Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T09:18:16.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Two-dimensional turbulence over topography of varying roughness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

V.R. Krishna Priya*
Affiliation:
Centre for Computational and Data Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302, India
Snehal Sunil Patil
Affiliation:
TuRbulent Interfaces And Dispersion (TRIAD), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur , Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302, India
Kannabiran Seshasayanan*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mechanics and Biomedical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
Rajaram Lakkaraju*
Affiliation:
Centre for Computational and Data Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302, India TuRbulent Interfaces And Dispersion (TRIAD), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur , Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302, India
*
Corresponding authors: Rajaram Lakkaraju; rajaram.lv@gmail.com; V.R. Krishna Priya, krishnapriya.vr0@gmail.com; Kannabiran Seshasayanan, kanna@iitm.ac.in
Corresponding authors: Rajaram Lakkaraju; rajaram.lv@gmail.com; V.R. Krishna Priya, krishnapriya.vr0@gmail.com; Kannabiran Seshasayanan, kanna@iitm.ac.in
Corresponding authors: Rajaram Lakkaraju; rajaram.lv@gmail.com; V.R. Krishna Priya, krishnapriya.vr0@gmail.com; Kannabiran Seshasayanan, kanna@iitm.ac.in

Abstract

We numerically study weakly decaying two-dimensional turbulence over topography of varying roughness by comparing long-term flow states from simulations to the minimum enstrophy state (MES) proposed by Bretherton & Haidvogel (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 78, 1976, issue 1, pp. 129–154). The presence of isolated vortices in the numerical simulations leads to significant differences from the theory. These vortices are either roaming or topographically locked, with this distinction depending on the topographic roughness, the initial length scale and the initial non-dimensional energy ($E/E_{\#}$), where $E_{\#}$ denotes the critical energy proposed by Siegelman & Young (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 120, 2023, issue 44, p. e2308018120). For low-energy and weakly rough topography, scatter plots show that the numerical results deviate from the MES due to the presence of vortices. As topographic roughness increases, the number, size and mobility of vortices decrease, leading to closer agreement between the numerical results and the MES. High energy and weakly rough topography lead to roaming vortices on a field of homogenised background potential vorticity. However, we observe topographically trapped eddies on highly rough topographies, even when initial length scales are much smaller than the domain size. The degree to which numerical results deviate from MES scaling is due to the presence of vortices, which, in turn, depend on topographic roughness and initial conditions in complex ways, suggesting a rich range of ways in which turbulence organises the long-term flow.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Schematic showing topographic turbulence. Bottom topography consists of small fluctuations $h(x,y)$ around a constant average depth $h_0\gt 0$. For total depth $H(x,y)=h_0+h(x,y)$, topographic depressions ($H\gt h_0$) are shown in brown and elevations ($H\lt h_0$) in green. Upper plane shows the potential vorticity ($q$) field, where $q\gt 0$ is shown in red and $q\lt 0$ in blue. Note, the vertical line with arrow mark measures the negative $z$.

Figure 1

Figure 2. (a) Power spectra, $\mathcal{P}(k)$ of normalised topographic PV ($\eta /\eta _{\textit{rms}}$) and (b) energy spectra, $\mathcal{E}(k)$ of MES obtained from (2.5) for different values of $\beta _s$ at $\mu =0$. (c) Non-dimensional Lagrange multiplier, $\mu /k_1^2$, as a function of non-dimensional energy, $E/E_{\#}$. Inset shows the variation of critical energy, $E_{\#}$, as a function of $\beta _s$ with dashed line given by (2.8). (d) Minimum enstrophy, $Q_*$, normalised by $Q_{\eta }=\langle \eta ^2 \rangle /2$ as a function of non-dimensional energy, $E/E_{\#}$. Inset shows the $Q_*/(k_1^2E_{\#})$ as a function of $E/E_{\#}$.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Top: Topographic PV, $\eta /\eta _{\textit{rms}}$; and bottom: depth profiles along the dashed horizontal line $(x, L/2)$ for (a) $\beta _s=3.0$, (b) $2.0$ and (c) $1.2$. The blue regions ($\eta =-f_0h/h_0\lt 0$) are the topographic depressions and red ($\eta \gt 0$) are the topographic elevations. The contour lines show the solution $\psi _{\#}$ when $\mu =0$ (solid lines are positive and dashed lines are negative).

