QUANTITATIVE THEORY OF RICHTMYER-MESHKOV INSTABILITY IN THREE DIMENSIONS

Qiang Zhang and Sung-Ik Sohn Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics SUNY at Stony Brook Stony Brook, NY 11794-3600

ABSTRACT

A material interface between two uids of different density accelerated by a shock wave is unstable. This instability is known as Richtmyer-Meshkov (RM) instability. Previous theoretical and numerical studies primarily focused on uids in two dimensions. In this paper, we present the studies of RichtmyerMeshkov instability in three dimensions in rectangular coordinates. There are three main results: (1) The analysis of the linear theory of the RichtmyerMeshkov instability for both reected shock and reected rarefaction wave cases. (2) Derivations of nonlinear perturbative solutions for the incompressible RM instability (evaluated explicitly for the impulsive model through the third order). (3) A quantitative nonlinear theory of the compressible Richtmyer-Meshkov instability from early to later times. Our nonlinear theory contains no free parameter and provides analytical predictions for the overall growth rate, as well as the growth rates of bubble and spike, of Richtmyer-Meshkov unstable interfaces.

1. Introduction Richtmyer-Meshkov instability is a ngering instability which occurs at a material interface accelerated by a shock wave. It plays an important role in studies of supernova and inertial connement fusion (ICF). The occurrence of this interfacial instability was rst predicted theoretically by Richtmyer [21] in 1960, and ten years later, conrmed experimentally by Meshkov [15]. Since then more experiments on Richtmyer-Meshkov instability have been conducted [1,4] and several numerical simulations on the nonlinear growth rate of the RM unstable interfaces have been performed [2,6,8,11,16-18,25]. Several theories have been developed by different

-2approaches [7-10,22-24,26,27]. For long time, theories failed to give a quantitatively correct prediction for the growth rate of RM unstable interface. Recently, the authors have developed a quantitative nonlinear theory in two dimensions [26,27]. It provides analytic predictions for the growth rate and amplitude of RM unstable interfaces for the case of a reected shock. The theoretical predictions are in excellent agreement with the results of full numerical simulations and the experimental data [26,27]. In this paper, we present a quantitative nonlinear theory of the growth rate of RM unstable interface in three dimensions for the case of a reected shock. To the authors knowledge, little is known about the RM instability in three dimensions. Cloutman and Wehner performed numerical simulations in two and three dimensions [6]. Only the growth rate averaged over time was presented in [6] and the growth rate in two dimensions is about two times larger than the experimental result. As we will see in this paper, it is important to determine the growth rate as a function of time. Youngs has performed numerical studies of RM turbulent mixing in three dimensions [25]. In reality, the RM instability often occurs in three dimensions. Experimentally, it is difcult to setup a single mode disturbance at the interface in three dimensions. Computationally, it is considerablely more expensive to perform full numerical simulations in three dimensions than that in two dimensions. These facts make the theoretical study of the RM instability in three dimensions more important. The development of RM unstable interfaces follows four stages. The rst stage is a wave bifurcation stage. In this stage, The incident shock wave collides with a perturbed material interface and bifurcates into a transmitted shock and a reected wave. Depending on material properties of the uids on both sides of the interface and the incident shock strength, the reected wave can be either a shock or a rarefaction wave. The criterion for which reected wave type to occur is given in [24]. For most of real gases, the criterion is that if 1 c 1 > 2 c 2 the reected wave is a shock. Otherwise it is a rarefaction wave. Here i is the density and ci the speed of sound. The subscript labels the material. The shock incidents from material 2 to material 1. If a disturbance is presented at the material interface at the arrival of the incident shock, the transmitted shock and the reected wave will pick up such disturbance and move away from the material interface. The duration of the wave bifurcation stage is very short. The second stage is a linear stage. Accelerated by the shock, the material interface becomes unstable and the disturbance at the interface starts to grow. Bubbles and spikes are formed at the unstable material interfaces. A bubble is a portion of the light uid penetrating into heavy uid and a spike is a portion of the heavy uid penetrating into light uid. Bubbles and spikes move

-3in opposite directions. In the linear stage, the amplitudes of spike and bubble, relative to the wave length of the perturbation, are small. Therefore, one can linearize Euler equations in terms of the amplitude of the disturbance. Richtmyer developed the linear theory for the case of reected shock. The linear theory for the case of a reected rarefaction wave was developed by one of the authors and his coworkers [24]. The linear analysis of RM instability so far is conned in two dimensions. We carry out the linear analysis of RM instability in three dimensions in this paper (see Section 3). Richtmyers impulsive model is a widely used theoretical model for the growth rate of RM unstable interfaces [21]. The impulsive model is an approximation for the asymptotic growth rate of the interface in the linear theory. The model approximates the incident shock as an impulse (a delta function) and the post-shocked uid as incompressible. The impulse occurs at the time at which the incident shock hits the material interface. The strength of the impulse depends on the strength of the incident shock and the material properties of the uids. As the impulse (the incident shock) passes through the material interface, it sets the linear growth rate of the disturbance and the linear growth rate remains same afterwards. The linear growth rate of the RM unstable interface predicted by the impulsive model is given by v imp = uAka 0 , where u is the difference between the shocked and unshocked mean interface velocities, A = ( ) / ( + ) is the Atwood number. Both and are the post-shocked uid densities. The incident shock propagates from uid of density to uid of density . a 0 is the postshocked perturbation amplitude at the interface. In his path breaking work, Richtmyer showed three examples in which the predictions of the impulsive model agree quite well with the results of the linear theory. A more extensive comparison between the results of the impulsive model and the results of the linear theory over a large parameter space showed the domains of agreement and disagreement [24]. Even when the prediction of the impulsive model agrees with the result of the linear theory, it agrees in the regime where the nonlinearity is important and the linear theory is no longer valid. At the linear stage, the amplitude of spike and that of bubble are approximately equal. The shapes of the spike and bubble are similar. The interface remains approximately sinusoidal. The duration of the linear stage is longer than the bifurcation stage, but much shorter than the third stage, the nonlinear stage.

-4In the nonlinear stage, the spike grows faster than the bubble. The interface is no longer sinusoidal and wave modes which do not present in the initial perturbation appear. Very often, the shape of the spike becomes mushroom like. The linear theory predicts that both spike and bubble have a constant asymptotic growth rate. However, the magnitudes of the growth rates of the spike and bubble decay with time in the nonlinear stage. Most theoretical studies in the past were focused on the linear stage rather than the nonlinear stage which is considerablely more important. The duration of the nonlinear stage is much longer than that of linear stage. Recently, a quantitative nonlinear theory of the RM instability for compressible uids in two dimensions has been developed by the authors [26,27] for the case of reected shock. The predictions from the nonlinear theory are in remarkable agreements with the results of full nonlinear numerical simulations and experimental data from linear stage to nonlinear stage. The theory shows that decay of the growth rate of the unstable interface is due to nonlinearity rather than compressibility. The theory also shows that the regime where the growth rate reaches a peak is a transition regime. In that regime, the system changes from a compressible, approximately linear one to a non-linear, approximately incompressible one. The fourth stage is a turbulent stage. In this stage, spike may pinch off to form droplets. Secondary instability at the interface becomes pronounced. The three dimensional effects become important. The results from numerical simulations for uids in two dimensions are not reliable because in reality the uid in the three dimensions is no longer homogeneous. The physics of the uid in this stage is much more complicated than other stages. The theory which we present in this paper is for the development of the RM instability from linear to nonlinear stages in three dimension. We present three main results: (I) The analysis of linear theory of Richtmyer-Meshkov instability in three dimensions for both reected shock and reected rarefaction wave cases. (II) Derivations of nonlinear perturbative solutions for incompressible RM instability in three dimensions (evaluated explicitly for the impulsive model through the third order). (III) A quantitative nonlinear theory of compressible Richtmyer-Meshkov instability in three dimensions from early to later times. The results of (I) and (II) are important. However, the goal of our theoretical study is (III) which is more important. The results of (I) and (II) play essential roles in (III). We explain in next section how the results of (I) and (II) are related to (III).

-52. Physical Picture, Mathematical Theory and Final Results Here we describe the physical picture and the mathematical theory on which our theoretical work is based and present the nal results of our quantitative nonlinear theory of the RM instability in three dimensions. We adopt the following physical picture for the dynamics of the RM unstable interfaces. The dominant effects of the compressibility occur near the shocks. This inuences the material interface at the bifurcation and linear stages. At early times, the transmitted shock and reect wave are in the vicinity of the material interface and magnitude of the disturbance is small. Therefore, the compressibility is important and the nonlinearity is less important. As time evolves, the magnitude of the disturbance at the material interface increases signicantly and the transmitted shock and reected wave move away from the interface. The effects of compressibility are reduced and the nonlinearity starts to play a dominant role in the interfacial dynamics. From this physical picture, we see that at early times the dynamics of the system are mainly governed by the linearized Euler equations for compressible uids, while at later times the dynamics are mainly governed by the nonlinear equations for incompressible uids. The RM unstable system goes through a transition from a compressible and linear one at early times to a nonlinear and incompressible one at later times. Finally we match the solution of compressible linear theory and the solution of the incompressible nonlinear theory to obtain an analytical expression which changes gradually from one to the other. The matched solution is the nal result of our nonlinear theory which predicts the growth rate of unstable material interface between compressible uids from early to later times. For uids in the two dimensions, the solution of the linear theory can be found in [21] and [24]. The solution of linear theory in three dimensions will be derived in this paper. The mathematical tool which we use to construct an approximate nonlinear solution for incompressible uids is Pade approximation. The analysis contains two steps. The rst step is the derivation of the generating series and the second step is the construction of Pade approximants. To determine the generating series, we expand all physical quantities in terms of the powers of a 0 , the amplitude of the initial perturbation. We derive general formulae for the solutions of n th order quantities. Our solution procedure is recursive: the n th order solutions are expressed in terms of the solutions of orders less than n. We carried the calculation explicitly through third order. The result can be regrouped to form a polynomial of the temporal variable t. We then apply Pade approximation to the nite Taylors series to extend its range of validity

-6beyond that of Taylors series itself. The approach we outlined above for the RM instability has been remarkably successful for uids in two dimensions [26,27]. We demonstrate the results of our theory in two dimensions in Figure 1. In Figure 1, a shock wave of Mach 1.2 incidents from air to SF 6 . Here the reected wave is a shock. The initial amplitude of the perturbation is 2.4 mm, the wave length is 37.5 mm and the pressure ahead of the shock is 0.8 bar. The post-shock Atwood number is A = 0.701. These parameters corresponds to Benjamins experiments [4] on air-SF 6 . The solution of the linear theory for compressible uids, the approximate nonlinear solution for incompressible uids and the solution of the nonlinear theory for compressible uids (obtained from matching) are shown in Figure 1. The result from full nonlinear numerical simulation is also shown. At early times the growth rate increases fast and reaches the highest peak. After the peak, the nonlinearity starts to play a dominant role and causes the growth rate to decay with time. We dene tp to be the time associated with the highest peak and divide the time evolution of the growth rate into two stages separated at tp . In gure 1, tp is about 150s. The dominant dynamical behavior of these two stages is different. For t < tp , the system is compressible and approximately linear. For tp < t, the system is nonlinear and approximately incompressible. Figure 1 demonstrates clearly, that the system changes gradually from a compressible and linear one to an incompressible and nonlinear one. Our theoretical prediction for the growth rate of RM unstable interface in two dimensions is in excellent agreement with the result from full numerical simulation, as well as with the experimental data. Benjamin has reported a growth rate of 9.2 m/s over the time period 310-750 s for air-SF6 experiments. The experimental result was obtained by a linear regression analysis of the amplitude of the disturbance at the material interface. Applying the same analysis, our theory predicted a growth rate of 9.3 m/s over the same time period [26]. Predictions of the growth rate from the impulsive model and from the linear theory are 15.6 m/s and 16.0 m/s, respectively. The physical picture and mathematical methods which we outlined above are applicable for uids in both two and three dimensions. In this paper we extend the nonlinear theory of the RM instability to three dimensions. Our nal results, given below, are analytical expressions for the nonlinear growth rates of RM unstable interface of compressible uids in three dimensions, v= vlin
2 2 2 2 2 1 + a 0 k 2 vlin 1 t + max{0, a 2 0 k 1 2 }k v lin t

(1)

v bb = v +

v2 lin k 3 t
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1+vlin a 0 k 2 4 3 t + v lin k (a 0 k 4 3 + 5 3 )t

(2)

-7v2 lin k 3 t
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1+vlin a 0 k 2 4 3 t + v lin k (a 0 k 4 3 + 5 3 )t

v sp = v +

(3)

