Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T14:24:19.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double-diffusive lock-exchange gravity currents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2016

Nathan Konopliv  and
Eckart Meiburg
Nathan Konopliv
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Eckart Meiburg*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Double-diffusive lock-exchange gravity currents in the fingering regime are explored via two- and three-dimensional Navier–Stokes simulations in the Boussinesq limit. Even at modest Reynolds numbers, for which single-diffusive gravity currents remain laminar, double-diffusive currents are seen to give rise to pronounced small-scale fingering convection. The front velocity of these currents exhibits a non-monotonic dependence on the diffusivity ratio and the initial stability ratio. Strongly double-diffusive currents lose both heat and salinity more quickly than weakly double-diffusive ones, and they lose salinity more quickly than heat, so that the density difference driving them increases. This differential loss of heat and salinity furthermore results in the emergence of strong local density maxima and minima along the top and bottom walls in the gate region, which in turn promote the formation of secondary, counterflowing currents along the walls. These secondary currents cause the flow to develop a three-layer structure. The late stages of the flow are dominated by currents flowing oppositely to the original ones. Three-dimensional simulation results are consistent with the trends observed in a two-dimensional parametric study. A detailed analysis of the energy budget demonstrates that strongly double-diffusive currents can release several times their initially available potential energy, and convert large amounts of internal energy into mechanical energy via scalar diffusion. Scaling arguments based on the simulation results suggest that even low Reynolds number double-diffusive gravity currents are governed by a balance of buoyancy and turbulent drag.

JFM classification

Convection: Double diffusive convection Geophysical and Geological Flows: Geophysical and Geological Flows Geophysical and Geological Flows: Gravity currents
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 797 , 25 June 2016 , pp. 729 - 764
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2016 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

