → C has a branch cut along the negative real axis. It

√ 1

follows that h : R2 → C : (N, D) 7→ N 2 − D3 − N 3 is discontinuous when

√

N 2 − D3 − N is a negative (and thus real) number.

Before we explain how to permute the indices of the roots (F.6-F.8), let us ﬁrst

rewrite these expressions as

“ √ ”ι “ √ ”−ι

− 12 + 23 i H − 21 + 3

2 i J

where Ĥι = Hι − τ2

6τ3 , Jˆι = Jι − τ2

6τ3 , Hι = 6τ3 , Jι = 6τ3 and

ι ∈ {0, 1, 2}.

Let us make some small technical remarks.

√ ι 3

• Note that − 12 + 3

2 i = 1, for each integer value of ι;

know that one of those expressions is real, then its sign equals the sign of its

numerator;

• It turns out that dividing the complex plane into 6 sextants is useful for our

analysis. We therefore deﬁne the sextants

π π

Sj ≡ {r(cos ϕ + i sin ϕ)|(j − 1) < ϕ < j , r > 0}, (F.10)

3 3

and Li , the lines separating those sextants, i.e.,

π

Lj ≡ {r(cos ϕ + i sin ϕ)|ϕ = j , r > 0}. (F.11)

3

These regions are shown in ﬁgure F.1.

SOLVING THE CUBIC ANALYTICALLY 137

Note that H ∈ L1 and since D > 0, J ∈ L5 . Therefore, H1 , J1 ∈ √L3 , J2 ∈ L1

and H2 ∈ L5 . It follows that B̂t,1 is a real number. Note that N 2 − D3 <

√ √ 2

N , thus 2(N 2 − D3 ) < 2N N 2 − D3 or N 2 − D3 − N < D3 , thus

√

H < D or |H| < |J|. Therefore, B̂t,2 ∈ S1 and B0 ∈ S6 .

Note that H ∈ L6 and since D > 0 also J ∈ L6 . Therefore, √ H2 , J1 ∈ L4 and

H1 , J2 ∈ L2 . It follows that B0 is a real number. Note that N 2 − D3 > N ,

√ √ 2 √

thus 2(N 2 −D3 ) > 2N N 2 − D3 or N 2 − D3 − N > D3 , thus H > D

or |H| > |J|. Therefore, B̂t,1 ∈ S3 and B̂t,2 ∈ S4 .

Note that H ∈ S1 and since D >√0, J ∈ S6 . Therefore, H1 ∈ S3 , H √2 ∈ S5 ,

J1 ∈ S4 and J2 ∈ S2 . Since | N 2 − D3 − N |2 = D3 , |H| = D and

|H| = |J|. Hence √

all of the roots are

√

real. After some

√

algebra, we know that

√

τ2 D τ2 D τ2 D τ2 D

B̂t,0 > − 3τ 3

+ 2 , B̂t,1 < − 3τ3 − 2 and − 3τ3 − 2 < B̂t,2 < − 3τ3 − 2 .

138 SOLVING THE CUBIC ANALYTICALLY

Note that H ∈ S6 and since D >√0, J ∈ S1 . Therefore, H1 ∈ S2 , H √2 ∈ S4 ,

J1 ∈ S3 and J2 ∈ S5 . Since | N 2 − D3 − N |2 = D3 , |H| = D and √

τ2

|H| = |J|. Hence all the roots are real. We deduce that B̂t,0 > − 3τ + 2D ,

√ √ √ 3

τ2 D τ2 D τ2 D

B̂t,2 < − 3τ 3

− 2 and − 3τ 3

− 2 < B̂t,1 < − 3τ 3

− 2 .

Note that H ∈ L6 and thus J ∈ L3 . Hence B̂t,0 is a real number. Since D is

the discriminant of the derivative of the cubic, we know that the cubic only

has one real root. Note that J1 ∈ L1 , H1 ∈ L2 , H2 ∈ L4 and J2 ∈ L5 , which

tells us that ImB̂t,1 > 0 and ImB̂t,2 < 0.

