BB Outflow:
Test Case I - Individual Canals:
bisc2d-5: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: ux=umax[sin(source pi eta)]^n, source=2, n=100&2000 (eta itemized),
explorer:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Two canals/outflows, one with high transport and the other low transport; how different is the behavior?
Comments:
Big vs small jet, weaker jet becomes unstable over shorter distance (may scale with jet inflow thickness),
instabilities lead to mixing, so we want instabilities to develop as close to the coast as possible,
it seems from this run that strong jet is indeed not good for diluting near-shore high salinities.
bisc2d-8: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: ux=umax[sin(source pi eta)]^n, source=2, n=500&5000 (eta itemized),
explorer:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Two canals/outflows, with different strength than bisc2d-5 this time, to provide perspective.
Comments:
The dynamics appear to be driven by a balance between plume strength (transport) and plume penetration.
Stronger plume transports more fresh water, but this goes far off shore. Weak plume becomes unstable
near shore, but has less diluting power overall. As such, the task is to make stronger plume become
unstable over a shorter distance so that more fresh water interacts with high salinities near the inflow
boundary.
bisc2d-9: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: ux=umax[sin(source pi eta)]^n*[1+0.5*sin(pi*time/tfluc)],
source=2, n=500&5000 (eta itemized), tfluc=0.2,
explorer:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Sinusoidally-varying time dependence introduced with respect to bisc2d-8.
Comments:
Time dependence cuts off the jet penetation a bit,
but it seems still difficult to make strong currents from going too far off shore.
In particular, near shore is tough to diluted by one strong current.
bisc2d-12: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: two source, time-depending swaying of +-80 degrees witg tfluc=3.0
or one full sway round during 30k step integration,
explorer:nek5m/2d09, P=8.
Objective: Spray angle is time dependent - two full +-80 degrees sway during integration.
Can existing large canal outflow be used to dilute near shore liek this, instead of shooting far off shore?
Comments:
It seems to work well. It could be technically difficult but existing channels maybe utilized.
bisc2d-14: Same as bisc2d-14 but two little walls are put near the canals.
Objective: Instead of a cumbersome spray management system, can simple obstacles be used to guide
and spread better the canal outfalls? Ed's idea.
Comments:
Stopped at t=1.25 (instead of t=3 in other cases) because of small dt due to mesh refinement
around the obstacles. It seems to work very well.
Test Case II - Distributed Multiple Canals:
bisc2d-4: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: ux=umax{0.66[sin(source pi eta)]^20+0.33[cos(source pi eta]^50},
source=10, sola:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Distributed, time-independent outlows.
Comments:
Imteresting but transport not conserved, difficult to make comparisons.
bisc2d-6: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: ux=umax{0.66[sin(source pi eta)]^50+0.33[cos(source pi eta]^100},
source=10, sola:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Distributed, time-independent outlows, but weaker than bisc2d-4.
Comments:
Weaker flows -> mixing gets closer to the inflow boundary.
bisc2d-7: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: ux=umax{0.66[sin(source pi eta)]^100+0.33[cos(source pi eta]^100},
source=10, sola:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Distributed, time-independent outlows, but weaker than bisc2d-4 and bisc2d-6.
Comments:
Somewhat better near-shore dilution than bisc2d-6.
bisc2d-10: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow:
ux=umax{0.66[sin(source pi eta)]^100+0.33[cos(source pi eta]^100}*[1+0.5*sin(pi*time/tfluc)],
source=10, tfluc=0.2, sola:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Same as bisc2d-7 but sinusoidal time dependence is introduced.
Comments:
It is not clear visually whether time-dependence has helped; needs to be quantified carefully.
bisc2d-11: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow:
ux=umax{0.66[sin(source pi eta)]^100+0.33[cos(source pi eta]^100}*timefactor, timefactor=max{0,[sin(pi*time/tfluc)]**0.1},
nearly on/off control,
source=10, tfluc=0.2, pasha:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Same as bisc2d-7 but on/off time dependence is introduced.
Comments:
On/off time dependence seems to be working better than smoothly-varying version
for dilution of near-shore salinity. It is also easier to implement in practice.
The period can be adjusted the dividing the thickness of the high salinity region
by speed of outflow to limit the reach of the fresh water outflow.
Note however that half as much freshwater as in bisc2d-10 and bisc2d-7 released here.
More careful setup is needed to quantify the differences.
bisc2d-13: Viscos=10^-6 (Re=10^6), Conduct=10^-9 (Pr=1000), Lx=Ly=1, K=64x64=4096, LX1=12 (496k pts),
Dt=1e-4, p99=3, free-slip top/bottom, O/I right bc, inflow: same as bisc2d-7 but slanted sprayangle=+-45,
sola:nek5m/2d09, P=8, 30k steps.
Objective: Same as bisc2d-7 but canals are slanted at +-45 degrees to enhance near-shore dilution effect.
Comments:
May be working, but needs to be quantified, numerics of the upper left corner need attention. There
is a net vorticity input since upwards-slanted canals and downward ones are not of equal transport
and this may be causing the asymmetry.
