Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters A
journal homepage: [Link]/locate/pla

Letter

The effect of heat conduction on the shock wave structure in a non-ideal gas
with constant and variable viscosity coefficients
Hao Jiang , Haoyu Wang , Zhuo Li *
College of Science, Inner Mongolia University of Technology, Inner Mongolia, Hohhot 01005, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Via using continuum model and dimensionless transformation method, the effect of heat conduction is studied in
Non-ideal gas shock wave structure of non-ideal gas. It turns out that due to the presence of heat conduction, gas velocity in
Shock structure upstream of shock front decreases and it in downstream increases, respectively, the gas temperature or entropy
Heat conduction
change significantly increases, the maximum of gas viscous stress decreases, and the limiting Mach number of the
Compression mechanism
continuum model and the shock thickness increase. Then, with the increase in the gas non-ideality, the difference
in gas viscous stress caused by heat conduction decreases, and the growth rate of gas entropy change increases.
The effect of heat conduction in shock compression mechanism is revealed.

Introduction paths, some scholars began to question the applicability of the

Navier–Stokes equations to shock wave research. This served as inspi­
A shock wave is a powerful compression wave propagating in a ration for further investigation into gas kinetic theory.
compressible medium such as a gas. In a thin transition layer that Mott-Smith [6] in 1951 and Bikbaev [7] in 1989 dealt with the
changes the gas from the initial state of thermodynamic equilibrium to structural problem of ideal gas shocks by using the Boltzmann kinetic
the final state of thermodynamic equilibrium, speed, density, and other equation and Korteweg-De Vries equation, respectively. In recent de­
parameters change very quickly. This transition layer is the so-called cades, the kinetic theoretical approach has proven to be feasible [8,9].
shock front. From the general conservation laws of mass, momentum, However, the kinetic theory approach is limited by the various ap­
and energy, unknown quantities related to the shock front can be proximations to the Boltzmann equation. The key limitation of the ki­
determined. In the theory without viscosity and heat conduction, the netic theory of gases lies in the assumption that the gas is both rarefied
shock front is regarded as a mathematical surface with a zero thickness. and composed of monatomic molecules. The methods or theories pro­
Such scales arise when the molecular structure of a gas is considered, posed by some scholars in recent years have not escaped this limitation.
that is, when the processes of viscosity and heat conduction are taken Reddy and Dadzie [10] considered that the classical N-S equation was
into account. Therefore, to understand the compression mechanism of inadequate for accurately predicting the shock structure due to the large
shock waves, it is necessary to study the effect of viscosity or heat Knudsen number. To address this, they applied a variable trans­
conduction on the shock structure. formation of velocity to reformulate the N-S equation. The resulting
There are two primary theoretical models used to study the shock optimized stationary shock structure problem pertained solely to mon­
wave problem: a continuous-medium model based on the constitutive oatomic gases. Jadhav et al. [11] improved shock wave theory and
equation of Chapman-Enskog expansion and the moment-based Grad 13 formulated the OBurnett equation for resolving intricate flow problems.
moment equation, and a kinetic theoretical model obtained by simpli­ To validate this equation, stationary shock waves restricted to dilute
fying the integral term on the right end of the Boltzmann equation. In monatomic gases were also used. For polyatomic gas molecules, dy­
1922, Becker [1] first obtained an exact solution for an excitation wave namics and other theories require new formal tools to account for the
of arbitrary intensity by assuming that the coefficients and specific heats internal degrees of freedom of polyatomic molecules. The continuum
in the one-dimensional equation for an ideal gas were constant, with Pr model only indirectly considers the molecular structure through the
= 3∕4, and using a continuum-medium model. However, when Becker values of the fluid parameters.
et al. [1–5] realized that the shock thickness was several mean free Presently, there are only a small number of studies on the shock wave

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 2238033845@[Link] (Z. Li).

