Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:34:14.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tail structure and bed friction velocity distribution of gravity currents propagating over an array of obstacles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2012

Talia Tokyay ,
George Constantinescu  and
Eckart Meiburg
Talia Tokyay
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IIHR-Hydroscience & Engineering, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
George Constantinescu*
Affiliation:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IIHR-Hydroscience & 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: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bed friction velocity distribution and sediment entrainment potential of Boussinesq compositional gravity currents propagating over a series of obstacles and over a smooth surface, respectively, are analysed based on high-resolution, three-dimensional large-eddy simulations. The investigation focuses on the parameter regime for which currents with a high volume of release go through an extended slumping phase with approximately constant front velocity (Tokyay, Constantinescu & Meiburg, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 672, 2011, 570–605). Under these conditions, a quasi-steady regime is reached between consecutive obstacles that is similar to the steady regime observed for constant-density channel flows over bottom obstacles. At a given location, this quasi-steady regime is reached in the tail of the current after the passage of the front and the associated hydraulic jumps reflected from the first few downstream obstacles. A double-averaging procedure is employed to characterize the global changes in the structure of the tail region between currents with a high volume of release propagating over smooth surfaces and over obstacles. Reynolds-number-induced scale effects on the flow and turbulence structure within the tail region are discussed in some detail. The presence of this quasi-steady regime is significant, since the simulations with obstacles show that most of the sediment is entrained by the tail of the current, rather than by its front. A detailed analysis of the effects of the obstacle shape on the quasi-steady mean flow and turbulence structure is presented, which provides insight into why gravity currents over dunes can entrain more sediment than gravity currents over ribs of comparable size. Finally, the bed friction velocity distributions and the potential to entrain sediment are compared for a compositional current with a high volume of release during the slumping phase, and a current with a low volume of release for which transition to the buoyancy–inertia phase occurs a short time after the release of the lock gate.

JFM classification

Geophysical and Geological Flows: Gravity currents Turbulent Flows: Turbulence simulation
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 694 , 10 March 2012 , pp. 252 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

