g. Cantero et al., 2007 and Härtel et al., 2000). High resolution fixed mesh Fluidity-ICOM simulations compare well with published values ( Hiester et al., 2011) and are used here as the benchmark for comparison. The speeds with which the no-slip and free-slip fronts propagate along the domain are calculated from the model output and are

used to give the corresponding no-slip and free-slip Froude numbers ( Hiester et al., 2011). The simulations exhibit dynamics that are typical of the lock-exchange, Fig. 2. Two gravity currents form and propagate in opposite directions along the tank with Kelvin–Helmholtz billows Tofacitinib mw developing at the interface. Once the gravity currents hit the end walls they are reflected and the fluid begins Selleck Palbociclib to ‘slosh’ back and forth across the tank. In this second oscillatory regime, internal waves and interaction with the end walls further increase the complexity of the flow. Subsequently, the system becomes increasingly less active and the motion subsides. The adaptive meshes coarsen or refine according

to the evolution of the flow. During the propagation stages, the meshes refine along the boundaries, at the temperature interface and in and around the billows, Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. The meshes generated via the different metrics refine or coarsen as would be expected. Simulations that use M∞M∞ refine in regions with the greatest curvature and coarsen elsewhere. Simulations that use MRMR also include refinement in regions where the magnitude of the fields is small. Finally, simulations that use M2M2 refine in the regions with the

greatest curvature, but also capture Florfenicol curvatures and hence features over a wider range of scales. A user can, therefore, consider a priori which form of the metric would be most suitable for the simulated system and the dynamics to be represented. The most obvious contrast between the meshes is for those produced with MRMR compared to those produced with M∞M∞ and M2M2. With MRMR there are several regions where the mesh appears to be unnecessarily refined leading to an increase in the number of vertices, Fig. 6. These regions correspond to areas of the domain where the velocity fields are near zero, Fig. 4. An increase of the parameter fminfmin, which determines the minimum allowed value of the field by which the metric can be scaled, Eq. (8), would lead to a reduction in resolution in the regions where the velocity field is near zero and, for this case, where the mesh was unnecessarily refined. The temperature perturbation is zero at the interface and the increase in resolution due to the smaller value of the field in this region is more desirable.