Roughness-induced boundary-layer instability beneath internal solitary waves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the effects of bottom roughness on bottom boundary-layer (BBL) instability beneath internal solitary waves (ISWs) of depression. Applying both two-dimensional (2-D) numerical simulations and linear stability theory, an extensive parametric study explores the effect of the Reynolds number, pressure gradient, roughness (periodic bump) height $h_b$ and roughness wavelength $\lambda _b$ on BBL instability. The simulations show that small $h_b$ , comparable to that of laboratory-flume materials ( $\sim$ 100 times less than the thickness of the viscous sublayer $\delta _v$ ), can destabilize the BBL and trigger vortex shedding at critical Reynolds numbers much lower than what occurs for numerically smooth surfaces. We identify two mechanisms of vortex shedding, depending on $h_b/\delta _v$ . For $h_b/\delta _v \gtrapprox 1$ , vortices are forced directly by local flow separation in the lee of each bump. Conversely, for $h_b/\delta _v \lessapprox 10^{-1}$ the roughness seeds perturbations in the BBL, which are amplified by the BBL flow. Roughness wavelengths close to those associated with the most unstable BBL mode, as predicted by linear instability theory, are preferentially amplified. This resonant amplification nature of the BBL flow, beneath ISWs, is consistent with what occurs in a BBL driven by surface solitary waves and by periodic monochromatic waves. Using the $N$ -factor method for Tollmien–Schlichting waves, we propose an analogy between the roughness height and seed noise required to trigger instability. Including surface roughness, or more generally an appropriate level of seed noise, reconciles the discrepancies between the vortex-shedding threshold observed in the laboratory versus that predicted by otherwise smooth-bottomed 2-D spectral simulations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".