The Rankine-Hugoniot conditions indeed allow for a unique real solution if and

only if N 2 − D3 > 0.

will not describe all the possible permutations in detail, but instead will illustrate

this in one example. Suppose that in 2 subsequent iteration steps, D > 0, but in

the ﬁrst iteration step N > 0, while in the following step N < 0. Comparing case

1 and case 2, we come to the conclusion that we need to permute the indices of

B̂t,0 and B̂t,1 .

coeﬃcients are actually functions of the known state parameters, which are on

their turn functions of the guessed wave refraction angles. The question remains

at which angles B̂t,ι (φguess ) are continuous (and diﬀerentiable). Here φguess refers

to the guessed wave refraction angle.

Let us illustrate these ﬁndings by a simpliﬁed example. Take the initial guess

φF T = 1.27678, which is the exact solution, and let the guess for φST vary. In ﬁgure

F.2 we show the real part of the unpermuted roots of the cubic (E.7), together

with N 2 − D3 and B 2 − C across the corresponding signal.

Note that the Alfvénic angle φa,T = 1.1936, since at this position B 2 − C vanishes.

Therefore, when φST < φa,T , the slow transmitted signal is a slow shock. On the

other hand, when φST > φa,T , the signal is an intermediate shock. Also note that

φa,T is a double root of N 2 − D3 . Since B 2 − C changes sign, the roots B̂t,1 and

B̂t,2 are permuted.

The critical angle φcr,T = 1.1948 is actually the smallest root of N 2 − D3 , bigger

than φa,T . For φ > φcr,T , the cubic (E.7) has only one real solution and three real

solutions for φ < φCr,T .

SOLVING THE CUBIC ANALYTICALLY 139

0.2 0.15

Re(B1) N2-D3

Re(B2) B2-C

0 Re(B3)

0.1

-0.2

parameters

0.05

-0.4

Re(Bi)/A

-0.6

0

-0.8

-0.05

-1

-1.2 -0.1

1.193 1.1935 1.194 1.1945 1.195 1.1955 1.196 1.193 1.1935 1.194 1.1945 1.195 1.1955 1.196

φ φ

Figure F.2: Left: the real parts of the roots of the cubic (E.7) for ST. Right: The

graphs of (B 2 − C)(φ) and (N 2 − D3 )(φ). Note that the Alfvénic angle is a root

of B 2 − C and a double root of N 2 − D3 .

N changes sign at φ = 1.1953, therefore, B̂t,0 and B̂t,1 are permuted here, since

D > 0. The exact solution is located at φ = 1.19283, and the root we select is

B̂t,1 .

Appendix G

waves

When the slow signal is located at a position where no shock solution is possible

which satisﬁes the entropy condition, we postulate the solution to be a rarefaction

fan. In this case, we rewrite the stationary MHD equations (3.1) in cylindrical form,

by local decomposition in normal and tangential components. We additionally

∂

assume self similarity, i.e. ∂t = 0, where the index t again refers to the tangential

direction. Since the entropy S can be shown to be invariant in expansion fans

(see e.g. De Sterck et al.[22]), we replace the energy equation by the isentropic

equation. Doing so, we obtain

ρ′

vn ρ 0 0 0

0 ρvn4 − (vt Bn − Ez )2 vn Bn (vt Bn − Ez ) vn3 0

vn′

0 −Bn (vt Bn − Ez ) −ρvn3 + vn Bn2 0 0 vt′ =

p′

γp 0 0 ρ 0

0 0 0 0 vn Bn′

−ρvt

vt (vt Bn − Ez )2

2vn2 Bn2 − ρvn4 + vt Bn (vt Bn − Ez )

(G.1)

0

−vt Bn + Ez

where the prime ′ denotes derivation in the normal direction. Also note that Bt is

eliminated from the system since it is completely determined by the other variables.

141

142 INTEGRATION ACROSS RAREFACTION WAVES

Only when the system (G.1) is singular it has a solution, in other words

2

(vt Bn − Ez )2

Bn γp γp Bn

vn vn4 − + + vn2 + = 0, (G.2)

ρ ρvn ρ ρ ρ

m

2 2 2 2

v⊥ (v⊥ − vf,⊥ )(v⊥ − vs,⊥ ) = 0, (G.3)

which is equivalent to characteristic equation (3.7). This relation should hold inside

of the expansion fans, since u is diﬀerentiable there. The solution to equations

(G.1) is given by

ρ′ (φ) = 2ρ , (G.4)

