Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T22:44:47.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lock-exchange gravity currents with a high volume of release propagating over a periodic array of obstacles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2011

TALIA TOKYAY ,
GEORGE CONSTANTINESCU  and
ECKART MEIBURG
TALIA TOKYAY
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IIHR–Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
GEORGE CONSTANTINESCU*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IIHR–Hydroscience and Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
ECKART MEIBURG
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5070, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: sconstan@engineering.uiowa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Large eddy simulations are employed to investigate the structure and evolution of a bottom-propagating compositional gravity current in a rectangular horizontal plane channel containing a series of identical large-scale obstacles (dunes and square ribs) at the channel bottom. Simulation results show that below a certain value of the additional drag force per unit streamwise length induced by the bottom obstacles (low drag cases), the gravity current propagating over an array of obstacles transitions to a regime where the average front velocity is close to constant. Past its initial stages, the total kinetic energy, Ek, increases in time proportional to t1/3, where t is the time since release. This behaviour is similar to the slumping phase observed for currents propagating over a flat bed, with the exception that in the latter case the temporal increase of Ek during the later stages of the slumping phase is much faster (Ek ~ t). Simulation results also show that above certain value of the drag force per unit streamwise length induced by the obstacles (high drag cases), the slumping phase can be very short. In this case, similar to currents propagating in a porous medium, the current transitions to a drag-dominated regime in which the front velocity decays proportionally to tβ, with β = −0.28, once the discharge of lock fluid at the position of the lock gate becomes close to constant in time.

JFM classification

Geophysical and Geological Flows: Gravity currents Wakes/Jets: Separated flows Mixing: Turbulent mixing
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 672 , 10 April 2011 , pp. 570 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