Alavian, V., Jirka, G. H., Denton, R. A., Johnson, M. C. & Stefan, H. G. 1992 Density currents entering lakes and reservoirs. ASCE J. Hydraul. Engng 118 (11), 1464–1489.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. 1968 Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31, 209–248.Google Scholar
Borden, Z. & Meiburg, E. 2013 Circulation based models for boussinesq gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 25 (10), 101301.Google Scholar
Burns, P. & Meiburg, E. 2012 Sediment-laden fresh water above salt water: linear stability analysis. J. Fluid Mech. 691, 279–314.Google Scholar
Burns, P. & Meiburg, E. 2015 Sediment-laden fresh water above salt water: nonlinear simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 762, 156–195.Google Scholar
Cantero, M. I., Balachandar, S. & Garcia, M. H. 2007 High-resolution simulations of cylindrical density currents. J. Fluid Mech. 590, 437–469.Google Scholar
Didden, N. & Maxworthy, T. 1982 The viscous spreading of plane and axisymmetric gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 121, 27–42.Google Scholar
Härtel, 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.Google Scholar
Henniger, R., Obrist, D. & Kleiser, L. 2010 High-order accurate solution of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations on massively parallel computers. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (10), 3543–3572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huppert, H. E. 2006 Gravity currents: a personal perspective. J. Fluid Mech. 554, 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huppert, H. E. & Simpson, J. E. 1980 The slumping of gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 99, 785–799.Google Scholar
Huppert, H. E. & Turner, J. S. 1981 Double-diffusive convection. J. Fluid Mech. 106, 299–329.Google Scholar
Ilicak, M. 2014 Energetics and mixing efficiency of lock-exchange flow. Ocean Model. 83, 1–10.Google Scholar
Karimi, A. & Ardekani, A. M. 2013 Gyrotactic bioconvection at pycnoclines. J. Fluid Mech. 733, 245–267.Google Scholar
Kimura, S. & Smyth, W. D. 2007 Direct numerical simulation of salt sheets and turbulence in a double-diffusive shear layer. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L21610.Google Scholar
Law, A. W., Ho, W. F. & Monismith, S. G. 2004 Double diffusive effect on desalination discharges. ASCE J. Hydraul. Engng 130 (5), 450–457.Google Scholar
Legg, S. 2012 Overflows and convectively-driven flows. In Buoyancy-Driven Flows, pp. 203–239. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lele, S. K. 1992 Compact finite difference schemes with spectral-like resolution. J. Comput. Phys. 103 (1), 16–42.Google Scholar
Linden, P. F. 1974 Salt fingers in a steady shear flow. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn. 6 (1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Linden, P. F. 2012 Gravity currents – theory and laboratory experiments. In Buoyancy-Driven Flows (ed. Chassignet, E., Cenedese, C. & Verron, J.), pp. 13–51. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linden, P. F. & Shirtcliffe, T. G. L. 1978 The diffusive interface in double-diffusive convection. J. Fluid Mech. 87, 417–432.Google Scholar
Maxworthy, T. 1983 The dynamics of double-diffusive gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 128, 259–282.Google Scholar
Meiburg, E. & Kneller, B. 2010 Turbidity currents and their deposits. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 135–156.Google Scholar
Meiburg, E., Radhakrishnan, S. & Nasr-Azadani, M. 2015 Modeling gravity and turbidity currents: computational approaches and challenges. Appl. Mech. Rev. 67 (4), 040802.Google Scholar
Necker, F., Härtel, C., Kleiser, L. & Meiburg, E. 2002 High-resolution simulations of particle-driven gravity currents. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 28 (2), 279–300.Google Scholar
Parsons, J. D., Bush, J. W. M. & Syvitski, J. P. M. 2001 Hyperpycnal plume formation from riverine outflows with small sediment concentrations. Sedimentology 48 (2), 465–478.Google Scholar
Radko, T. 2013 Double-Diffusive Convection. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Radko, T., Ball, J., Colosi, J. & Flanagan, J. 2015 Double-diffusive convection in a stochastic shear. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 45 (12), 3155–3167.Google Scholar
Ruddick, B. R., Phillips, O. M. & Turner, J. S. 1999 A laboratory and quantitative model of finite-amplitude thermohaline intrusions. Dyn. Atmos. Oceans 30 (2–4), 71–99.Google Scholar
Ruddick, B. R. & Turner, J. S. 1979 The vertical length scale of double-diffusive intrusions. Deep-Sea Res. 26 (8), 903–913.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. E. 1999 Gravity Currents in the Environment and the Laboratory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smyth, W. D. & Kimura, S. 2007 Instability and diapycnal momentum transport in a double-diffusive, stratified shear layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 37, 1551–1565.Google Scholar
Smyth, W. D. & Kimura, S. 2011 Mixing in a moderately sheared salt-fingering layer. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 41, 1364–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R. S. J., Bonnecaze, R. T., Huppert, H. E., Lister, J. R., Hallworth, M. A., Mader, H. & Phillips, J. 1993 Sediment-laden gravity currents with reversing buoyancy. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 114 (2), 243–257.Google Scholar
Stellmach, S., Traxler, A., Garaud, P., Brummell, N. & Radko, T. 2011 Dynamics of fingering convection. Part 2. The formation of thermohaline staircases. J. Fluid Mech. 677, 554–571.Google Scholar
Tailleux, R. 2012 Thermodynamics/dynamics coupling in weakly compressible turbulent stratified fluids. ISRN Thermodyn. 2012, 609701.Google Scholar
Traxler, A., Stellmach, S., Garaud, P., Radko, T. & Brummell, N. 2011 Dynamics of fingering convection. Part 1. Small-scale fluxes and large-scale instabilities. J. Fluid Mech. 677, 530–553.Google Scholar
Turner, J. S. 1978 Double-diffusive intrusions into a density gradient. J. Geophys. Res. 83 (C6), 2887–2901.Google Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2009 An Introduction to Gravity Currents and Intrusions. CRC Press; Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Winters, K. B., Lombard, P. N., Riley, J. J. & D’Asaro, E. A. 1995 Available potential energy and mixing in density-stratified fluids. J. Fluid Mech. 289, 115–128.Google Scholar
Worster, M. G. 2004 Time-dependent fluxes across double-diffusive interfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 505, 287–307.Google Scholar
Wray, A.1986 Very low storage time-advancement schemes. NASA Tech. Rep. Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
Yoshida, J., Nagashima, H. & Ma, W. 1987 A double diffusive lock-exchange flow with small density difference. Fluid Dyn. Res. 2 (3), 205–215.Google Scholar
Yu, X., Hsu, T. & Balachandar, S. 2013 Convective instability in sedimentation: linear stability analysis. J. Geophys. Res. 118 (1), 256–272.Google Scholar
Yu, X., Hsu, T. & Balachandar, S. 2014 Convective instability in sedimentation: 3-d numerical study. J. Geophys. Res. 119 (11), 8141–8161.Google Scholar