Skip to main content
Log in

Propagation, deposition, and suspension characteristics of constant-volume particle-driven gravity currents

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Fluid Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this laboratory study, propagation behaviour, particle deposition patterns, and suspension characteristics of non-cohesive particle-driven gravity currents formed under constant-volume release conditions were investigated. The experimental gravity currents were created in a two-dimensional lock exchange type tank using two different particles (silicon carbide and glass beads) with four different median diameters. Video imaging and image processing techniques were utilized to monitor the current propagation, laser diffraction size analysis and dry weighing techniques were utilized to examine the size and mass characteristics of the deposits and suspensions, and acoustic Doppler velocimetry was utilized for flow velocity measurements for turbulence analysis. Our observations showed that the experimental gravity currents experienced two different propagation phases based upon the particle settling regimes. The first propagation phase was named as the propagation with the turbulence-dominated settling (TDS) and the later propagation phase was named as the propagation with gravity-dominated settling (GDS). It is found that a critical turbulent Reynolds number value (estimated to be O(1)) delineates the settling regimes, hence determines the transition between the propagation phases. With increasing particle settling velocity, the observed propagation phases in our experimental currents showed increasing deviations from the slumping, inertia-buoyancy, and viscous–buoyancy propagation phases that have been reported for homogeneous constant-volume gravity currents with no or negligible settling in the literature. Propagation observations showed that the initial median particle diameters of the currents have negligible effect on the current propagation characteristics during the TDS phase, but become important during the GDS phase. The currents with smaller initial median particle diameters propagated faster and a longer distance in the GDS phase than their counterparts with larger median particle diameters. The deposited particle characteristics indicated that particles of different sizes settle at similar speeds during the TDS phase due to turbulent mixing and the settling speed becomes dependent on the particle size during the GDS phase. As a result, size sorting of the deposited particles became more pronounced during the GDS phase. At the earlier stages of propagation, the vertical profiles of suspended particle concentrations in the current head showed some extent of vertical uniformity due to turbulent mixing around the half height of the current head. On the other hand, at the later stages of propagation, suspended particle concentration profiles exhibited an exponential profile. Deposited and suspended particle characteristics showed that horizontal particle sorting, that is size grading of particles in the flow direction, was more pronounced than the vertical particle sorting, that is size grading of particles at different elevations within the current head.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arneborg L, Fiekas V, Umlauf L, Burchard H (2007) Gravity current dynamics and entrainment: a process study based on observations in the Arkona Basin. J Phys Oceanogr 37(8):2094–2113

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bonnecaze RT, Huppert HE, Lister JR (1993) Particle-driven gravity currents. J Fluid Mech 250:339–369

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cantero MI, Lee J, Balachandar S, Garcia MH (2007) On the front velocity of gravity currents. J Fluid Mech 586:1–39

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chowdhury M, Testik FY (2011) Laboratory testing of mathematical models for high-concentration fluid mud turbidity currents. Ocean Eng 38(1):256–270

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chowdhury M, Testik FY (2012) Viscous propagation of two-dimensional non-Newtonian gravity currents. Fluid Dyn Res 44(4):045502

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chowdhury MR, Testik FY (2014) A review of gravity currents formed by submerged single-port discharges in inland and coastal waters. Environ Fluid Mech 14(2):265–293

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cyr M, Tagnit-Hamou A (2001) Particle size distribution of fine powders by LASER diffraction spectrometry case of cementitious materials. Mater Struct 34(6):342–350

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dade WB, Huppert HE (1995) A box model for non-entraining, suspension-driven gravity surges on horizontal surfaces. Sedimentology 42(3):453–470

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davidson P (2005) Turbulence: an introduction for scientists and engineers. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Boer GB, de Weerd C, Thoenes D, Goossens HW (1987) Laser diffraction spectrometry: Fraunhofer diffraction versus Mie scattering. Part Part Syst Charact 4(1–4):14–19

    Google Scholar 

  11. Decrop B, De Mulder T, Toorman E, Sas M (2015) New methods for ADV measurements of turbulent sediment fluxes–application to a fine sediment plume. J Hydraul Res 53(3):317–331

    Google Scholar 

  12. Di Felice R (1995) Hydrodynamics of liquid fluidisation. Chem Eng Sci 50(8):1213–1245

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dufek J, Bergantz G (2007) Suspended load and bed-load transport of particle-laden gravity currents: the role of particle–bed interaction. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 21(2):119–145

    Google Scholar 

  14. García MH (1994) Depositional turbidity currents laden with poorly sorted sediment. J Hydraul Eng 120(11):1240–1263

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gladstone C, Phillips J, Sparks R (1998) Experiments on bidisperse, constantvolume gravity currents: propagation and sediment deposition. Sedimentology 45(5):833–844

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hallworth MA, Huppert HE (1998) Abrupt transitions in high-concentration, particle-driven gravity currents. Phys Fluids 10(5):1083–1087

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harris TC, Hogg AJ, Huppert HE (2001) A mathematical framework for the analysis of particle-driven gravity currents. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci R Soc 457:1241–1272

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harris TC, Hogg AJ, Huppert HE (2002) Polydispersed particle-driven gravity currents. J Fluid Mech 472:333–371

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heiliger C, Kaye N, Testik FY (2013) A computational study of the role of particle size standard deviation on the collision frequency in differential settling. Int J Sedim Res 28(1):34–45

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hogg AJ, Ungarish M, Huppert HE (2000) Particle-driven gravity currents: asymptotic and box model solutions. Eur J Mech B/Fluids 19(1):139–165

