The boundary layer instability beneath internal solitary waves and its sensitivity to vortex wakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the stability of the bottom boundary layer (BBL) beneath periodic internal solitary waves (ISWs) of depression over a flat bottom through two-dimensional direct numerical simulations. We explored the convective versus absolute/global nature of the BBL instability in response to changes in Reynolds number, and the sensitivity of the instability to seeding noise in the front of the ISW – spanning laboratory to geophysical scales. The BBL was laminar at $Re_{ISW}=90$ and convectively unstable at $Re_{ISW}=300$ . At laboratory-scale $Re_{ISW}=300$ , the convective wave packet was periodically amplified by each successive ISW, until vortex shedding occurred. The associated noise-amplification behaviour potentially explains the discrepancies of the critical $Re_{ISW}$ between the lock–release laboratory experiments and our Dubreil–Jacotin–Long-initialized numerical simulations as the result of the difference in background noise. Instability energy decreased under the front shoulder of the ISW, analogous to flow relaminarization under a favourable pressure gradient. At geophysical-scale $Re_{ISW}=900$ , the BBL was initially convectively unstable, and then the instability tracked with the ISW, appearing phenomenologically similar to a global instability. The simulated initial convective instability at both $Re_{ISW}=300$ and $Re_{ISW}=900$ is in agreement with local linear stability analysis which predicts that the instability group speed is always lower than the ISW celerity. Increased free stream perturbations in front of the ISW and larger $Re_{ISW}$ shift the location of vortex shedding (and enhanced bed shear stress) beneath the wave, closer to the ISW trough, thereby potentially changing the location of maximum sediment resuspension, in agreement with field observations at higher $Re_{ISW}$ .
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".