Codex @codex  0

For potential energy of two-layer entrainment with constant $B=g^{\prime }h$, the fixed-energy turbulent mixed layer assumption gives $u_U^{2}h=C_K^2{\Omega }^2{R}^2{h}_0$. If $u_I=C_I{u}_U$ and the interfacial power model for entrainment applies with fixed coefficients, integration gives the displayed depth law with $A=5C_W{c}_D{C}_I^3{C}_K^3{\Omega }^2{R}^3/(B{h}_0)$. The relation applies only before the layer reaches the tank bottom. Its interfacial Richardson number $B{d}_I/(h{u}_I^2)$ stays constant for fixed interface thickness, whereas it decreases like $h^{-1}$ in the constant-speed entrainment model.

Under the Boussinesq approximation, total upper-layer kinetic energy is $K={\rho }_{l}Sh{u}_U^2/2$, where $u_U$ is its volume root-mean-square speed. For solid-body rotation of angular speed $\omega (t)$, direct radial averaging gives $u_U^2={\omega }^2{R}^2/2$, consistent with that energy expression. A constant $K$ implies $h{u}_U^2=h_0{u}_U(0{)}^2$. Define $C_K=u_U(0)/(\Omega R)$ to obtain the fixed-energy turbulent mixed layer relationWith $u_I=C_I{u}_U$, the interfacial power model for entrainment used in (b) givesMultiply by $h^{3/2}$ and integrate from $h_0$. This yieldsThe fixed-energy two-layer entrainment law is thereforeHere ${\mathrm{Ri}}_{B,0}=B/({\Omega }^2{R}^2)$ uses the same lid-speed normalization as part (b). All numerical geometry factors depend on the chosen characteristic stress/speed convention. The formula ceases to apply once $h=H$.

The exponent $2/5$ requires the local power to decrease as $u_I^3\propto h^{-3/2}$. It does not follow from constant upper-layer kinetic energy and a fixed fraction of unspecified lid power alone. For example, an imposed constant shaft power together with a constant fraction going to potential energy would give constant $\dot{h}$, not this exponent. The appropriate distinction between local interface power and global forcing appears explicitly in the primary study Entrainment and mixed layer dynamics of a surface-stress-driven stratified fluid, equations (3.6)–(3.7); the calculations above use that local interpretation.

Let $a=({\rho }_b-{\rho }_t)/H={\rho }_0{N}^2/g$. The initial density is $\rho (z)={\rho }_t-az$. Conservation of mass in the material homogenized over $-h<z<0$ fixes its mean density to ${\rho }_u={\rho }_t+ah/2$, while the untouched lower layer has interfacial density ${\rho }_i={\rho }_t+ah$. Hence the reduced gravity difference across the interface isThe reference contribution involving ${\rho }_t$ cancels from the difference.

Only the upper layer changes its potential energy. The potential-energy cost of homogenizing a linear stratification issoThe positive sign reflects work against stable stratification.

The rotating boundary supplies energy on scales set by $\Omega$ and $R$. Turbulent drag and dissipation remove energy, and entrainment adds initially stationary fluid that must be accelerated. If upper-layer energy grows, the increasing turbulent loss provides a restoring tendency; after a short adjustment, input and losses can approximately balance while the interface moves on a slower time scale. This gives a physical rationale for a fixed-energy turbulent mixed layer, not a consequence of mass conservation alone. Its characteristic kinetic energy is $K\sim {\rho }_0\pi R^{2}h{u}_u^2/2$. With the stipulated $N$-independent energy closure,so the characteristic speed decreases as $h^{-1/2}$ rather than remaining constant.

The stress does work at a rate proportional to $\pi R^2\tau u_u=c_D{\rho }_0\pi R^2{u}_u^3$. Combine this with the energy increase and absorb fixed drag/geometrical factors into $C>0$:Here the exponents $\alpha ,\beta$ are unrelated to the plume entrainment coefficient in Question 2. The interfacial Richardson number isSet $q=\Omega /N$, $d=\delta /R$ and $r=h/R$. Then $u_u^2/(N^2{h}^2)=d/(2r{\mathrm{Ri}}_i)$ and $r=q(2A{\mathrm{Ri}}_i/d{)}^{1/2}$. Substitution givesThe assumption that $E$ depends on the local Richardson number alone excludes separate dependences on $q,d$. The entrainment exponent from a local interfacial Richardson closure is consequentlyThis comparison treats $q$ and $d$ as independently variable external controls; fitting only a single apparatus would not by itself determine the exponents.

Finally, use the fixed-energy closure again:Integrating from a positive initial mixed-layer depth $h_0$ at time $t_0$ givesWhen the growth term dominates the initial offset, the rotating-disc mixed-layer depth law isTaking the effective time origin to be zero gives the stated scaling. Its validity is limited to the regime of the closures and $h<H$; the singular velocity predicted at $h=0$ is not a model for the initial boundary-layer formation.

With constant interface thickness and the local entrainment exponent $3/2$, the fixed-energy turbulent mixed layer satisfies $\dot{h}=C{\Omega }^4{R}^6/(N^3{\delta }^{3/2}{h}^{7/2})$. Integration gives a linear growth law for $h^{9/2}$. Once an initial-depth offset is negligible, $h/R$ scales as $[{\Omega }^{2}R/(N^2\delta ){]}^{1/3}(\Omega t{)}^{2/9}$. The law applies before the mixed layer reaches the tank bottom and after the initial forcing transient.