[Link]
Received 10 September 2023; Received in revised form 5 November 2023; Accepted 3 December 2023
Available online 5 December 2023
0375-9601/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

problem in non-ideal gases. Anand and Yadaw [12] studied the structure
4 du
of MHD shock waves in a viscous non-ideal gas. For MHD shock waves, σ= μ
3 dx
Manuel Nunez [13] studied their stability in hypersonic conditions
recently. In 2016, Anand and Yadaw [14] also studied the effect of where μ is the coefficient of viscosity. The relationship between the heat
viscosity on the shock wave structure in non-ideal gases, discussed the conductivity coefficient and viscosity coefficient is based on the Prandtl
results, and compared them with those of ideal gases. Patel and Shingh number:
[15] studied the shock wave structure of viscous non-ideal gases in
μcp
one-dimensional unsteady flows between two homogeneous boundary Pr =
χ
states by using the traveling wave solution method. Khapra and Patel
[16] studied the shock structures in non-polar diatomic and polyatomic
where cp is the specific heat capacity at constant pressure. The Prandtl
medium- density non-ideal gases, and by taking into account rotation
number for a diatomic gas is 3⁄4 [19].
and vibration effects, they derived the implicit equations of density and
If the heat conduction is not considered, that is, χ=0, Eqs. (1)–(3)
temperature and solved them numerically.
respectively become
As is well known, in the shock compression mechanism, viscosity
plays a major role rather than heat conduction. Heat conduction only ρu = ρ0 u0 (1′)
indirectly affects the conversion of mechanical energy due to redistri­
bution of pressure. It is worth noting that most of the previous studies on p + ρu2 −
4 du
μ = p0 + ρ0 u20 (2′)
non-ideal gases have focused on the effect of viscosity on shock struc­ 3 dx
ture, while the secondary role of heat conduction in the shock
u2 1 4 du u2
compression mechanism has not been studied and discussed in detail. To ω+ − μu = ω 0 + 0 (3′)
better understand the effect of heat conduction on the shock wave 2 ρ0 u0 3 dx 2
structure, it is necessary to compare the results when considering the gas In these two sets of equations, ρ, u, p, and ω are the density, velocity,
viscosity and heat conduction with the extreme case where only the gas pressure, and specific enthalpy of the gas, respectively, and the integral
viscosity is considered without heat conduction [17]. constant with the superscript "0″ is the initial state parameter of the gas.
Therefore, in this study, the continuum model and van der Waals For calorimetrically complete gases
equation of state simplified by Roberts and Wu and by Vishwakarma
et al. were used, and a dimensionless transformation method and single ω = cp T
variable principle (Make sure condition else is the same in both cases
where T is the temperature of the gas. The viscosity coefficient for gas
except heat conduction) were adopted to obtain the exact solution of the
molecules with translational kinetic energy is as follows [19,20]
shock wave structure for non-ideal diatomic molecular gases with or
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
without heat conduction. Thus, it can be seen whether and how heat 5 π
conduction affects the structural parameters of shock waves for non- μ = ρλ
4 8
RT
ideal gases.
The organizational structure of this paper is as follows: §2 presents a where λ is the mean free path of the gas molecules.
brief description of the basic equations and the relationships between Considering the inverse power-law repulsion force between gas
variables, and differential equations for the internal structure of shock molecules and the diameter of the gas molecules dependent on the
waves are presented in both cases. §3 presents a partial derivation of the temperature [19], it can be assumed that the gas viscosity coefficient
shock structure solution and a comparison of the results of the velocity and the heat conductivity coefficient are power functions of the
or density, viscous stress, temperature, pressure, and entropy change. §4 temperature
and §5 present a comparison of the inverse thickness of the shock wave, ( )n ( )n
the thickness of the shock wave corresponding to the mean free path at T T
μ = μ0 , χ = χ0
any point, and the limiting Mach number of the continuum model. §6 T0 T0
provides a detailed discussion of the comparative results. Finally, the
where n is the temperature index.
conclusions drawn from the study are given in §7.
For real gases, we characterize their non-ideality only in terms of the
volume occupied by the gas molecules. The van der Waals equation of
Basic equations and variable relationships
state for non-ideal gases simplified according to Roberts and Wu [21],
and Vishwakarma et al. [22]
The system of fundamental integral equations that describes a one-
dimensional, steady normal shock wave consisting of a gas with vis­ ρRT
p= (4)
cosity and heat conductivity effects included is as follows: [18] 1 − bρ
ρu = ρ0 u0 (1) where R = cp − cv is the gas constant and γ = cp /cv is the specific heat
ratio, both of which are considered constant, cv is the specific heat at
4 du
p + ρu2 − μ = p0 + ρ0 u20 (2) constant volume. b is the volume occupied by gas molecules ignoring
3 dx
van der Waals forces, and b = bρ0 is a non-idealness parameter of the
( )
u2 1 4 du u2 gas.
ω+ + S − μu = ω0 + 0 (3)
2 ρ0 u0 3 dx 2 Based on the continuum model and the dimensionless transformation
method to solve the structure of the shock wave. So let’s say
where S is a non-hydrodynamic flow of energy. In the usual case of heat x u ρ
conduction, ξ= ,V = = 0 (5)
λ0 u0 ρ
dT
S=− χ
dx where λ0 is the mean free path of the gas molecules in the initial state.
From Eqs. (1)-(3) and 1 ’), (2 ’), (3 ’), combined with Eqs. (4) and ((5)
where χ is the coefficient of heat conduction. The viscous stress is and the above variable relations, the differential equation of the internal
defined as follows: structure of the shock wave can be derived for cases with or without heat