Equation (1) is for the overall growth rate of the unstable interface dened as the growth rate of the half of the distance between the bubble and spike. Equation (2) and (3) are the growth rates of the bubble and spike, respectively. The quantitative predictions of (1)-(3) are presented in Section 6. Here vlin is the growth rate of the linear theory in three dimensions and will be derived in Section 3. a 0 is the initial post-shocked amplitude of perturbation at the material interface. k is the magnitude of a wave vector of initial perturbation at the material interface. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are dimensionless functions which depend on the post-shock Atwood number A and the polar angle of the wave vector (kx, ky ). The explicit expressions of 1 and 2 are derived in Section 4. The explicit expressions of 3, 4 and 5 are given in Appendix B. It is easy to see that in the early time, or small amplitude limits, v, vbb and vsp approach to vlin , as physically it should be. We comment that the predictions of our nonlinear theory given by (1)-(3) contain no adjustable parameter and only applicable to the systems with no indirect phase inversion. An indirect phase inversion refers to the situation where the ngers at the contact interface gradually reverse their penetration directions after the shock-contact interaction. A direct phase inversion corresponds to the situation where the penetration directions of the ngers at the contact interface are reversed before the completion of the shock-contact interaction. For the case of a reected shock, as we consider in this paper, the indirect phase inversion usually does not occur [24]. When the incident shock is strong enough and the adiabatic exponents of the two uids are different, the indirect phase inversion may occur. The direct phase inversion does not occur for the case of a reected shock. See [24] for more discussion about the phase inversions. In Section 3, we derive the linear theory of the RM instability for compressible uids in three dimensions, In Section 4, we derive the nonlinear perturbation solution for incompressible uids in three dimensions. This perturbation solution serves as a generating series for Pade approximations. In Section 5, we apply Pade approximation and develop a nonlinear theory of the RM instability for compressible uid. In Section 6, we present the quantitative predictions of the nonlinear theory in two cases: air-SF 6 unstable interfaces and Kr-Xe unstable interfaces.

-83. Linear Theory for Compressible Fluids in Three Dimensions As we have discussed in Section 2, at early times the unstable system is compressible and approximately linear when the disturbance at the initial interface is small. The existing linear theories for compressible uids are in two dimensions only [21,24]. In this section we formulate the governing equations and the boundary conditions for the linear theory of Richtmyer-Meshkov instability for compressible uids in three dimensions. The equations are derived by linearizing the full Euler equations in three dimensions. Our theoretical derivation shows that the solutions of the linear theory in three dimensions can be mapped from solutions of the linear theory in two dimensions. In particular, for xed total wave number k, the growth rates determined from the linear theory in two dimensions and that in three dimensions are identical. In the linear regime, the shape of the interface in three dimensions is given by a (t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ), where kx and ky are wave numbers of the sinusoidal perturbation in x and y directions, respectively. From the identity a (t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) = 1 a (t )[cos(kx x + ky y ) + 2

cos(kx x ky y )], one might think that one could apply the linear theory in two dimensions to each cosine function on the right hand side separately and the sum of them determines the linear theory in three dimensions. This argument may appeal intuitively, but is lack of mathematical foundation, since the superposition theorem only applicable to terms of different modes of same spacial variable, but not applicable to terms of different spacial variables. Here kx x + ky y and kx x ky y are two independent spacial variables. Therefore, it is necessary to derive the linear theory for the RM instability in three dimensions. As the incident shock hits the material interface, it bifurcates into a transmitted shock and a reected wave. Depending the material property of the uids across the contact interface and the incident shock strength, the reected wave is either a shock or a rarefaction wave [24]. The linear theories of the RM instability in three dimensions for these two different types of reected waves are given separately below.

3.A. Case of a reected shock We present the derivation for the case of reected shock rst. After shock-contact interaction, the physical domain is divided into four regions separated by the transmitted shock, the contact interface, and the reected shock. We have labeled these regions 0 to 3, from bottom to top. (See Figure 2(a) and 2(b).) The analysis is similar to Richtmyers [21]. We denote the dynamical and the thermodynamical variables as follows: u = (ux , uy , uz ) = velocity; = density; c = sound

-9speed; p = pressure; s = specic entropy. A subscript on there variables denotes the region number, while the superscript 0 or 1 denotes the zeroth order (unperturbed) or the rst order quantities, respectively. The reference frame is now chosen such that the contact interface is sta0 tionary after the shock-contact interaction, i.e. u 0 1 = u 2 = 0. In such a reference frame, the speeds

of the transmitted and reected shock waves are denoted as w 1 and w 2 (both positive numbers), respectively.
0 In regions 0 and 3, we have u 0 0 > 0 and u 3 < 0. In addition, all perturbed quantities are

zero in these two regions. In regions 1 and 2, the zeroth order quantities are the solutions of one dimensional Riemann problem. For the linear theory in three dimensions, velocity u (x, y, z, t ) and any other quantities Q (x, y, z, t ) in regions 1 and 2 can be expressed as
1 1 u (x, y, z, t ) = (u 1 x (z, t )sin(kx x )cos(ky y ), u y (z, t )cos(kx x )sin(ky y ), u z (z, t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y )),

(4) (5)

Q (x, y, z, t ) = Q 0 (z, t ) + Q 1 (z, t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ). After linearization, the equation of continuity is 0 ( and the equations of motion are u 1 z p 1 , = 0 t z kx p 1 = 0 u 1 x , t ky p 1 = 0 u 1 y . t u 1 1 p 1 z 1 1 = 2 + kx u 1 x + ky u y ) = t z c t

(6)

(7)

Differentiating (6) and substituting equations (7) into it, the pressure disturbance satises the equation
2 1 2 p 1 2 p = c k 2p 1 2 2 t z

(8)

2 1/2 where k = (k 2 . Eqs. (6)-(8) hold for both regions 1 and 2. We have suppressed the subx + ky )

script representing the region in Eqs. (6)-(8). In addition to Eq. (8) for the perturbed pressure, we need to know the boundary conditions at the contact interface, and the transmitted and the reected shock waves. In the following, a 0 (t ), a 1 (t ) and a 2 (t ) denote the perturbation amplitudes on the contact interface, and on the transmitted and reected shock waves, respectively.

- 10 Let us consider the boundary conditions at the contact interface rst. Continuity of the pressure across the interface gives
1 p1 1 (0, t ) = p 2 (0, t ).

(9)

Furthermore, Newtons second law applied to a uid particle next to the interface gives d 2 a 0 (t ) dt 2 = 1 0 1 p 1 1 z =
z = 0

1 0 2

p 2 z

.
z = 0+

(10)

There are three boundary conditions at a shock interface. The tangential components of the uid velocity u are continuous across the shock and the normal component of the uid velocity satises the Rankine-Hugoniot condition at the shock interface. To analyze these boundary conditions, we dene a normal vector n and two tangential vectors, t 1 and t 2 , at a shock front z = f (x, y, t ): f f , 1), , n (x, y, t ) = ( x y
t 1 (x, y, t ) = ey x n, t (x, y, t ) = n x t ,
2 1

where ey is the y-axis unit vector. Here f is a rst order quantity. The normalization factor of n, t1
2 1 / 2 and t 2 is 1, because (1 + f 2 = 1 + O ((a 0 k )2 ). x + fy )

Substituting f (x, y, t ) = a 1 (t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) for the transmitted shock, it gives

n = (a 1 (t )kx sin(kx x )cos(ky y ), a 1 (t )ky cos(kx x )sin(ky y ), 1), t 1 = (1, 0, a 1 (t )kx sin(kx x )cos(ky y )), t 2 = (0, 1, a 1 (t )ky cos(kx x )sin(ky y )).

Hence, up to rst order of small quantities, the normal component of u is given by

n . u = uz (w 1 t, t ). Following Richtmyers derivation, we have the following equation for the

linearized Rankine-Hugoniot condition at the transmitted shock: . a 1 (t ) = 1 0 0) w1 1 p1 1 (w 1 t, t ), w1 K 1 c2 1 (11)

2( 0 1

where K 1 is the dimensionless slopes of the Hugoniot in the P V plane evaluated at the state 1, i.e., for a given state (state 0). If we denote its Hugoniot in P V plane as Ph (V ), then we have K1 = 1
2 ( 0 1c 1)

dPh (V ) dV

.
V =1 / 0 1

Up to rst order, the tangential component of u projected onto t 1 is u 1 x (w 1 t, t )sin(kx x )cos(ky y )

- 11 just behind the shock, and u 0 0 a 1 kx sin(kx x )cos(ky y ) just ahead. Similarly, the tangential component of u projected onto t 2 is u 1 y (w 1 t, t )cos(kx x )sin(ky y ) just behind the shock, and u 0 0 a 1 ky cos(kx x )sin(ky y ) just ahead. Therefore, from the continuity of tangential velocity at the interface of the transmitted shock, we have
0 u1 x (w 1 t, t ) = kx u 0 a 1 (t ), 0 u1 y (w 1 t, t ) = ky u 0 a 1 (t ),

which gives
1 2 0 (kx u 1 x + ky u y ) = k u 0 a 1

at z = w 1 t.

(12)

When we combine (6), (7), (11) and (12), we obtain another boundary condition at the transmitted shock: w1 +
1 w 1 dp 1 (w 1 t, t ) c2 p 1 1 1 2 = (w 2 c ) + 1 1 dt 2K 1 2w 1 z 0 0 + k 2 c2 1 u 0 w 1 1 a 1 (t ). z =w 1 t

(13)

Boundary conditions at the interface of the reected shock is similar to Eqs. (11) and (13). They are given by . a 2 (t ) = 1 0 3) w2 1 p1 2 (w 2 t, t ), w2 K 2 c2 2
0 0 + k 2 c2 2 u 3 w 2 2 a 2 (t ). z =w 2 t

2( 0 2

(14)

1 w 2 dp 2 (w 2 t, t ) c2 p 1 2 2 2 2 = ( w c ) + w2 + 2 2 dt 2K 2 2w 2 z

(15)

The denition of K 2 is the same that for K 1 except that subscrip 1 is replaced by subscript 2 in and c. Let us summarize the equations for the linear theory in three dimensions for the case of reected shock. The solutions of the linear theory in three dimensions for the case of reected shock are determined by (8)-(11), (13)-(15) and the initial conditions. Equation (8) is for the solutions in regions 1 and 2. Equations (9) and (10) are the boundary conditions at the material interface. Equations (11) and (13) are the boundary conditions at the transmitted shock. Equations (14) and (15) are the boundary conditions at the reected shock. The linear theory in two dimensions is a special case of the linear theory in three dimensions, name the case of kx = 0 or ky = 0. However, only k, the magnitude of the wave vector, appears these equations. Neither kx , nor ky appear explicitly in these equations. Therefore, the solutions of the linear theory in three dimensions can be mapped from the solutions of the linear theory in two dimensions. This mapping is given at the end of this section.

- 12 3.B. Case of a reected rarefaction wave Here we derive the linear theory of the RM instability in three dimensions for the case of reected rarefaction wave. In this case, conguration of the system after the wave bifurcation contains ve regions. The denition of regions 0,1,2 are 3 are same as the one for the case of reected shock. An additional region inside the rarefaction fan is denoted by the subscript r. Obviously, the dynamics in region 1 and 2 are still governed by (8). The boundary conditions at the material interface are still governed by (9) and (10). The boundary conditions at the interface of the transmitted shock are still governed by (11) and (13). We only need to derive the equations which govern the dynamics inside the rarefaction fan and boundary conditions at the leading edge and the trailing edge of the rarefaction fan. Since the rest of equations in this section deal with the solution inside the rarefaction fan and boundary conditions at the leading and trailing edges of the rarefaction fan, we will suppress the subscript r in the rest of equations in this section. The solutions inside the rarefaction fan still have the functional form given by (4) and (5). It is important to note that inside the rarefaction fan, the zeroth order (unperturbed) density and pressure are not constants, but the functions of z. The zero-th order velocity is given by u 0 = (0,0, u 0 z (z )). Now we derive the dynamical equations inside the rarefaction fan and boundary conditions at the leading and trailing edges of the rarefaction fan. The linearized continuity equation is given by
0 1 u 1 u 0 z z 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 = 0. + + u + + kx u 1 + k u + u z x y y z z z z z t

(16)

The conservation of momentum gives u 1 u 1 x 1 x 0 0 kx p 1 = 0, + uz z t u 1 u 1 y 1 y 0 0 ky p 1 = 0 + uz z t and u 0 u 1 u 1 1 p 1 z 1 p 0 1 z z 1 0 = 0. + 0 0 2 + u + uz z z z t z ( ) z The linearized energy equation can be expressed as s 1 s 1 = 0. + u0 z z t (20) (19) (17)

(18)

- 13 p 1 , 1 and s 1 are related through the thermodynamic identity p 1 = c 2 1 + p 0 s 0 s 1.

