Abstract

This article presents a three-dimensional theory of vorticity creation on generalised interfaces, including both non-slip and free-slip boundaries, which generalises a previous two-dimensional formulation (Terrington et al., J. Fluid Mech., vol. 890, 2020, p. A5). Under this description, vorticity may be created on a boundary by the inviscid relative acceleration between fluid elements on each side of the boundary, driven by either tangential pressure gradients or body forces. Viscosity acts to transfer circulation between the vortex sheet representing the slip velocity on the interface, and the fluid interior, but is not responsible for the creation of vorticity on the interface. This formulation also describes a principle of vorticity conservation for interfacial and free-surface flows: in many flow configurations, the net generation of vorticity on the interface is zero, and the total circulation remains constant throughout flow evolution.

No abstract

We perform numerical simulations of the interaction between a vortex ring and a free surface, and provide a new interpretation of the mechanism by which the vortex ring connects to the free surface. Large vorticity gradients at the free surface result in the diffusion of surface-tangential vorticity out of the fluid. This is accompanied by the diffusion of opposite-signed surface-normal vorticity away from the connection line, along the free surface, which results in the attachment of the vortex ring to the free surface. Compared to existing descriptions, this interpretation explains better how the solenoidal property that vortex lines do not end in the fluid is maintained. By including an interface vortex sheet at the free surface, the important property of vorticity conservation is maintained throughout the interaction. The upper part of the vortex ring simply diffuses out of the fluid, and into the interface vortex sheet, with the total circulation remaining constant.

The Lighthill–Panton and Lyman–Huggins interpretations of vorticity dynamics are extended to the dynamics of enstrophy. There exist two competing definitions of the vorticity current tensor, which describes the flow rate of vorticity in the fluid interior, and the corresponding boundary vorticity flux, which represents the local vorticity creation rate on a boundary. It is demonstrated that each definition of the vorticity current tensor leads to a consistent set of definitions for the enstrophy current, boundary enstrophy flux and the enstrophy dissipation term. This leads to two alternative interpretations of vorticity and enstrophy dynamics: the Lighthill–Panton and Lyman–Huggins interpretations. Although the kinematic evolution of the vorticity and enstrophy fields are the same under each set of definitions, the dynamical interpretation of the motion generally differs. For example, we consider the Stokes flow over a rotating sphere, and find that the flow approaches a steady state where, under the Lyman–Huggins interpretation, there is no enstrophy creation or dissipation. Under the Lighthill–Panton interpretation, however, the steady-state flow features a balance between the continuous generation and subsequent dissipation of enstrophy. Moreover, the Lyman–Huggins interpretation has previously been shown to offer several benefits in understanding the dynamics of vorticity, and therefore it is beneficial to extend this interpretation to the dynamics of enstrophy. For example, the Lyman–Huggins interpretation allows the creation of vorticity, and therefore enstrophy, to be interpreted as an inviscid process, due to the relative acceleration between the fluid and the boundary.