Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T14:55:30.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gravity currents propagating into two-layer stratified fluids: vorticity-based models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2018

M. A. Khodkar ,
M. M. Nasr-Azadani  and
E. Meiburg Open the ORCID record for E. Meiburg [Opens in a new window]
M. A. Khodkar
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
M. M. Nasr-Azadani
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
E. Meiburg*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: meiburg@engineering.ucsb.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The vorticity-based modelling approach originally introduced by Borden & Meiburg (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 726, 2013b, R1) is extended to gravity currents propagating into two-layer stratified ambients. Vorticity models are developed for three different flow configurations: no upstream-propagating wave, an upstream-propagating expansion wave only and an upstream-propagating expansion wave and a bore. For a given gravity current height and stratification strength, along with ambient inflow layer thicknesses and velocities, the models yield the gravity current velocity, the bore and expansion wave properties and the ambient outflow layer thicknesses and velocities. We furthermore establish which of the three configurations will occur in a given parameter regime. Since energy-related closure assumptions are not required for any of the configurations, we can determine the dissipation as a function of the gravity current height, for a given set of flow parameters. To investigate which gravity current height is selected in real flows, we carry out two-dimensional Navier–Stokes simulations for comparison. These yield gravity current heights close to the vorticity model solutions for energy-conserving flows. Hence we adopt these energy-conserving solutions as the vorticity model predictions. We subsequently discuss these predictions in the context of earlier models by other authors, and of two-layer stratified flows over obstacles.

JFM classification

Geophysical and Geological Flows: Geophysical and Geological Flows Geophysical and Geological Flows: Gravity currents Geophysical and Geological Flows: Stratified flows
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 844 , 10 June 2018 , pp. 994 - 1025
Copyright
© 2018 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baines, P. G. 1984 A unified description of two-layer flow over a topography. J. Fluid Mech. 146, 127–167.10.1017/S0022112084001798Google Scholar
Baines, P. G. & Davies, P. A. 1980 Laboratory studies of topographic effects in rotating and/or stratified fluids. In Orographic Effects in Stratified Fluids, pp. 233–299. GARP Publ. no. 23.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. 1968 Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31 (2), 209–248.10.1017/S0022112068000133Google Scholar
Borden, Z. & Meiburg, E. 2013a Circulation-based models for Boussinesq gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 25 (10), 101301.10.1063/1.4825035Google Scholar
Borden, Z. & Meiburg, E. 2013b Circulation-based models for Boussinesq internal bores. J. Fluid Mech. 726, R1.10.1017/jfm.2013.239Google Scholar
Crook, N. A. 1983 The formation of the Morning Glory. In Mesoscale Meteorology: Theories, Observations and Models (ed. Lilly, D. K. & Gal-Chen, T.), pp. 349–353. D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-017-2241-4_19Google Scholar
Crook, N. A.1984 A numerical and analytical study of atmospheric undular bores. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Crook, N. A. & Miller, M. J. 1985 A numerical and analytical study of atmospheric undular bores. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc 111, 225–242.10.1002/qj.49711146710Google Scholar
Flynn, M. R., Ungarish, M. & Tan, A. W. 2012 Gravity currents in a two-layer stratified ambient: the theory for the steady-state (front condition) and lock-released flows, and experimental confirmations. Phys. Fluids 24, 026601.10.1063/1.3680260Google Scholar
Holyer, J. Y. & Huppert, H. E. 1980 Gravity currents entering a two-layer fluid. J. Fluid Mech. 100, 739–767.10.1017/S0022112080001383Google Scholar
Khodkar, M. A., Nasr-Azadani, M. M. & Meiburg, E. 2017 Partial-depth lock-release flows. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2 (6), 064802.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.064802Google Scholar
Kilcher, J. D. & Nash, J. D. 2010 Structure and dynamics of the Columbia River tidal plume front. J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans 115, C00B12.10.1029/2009JC006066Google Scholar
Klemp, J. B., Rotunno, R. & Skamarock, W. C. 1997 On the propagation of internal bores. J. Fluid Mech. 331, 81–106.10.1017/S0022112096003710Google Scholar
Lawrence, G. 1993 The hydraulics of steady two-layer flow over a fixed obstacle. J. Fluid Mech. 254, 605–633.10.1017/S0022112093002277Google Scholar
Maxworthy, T., Leilich, J., Simpson, J. E. & Meiburg, E. H. 2002 The propagation of a gravity current into a linearly stratified fluid. J. Fluid Mech. 453, 371–394.10.1017/S0022112001007054Google Scholar
Nash, J. D. & Moum, J. M. 2005 River plumes as a source of large-amplitude internal waves in the coastal ocean. Nature 437, 400–403.10.1038/nature03936Google Scholar
Nasr-Azadani, M. M., Hall, B. & Meiburg, E. 2013 Polydisperse turbidity currents propagating over complex topography: comparison of experimental and depth-resolved simulation results. Comput. Geosci. 53, 141–153.10.1016/j.cageo.2011.08.030Google Scholar
Nasr-Azadani, M. M. & Meiburg, E. 2011 TURBINS: an immersed boundary, Navier–Stokes code for simulation of gravity and turbidity currents interacting with complex topographies. J. Comput. Fluids 45 (1), 14–28.10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.11.023Google Scholar
Rottman, J. W. & Simpson, J. E. 1983 Gravity currents produced by instantaneous releases of a heavy fluid in a rectangular channel. J. Fluid Mech. 135, 95–110.10.1017/S0022112083002979Google Scholar
Rottman, J. W. & Simpson, J. E. 1989 The formation of internal bores in the atmosphere: a laboratory model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 115, 941–963.10.1002/qj.49711548809Google Scholar
Shin, J. O., Dalziel, S. B. & Linden, P. F. 2004 Gravity currents produced by lock exchange. J. Fluid Mech. 521, 1–34.10.1017/S002211200400165XGoogle Scholar
Tan, A. W., Nobes, D. S., Fleck, B. A. & Flynn, M. R. 2010 Gravity currents in two-layer stratified media. Environ. Fluid Mech. 11 (2), 203–223.10.1007/s10652-010-9174-zGoogle Scholar
White, B. L. & Helfrich, K. R. 2012 A general description of a gravity current front propagating in a two-layer stratified fluid. J. Fluid Mech. 711, 545–575.10.1017/jfm.2012.409Google Scholar