Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T02:55:10.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Strong free-surface turbulence in breaking bores: a physical study on the free-surface dynamics and air–water interfacial features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2021

Davide Wüthrich*
Affiliation:
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia Delft University of Technology, Delft 2600, The Netherlands
Rui Shi
Affiliation:
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
Hubert Chanson
Affiliation:
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
*
†Email address for correspondence: d.wuthrich@tudelft.nl

Abstract

Highly turbulent free-surface flows are characterised by complex and rapidly varying air–water surface features, leading to enhanced surface roughness, breakup and disintegration processes. Such a strong free-surface turbulence has an impact on a number of environmental flows, and a deeper understanding of its physical nature is fundamental. Unsteady breaking bores are of particular interest because of their recirculating motion, with large air entrainment and splashes, resulting in highly fluctuating and rapidly varying free-surface flows. Herein, new methodologies and innovative approaches are used in support of a deeper understanding of the physical processes within a breaking roller, inclusive of a comprehensive assessment of its free-surface dynamics. Because of the unsteadiness of the flow, multiple repetitions were necessary and all results were based upon an ensemble statistical analysis. Ultra-high-speed videos recorded from both top and side views allowed for a detailed characterisation of the roller's free surface, providing a description and classification of the most recurring air–water surface features. A quantification of their main properties in terms of geometry, duration and frequency of appearance revealed an evolution of these features during their lifespans. In parallel, the use of optical flow techniques provided a characterisation of the surface velocity fields, yielding information on the free-surface kinematic properties and revealing a strong link between air–water surface features, energy dissipation and time/length scales.

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) Tidal bore on the Qiantang River, China, on 11 October 2014. (b) Oscillating hydraulic jump at Norman Creek minimum energy loss (MEL) culvert during a flash flood in May 2009 in Brisbane, Australia. (Photographs by Prof. H.Chanson.)

Figure 1

Figure 2. Schematic of the bore generation technique and experimental set-up. Inset: breaking bore in the hydraulic laboratory ($Fr_1 = 2.4$).

Figure 2

Table 1. Physical properties of the breaking bores investigated in the present study.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Definition sketch of the main air–water surface features identified within SFST on breaking bores.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Typical length and velocity scales of main turbulent air–water surface features observed in breaking bores. Present data are plotted against the length–velocity graph by Brocchini & Peregrine (2001a).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Top view of the strong surface turbulence observed in breaking rollers with different Froude numbers. Bore propagation from bottom to top.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Images of fingers, helices, droplets and crowns.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Images of slugs, boils, mushrooms, spider webs and holes.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Location of the air–water surface features analysed in the present study for $Fr_1= 2.4$, where $x_r$ is the mean longitudinal position of the roller toe perimeter (Appendix B).

Figure 9

Figure 9. (a) Definition sketch of the water droplet trajectory's main parameters. (b) Normalised ballistic trajectories for water droplets observed for $Fr_1 = 2.4$ (85 trajectories) and $Fr_1 = 2.1$ (45 trajectories).

Figure 10

Figure 10. Statistical distributions of (a) ejection angles, (b) components of the droplet's instantaneous ejection velocities ($Fr_1 = 2.4$) and (c) droplet size $d$ ($Fr_1 = 2.1$ and 2.4).

Figure 11

Figure 11. Statistical distributions for different Froude numbers of (a) a finger's lifespan ($T_{span}$), normalised using the bore's initial flow depth $d_1$, flow velocity $V_1$ and celerity $U$, and (b) the ratio between the finger's length and width $L/W$ at maximum elongation.

Figure 12

Figure 12. Typical example of time evolution of the same finger. (a) Air–water boundaries. Time evolution of length and enclosed area of air–water flow boundary for fingers with $Fr_1 = 2.4$. (b) The ratio of available finger number ($N_c$) to total finger number ($N$). (c) Normalised perimeter for 30 fingers and their ensemble median values. (d) Normalised area for 30 fingers and their ensemble median values. Here $t_0$ is the starting time of the feature.