0

(21)

These are the dynamical equations inside the rarefaction fan. Following a procedure similar to the one given in [24] for the linear theory of the RM instability in two dimensions, we obtain s 1 = 0 inside the rarefaction fan. Therefore, the solution to (20) is trivial. We examine the boundary conditions at the leading and trailing edges of the rarefaction fan next. At these edges all physical quantities are continuous. Let zl (t ) and zt (t ) denote the positions of the leading edge and trailing edge, respectively. Let al (t ) and at (t ) denote the amplitudes of perturbation at the leading edge and trailing edge, respectively. At the leading edge, the continuity of density, normal velocity and tangential velocities give the following four equations 0 (zl , t ) , (zl (t ), t ) = al (t ) z
1

(22)

u1 z (zl (t ), t )

u 0 z (zl , t ) , = al (t ) z

(23) (24)

u1 x (zl (t ), t ) = 0 and u1 y (zl (t ), t ) = 0.

(25)

In (22)-(25), we have used the fact that the in region 3 zero-th order quantities are constants and the rst order quantities are zero. At the trailing edge, the continuity of density, normal velocity and tangential velocities give the following four equations 1 (zt (t ), t ) = 1 2 (zr (t ), t ) at (t )
1 u1 z (zt (t ), t ) = uz 2 (zt (t ), t ) at (t )

0 (zt , t ) , z u 0 z (zt , t ) , z

(26)

(27) (28)

1 u1 x (zt (t ), t ) = ux 2 (zt (t ), t ),

and
1 u1 y (zt (t ), t ) = uy 2 (zt (t ), t ),

(29)

- 14 respectively. In (26)-(29), we have expressed the labeling for the quantities of region 2 explicitly. We dene
uk = ek . v = (kx ux + ky uy ) /k.

(30)

2 Here ek is a unit vector along the direction of k and k = k 2 x + k y is the magnitude of k. Then

(16) can be expressed as

0 1 u 1 u 0 z z 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 =0 + + uz + + ku k + u z z z z z t

(31)

and (19) and (20) can be combined into a single equation u 1 u 1 k 1 k 0 kp 1 = 0 + u0 z z t The continuity of tangential velocities at the leading edge can be expressed as u1 k (zl (t ), t ) = 0 The continuity of tangential velocities at the trailing edge can be expressed as
1 u1 k (zr (t ), t ) = uk 2 (zr (t ), t ).

(32)

(33)

(34)

Let us summarize the equations for the linear theory in three dimensions for the case of reected rarefaction wave. The solutions of the linear theory in three dimensions in the case of reected rarefaction wave are determined by (8)-(11), (13), (16),(19), (22), (23), (26), (27), (31), (33), (34), the relation p 1 = c 2 1 and the initial conditions. Equation (8) is for the solutions in regions 1 and 2. Equations (9) and (10) are the boundary conditions at the material interface. Equations (11) and (13) are the boundary conditions at the transmitted shock. Equations (16), (19) and (31) together with the relation p 1 = c 2 1 determine the solutions inside the rarefaction fan. Equations (22), (23) and (33) are the boundary conditions at the leading edge of the rarefaction fan. Equations (26), (27) and (34) are the boundary conditions at the trailing edge of the rarefaction fan. As in the case of reect shock, only k, the magnitude of the wave vector, appears these equations. Neither kx , nor ky appears explicitly in these equations. Therefore, for the case of reected rarefaction wave, the solutions of the linear theory in three dimensions can also be mapped from the solutions in two dimensions. One could further simplify the boundary conditions at the leading and trailing edges of the rarefaction fan. For example, one can show that dal (t ) /dt = 0. Since we have proven that the solutions in the three dimensions can be mapped from the solutions in two dimensions, such simplication is no longer necessary.

- 15 Now we derive the mapping from the solutions of linear theory in two dimensions to the solutions of linear theory in three dimensions. To nd the solution of linear theory in three dimensions with initial perturbation a 0 (0)cos(kx x )cos (ky y ), we consider the solution of the linear
2 theory in two dimensions with an initial perturbation a 0 (0)cos(kx ). Here k = k 2 x + k y . The solu-

tion in two dimensions is given by

1 lin (2d ) (x, z, t ) = (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx ), 1 p lin (2d ) (x, z, t ) = p (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx ), 1 ux lin (2d ) (x, z, t ) = ux (2d ) (z, t )sin(kx ), 1 uz lin (2d ) (x, z, t ) = uz (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx ).

The shapes of the interfaces in two dimensions are given by zi (t ) + ai (2d ) (t )cos(kx ) for i = 0, 1 and 2 or l, r. We have shown that the governing equations, (8)-(11), (13)-(15), (19), (22), (23), (26), (27) and (31) in three dimensions depend neither on kx , nor on ky explicitly. One can see
1 1 from these equations and (6), (7), (12), (16)-(18), (22)-(30) that p 1 (3d ) , (3d ) , u z (3d ) and ai (3d ) do not 1 explicitly depend on kx or ky , and u 1 x (3d ) and u y (3d ) are proportional to kx and ky , respectively. 1 Furthermore, kx u 1 x (3d ) + ky u y (3d ) does not explicitly depend on kx and ky either. These properties

give the following mapping for the linear solutions in three dimensions.
1 lin (3d ) (x, y, z, t ) = (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ), 1 p lin (3d ) (x, y, z, t ) = p (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ), 1 1 ux lin (3d ) (x, y, z, t ) = kx k ux (2d ) (z, t )sin(kx x )cos(ky y ), 1 1 uy lin (3d ) (x, y, z, t ) = ky k ux (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx x )sin(ky y ), 1 uz lin (2d ) (x, y, z, t ) = uz (2d ) (z, t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ).

The interfaces are given by zi (t ) + ai (2d ) (t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) for i = 0, 1 and 2 or l, r. This mapping holds for every region in both reected shock and reect rarefaction cases. In particular, for xed total wave number k, the growth rate determined from the linear theory in three dimensions is same as the one in two dimensions. A systematic study of linear theory in two dimensions for the case of reected shock and the case of reected rarefaction wave is given in [24]. Using the mapping function given above, it is easy to see that all properties and conclusions presented in [24] for the linear theory in two dimensions also hold for the linear theory in three dimensions. In particular, the analysis of total

- 16 transmission phenomenon, the analysis of direct and indirect phase inversions, the observation that freeze-out cannot occur when the adiabatic indices of the two materials are the same, the observation that freeze-out and total transmission cannot occur simultaneously, and the identication and analysis of an instability associated with the rarefaction wave, remain the same for the linear theory in three dimensions. The phenomena of freeze-out was rst identied by Mikaelian [17]. The analytic expressions for the short time solutions for both the reected shock and reected rarefaction cases in three dimensions can be easily mapped from the small time solutions in the two dimensions given in [24]. All gures and tables presented in [24] for the linear growth rate are remained the same for linear theory in three dimensions, as long as one identies k in [24] as the total wave vector. Therefore, with the mapping function given above, we refer [24] for the solutions of linear theory in three dimensions. Although the solutions of the linear theory in three dimension do not depend on the orientation of the wave vector, such independence is not true in the nonlinear theory.

4. Nonlinear Perturbation Solutions for Incompressible Fluids in Three Dimensions As we have described in Section 2, in the nonlinear stage, the effects of compressibility are less important. Therefore, we can approximate the uids as incompressible. In this section we derive the nonlinear perturbation solution for incompressible uids in three dimensions. The expansion is in terms of the disturbance at the initial interface. The method of nonlinear perturbation expansion has been applied to the problem of the interfacial uid mixing by many researchers in the past. The second and third order perturbation solutions for the Rayleigh-Taylor instability (interfacial instability driven by a gravitational force) in two dimensions have been obtained by Ingraham [12] and Chang [5], respectively. Jacobs and Catton derived third order solutions for the Rayleigh-Taylor instability in three dimensions [13]. However, all these perturbation solutions have a very limited range of validity. The method of nonlinear perturbation expansion has also been applied to the RichtmyerMeshkov instability. Haan derived the second order perturbation solution [9]. The high order perturbation solutions for the case of the impulsive model with A = 1 have been obtained in [23] The third and fourth order perturbations solutions of arbitrary A can be found in [26,27]. These results are in two dimensions. As we have pointed out in Section 2, the derivation of the nonlinear perturbation solutions is only an intermediate step in our theoretical formulation. Our goal is to construct of Pade approximants to extend the range of validity.

- 17 In Section 4.A, we derive perturbation solutions with general initial growth rate. A general formula is obtained for n-th order solutions. In Section 4.B, we demonstrate our solution method by evaluating the nonlinear solution of the impulsive model. The impulsive model has specic initial conditions for the growth rate. Explicit expression for the growth rate of the unstable material interface is given through third order. The nonlinear perturbation solutions derived in this section serve as the generating series for the Pade approximants constructed in next section.

4.A. Governing Equations and Solution Procedure In this section we derive the nonlinear solutions for incompressible systems with no external forces and with general initial velocity along the interface. The governing equations for inviscid, irrotational, incompressible uids in three dimensions with no external forces are given by 2 (x, y, z, t ) = 0 in material 1, 2 (x, y, z, t ) = 0 in material 2, at z = , at z = , (35) (36) (37)

=0 + z y y x x t =0 + z y y x x t

1 + [( )2 + ( )2 + ( )2 ] + z y x 2 t t 2 2 2 1 ) ]=0 ) +( ) +( [( z y x 2 at z = . (38)

Here the unprimed variables are the physical quantities in material 2 and the primed variables are the physical quantities in material 1. z = (x, y, t ) is the position of the material interface at time t. and are densities of material 2 and 1, respectively. and are the velocity potentials in
v = in material 1. Two equations given in (35) come from the incompressibility condi-

material 2 and 1, respectively. The velocity eld is given by v = in material 2 and by

tions. Equations (36) and (37) represent the kinematic boundary condition that a uid particle initially situated at the material interface will remain at the interface afterwards. Equation (38) represents the dynamic boundary condition in which the pressure is continuous across the material interface. We consider the single mode RM instability only in this paper. The initial shape of the material interface is given by (x, y, t = 0) = a 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y )

- 18 . and the initial velocity distribution along the material interface is given by (x, y, t = 0). Here, and from now, a 0 is the amplitude of the initial disturbance. Therefore, a 0 is a constant. One should not be confused this with the notation a 0 (t ) used in the linear theory (Section 3) where . a 0 (t ) is a function of time. (x, y, 0) is an arbitrary single valued function of x. The impulsive model corresponds to a particular initial velocity distribution along the interface. This particular initial velocity will be derived in next section from the assumption of an impulsive force. We expand all quantities in terms of powers of a 0 k, i. e. f = fn . Here fn = n , n and n , are proportional to (a 0 k )n , and k is the magnitude of the wave vector. Then (35)-(38) can be expressed as

n =1

2 n = 0 in material 2,

2 n = 0 in material 1, n =1 at z =

(39)

n =1

n i n i n i n i n )=0 )+ + ( z y y x t i =1 x

n =1

n , n , n =1

(40)

( n =1

n i n i n i n i n )=0 )+ + ( z y y x t i =1 x

at z =

(41)

n i n i i n i n 1 n i n i ] + + + [ + z z y y x 2 n =1i =1 x n =1 t n =1 t

i n i i n i 1 n i n i ]=0 + + [ z z y y 2 n =1i =1 x x

at z =

n =1

n .

(42)

Since the boundary and initial conditions given in (40)-(42) hold at the position z == (n ) , they need to be further expanded at z = 0. After expanding the equations and col n =1

lecting all terms of order (a 0 k )n , we have the following equations for the n th order quantities. 2 (n ) = 0 in material 1, 2 (n ) = 0 in material 2, at z = 0, at z = 0, at z = 0, (43) (44)

(n ) (n ) n) = S( + ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) z t 0i, j n (n ) (n ) n) = S ( + ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) z t 0i, j n (n ) (n ) n) = T( + ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) t t 0i, j n

(45)

(46)

with the initial conditions

- 19 (n ) (x, y, t = 0) = a 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y )1n , . (n ) (x, y, t = 0) = (47) (48)

a ij 0i, j n

. (n )

(0)cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ).

