Solitary water wave interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article concerns the pairwise nonlinear interaction of solitary waves in the free surface of a body of water lying over a horizontal bottom. Unlike solitary waves in many completely integrable model systems, solitary waves for the full Euler equations do not collide elastically; after interactions, there is a nonzero residual wave that trails the post-collision solitary waves. In this report on new numerical and experimental studies of such solitary wave interactions, we verify that this is the case, both in head-on collisions (the counterpropagating case) and overtaking collisions (the copropagating case), quantifying the degree to which interactions are inelastic. In the situation in which two identical solitary waves undergo a head-on collision, we compare the asymptotic predictions of Su and Mirie [J. Fluid Mech. 98, 509 (1980)] and Byatt-Smith [J. Fluid Mech. 49, 625 (1971)], the wavetank experiments of Maxworthy [J. Fluid Mech. 76, 177 (1976)], and the numerical results of Cooker, Weidman, and Bale [J. Fluid Mech. 342, 141 (1997)] with independent numerical simulations, in which we quantify the phase change, the run-up, and the form of the residual wave and its Fourier signature in both small- and large-amplitude interactions. This updates the prior numerical observations of inelastic interactions in Fenton and Rienecker [J. Fluid Mech. 118, 411 (1982)]. In the case of two nonidentical solitary waves, our precision wavetank experiments are compared with numerical simulations, again observing the run-up, phase lag, and generation of a residual from the interaction. Considering overtaking solitary wave interactions, we compare our experimental observations, numerical simulations, and the asymptotic predictions of Zou and Su [Phys. Fluids 29, 2113 (1986)], and again we quantify the inelastic residual after collisions in the simulations. Geometrically, our numerical simulations of overtaking interactions fit into the three categories of Korteweg-deVries two-soliton solutions defined in Lax [Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 21, 467 (1968)], with, however, a modification in the parameter regime. In all cases we have considered, collisions are seen to be inelastic, although the degree to which interactions depart from elastic is very small. Finally, we give several theoretical results: (i) a relationship between the change in amplitude of solitary waves due to a pairwise collision and the energy carried away from the interaction by the residual component, and (ii) a rigorous estimate of the size of the residual component of pairwise solitary wave collisions. This estimate is consistent with the analytic results of Schneider and Wayne [Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 53, 1475 (2000)], Wright [SIAM J. Math. Anal. 37, 1161 (2005)], and Bona, Colin, and Lannes [Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 178, 373 (2005)]. However, in light of our numerical data, both (i) and (ii) indicate a need to reevaluate the asymptotic results in Su and Mirie [J. Fluid Mech. 98, 509 (1980)] and Zou and Su [Phys. Fluids 29, 2113 (1986)].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".