(4 + 2γ)vn4 − ((2γ + 1)a2 + (3 + γ)c2 )vn2 + γa2n c2

p′ (φ) = 2γp , (G.5)

(4 + 2γ)vn4− ((2γ + 1)a2 + (3 + γ)c2 )vn2 + γa2n c2

vn′ (φ) = (G.7)

,

(4 + 2γ)vn4 − ((2γ + 1)a2 + (3 + γ)c2 )vn2 + γa2n c2

Σ6i=0 τi vni

vt′ (φ) = . (G.8)

((4 + 2γ)vn4 − ((2γ + 1)a2 + (3 + γ)c2 )vn2 + γa2n c2 )vn a˜t

Bn Bt

Here we introduced the symbols a˜n ≡ √

2p

and a˜t ≡ √

2p

, and the coeﬃcients τi

are given by

τ0 = −γa4n c3 , (G.9)

τ1 = 0, (G.10)

τ5 = −4a˜n vt , (G.14)

INTEGRATION ACROSS RAREFACTION WAVES 143

These expressions are valid for slow rarefaction fans. The integration has to be

performed, starting from φsl,R/T till φSR/ST .

Bibliography

shock waves at a slow-fast gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 76 157–176.

[2] Abd-El-Fattah, A. M. & Henderson, L. F. 1978 Shock waves at a fast-

slow gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 86 15–32.

[3] Abd-El-Fattah, A. M. & Henderson, L. F. 1978 Shock waves at a slow-

fast gas interface . J. Fluid Mech. 89 79–95.

[4] Akhiezer, A. I., Lyubarskii, G. Ya., Polovin, R. V. 1959 On the stability

of shock waves in magnetohydrodynamics. Soviet Phys. -JETP 8, 507–511.

[5] Anderson, J. E. 1963 Magnetohydrodynamical Shock Waves. MIT Press,

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[6] http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap001115.html

[7] Batchelor, G. K. 1967 An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics Cambridge

University Press.

[8] Barmin, A. A., Kulikovskiy, A. G. & Pogorelov, N. V. 1996 Shock-

capturing approach and nonevolutionary solutions in magnetohydrodynamics.

J. Comp. Phys. 126, 77–90.

[9] Berger, M. J. & Colella. 1989 Adaptive mesh reﬁnement for shock

hydrodynamics J. Comp. Phys. 126, 77–90.

[10] Brouillette, M.. 2002 The Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability Annu. Rev.

Fluid Mech. 34, 445–468.

[11] Brio, M. & Wu, C. C. 1988 An upwind diﬀerencing scheme for the

equations of ideal magnetohydrodynamics. J. Comp. Phys. 75, 400–422.

[12] Chao, J. K., Lyu, L. H., Wu, B. H., Lazarus, A. J., Chang, T. S. &

Lepping, R.P. 1993 Observation of an intermediate shock in interplanetary

space. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 17443–17450.

145

146 BIBLIOGRAPHY

and stability of intermediate shocks ESA SP-285, 381-384

[14] Courant, R. & Friedrichs, K. O. 1948 Supersonic flow and shock waves

. Interscience Publishers, New York.

[15] Chané, E., van der Holst, B., Poedts, S. & Kimpe, D. 2005 On

the eﬀect of the initial magnetic polarity and of the background wind on the

evolution of CME shocks. Astron. Astrophys. 432(1), 331–339.

[16] Courant, R & Hilbert, D. 1962 Methods of mathematical physics, Vol. 2

. Wiley.

[17] Chu, C. K. & Taussig, R. T. 1967 Numerical Experiments of

Magnetohydrodynamic Shocks and the Stability of Switch-On Shocks. Phys.

Fluids 10, 249–256.

[18] Delmont, P. & Keppens, R. 2008 An exact solution strategy for regular

shock refraction at a density discontinuity. ECA 32D D2.008.

[19] Delmont, P., Keppens, R. & van der Holst, B. 2009 An exact Riemann-

solver-based solution for regular shock refraction. J. Fluid Mech. 627, 33–53.

[20] Delmont, P. & Keppens, R. 2010 Shock refraction in ideal MHD. Journal

of Physics: Conference Series, accepted.