Figure 3

Table 1. The spectral slope $\beta _s$ (row 1), critical energy $E_{\#}$ (row 2), dynamical time scale $1/(k_1\sqrt {E_{\#}})$ (row 3), final integration time $t_f$ (row 4) and final non-dimensionalised time $t_fk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}$ (row 5).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Time evolution of energy for $\beta _s=3.0$ (solid), $\beta _s=2.0$ (dashed) and $\beta _s=1.2$ (dotted) for (a) $E=0.25E_{\#}$ and (b) $E=E_{\#}$ runs with $k_{\textit{ini}}=16k_1, 32k_1$ and $64k_1$.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Time evolution of enstrophy ($Q$) for topographies with $\beta _s=3.0$ (solid), $2.0$ (dashed) and $1.2$ (dotted) for (a) $E=0.25E_{\#}$ runs and (b) $E=E_{\#}$ runs with $k_{\textit{ini}}=16k_1$ (red) and $k_{\textit{ini}}=64k_1$ (green). All vertical axes are in a symmetric log scale (linear within $[0,1]$ and logarithmic beyond it). Corresponding insets show $(Q_{f}-Q_*)/Q_{\eta }$ as a function of $\beta _s$ for $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1$ (yellow $\bullet$), $16k_1$ (red $\bigstar$), $32k_1$ (blue $\blacktriangledown$) and $64k_1$ (green $\blacktriangle$). The theoretical minimum enstrophy $Q_*$ obtained from (2.6).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Long-term snapshots (at $tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$) of $q$ field normalised with $\eta _{\textit{rms}}$ for simulations with initial energy $0.25E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with minimum enstrophy state ($q_*=\boldsymbol{\nabla} ^2\psi _* +\eta$) (first column). Streamlines of $\psi _{*}$ are superimposed on all the plots. Top panels for $\beta _s=3.0$ and bottom panels for $\beta _s=1.2$.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Scatter plot at $tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$ between $q/(k_1\sqrt {E_{\#}})$ and $k_1\psi /\sqrt {E_{\#}}$ for simulations with initial energy $0.25E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with MES (first column). MES solutions are shown in black as a straight line $q_*=\mu \psi _*$, where $\mu$ is determined by energy $E=0.25E_{\#}$ and $\beta _s$. Top panels for $\beta _s=3.0$ and bottom panels for $\beta _s=1.2$.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Long-term snapshots (at $tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$) of $q$ field normalised with $\eta _{\textit{rms}}$ for simulations with initial energy $E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with minimum enstrophy state ($q_*=\boldsymbol{\nabla} ^2\psi _* +\eta$) (first column). Streamlines of $\psi _{\#}$ are superimposed on all the plots. Top panels for $\beta _s=3.0$ and bottom panels for $\beta _s=1.2$.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Scatter plot at $tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$ between $q/(k_1\sqrt {E_{\#}})$ and $k_1\psi /\sqrt {E_{\#}}$ for simulations with initial energy $E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with MES (first column). MES solutions are shown in black as a straight line $q_*=\mu \psi _*$, where $\mu$ is determined by energy $E=E_{\#}$ and $\beta _s$. Top panels for $\beta _s=3.0$ and bottom panels for $\beta _s=1.2$.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Long-term snapshots (at $tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$) of $q$ field normalised with $\eta _{\textit{rms}}$ for simulations with initial energy $2E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with minimum enstrophy state ($q_*=\boldsymbol{\nabla} ^2\psi _* +\eta$) (first column). Streamlines of $\psi _{*}$ are superimposed on all the plots. Top panels for $\beta _s=3.0$ and bottom panels for $\beta _s=1.2$.

Figure 11

Figure 11. Scatter plot at $tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$ between $q/(k_1\sqrt {E_{\#}})$ and $k_1\psi /\sqrt {E_{\#}}$ for simulations with initial energy $2E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with MES (first column). MES solutions are shown in black as a straight line $q_*=\mu \psi _*$, where $\mu$ is determined by energy $E=2E_{\#}$ and $\beta _s$. Top panels for $\beta _s=3.0$ and bottom panels for $\beta _s=1.2$.

Figure 12

Figure 12. Long-term energy spectra for runs with initial energy, $E=0.25E_{\#}$, and $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1$ (yellow), $16k_1$ (red), $32k_1$ (blue) and $64k_1$ (green) over topography with (a) $\beta _s=3.0$ and (b) $\beta _s=1.2$. The black line is the MES spectra obtained from variational principles, with slope $k^{-(\beta _s+2)}$ (dashed line). Insets show the time evolution of normalised characteristic wavenumber, $k_c/k_{\textit{ini}}$ (dotted lines), for runs with different values of $k_{\textit{ini}}$.