2
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

conduction:
( )n
T dV
(V − b) − KM0 (V − 1)(V − α) = 0 (6)
T0 dξ
( )n
T ′ dV
(V − b ) − K′M0 (V − 1)(V − α) = 0 (6′)
T0 dξ

where

γ− 1 2γb 2 ′
α= + + , b = γb, K′ = γK, K
γ + 1 γ + 1 (γ + 1)M02
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
3(γ + 1) 8 1− b
= , M0 = u0 (7)
10 π γ(1 − b) γRT0

Among them, M0 is the Mach number of the initial state, i.e. the wave
front flow.
For the convenience of expression, we use (’) to express the corre­
sponding part of the formula in the two cases uniformly.

Solutions of the shock structure and their comparison

Fig. 1. Comparison of dimensionless gas velocity (V) variations with distance
For formula (6) and (6′), the general solution is (ξ) with or without heat conduction for M0 = 2(curves) and M0 = 1.2(skew
( )n lines) and different b values.
( (′) )
∫ TT0 V− b
1
ξ = (′) dV + C (8) position in the shock are shown in Fig. 2.
K M0 (V − 1)(V − α)
Based on formula (2), (3) and (2′), (3′) combined with formula (5),
where C is the integral constant. Eq. (8) must be solved by numerical the relationships between temperature and velocity can be expressed as
integration. This paper only provides the exact distribution for non-ideal T (γ − 1) 2 ( )
gases with n = 0, i.e., a constant viscosity coefficient. Therefore, Eq. (8) =1+ M 1 − V2 (11)
T0 2(1 − b) 0
can be integrated as
[ ]
(′) T V − b γ(γ − 1) 2 γ− 1
(V − 1)(1− b ) ( ) = M0 (V − 1)2 − V +γ (11′)
(9)
′
(′)
= C′exp K ( ) M0 (1 − α)ξ T0 V − γb 2(1 − b) 1− b
(V − α)(α− b )
Based on (4), (5), (11), and (11′), the relationships between pressure
and velocity can be expressed as
where C′ is the integral constant. To obtain the integral constant of
[ ]
formula (9), the point on the abscissa corresponding to the maximum p 1− b (γ − 1) 2 ( )
= 1+ M0 1 − V 2 (12)
value of dV/dξ on the speed curve is taken as the origin(ξ = 0). Then, by p0 V − b 2(1 − b)
formula (6) and (6′), it is necessary to first find all roots of the following
[ ]
equation: p 1 − b γ(γ − 1) 2 γ− 1
= M0 (V − 1)2 − V +γ (12′)
[ ] p0 V − γb 2(1 − b) 1− b
d2 V ( ( ′ ) )2 (V − 1)(V − α) [( ( ′ )) ]
= K M V − b (2V − 1 − α) − (V − 1)(V − α)
( ( ′ ) )3 Further, the expression for the entropy change in a non-ideal gas
0
dξ2 V− b
= 0.