[21] Delmont, P. & Keppens, R. 2010 Parameter regimes for slow, intermedi-

ate and fast MHD shocks. J. Plasma Phys., DOI 10.1017/S0022377810000115

[22] De Sterck, H., Low, B. C. & Poedts, S. 1998 Complex

magnetohydrodynamic bow shock topology in ﬁeld-aligned low-β ﬂow around

a perfectly conducting cylinder. Phys. of Plasmas 11, 4015–4027.

[23] De Sterck, H. & Poedts, S. 2000 Intermediate Shocks in Three-

Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Bow-Shock Flows with Multiple Interact-

ing Shock Fronts Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5524–5527.

[24] www.opendx.org

[25] van Eerten, H. J, Meliani, Z., Wĳers, R.A.M.J. & Keppens, R. 2009

No visible optical variability from a relativistic blast wave encountering a wind

termination shock MNRAS 398, L63-L67.

[26] Falle, S. A. E. G. & Komissarov, S. S. 1997 On the existence of

intermediate shocks. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 123, 265–277.

[27] Falle, S. A. E. G. & Komissarov, S. S. 2001 On the inadmissibility of

non-evolutionary shocks. J. Plasma Phys. 65, 29–58.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 147

[28] http://www.fom.nl/live/imgnew.db?31619

[29] Feng, H. & Wang, J. M. 2008 Observations of a 2 → 3 Type Interplanetary

Intermediate Shock. Solar Phys. 247, 195–201.

[30] Germain, P. 1960 Shock Waves and Shock-wave structure in magneto-ﬂuid

dynamics. Rev.Mod.Phys. 32, 951–958.

[31] Glimm, J. 1965 Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of

equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math 41, 569–590

[32] Goedbloed, H. & Poedts, S. 2004 Principles of Magnetohydrodynamics

With Applications to Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas. Cambridge

University Press.

[33] Goedbloed, J. P. 2009 Time reversal duality of magnetohydrodnamical

shocks. Phys. Plasmas 16, 1–14

[34] Ghezzi, I. & Ruggles, C. 2007 Chankillo: A 2300-Year-Old Solar

Observatory in Coastal Peru. Science 315 1239–1243.

[35] Gombosi, T. I. 1998 Physics of the Space Environment . Cambridge

University Press.

[36] Goossens, M. 2003 An introduction to plasma astrophysics and magnetohy-

drodynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[37] Haas, J. F. & Sturtevant, B. 1987 The refraction of a plane shock wave

at a gas interface. J. Fluid Mech. 26 607.

[38] Hawley, J. F. and Zabusky, N. J. 1989 Vortex Paradigm for Shock-

Accelerated Density-Stratiﬁed Interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 1241–1245

[39] de Hoffmann, F. and Teller, E. 1950 Magneto-Hydrodynamic Shocks.

Phys. Rev. 80, 692–703.

[40] Henderson, L. F. 1966 The refraction of a plane shock wave at a gas

interface. J. Fluid Mech. 26 607–637.

[41] Henderson, L. F. 1989 On the refraction of shock waves. J. Fluid Mech.

198 365–386.

[42] Henderson, L. F. 1991 On the refraction of shock waves at a slow-fast gas

interface. J. Fluid Mech. 224 1–27.

[43] http://www.ittvis.com/ProductServices/IDL/RecentReleases.aspx.

[44] Jacobs, C, Poedts, S., van der Holst, B., Chané, E. 2005 On the

eﬀect of the background wind on the evolution of interplanetary shock waves.

Astron. Astrophys. 430 1099–1107.

148 BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. Comp. Phys. 1 457–489.

[46] Jeffrey, A. & Taniuti, T. 1964 Nonlinear Wave Propagation. Academic

Press, New York.

[47] Kennel, C. F., Blanford, R. D. & Coppi, P. 1989 MHD intermediate

shock discontinuities. I - Rankine-Hugoniot conditions. J. Plasma Phys. 42,

219–319.

[48] Keppens, R., Tóth, G. & Botchev, M. A., van den Ploeg, A. 1999

Implicit and Semi-Implicit Schemes: algorithms Intern. Journ. for Numer.

Meth. in Fluids 30, 335–352.

[49] Keppens, R., Nool, M., Tóth, G. & Goedbloed, H. 2003 Adaptive

Mesh Reﬁnement for conservative systems: multi-dimensional eﬃciency

evaluation. J. Comp. Phys. 153, 317–339.

