Abstract

AbstractThe three‐equation model (TEM) was developed in the 1980s to model turbidity currents (TCs) and has been widely used ever since. However, its physical justification was questioned because self‐accelerating TCs simulated with the steady TEM seemed to violate the turbulent kinetic energy balance. This violation was considered as a result of very strong sediment erosion that consumes more turbulent kinetic energy than is produced. To confine bed erosion and thus remedy this issue, the four‐equation model (FEM) was introduced by assuming a proportionality between the bed shear stress and the turbulent kinetic energy. Here we analytically proof that self‐accelerating TCs simulated with the original steady TEM actually never violate the turbulent kinetic energy balance, provided that the bed drag coefficient is not unrealistically low. We find that stronger bed erosion, surprisingly, leads to more production of turbulent kinetic energy due to conversion of potential energy of eroded material into kinetic energy of the current. Furthermore, we analytically show that, for asymptotically supercritical flow conditions, the original steady TEM always produces self‐accelerating TCs if the upstream boundary conditions (“ignition” values) are chosen appropriately, while it never does so for asymptotically subcritical flow conditions. We numerically show that our novel method to obtain the ignition values even works for Richardson numbers very near to unity. Our study also includes a comparison of the TEM and FEM closures for the bed shear stress to simulation data of a coupled Large Eddy and Discrete Element Model of sediment transport in water, which suggests that the TEM closure might be more realistic than the FEM closure.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call