Then, let V(0) = Vc denote the largest real root among the corre­
sponding real roots. Finally, by substituting V(0) = Vc into Eq. (9), the
integral constant can be obtained
(′)
(Vc − 1)(1− b )
C′ = (′)
(Vc − α)(α− b )

Then, the mathematical expression of the dimensionless gas velocity

(V) and distance (ξ) is
[( ) α− (′) (′) ]
1 Vc − α (
b ) ( V − 1 )(1− b )
ξ= ′) ln (10)
K M0 (1 − α)
( V− α Vc − 1

The gas velocity variations with any position in the shock are shown
in Fig. 1, where the solid line is the result when gas viscosity and heat
conduction are considered, and the dashed line is the result when only
gas viscosity is considered (the same line style convention is used below)
(γ = 1.4).
Based on the above results, the gas viscous stress variations with any Fig. 2. Comparison of dimensionless gas viscous stress (σ ) variations with
distance with or without heat conduction for M0 = 1.2 and different b values.

3
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

shock wave can be written

{( )γ− 1 [ ]}
s − s0 V− b (γ − 1) 2 ( )
= ln 1+ M 1− V 2
(13)
cv 1− b 2(1 − b) 0
{( )γ [ ]}
s − s0 V− b γ(γ − 1) 2 (V − 1)2 V γ(1 − b)
= ln M0 − (γ − 1) +
cv 1− b 2 V − γb V − γb V − γb
(13′)
Equation (10) is combined with equations(11( ) ),(12( ) ), and (13( ) ),
′ ′ ′

and the changes of the gas temperature, pressure and entropy change
with any position in the shock are shown in Figs. 2, 3-1, 3-2, and 4-1, 4-
2, respectively (γ = 1.4)

Comparison of shock wave thicknesses

By considering the structure of gas molecules, the thickness of the

shock can be determined by the following equation: [17]
u0 − u1
Δt = − ( ) (14)
du Fig. 3-2. Comparison of dimensionless gas temperature variations with dis­
dx
max tance with or without heat conduction for M0 = 1.2 and different b values.
( du)
where u1 is the end state velocity of the gas, and dx max is the maximum
slope on the velocity curve. By using Eqs. (5), (9), and (14), the
dimensionless thickness of the shock can be written as
Δt 1− α
=− ( ) (15)
λ0 dV
dξ
max

When ξ = 0, based on formula (6( ) ) we need to find the root Vc of the

′

d2 V
equation dξ2
= 0, i.e.
[ (′) ]{ ( (′) )
γ(γ − 1)M02 (Vc − 1)2 − 2(γ − 1)Vc +2γ − 2b (2Vc − α − 1) Vc − b (Vc − b)
+ (Vc − 1)(Vc − α)

[ (′) ]}
nb + (1 − n)b − Vc
( (′) ) [ ]
− n(Vc − 1)(Vc − α) Vc − b (Vc − b) 2γ(γ − 1)M02 (Vc − 1) − 2(γ − 1) = 0

( )
dV
to find dξ max in equation (15) when the viscosity coefficient is

Fig. 4-1. Comparison of dimensionless gas pressure variations with distance

with or without heat conduction for M0 = 2 and different b values.

variable. Then, for any given n, b, M0 , by equations (6( ) ) and (11( ) ), we

′ ′

have
( )
dV KM0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α)
=[ ] (16)
dξ max (γ− 1) 2
( ) n
1 + 2(1− M 1 − V 2 (V − b)
b) 0 c c

( )
dV K′M0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α)
= {( )[ ]}n (16′)
dξ ′
max Vc − b
Vc − γb
γ(γ− 1) 2
M (Vc
2(1− b) 0
− 1)2 − γ− 1
V
1− b c
+γ (Vc − b )

Therefore, by substituting Equation (16( ) ) into Equation (15), the

′

dimensionless thickness of the shock is

[ ]
Δt (1 − α)(Vc − b) (γ − 1) 2 ( ) n
=− 1+ M0 1 − Vc2 (17)
λ0 KM0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α) 2(1 − b)

Fig. 3-1. Comparison of dimensionless gas temperature variations with dis­

tance with or without heat conduction for M0 = 2 and different b values.