[50] Kreeft, J. J. & Koren, B. 2010 A new formulation of Kapila’s ﬁve-

equation model for compressible two-ﬂuid ﬂow and its numerical treatment.

J. Comp. Phys. 229, 6220–6242.

[51] Kifonidis, K., Plewa, T., Scheck, L., Janka, H.-Th. & Müller, E.

2006 Nonspherical core collapse supernovae. Astr. Astroph. 453, 661–678.

[52] Langmuir & Jones 1927 The Characteristics of Tungsten Filaments as

Functions of Temperature. G. E. Rev. 30 310.

[53] Lax, P. D. 1957 Hyperbolic System of Conservation Laws II. Comm. Pure

Appl. Math. 10, 537–566.

[54] Leveque, R. J. 1992 Numerical Methods for conservation laws. Springer

[55] Liepmann, H. W. & Roshko, A. 1957 Elements of Gasdynamics. John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[56] Liberman, M. A. & Velikhovich, A. L. 1986 Physics of Shock Waves in

Gases and Plasmas. Springer

[57] Maxwell, J. C. 1865, A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic ﬁeld

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 155 459–512.

[58] Meshkov, E. E. 1969 Instability of the interface of two gases accelerated by

a shock wave. Fluid Dynamics 4 101–104.

[59] Mulder, W., Osher, S. & Sethian, J. A. 1992 Computing interface

motion in compressible gas dynamics. J. Comp. Phys. 100 209–228.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 149

[60] Myong, R. S. & Roe, P. L. 1997 Shock waves and rarefaction waves in

magnetohydrodynamics. Part 1. A model system. J. Plasma. Phys. 58, 485.

[61] Myong, R. S. & Roe, P. L. 1997 Shock waves and rarefaction waves in

magnetohydrodynamics. Part 2. The MHD system. J. Plasma. Phys. 58, 521.

[62] von Neumann, J. 1943 Collected Works, Vol. 6. Permagon (1963)

[63] von Neumann, J. 1943 Progress report on the theory of shock waves.

National Defence Research Committee, Division 8 1140.

[64] Nouragliev, R. R., Sushchikh, S. Y., Dinh, T. N. & Theofanous,

T. G. 2005 Shock wave refraction patterns at interfaces. Internat. J.

Multiphase Flow 31, 969–995.

[65] Oron, D., Sadot, O., Srebro, Y., Rikanati, A., Yedvab, Y., Alon,

U., Erez, L., Erez, G., Ben-Dor, G, Levin, L. A., Ofer, D &

Shvarts, D. 1999 Studies in the nonlinear evolution of the Rayleigh-Taylor

and Richtmyer-Meshkov instabilities and their role in inertial conﬁnement

fusion. Laser and Particle Beams 17 465–475.

[66] http://www.paraview.org.

[67] http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com.

[68] Powell, K. G., Roe, P. L., Linde, T. J., Gombosi, T. I.,

De Zeeuw, D. L. 1999 A solution-adaptive upwind scheme for ideal

magnetohydrodynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 154 284.

[69] Richtmyer, R. D. 1960 Taylor instability in shock acceleration of

compressible ﬂuids. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths. 13 297–319.

[70] Roe, P. L. 1981 Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and

diﬀerence schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 43 357.

[71] Roe, P. L. & Balsara, D. S. 1996 Notes on the eigensystem of

magnetohydrodynamics. J. Appl. Math. 56 57.

[72] Rupert, V. 1992 Shock-Interface interaction: current research on the

Richtmyer-Meshkov Problem. Proc. Intl. Symp. Shock Waves 18 83–94.

[73] http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/sailor-hat.htm.

[74] http://kauscience.k12.hi.us/˜ted/Craters/SailorHat.

[75] Sadot, O., Yosef-Hai, A., Oron, D. & Rikanati, A. 2001

Dependence of the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability on the Atwood number ond

dimensionality: theory and experiments. Prc. SPIE 4183, 798

150 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[76] Saliba, G. 1987 Theory and observation in islamic astronomy: the work of

ibn al-shāţir of Damascus. Journ. history of astronomy 18, 35

[77] Samtaney, R., Ray, J. & Zabusky, N. J. 1998 Baroclinic Circulation

Generation on Shock Accelerated Slow/fast Gas Interfaces. 1998 Phys. Fluids

10 1217–1230.