Figure 13

Figure 13. Time evolution of correlation coefficients $C_{\zeta \eta }$ (${\bullet}$) and $C_{q \psi _{\#}}$ ($\blacksquare$) with initial energies (a) $0.25E_{\#}$, (b) $E_{\#}$. Solid lines for $\beta _s=3.0$ and dotted for $\beta _s=1.2$. Colours for $8k_1$ (magenta) and $32k_1$ (blue).

Figure 14

Figure 14. (a) Evolution of normalised enstrophy of run with initial wavenumber, $k_{\textit{ini}}=16k_1$, initial energy, $E=0.25E_{\#}$, using two different grids, $2048 \times 2048$ (solid line) and $4096 \times 4096$ ($\unicode{x2B24}$) on topography with $\beta _s=3.0$ (blue) and $\beta _s=1.2$ (red). The inset shows the energy spectra at the final time ($tk_1\sqrt {E_{\#}}=900$) for two grid resolutions for $\beta _s=3.0$. (b) Normalised initial enstrophy $Q(0)$ versus $k_{\textit{ini}}$ for different values of topographic roughness, $\beta _s$. Circles for $E=0.25E_{\#}$ and squares for $E=E_{\#}$.

Figure 15

Figure 15. Normalised initial relative vorticity field ($\zeta /\eta _{\textit{rms}}$): (a) $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1$; (b) $k_{\textit{ini}}=16k_1$; (c) $k_{\textit{ini}}=32k_1$ and (d) $k_{\textit{ini}}=64k_1$.

Figure 16

Table 2. Movie numbers (column 1) corresponding to the runs with different values of $\beta _s$ (column 2), $k_{\textit{ini}}/k_1$ (column 3) and $E/E_{\#}$ (column 4), normalised kinetic energy $E/E(0)$ (column 5) and normalised potential enstrophy $Q/Q(0)$ (column 6) at time $tk_1\sqrt {E_\#} = 900$. The movies are uploaded as ‘Movie$\#$_beta_xx_k_xx_En_xx’, where beta is for $\beta _s$ value, k for $k_{\textit{ini}}$ and En for $E/E_{\#}$.

Figure 17

Figure 16. Long term snapshots of relative vorticity field of $E=0.25E_{\#}$ for $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with MES (first column) for $\beta _s=3.0$ (a,c,e,g) and $\beta _s=1.2$ (b,d,f,h).

Figure 18

Figure 17. Long-term snapshots of relative vorticity field of $E=E_{\#}$ for $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with MES (first column) for $\beta _s=3.0$ (a,c,e,g) and $\beta _s=1.2$ (b,d,f,h).

Figure 19

Figure 18. Long-term snapshots of relative vorticity field of $E=2E_{\#}$ for $k_{\textit{ini}}=8k_1, 16k_1$ and $32k_1$ (second–fourth columns, respectively) compared with MES (first column) for $\beta _s=3.0$ (a,c,e,g) and $\beta _s=1.2$ (b,d,f,h).

Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 1

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=3.0$ , $k_{ini}=8k_1$ and $E=0.25E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 1(File)
File 30.5 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 2

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=3.0$ , $k_{ini}=32k_1$ and $E=0.25E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 2(File)
File 32.3 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 3

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=8k_1$ and $E=0.25E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 3(File)
File 15.8 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 4

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=32k_1$ and $E=0.25E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 4(File)
File 19.4 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 5

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=3.0$ , $k_{ini}=8k_1$ and $E=1.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 5(File)
File 17 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 6

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=8k_1$ and $E=1.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 6(File)
File 13 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 7

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=32k_1$ and $E=1.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 7(File)
File 17.4 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 8

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=3.0$ , $k_{ini}=16k_1$ and $E=2.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 8(File)
File 18.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 9

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=8k_1$ and $E=2.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 9(File)
File 12.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 10

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=16k_1$ and $E=2.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 10(File)
File 25.3 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 11

Evolution of run with $\beta_s=1.2$ , $k_{ini}=32k_1$ and $E=2.0E_{\#}$ for $\zeta/\eta_{rms}$ (left panel) and $q/\eta_{rms}$ (right panel).
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 11(File)
File 18.8 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 12

Evolution of $\beta$ -plane turbulence with $k_{ini} \gg k_{Rhines}$
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 12(File)
File 12.6 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 13

Evolution of $\beta$ -plane turbulence with $k_{ini} \ll k_{Rhines}$
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary movie 13(File)
File 10.7 MB
Supplementary material: File

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary material 14

Krishna Priya et al. supplementary material
Download Krishna Priya et al. supplementary material 14(File)
File 1.2 MB