4
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

′ {( )[ ]}n
− λ0 (1− α)(Vc − b ) Vc − b γ(γ − 1) 2 γ− 1
λΔtλ = M0 (Vc − 1)2 − Vc +γ
K′M0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α) Vc − γb 2(1− b) 1− b
(19′)
The shock thickness as a function of the mean free path of any point
is obtained in a dimensionless form.
(i)The shock wave thickness corresponding to λ0 is expressed as
follows:
[ ]
− (1 − α)(Vc − b) (γ − 1) 2 ( ) n
Δtλ0 = 1+ M0 1 − Vc2
KM0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α) 2(1 − b)

′ {( )[ ]}n
− (1− α)(Vc − b ) Vc − b γ(γ − 1) 2 γ− 1
Δt′λ0 = M0 (Vc − 1)2 − Vc +γ
K′M 0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α) Vc − γb 2(1− b) 1− b

It is also related by the ratio of the mean free path at any point to
negative infinity:
( )n− 1/2
λ T
=V
λ0 T0
Fig. 4-2. Comparison of dimensionless gas pressure variations with distance
(ii)The shock thickness corresponding to the mean free path of λ0 and
with or without heat conduction for M0 = 1.2 and different b values.
λ1 is expressed as follows:
′ {( )[ ]}n 2Δtλ0
Δt (1− α)(Vc − b ) Vc − b γ(γ − 1) 2 γ− 1 Δtλ = [ ]n− 1/2
=− ′ M0 (Vc − 1)2 − Vc +γ (γ− 1)
λ0 K M0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α) Vc − γb 2(1− b) 1− b 1 + α 1 + 2(1− M 2 (1 − α2 )
b) 0
(17′)
With n=0 and γ =1.4 and with n=0.768 and γ = 1.4, the variations 2Δt′λ0
Δt′λ = { [ ]}n−
of the inverse shock thickness with M0 and different b values are shown
1/2
1+α α− b γ(γ− 1) 2
M (α − 1)2 − γ− 1
α+γ
in Figs. 6 and 7,respectively. α− γb 2(1− b) 0 1− b

The use of a continuum model has its limitations, and the local
(iii)The shock thickness corresponding to the mean free path at the
Knudsen number cannot exceed 0.20. In that case, the continuum model
inflection point is expressed as follows:
must be replaced by a molecular model [20]. The Knudsen number is
defined as the ratio of the mean free path to the characteristic length Δtλ0
Δtλc = [ ]
scale. Here, the inverse shock thickness was taken as the Knudsen (γ− 1)
( ) n− 1/2

number, and the effective limiting Mach number of the continuum Vc 1 + 2(1− b)M02 1 − Vc2
model was obtained. The comparison is shown in Table 1.
Compared with the molecular model of gases, the inverse shock Δt′λ0
thickness results may be limited, but it is easier to understand the shock Δt′λc = { [ ]}n− 1/2
compression mechanism through continuum comparative analysis. Vc Vc − b
Vc − γb
γ(γ− 1) 2
M (Vc
2(1− b) 0
− 1)2 − γ− 1
V
1− b c
+γ

Comparison of shock thickness as function of mean free path For air (n = 0.768), the shock wave thickness variations with M0
corresponding to the mean free paths at the above three points are
Prandtl [3,20] provided the shock thickness as a function of the mean shown in Figs. 8-10, respectively.
free path:
u0 − ux→∞ Results and discussion
λΔtλ = − ( ) (18)
In this paper, based on the principle of single variable, the calculated
du
dx
results of the velocity or density, viscous stress, temperature, pressure,
max

where λ is the mean free path of any point in the fluid motion, and Δtλ is entropy change, inverse thickness of the shock wave, and thickness of
the multiple of the mean free path of any point, that is, the shock wave the shock wave corresponding to the mean free path at any point in the
thickness. The above formula can be made dimensionless, as follows: non-ideal diatomic gas shock front with or without heat conduction are
[ ] presented. The calculated results in these two cases are compared to
− λ0 (1 − α)(Vc − b) (γ − 1) 2 ( ) n discuss the effect of heat conduction on the shock structure:
λΔtλ = 1+ M0 1 − Vc2 (19)
KM0 (Vc − 1)(Vc − α) 2(1 − b)
1. When Mach number M0 = 2, heat conduction decreased the gas
velocity upstream (before the inflection point), while it increased
Table 1 the gas velocity downstream (after the inflection point), and the
Comparison of limiting Mach numbers of continuum models with or without speeds gradually converged. At this time, the non-ideality of the
heat conduction for different values of n and b (see Figs.6 and 7). gas has little effect on the difference in gas velocity. The inter­
n b M0 M0
′
ΔM0 section of the curves in both cases (Both cases have the same
velocity at a certain point in the wave front) deviated from the
0 0 1.45 1.25 0.2
0.10 1.55 1.4 0.15
inflection point in the upstream direction as non-ideality
0.768 0 1.50 1.35 0.15 increased. When M0 = 1.2, in the shock front near the inflec­
0.10 1.60 1.45 0.15 tion point, the effect of heat conduction on the gas velocity was