. (n ) Here 1n is Kronecker delta function. a ij (0) is determined by the Fourier mode decomposition
n) (n ) (n ) of the left hand side of (48). S ( ij , S ij and T ij are determined by the Fourier mode decomposi-

tion of the right hand sides of the following equations:

0i, j n

n) S( ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) =

1 p +1 (a ) (b ) p (ni ) 1 p +1 (a ) p (ni ) + p p +1 i =1 x i =1 sum2 p ! x z sum1 p ! z 1 p +1 (a ) (b ) p (ni ) p y i =1 sum2 p ! y z at z = 0, (49)

0i, j n

n) S ( ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) =

1 p +1 (a ) (b ) p (ni ) 1 p +1 (a ) p (ni ) + p x i =1 z p +1 i =1 sum2 p ! x z sum1 p !

sum2 p !

1 p +1 (a ) (b ) p (ni ) y i =1 y z p

at z = 0,

(50)

0i, j n

n) T( ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) =

p 1 p +1 (n ) (a ) (a ) ( ) i p i =1 sum1 p ! z t

p +1 (a ) q +1 (b ) p +1 (a ) q +1 (b ) p +1 (a ) q +1 (b ) 1 1 ) + + [ ( p !q ! z p x z q x 2 sum3 z q +1 z p +1 z p y z q y p +1 (a ) p +1 (b ) p (ni ) q (m j ) p +1 (a ) q +1 (b ) p +1 (a ) q +1 (b ) )] + + i =1 j =1 z q +1 z p +1 z q y z p y z q x z p x at z = 0. (51)

where sum1 : (0 < n 1 , n 2 , ..., np , p, a < n ), (n 1 + n 2 + ... + np + a = n ); sum2 : (0 < n 1 , n 2 , ..., np , a, b < n ),(0 p < n ), (n 1 + n 2 + ... + np + a + b = n ); sum3 : (0 < n 1 , n 2 , ..., np , m 1 , m 2 , ..., mq , a, b <n ),(0 p, q < n ), (n 1 + n 2 + ... + np + m 1 + m 2 + ... + mq + a + b = n ). Note that the quantities on the right hand side of (49)-(51) are already known for the n th order equations since they have orders lower than n . Equations (43)-(48) are linear equations for the n th order variables (n ) , (n ) and (n ) which we are going to solve for.

- 20 The n th order solution can be expressed as (n ) (x, y, t ) = (n ) (x, y, z, t ) = (n ) (x, y, z, t ) =

n) a( ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ), 0i, j n n) b( ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y )e 0i, j n kij z

(52) , . (53) (54)

n) b ( ij (t )cos(ikx x )cos( jky y )e 0i, j n

kij z

Here kij = i 2 + j 2 k. After substituting (52)-(54) into (44)-(46) and using the orthogonality of different Fourier modes, we have
n) da ( ij (t ) n) (n ) kij b ( ij (t ) = S ij (t ), dt n) da ( ij (t ) n) (n ) + kij b ( ij (t ) = S ij (t ), dt

(55)

(56)

n) n) db ( db ( ij (t ) ij (t ) n) = T( + ij (t ) dt dt

(57)

. (n ) n) with the initial amplitude a ( ij (0) = a 0 1n 1i 1 j and the initial growth rate a ij (0). The solutions for (55)-(57) with the initial conditions are given by
n) a( ij (t ) =

1 n) (n ) (n ) (n ) (n ) [kij (t t )T ( ij (t ) + (S ij (t ) S ij (0)) + (S ij (t ) S ij (0))]dt + 0 . (n ) + a ij (0)t + a 0 1n 1i 1 j , 1 . (n ) 1 1 n) (n ) n) a ij (0), (S ( [T ( ij (t ) S ij (t ))] + ij (t )dt + kij kij + 0 1 . (n ) 1 1 n) (n ) n) a ij (0) (S ( [T ( ij (t ) S ij (t ))] ij (t )dt + kij kij + 0
t t

(58)

n) b( ij (t ) =

(59)

n) b ( ij (t ) =

(60)

for i + j 0. The growth rate can be determined from (58) and the result is
t n) da ( . (n ) ij (t ) 1 n) (n ) (n ) (n ) (n ) [ kij T ( = ij (t )dt + (S ij (t ) S ij (0)) + (S ij (t ) S ij (0))] + a ij (0). + dt 0 n) For the case i = j = 0, a ( 00 (t ) = 0 from the condition of incompressibility. From (44) and (45), it n) (n ) (n ) (n ) follows that S ( 00 (t ) = S 00 (t ) = 0. From (46), b 00 (t ) and b 00 (t ) are determined by

- 21 t

(n ) 00 (t )+

n) b ( 00 (t )

= b

(n ) 00 (0)+

n) b ( 00 (0)

n) + T ( 00 (t )dt . 0

Since the velocities are the gradients of the velocity potentials and all the source terms in (49)n) (n ) (50) involve differentiation with respect to x or/and z, the functional forms of b ( 00 and b 00 are

irrelevant. Therefore, we will not evaluate them explicitly. Let us summarize the recursive procedure for obtaining the nonlinear solution. We progress from lower orders towards higher orders, starting from the rst order. We rst evaluate the source terms, namely the right hand sides of (49)-(51). These source terms are known from the
n) (n ) (n ) lower order solutions. We determine S ( ij , S ij and T ij from these source terms. Then the n th n) (n ) (n ) order solutions are simply given by (52)-(54) with a ( ij , b ij and b ij given by (58), (59) and n) (n ) (n ) (60), respectively. It is easy to show by induction that a ( ij , b ij and b ij are polynomials of t.

The case of n =1 will be given explicitly in the Section 4.B. From induction hypothesis, we
n) (n ) (m ) (m ) assume that, for all n < m, b ( ij and b ij are polynomials of t. Then the conclusion that a ij , b ij m) and b ( ij are polynomials follows from (58)-(60) and the mathematical properties that products,

summations, differentiation, integration of polynomials are still polynomials. Furthermore, from the same induction procedure and the denition of sum1, sum2 and sum3, one can check that,
n) (n ) (n ) with respect to t, the degree of a ( ij is not greater than n and the degrees of b ij and b ij are not

greater than n 1.

4.B. Nonlinear Solution of Impulsive Model Let us apply the solution procedure to determine the nonlinear solution of the impulsive model in three dimensions through third order. The impulsive model assumes that the uids are at rest initially and are driven by an impulsive acceleration g = u (t ) at time t = 0. Here u represents the strength of the impulse. Then (38) becomes ()g 1 + [( )2 + ( )2 + ( )2 ] + z y x 2 t t at z = . (61)

2 2 2 1 ) ]=0 ) +( ) +( [( z y x 2

After integrating (61) over time from 0 to 0+, we obtain the following initial condition ()u + = 0 at z = = a 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) and t = 0+. (62)

- 22 For t 0+, (61) reduces to (38). Therefore, our general solution procedure is valid for the impulsive model. The only thing we need to do is to determine the initial growth rate from (62). We further expand (62) at z = 0. The result is ()u (1) 1n (n ) + (n ) =
n) R( ij cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) 0 i, j n

at z = 0 and t = 0. (63)

n) Here R ( ij are determined by the Fourier mode decomposition of the right hand sides of the fol-

lowing equation

0i, j n

n) R( ij cos(ikx x )cos( jky y ) =

1 m ((n m ) (n m ) )[a 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y )]m m m ! z m =1

n 1

(64)

at z = 0 and t = 0. From (53) and (54), (63) can be expressed as

n) (n ) (n ) ( )ua 0 1n 1i 1 j b ( ij (0) + b ij (0) = R ij .

(65)

Finally from (55),(56) and (65), we obtain the initial growth rate for the impulsive model
n) (n ) (n ) kij R ( . (n ) ij + S ij (0) + S ij (0) . a ij (0) = a 0 1n 1i 1 j + +

(66)

Here = A uk for the impulsive model. Therefore, the nonlinear solutions to the impulsive model in three dimensions are given by (52)-(54) and (58)-(60) with the initial growth rate (66). The equations for the rst order quantities are given by 2 (1) = 0 in material 1, (1) (1) =0 + z t and 2 (1) = 0 in material 2, (1) (1) =0 + z t at z = 0,

( )g (1)

(1) (1) =0 + t t

at z = 0.

(1) (1) (1) Obviously, S (1) ij (t ) = S ij (t ) = T ij (t ) = R ij = 0. From (58)-(60) the rst order solution is given

by (1) = (1 + t )a 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ), (1) = k z a 0 e 11 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ), k 11 (1) = k z a 0 e 11 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ). k 11 (67) (68)

The equations for the second order quantities are given by 2 (2) = 0 in material 1, 2 (2) = 0 in material 2, at z = 0, (69) (70)

(1) (1) 2 (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) + + = + y y x x z t z 2

- 23 (1) (1) 2 (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) + + = + y y x x z t z 2 at z = 0,

(71)

(1) (1) (1) 1 2 (1) 2 (1) (2) (2) )1 [( )2 + ( )2 + ( )2 ] = ( + z y x 2 t z t z t t + (1) 2 (1) 2 (1) 2 1 ) ] ) +( ) +( [( z y x 2 (1) (1) )1 z z at z = 0, at z = 0 and t = 0. (72)

(2) + (2) = (

(73)

The right hand side of these equations can be evaluated analytically from (67) and (68). Then (70)-(73) can be written as k2 k2 y x 1 2 (2) (2) cos(2ky y ) + k 11 cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )] cos(2 k x ) + = a 0 (1 + t )[ + x k k 2 z t 11 11 k2 k2 y x 1 (2) (2) cos(2ky y ) + k 11 cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )] cos(2kx x ) + = a2 + 0 (1 + t )[ k 11 k 11 2 z t k2 k2 x y 1 (2) (2) 2 cos(2ky y )] cos(2 k x ) + [1 + = ( )a 2 + x 0 2 4 t t k 11 2 k 11 at z = 0, at z = 0,

at z = 0, at z = 0 and t = 0.

1 (2) + (2) = ( + )a 2 0 [1 + cos(2kx x ) + cos(2ky y ) + cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )] 4 Obviously, S (2) 20 k2 x 1 2 , = a 0 (1 + t ) k 11 2 S (2) 02 k2 y 1 2 , = a 0 (1 + t ) k 11 2

(2) S (2) 02 = S 02 ,

1 2 S (2) 22 = a 0 (1 + t )k 11, 2

(2) S (2) 20 = S 20 ,

(2) S (2) 22 = S 22 ,

T (2) 00 =

1 2 ( )a 2 0 , 4

T (2) 20 =

ky 2 1 2 ) , ( )a 2 0 ( k 11 4

T (2) 02 =

kx 2 1 2 ) , ( )a 2 0 ( k 11 4

(2) (2) (2) R (2) 00 = R 20 = R 02 = R 22 =

1 ( )a 2 0 . 4

(2) (2) (2) S (2) ij = S ij = T ij = R ij = 0 for other values of i and j. It is straight forward to show that our

general formulae, (52)-(54) and (58)-(60), lead the following expressions for the second order solution: (2) = 1 1 1 2 A (a 0 t )2 [ 2 kx (kx k 11 k 2 y )cos(2kx x ) + 2 ky (ky k 11 k x )cos(2ky y ) 4 k 11 k 11 . (2) + k 11 cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )] + (0)t, (74)

- 24 (2) = [ 1 . (2) 1 2 2k z a 20 (0)]cos(2kx x )e x a 0 ((kx k 11 (1 + A ) Ak 2 y )t + kx k 11 ) + 2 2 k 4k 11 x 1 . (2) 1 2 2k z a 02 (0)]cos(2ky y )e y a 0 ((ky k 11 (1 + A )Ak 2 x )t + ky k 11 ) + 2 2 k 4k 11 y (75)

+[ + (2) = [

1 2 2k z a 0 ((1 + A )t + 1)cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )e 11 + b 00 (t ), 4

1 . (2) 1 2 2k z a 20 (0)]cos(2kx x )e x a 0 ((kx k 11 (1 A )+Ak 2 y )t + kx k 11 ) 2 2kx 4k 11 1 . (2) 1 2 2k z a 02 (0)]cos(2ky y )e y a 0 ((ky k 11 (1 A ) + Ak 2 x )t + ky k 11 ) 2 2ky 4k 11 (76)

+[ +

1 2 2k z a 0 ((1 A )t + 1)cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )e 11 + b 00 (t ). 4

and from (66) . (2) . (2) . (2) (0) = a 20 (0)cos(2kx x ) + a 02 (0)cos(2ky y ) = 1 2 a 0 A [kx (kx k 11 )cos(2kx x ) + ky (ky k 11 )cos(2ky y )]. 2k 11 (77)

The derivation for the third order quantities is given in the Appendix A. The result for 3 is
2 2 1 2 1 2 (3) = a 3 0 t [( K 11 + K 11 t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) + ( K 31 + K 31 t )cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) 2 1 2 + ( K1 13 + K 13 t )cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ) + ( K 33 + K 33 t )cos(3kx x )cos(3ky y )] . + 3 (0)t (78)

where K1 11 = 1 [ (kx 3 + ky 3 )k 11 + 2kx 2 ky 2 + k 11 4 k 11 kx ky (kx + ky )]A 2 8k 11 2 + K2 11 = 1 [4(kx 3 + ky 3 ) k 11 3 ], 32k 11

