Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T06:05:00.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Benjamin’s gravity current into an ambient fluid with an open surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2017

Marius Ungarish*
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel
*
Email address for correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract

We present the solution of the idealized steady-state gravity current of height $h$ and density $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{1}$ that propagates into an ambient motionless fluid of height $H$ and density $\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{2}$ with an upper surface open to the atmosphere (open channel) at high Reynolds number. The current propagates with speed $U$ and causes a depth decrease $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ of the top surface. This is a significant extension of Benjamin’s (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 31, 1968, pp. 209–248) seminal solution for a fixed-top channel ($\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}=0$). In the present case, the determination of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}$ is part of the problem. The dimensionless parameters of the problem are $a=h/H$ and $r=\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{2}/\unicode[STIX]{x1D70C}_{1}$. We show that a control-volume analysis determines $\tilde{\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}}=\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}/H$ and $\mathit{Fr}=U/(g^{\prime }h)^{1/2}$ as functions of $a$ and $r$, where $g^{\prime }=(r^{-1}-1)g$ is the reduced gravity. The system satisfies balance of volume and momentum (explicitly), and vorticity (implicitly). We develop two branches (models) of solution for the control-volume balances. The first assumes that the outflow velocity $u_{2}$ is $z$-independent, accompanied by a similarly homogeneous headloss; this model is exactly the counterpart of Benjamin’s solution ($z$ is the vertical coordinate). The second model assumes that $u_{2}$ increases from $0$ in a layer of finite thickness $\unicode[STIX]{x1D702}$ (say) above the $z=h$ interface, and the headloss occurs in this layer only (a vortex wake). The $\mathit{Fr},\tilde{\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}}$ results of these models are in excellent agreement, and this increases the confidence concerning the physical relevance of the analysis. (The solution is obtained numerically.) The predicted flows are in general dissipative, and thus physically energetically valid only for $a\leqslant a_{max}(r)\approx 0.5r$, where non-negative dissipation appears. In this range of validity, the open-surface $\mathit{Fr}(a,r)$ is smaller than Benjamin’s $\mathit{Fr}_{b}(a)$, but the reduction is not dramatic, typically a few per cent. The current with thickness $h=a_{max}H$ is energy conserving. For given $r$, the energy conserving $a_{max}(r)$ provides the maximum height depression $\tilde{\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}}_{max}(r)\approx 0.45r^{1/4}(1-r)$. The largest possible depression is $\tilde{\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}}_{max}\approx 0.25$ at $r\approx 0.20$, and this corresponds to the minimum of $\mathit{Fr}(a,r)/\mathit{Fr}_{b}(a)$ which is approximately 0.75. For $r<0.68$, the propagation is subcritical; for $r>0.68$, the subcritical flow condition reduces the applicability slightly to $a\leqslant a_{\mathit{crit}}\approx 0.345$. For a Boussinesq system with $r\approx 1$, we obtain $\tilde{\unicode[STIX]{x1D712}}\ll 1$, and the present $\mathit{Fr}$, dissipation and $a_{\mathit{crit}}$ results differ only slightly from Benjamin’s classical predictions, as expected.

Type
Rapids
Copyright
© 2017 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

Baines, P. G. 1995 Topographic Effects in Stratified Flows. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. 1968 Gravity currents and related phenomena. J. Fluid Mech. 31, 209248.Google Scholar
Borden, Z. & Meiburg, E. 2013 Circulation based models for Boussinesq gravity currents. Phys. Fluids 25, 101301, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopliv, N., Llewellyn Smith, G. S., McElwaine, J. N. & Meiburg, E. 2016 Modeling gravity currents without an energy closure. J. Fluid Mech. 789, 806829.Google Scholar
Milewski, P. A. & Tabak, E. G. 2015 Conservation law modelling of entrainment in layered hydrostatic flows. J. Fluid Mech. 772, 272294.Google Scholar
Shin, J. O., Dalziel, S. B. & Linden, P. F. 2004 Gravity currents produced by lock exchange. J. Fluid Mech. 521, 134.Google Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2006 On gravity currents in a linearly stratified ambient: a generalization of Benjamin’s steady-state propagation results. J. Fluid Mech. 548, 4968.Google Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2009 An Introduction to Gravity Currents and Intrusions. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2011 Two-layer shallow-water dam-break solutions for non-Boussinesq gravity currents in a wide range of fractional depth. J. Fluid Mech. 675, 2759.Google Scholar
Ungarish, M. 2016 On the front conditions for gravity currents in channels of general cross-section. Environ. Fluid Mech. 16 (4), 747775.Google Scholar
White, B. L. & Helfrich, K. R. 2008 Gravity currents and internal waves in a stratified fluid. J. Fluid Mech. 616, 327356.Google Scholar