Fig. 5: Influence of slide rheology and submergence on the energy transfer efficiency.
From: On the optimum of the energy transfer efficiency in the generation of waves by subaerial landslides
Left column: Granular slides. The slide volume (per unit width) is the same in all the cases (i.e., hs = 1.25h0). a–d Snapshots of the fluid interfaces, streamlines, and turbulent dissipation rate ϵ around the leading wave at four times (\({t}_{1}^{* }\)=3.5, \({t}_{2}^{* }\)=8,\({t}_{3}^{* }\)=45, \({t}_{4}^{* }\)=70), with (a) water slide with no initial elevation (i.e., hl = 0), (b) same as (a) but the slide is granular and the density is 1575 kg. m−3, (c) same as (b) except hl = h0 and a density of 1000, (d) same as (c) but with a density of 1575 kg. m−3. e Wave energy versus slide initial energy E0 for the four different cases. Right column: Newtonian slides (with hs = 2h0). Illustration of the decrease in efficiency when (f) increasing the slide viscosity (or decreasing the slide Reynolds number \(R{e}_{s}=\frac{\sqrt{g\,{h}_{s}}\cdot {h}_{s}}{{\nu }_{s}}\)) and (g) increasing the slide initial elevation. e, g curve symbols definition as in Fig. 4.