1 [k 11 2 ((kx 3 + ky 3 ) + kx ky (kx + ky )) 2k 11 5 + 2(kx 3 (ky 2 kx k 11 ) 3 24k 11 + ky 3 (kx 2 ky k 11 )) 2k 11 kx 2 ky 2 ]A 2 1 [4(kx 3 + ky 3 ) k 11 3 ], 96k 11

K1 31 =

1 [6kx 2 (ky 2 kx k 11 ) k 11 2 (3kx 2 + ky 2 ) + k 31 (2kx (kx k 11 ky 2 ) + k 11 3 )]A 2 16k 11 2

- 25 + K2 31 = 1 [24k 11 kx 3 + 3k 11 4 k 31 (kx 2 (9k 11 4kx ) + ky 2 k 11 + k 11 3 )], 2 32k 11

1 [12k 11 kx 2 (kx k 11 ky 2 ) 2(ky 2 kx k 11 )(kx k 11 2 + 2kx 3 ) + k 11 3 (8kx 2 + k 11 2 ) 3 48k 11 + k 31 (2(kx k 11 ky 2 )(kx 2 2kx k 11 ) + k 11 2 (kx 2 ky 2 ) 2k 11 4 )]A 2 1 [12k 11 kx 3 + 3k 11 4 k 31 (kx 2 (9k 11 4kx ) + ky 2 k 11 + k 11 3 ], 96k 11 2

i Ki 13 = K 31 (kx ky , ky kx ), i = 1,2,

K1 33 = K2 33 =

3k 11 2 , 32 k 11 2 (4A 2 1) 32

and from (66) . . (3) . (3) . (3) 3 (0) = a 11 (0)cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) + a 31 (0)cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) + a 13 (0)cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ) =[ a3 . (2) . (2) 0 1 3 3 a 0 k 11 A (a 20 (0) + a 02 (0))]cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) (2(4(k 3 x + k y ) + k 11 ) 2 32k 11

a3 . (2) 0 1 3 3 a 0 k 31 Aa 20 (0)]cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) (3(8k 3 +[ x + k 11 ) + k 31 ) 2 32k 11 +[ a3 . (2) 0 1 3 3 a 0 k 13 Aa 02 (0)]cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ). (79) (3(8k 3 y + k 11 ) + k 13 ) 2 32k 11

The third order initial growth rate (79) comes from (66). (3) and (3) can be easily calculated from (53), (54), (59) and (60) and are not shown here. Note that by setting ky = 0, (74) recovers the second order perturbation solution in two dimensions given in [9]. By setting ky = 0 and A = 1, (79) recovers the third order solution in two dimension obtained by Velikovich and Dimonte [23]. Velikovich and Dimonte considered the case of A =1 and incompressible uids driven by an impulsive force (impulsive model) in a system with innite density ratio. The solution of the impulsive model has its own interests. In this paper and references [26,27], we have considered compressible uids of arbitrary value of Atwood number driven by a shock wave. The impulsive model is not valid at early time solution for compressible uids driven by a shock wave. The approximate nonlinear solutions for compressible uids mixing driven by a shock wave will be

- 26 presented in the next section. Now we discuss general properties of n-th order solutions. Following the proofs given the Appendix C of [27], we checked that the n th order solutions have the following general properties (n ) (A ) = (1)n +1 (n ) (A ), (n ) (A, z ) = (1)n (n ) (A, z ). (80) (81)

It has been shown in two dimensions that the source terms in the n-th order equations have certain symmetry properties. Following the proofs given in [27], we checked that these properties hold for three dimensions also. In these symmetry properties, we do not include the possible A dependence in , as we have seen in the impulsive model.

5. Pade Approximation and Nonlinear Theory for Compressible Fluids in Three Dimensions We have systematically derived the nonlinear perturbation solutions for incompressible uids. In this section, we apply the Pade approximation to extend the range of validity beyond the range of validity of the Taylor expansion itself. Then we match the linear compressible solution at early times and the nonlinear incompressible solution at later times to arrive at a nonlinear theory for compressible uids in three dimensions. Let us discuss the initial conditions we are going to choose for the nonlinear solution for incompressible uids. As we have outlined in Section 2, we would like to develop a nonlinear theory for compressible uids from early to late times. This will be done by matching the solution of the linear theory for compressible uids (valid at early time) and the solution of the nonlinear theory for incompressible uids (valid at later time). We emphasis that our physical picture at late time solution depends on the incompressibility approximation only. The impulsive force approximation is not made here. Since the impulsive approximation gives qualitatively incorrect solution at early time for compressible uid driven by a shock wave, and the purpose of our study is to develop a quantitative theory from the compressible RM instability, the initial conditions derived for impulsive model is not applicable here. The growth rate determined from the linear theory for compressible uids contains a single Fourier mode only. Therefore, to be consistent with the solution of the linear theory, we choose the following single mode initial conditions for the nonlinear solution of incompressible uids: . (x, y, 0) = a 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) and (x, y, 0) = v 0 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ).

(82)

- 27 Here we assume that a 0 k is small and that v 0 is proportional to a 0 . Then from (48), we have . (n ) a ij (0) = v 0 1n 1i 1 j . (83)

v 0 will be determined later through matching. We are interested in the nonlinear solution for incompressible uids with the initial conditions given by (82). Since the initial condition given by (83) is different from (66), the nonlinear solutions developed in this section are not the solution of the impulsive model. One could follow the solution procedure given in Section 4.A to derive the nonlinear solutions. However, by comparing (82) with the initial conditions of the impulsive model given by (66), one sees that the nonlinear solution with initial conditions given . by (82) can be obtained by setting i (0) = 0 for i 2 and a 0 = v 0 in the nonlinear solutions of the impulsive model. Up to the third order, the solutions with the initial conditions (82) are (1) = (a 0 + v 0 t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ), (2) = 1 1 2 2 1 2 Av 0 t [ 2 kx (kx k 11 k 2 y )cos(2kx x ) + 2 ky (ky k 11 k x )cos(2ky y ) 4 k 11 k 11 + k 11 cos(2kx x )cos(2ky y )], (85) (84)

2 1 2 1 2 (3) = v 2 0 t [( K 11 a 0 + K 11 v 0 t )cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) + ( K 31 a 0 + K 31 v 0 t )cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) 2 1 2 + ( K1 13 a 0 + K 13 v 0 t )cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ) + ( K 33 a 0 + K 33 v 0 t )cos(3kx x )cos(3ky y )].

(86) The shape of the material interface at time t is given by (x, y, t ), and the velocities at the tip of a bubble and at the tip of a spike are given by v bb = v sp = , , y = 0, or x = 0, y = at x = ky kx t , ,y= at x = 0, y = 0, or x = ky kx t

respectively. From the general properties given by (80), can expressed as = a + b . Here a = is an even function of A, and (2k +1) k =0

(87)

(88)

- 28 (2k ) k =1

b = is an odd function of A.

(89)

Now, Let us derive the expressions for nonlinear growth rates. Sections 5.A is for the overall growth rate and Section 5.B is for the growth rates of bubble and spike.

5.A. Overall Growth Rate The overall growth rate of the unstable interface is dened as a half of the difference between the velocity of the spike and the velocity of the bubble, v = v= a (2k +1) = t t k =0 1 (vsp vbb ). Then we have 2

at x = y = 0.

The even order terms, namely b , do not contribute to the overall growth rate of the unstable interface. This is due to the fact that for each even order, the velocities at the tip of the spike and at the tip of the bubble are the same. From the analytical expressions of 1 and 3 given by (84) and (86). we have the following generating series for the overall growth rate of the RM unstable interface,
2 3 2 2 5 v = v 0 v2 0 a 0 k 1 t + v 0 k 2 t + O ((a 0 k ) ),

(90)

where k 2 i = 1 i i i (K i 11 + K 31 + K 13 + K 33 ) , i +1 i = 1,2 (91)

2 and k = k 11 = k 2 x + k y . After expressing the wave vector in polar coordinate system, i. e.

kx = k cos() and ky = k sin(), we have the following expressions for 1 and 2 : 1 = 1 2 A [5 + 4cos(2)]1 / 2 [ 4 + cos() 2cos(2) cos(3)] 16

+ [5 4cos(2)]1 / 2 [ 4 + sin() + 2cos(2) + sin(3)] 1 f () 16

+ 13[cos() + sin()] + 3[cos(3) sin(3)] + 4cos(4) + and 2 =

1 2 A [5 + 4cos(2)]1 / 2 [ 17 + 10cos() 4cos(2) 2cos(3) + cos(4)] 64

- 29 -

+ [5 4cos(2)]1 / 2 [ 17 + 10sin() + 4cos(2) + 2sin(3) + cos(4)] 1 f (). 32

+ 42[1 + cos() + sin()] + 14[cos(3) sin(3)] + 14cos(4) Here f () = [5 + 4cos(2)]1 / 2 [6 3cos() + 4cos(2) cos(3)] [5 4cos(2)]1 / 2 [6 3sin() 4cos(2) + sin(3)] + 8 + 21[cos() + sin()] + 7[cos(3) sin(3)].

Equation (90) is an expansion through fourth order. The range of the validity of the (90) is quite limited. One of the standard methods to extend the range of validity beyond the range of validity of the nite Taylor series expansion is the Pade approximation. We will follow this approach below.
2 2 2 2 2 We divide the parameter space into two subspaces: a 2 0 k 2 / 1 and a 0 k < 2 / 1 . We 2 2 consider the parameter region a 2 0 k 2 / 1 rst. From the generating series given by (62), one 1 0 can construct three possible Pade approximants: P 2 0 (t ), P 1 (t ) and P 2 (t ). The full numerical

simulations in two dimensions show that the growth rate of the RM unstable interface decays in the nonlinear regime. The nonlinear theory of the RM instability in two dimensions, developed by the authors, showed that such decay is due to nonlinearity rather than the compressibility. The growth rate in two dimensions is a special case of the result in three dimensions, (the case of ky = 0 or kx = 0). Among the three possible Pade approximants, P 0 2 (t ) is the only one which has this decaying property. Therefore, P 0 2 (t ) is the only candidate for our physical system and the result is v = P0 2 (t ) = v0
2 2 2 2 2 1 + v 0 a 0 k 1 t + v 2 0 k (a 0 k 1 2 )t 2

(92)

2 2 2 2 2 for a 2 approxi0 k 2 / 1 . In parameter region a 0 k 2 / 1 we construct a lower order Pade 0 0 mant. In this case, we can construct either P 1 0 (t ) or P 1 (t ). Only P 1 (t ) has the property that the

growth rate decays in the nonlinear regime and the result is v = P0 1 (t ) =

2 2 for a 2 0 k 2 / 1 .

v0 1 + v 0 a 0 k 2 1 t

(93)

- 30 0 Here we comment the reason for constructing P 0 approximants in 1 (t ) and P 2 (t ) Pade 2 2 2 2 2 parameter regions a 2 0 k < 2 / 1 and a 0 k > 2 / 1 , respectively. It is well known that singulari-

ties may occur in a Pade approximant. In our case, the P 0 2 construction has a singularity at some
2 2 nite time in the parameter region a 2 0 k < 2 / 1 . There are two conventional ways to remove a

singularity. One is to reduce the order of accuracy by taking less terms and the other one is to take more terms. Here we choose the rst approach to construct P 0 approximant due to the 1 Pade facts that the formula is simpler and it guarantees the removal of the singularity. Furthermore, it
0 is the only one available for the generating series given by equation (11). Note that P 0 2 and P 1 2 2 constructions are continuous at the phase boundary a 2 approximants 0 k = 2 / 1 . These Pade

have already been validated through comparison with full numerical simulations in two dimensions [26]. Since P 0 1 approximation is based on a partial contribution of the third order term rather than the full contribution, the theoretical prediction given by (95) will be less accurate. However, it has been shown in Figure 3 of [26], the P 0 1 construction still gives quite good predictions. Equations (92) and (93) can be combined together to form v= v0
2 2 2 2 2 1 + v 0 a 0 k 2 1 t + max{0, a 2 0 k 1 2 }v 0 k t

(94)

