Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:50:41.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the dynamics of gravity currents in a channel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

Joseph B. Klemp ,
Richard Rotunno  and
William C. Skamarock
Joseph B. Klemp
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA
Richard Rotunno
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA
William C. Skamarock
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We attempt to clarify the factors that regulate the propagation and structure of gravity currents through evaluation of idealized theoretical models along with two-dimensional numerical model simulations. In particular, we seek to reconcile research based on hydraulic theory for gravity currents evolving from a known initial state with analyses of gravity currents that are assumed to be at steady state, and to compare these approaches with both numerical simulations and laboratory experiments. The time-dependent shallow-water solution for a gravity current propagating in a channel of finite depth reveals that the flow must remain subcritical behind the leading edge of the current (in a framework relative to the head). This constraint requires that hf/d ≤ 0.347, where hf is the height of the front and d is the channel depth. Thus, in the lock-exchange problem, inviscid solutions corresponding to hf/d = 0.5 are unphysical, and the actual currents have depth ratios of less than one half near their leading edge and require dissipation or are not steady. We evaluate the relevance of Benjamin's (1968) well-known formula for the propagation of steady gravity currents and clarify discrepancies with other theoretical and observed results. From two-dimensional simulations with a frictionless lower surface, we find that Benjamin's idealized flow-force balance provides a good description of the gravity-current propagation. Including surface friction reduces the propagation speed because it produces dissipation within the cold pool. Although shallow-water theory over-estimates the propagation speed of the leading edge of cold fluid in the ‘dam-break’ problem, this discrepancy appears to arise from the lack of mixing across the current interface rather than from deficiencies in Benjamin's front condition. If an opposing flow restricts the propagation of a gravity current away from its source, we show that the propagation of the current relative to the free stream may be faster than predicted by Benjamin's formula. However, in these situations the front propagation remains dependent upon the specific source conditions and cannot be generalized.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 269 , 25 June 1994 , pp. 169 - 198
Copyright
© 1994 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

Abbott, M. B. 1961 On the spreading of one fluid over another, Part II: The wave front. La Houille Blanche 6, 827–836.Google Scholar
Armi, L. 1986 The hydraulics of two flowing layers with different densities. J. Fluid Mech. 163, 27–58.Google Scholar
Batchelor, G. K. 1967 An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
Benjamin, T. B. 1968 Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31, 209–248.Google Scholar
Britter, R. E. & Simpson, J. E. 1978 Experiments on the dynamics of a gravity head current. J. Fluid Mech. 88, 223–240.Google Scholar
Carbone, R. E. 1982 A severe frontal rainband. Part I: stormwide hydrodynamic structure. J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 258–279.Google Scholar
Charba, J. 1974 Application of gravity current model to analysis of squall-line gust front. Mon. Wea. Rev. 102, 140–156.Google Scholar
Crook, N. A. & Miller, M. J. 1985 A numerical and analytical study of atmospheric undular bores. Q. J. R. Met. Soc. 111, 225–242.Google Scholar
Droegemeier, K. K. & Wilhelmson, R. B. 1987 Numerical simulation of thunderstorm outflow dynamics. Part I: outflow sensitivity experiments and turbulence dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci. 44, 1180–1210.Google Scholar
Durran, D. R. & Klemp, J. B. 1983 A compressible model for the simulation of moist mountain waves. J. Atmos. Sci. 111, 2341–2361.Google Scholar
Fannelop, T. K. & Waldman, G. D. 1972 Dynamics of oil slicks. AIAA J. 10, 506–510.Google Scholar
Gardner, G. C. & Crow, I. G. 1970 The motion of large bubbles in horizontal channels. J. Fluid Mech. 43, 247–255.Google Scholar
Hobbs, P. V. & Persson, P. O. G. 1982 The mesoscale and microscale structure and organization of clouds and precipitation in midlatitude cyclones. Part V: The substructure of narrow cold-frontal rainbands. J. Atmos. Sci. 39, 280–295.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoult, D. P. 1972 Oil spreading on the sea. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 4, 341–368.Google Scholar
Kármán, T. von 1940 The engineer grapples with nonlinear problems. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 46, 615–683.Google Scholar
Keulegan, G. H. 1950 Wave motion. In Engineering Hydraulics (ed. H. Rouse), pp. 711–768. John Wiley & Sons.
Keulegan, G. H. 1957 An experimental study of the motion of saline water from locks into fresh water channels. Natl Bur. Stand. Rep. 5168.
Keulegan, G. H. 1958 The motion of saline fronts in still water. Natl Bur. Stand. Rep. 5831.
Klemp, J. B. & Wilhelmson, R. B. 1978 The simulation of three-dimensional convective storm dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci. 35, 78–106.Google Scholar
Lilly, D. K. 1962 On the numerical simulation of buoyant convection. Tellus 14, 148–172.Google Scholar
Moncrieff, M. W. & So, D. W. K. 1989 A hydrodynamical theory of conservative bounded density currents. J. Fluid Mech. 198, 177–197.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. W. & Neilley, P. P. 1990 The vertical structure of New England coastal fronts. Mon. Wea. Rev. 118, 1793–1807.Google Scholar
Prandtl, L. & Tietjens, O. G. 1934 Applied Hydro- and Aeromechanics. Dover.
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
Rotunno, R., Klemp, J. B. & Weisman, M. L. 1988 A theory for strong, long-lived squall lines. J. Atmos. Sci. 45, 463–485.Google Scholar
Schijf, J. B. & Schönfeld, J. C. 1953 Theoretical considerations on the motion of salt and fresh water. Proc. Minn. Intl Hydraulics Conv., University of Minnesota, pp. 321–333.
Schoklitsch, A. 1917 Über dambruchwellen. Sitzungsber. Akad Wissenschaf. 126, 1489.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M. A., Hampel, T., Rotzoll, D. & Mosher, F. 1985 The frontal hydraulic head: a micro-α scale ([thksim ] 1 km) triggering mechanism for mesoconvective weather systems. Mon. Wea. Rev. 113, 1166–1183.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. E. 1969 A comparison between laboratory and atmospheric density currents. Q. J. R. Met. Soc. 95, 758–765.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, 477–495.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. E. & Britter, R. E. 1980 A laboratory model of an atmospheric mesofront. Q. J. R. Met. Soc. 106, 485–500.Google Scholar
Stoker, J. J. 1957 Water Waves. Interscience.
Stommel, H. & Farmer, H. G. 1952 Abrupt change in width in two-layer open channel flow. J. Mar. Res. 11, 205–214.Google Scholar
Thorpe, A. J., Miller, M. J. & Moncrieff, M. W. 1982 Two-dimensional convection in nonconstant shear: a model of midlatitude squall lines. Q. J. R. Met. Soc. 108, 739–762.Google Scholar
Wakimoto, R. M. 1982 The life cycle of thunderstorm gust fronts as viewed with Doppler radar and rawindsonde data. Mon. Wea. Rev. 110, 1060–1082.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D. L. 1982 Motion of air cavities in long horizontal ducts. J. Fluid Mech. 118, 109–122.Google Scholar
Yih, C.-S. 1965 Dynamics of Nonhomogeneous Fluids. MacMillan.
Yih, C.-S. & Guha, C. R. 1955 Hydraulic jump in a fluid system of two layers. Tellus 7, 358–366.Google Scholar