[78] Samtaney, R. 2003 Suppression of the Richtmyer-Meshkov instability in the

presence of a magnetic ﬁeld. Phys. Fluids 15, L53–L56.

[79] Stringari, S. & Wilson, R. R. 2000 Romagnosi and the discovery of

electromagnetism. ( Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei) 9 115–136

[80] Sturtevant, B. 1987 Shock Tubes and Waves. VCH Verlag, Berlin

[81] Taub, A. H. 1947 Refraction of plane shock waves. Phys. Review 72 51–59

[82] Taylor, G. I. 1950 The instability of liquid surfaces when accelerated in a

direction perpendicular to their plane. Proc. Roy. Soc. A210 192–196

[83] www.tecplot.com

[84] Todd, L. 1965 Evolution of switch-on and switch-oﬀ shocks in a gas of ﬁnite

electrical conductivity. J. Fluid Mech. 24, 597–608.

[85] Toro, E. F. 1999 Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid

Dynamics. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

[86] Tóth, G. & Odstrčil, D. 1996 Comparison of some ﬂux corrected transport

and total variation diminishing numerical schemes for hydrodynamic and

magnetohydrodynamic problems. J. Comput. Phys. 128 (1), 82–100.

[87] Tóth, G. 1996 General Code for Modeling MHD ﬂows on Parallel Computers:

Versatile Advection Code. Astroph. Lett.& Comm. 34, 245.

[88] Tóth, G. 1997 The LASY Preprocessor and its Application to General Multi-

Dimensional Codes. J. Comput. Phys. 138, 981.

[89] Tóth, G., Keppens, R., Botchev, M. A. 1998 Implicit and semi-implicit

schemes in the Versatile Advection Code: numerical tests. A. & A. 332, 1159–

1170.

[90] http://www.ipc.uni-karlsruhe.de/mol/405.php

[91] Torrilhon, M. 2002 Exact Solver and Uniqueness Conditions for Riemann

Problems of Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics, Technical Report 2002-06, SAM,

ETH Zurich.

[92] http://grid.engin.umich.edu/˜gtoth/VAC/.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 151

[93] van der Holst, B. & Keppens, R. 2007 Hybrid block-AMR in cartesian

and curvilinear coordinates: MHD applications. J. Comp. Phys. 26, 925–946.

[94] http://www.llnl.gov/VisIt.

[95] http://www.vtk.org.

[96] Kitware, Inc. 2006 VTK User’s Guide. Kitware, Inc.

[97] Whang, Y. C., Zhou J., Lepping, R. P., Szabo, A., Fairfield, D.,

Kukobun, S., Ogilvie, K. W., Fitzenreiter R. 1998 Double discontinuity

: A compound structure of slow shock and rotational discontinuity J. Geophys.

Res. 103 6513–6520.

[98] Wheatley, V., Pullin, D. I. & Samtaney, R. 2005 Suppression of the

Richtmyer-Meshkov instability in the presence of a magnetic ﬁeld. J. Fluid

Mech. 552, 179–217.

[99] Wu, C. C. 1987 On MHD intermediate shocks. Geophys. Res. Lett. 14, 668-

671.

[100] Wu, C. C. 1988 The MHD intermediate shock interaction with an

intermediate wave: Are intermediate shocks physical?. J. Geophys. Res.

93(A2), 987–990.

[101] Wu, C. C. 1990 Formation, structure, and stability of MHD intermediate

shocks. J. Geophys. Res. 95(A6), 8149–8175

[102] Yee, H.C. 1989 A class of high-resolution explicit and implicit shock-

capturing methods. NASA TM-101088

[103] Yee, H. C. & Sjögreen, B. 2007 Simulations of Richtmyer-Meshkov

instability by sixth-order ﬁlter methods. Shock Waves 17, 185–193.

[104] Zabusky, N. J. 1999 Vortex paradigm for accelerated inhomogeneous ﬂows:

visiometrics for the Rayleigh-Taylor and the Richtmyer-Meshkov environments.

Annu. Re. Fluid Mech. 31, 495–536.