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huang H, Imran J, Pirmez C (2005) Numerical model of turbidity currents with a deforming bottom boundary. J Hydraul Eng 131(4):283–293

    Google Scholar 

  22. Huppert HE (2006) Gravity currents: a personal perspective. J Fluid Mech 554:299–322

    Google Scholar 

  23. Huppert HE, Simpson JE (1980) The slumping of gravity currents. J Fluid Mech 99(4):785–799

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jacobson M, Testik FY (2013) On the concentration structure of high-concentration constant-volume fluid mud gravity currents. Phys Fluids 25(1):016602

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobson M, Testik FY (2014) Turbulent entrainment into fluid mud gravity currents. Environ Fluid Mech 14(2):541–563

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kessel TV, Kranenburg C (1996) Gravity current of fluid mud on sloping bed. J Hydraul Eng 122(12):710–717

    Google Scholar 

  27. Manica R (2012) Sediment gravity flows: study based on experimental simulations. In: Schulz HE, Simões ALA, Lobosco RJ (eds) Hydrodynamics: natural water bodies. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 263–286

    Google Scholar 

  28. McLelland SJ, Nicholas AP (2000) A new method for evaluating errors in high-frequency ADV measurements. Hydrol Process 14(2):351–366

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mei R (1994) Effect of turbulence on the particle settling velocity in the nonlinear drag range. Int J Multiph Flow 20(2):273–284

    Google Scholar 

  30. Meiburg E, Kneller B (2010) Turbidity currents and their deposits. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 42:135–156

    Google Scholar 

  31. Meiburg E, Radhakrishnan S, Nasr-Azadani M (2015) Modeling gravity and turbidity currents: computational approaches and challenges. Appl Mech Rev 67(4):040802

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moeslund TB (2012) Introduction to video and image processing: building real systems and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  33. Monin AS, Yaglom AM (1975) Statistical fluid mechanics, volume III: mechanics of turbulence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mériaux CA, Zemach T, Kurz-Besson CB, Ungarish M (2016) The propagation of particulate gravity currents in a V-shaped triangular cross section channel: lock-release experiments and shallow-water numerical simulations. Phys Fluids 28(3):036601

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nielsen P (1993) Turbulence effects on the settling of suspended particles. J Sediment Res 63(5):835–838

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nikora VI, Goring DG (1998) ADV measurements of turbulence: Can we improve their interpretation? J Hydraul Eng 124(6):630–634

    Google Scholar 

  37. Noh Y, Fernando H (1992) The motion of a buoyant cloud along an incline in the presence of boundary mixing. J Fluid Mech 235:557–577

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ozer M, Orhan M, Isik NS (2010) Effect of particle optical properties on size distribution of soils obtained by laser diffraction. Environ Eng Geosci 16(2):163–173

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pope SB (2000) Turbulent flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rao RR, Roopa H, Kannan T (1999) Effect of pH on the dispersability of silicon carbide powders in aqueous media. Ceram Int 25(3):223–230

    Google Scholar 

  41. Richardson J, Zaki W (1954) The sedimentation of a suspension of uniform spheres under conditions of viscous flow. Chem Eng Sci 3(2):65–73

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rottman JW, Simpson JE (1983) Gravity currents produced by instantaneous releases of a heavy fluid in a rectangular channel. J Fluid Mech 135:95–110

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rouse H (1937) Modern conceptions of the mechanics of fluid turbulence. Trans Am Soc Civ Eng 102(1):463–505

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ryżak M, Bieganowski A (2011) Methodological aspects of determining soil particle-size distribution using the laser diffraction method. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 174(4):624–633

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sequeiros OE, Naruse H, Endo N, Garcia MH, Parker G (2009) Experimental study on self-accelerating turbidity currents. J Geophys Res Oceans. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JC005149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Simons DB, Şentürk F (1992) Sediment transport technology: water and sediment dynamics. Water Resources Publication, Littleton

    Google Scholar 

  47. Simpson JE (1997) Gravity currents: In the environment and the laboratory, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sobel I, Feldman G (1968) A 3x3 isotropic gradient operator for image processing, a talk at the Stanford Artificial Project in, pp 271–272

  49. Soulsby R (1997) Dynamics of marine sands: a manual for practical applications. Thomas Telford, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. Teipel U (2002) Problems in characterizing transparent particles by laser light diffraction spectrometry. Chem Eng Technol 25(1):13–21

    Google Scholar 

  51. Testik FY (2014) Gravity currents in the environment preface. Environ Fluid Mech 14(2):263–264

    Google Scholar 

  52. Tropea C, Yarin A, Foss J (2007) Springer handbook of experimental fluid mechanics. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ungarish M (2009) An introduction to gravity currents and intrusions. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ungarish M, Huppert HE (2000) High-Reynolds-number gravity currents over a porous boundary: shallow-water solutions and box-model approximations. J Fluid Mech 418:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  55. Winterwerp JC, Van Kesteren WG (2004) Introduction to the physics of cohesive sediment dynamics in the marine environment, vol 56. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  56. Yilmaz NA, Testik FY, Chowdhury MR (2014) Laminar flow of constant-flux release bottom gravity currents: friction factor: Reynolds number relationship. J Hydr Res 52(4):545–558

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang Z (2000) A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(11):1330–1334

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the funds provided by the College of Engineering at the University of Texas at San Antonio to the second author (FYT). The first author is a graduate student under the guidance of FYT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Firat Y. Testik.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ikeda, J., Testik, F.Y. Propagation, deposition, and suspension characteristics of constant-volume particle-driven gravity currents. Environ Fluid Mech 21, 177–208 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-020-09756-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-020-09756-4

Keywords

Navigation