We emphasize that one should not be confused the range of validity of Taylor series expansions with the range of the validity of the Pade approximants. It is well known that the Pade approximants have a larger range of convergence than the Taylor series. We refer a recent book [19] by Pozzi for more systematic presentation of applications of the Pade approximation in uid dynamics. In the preface of that book the authors wrote, "The principal advantage of Pade approximants with respect to the generating Taylor series is that they provide an extension beyond the interval of convergence of the series". Also in the book [3] by Bender and Orszag, the authors wrote, "Pade approximants often work quite well, even beyond their proven range of applicability" and "there is no compelling reason to use Pade summation because the Taylor series already converge for all z and the improvement of convergence is not astounding. The real power of Pade summation is illustrated by its application to divergent series". This mathematical property is clearly demonstrated in Figure 4 in the next section for the RM unstable system. Equation (94) is an approximate nonlinear solution for incompressible uids. From the physical picture which we gave earlier, they are also approximate nonlinear solutions for compressible uids at later times. At early times, the solution is given by the linear theory for compressible

- 31 uid, v lin . In order to develop a nonlinear theory for compressible uids, we need to construct expressions which smoothly match the linear solution for compressible uids at early times and the nonlinear solution for incompressible uids at later times. Furthermore, the matching should allow us to determine v 0 . We can adopt the techniques of asymptotic matching developed in boundary layer problems. In a boundary layer problem, the dynamics in a thin layer near the boundary, called the inner layer, is quite different from the dynamics in the region away from the boundary, called the outer layer. One determines the solution in the inner layer (the inner solution) and the solution at the outer layer (the outer solution) separately, and matchs these two solutions to form matched asymptotics. Since our system is an initial value problem, rather than a boundary value problem, a boundary condition is replaced by the initial conditions and the spacial variable is replaced by the temporal variable. In our case, the inner solution is the linear compressible solution and the outer solution is the nonlinear incompressible solution given by (94). A recipe to determine v 0 in (94) was proposed by Prandtl at the beginning of this century, namely by taking the large time limit of inner solution and small time limit of the outer solution, and setting them equal [20]. Therefore, we . . have the equation v lin (t ) = a (0, t 0). Here a is given by (94). This equation leads to v 0 = v lin = v lin (t ). Then, (94), the outer solution for the overall growth rate, becomes vincomp = v lin
2 2 2 2 2 2 1 + v lin a 0 k 1 t + max{0, a 0 k 1 2 }v lin k t
2

(95)

Equation (95) is a nonlinear incompressible solution with an initial growth rate given by v lin . For weak shocks, v lin in (95) can be approximated by the linear solution of the impulsive model. Finally, following the procedure proposed by Prandtl [20] (see also chapter 2 of [14]), we add the inner and outer solutions and subtract the common part ( v lin in our case) to arrive at matched asymptotics for the overall growth rate vmatch = v lin + v lin 1+
2 v lin a 0 k t

+ max{0,

2 2 a2 0 k 1

2 2 2 2 }v lin k t

v lin .

(96)

The essence of the matched asymptotic technique is to blend the inner and outer solutions smoothly. The technique proposed by Prandtl requires to calculate the asymptotic velocity of the linear theory. We prefer to construct a simpler matched solution which has the same order of accuracy. The facts that (94) approaches v 0 at early times and that the growth rate of the linear

- 32 theory for compressible uids approaches an asymptotic constant v lin at later times show that an alternative way of matching can be achieved by replacing v 0 with v lin in (94). Then, we have Eq. (1). In the small amplitude or short time limits, (1) recovers the result of linear theory. Therefore, (1) provides a quantitative prediction for the growth rate of the RM instability from linear regime to nonlinear regime. In Figure 3, we compare the predictions of (96) and (1) for = 0 and / 4. The total wave length, dened as 2(kx 2 + ky 2 )1 / 2 , is xed to 37.5 mm. All physical parameters are the same as the ones in Figure 1. Figure 3 shows that (1) and (96) indeed have the same accuracy. In fact, we have checked that (1) and (96) have the same accuracy for all values of . If we set ky = 0 in (1), it recovers the result of the nonlinear theory in two dimensions developed recently by the authors [26]: v= vlin 1 + vlin a 0 k t + max{0,
2 2 a2 0k

1 2 2 A + }v 2 lin k t 2
2

(97)

Here k = kx and A is the post-shock Atwood number. For the symmetric case in three dimensions, i. e. the case kx = ky , we have 1 = 1 1 (2 52 + 45 10 )A 2 + (4 + 72 65 + 10 ) 8 8

= 0.088866A 2 + 0.455671 and 2 = 1 1 (4 + 72 65 + 10 ) (7 + 72 95 + 310 )A 2 16 16

= 0.391357A 2 0.227835. Then, the growth rate for the case kx = ky is given by v = vlin 1 + vlin a 0 k 2 (0.088866A 2 + 0.455671)t
2 2 2 + max{0, a 2 0 k (0.088866A + 0.455671) 2 2 (0.391357A 2 0.227835)}v 2 lin k t 2 Here k = k 2 x + k y = 2 kx = 2 ky . 1

(98)

- 33 The phase boundary for the two dimensional case ( = 0 or / 2) is given by

2 2 a2 0k = A

1 . The phase boundary for the symmetric case (kx = ky , or equivalently = / 4) is 2

given by
2 2 2 2 a2 0 k = (0.679984A 0.227835) / (0.088866A + 0.455671) .

5.B. Growth Rates of Bubble and Spike From (87), the growth rates of spike and bubble can be expressed as vsp = b a + t t b a + t t at x = y = 0, at x = y = 0.

vbb =

Here we have used the facts that a contains odd cosine Fourier modes and that b contains even . 1 cosine Fourier modes. b (0,0, t ) represents (vsp + vbb ). 2 Following the solutions procedure developed in Section 4, we can calculate the explicit expression for 4 . However, due to the complexity of the expression, we only present the nal . result for b (0,0, t ). . 3 3 2 3 4 3 b (0,0, t ) = k 3 v 2 (99) 0 t k 4 a 0 v 0 t k 5 v 0 t . . (2) The rst term of the right hand side of (99) comes from . and the second and third terms of . (4) the right hand side of (99) come from . Here 3, 4 and 5 are the functions of post-shocked Atwood number A and the orientation angle of the wave vector. Their explicit expressions are given in Appendix B. Applying the Pade approximation to (99), we have . b (0,0, t ) = v2 0 k 3 t
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1+v 0 a 0 k 2 4 3 t + v 0 k (a 0 k 4 3 + 5 3 )t

(100)

Equation (100) is an approximate nonlinear solutions for incompressible uids. From the matching determined in the overall growth rate, we obtain quantitative expressions for the growth rates of the bubble and spike in compressible uids in three dimensions. The results are given by (2)
2 2 2 1 and (3). We have checked that (a 2 0 k 4 3 + 5 3 ) are non-negative for all values of A and .

Therefore, our theoretical predictions of the bubble and spike growth rates given by (2) and (3) have no singularity.

- 34 6. Quantitative Predictions Before we present the quantitative prediction of our nonlinear theory for the RM unstable system in three dimensions, we demonstrate that the range of validity of Pade approximations is signicantly larger than that of its generating series (Taylor expansions). In Figure 4, we compare the overall growth rate of the compressible unstable interface between air and SF6 in two dimensions from the predictions of the perturbation solutions given . . . by 1 and 1 + 3 (with v 0 = v approximation given by (95) for lin ), the prediction of the Pade incompressible system (the outer solution), and the result of the full nonlinear numerical simula. . tion. All physical parameters are the same as the ones in Figure 1. Note that 2 and 4 do not contribute to the overall growth rate. Figure 4 shows that the range of validity of the nonlinear perturbation solutions are very limited and the Pade approximation has successfully extended the range of validity. Now, we present the quantitative predictions of our nonlinear theory for the overall growth rate and the growth rates of the bubble and spike for commonly considered in experiments and numerical simulations. We present two cases here. The rst one is an air-SF 6 unstable interface and the second one is a KrXe unstable interface. For these two cases, experiments and full nonlinear numerical simulations have been conducted in two dimensions. In Figure 5, we compare the predictions of our analytical prediction given by (1), the linear theory, Richtmyers impulsive model for the growth rate and amplitude of air-SF 6 interface for several different values of . The physical parameters are same as the ones in Figure 1. The total wave length is xed to 37.5 mm, which is the same as the one in Figure 1. Figure 5(a) is for the growth rate and Figure 5(b) is for the amplitude. The agreements between our theoretical prediction for two dimensional RM unstable interface and the data of full numerical simulations in two dimensions are remarkable. We have shown in [26] that our theoretical prediction for two dimensional RM unstable interface are also in excellent agreement with experimental data. In Figure 6, we compare the predictions of our analytical prediction given by (1), the linear theory and Richtmyers impulsive model for the growth rate and amplitude of Kr Xe interface. The interface is accelerated by a strong shock of Mach number 3.5 moving from Kr to Xe. The reected wave is also a shock. The initial amplitude of the perturbation is 5 mm, the total wave length is 36mm, and the pressure ahead of the shock is 0.5 bar. The post-shock Atwood number is A = 0.184. These physical parameters correspond to Zaytsevs recent experiments in two dimensions. The dimensionless initial perturbation amplitude, which is dened as initial

- 35 perturbation amplitude times total wave number, is 0.87. This amplitude is about two times as large as than the dimensionless amplitude 0.40 given in Figure 5 for air-SF 6 . For comparison, the result of full non-linear numerical simulation in two dimensions is also shown. The agreement between our theoretical predictions and the results of full nonlinear numerical simulations is also remarkable. Figures 5 and 6 show that the growth rates for different orientation angle with xed total wave number k are qualitatively similar, but quantitatively different. For the physical systems shown in Figures 5 and 6, the symmetric interface in three dimensions ( kx = ky ) is more unstable than the interface of same total wave number k in two dimensions. In Figure 7, we compare the predictions of our analytical prediction for the bubble and spike given by (2) and (3), the linear theory and Richtmyers impulsive model for air-SF 6 interface with several different values of . The physical parameters are same as the ones used in Figure 5. Figure 7(a) and 7(b) are for the growth rate and the amplitude of the bubble, respectively. Figure 7(c) and 7(d) are for the growth rate and the amplitude of the spike, respectively. In Figure 6(c) and 6(d), the solid curves are the predictions of the nonlinear theory and the values increase as varies from 0 (or, / 2) toward / 4. The selected valued of are same as the ones in Figure 7(a). In Figure 8, we compare the predictions of our analytical prediction for the bubble and spike given by (2) and (3), the linear theory and Richtmyers impulsive model for Kr-Xe interface with several different values of . The physical parameters are same as the ones used in the Figure 6. Figure 8(a) and 8(b) are for the growth rate and the amplitude of the bubble, respectively. Figure 8(c) and 8(d) are for the growth rate and the amplitude of the spike, respectively. The solid curves are the predictions of the nonlinear theory. The selected values of are same as the ones in Figure 7(a). In Figure 8(a) and 8(b), the values decrease (the magnitudes increase) as varies from 0 (or, / 2) toward / 4. In Figure 8(c) and 8(d), the values increase as varies from 0 (or, / 2) toward / 4. Figures 7 and 8 show that the growth rates of the bubble and spike for different orientation angle with same total wave number k are qualitatively similar, but quantitatively different. The orientation angle has more inuence on the growth rate of spike than that of bubble. In Figures 9 and 10, we plot 1 and 2 as functions of the orientation angle and the Atwood number A. Figure 10(a) is for A < 0.64 and Figure 10(b) is for A > 0.64. Figure 9 shows that, for xed Atwood number A, 1 decreases monotonically as changes from = 0 (or / 2) toward / 4. From Figure 10(a) we see that, for xed Atwood number A < 0.64, 2 increases