1. Armi, L. 1986 The hydraulics of two flowing layers with different densities. J. Fluid Mech. 163, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Baas, J. H., McCaffrey, W. D., Haughton, P. D. W. & Choux, C. 2005 Coupling between suspended sediment distribution and turbulence structure in a laboratory turbidity current. J. Geophys. Res. 110, C11015.Google Scholar
3. Bonometti, T., Balachandar, S. & Magnaudet, J. 2008 Wall effects in non-Boussinesq density currents. J. Fluid Mech. 616, 445–475.Google Scholar
4. Cameron, S., Nikora, V. & Coleman, S. E. 2008 Double-averaged velocity and stress distributions for hydraulically-smooth and transitionally-rough turbulent flows. Acta Geophys. 56 (3), 642–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cantero, M. I., Balachandar, S., Garcia, M. & Bock, D. 2008 Turbulent structures in planar gravity currents and their influence on the flow dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. 113, C08018.Google Scholar
6. 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.Google Scholar
7. 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.Google Scholar
8. 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. J. Hydraul. Engng ASCE 133 (4), 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Cui, J., Patel, V. C. & Lin, C. L. 2003 Large eddy simulation of turbulent flow in a channel with rib roughness. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Detert, M., Nikora, V. & Jirka, G. 2010 Synoptic velocity and pressure fields at the water-sediment interface of streambeds. J. Fluid Mech. 660, 55–86.Google Scholar
11. Engelund, F. & Hansen, E. 1967 A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams. Teknisk.Google Scholar
12. Ermanyuk, E. V. & Gavrilov, N. V. 2005a Interaction of an internal gravity current with a submerged circular cylinder. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 46 (2), 216–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Ermanyuk, E. V. & Gavrilov, N. V. 2005b Interaction of an internal gravity current with an obstacle on the channel bottom. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 46 (4), 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gonzalez-Juez, E. & Meiburg, E. 2009 Shallow water analysis of gravity current flows past isolated obstacles. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Gonzalez-Juez, E., Meiburg, E. & Constantinescu, G. 2009a Gravity currents impinging on bottom mounted square cylinders: flow fields and associated forces. J. Fluid Mech. 631, 65–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Gonzalez-Juez, E., Meiburg, E. & Constantinescu, G. S. 2009b The interaction of gravity current with a circular cylinder mounted above a wall: effect of the gap size. J. Fluids Struct. 25, 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. 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
18. Hacker, J., Linden, P. F. & Dalziel, S. B. 1996 Mixing in lock-release gravity currents. Dyn. Atmos. Oceans 24, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Hallez, Y. & Magnaudet, J. 2008 Effects of channel geometry on buoyancy-driven mixing. Phys. Fluids 20, 053306.Google Scholar
20. Hallez, Y. & Magnaudet, J. 2009 A numerical investigation of horizontal viscous gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 630, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. 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
23. Hopfinger, E. J. 1983 Snow avalanche motion and related phenomena. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 15, 47–76.Google Scholar
24. Huppert, H. & Simpson, J. E. 1980 The slumping of gravity currents. J. Fluid. Mech. 99, 785–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Jimenez, J. 2004 Turbulent flows over rough walls. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. 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
27. Kneller, B., Bennett, S. J. & McCaffrey, W. D. 1999 Velocity structure, turbulence and fluid stresses in experimental gravity currents. J. Geophys. Res. 104 (C3), 5381–5391.Google Scholar
28. Lane-Serff, G. F., Beal, L. M. & Hadfield, T. D. 1995 Gravity current flow over obstacles. J. Fluid Mech. 292, 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Leonard, B. P. 1979 A stable and accurate convection modelling procedure based on quadratic upstream interpolation. Comput. Appl. Mech. Engng 19, 59–98.Google Scholar
30. Liapidevskii, V. Y. 2004 Mixing layer on the lee side of an obstacle. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 45 (2), 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. McLean, S. R., Nikora, V. & Coleman, S. E. 2008 Double-averaged velocity profiles over fixed dune shapes. Acta Geophys. 56 (3), 669–697.Google Scholar
32. Meiburg, E & Kneller, B. 2010 Turbidity currents and their deposits. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 135–156.Google Scholar
33. Meyer-Peter, E. & Muller, R. 1948 Formulas for bed load transport. International Association of Hydraulic Research, 2nd Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
34. Mierlo, M. C. & de Ruiter, J. C. 1988 Turbulence measurements over artificial dunes, Report Q789, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory.Google Scholar
35. Mignot, E., Barthelemy, E. & Hurther, D. 2009 Double-averaging analysis and local flow characterization of near bed turbulence in gravel-bed channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 618, 279–303.Google Scholar
36. Necker, F., Härtel, C., Kleiser, L. & Meiburg, E. 2002 High-resolution simulations of particle-drive gravity currents. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 28, 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Necker, F., Härtel, C., Kleiser, L. & Meiburg, E. 2005 Mixing and dissipation in particle-driven gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 545, 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Nikora, V., Goring, D., McEwan, I. & Griffiths, G. 2001 Spatially-averaged open-channel flow over rough bed. J. Hydraul. Engng 127, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Nikora, V., McEwan, I., McLean, S., Coleman, S., Pokrajac, D. & Walters, R. 2007 Double-averaging concept for rough-bed open-channel and overland flows: theoretical background. J. Hydraul. Engng 133 (8), 873–883.Google Scholar
40. Ooi, S. K., Constantinescu, S. G. & Weber, L. 2007a A numerical study of intrusive compositional gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 19, 076602.Google Scholar
41. Ooi, S. K., Constantinescu, S. G. & Weber, L. 2007b Two-dimensional large-eddy simulation of lock-exchange gravity current flows at high Grashof numbers. J. Hydraul. Engng 133 (9), 1037–1047.Google Scholar
42. Ooi, S. K., Constantinescu, S. G. & Weber, L. 2009 Numerical simulations of lock exchange compositional gravity currents. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 361–388.Google Scholar
43. Ozgokmen, T. M. & Fischer, P. F. 2008 On the role of bottom roughness in overflows. Ocean Model. 20, 336–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Ozgokmen, T. M., Fischer, P. F., Duan, J. & Iliescu, T. 2004 Entrainment in bottom gravity currents over complex topography from three-dimensional non-hydrostatic simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L13212.Google Scholar
45. Pawlak, G. & Armi, L. 2000 Mixing and entrainment in developing stratified currents. J. Fluid Mech. 424, 45–73.Google Scholar
46. Pierce, C. D. & Moin, P. 2001 Progress-variable approach for large-eddy simulation of turbulent combustion. Mech. Eng. Dept. Rep. TF-80. Stanford University.Google Scholar
47. Pokrajac, D., Campbell, L. J., Nikora, V., McEwan, I. K. & Manes, C. 2007 Spatially-averaged flow over square-bar roughness: quadrant analysis of spatial velocity perturbations. Exp. Fluids 42 (3), 413–423.Google Scholar
48. van Rijn, L. C. 1984a Sediment transport. Part I: bed load transport. J. Hydraul. Engng 110 (10), 1431–1456.Google Scholar
49. van Rijn, L. C. 1984b Sediment pick-up functions. J. Hydraul. Engng 110 (10), 1494–1503.Google Scholar
50. 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
51. 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.Google Scholar
52. Scandura, P. G., Vittiri, G. & Blondeau, P. 2000 Three dimensional oscillatory flow over steep ripples. J. Fluid Mech. 412, 335–378.Google Scholar
53. Shin, J., Dalziel, S. & Linden, P. F. 2004 Gravity currents produced by lock exchange. J. Fluid Mech. 521, 1–34.Google Scholar
54. Stacey, M. W. & Bowen, A. J. 1988 The vertical structure of turbidity currents and a necessary condition for self-maintenance. J. Geophys. Res. 94 (C4), 3543–3553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Stoesser, T., Braun, C., Garcia-Villalba, M. & Rodi, W. 2008 Turbulence structure in flow over two dimensional dunes. J. Hydraul. Engng 134 (1), 42–55.Google Scholar
56. Tokyay, T., Constantinescu, G., Gonzales-Juez, E. & Meiburg, E. 2011a Gravity currents propagating over periodic arrays of blunt obstacles: effect of the obstacle size. J. Fluids Struct. 27, 798–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Tokyay, T., Constantinescu, G. & Meiburg, E. 2011b Lock exchange gravity currents with a high volume of release propagating over an array of obstacles. J. Fluid Mech. 672, 570–605.Google Scholar
58. Yoon, J. Y. & Patel, V. C. 1996 Numerical model of turbulent flow over sand dune. J. Hydraul. Engng 122 (1), 10–18.Google Scholar
59. Zedler, E. & Street, R. 2006 Sediment transport over ripples in oscillatory flow. J. Hydraul. Engng 132 (2), 1–14.Google Scholar