5
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

basically the same as when M0 = 2, except that the difference in further downstream, the difference of the entropy changes tended
the downstream gas velocity gradually increased without a trend to a constant value, which increased with the increase in the non-
in agreement. By comparing the velocity curves of different shock ideality of the gas. When M0 = 1.2, from upstream to down­
wave intensities corresponding to M0 = 2, and M0 = 1.2, it can stream, the difference of the gas entropy changes between the
be seen that as the shock intensity increases (M0 increased), the two cases gradually decreased, and the difference increased as
effect of heat conduction on the gas velocity gradually becomes the gas non-ideality increased. Therefore, with the increase of gas
dominant relative to the non-ideality of the gas, as shown in non-ideality, the growth rate of gas entropy change caused by
Fig. 1. heat conduction at the shock wave intensity corresponding to
2. When M0 = 1.2, that is, for a weak shock wave, in the shock front M0 = 2 and M0 = 1.2 increases, as shown in Figs. 5-1, 5-2.
near the extreme point (This point is the origin and corresponds 6. When the temperature exponent n = 0 (The viscosity coefficient is
to the maximum of gas viscous stress), heat conduction decreases constant) and the specific heat ratio γ=1.4, heat conduction
the maximum of gas viscous stress in the wave front, and the increased the thickness of the shock wave, and with the increase
viscous stress curves of the two cases had intersections (Both of M0 (the shock wave intensity increases), the heat conduction
cases have the same viscous stress at a certain position in the increased the thickness of the shock wave more. In addition,
wave front) on both sides of the extreme point. The downstream despite the increase in M0 , the shock thickness in the non-ideal
(after the extreme point) comparison is considered as an example. gas was always larger than that in ideal gas due to the presence
Before its intersection point, heat conduction reduced the gas of heat conduction, as shown in Fig. 6.
viscous stress, and the difference between the two cases gradually 7. When n = 0.768 (The viscosity coefficient is variable) and γ=1.4,
decreased. After the intersection point, heat conduction increased the effect of heat conduction on shock thickness was basically the
the viscous stress of the gas, and further downstream, the viscous same as that when n = 0. However, with the increase in M0 , the
stress difference gradually tended to a constant value, which heat conduction caused the increment of the thickness of the
increased with the increase in the non-ideality of the gas. In shock wave to gradually tend to a constant value without
addition, as the gas non-ideality increased, the viscous stress becoming larger. In other words, with the increase in the shock
difference decreased and the intersection point of the curve wave intensity, heat conduction makes the increment of shock
deviated from the extreme point, as shown in Fig. 2. wave thickness with variable viscosity coefficient gradually reach
3. In the shock front near the inflection point, the heat conduction a fixed value, as shown in Fig. 7.
increased the gas temperature significantly. When M0 = 2, in the 8. Whether n = 0 or 0.768 and the non-ideal parameter b = 0 or
upstream region, the difference of the gas temperature between 0.10, the heat conduction increased the limiting Mach number of
the two cases became larger and then smaller, and further the continuum model, and the values of n and b had little effect on
downstream, the temperature difference tended to a constant the increase in the limiting Mach number. In other words, heat
value, which increased with the increase in the non-ideality of the conduction increases the limiting Mach number of the continuum
gas. When M0 = 1.2, from upstream to downstream, the differ­ model regardless of whether the viscosity coefficient is constant
ence in the gas temperature between the two cases gradually or the non-ideality of the gas is considered, as shown in Table 1.
decreased, and the temperature difference became smaller as the 9. The shock wave thickness corresponding to the mean free path λ0
gas non-ideality increased. Therefore, with the increase of gas of the initial gas molecules increased due to heat conduction, and
non-ideality, the growth rate of gas temperature caused by heat the shock wave thickness increased more with the increase in M0 .
conduction at the shock wave intensity corresponding to M0 = 2 The non-ideality of the air had little effect on the increase in the
and M0 = 1.2 increases and decreases, respectively, as shown in shock thickness, as shown in Fig. 8.
Figs. 3-1, 3-2. 10. The shock wave thickness corresponding to the mean free path λ
4. When M0 = 2, the heat conduction increased the upstream gas
of the initial state and the final state decreased due to heat con­
pressure, and the difference of the gas pressure between the two duction, and the shock wave thickness decreased more with the
cases became larger and then smaller. In the downstream region,
increase in M0 .At large M0 and the non-ideality of the air
the curves of the two cases had two intersection points (Both
cases have the same pressure at some point in the wave front),
and further downstream, the pressure difference gradually ten­
ded to a constant value, which increased with the increase in the
non-ideality of the gas. When M0 = 1.2, in the shock front near
the inflection point, the curves of the two cases had an intersec­
tion point. Before the intersection point, heat conduction
increased the gas pressure, and the difference of the gas pressures
between the two cases gradually decreased. After the intersection
point, heat conduction reduced the pressure of the gas, and the
difference of the gas pressures between the two cases gradually
increased. At this time, as the gas non-ideality increased, the
pressure difference decreased and the intersection of the curves
deviated in the downstream direction. Therefore, with the in­
crease of gas non-ideality, the growth rate of gas pressure caused
by heat conduction at the shock intensity corresponding to M0 =
2 and M0 = 1.2 increases and decreases, respectively, as shown in
Figs. 4-1, 4-2.
5. In the shock front near the inflection point, the heat conduction
increased the gas entropy change significantly, and due to the
existence of heat conduction, the gas entropy change did not in­
crease monotonically in the shock front near the inflection point.
When M0 = 2, in the upstream region, the difference of the gas Fig. 5-1. Comparison of dimensionless gas entropy variations with distance
entropy changes between the two cases gradually increased, and with or without heat conduction for M0 = 2 and different b values.