- 36 monotonically, as changes from = 0 (or / 2) to / 4. Thus from Figures 9 and 10(a) and (1) it follows that, for A < 0.64, the growth rate increases monotonically as the orientation angle changes from = 0 (or / 2) to / 4. Therefore, for xed total wave number k and xed Atwood number A < 0.64, the symmetric interface in three dimensions is most unstable, while the interface in two dimensions is least unstable. Figure 10(b) shows that 2 has a local maxima near = 0 (or / 2), and it has a minimum at = / 4 for xed large Atwood number. Although we expect that the range of the validity of the Pade approximant is signicantly larger than that of primitive perturbation expansion, the range of the validity of the Pade approximant is still not innity. Therefore, our theory may not applicable at asymptotic large times. In reality, the unstable system becomes turbulent at very late times. The physics of uid turbulence involves much more than just the nonlinearity.
0 Now let us examine the phase boundary between P 0 approxi2 and P 1 constructions of Pade 2 2 2 mant. In (1) and (95), the Pade approximation is based on P 0 2 formula when a 0 k > 2 / 1 , and 2 2 2 on P 0 1 formula when a 0 k < 2 / 1 . Therefore, the phase boundary is determined by 2 2 2 a2 0 k = 2 / 1 . We have checked that 1 is always non-negative. In Figure 11(a), we plot 2 / 1

for A 0.7. Figure 11(a) shows that, for A 0.7, (1) and (95) are based on P 0 2 approximant for
2 all values of a 0 k and since 2 / 2 1 is negative. In Figure 11(b), we plot 2 / 1 for A > 0.7. Fig0 ure 11(b) shows that, for A > 0.7, (1) and (95) are based on either P 0 2 or P 1 , depending on 2 2 whether a 2 0 k is larger or less than 2 / 1 . In Figure 12, we plot the phase boundary as a function

of a 0 k and A for several xed orientation angle . The phase boundary curves in Figure 12 are
1/2 determined by a 0 k = [max{0, 2 / 2 . As one can seen from Figure 12, the phase domain 1 }] 0 covered by P 0 2 construction is much bigger than the the phase domain covered by P 1 construc-

tion. In conclusion, we have developed analytic expressions (1)-(3) explicit in terms of the growth rate from the linear theory vlin , to predict the overall growth rate, as well as the growth rates of the bubble and spike, for the Richtmyer-Meshkov unstable interfaces in three dimension for the case of reected shock with no indirect phase inversion. The theory contains the nonlinear theory in two dimensions, developed previously by the authors. In three dimensions the nonlinear growth rates of same total wave number k but different orientation angle are qualitatively similar, but quantitatively different. In particular, for xed total wave number k and xed Atwood number A < 0.64, the symmetric interface in three dimensions is most unstable, while the interface in two dimensions is least unstable. Our theories in two and three dimensions are based on

- 37 the same physical picture and mathematical methods. In two dimensions, our theory is in remarkable agreements with the results of full nonlinear numerical simulations and experimental data. We expect that our theory in three dimensions also should provide quantitatively correct predictions. However, so far no experiments are available for single mode RM unstable interface in three dimensions. Recently, at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Indiana-Purdue University at Indianapolis, full numerical simulations of the compressible RM instability in three dimensions have been conducted by using two different methods of numerical simulator. It has been shown by the researchers at these institutes that the predictions of our nonlinear theory for the RM unstable interface in three dimensions are in good agreement with their numerical solutions. The results of these numerical studies will be presented separately by these researchers.

Acknowledgement We would like to thank Drs. J. Glimm and D. H. Sharp for helpful comments and Dr. R. Holmes for providing the data from his numerical simulations in two dimensions. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy, contract DE-FG02-90ER25084, by subcontract from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (subcontract 38XSK964C) and by National Science Foundation, contract NSF-DMS-9500568.

Appendix A: Derivation of the Third Order Quantities In this appendix, we derive the third order quantities 3 , 3 and 3 . From (43)-(46), (49)(51), the third order quantities are governed by 2 (3) = 0 in material 1, 2 (3) = 0 in material 2, (A1)

2 (1) (2) 2 (2) (1) 1 3 (1) (1)2 (3) (3) ) + + =( + 2 z 3 z t z 2 z 2 +( + 2 (1) (1) (2) (1) 2 (1) (1) (2) (1) ) + +( ) + y y y z x x x z at z = 0, (A2)

(1) (2) (1) (2) + y y x x

2 (2) (1) 1 3 (1) (1)2 2 (1) (2) (3) (3) ) + + =( + 2 z 3 z t z 2 z 2 +( 2 (1) (1) (2) (1) 2 (1) (1) (2) (1) ) + +( ) + y y y z x x x z

- 38 (1) (2) (1) (2) + y y x x

+ ()g (3)

at z = 0,

(A3)

2 (2) (1) 2 (2) (3) (3) ) = ( + t z t z t t 2 (1) (2) 2 (1) 3 (1) (1)2 3 (1) 1 ) ] + ( [ t z t z 2 t z 2 t z 2 (1) 2 (1) (1) (1) 2 (1) (1) 2 (1) ) + + z y z y x z x z 2

( + (

(1) 2 (1) (1) (1) 2 (1) (1) 2 (1) ) + + z z 2 y y z x x z (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) ) + + z z y y x x at z = 0. (A4)

( + (

(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) ) + + z z y y x x

From the rst and second order solutions given by (67), (68) and (74)-(76), the right hand side of (A2)-(A4) can be evaluated explicitly. They are (3) (3) (3) = S (3) + 11 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) + S 31 cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) z t
(3) + S (3) 13 cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ) + S 33 cos(3kx x )cos(3ky y ),

(A5)

(3) (3) (3) = S (3) + 11 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) + S 31 cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) z t

(3) + S (3) 13 cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ) + S 33 cos(3kx x )cos(3ky y ),

(A6)

()g (3)

(3) (3) (3) = T (3) + 11 cos(kx x )cos(ky y ) + T 31 cos(3kx x )cos(ky y ) t t

(3) + T (3) 13 cos(kx x )cos(3ky y ) + T 33 cos(3kx x )cos(3ky y ).

(A7)

Here S (3) 11 = 1 3 3 2 2 2 a3 0 [(8k 11 ((kx + ky )k 11 (1 + A ) + 2Akx ky ) + 4k 11 kx ky (kx + ky )A 3 32k 11 k 11 5 (1 + 6A ) 8(kx 3 (ky 2 kx k 11 ) + ky 3 (kx 2 ky k 11 ))A )2 t 2 + 8k 11 ((kx 3 + ky 3 )k 11 (2 + A ) + 2Akx 2 ky 2 ) 2(1 + 2A )k 11 5 )t

- 39 (8k 11 2 (kx 3 + ky 3 ) + k 11 5 )] S (3) 31 = . (2) . (2) 1 a 0 [(k 11 2 + kx k 11 2kx 2 )a 20 (0) + (k 11 2 + ky k 11 2ky 2 )a 02 (0)]t 2k 11 . (2) . (2) 1 a 0 (kx a 20 (0) + ky a 02 (0)), 2 (A8)

1 2 2 2 2 3 a3 0 [(24k 11 kx (kx k 11 (1 + A ) Aky ) + 4(ky kx k 11 )(kx k 11 + 2kx )A 32k 3 11 2k 11 3 (8kx 2 A + 3k 11 2 ) + (3 2A )k 11 5 )2 t 2 + (24k 11 kx 2 (Aky 2 kx k 11 (2 + A )) 4k 11 3 A (3kx 2 + ky 2 ) 6k 11 5 )t 3k 11 2 (8kx 3 + k 11 3 )] . (2) . (2) 3 1 a 0 (3kx k 11 + 2kx 2 + k 11 2 )a 20 (0)t a 0 kx a 20 (0), 2 2k 11

(A9) (A10) (A11) (A12)

. (2) . (2) (3) S (3) 13 = S 31 (t, kx ky , ky kx , a 20 (0)a 02 (0), A ), S (3) 33 = k2 11 3 a 0 [(18A + 9)2 t 2 + (12A + 18)t + 9], 32

. (2) (3) S (3) ij = S ij (t, kx , ky , a ij (0), A A ), T (3) 11 = 1 3 2 a 0 [(( )A (4k 11 (kx ky (kx + ky ) k 11 3 ) 3 8k 11

2(k 11 (kx 3 + ky 3 ) 2kx 2 ky 2 ) 3k 11 4 ) + ( + )k 11 (k 11 3 + 2(kx 3 + ky 3 )))t + ( )A (2k 11 (kx ky (kx + ky ) k 11 3 ) k 11 4 ) + ( + )k 11 (k 11 3 + 2(kx 3 + ky 3 ))] T (3) 31 = . (2) . (2) 1 a 0 ()[(k 11 + kx )a 20 (0) + (k 11 + ky )a 02 (0)], 2k 11 (A13)

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 a3 0 [(( )A (4(kx k 11 ky )(kx 2kx k 11 ) + 2k 11 (kx ky ) 4k 11 ) 16k 3 11 + ( + )k 11 (kx 2 (9k 11 4kx ) + ky 2 k 11 + k 11 3 ))t + ( )A (4k 11 kx (ky 2 kx k 11 ) 2k 11 4 )

- 40 + ( + )k 11 (kx 2 (9k 11 4kx ) + ky 2 k 11 + k 11 3 )] + . (2) 1 a 0 ()( k 11 + kx )a 20 (0), 2k 11 (A14) (A15) (A16) (A17) (A18) (A19) (A20)

. (2) . (2) (3) T (3) 13 = T 31 (t, kx ky , ky kx , a 20 (0)a 02 (0), A ), T (3) 33 = R (3) 11 = R (3) 31 = 1 3 2 a 0 k 11 [( ( )A + ( + ))t ( )A + ( + )], 8 . (2) . (2) 1 3 3 a 0 k 11 ( + ) a 0 ()(a 20 (0) + a 02 (0)), 2 32 . (2) 1 1 2 a 0 ( )a 20 (0), a3 0 k 13 ( + ) 2 32k 11

. (2) . (2) (3) R (3) 13 = R 13 (t, k 31 k 13 , a 20 (0)a 02 (0), A ), R (3) 33 = 3 3 a 0 k 11 ( + ). 32

(3) After substituting S (3) ij , T ij and Rij into the general formulae (52)-(54) and (58)-(60), we

have the solutions for the third order quantities. The result for 3 , determined from (52) and (58), is expressed explicitly in (78). (3) and (3) can be easily obtained from our general solutions given by (53), (54), (59) and (60). Appendix B: Expressions for 3, 4 and 5 The explicit expressions of 3, 4 and 5 are 3 = C 1 A 3 + C 2 A, 4 = C 3 A 3 C 4 A, 5 = C 5 A 3 C 6 A. Here C1 = 9 f2 5 f2 61 1 cos() + 32 64 32 f 4 8 f 4 + f1 f2 13 f 2 13 f 1 69 69 cos(2 ) + + 32 f 3 64 f 4 64 f 3 32 f 4 64 64

3 f2 3 f2 57 59 cos(3 ) + + 32 128 32 f 4 16 f 4

- 41 3 f2 3 f1 f1 f2 69 69 27 cos(4 ) + + + + 64 f 3 64 64 8 f 4 8 f 3 64 f 4 32 f2 9 9 5 27 cos(6 ) cos(5 ) + + + 32 f 4 32 f 3 128 16 f 4 8 f 4 9 f1 5 f1 1 61 1 sin() sin(2 ) + 8 8 f3 32 64 32 f 3 f1 3 f1 3 f1 5 27 57 59 sin(5 ) sin(3 ) + + + + 128 16 f 4 8 f 4 32 128 32 f 3 16 f 3 13 f 2 5 f 1 5 f 2 13 f 1 137 99 99 , + + + 64 f 4 64 f 4 256 256 32 64 f 3 64 f 4

C2 =

9 f2 703 83 47 f 2 cos() + + 32 128 32 f 4 128 f 4 + 7 f2 85 f 2 85 f 1 7 f1 57 57 cos(2 ) + + 256 256 f 3 256 f 4 128 f 3 256 128 f 4 f1 f2 3 f2 5 5 25 307 51 43 f 2 cos(4 ) cos(3 ) + + + 64 f3 64 f 4 f 4 f 32 32 128 64 f 4 128 f 4 4 3 4 7 f2 3 3 13 1 + cos(6 ) cos(5 ) + + 128 f 4 128 f 3 32 64 f 4 32 f 4 47 f 1 9 f 1 1 703 83 sin(2 ) sin() + + 64 128 f 3 32 128 32 f 3

7 f1 3 f1 43 f 1 1 13 1 307 51 sin(6 ) sin(5 ) sin(3 ) + + + 64 32 64 f 1 32 f 3 32 128 64 f 3 128 f 3 f2 35 f 2 35 f 1 127 f 1 7 7 , + 32 32 32 16 f 3 128 f 3 16 f 4 128 f 4

C3 =

f2 7279 119 19 f 2 cos() + 2 256 64 f 4 512 f 4 + 409 f 2 409 f 1 1325 13 f 1 13 f 2 1325 cos(2 ) + + + 128 128 256 f 3 1024 f 3 1024 f 4 256 f 4

15 f 2 23 f 2 3353 231 cos(3 ) + + 64 128 f 4 512 f 4 256

- 42 f1 f2 27 f 1 27 f 2 319 319 77 cos(4 ) + + + + 128 f 3 8 8 128 f 4 128 f 3 128 f 4 64 f1 f2 15 f 2 f2 147 147 587 97 cos(6 ) cos(5 ) + + + + + 256 f 4 256 f 3 256 f 4 256 f 3 64 256 128 f 4 512 f 4

f1 27 13 1 7279 119 19 f 1 sin(2 ) sin() + cos(7 ) + + 128 256 512 f 4 512 f 3 2 256 64 f 3 f1 15 f 1 15 f 1 23 f 1 587 97 3353 231 sin(5 ) sin(3 ) + + + + 256 128 f 3 64 512 f 3 64 256 128 f 3 512 f 3 1 13 1 sin(7 ) sin(6 ) + 512 f 3 256 128 201 f 2 19 f 1 19 f 2 201 f 1 507 457 457 , + + + 128 128 128 f 3 512 f 4 64 128 f 4 512 f 3