REFERENCES

Alexander, J. & Morris, S. 1994 Observations on experimental, non-channelized, high-concentration turbidity currents and variations in deposits around obstacles. J. Sedim. Res. A 64 (4), 899–909.Google Scholar
de Angelis, V., Lombardi, P. & Banerjee, S. 1997 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow over a wavy wall. Phys. Fluids 9, 2429–2442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armi, L. 1986 The hydraulics of two flowing layers with different densities. J. Fluid Mech. 163, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. 1968 Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31, 209–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonometti, T., Balachandar, S. & Magnaudet, J. 2008 Wall effects in non-Boussinesq density currents. J. Fluid Mech. 616, 445–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantero, M. I., Lee, J. R., Balachandar, S. & Garcia, M. H. 2007 On the front velocity of gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 586, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K. S., Constantinescu, G. & Park, S.-O. 2006 Analysis of the flow and mass transfer processes for the incompressible flow past an open cavity with a laminar and a fully turbulent incoming boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 561, 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, K., Constantinescu, G. & Park, S. O. 2007 The purging of a neutrally buoyant or a dense miscible contaminant from a rectangular cavity. Part II: The case of an incoming fully turbulent overflow. ASCE J. of Hydr. Engrg 133 (4), 373–385.Google Scholar
Darelius, E. 2008 Topographic steering of dense overflows: laboratory experiments with V-shaped ridges and canyons. Deep-Sea Res. I 55, 1021–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darelius, E. & Wahlin, A. 2007 Downward flow of dense water leaning on a submarine ridge. Deep-Sea Res. I 54, 1173–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djenidi, L., Elavarasan, R. & Antonia, R. A. 1999 The turbulent boundary layer over transverse square cavities. J. Fluid Mech. 395, 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, T. H. & Turner, J. S. 1959 Turbulent entrainment in stratified flows. J. Fluid Mech. 6, 423–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermanyuk, E. V. & Gavrilov, N. V. 2005 a Interaction of an internal gravity current with a submerged circular cylinder. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 46 (2), 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermanyuk, E. V. & Gavrilov, N. V. 2005 b Interaction of an internal gravity current with an obstacle on the channel bottom. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 46 (4), 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanneløp, T. K. 1994 Fluid Mechanics for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Juez, E. & Meiburg, E. 2009 Shallow water analysis of gravity current flows past isolated obstacles. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 415–438.Google 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.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Juez, E., Meiburg, E., Tokyay, T. & Constantinescu, G. 2010 Gravity current flow past a circular cylinder: forces and wall shear stresses and implications for scour. J. Fluid Mech. 649, 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallez, Y. & Magnaudet, J. 2008 Effects of channel geometry on buoyancy-driven mixing. Phys. Fluids 20, 053306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallez, Y. & Magnaudet, J. 2009 A numerical investigation of horizontal viscous gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 630, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallworth, M. A., Huppert, H. E., Phillips, J. C. & Sparks, S. R. 1996. Entrainment into two-dimensional and axisymmetric turbulent gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 308, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häartel, C., Meiburg, E. & Necker, F. 2000 Analysis and direct numerical simulation of the flow at a gravity-current head. Part 1. Flow topology and front speed for slip and no-slip boundaries. J. Fluid Mech. 418, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, L., Hogg, A. J. & Woods, A. W. 2000 The effects of drag on turbulent gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 416, 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopfinger, E. J. 1983 Snow avalanche motion and related phenomena. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 15, 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huppert, H. & Simpson, J. E. 1980 The slumping of gravity currents. J. Fluid. Mech. 99, 785–799.Google Scholar
Ikeda, T. & Durbin, P. A. 2002 Direct numerical simulation of a rough wall channel flow. Report No. TF-81. Flow Physics and Computation Division, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.Google Scholar
Jimenez, J. 2004 Turbulent flows over rough walls. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannesson, T., Lied, K., Margreth, S. & Sanderson, F. 1996 An overview of the need for avalanche protection measures in Iceland. Report Prepared for the Icelandic Ministry for the Environment and Local Authorities in Towns Threatened by Avalanches. Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Keulegan, G. H. 1957 An experimental study of the motion of saline water from locks into fresh water channels. U.S. Natl Bur. Stand. Rep. 5168.Google Scholar
Kneller, B., Bennett, S. J. & McCaffrey, W. D. 1999 Velocity structure, turbulence and fluid stresses in experimental gravity currents. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 104 (C3), 5381–5391.Google 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
Legg, S., Hallberg, R. W. & Girton, J. B. 2006 Comparison of entrainment in overflows simulated by z-coordinate, isopycnal and non-hydrostatic models. Ocean Model. 11, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, S., Orlandi, P., Djenidi, L. & Antonia, R. A. 2003 Direct numerical simulations of turbulent channel flow with transverse square bars on one wall. J. Fluid. Mech. 491, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liapidevskii, V. Y. 2004 Mixing layer on the lee side of an obstacle. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 45 (2), 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahesh, K., Constantinescu, G. & Moin, P. 2004 A numerical method for large eddy simulation in complex geometries. J. Comput. Phys. 197, 215–240.Google Scholar
Meiburg, E. & Kneller, B. 2010 Turbidity currents and their deposits. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 135–156.Google Scholar
Mierlo, M. C. & de Ruiter, J. C. 1988 Turbulence measurements over artificial dunes. Rep. Q789. Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Necker, F., Härtel, C., Kleiser, L. & Meiburg, E. 2002 High-resolution simulations of particle-driven gravity currents. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 28, 279.Google Scholar
Necker, F., Härtel, C., Kleiser, L. & Meiburg, E. 2005 Mixing and dissipation in particle-driven gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 545, 339–372.Google Scholar
Ooi, S. K., Constantinescu, S. G. & Weber, L. 2007 a A numerical study of intrusive compositional gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 19, 076602, doi:10.1063/1.2750672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ooi, S. K., Constantinescu, G. & Weber, L. J. 2007 b 2D Large Eddy Simulation of lock-exchange gravity current flows. ASCE J. of Hydr. Engrg 133 (9), 1037–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ooi, S. K., Constantinescu, S. G. & Weber, L. 2009 Numerical simulations of lock exchange compositional gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozgokmen, T. M. & Fisher, P. F. 2008 On the role of bottom roughness in overflows. Ocean Model. 20, 336–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozgokmen, T. M., Fisher, P. F., Duan, J. & Iliescu, T. 2004 Entrainment in bottom gravity currents over complex topography from three-dimensional nonhydrostatic simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L13212, doi:10.1029/2004GL0200186.Google Scholar
Pawlak, G. & Armi, L. 2000 Mixing and entrainment in developing stratified currents. J. Fluid Mech. 424, 45–73.Google Scholar
Pierce, C. D. & Moin, P. 2001. Progress-variable approach for large-eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Mech. Engng Dept. Rep. TF-80. Stanford University, California, USA.Google Scholar
Pierce, C. D. & Moin, P. 2004 Progress-variable approach for large-eddy simulation of non-premixed turbulent combustion. J. Fluid Mech. 504, 73–97.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Rottman, J. W., Simpson, J. E., Hunt, J. C. R. & Britter, R. E. 1985 Unsteady gravity current flows over obstacles: some observations and analysis related to the phase II trials. J. Hazard. Mater. 11, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shin, J., Dalziel, S. & Linden, P. F. 2004 Gravity currents produced by lock exchange. J. Fluid Mech. 521, 1–34.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. E. 1997 Gravity Currents: In the Environment and the Laboratory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanino, Y., Nepf, H. M. & Kulis, P. S. 2005 Gravity currents in aquatic canopies. Water Resour. Res. 41, W12402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. S. 1986 Turbulent entrainment: the development of the entrainment assumption, and its application to geophysical flows. J. Fluid Mech. 173, 431–471.Google Scholar

Tokyay et al. supplementary material

Temporal evolution of concentration and out-of-plane vorticity contours of gravity currents propagating over flat bed and periodic array of dunes and square ribs.

Download Tokyay et al. supplementary material(Video)
Video 9.6 MB