6
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

Fig. 5-2. Comparison of dimensionless gas entropy variations with distance

with or without heat conduction for M0 = 1.2 and different b values.
Fig. 7. Comparison of dimensionless inverse shock thickness variations with
M0 with or without heat conduction with n = 0.768 and γ = 1.4.

Fig. 6. Comparison of dimensionless inverse shock thickness variations with

M0 with or without heat conduction with n = 0 and γ = 1.4. Fig. 8. Comparison of the dimensionless shock wave thickness variations with
M0 corresponding to λ0 for air with or without heat conduction.
considered, the shock thickness decreased less. Therefore, the
non-ideality of air has a slight effect on the decrease of shock – —In the shock front, the heat conduction decreases the upstream
wave thickness corresponding to λ, as shown in Fig. 9. gas velocity and increases the downstream gas velocity. As the
11. The shock wave thickness corresponding to the mean free path λc shock intensity increases, the effect of heat conduction on the gas
at the inflection point increased due to heat conduction, and the velocity gradually becomes dominant relative to the non-ideality
shock wave thickness increased more and more with the increase of the gas.
in M0 . At large M0 and the non-ideality of the air considered, the – —For weaker shock waves, in the shock front near the extreme
shock thickness increased less. Therefore, the non-ideality of air point, the heat conduction decreases the maximum of gas viscous
has a slight effect on the increase of shock wave thickness cor­ stress, and as the gas non-ideality increases, the difference in gas
responding to λc , as shown in Fig. 10. viscous stress caused by heat conduction decreases.
– —In the shock front near the inflection point, the heat conduction
Conclusion significantly increases the gas temperature or entropy change Due
to the presence of heat conduction, the gas entropy change does
In this paper, the effect of heat conduction in a non-ideal gas on the not increase monotonically in the shock front near the inflection
shock wave structure with constant and variable viscosity coefficients is point.
studied. The following important conclusions are obtained: – —With the increase in the gas non-ideality, different shock wave
intensities make the change trend of the gas temperature or pres­
sure increase caused by heat conduction different, and the change
of the gas entropy change shows an enlarged trend.