+ +

C4 =

27 f 2 8271 317 45 f 2 cos() + + 64 64 f 4 512 f 4 256 + 7 f1 557 f 2 7 f2 557 f 1 969 969 cos(2 ) + + + 256 f3 64 1024 f 256 f 4 64 1024 f 3 4

25 f 2 45 f 2 3923 19 cos(3 ) + + 128 128 f 4 512 f 4 64 11 f 2 11 f 1 7 f1 7 f2 97 97 57 cos(4 ) + + 64 f 3 128 128 32 16 f 4 16 f 3 64 f 4 3 f1 3 f2 9 f2 f2 79 79 741 13 cos(6 ) cos(5 ) + + + + + 256 f 4 256 f 3 256 f 4 256 f 3 128 128 128 f 4 512 f 4 3 25 1 8271 317 45 f 1 27 f 1 sin(2 ) sin() + cos(7 ) + + + 16 256 512 f 4 512 f 3 64 64 f 3 256 f1 9 f1 25 f 1 45 f 1 741 13 3923 19 sin(5 ) sin(3 ) + + + + 128 128 f 3 128 512 f 3 128 64 128 f 3 512 f 3 15 f 2 237 15 f 1 93 f 1 93 f 2 1 25 181 181 , + + + sin(7 ) + + + 512 f 3 256 64 f 3 64 f 4 512 512 32 f 3 32 32 f 4 f2 221 f 2 2687 781 cos() + 1536 768 f 4 384 f 4 12

C5 =

- 43 233 f 2 233 f 1 171 f 1 171 f 2 77 77 cos(2 ) + + + 3072 3072 768 f 3 768 f 4 24 f 3 24 f 4

13 f 2 11 f 2 2503 475 cos(3 ) + + 96 1536 256 f 4 768 f 4 5 f2 5 f1 13 f 1 13 f 2 23 23 7 cos(4 ) + + + + 16 f 3 96 96 24 128 f 4 128 f 3 16 f 4 43 f 2 f2 153 253 cos(5 ) + + 96 1536 768 f 4 256 f 4 f2 f1 f1 f2 29 29 cos(6 ) + + + 192 f 4 192 f 3 768 96 f 4 768 96 f 3

f2 1 1 1 1 11 + + cos(8 ) cos(7 ) + + + 512 f4 512 f 768 1536 768 f 4 48 f 4 3 f1 221 f 1 59 2687 781 sin(2 ) sin() + 384 1536 768 f 3 12 384 f 3 f1 43 f 1 13 f 1 11 f 1 153 253 2503 475 sin(5 ) sin(3 ) + + + + 256 f3 96 768 f 1536 96 1536 256 f 3 768 f 3 3 f1 1 11 1 sin(7 ) sin(6 ) + 384 48 f 3 1536 768 f 3 341 f 2 341 f 1 2415 27 f 1 27 f 2 3341 3341 , + + + 192 192 768 1536 f 3 1536 f 4 1536 f 3 1536 f 4

+ +

C6 =

11 f 2 2563 65 101 f 2 cos() + + 96 192 768 f 4 384 f 4 + 17 f 1 87 f 1 17 f 2 87 f 2 635 635 cos(2 ) + + + 192 f 3 192 192 f 4 384 f 3 192 384 f 4

5 f2 13 f 2 1307 31 cos(3 ) + + 48 384 256 f 4 384 f 4 5 f2 5 f1 475 475 47 13 f 2 13 f 1 cos(4 ) + + 384 f 3 96 96 64 64 f 4 64 f 3 384 f 4 f1 f2 5 f2 f2 41 41 289 35 cos(6 ) cos(5 ) + + + + + 192 f3 96 f 4 96 f 3 192 f 4 96 384 768 f 4 384 f 4

- 44 f2 1 1 1 17 cos(8 ) cos(7 ) + 768 512 f 3 512 f 4 768 f 4 384 f 4

47 2563 65 101 f 1 11 f 1 sin(2 ) sin() + + + 384 384 f 3 96 192 768 f 3 f1 5 f1 5 f1 13 f 1 289 35 1307 31 sin(5 ) sin(3 ) + + + + 384 768 f 3 96 384 f 3 48 384 256 f 3 384 f 3 f1 1 17 sin(7 ) sin(6 ) + + 128 384 f 3 768 f 3 145 f 1 145 f 2 49 f 1 49 f 2 3633 2187 3633 . + + + 384 384 78 f 4 78 f 3 1536 f 3 768 1536 f 4

+ Here f1 =

5 3 cos(2 ) + 2 2

1/2

,
1/2

f2 =

5 3 cos(2 ) + 2 2

,
1/2 ,

f 3 = 4 cos(2 ) + 5 f 4 = 4 cos(2 ) + 5

1/2 .

References [1] A. N. Aleshin, E. G. Gamalii, S. G. Zaytsev, E. V. Lazareva, I. G. Lebo, and V. B. Rozanov, Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett., 14, 466, (1988); A. N. Aleshin, E. V. Lazareva, S. G. Zaytsev, V. B. Rozanov, E. G. Gamalii and I. G. Lebo, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 35, 159, (1990). [2] [3] U. Alon, J. Hecht, D. Ofer and D. Shvarts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 534, (1995). C. M. Bender and S. A. Orszag, Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, (1978). [4] [5] [6] R. Benjamin, D. Besnard, and J. Haas, LANL report LA-UR 92-1185, (1993). C. T. Chang, Phys. Fluids 2, 656, (1959). L. D. Cloutman, and M. F. Wehner, Phys. Fluids A 4, 1821, (1992).

- 45 [7] [8] G. Fraley, Phys. Fluids, 29, 376, (1986). J. Grove, R. Holmes, D. H. Sharp, Y. Yang and Q. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3473, (1993). [9] S. W. Haan, Phys. Fluids B 3, 2349, (1991).

[10] J. Hecht, U. Alon and D. Shvarts, Phys. Fluids, 6, 4019, (1994). [11] R. L. Holmes, J. W. Grove and D. H. Sharp, J. Fluid Mech. 301, 51, (1995). [12] R. L. Ingraham, Proc. Phys. Soc. B 67, 748, (1954). [13] J. W. Jacobs and I. Catton, J. Fluid Mech. 187, 329, (1988). [14] P. A. Lagerstrom, Matched Asymptotic Expansions, Springer-Verlag, New-York, (1988). [15] E. E. Meshkov, NASA Tech. Trans. F-13, 074, (1970); E. E. Meshkov, Instability of shock-accelerated interface between two media, In Dannevik, W., Buckingham, A., and Leith, C., editors, Advances in Compressible Turbulent Mixing, pages 473--503. National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springeld, VA 22161, (1992). [16] K. A. Meyer and P. J. Blewett, Phys. Fluids 15, 753, (1972). [17] K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2903, (1993). [18] T. Pham and D. I. Meiron, Phys. Fluids A 5, 344, (1993). [19] A. Pozzi, Applications of Pade Approximation Theory in Fluid Dynamics, World Scientic Publishing Co., (1994). [20] L. Prandtl, Fluessigkeiten bei sehr kleimer reibung, III, International Math. Kongress, Heidelberg, Teubner, Leipzig, 484, (1905). [21] R. D. Richtmyer, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 13, 297, (1960). [22] R. Samtaney and N. J. Zabusky, Phys. Fluids A 5, 1285, (1993). [23] A. L. Velikovich and G. Dimonte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3112, (1996). [24] Y. Yang, Q. Zhang and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Fluids A, 6, 1856, (1994). [25] D. L. Youngs, Laser and Particle Beams, 14, 725, (1994). [26] Q. Zhang and S.-I. Sohn, Phys. Lett. A, 212, 149, (1996). [27] Q. Zhang and S.-I. Sohn, Nonlinear Solutions of Unstable Fluid Mixing Driven by Shock Wave, (Phys. Fluids, accepted).

- 46 Captions Figure 1. A demonstration of our physical picture and theoretical prediction from our approach in two dimensions. A Mach 1.2 shock incidents from air to SF6 . The solution of linear theory, the approximate nonlinear solution for incompressible uids and the solution of the nonlinear theory are shown. The result of full nonlinear numerical simulation is also shown. The theoretical predictions are in excellent agreement with the result of full numerical simulation. It demonstrates clearly, that the system changes smoothly from a compressible and linear one to an incompressible and nonlinear one. The transition occurs qualitatively at tp , the time associated with the highest peak. Here tp is about 150s. Figure 2. An illustration of wave bifurcation due to shock-contact interaction: (a) before the interaction; (b) the case of reected shock after bifurcation; (c) the case of reected rarefaction after bifurcation. The symbols C, IS, TS and RS stand for contact discontinuity, incident shock, transmitted shock and reected shock, respectively. LE and TE denote the leading edge and the trailing edge of the rarefaction wave, respectively. Figure 3. Comparison of the results of the matched asymptotics given by (96) and the matched nonlinear theory given by (1) for the growth rate of air-SF 6 unstable interface. The physical parameters here are identical to the ones in Fig. 1. The comparison shows that (96) and (1) have same accuracy. The curves labeled (i) correspond to = 0 (or, / 2) and the curves labeled (ii) correspond to = / 4. Figure 4 Comparison of the predictions for the overall growth rates of the compressible unstable interface between air and SF6 . A shock of Mach number 1.2 incidents from air to . SF6 . Figure 4 is the comparison of predictions of the perturbation solutions, 1 and . . 1 + 3 , the prediction from the Pade approximation given by (95), and the result from the full nonlinear numerical simulation. Figure 5. Comparison of the results of the linear theory, impulsive model, and nonlinear theory for the overall growth rate given by (1), for air-SF 6 unstable interface in three dimensions for several different values of , the orientation of the wave vector (kx , ky ). For comparison, the results of a full nonlinear numerical simulation in two dimensions are also shown. The physical parameters are same as the ones used in Figure 1. (a) is for the growth rate and (b) is for the amplitude. Both the linear theory and impulsive model do not depend on , while the results of the nonlinear theory do. In two dimensions the predictions of the nonlinear theory are in good agreements with the results of the full nonlinear

- 47 numerical simulation in two dimensions. Figure 6. Comparison of the results of the linear theory, impulsive model, and non-linear theory for the overall growth rate given by (1), for Kr-Xe unstable interface in three dimensions with several different values of the , the orientation of the wave vector (kx , ky ). A shock of Mach number 3.5 incidents from Kr to Xe. The dimensionless preshocked interface amplitude is 0.87. For comparison, the results of a full nonlinear numerical simulation in two dimensions are also shown. (a) is for the growth rate and (b) is for the amplitude. Both the linear theory and impulsive model do not depend on , while the results of nonlinear theory do. In two dimensions the predictions of the nonlinear theory are in good agreements with the results of the full nonlinear numerical simulation in two dimensions. Figure 7. Comparison of the results of the linear theory, impulsive model, and non-linear theory for the bubble and spike given by (2) and (3), for air-SF 6 interface with several different values of . The physical parameters are same as the ones used in Figure 5. In (c) and (d), the solid curves are the predictions of the nonlinear theory and the values increase as varies from 0 (or, / 2) toward / 4. The selected valued of are same as the ones in Figure 7(a). Figure 8. Compare of the results of the linear theory, impulsive model, and non-linear theory for the bubble and spike given by (2) and (3), for Kr-Xe interface with several different values of . The physical parameters are same as the ones used in the Figure 6. In each gure, the solid curves are the predictions of the nonlinear theory. The selected valued of are same as the ones in Figure 7(a). In (a) and (b), the values decrease (the magnitudes increase) as varies from 0 (or, / 2) toward / 4. In (c) and (d), the values increase as varies from 0 (or, / 2) toward / 4. Figure 9. Plot of 1 as a function of the orientation angle and the Atwood number A. Figure 10. Plot of 2 as a function of the orientation angle and the Atwood number A. (a) is for A < 0.64 and (b) is for A > 0.64. Figure 11. Plot of 2 / 2 1 as a function of and A. (a) is for A 0.7 and (b) is for A > 0.7.
0 Figure 12. Plot of phase boundary between P 0 approximant 2 and P 1 constructions of Pade

for

several

xed

values

of

The

phase

boundaries

are

determined

by

1/2 a 0 k = (max{0, 2 / 2 . The growth rates from the two domains are continuous at the 1 })

phase boundary.