Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T12:08:23.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unsteady overtopping of barriers by gravity currents and dam-break flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Edward W.G. Skevington Open the ORCID record for Edward W.G. Skevington [Opens in a new window]  and
Andrew J. Hogg Open the ORCID record for Andrew J. Hogg [Opens in a new window]
Edward W.G. Skevington*
Affiliation:
Energy and Environment Institute, University of Hull, HU6 7RX, England School of Mathematics, Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, England
Andrew J. Hogg
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, Fry Building, Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1UG, England
*
†Email address for correspondence: e.w.skevington@hull.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The collision of a gravitationally driven horizontal current with a barrier following release from a confining lock is investigated using a shallow water model of the motion, together with a sophisticated boundary condition capturing the local interaction. The boundary condition permits several overtopping modes: supercritical, subcritical and blocked flow. The model is analysed both mathematically and numerically to reveal aspects of the unsteady motion and to compute the proportion of the fluid trapped upstream of the barrier. Several problems are treated. Firstly, the idealised problem of a uniform incident current is analysed to classify the unsteady dynamical regimes. Then, the extreme regimes of a very close or distant barrier are tackled, showing the progression of the interaction through the overtopping modes. Next, the trapped volume of fluid at late times is investigated numerically, demonstrating regimes in which the volume is determined purely by volumetric considerations, and others where transient inertial effects are significant. For a Boussinesq gravity current, even when the volume of the confined region behind the barrier is equal to the fluid volume, $30\,\%$ of the fluid escapes the domain, and a confined volume three times larger is required for the overtopped volume to be negligible. For a subaerial dam-break flow, the proportion that escapes is in excess of $60\,\%$ when the confined volume equals the fluid volume, and a barrier as tall as the initial release is required for negligible overtopping. Finally, we compare our predictions with experiments, showing a good agreement across a range of parameters.

JFM classification

Geophysical and Geological Flows: Gravity currents Geophysical and Geological Flows: Shallow water flows Waves/Free-surface Flows: Hydraulics
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 960 , 10 April 2023 , A27
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by 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