7
H. Jiang et al. Physics Letters A 493 (2024) 129269

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hao Jiang: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,

Visualization, Software, Methodology. Haoyu Wang: Software, Formal
analysis, Data curation. Zhuo Li: Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References
Fig. 9. Comparison of the dimensionless shock wave thickness variations with
M0 corresponding to the mean free path of λ0 and λ1 for air with or without [1] R. Becker, Impact waves and detonation, Z. Phys. 8 (1922) 321.
heat conduction. [2] L.H. Thomas, Note on Becker’s theory of the shock front, J. [Link]. 12 (1944)
449–453.
[3] M. Morduchow, P.A. Libby, On a complete solution of the one-dimensional flow
equations of viscous, heat conducting, compressible gas, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 16
(1949) 674–684.
[4] R. von Mises, On the thickness of a steady shock wave, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 17 (1950)
551–554.
[5] L. Meyerhoff, An extension of the theory of the one-dimensional shock waves
structure, J. Aeronaut. Sci. 17 (1950) 775–786.
[6] H.M. Mott-Smith, Solution of the Boltzmann equation of a shock wave, J. Phys.
Rev. 82 (6) (1951) 885–892.
[7] R.F. Bikbaev, Structure of a shock wave in the theory of the Korteweg-De Vries
equation, J. Phys. Lett. 141 (1989) 289–293.
[8] G.A. Bird, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Rarefied Gas
Dynamics 2, 1971, p. 693.
[9] B.L. Hicks, S.M. Yen, B.J. Reilly, The internal structure of shock wave, J. Fluid
Mech. 53 (1972) 85–111.
[10] M.H.L. Reddy, S.K. Dadzie, Reinterpreting shock wave structure predictions using
the Navier–Stokes equations, J. Shock Waves. 30 (2020) 513–521.
[11] R.S. Jadhav, A. Gavasane, A. Agrawal, Improved theory for shock waves using the
OBurnett equations, J. Fluid Mech. 929 (2021). A37 1-27.
[12] R.K. Anand, H.C. Yadav, On the structure of MHD shock waves in a viscous non-
ideal gas, J. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 28 (2014) 369–376.
[13] Manuel Núñez, Stability of an hypersonic magnetohydrodynamic shock wave,
J. Phys. Lett. 213 (2023), 128939.
[14] R.K. Anand, H.C. Yadav, The effect of viscosity on the structure of shock waves in a
non-ideal gas, J. Acta Phys. Pol. A 129 (2016) 28–34.
[15] Manoj Singh, Arvind Patel, Travelling wave solution of shock structure in an
unsteady flow of a viscous non-ideal gas, J. GANITA. 68 (1) (2018) 165–179.
[16] D. Khapra, A. Patel, Shock wave structure in non-polar diatomic and polyatomic
Fig. 10. Comparison of the dimensionless shock wave thickness variations with dense gases under rotation and vibration, J. Phys. Fluids. 34 (6) (2022) 066–115.
M0 corresponding to λc for air with or without heat conduction. [17] Translated by Leigel Zeldovich, in: Zhang Shucai (Ed.), Physics of Shock Waves and
High Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena, Science Press, Beijing, 2016. Vol I.
[18] Translated by Leigel Zeldovich, in: Zhang Shucai (Ed.), Physics of Shock Waves and
– —The heat conduction increases the thickness of the shock wave. High Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena, Science Press, Beijing, 2016. Vol II.
Due to the presence of heat conduction, the shock thickness in the [19] S. Chapman, T. Cowling, The Mathematical Theory of Non-uniform Gases,
Cambridge University Press, Cambringe, 1970.
non-ideal gas is always larger than that in the ideal gas, and the [20] G.A. Bird, Molecular Gas Dynamics and the Direct Simulation of Gas Flows, 2nd
increment of shock thickness with variable viscosity coefficient edn, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994.
gradually reach a fixed value. [21] P.H. Roberts, C.C. Wu, Structure and stability of a spherical implosion, J. Phys.
Lett. 213 (1996) 59–64.
– —The heat conduction increases the limiting Mach number of the
[22] J.P. Vishwakarma, S. Mahendra, Self-similar cylindrical ionizing Shock waves in a
continuum model regardless of whether the viscosity coefficient is non-ideal gas with radiation heat-flux, J. [Link]. 2 (1) (2012) 1–7.
constant or the non-ideality of the gas is considered.
– —The effect of heat conduction and air non-ideality on the shock
thickness corresponding to the mean free path of any point is not
the same.