Curriculum Vitae

Education

• 1991-1997

Wetenschappen-wiskunde (8u), VIA Tienen

• 1997-2001

Licentiaat Wiskunde, K.U.Leuven

Publications

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ‘An exact solution strategy for regular shock

refraction at a density discontinuity’, 2008, ECA 32D, D2.008

• P. Delmont, R. Keppens, & B. van der Holst, ‘An exact Riemann solver

based solution for regular shock refraction’, 2009, J. Fluid Mech. 627, 33-53.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Shock refraction in ideal MHD’, 2010, Journal

of Physics: Conference Series, 216, 012007

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Parameter regimes for slow, intermediate and

fast MHD shocks’, 2010, J. Plasma Phys., doi:10.1017/S0022377810000115

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Limiting parameter values for switch-on

and switch-oﬀ shocks in ideal magnetohydrodynamics’, 2010, acta technica,

accepted

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Rankine-Hugoniot conditions and intermdiate

MHD shocks’, 2010, ECA, submitted

153

154 SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS

Poster Contributions

• P. Delmont, R. Keppens, B. van der Holst & Z. Meliani, ’Grid-adaptive

approaches for computing magnetized plasma dynamics’, poster at ‘JETSET

school on Numerical MHD and instabilities’, Torino, Italy, 8-13 January

2007.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Planar Richtmyer Meshkov instabilities in

MHD’, poster at ’32th conference of the Dutch and Flemish Numerical

Analysis Communities’, Woudschoten, The Netherlands, 3-5 october 2007.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Supression of the Richtmeyer-Meshkov instabil-

ity in MHD’, poster at ’internal kick-oﬀ meeting for the Leuven Mathematical

Modeling and Computational Science Centre (LMCC)’, Leuven, Belgium, 24

april 2008.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’An exact Riemann solver based solution for

regular shock refraction’, poster at ’35th EPS plasma physics conference’,

Hersonissos, Crete, Greece, 9-13 june 2008.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Supression of the Richtmeyer-Meshkov

instability in MHD’, poster at ’33th conference of the Dutch and Flemish

Numerical Analysis Communities’, Woudschoten, The Netherlands, 8-10

october 2008. (Winner of the Poster Prize)

• R. Keppens, Z. Meliani, A. J. van Marle, P. Delmont & A. Vlasis, ’

Multi-scale simulations with MPIAMRVAC’, Poster at ’LMCC workshop on

Modeling and simulations of multi-scale and multi-physics systems’, Leuven,

Belgium, 8-9 september 2009.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Parameter ranges for intermediate MHD

shocks’, poster at ’34th conference of the Dutch and Flemish Numerical

Analysis Communities’, Woudschoten, The Netherlands, 7-9 october 2009

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Parameter regimes for intermediate MHD

shocks’, poster at ’37th EPS plasma physics conference’, Dublin, Ireland,

21-25 june 2010

• P. Delmont, ’The Richtmyer-Meshkov Instability in 2D hydrodynamical

ﬂows’, seminar at Centre for Plasma Astrophysics, Leuven, Belgium, 13

december 2007

• P. Delmont & R Keppens, ’An exact Riemann-solver-based solution for

regular shock refraction’, oral at Belgian Physical Society General scientiﬁc

meeting 2009, Hasselt, Belgium, 1 april 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 155

shock refraction’, oral at BIFD 2009, Nottingham, UK, 10-13 augustus 2009.

• P. Delmont, ’Parameter ranges for intermediate MHD shocks’, seminar at

Centre for Plasma Astrophysics, Leuven, Belgium, 16 december 2009.

• P. Delmont & R. Keppens, ’Parameter regimes for intermediate MHD

shocks’, oral at ’24th Symposium on Plasma Physics and Technology’,

Prague, Czech Republic, 14-17 june 2010.

