Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T13:51:00.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turbulent fountains in one- and two-layer crossflows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2011

Joseph K. Ansong ,
Alexandra Anderson-Frey  and
Bruce R. Sutherland
Joseph K. Ansong
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada
Alexandra Anderson-Frey
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E3, Canada
Bruce R. Sutherland*
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E1, Canada Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2E3, Canada
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Lagrangian theory developed for fountains in a stationary fluid is extended to predict the path and breadth of a fountain in a one- and two-layer fluid with a moderate crossflow. The predictions compare well with the results of laboratory experiments of fountains in a one-layer fluid. The empirical spreading parameter determined from the one-layer experiments is used in the theory for fountains in a two-layer crossflow. Though qualitatively correct, the theory underpredicts the height and radius of the fountains. Similar to the behaviour of fountains in two-layer stationary ambients, the fountain in a two-layer crossflow is observed to exhibit three regimes of flow: it may penetrate the interface, eventually returning to the level of the source where it spreads as a propagating gravity current; upon descent, it may be trapped at the interface where it spreads as a propagating intrusion; it may do both, partially descending to the source and partially being trapped at the interface. These regimes are classified theoretically and empirically. The theoretical classification compared the buoyancy excess of the descending flow to the density difference between the two layers. The regimes are also classified using empirically determined regime parameters which govern the relative initial momentum of the fountain and the relative density difference of the fountain and the ambient fluid.

JFM classification

Convection: Plumes/thermals
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 689 , 25 December 2011 , pp. 254 - 278
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

1. Ansong, J., Kyba, P. J. & Sutherland, B. R. 2008 Fountains impinging upon a density interface. J. Fluid Mech. 595, 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ansong, J. & Sutherland, B. R. 2010 Internal gravity waves generated by convective plumes. J. Fluid Mech. 648, 405–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bodurtha, J. F. 1961 The behaviour of dense stack gases. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 11, 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Briggs, G. 1969 Plume rise. Tech. Rep. TID-25075, NTIS. USAEC Critical Review Series.Google Scholar
5. Briggs, G. A. 1975 Plume rise predictions. In Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analyses, pp. 59–111. American Meteorological Society.Google Scholar
6. Britter, R. 1989 Atmospheric dispersion of dense gases. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 21, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Britter, R. & Griffiths, R. 1982 The role of dense gases in the assessment of industrial hazards. J. Hazard. Mater. 6, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Chu, V. 1975 Turbulent dense plumes in a laminar cross flow. J. Hydraul. Res. 13, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Chu, V. & Goldberg, M. 1974 Buoyant forced-plumes in cross flow. J. Hydraul. Div. Proc. ASCE 100, 1203–1214.Google Scholar
10. Fay, J. & Zemba, S. 1986 Integral model of dense gas plume dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 20, 1347–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Gungor, E. & Roberts, P. 2009 Experimental studies on vertical dense jets in a flowing current. J. Hydraul. Engng 135, 935–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hoot, T., Meroney, R. & Peterka, J. 1973 Wind tunnel tests of negatively buoyant plumes. Tech. Rep. US Environmental Protection Agency, Report EPA-650/3-74-003.Google Scholar
13. Hoult, D., Fay, J. & Forney, L. 1969 Theory of plume rise compared with field observations. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 19, 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Hunt, G. R. & Kaye, N. B. 2005 Lazy plumes. J. Fluid Mech. 533, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Hunt, G. R. & Kaye, N. B. 2001 Virtual origin correction for lazy turbulent plumes. J. Fluid Mech. 435, 377–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Kaye, N. B. & Hunt, G. R. 2006 Weak fountains. J. Fluid Mech. 558, 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Johnson, M. & Kostiuk, L. 2000 Efficiencies of low-momentum jet diffusion flames in crosswinds. Combust. Flame 123, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Kotsovinos, N. 2000 Axisymmetric submerged intrusion in stratified fluid. J. Hydraul. Engng ASCE 126, 446–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Lane-Serff, G., Linden, P. & Hillel, M. 1993 Forced, angled plumes. J. Hazard. Mater. 33, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Lee, J. & Chu, V. 2003 Turbulent Buoyant Jets and Plumes: A Langrangian Approach. Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Lindberg, W. 1994 Experiments on negatively buoyant jets, with and without cross-flow. In NATO Advanced Research Workshop on ‘Recent Advances in Jets and Plumes’, NATO ASI Series E, vol. 255, pp. 131–145. Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Manins, P. 1979 Partial penetration of an elevated inversion layer by chimney plumes. Atmos. Environ. 13, 733–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. McQuaid, J. 1989 Dispersal of chemicals. In Methods for Assessing and Reducing Injury from Chemical Accidents (ed. Bourdeau, P. & Green, G. ), pp. 157–187. Wiley.Google Scholar
24. Middleton, J. 1986 The rise of forced plumes in a stably stratified crossflow. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 36, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Morton, B. R. 1959 Forced plumes. J. Fluid Mech. 5, 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Morton, B. R., Taylor, G. I. & Turner, J. S. 1956 Turbulent gravitational convection from maintained and instantaneous sources. Proc. R. Soc. A 234, 1–23.Google Scholar
27. Roberts, P. & Toms, G. 1987 Inclined dense jets in flowing currents. J. Hydraul. Engng 113 (3), 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Schatzmann, M., Snyder, W. & Lawson, R. 1993 Experiments with heavy gas jets in laminar and turbulent cross-flows. Atmos. Environ. 27A, 1105–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Shaver, E. & Forney, L. 1988 Properties of industrial dense gas plumes. Atmos. Environ. 22, 833–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Shiau, B.-S., Yang, C.-L. & Tsai, B.-J. 2007 Experimental observations on the submerged discharge of brine into coastal water in flowing current. J. Coast. Res. 50, 789–793.Google Scholar
31. Turner, J. S. 1966 Jets and plumes with negative or reversing buoyancy. J. Fluid Mech. 26, 779–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Weil, J. 1988 Plume rise. In Lectures on air pollution modelling (ed. Venkatram, A. & Wyngaard, J. ), pp. 119–166. American Meteorological Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar