4.7 Article

Stratification Effects on Flow Hydrodynamics and Mixing at a Confluence With a Highly Discordant Bed and a Relatively Low Velocity Ratio

期刊

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 7, 页码 4537-4562

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2017WR022292

关键词

river confluences; vortices; mixing layers; turbulent mixing; stratification effects

资金

  1. BCS Geography and Spatial Sciences Program of the United States National Science Foundation [1359836]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of temperature induced stratification on flow hydrodynamics, thermal mixing, and the capacity of the flow to entrain sediment at a medium-size stream confluence with a highly discordant bed are investigated. To isolate the effects due to differences in the temperature/density of the incoming streams, two simulations were conducted with identical flow conditions (mean velocity ratio = 0.41 and temperature difference between the two streams Delta T = 4.7 degrees C). In the first case the Richardson number was Ri = 0 (no coupling between the temperature and the momentum equations via the Boussinesq approximation), while in the second simulation Ri = 0.67. Even in the Ri = 0 case the structure of the mixing interface (MI) was different from the one expected for concordant bed confluences with a similar confluence angle and velocity ratio. The MI contained only corotating eddies shed in the shear layer forming on the fast-speed side of the confluence apex. In the Ri = 0.67 case no wake region was present but a large recirculation eddy formed not far from the confluence apex. In both cases, the flow near the upstream part of the MI was found to be highly 3-D and to allow the passage of particles from one side of the confluence to the other. While in the Ri = 0 case mixing was driven by the MI eddies, in the Ri = 0.67 case mixing was controlled by large near-bed intrusions of heavier fluid from the tributary containing colder water and also by the fluid advected in and out of the recirculation eddy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据