- ENPE 523 Assignment _2 SolutionDiunggah olehtiger8878
- Computational MHDDiunggah olehgdegrez
- Magneto HydrodynamicsDiunggah olehTintu Philip
- CHEM1020 Module 1 2011 NotesDiunggah olehtodos_esperan
- ecovDiunggah olehBaugh Graphic Design
- Subject Matter Budget (Chemistry)Diunggah olehJennibeth Tapang
- Chemistry Lab ReportDiunggah olehVilashenan Sivanasvaran
- States of Matter - Everything is MindDiunggah olehmsngr00
- Projet Proposal for the Construction of a Marcet BoilerDiunggah olehOjiSofttouchCharles
- Free Convective Heat Transport in a Porous Media bounded by an isothermal vertical plate with thermal Radiation and Magnetohydrodynamic effects: an Exact SolutionDiunggah olehIOSRjournal
- chpt1Diunggah olehYanbo Shi
- Solution of Paper 9Diunggah olehChandrapal Rathore
- EFFECT OF THERMAL RADIATION ON MELTING HEAT TRANSFER IN STAGNATION POINT FLOW OF MHD MICROPOLAR FLUID TOWARDS A STRETCHING SURFACEDiunggah olehijaert
- Molar Mass of a Volatile LiquidDiunggah olehAl Drexie Basadre
- Intro PlasmaDiunggah olehtoffee9soumava
- tfm12mediumDiunggah olehsaucersource
- rr369Diunggah olehRenato Benintendi
- low-temperature atmospheric pressure plasmaDiunggah olehapi-370163687
- Depressuring Flow.docxDiunggah olehEng Alf
- G5 - DLL - CLASSIFICATION OF MATTER.docDiunggah olehAdor Isip
- Valery P. Dmitriyev- E=mc^2 in the turbulent aetherDiunggah oleh939392
- 121IJMPERDAUG2081121Diunggah olehTJPRC Publications
- Soret Effect on Unsteady MHD Flow through Porous Medium Past an Oscillating Inclined Plate with Variable Wall Temperature and Mass DiffusionDiunggah olehIRJET Journal
- Chemistry Matter PPT (1)Diunggah olehanwar zahwan
- Haz DefinitionDiunggah olehDenno Wahono
- Blast Data HelperDiunggah olehBruno Avila Paulo
- Science Ustet Exam ReviewerDiunggah olehAhlin Evasco
- thermo112Diunggah olehDhan-sham Rana
- 3.4 Gas molar volume.pptDiunggah olehFidree Aziz
- factors.pdfDiunggah olehlucky414

- Analisis de Compuestos IonicosDiunggah olehLeonardo Melo
- Grinding Technology HPGRDiunggah olehworquera2507
- 15DLV76Diunggah olehMarvin San Diego
- Design%20and%20Operation%20of%20a%20Counterflow%20Fill%20and%20Nozzle%20Test%20CellDiunggah olehScribdakiotto
- Digest 2009 Scuar dDiunggah olehOsun Deji Lana
- Glossario OffshoreDiunggah olehHenrique Nogueira
- ECE309 S15 ProjectDiunggah olehvoid20
- Designandconstructionofa1.5kvainverterusing12vbatteriesMODIFIEDfinal16022016Diunggah olehshah pallav pankaj kumar
- HETP1Diunggah olehSlimiet
- ME6602 Automobile EngineeringDiunggah olehBharathiraja Moorthy
- Tutorial Lengkap Phy 143(Edit)Diunggah olehAten Azhar
- Cpst Pressure Setting ToolDiunggah olehmahsa
- RISK ASSES-60-Assemby and Adjustment of the MetalDiunggah olehRochdi Bahiri
- 20 Innovative Approach to Solve CCR Regenerator Pinning ProblemDiunggah olehxinghust
- K215 1.072-861.0Diunggah olehteofilioancodrut11
- KSEB SCHEDULE OF TARIFF - 16.8.2014 to 31.03.2015Diunggah olehVivek Kakkoth
- Flir C2 Brochure_AISDiunggah olehSafiq Uddin
- Level MeasurementDiunggah olehdivzz97
- Akino LaDiunggah olehErcille Mae Oraiz Pacamo
- OVDT vs CRT - GeneralDiunggah olehjaiqc
- A CFD Aided Hydraulic Turbine Design Methodology Applied to Francis TurbinesDiunggah olehCata Oprea
- Hvdc Types PptDiunggah olehAkshayMilmile
- the chernobyl accident research paperDiunggah olehapi-401778753
- Ecomachines Paper Processing MachineryDiunggah olehManish Bhoyar
- revent_us_723_hirez_1Diunggah olehUmma Nakhlun
- The Roots of RadioactivityDiunggah olehZenda Marie Olmo Facinal-Sabinay
- P6 10 Hadouken! the Physics of Street FighterDiunggah olehSheitan
- Climatic Zones of IndiaDiunggah olehRohit Mathur
- jaypee cement project reportDiunggah olehPurnendu Mishra
- Radiant ufhDiunggah olehDaniel Milosevski