Figure 13

Figure 13. Example of trajectory followed by helices for $Fr_1 = 2.4$; the thin solid line represents the instantaneous side-view contour of the helix, whilst the thick black line shows the external trajectory followed by the head of the helix. The dotted line shows the comparison with the ballistic trajectory in (5.1).

Figure 14

Figure 14. Statistical distributions for different Froude numbers of (a) a crown's lifespan ($T_{span}$), normalised using the bore's initial flow depth $d_1$, flow velocity $V_1$ and celerity $U$, and (b) the ratio between the crown's length and width $L/W$ at maximum elongation.

Figure 15

Figure 15. Typical example of time evolution of the same crown. (a) Air–water boundaries. Time evolution of length and enclosed area of air–water flow boundary for fingers with $Fr_1 = 2.4$. (b) The ratio of available finger number ($N_c$) to total finger number ($N$). (c) Normalised perimeter for 30 fingers and their ensemble median values. (d) Normalised area for 30 fingers and their ensemble median values. Here $t_0$ is the starting time of the feature.

Figure 16

Figure 16. Statistical distributions for different Froude numbers of (a) a hole's lifespan ($T_{span}$), normalised using the bore's initial flow depth $d_1$, flow velocity $V_1$ and celerity $U$, and (b) the ratio between hole length and width $L/W$.

Figure 17

Figure 17. Instantaneous surface velocities obtained from the application of the OF technique to the top-view high-speed videos ($Fr_1 = 2.4$).

Figure 18

Figure 18. Flow fields obtained with the surface OF technique around a finger (a–d) and a crown (e–h). The time lapse between panels was $t = 0.014$ s.

Figure 19

Figure 19. The ensemble-averaged free-surface OF velocity fields: (a) longitudinal component $\langle V_{S,x} \rangle$; (b) transverse component $\langle V_{S,y} \rangle$; and (c) number of available frames for ensemble statistics, $N_{ave}$.

Figure 20

Figure 20. Turbulence statistics using ensemble-averaged velocity: (a) TKE $k$ and (b) the ratio of r.m.s. transverse $v_{{rms,}y}$ and longitudinal $v_{{rms,}x}$ velocity fluctuations.

Figure 21

Figure 21. Energy dissipation on the bore free surface: (a) turbulence dissipation rates; and (b) the ratio of turbulence dissipation rate to total energy dissipation rate.

Figure 22

Figure 22. Ensemble-averaged integral turbulent length (a) and time (b) scales obtained for longitudinal velocity component $V_{S,x}$, and integral turbulent length (c) and time (d) scales for transverse velocity component $V_{S,y}$.

Figure 23

Figure 23. Comparison between manually tracked surface features (MT) and surface OF data for (a) surface kinetic energy $k$ and (b) typical length scales, both instantaneous ($L_x$) and ensemble-averaged ($\langle L_x \rangle$). Chanson (2007) and Chachereau & Chanson (2011) refer to length scales in hydraulic jumps with $Fr_1 = 3.8$ and 7.9 based on phase detection probe and acoustic displacement meter data, respectively. Jackson (1976) refers to boils observed in the Polomet River.

Figure 24

Figure 24. (a) Stationary hydraulic jump reproduced in the laboratory with flow direction from right to left and $Fr_1 = 2.4$. (b) Tidal bore on the Garonne river at Podensac (France) on 28 October 2015, showing the three-dimensionality and the large amount of sediment involved in the breaking process.

Figure 25

Table 2. Processing parameters used in the GF algorithm implemented in Matlab.

Figure 26

Figure 25. Comparison of the longitudinal bore front celerity data obtained by Wüthrich et al. (2020a) and the present OF results: (a) mean bore front celerity and (b) statistical distribution of the instantaneous bore front celerity.

Figure 27

Figure 26. Example of synchronisation process for different top-view video frames: (a) first analysed frame; (b) $n$th frame between first and last frame; and (c) last analysed frame.