Abstract:The three-equation model (TEM) was developed in the 1980s to model turbidity currents (TCs) and has been widely used ever since. However, its physical justification was questioned because self-accelerating TCs simulated with the steady TEM seemed to violate the turbulent kinetic energy balance. This violation was considered as a result of very strong sediment erosion that consumes more turbulent kinetic energy than is produced. To confine bed erosion and thus remedy this issue, the four-equation model (FEM) was introduced by assuming a proportionality between the bed shear stress and the turbulent kinetic energy. Here we analytically proof that self-accelerating TCs simulated with the original steady TEM actually never violate the turbulent kinetic energy balance, provided that the bed drag coefficient is not unrealistically low. We find that stronger bed erosion, surprisingly, leads to more production of turbulent kinetic energy due to conversion of potential energy of eroded material into kinetic energy of the current. Furthermore, we analytically show that, for asymptotically supercritical flow conditions, the original steady TEM always produces self-accelerating TCs if the upstream boundary conditions ("ignition" values) are chosen appropriately, while it never does so for asymptotically subcritical flow conditions. We numerically show that our novel method to obtain the ignition values even works for Richardson numbers very near to unity. Our study also includes a comparison of the TEM and FEM closures for the bed shear stress to simulation data of a coupled Large Eddy and Discrete Element Model of sediment transport in water, which suggests that the TEM closure might be more realistic than the FEM closure.

Revisiting the Temkin Isotherm: Dimensional Inconsistency and Approximate Forms

A New Two-Parameter Isotherm for Modeling Adsorptive Removal of Water Contaminants

The Jossens isotherm: A critical look at water contaminant adsorption modeling

Is It Appropriate to Model Turbidity Currents with the Three-Equation Model?

The Sips Isotherm Equation: Often Used and Sometimes Misused

The Flory–Huggins Isotherm and Water Contaminant Adsorption: Debunking Some Modeling Fallacies

The Redlich–Peterson Isotherm for Aqueous Phase Adsorption: Pitfalls in Data Analysis and Interpretation

The Jovanović Adsorption Isotherm in Water Contaminant Research: Unmasking Spurious Versions and Spotlighting the Real Thing

Fitting a Little-Known Isotherm Equation to S-shaped Adsorption Equilibrium Data

The Halsey Isotherm for Water Contaminant Adsorption is Fake

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Which Is the Fairest of Them All? Comparing the Hill, Sips, Koble-Corrigan, and Liu Adsorption Isotherms

Comparative Evaluation of the Dubinin-Radushkevich Isotherm and Its Variants

The Elovich Isotherm Equation: Back to the Roots and New Developments

S-shaped Adsorption Isotherms Modeled by the Frumkin–Fowler–Guggenheim and Hill–de Boer Equations

Beyond Freundlich and Langmuir: the Ruthven–virial Equilibrium Isotherm for Aqueous-Solid Adsorption Systems

Modeling of Aqueous Phase Adsorption: is It Time to Bid Adieu to the Harkins–Jura Isotherm?

The Kiselev Isotherm for Adsorption at the Liquid-Solid Interface: Solving the Mystery of Negative Equilibrium Constants

A Universal Isotherm Model to Capture Adsorption Uptake and Energy Distribution of Porous Heterogeneous Surface

Discrimination of Rival Isotherm Equations for Aqueous Contaminant Removal Systems

Generalized TEMOM Scheme for Solving the Population Balance Equation

Description of Sigmoid Adsorption Isotherms of Water Pollutants by the Aranovich–Donohue Equation