Adduce, C., Maggi, M.R. & De Falco, M.C. 2022 Non-intrusive density measurements in gravity currents interacting with an obstacle. Acta Geophys. 70, 2499–2510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baines, P.G. 1995 Topographic Effects in Stratified Flows, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baines, P.G. & Davies, P.A. 1980 Laboratory studies of topographic effects in rotating and/or stratified fluids. In Orographic Effects in Planetary Flows, chap. 8, pp. 233–299. Global Atmospheric Research Programme.Google Scholar
Baines, P.G. & Whitehead, J.A. 2003 On multiple states in single-layer flows. Phys. Fluids 15 (2), 298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, T.B. 1968 Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31 (2), 209–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, Z. & Meiburg, E. 2013 Circulation based models for Boussinesq gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 25 (10), 101301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borden, Z., Meiburg, E. & Constantinescu, G. 2012 Internal bores: an improved model via a detailed analysis of the energy budget. J. Fluid Mech. 703, 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, V.T. 2009 Open-Channel Hydraulics. The Blackburn Press.Google Scholar
Cozzolino, L., Cimorelli, L., Covelli, C., Morete, R.D. & Pianese, D. 2014 Boundary conditions in finite volume schemes for the solution of shallow water equations: the non-submerged broad-crested weir. J. Hydroinform. 16 (6), 1235–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Falco, M.C., Adduce, C. & Maggi, M.R. 2021 Gravity currents interacting with a bottom triangular obstacle and implications on entrainment. Adv. Water Resour. 154, 103967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermanyuk, E.V. & Gavrilov, N.V. 2005 Interaction of internal gravity current with an obstacle on the channel bottom. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 46 (4), 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fannelop, T.K. & Waldman, G.D. 1972 Dynamics of oil slicks. AIAA J. 10, 506–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Juez, E. & Meiburg, E. 2009 Shallow-water analysis of gravity-current flows past isolated obstacles. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Juez, E., Meiburg, E. & Constantinescu, G. 2009 Gravity currents impinging on bottom-mounted square cylinders: flow fields and associated forces. J. Fluid Mech. 631, 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gratton, J. & Vigo, C. 1994 Self-similar gravity currents with variable inflow revisited: plane currents. J. Fluid Mech. 258, 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenspan, H.P. & Young, R.E. 1978 Flow over a containment dyke. J. Fluid Mech. 87 (1), 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiver, J.M. 2000 Adverse-slope and slope (bump). In Concerted Action on Dam Break Modelling: Objectives, Project Report, Test Cases, Meeting Proceedings (ed. S. Soares-Frazão, M. Morris & Y. Zech). Universitè Catholique de Louvain (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
Hogg, A.J. 2006 Lock-release gravity currents and dam-break flows. J. Fluid Mech. 569, 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, A.J., Nasr-Azadani, M.M., Ungarish, M. & Meiburg, E. 2016 Sustained gravity currents in a channel. J. Fluid Mech. 798, 853–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, A.J. & Skevington, E.W.G. 2021 Dam-break reflection. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Maths 74, 441–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, D.D. & Kasahara, A. 1968 Nonlinear shallow fluid flow over an isolated ridge. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths 21 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoult, D.P. 1972 Oil spreading on the sea. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 4, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huppert, H.E. & Simpson, J.E. 1980 The slumping of gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 99 (4), 785–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Kármán, T. 1940 The engineer grapples with nonlinear problems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 46, 615–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopliv, N.A., Smith, S.G.L., McElwaine, J.N. & Meiburg, E. 2016 Modelling gravity currents without an energy closure. J. Fluid Mech. 789, 806–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurganov, A. & Levy, D. 2002 Central-upwind schemes for the Saint-Venant system. Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 36 (3), 397–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane-Serff, G.F., Beal, L.M. & Hadfield, T.D. 1995 Gravity current flow over obstacles. J. Fluid Mech. 292, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, G.A. 1987 Steady flow over an obstacle. ASCE J. Hydraul. Engng 113 (8), 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, G.A. & Armi, L. 2022 Stationary internal hydraulic jumps. J. Fluid Mech. 936, A25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lax, P.D. 1957 Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws II. Commun. Pure Appl. Maths 10 (4), 537–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, R.R. 1954 Some aspects of the flow of stratified fluids: II. Experiments with a two-system. Tellus 6 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, R.R. 1970 Blocking effects in flow over obstacles. Tellus 22 (5), 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pari, S.A.A., Kashefipour, S.M. & Ghomeshi, M. 2017 An experimental study to determine the obstacle height required for the control of subcritical and supercritical gravity currents. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Engng 21 (9), 1080–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peregrine, D.H. 1972 Equations for water waves and the approximation behind them. In Waves on Beaches and Resulting Sediment Transport (ed. R.E. Meyer), pp. 95–121. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porcile, G., Enrile, F., Besio, G. & Bolla Pittaluga, M. 2022 Hydrostatic vs. non-hydrostatic modelling of density currents developing two dimensionally on steep and mild slopes. Appl. Ocean Res. 121, 103085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, L.J. 1983 A note on nonlinear flow over obstacles. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 24 (1), 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottman, J.W., Simpson, J.E. & Hunt, J.C.R. 1985 Unsteady gravity current flows over obstacles: some observations and analysis related to the phase II trials. J. Hazard. Mater. 11 (1–4), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J.E. 1982 Gravity currents in the laborotory, atmosphere, and ocean. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 14, 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J.E. 1997 Gravity Currents in the Environment and the Laboratory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.E. & Britter, R.E. 1979 The dynamics of the head of a gravity current advancing over a horizontal surface. J. Fluid Mech. 94 (3), 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skevington, E.W.G. 2021 a The implementation of a broad class of boundary conditions for nonlinear hyperbolic systems. arXiv:2106.11262.Google Scholar
Skevington, E.W.G. 2021 b A well balanced reconstruction with bounded velocities and low-oscillation slow shocks for the shallow water equations. arXiv:2106.11256.Google Scholar
Skevington, E.W.G. & Hogg, A.J. 2020 Unsteady draining of reservoirs over weirs and through constrictions. J. Fluid Mech. 882, A9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, J.J. 1957 Water Waves, the Mathematical Theory with Applications. Pure and Applied Mathematics, a Series of Texts and Monographs, vol. 4. Interscience.Google Scholar
Strang, E.J. & Fernando, H.J.S. 2001 Entrainment and mixing in stratified shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 428, 349–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tokyay, T. & Constantinescu, G. 2015 The effects of a submerged non-erodible triangular obstacle on bottom propagating gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 27, 056601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2017 Benjamin's gravity current into an ambient fluid with an open surface. J. Fluid Mech. 825, 972–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2020 Gravity Currents and Intrusions, Analysis and Prediction. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, vol. 1. World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungarish, M. & Hogg, A.J. 2018 Models of internal jumps and the fronts of gravity currents: unifying two-layer theories and deriving new results. J. Fluid Mech. 846, 654–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, I.R. & Simpson, J.E. 1984 Jumps in layered miscible fluids. J. Fluid Mech. 140, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar