Injection of a heavy fluid into a light fluid in

a closed-end pipe
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009102
Submitted: 27 March 2020 • Accepted: 22 May 2020 • Published Online: 09 June 2020

S. Akbari and S. M. Taghavi

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

On respiratory droplets and face masks

Physics of Fluids 32, 063303 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0015044

Likelihood of survival of coronavirus in a respiratory droplet deposited on a solid surface

Physics of Fluids 32, 061704 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0012009

Direct numerical simulation of multiscale flow physics of binary droplet collision

Physics of Fluids 32, 062103 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0006695

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302

© 2020 Author(s).
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

Injection of a heavy fluid into a light fluid

in a closed-end pipe
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Submitted: 27 March 2020 • Accepted: 22 May 2020 •
Published Online: 9 June 2020

S. Akbari and S. M. Taghavia)

AFFILIATIONS
Department of Chemical Engineering, Université Laval, Québec, Quebec G1V 0A6, Canada

a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: Seyed-Mohammad.Taghavi@gch.ulaval.ca

ABSTRACT
We report experimental results on the injection of a heavy fluid into a light one in a closed-end pipe, inclined at intermediate angles. The
injection of the heavy fluid is made using an inner duct with a smaller diameter than that of the pipe in which the light fluid is placed. The
fluids used are miscible and Newtonian, and they have the same viscosity. Our observation shows that, during the removal/replacement of the
light fluid by the heavy fluid, at least four distinct flow stages can be identified: (i) initial buoyant jet of the heavy fluid, (ii) development of a
mixing region, (iii) slumping flow of the heavy fluid, and (iv) heavy fluid front reaching the pipe end and returning toward the mixing region.
Using high-speed camera images along with the ultrasound Doppler velocimetry and laser induced fluorescence data, the flow characteristics
in these flow stages are quantified, and they are described in detail vs the dimensionless groups that govern the flow dynamics, namely, the
Froude number (Fr), the Reynolds number (Re), the Archimedes number (Ar), and the pipe inclination angle (β). While our findings are
of fundamental importance, they can also be used to provide a fluid mechanics understanding of the dump bailing method in the plug and
abandonment (P&A) of oil and gas wells.
Published under license by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009102., s

I. INTRODUCTION
Fluid injection into a flow geometry containing another fluid
attracts research interests due to its prominent applications in vari-
ous industries, such as the plug and abandonment (P&A) of oil and
gas wells, transport of crude oil, oil recovery, food processing, and
channel cleaning.1 The objective of fluid injection is commonly to
displace, remove, or replace an in situ fluid by an injected fluid. The
behaviors of such a flow depend on buoyancy, e.g., when the two flu-
ids have different densities, the injection rate of the heavy fluid, and
the flow geometry configuration, to name a few. For fluid injection
into confined flow geometries, the flow can be studied as a func-
tion of the parameters that govern its dynamics, such as the phys-
ical properties of the fluids (e.g., densities and viscosities), the flow
geometry type (e.g., pipe, annulus, or channel), and the operational
conditions (e.g., injection velocity and geometry inclination). Based
on the aforementioned parameters involved as well as the competi-
tion between the governing forces, various kinds of flow regimes are
expected to occur.
Our underlying motivation in studying the flow problem
of fluid injection is to understand the fluid mechanics of P&A
processes, which usually include the injection of cement slurry into
drilling mud in certain areas of oil or gas well. This is to isolate the oil
or gas reservoir and avoid reservoir fluids from migrating to upper
zones especially with underground water resources.2 For the pro-
cess to be successful, the in-place drilling mud must be displaced and
replaced by the injected cement slurry in a way that mixing between
the two fluids is minimized. The process performance depends on
several factors, e.g., the fluid injection method, the well configura-
tion, the flow geometry (e.g., circular casing or annulus), and the
well inclination.3 One of the common fluid injection methods in
P&A processes is the dump bailing method4,5 in which the cement
slurry (heavy fluid) is continuously injected to remove the drilling
mud (light fluid) in a circular casing near the bottom of the well
(i.e., a closed-end pipe), as schematically shown in Fig. 1. The fluid
injection is made using a cylindrical shape bailer that has a diameter
smaller than that of the closed-end pipe. Motivated by understand-
ing fluid mechanics issues in this process, in this paper, we experi-
mentally investigate the problem of the injection of a heavy fluid into
a light fluid in an inclined closed-end pipe.
The injection flow problem may involve a jet-like behavior at
early stages, depending on the flow geometry, injection velocity, and

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-1

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 1. A sequence of schematic images of the cement slurry injection through the dump bailing method: (a) initial well condition, typically full of in situ fluid (drilling mud); (b)
a bridge plug is placed, and a dump bailer injects the cement slurry on the bridge plug; and (c) the in situ fluid is removed and replaced by the cement slurry. The shape of
the interface between the fluids is illustrative.

buoyancy. A series of previous studies have considered the effects
of the injection of a heavy fluid into a light fluid in confined flow
geometries, such as high-depth channels, vertical or inclined pipes,
and porous media, as summarized in Table I. Briefly, these stud-
ies have shown that the injection flow initially involves a buoyant
jet, for which it is possible to quantify volume and momentum flux
distributions, turbulent velocities (both axial and radial), and con-
centration distributions. While some studies have been restricted
to the case of bounded containers (e.g., the filling box problem for
containers with height ≤ width), others have shown that the flow
becomes more complicated when the aspect ratio is very large (e.g.,
height/width > 6).6
Several studies have aimed to shed light on the dynamics and
mixing of buoyant flows, typically focusing on relating the bulk
properties of the heavy fluid flow to its mixing properties and
investigating the front velocity and mixing behind the front of the
heavy fluid and in the body of the flow.14–16 Sher and Woods17
experimentally studied the injection of a heavy fluid into a light
fluid in a horizontal channel. They found that most mixing occurs
immediately downstream of the inlet and also near the head of the
heavy fluid, with an increase in proportion of the entrainment occur-
ring in a mixing region, near the inflow, as the flow Froude num-
ber increases. Their work revealed that the structure of the flow is
strongly controlled by mixing between the heavy and light fluids,
near the inlet and also at the head of the heavy fluid, leading to hor-
izontal and vertical stratifications of the density profile. Du et al.18
investigated the mixing of buoyant flows produced by continuously
releasing dense brine into an inclined tank filled with fresh water.
Using the light attenuation technique, they showed that the mix-
ing between the fluids is strengthened by an increase in the volume
flow rate of the heavy fluid, and the current downstream of the injec-
tion boundary becomes more mixed as the buoyancy force increases.
Other experimental works19–21 showed that when the flow is buoy-
ant, the density difference acts to segregate the heavy and light fluids

TABLE I. Summary of studies on buoyant jets in relation to the current work.

Flow conditions Analysis References

Buoyancy-driven turbulent flows Role of buoyancy in a plane Kotsovinos,7 Kotsovinos

in the presences of buoyant jets turbulent buoyant jet and List8
Turbulent vertical buoyant jets
Turbulent mixing in jets Papanicolaou and List9
over a wide range of initial flux
Filling box problem in a
Theoretical study of the flow Vauquelin et al.10
non-Boussinesq case
Injection of a light fluid in Characterization of mixing
Xue et al.11
a box of heavy fluid flow behaviors
Vertical turbulent buoyant jets Investigation of initial and fully
Milton-McGurk et al.12
into a tank developed stages of the flow
Turbulent offset jets into Characteristics of jets with
Assoudi et al.13
a rectangular box different offset heights and densities

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-2

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
in the transverse direction as the heavy fluid usually advances under-
neath the light fluid. To study the effects of an injection flow on the
hydrodynamics of displacement flows, Taghavi et al.22 investigated
the displacement flow of buoyant miscible fluids of equal viscosity in
a long nearly horizontal pipe. They observed that the flow becomes
stable as the injection rate increases (also observed by Zheng et al.23
in an inclined pipe) and that the penetration front velocity grows
linearly with the injection rate. Using two-layer flow modeling and
direct numerical simulations, Hogg et al.24 analyzed the injection of
a heavy fluid into a horizontal channel initially containing a light
fluid, finding the conditions for which the heavy fluid can completely
displace the light one. We note that the flows driven by an injection
differ from those arising from releasing of a fixed volume of fluid
behind a valve (e.g., lock-exchange flows25 ), in which the fluids inter-
penetrate, only due to buoyancy forces, without the presence of an
injection.
Table II summarizes some of the relevant studies on fluid injec-
tion and releasing into confined flow geometries, including channels
and pipes, when the propagation of a heavy fluid removes a light
fluid. In this table, a full inlet configuration refers to the situation
where the heights of the heavy and light fluids on both sides of the
inlet boundary are equal, e.g., in a typical lock-exchange flow; how-
ever, in a partial inlet configuration, the heavy fluid propagates into
the light fluid through an inlet for which the height is a fraction of
the light fluid’s initial height. In addition, the terms open-end and
closed-end refer to the situation where the flow geometry end is open
or closed, respectively. In the former case, the inlet and outlet bound-
aries are at the opposite sides of the flow geometry, while in the latter
case, the inlet and outlet boundaries are positioned on the same side.
Note that, for lock-exchange flows, both ends of the flow geometry
are typically closed.
Our study is concerned with the injection of a heavy fluid from
a partial inlet into a lighter fluid in a closed-end pipe. Here, the term
partial inlet implies that the inlet cross-sectional area, from which
the heavy fluid is injected, is smaller than the cross-sectional area of
the main flow domain. Our work is novel in terms of at least two
TABLE II. Summary of studies on the fluid injection and releasing of a heavy fluid into a light fluid in confined flow geometries.
Initial conditions, flow constraints Geometry, inclination
Lock-exchange and partial/full inlet Rectangular, horizontal
Lock-exchange and partial/full inlet Channel, horizontal
Lock-exchange and full inlet Rectangular channel, horizontal
Lock-exchange and partial inlet Inclined surface in a channel
Pipe or channel, horizontal
Injection and full inlet, open-end
to vertical
Injection and partial inlet, open-end Channel, horizontal
Injection and partial inlet, closed-end Pipe, moderate inclinations
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
aspects. First, in most of the previous studies on fluid injection and
exchange flows, the initial heights of the two fluids are equal,14,21,41
while there are only a few works in the literature, which consider
exchange or injection flows from a partial inlet.17,25,42,43 Second, we
consider a closed-end pipe, implying that the inlet and outlet bound-
aries in our flow geometry configuration are on the same side, affect-
ing the propagation of the heavy fluid due to the flow of the lighter
fluid. By considering this novel flow, our contribution is to quantify
different flow behaviors of the injection buoyant flow via analyz-
ing velocities and mixing between the fluids and characterizing and
classifying different flow stages.
Section II introduces the experimental setup, as well as the
experimental parameters and their ranges. Then, Sec. III defines the
governing dimensionless numbers in this study. In presenting our
results, first Secs. IV A and IV B introduce the general observation
and define the main observed flow stages in detail. Then, Sec. IV C
analyzes the mixing between the two fluids. Section IV D qualita-
tively examines the stability of the interface between the two fluids
in different conditions. Finally, Sec. V concludes the paper with a
brief summary.
II. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND PROCEDURE
To study the injection of a heavy fluid into a light fluid, an
experimental setup is designed. The setup consists of two transpar-
ent pipes: one as the main flow domain with the inner diameter (D̂)
of 3.81 (cm) and a length of 2.46 (m), in which the light fluid is
placed; the other pipe is for the injection of the heavy fluid with inner
and outer diameters of 1.27 (cm) and 2.54 (cm), respectively, and the
length of 2 (m). The schematic of the experimental setup is shown in
Fig. 2. The focus of this study is to analyze the injection flow of the
heavy fluid from the inner pipe into the outer pipe, where the light
fluid is initially placed, over the distance between the inner pipe exit
and the outer pipe end. Over this distance, the heavy fluid enters the
flow domain and displaces the lighter fluid. The domain of study is
Method References
Experiment and modeling Rottman and Simpson26
Experiment and modeling Shin et al.,25 Chiapponi et al.27
Experiment and numerical Lowe et al.,28 Inghilesi et al.29
Dai,30,31 Dai and Huang,32
Experiment and numerical
Steenhauer et al.33
Taghavi et al.,19,22 Alba et al.,34
Experiment and numerical
Amiri et al.,35 Zhou et al.36
Sher and Woods,17
Nourmohammadi et al.,37
Experiment
Longo et al.,38 Yuan and
Horner-Devine39,40
Experiment Current study
32, 063302-3
 Physics of Fluids
marked in Fig. 2, i.e., with the length of 46 (cm) and the diameter
of 3.81 (cm); the injection inlet has a diameter of 1.27 (cm), i.e., the
inner pipe diameter. The setup is mounted on a frame, which could
be tilted from horizontal to vertical.
In each experimental test, first the pipe is filled with the lighter
fluid (fluid L, water). Then, the heavier fluid (fluid H, salt-water
solution using NaCl as an additive) is injected via an elevated con-
tainer through the inner pipe into the outer pipe where the lighter
fluid is placed. During the experiment, the lighter fluid exits the flow
domain, toward another container, as shown in Fig. 2. The fluid
heights in both containers are nearly constant in order to keep a
nearly constant hydrostatic pressure in all experiments. The injec-
tion flow rate is adjusted by a needle valve in each experiment,
and it is measured by using a turbine flowmeter (FTB-421, Omega)
with an accuracy of ±3%. The flow rate data are transferred to a
computer through an acquisition card (model USB-6002, National
Instruments).
The densities of the fluids are measured using a high-accuracy
density meter (Anton Paar DMA 35), and their viscosities are quan-
tified using a rheometer (Discovery HR-3, TA Instruments), both
showing values close to those of pure water.
The flow development is captured using a high speed cam-
era (Basler acA2040, with 4096 gray scale levels), covering the flow
domain, as shown in Fig. 2. The field of view that is covered by the
camera is typically 3.81 × 46 (cm2 ). The images are recorded at a
specified frame rate (typically 20 frames/s). For visualization pur-
poses, the heavier fluid is dyed with a little amount of ink (fountain
pen India black ink). In order to obtain images with uniform light-
ing across the pipe, light emitting diodes are used behind the pipe,
and diffusive panels are put in between. Light absorption calibration
is performed in the usual fashion: before each experiment, an image
of the pipe containing the transparent (lighter) fluid and an image
of the pipe containing the darker (heavier) fluid are recorded, and
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 2. Schematic view of the experi-
mental setup. The domain of study is
marked by dotted lines. The LIF instru-
ment and the UDV probe are also
depicted. Q̂ represents the injection flow
rate of the heavy fluid. The interface
shape and the laser light sheet are illus-
trative only.
they are used as references of light intensities for the Beer–Lambert
law.44 Using an in-house MATLAB program, post-processing of the
recorded images is done to characterize the interfacial and mixing
behaviors.
To analyze the degree of mixing along the depth of the pipe, the
two-dimensional planar Laser Induced Fluorescence (LIF) method
is used as a non-intrusive visualization technique. To apply this
method, the pipe is enclosed in a transparent rectangular box, and
the volume between the pipe and the internal walls of the box is
filled with deionized water, matching the fluids inside the pipe in
terms of the refractive index. The flow is seeded with a fluorescent
dye, namely, Rhodamine-B, at a concentration of 50 (mg/l),45 and it
is illuminated by a laser sheet from a DPSS laser system (Laserglow
technologies) with an excitation wavelength of 532 (nm). The sheet
optics arrangement is capable of producing a sheet of light. The scat-
tered light is recorded by using a camera positioned perpendicular to
the laser light sheet, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
To obtain information about the flow local dynamics in cer-
tain cases, Ultrasound Doppler Velocimetry (UDV) measurements
are performed. The UDV (DOP4000 from Signal Processing S.A.)
is based on the principle of the reflection of sound waves from par-
ticles moving with the flow. Both the location and the velocity of
the particles can be derived from the time delay between the emit-
ted and received signals and the frequency shift due to the Doppler
effect. The advantage of this method is the acquisition of velocity
profiles along the sound propagation line within very short time
intervals. Regarding the concentration of the UDV seeding particles
[copolyamide with the size distribution of 60 (μm)], around 0.2 (g/l)
is added to both fluids.46
The injection experiments are conducted for a wide range of
injection rates and density differences. Table III shows the main
dimensional parameters of the flow. Note that some of the param-
eters, such as the viscosity and the hydrostatic pressure, are kept
32, 063302-4
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

TABLE III. Ranges and values of the dimensional parameters used in our experiments.

Parameter Name Range or value

D̂ Inner diameter of outer pipe (flow domain) 3.81 (cm)

D̂in,1 Inner diameter of inner pipe 1.27 (cm)
D̂in,2 Outer diameter of inner pipe 2.54 (cm)
ρ̂H Heavy fluid density 1000–1018 (kg/m3 )
ρ̂L Light fluid density 998 (kg/m3 )
ρ̂H + ρ̂L
ρ̄ˆ = Average density 999–1008 (kg/m3 )
2
μ̂ Fluid viscosity 0.001 (Pa s)
L̂ Length of flow domain 46 (cm)
V̂0 Injection velocity 68–280 (mm/s)
μ̂
v̂ Kinematic viscosity ( ) ∼ 10−6 (m2 /s)
ρ̄ˆ
D̂m Molecular diffusivity ∼ 2 × 10−9 (m2 /s)
ĝ Gravitational acceleration 9.81 (m/s2 )

constant in all experiments. In order to check the short and long Reynolds number, Re, the Froude number, Fr, and the pipe inclina-
term reproducibility, some experiments are repeated. tion angle from horizontal, β. We consider Re to vary in the range of
O(103 ) to O(104 ) and Fr to be in the range of O(10−1 ) to O(10). In
III. SCOPE OF EXPERIMENTS terms of the inclination angle, β, we consider low to moderate incli-
Let us define the scope of our experiments in terms of the nations angles for which some slumping patterns of the interface
dimensionless groups of the flow, the number of which based on between the fluids may be expected, at least at longer times.
Buckingham’s Pi theorem must be 8, which are given in Table IV. The results of our experiments can be presented vs three
However, some of these numbers are constant, and some others are parameters, e.g., Re, Fr, β, or their combinations. In this context,
not relevant in our work. First of all, although we consider misci- the parameter Re/Fr is useful because it is independent of the injec-
ble flows, we focus on the regimes of Pe ≫ 1 so that the molecular tion velocity. In our work, Re/Fr is closely related to the Archimedes
diffusion does not affect the flows studied in the time scale of the number, Ar,
experiments, i.e., the two fluids do not have time to mix under the ρ̄ˆ (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂3 Re 2
Ar = 2
= 2( ) , (1)
effect of the molecular diffusion. We also focus on small density dif- μ̂ Fr
ferences, implying small Atwood numbers (At ≪ 1). In addition, which varies in the range of (1 − 11) × 106 and is preferred to
we consider fixed geometrical parameters: different aspect ratios of the present buoyant effects. The Archimedes number quantifies the
the flow geometry are fixed for all experiments. These are mainly motion of the fluids to the density difference, and its large values
DR1 , DR2 , and δ. The latter is a parameter of O(10), while the two indicate the dominance of buoyancy forces in the flow.
formers are the parameters of O(1). Considering these, as Table IV In order to better understand the physics behind the flow
shows, the main dimensionless numbers in our experiments are the dynamics in Sec. IV, let us introduce the critical characteristic veloc-
ities in our flow. First of all, the characteristic velocity in relation to
TABLE IV. Dimensionless parameters in our experiments. the injection imposed inertia is the mean injection velocity, V̂0 . The
characteristic buoyant-inertial velocity, V̂i , can also be obtained if
Parameter Name Definition Range the buoyant stresses (of order (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂) and the resulting inertial
stresses (of order (ρ̂H + ρ̂L )Vi2 ) are balanced, i.e.,
δ Aspect ratio L̂/D̂ 12.07 √
DR1 Diameter ratio 1 D̂in,1 /D̂ 0.34 (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂ ∼ (ρ̂H + ρ̂L )V̂i2 ⇒ V̂i = Atĝ D̂. (2)
DR2 Diameter ratio 2 D̂in,2 /D̂ 0.67
On the other hand, the characteristic buoyant-viscous velocity, V̂v ,
V̂0 D̂
Re Reynolds number 1000−11 200 can be defined if the buoyant stresses and the resulting viscous
v̂ μ̂V̂
ρ̂H − ρ̂L stresses (of order D̂v ) are balanced, i.e.,
At Atwood number 0.001, 0.005, 0.01
ρ̂H + ρ̂L
V̂0 μ̂V̂v (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂2 2Atĝ D̂2
Fr Froude number √ 2−15 (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂ ∼ ⇒ V̂v = = . (3)
D̂ μ̂ υ̂
Atĝ D̂
V̂0 D̂ One can expect that, in general, our flows must be governed by these
Pe Péclet number ∼ 105
D̂m three characteristic velocities, i.e., V̂0 , V̂i , and V̂v , or their combina-
β Inclination angle From horizontal 8, 15, 30, 45○ tions. Our dimensionless groups can also be simply written vs these
characteristic velocities, i.e.,

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-5

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

V̂0 D̂ V̂0 V̂v

Re = ≡ , (4)
υ̂ 2V̂i2

V̂0 V̂0
Fr = √ ≡ , (5)
Atĝ D̂ V̂i
2
ρ̄ˆ (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂3 1 V̂v
Ar = ≡ ( ) . (6)
μ̂2 2 V̂i
To generalize our results, in Sec. IV, most of them are presented
using the main dimensionless numbers, i.e., Re, Ar, Fr, and β. The
variation of these parameters can also be viewed in the context of the
characteristic velocities explained, which may bring further insights
into the physics of the flow. For example, for a fixed Reynolds num-
ber (e.g., fixed V̂0 ), the variation in Fr implies that the characteristic
buoyant-inertial velocity (V̂i ) changes; on the other hand, increasing
Re for a fixed Ar suggests that the imposed inertia increases in the
flow, and increasing Ar for a fixed Fr implies that the characteris-
tic buoyant-viscous velocity (V̂v ) increases. In Sec. IV, the lengths,
velocities, and times are made dimensionless by dividing them with
D̂, V̂0 , and D̂/V̂0 , respectively.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We now present our experimental results, starting with intro-
ducing the general observations and then describing the main flow
stages observed in our experiments. Then, we present some of the
critical mixing behaviors. Finally, we clarify the effects of the flow
parameters on the stability of the interface and mixing between the
two fluids.
FIG. 3. Experimental snapshots of the flow development observed in a typical
experiment. The flow parameters are Re = 8700, Fr = 11.82, and β = 15○ . From
top to bottom, t = [4.49, 32.31, 52.96, 104.13, 148.11, 157.98, 171.49, 204.66,
and 320.47]. Unless otherwise stated, the dimensionless field of view is 1 × 12,
and the flow direction is from right to left, here and elsewhere.

A. General observations B. Flow stages

Our general observations of the flow behavior of the two flu- In Sec. IV A, we observed qualitative results on the flow devel-
ids are presented in this section. Approximately 120 experiments are opment, which we can classify into four flow stages:
conducted to cover a wide range of experimental parameters, includ- Stage (i): initial jet— the heavier fluid enters the domain as a jet.
ing the density difference, the injection flow velocity, and the inclina- Stage (ii): mixing region— a mixing region is developed.
tion angle. In each experiment, as the gate valve is opened, the dark
heavy fluid is injected into the flow domain and penetrates into the
in-place transparent light fluid. Figure 3 depicts the image sequence
of a typical experiment, with time increasing from top to bottom.
Initially, by entering the heavy fluid into the domain, a buoyant jet
is created, and then, a mixing region is developed. Then, the heavy
fluid starts to slump, on the pipe lower wall, underneath the light
fluid, and it advances toward the pipe end. As soon as the front of
the heavy fluid reaches the pipe end, it hits the walls, rises upward,
and then moves in the reverse direction. The returning heavy fluid
moves toward the outlet boundary, while the injected heavy fluid
passes on the pipe lower wall, and the light fluid is pushed out of the
flow domain simultaneously.
Figure 4 shows the location of the heavy fluid front vs time
along the flow domain, from the inlet to the pipe end, for different
values of Fr. As can be seen for each value of Fr, first the heavy fluid
front accelerates and quickly moves over a considerable distance,
thanks to the initial jet strength; then, the front slows down and FIG. 4. Heavy fluid front position along the pipe vs time from the beginning of the
finally moves nearly steadily. Decreasing Fr (i.e., increasing buoy- flow until the heavy fluid front reaches the pipe end. Different symbols represent
Fr = 11.82 (▸), Fr = 5.07 (⧫), and Fr = 3.54 (●). The other flow parameters are
ancy) results in achieving the steady front velocity more rapidly and
β = 15○ and Re ≈ 8400.
reaching the pipe end faster.

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-6

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 5. Experimental snapshots of the different flow stages observed in our experi-
ments. From top to bottom, flow stages (i)–(iv) are shown at t = [3.78, 19.55, 90.24,
and 133.85], respectively. The flow parameters are Re = 7300, Fr = 9.93, and
β = 15○ .
Stage (iii): slumping region— the heavier fluid slumps under-
neath the light fluid on the pipe lower wall and moves
toward the end of the pipe.
Stage (iv): front reaching the pipe end and returning— the heavy
fluid front reaches the end of the pipe, hits the pipe
end wall, and then returns back toward the mixing
region.
Figure 5 shows the experimental snapshots of each flow stage.
In what follows, we distinguish between these stages and describe
the flow behavior of each stage with the help of the dimensionless
parameters.
Before we proceed to Sec. IV B 1, note that classifying the flow
stages improves our understanding about the flow and facilitates
quantifying the key flow features. This has also been done in previ-
ous studies, e.g., that by Kaloudis et al.47 who numerically studied the
problem of constant fluid injection into a confined space (i.e., a two-
dimensional open channel). They analyzed the interaction of the
flow with the solid boundaries of the restricted propagation domain,
and they defined different observed flow stages. For buoyant flows
on an inclined surface, Dai and Huang32 also observed three dis-
tinct flow stages after releasing a heavy fluid from behind a lock; the
heavy fluid moves in an acceleration phase, reaching a maximum
front velocity, followed by a deceleration phase.
1. Initial jet
At the very first stage, the heavy fluid is injected into the flow
domain where the light fluid is placed, forming a jet-like behavior.
FIG. 6. Illustration of the buoyant jet using the snapshots of experiments at β = 15○ and Ar = 1 × 106 for (a) Re = 1200 and [ttop , tbottom ] = [1.18, 1.96], (b) Re = 3000 and
[ttop , tbottom ] = [2.81, 4.68], (c) Re = 6200 and [ttop , tbottom ] = [5.80, 9.66], and (d) Re = 8700 and [ttop , tbottom ] = [8.10, 13.50]. The dimensionless field of view in each snapshot
is 1 × 3.9, right below the inlet.
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
The injected fluid has the initial momentum due to the imposed
velocity, but there is also a buoyant force due to the density differ-
ence between the fluids. As the heavy fluid enters the flow domain,
these sources of energy create a jet, known as a buoyant jet.
In Fig. 6, the early stage of the flow, i.e., the initial jet, is
depicted for different values of Re. From left to right in each fig-
ure, the value of Re increases, and as the value of Ar (representing
buoyancy) is fixed, this implies that the imposed injection inertia
increases. It may be a priori expected that a higher imposed inertia
results in a stronger jet, creating more Kelvin–Helmholtz type insta-
bilities48 and consequently more efficient mixing. For Re = 1200,
as shown in Fig. 6(a), the jet flow is not completely disturbed, and
as the jet advances, the transverse mixing between the two fluids
remains limited. At a higher Reynolds number shown in Fig. 6(b),
i.e., Re = 3000, the mixing between the fluids is stronger. For Fig. 6(c)
with Re = 6200, the flow is quite turbulent during the advancement
of the jet, and by increasing the Reynolds number to Re = 8700,
the mixing and turbulency increase [see Fig. 6(d)]. Considering
these results, we can crudely consider Re ≈ 3000 for the transi-
tion to a highly turbulent jet, with efficient transverse mixing, in our
experiments.
Our findings in terms of the initial jet behaviors are qualita-
tively in agreement with those of previous studies. In most studies, it
has been found that the jet transitions to the turbulent one when the
flow Reynolds number surpasses 2000.6 Fischer et al.49 showed that
for the Reynolds number less than 4000, the turbulent jet may not be
fully developed.
Due to the inner pipe thickness in our experiments, the initial
jet has a small offset with respect to the pipe lower wall (as schemati-
cally illustrated in Fig. 7). Thus, before touching the pipe lower wall,
the heavier fluid has to travel a distance (with respect to the inlet),
which we call Xa . After this distance, the heavy fluid is “attached” to
the pipe lower wall while advancing into the light fluid. This distance
(Xa ) can affect the removal efficiency and mixing between the fluids.
Our results show that increasing the density difference or the incli-
nation angle results in a decrease in Xa , while changing the imposed
injection velocity does not much affect Xa . To illustrate √ this in a
dimensionless form, Fig. 8 shows the variation of Xa vs Ar sin β for
√ of Re superimposed using the color and size of the
different values
symbol. As Ar sin β increases (stronger buoyancy), Xa decreases,
while changing Re √ has minor effects on Xa . The specific form of the
control parameter Ar sin β can be better understood by rewriting
it in the following form:
32, 063302-7
 Physics of Fluids
√
√ √ (V̂i sin β)D̂
Ar sin β ≡ 2 , (7)
υ̂
√
which is basically a Reynolds number defined using V̂i sin β as
the relevant velocity scale, which can be simply derived by balanc-
ing the characteristic longitudinal buoyant stress [(ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂ sin β]
with the resulting inertial stress [see
√ Eq. (2) for a similar deriva-
tion]. To explain why increasing Ar sin β decreases Xa , consider
the lower interface near the inlet schematically depicted in Fig. 7,
where the heavy fluid is initially placed above the light one near the
inlet: in this specific region (with the length of Xa ), the longitudi-
nal component of the buoyant force is resistive to the expansion
√ of
the interface, and the Reynolds number in the form of Ar sin β
quantifies such a resistance. Note that this is in contrast to the other
flow regions where the heavy fluid is placed below the light one
and therefore helps the longitudinal expansion of the interface or
the mixing zone. As√shown in Fig. 8, increasing the Reynolds num-
ber in the form of Ar sin β gives rise to the longitudinal buoyant
force that locally resists the expansion of the interface, leading to a
decrease in Xa .
√ ther driven toward the pipe lower wall, leading to shortening the jet
FIG. 8. Variation of the attachment distance, Xa , vs Ar sin β. The symbol colors
and sizes represent the values of Re. The solid and dashed lines present the
results of Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively.
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 7. Schematic of the early phase of
the initial jet. Due to the inner pipe thick-
ness, the initial jet has an offset with
respect to the flow domain lower wall.
Analyzing and interpreting the results available in the literature
can help estimate the value of Xa for the corresponding iso-dense
flows as ∼ 0.87,50 which in comparison with our results reveals that
the presence of the density difference reduces Xa . Thus, we may
simply assume that the iso-dense attachment distance is the leading
order term in the expansion of Xa , for example, in the form of
√ √ f ′′ (0)
Xa = f ( Ar sin β) ≈ f (0) + Ar sin βf ′ (0) + Ar sin β +⋯,
2
(8)
in which f (0) ≈ 0.87, independent of Ar and β. With this ansatz, we
use our experimental data to fit the coefficients f ′ (0) and f ′′ (0) in
the equation above to arrive at
√
Xa ≈ 0.87 − 0.44 × 10−3 Ar sin β + 0.83 × 10−7 Ar sin β + ⋯ , (9)
showing an acceptable comparison with the data in Fig. 8. With-
out specifying the value of f (0) in Eq. (8), the following fit can be
obtained:
√
Xa ≈ 0.78 − 0.30 × 10−3 Ar sin β + 0.41 × 10−7 Ar sin β + ⋯ ,
(10)
using which the comparison with the data in Fig. 8 slightly improves.
As our buoyant jet enters a confined environment, its profile
depends on the flow parameters, as shown in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9(a),
by increasing Re, the height of the jet increases. This is because a
jet with a higher inertia results in stronger instabilities and more
efficient transverse mixing.51 In addition, by increasing Re, the jet
inertia along the pipe increases with respect to the transverse buoy-
ant force that pushes the heavy fluid toward the pipe lower wall and
limits the transverse mixing. These effects together lead to a rise in
the jet height. In terms of the effects of increasing the jet inertia on
the flow, a similar behavior was observed by Kaloudis et al.47 whose
work considers an injected heavy fluid propagating within a deep
rectangular storage tank. In Fig. 9(b), the effect of Ar is illustrated. As
Ar increases, the height of the jet decreases. Note that here the trans-
verse buoyant stress is of order (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂ cos β, which experiences
a relative increase by increasing Ar at a fixed Re. Consequently, by
increasing the transverse buoyant stress, the heavy fluid jet is fur-
height.
To obtain the velocity profiles, the UDV probe is placed near
the inlet at an angle 75○ relative to the pipe axis, as shown in
32, 063302-8
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 9. Change in the jet profile: (a) effect of Re at constant Ar and (b) effect of Ar at constant Re. In both figures, β = 15○ . The dimensionless field of view in each snapshot
is 1 × 3.9, right below the inlet.
Fig. 10(a). The velocity contours along the pipe diameter are shown
in Fig. 10(b). This figure shows the variation of the velocity within
both fluids. The position of the pseudo interface between the two flu-
ids is marked by the black line. The position of the zero axial velocity,
identified via the contour of zero velocity, is marked by the red line.
Below the red line, the fluid velocity is positive, implying that the
fluid moves downward, and above the red line, the fluid velocity is
negative, implying that the fluid advances upward (i.e., the zero net
flux condition).
There are a few studies in the literature making observations
similar to ours in terms of the flux conservation explained above,
an example of which is an injection flow study by Longo et al.38
They considered the problem of a heavy fluid injected into a con-
fined horizontal channel of circular cross section (partial inlet and
open-end). By measuring the horizontal velocity profiles using an
Ultrasonic Velocity Profiler (UVP), they observed that a returning
flow in the horizontal direction fulfills the mass conservation.
2. Mixing region
The second stage of the flow is associated with the develop-
ment of a mixing region. After the initial jet stage, the fluids effec-
tively mix in the transverse and axial directions, and the advance-
ment of the heavy fluid creates a mixing zone. This mixing zone
overshadows the initial jet, and it occupies a large area close to
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
the inlet. The longitudinal extent (or length) of the mixing zone
depends on the flow parameters, as illustrated in Fig. 11, showing
the length of the mixing region in different conditions. In Fig. 11(a),
the effect of Ar on the length of the mixing region is shown. As
Ar increases, the mixing region extends, implying that increasing
the buoyancy force enhances the mixing in the longitudinal direc-
tion. To justify this observation, first note that, in addition to the
initial imposed inertia of the jet, the mixing region can expand
along the pipe length due to the longitudinal buoyant stress, which
is of order (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂ sin β. Therefore, increasing Ar implies that
the buoyancy force driving the flow in the lengthwise direction
increases, which in return longitudinally expands the mixing region.
Figure 11(b) shows that, on the other hand, the variation in Re does
not seem to have a significant effect on the mixing region length,
particularly for Re > 3000. This is because, at large Re, the effec-
tive penetration length of the initial jet and the extent of the sub-
sequent mixing zone become independent of Re. In fact, although
a larger Re initially induces a stronger jet, it also causes the fluids
to mix more efficiently in the transverse direction, which counter-
balances the longitudinal expansion of the resulting mixing zone.
In addition, as time grows, the longitudinal buoyant force starts
to take over the imposed inertia in governing the expansion of the
mixing zone away from the inlet. These simultaneous effects lead
to a negligible impact of Re on the mixing zone length. Finally, as
FIG. 10. UDV measurements obtained
for Re = 4840, Fr = 2.06, and β = 30○ :
(a) experimental snapshots from top to
bottom at t = [6.00, 9.93, 19.86, 25.83,
29.80, and 38.00] and (b) contours of
near inlet velocity vs time along the pipe
diameter. The zero axial velocity bound-
ary is marked by the red line. The black
line shows the position where the nor-
malized concentration is equal to 0.5,
i.e., the pseudo interface position.
32, 063302-9
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 12. Heavy fluid unsteady front velocity, Vft , vs time from the beginning of the
flow until the heavy fluid front reaches the pipe end. Different symbols represent
Fr = 11.82 (▸), Fr = 5.07 (⧫), and Fr = 3.54 (●). The solid symbols are for
β = 15○ , and the hollow ones are for β = 45○ . Re ≈ 8400 for all experiments.

part of the fluid flow, quantifying its features, such as the heavy fluid
front velocity, is of importance. For example, the value of the heavy
fluid front velocity can represent the removal efficiency of the light
fluid by the heavy fluid.
Figure 12 illustrates the heavy fluid unsteady front velocity,
Vft , vs t. The front velocities are initially large, with values close
to Vf ≈ 1, implying that the front velocities have nearly the same
values as those of the initial jet. At longer times, however, when
the front enters the slumping region, the front velocities eventually
reach nearly constant values. This figure also shows that by increas-
ing the buoyancy (decreasing Fr), the front velocities in the slumping
region increase.
To quantify the dependency of the long-time front velocity on
the flow parameters, let us momentarily use the dimensional quanti-
FIG. 11. Change in the length of the mixing region vs different flow parameters: (a)
Re = 8780 and β = 45○ at different Ar, (b) Ar = 1 × 106 and β = 45○ at different
ties and plot Fig. 13, showing the variation of the dimensional heavy
Re, and (c) Ar = 1 × 106 and Re = 6700 at different β. The box roughly marks
the extent of the mixing region in each snapshot.

Fig. 11(c) illustrates, tilting the pipe toward the horizontal direc-
tion reduces the extent of the mixing region. This is simply because
decreasing the inclination angle directly reduces the characteristic
longitudinal buoyant stress, i.e., (ρ̂H − ρ̂L )ĝ D̂ sin β, thus significantly
limiting the flow driving force that expands the mixing zone, par-
ticularly away from the inlet. For example, by decreasing β from
45○ to 8○ in Fig. 11(c), the characteristic longitudinal buoyant stress
experiences a fivefold decrease, limiting the mixing zone lengthwise
expansion.
3. Slumping region
After developing the mixing region, the flow reaches the slump-
ing stage: the heavy fluid front slumps underneath the light fluid, it
advances on the pipe lower wall, and it moves toward the pipe end. FIG. 13. Variation of the heavy fluid front velocity, V̂f , vs the injection velocity, V̂0 .
Different marker colors represent At = 0.001 (green), At = 0.005 (red), and
In this stage, although the shape of the interface changes with time At = 0.01 (blue). Different marker shapes represent β = 45○ (◂), β = 30○ (▸),
and space, the heavy fluid front maintains a nearly constant velocity β = 15○ (⧫), and β = 8○ (●). The dotted lines show a plateau value for V̂f .
and almost a constant height. Since this flow stage forms the longest

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-10

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

fluid front velocity in the slumping region for different injection
velocities, density differences, and inclination angles. As can be seen,
the injection velocity and the inclination angle do not seem to have
a significant effect on the dimensional front velocity of the heavy
fluid. However, by increasing the density difference (which improves
the buoyancy force), the dimensional front velocity increases. As
the buoyancy force balanced by inertia mainly governs the front
velocity in this flow stage, it is natural to use the characteristic
buoyant-inertial velocity, V̂i , to describe the flow,
V̂f ≈ f (V̂i ),
which in the dimensionless form can be written as
V̂f V̂i 1 The first question that may arise is when the front reaches the pipe
Vf = ≈ f( ) ≡ f ( ).
V̂0 V̂0 Fr
Based on this argument, Fig. 14 shows the variation of the long-time
dimensionless heavy fluid front velocity, Vf , vs Fr for all experi-
ments. The effects of the other parameters, i.e., Re and β, are also
included in this figure: the size and color of the symbols represent the
values of β and Re, respectively. This figure reveals that Fr is in fact
the main parameter affecting the dynamics of the heavy fluid front
in the slumping stage. As can be seen, Vf decreases by increasing Fr,
and it can be roughly predicted by the fitted line,
Note that these equations are only a function of Fr, independent of
Re and β.
Interestingly, Eq. (11) is in good agreement with the findings
of Ref. 52, which analyzed the interpenetration front dynamics of
the lock-exchange flows in a pipe, finding that the front veloc-
ity follows V̂f = 0.7V̂i . This emphasizes the similarities between
the front dynamics of the slumping stage of our flow with that
of the lock-exchange flows, despite obvious differences in the flow
configuration.
4. Front reaching pipe end and returning
At the end of the slumping stage, the heavy fluid eventually
reaches the pipe end and then returns back toward the mixing zone.
end. As we have seen so far that the flow dynamics is mainly dom-
inated by the balance between buoyancy and inertia, for which V̂i
is relevant, it is natural to expect that the dimensional time of the
front reaching the pipe end (t̂e ) is a function of the characteristic
buoyant-inertial time defined as
t̂i = D̂/V̂i ,
leading to
t̂e ≈ f (t̂i ),

0.68 1 which in dimensionless form becomes

Vf ≈ + O( 2 ), (11)
Fr Fr t̂e ⎛ (D/V̂i ) ⎞ V̂0
te = ≈f ≡ f ( ) ≡ f (Fr).
while the agreement with the data can slightly and progressively (D/V̂0 ) ⎝ (D/V̂0 ) ⎠ V̂i
improve if the higher orders of 1/Fr are considered for fitting,
Figure 15 plots the variation of the dimensionless time of the
0.80 0.54 1 front reaching the pipe end (te ), with respect to the beginning of the
Vf ≈ − 2 + O( 3 ), (12)
Fr Fr Fr experiments, against Fr for different values of β and Re. The figure
shows that generally with increasing Fr (i.e., decreasing buoyancy),
1.05 2.71 4.21 1 it takes more time for the front to reach the pipe end. As can be
Vf ≈ − 2 + 3 + O( 4 ). (13) seen, all the data roughly coincide on a straight line with a slope
Fr Fr Fr Fr
of 14.58, i.e.,
te ≈ 14.58Fr. (14)

FIG. 14. Variation of the long-time front velocity (nearly steady), Vf , vs Fr shown
by the filled triangles. The symbol color represents the values of Re, and the
symbol size represents the values of β (e.g., the largest symbols correspond to
β = 45○ ). The black solid line, the red dotted line, and blue dashed line mark FIG. 15. Time of heavy fluid reaching pipe end, te , vs the Froude number, Fr.
the result of Eqs. (11)–(13), respectively. The backflow front velocities, Vf ,b , are The symbol color represents the values of Re, and the symbol size represents the
also superimposed using the hollow circles and thicker error bars, and they are values of β (e.g., the largest symbols correspond to β = 45○ ). The fitted line marks
discussed later in Sec. IV B 4. the result of Eq. (14).

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-11

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 16. Snapshots of the front propagation near the pipe end (t = 65), impact
with the pipe end wall (t = 76), and turning back (t = 89). The flow parameters
are Fr = 8.94, β = 8○ , and Re = 6587.
Figure 16 shows a typical example of the flow development near
the last stage of the flow for Fr = 8.94, Re = 6587, and β = 8○ ,
showing that the heavy fluid front reaches the pipe end (t = 65),
rises up on the pipe end wall (t = 76), and, after the impact, pene-
trates into the light fluid, on the upper wall of the pipe, as a backflow
sets in (t = 89). As time progresses, the heavy fluid front goes back
toward the mixing region (and eventually toward the inlet/outlet
boundaries).
In relation to our work, Kaye and Hunt53 studied the impact
of a heavy fluid on the flow geometry wall for different aspect ratios
(width/height) of the filling box flow problem. They reported that,
for small aspect ratios, the fluid front rises up and turns back when
reaching the wall; otherwise, the heavy fluid front slumps back with-
out mixing with the light fluid, creating waves on the interface
between the fluids.
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
To further analyze the flow behavior in the fourth stage, Fig. 17
plots the spatiotemporal diagrams of the depth-averaged concentra-
tions, in the plane of x and t, covering the flow from the first stage to
the last stage. The front is discernible on these diagrams by a sharp
boundary between the different comparative concentrations of the
two fluids. As can be observed, when the front turns back toward the
mixing region, it has a nearly constant propagation velocity, which is
inversely proportional to the slope of the lines on the spatiotempo-
ral diagrams. It can also be seen in Fig. 17 that by decreasing Fr, the
backflow velocity (Vf ,b ) increases. Figure 18 shows the same type of
results as in Fig. 17 but for two different inclination angles, revealing
that changing β does not much affect Vf ,b as the values of Vf ,b have
only 4% difference, i.e., within the experimental error.
Similar to the slumping stage, in the last flow stage, the front
velocity has a major role in quantifying the removal of the in situ
light fluid from the flow domain. Thus, it is of interest to quantify
Vf ,b vs all the flow parameters. We have so far seen that Vf ,b is pri-
marily a function of the buoyant force for which the characteristic
buoyant-inertial velocity, V̂i , or the Froude number becomes rele-
vant. Thus, it is natural to examine that if the relations developed
earlier for the velocity of the forward moving front are also valid for
that of the backward moving front. For a large number of exper-
iments, the values of Vf ,b are superimposed as hollow symbols on
Fig. 14 in the plane of Vf ,b vs Fr. The size and color of the sym-
bols also represent the values of β and Re, respectively. In addition,
note that the error bars of Vf ,b are larger than those of Vf due to
the uncertainty in the front position due to mixing. Overall, this
figure suggests a reasonable comparison of the backflow data with
Eqs. (11)–(13).
FIG. 17. Spatiotemporal images of the
depth-averaged concentrations for β
= 15○ and Re = 8000: (a) Fr = 10.65,
(b) Fr = 4.79, and (c) Fr = 2.89. The
blue dashed line in each figure indicates
the initial boundary between the heavy
and light fluids after the front reaches
the pipe end and turns back, with the
slope representing 1/Vf ,b . The color bar
represents the normalized concentration
values, here and elsewhere.
32, 063302-12
 Physics of Fluids
The results of Fig. 14 reveal that the forward and backward
moving front velocities are not much different; this implies that as
the forward moving front hits the wall at the end of the slump-
ing region and returns toward the mixing zone, its velocity does
not much change initially. Of course, as the backward moving front
advances away from the end wall, the mixing between the two flu-
ids significantly increases, leading to a considerable decrease in the
effective buoyancy force that drives the flow, resulting in decreasing
the backflow front velocity. Much further away from the end wall,
as the backflow approaches the mixing zone, mixing dominates and
the flow becomes entirely diffusive, while the front fades away (see,
for example, Fig. 18(a).
C. Perpendicular mixing
To analyze the perpendicular mixing between the two fluids,
i.e., mixing in the planes perpendicular to the field of view, three
different laser sheets are used, as illustrated in Fig. 19(a) (note that
black-and-white images present the side view, and color images
present the LIF results throughout this study). These deliver the
concentration and mixing in three different depths of the pipe: one
coincides with the axis of the injection pipe, the second one is on the
axis of the main pipe, and the last one is used in the upper region of
the main pipe. The images in this figure show the normalized con-
centration field on the three laser sheets for the time when the front
reaches the pipe end. In Fig. 19(b), the same experiment is illustrated
from the side view, based on the camera snapshot. As can be seen,
when the heavy fluid propagates along the pipe, its concentration
FIG. 19. (a) Normalized concentration field at three horizontal sheets at Fr = 2.70,
Re = 4100, and β = 30○ . (b) Side view of an experiment with the same condition
of (a).
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 18. Spatiotemporal images of the
depth-averaged concentrations for Fr
= 8.90 and Re = 6600: (a) β = 8○
and (b) β = 45○ . The dashed blue
line in each figure indicates the boundary
between the heavy and light fluids after
the front reaches the pipe end and turns
back, with the slope representing 1/Vf ,b .
along the depth of the pipe spreads differently from what is observed
on the side view.
Let us use the LIF technique to shed light on some of the mixing
flow features. For example, revisiting the spatiotemporal diagrams of
the depth-averaged concentration in Figs. 17 and 18, we can notice
“curvy streaks” corresponding to some flow features within the mix-
ing region near the inlet; these streaks can be recognized by the
continuous dark and light alternations in the depth-averaged con-
centration in the mixing region, forming thin, oblique, and slightly
curvy lines. Our hypothesis is that these streaks are in fact narrow
mixing layers that move upward as their slopes are positive in the
plane of t and x. To better illustrate these mixing layers, Fig. 20
shows the concentration field spatiotemporal diagrams, obtained via
the top view images of the LIF tests (upper sheet). To concentrate on
the regions near the inlet, the x-axis covers the pipe length only from
the inlet to the middle of the pipe. In terms of their overall appear-
ance, the spatiotemporal diagrams based on the side and top view
images (respectively, corresponding to camera and LIF results) are
similar (compare Fig. 20 with Fig. 18). However, it must be noted
that the LIF results capture and present the mixing layers obtained
over a thin perpendicular laser sheet.
As can be observed in Fig. 20, increasing the inclination angle
results in raising both the concentration values and the longitudi-
nal extent of the curvy streaks (or mixing layers) along the upper
section of the mixing region; however, the speed of the upward-
moving mixing layers (represented by the slopes of the dashed lines)
only slightly decreases by increasing β. The reason for the upward
motion of the mixing layers can be easily justified: as the flow geom-
etry end is closed, the zero net flux condition across each pipe cross
section must be respected. Thus, as the heavy fluid is injected into
the flow domain, loosely speaking, there must be an equal amount
of the light fluid or its mixture with the heavy fluid that moves in the
opposite direction; this is to compensate for the injected heavy fluid
coming into the flow domain. Therefore, the mixing layers move
upward to balance the injected volume of the heavy fluid. As the
injection is constant and continuous, the speed of the mixing lay-
ers near the inlet (represented by the superimposed oblique dashed
lines on Fig. 20) does not seem to much vary with time. Neverthe-
less, away from the inlet and the intense mixing region, the mixing
layers either disappear or their velocities become unsteady. Our find-
ings show that, in general, the speed of these mixing layers seems to
32, 063302-13
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 20. Spatiotemporal diagrams of the

heavy fluid concentrations on the upper
sheet of the LIF tests, in the plane of
x and t, covering the flow from the first
stage to the middle of the flow domain at
Fr = 5.88 and Re = 9700: (a) β = 8○
and (b) β = 45○ . The dashed lines
represent the speed of the mixing layers.

increase with an increase in the imposed velocity and the density
difference or a decrease in the inclination angle (results omitted for
brevity).
Another slight observation can be made using Fig. 20. The lon-
gitudinal extent of the mixing region at smaller β is shorter than
that at larger β. This was earlier observed in the side view images
of Fig. 11(c), and the LIF results here also confirm that when β
decreases, the flow enters the slumping region at a smaller x.
Figure 21 shows the time-averaged, depth-averaged concen-
tration field for the middle laser sheet vs the axial direction from
the beginning of the flow until the front reaches the pipe end. In
Fig. 21(a), the results are given for different inclinations. It can be
seen that as the pipe is further inclined toward the vertical direction,
the average concentration of the heavier fluid along the depth of the
pipe decreases. In Fig. 21(b), the results are given for different buoy-
ancy values (i.e., different values of Fr), showing a trend similar to
that of β.
D. Stability of interface
Instabilities in our flows of interest usually appear in the form
of waves at the interface between the fluids, which may eventually
lead to efficient and rapid mixing. Some of the observed insta-
bilities originate from the high injection rate, and some are due
to the velocity gradients along with the density difference. While
the stability of two-fluid interfaces has been quantitatively studied
for many years, dating back to the efforts of Rayleigh, Helmholtz,
Kelvin, and Reynolds in the 19th century,54 here, let us have a
qualitative look on some of the interfacial instabilities seen in
our experiments to provide a better understanding of the flow
dynamics.
In our experiments, the flow in regions near the inlet presents a
completely mixed region, while in the slumping region, the interface
between two fluids becomes visible due to the segregation between
two fluids. However, during the slumping stage, the interface still
exhibits unstable behavior as interfacial perturbations grow remark-
ably, resulting in partial transverse mixing between the two fluids.
To qualitatively analyze the instability and mixing between the flu-
ids, Fig. 22 illustrates images of the flow development at successive
times for different values of Fr. It can be seen that as Fr decreases, the
interface becomes destabilized to a greater extent. Since the heavier
fluid turns back after reaching the end of the pipe, the two flu-
ids mix further, and the interface between them becomes gradually
dispersed.

¯
FIG. 21. (a) Time-averaged depth-averaged concentration field, C̄z,x,t , vs the streamwise location, x, from the beginning of the flow until the front reaches the pipe end,
measured at Fr = 6.53 and Re = 11000. Different markers represent β = 45○ (black filled left pointed triangle), β = 30○ (green filled right pointed triangle), β = 15○ (blue
filled diamond), and β = 8○ (red filled circle). The solid arrow shows the increase in β as a guide to the eye. (b) The same as (a) but at Re ≈ 7300 and β = 30○ . Different
markers represent Fr = 9.73 (green filled right pointed triangle), Fr = 4.67 (red filled diamond), and Fr = 3.02 (blue filled circle). The solid arrow shows the increase in Fr
as a guide to the eye.

Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102 32, 063302-14

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 22. Instability and mixing for different values of Fr at β = 45○ and Re = 4700. From top to bottom, Fr = 6.43, Fr = 3.09, and Fr = 2.05, respectively. In each row,
from right to left, t = [3.05, 18.27, and 33.55], and the last (left) image corresponds to the time when the heavy fluid front reaches the pipe end.
In addition to buoyancy (quantified through Fr), the inclina-
tion of the pipe seems to also have a significant effect on the segre-
gation and, consequently, on the mixing between the two fluids, as
illustrated in Fig. 23(a). Tilting the pipe away from the horizontal
direction destabilizes the interface, creates Kelvin–Helmholtz insta-
bilities, and increases the mixing. In order to better show the effects
of Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities on the perpendicular mixing, the
LIF results corresponding to the upper horizontal laser sheet are
shown in Fig. 23(b). As expected, at near horizontal inclinations,
we observe that Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities are less effective than
those at higher inclinations.
In relation to our work, the injection flow of two miscible fluids
in inclined channels has been investigated by Sahu et al.55 Through
direct numerical simulations, they found that, in close to horizon-
tal inclinations, the fluids are distinctly segregated, even at notable
inertial and buoyant forces. In addition, by increasing the inclina-
tion angle, inertial effects become stronger, and interfacial insta-
bilities may grow. These findings are in qualitative agreement with
ours.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Using an experimental approach, we have investigated the
problem of the injection of a heavy fluid into a light one in a closed-
end pipe. The injection of the heavy fluid is made via an inner
pipe with a diameter smaller than that of the closed-end pipe. The
two fluids are miscible, and the injection is continuous. Various
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 23. Instabilities and mixing between
the fluids, at the moment when the heavy
fluid front reaches the pipe end, at dif-
ferent inclination angles for Fr = 3.25
and Re = 5500: (a) camera images (side
view) and (b) upper sheet view of the LIF
tests (top view).
non-intrusive methods, such as high-speed imaging as well as UDV
and LIF techniques, are used to provide detailed characterizations of
the flow.
In general, during the flow development, four flow stages can
be identified: (i) initial jet, (ii) mixing region, (iii) slumping region,
and (iv) heavy fluid front reaching the pipe end and returning
toward the mixing region. To have an overall understanding, these
flow stages are presented in a typical spatiotemporal diagram of
the depth-averaged concentration field in Fig. 24. The flow features
are quantified in this work for each flow stage, e.g., via character-
izing the flow behaviors, heavy fluid front velocity, and mixing, vs
the governing dimensionless numbers, e.g., the Reynolds number
(Re), the Archimedes number (Ar), the Froude number (Fr), and the
inclination angle (β).
As stated in the Introduction, one of our motivations for this
work is to better understand the fluid flows in the dump bailing
method in P&A processes of oil and gas wells. From the indus-
trial perspective, reducing mixing between the process fluids while
increasing the removal efficiency of the in-place fluid by the injected
fluid is desired. In this context, our experiments have revealed that
most mixing occurs at the early stages of the flow near the inlet
boundary, the extent of which is reduced by a decrease in the incli-
nation angle or buoyancy (the density difference). Comparatively,
the minimum mixing between the fluids is seen in the slumping
stage, in which again decreasing the inclination angle and buoyancy
can reduce the transverse mixing. Moreover, the removal efficiency
of the in-place fluid by the injected one is particularly related to
32, 063302-15
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 24. Spatiotemporal diagram of the depth-averaged concentration field, sum-
marizing the four flow stages presented in this paper. The flow parameters are
Re = 10 300, Fr = 6.22, and β = 8○ .
the heavy fluid front velocity (Vf ), which is mainly linked to the
strength of the buoyancy force quantified via Fr (or the character-
istic buoyant-inertial velocity, V̂i ); in this case, simple relations are
presented to predict Vf vs Fr. Finally, our results suggest that a simi-
lar buoyancy-inertia competition is largely responsible for governing
the backflow velocity in the last identified flow stage.
Future directions of the current work can include analyzing
the effects of large density differences (i.e., the non-Boussinesq
limit), the presence of a viscosity ratio between the two fluids, and
geometrical parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research has been carried out at the Univerité Laval. We
gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by PTAC-
AUPRF via Grant No. PTAC-17-WARI-02 and from NSERC via
CRDPJ 516022-17 (“Plug and Abandon Strategies for Canada’s Oil
& Gas Wells”).
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data that support the findings of this study are available
within the article.
REFERENCES
1
A. Eslami and S. M. Taghavi, “Viscous fingering of yield stress fluids: The effects
of wettability,” J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 264, 25–47 (2019).
2 28
M. J. Kaiser, “Rigless well abandonment remediation in the shallow water U.S.
Gulf of Mexico,” J. Pet. Sci. Technol. 151, 94–115 (2017).
3
E. Trudel, M. Bizhani, M. Zare, and I. A. Frigaard, “Plug and abandonment prac-
tices and trends: A British Columbia perspective,” J. Pet. Sci. Technol. 183, 106417
(2019).
4
E. B. Nelson, Well Cementing (Newnes, 1990), Vol. 28.
5 30
M. Khalifeh and A. Saasen, Introduction to Permanent Plug and Abandonment of
Wells (Springer, 2020).
6 31
S. J. Barnett, “The dynamics of buoyant releases in confined spaces,” Ph.D. thesis,
University of Cambridge, 1992.
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
7
N. E. Kotsovinos and E. J. List, “Plane turbulent buoyant jets. Part 1. Integral
properties,” J. Fluid Mech. 81(1), 25–44 (1977).
8
N. E. Kotsovinos, “Plane turbulent buoyant jets. Part 2. Turbulence structure,”
J. Fluid Mech. 81(1), 45–62 (1977).
9
P. N. Papanicolaou and E. J. List, “Investigations of round vertical turbulent
buoyant jets,” J. Fluid Mech. 195, 341–391 (1988).
10
O. Vauquelin, E. M. Koutaiba, E. Blanchard, and P. Fromy, “The discharge
plume parameter Γd and its implications for an emptying filling box,” J. Fluid
Mech. 817, 171–182 (2017).
11
N. Xue, S. Khodaparast, and H. A. Stone, “Fountain mixing in a filling box at
low Reynolds numbers,” Phys. Rev. Fluids 4(2), 024501 (2019).
12
L. Milton-McGurk, N. Williamson, S. W. Armfield, and M. P. Kirkpatrick,
“Experimental investigation into turbulent negatively buoyant jets using com-
bined PIV and PLIF measurements,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 82, 108561 (2020).
13
A. Assoudi, A. Amamou, N. M. Saïd, and H. Bournot, “Characteristics and anal-
ysis of a turbulent offset jet including the effect of density and offset height,” Int.
J. Mech. Sci. 174, 105477 (2020).
14
M. Van Reeuwijk, M. Holzner, and C. P. Caulfield, “Mixing and entrain-
ment are suppressed in inclined gravity currents,” J. Fluid Mech. 873, 786–815
(2019).
15
A. Etrati and I. A. Frigaard, “A two-layer model for buoyant inertial displace-
ment flows in inclined pipes,” Phys. Fluids 30(2), 022107 (2018).
16
S. Balasubramanian and Q. Zhong, “Entrainment and mixing in lock-exchange
gravity currents using simultaneous velocity-density measurements,” Phys. Fluids
30(5), 056601 (2018).
17
D. Sher and A. W. Woods, “Mixing in continuous gravity currents,” J. Fluid
Mech. 818, R4 (2017).
18
T. Du, D. Yang, H. Wei, and Z. Zhang, “Experimental study on mixing and
stratification of buoyancy-driven flows produced by continuous buoyant source
in narrow inclined tank,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 121, 453–462 (2018).
19
S. M. Taghavi, T. Séon, K. Wielage-Burchard, D. M. Martinez, and I. A. Frigaard,
“Stationary residual layers in buoyant Newtonian displacement flows,” Phys.
Fluids 23(4), 044105 (2011).
20
T. Séon, J. Hulin, D. Salin, B. Perrin, and E. Hinch, “Buoyant mixing of miscible
fluids in tilted tubes,” Phys. Fluids 16(12), 103–106 (2004).
21
S. M. Taghavi, K. Alba, T. Séon, K. Wielage-Burchard, D. M. Martinez, and I. A.
Frigaard, “Miscible displacement flows in near-horizontal ducts at low Atwood
number,” J. Fluid Mech. 696, 175–214 (2012).
22
S. M. Taghavi, T. Séon, D. M. Martinez, and I. A. Frigaard, “Influence of an
imposed flow on the stability of a gravity current in a near horizontal duct,” Phys.
Fluids 22(3), 031702 (2010).
23
J. Zheng, W. Zhang, J. Jiang, and R. Guo, “CFD simulation and experimental
study of water-oil displacement flow in an inclined pipe,” Int. J. Heat Technol.
35(3), 663–667 (2017).
24
A. J. Hogg, M. M. Nasr-Azadani, M. Ungarish, and E. Meiburg, “Sustained
gravity currents in a channel,” J. Fluid Mech. 798, 853–888 (2016).
25
J. O. Shin, S. B. Dalziel, and P. F. Linden, “Gravity currents produced by lock
exchange,” J. Fluid Mech. 521, 1–34 (2004).
26
J. W. Rottman and J. E. Simpson, “Gravity currents produced by instantaneous
releases of a heavy fluid in a rectangular channel,” J. Fluid Mech. 135, 95–110
(1983).
27
L. Chiapponi, M. Ungarish, D. Petrolo, V. Di Federico, and S. Longo, “Non-
Boussinesq gravity currents and surface waves generated by lock release in a
circular-section channel: Theoretical and experimental investigation,” J. Fluid
Mech. 869, 610–633 (2019).
R. J. Lowe, J. W. Rottman, and P. F. Linden, “The non-Boussinesq lock-
exchange problem. Part 1. Theory and experiments,” J. Fluid Mech. 537, 101–124
(2005).
29
R. Inghilesi, C. Adduce, V. Lombardi, F. Roman, and V. Armenio, “Axisymmet-
ric three-dimensional gravity currents generated by lock exchange,” J. Fluid Mech.
851, 507–544 (2018).
A. Dai, “Non-Boussinesq gravity currents propagating on different bottom
slopes,” J. Fluid Mech. 741, 658–680 (2014).
A. Dai, “High-resolution simulations of downslope gravity currents in the
acceleration phase,” Phys. Fluids 27(7), 076602 (2015).
32, 063302-16
 Physics of Fluids
32
A. Dai and Y.-l. Huang, “High-resolution simulations of non-Boussinesq
downslope gravity currents in the acceleration phase,” Phys. Fluids 28(2), 026602
(2016).
33
K. Steenhauer, T. Tokyay, and G. Constantinescu, “Dynamics and structure of
planar gravity currents propagating down an inclined surface,” Phys. Fluids 29(3),
036604 (2017).
34
K. Alba, S. M. Taghavi, and I. A. Frigaard, “Miscible density-unstable displace-
ment flows in inclined tube,” Phys. Fluids 25(6), 067101 (2013).
35
A. Amiri, F. Larachi, and S. M. Taghavi, “Buoyant miscible displacement flows
in vertical pipe,” Phys. Fluids 28(10), 102105 (2016).
36
Z. Zhou, X. Yu, T.-J. Hsu, F. Shi, W. Rockwell Geyer, and J. T. Kirby, “On non-
hydrostatic coastal model simulations of shear instabilities in a stratified shear
flow at high Reynolds number,” J. Geophys. Res.: Oceans 122(4), 3081–3105,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jc012334 (2017).
37
Z. Nourmohammadi, H. Afshin, and B. Firoozabadi, “Experimental observa-
tion of the flow structure of turbidity currents,” J. Hydraul. Res. 49(2), 168–177
(2011).
38
S. Longo, M. Ungarish, V. Di Federico, L. Chiapponi, and F. Addona, “Gravity
currents produced by constant and time varying inflow in a circular cross-section
channel: Experiments and theory,” Adv. Water Resour. 90, 10–23 (2016).
39
Y. Yuan and A. R. Horner-Devine, “Laboratory investigation of the impact of
lateral spreading on buoyancy flux in a river plume,” J. Phys. Oceanogr. 43(12),
2588–2610 (2013).
40
Y. Yuan and A. R. Horner-Devine, “Experimental investigation of large-scale
vortices in a freely spreading gravity current,” Phys. Fluids 29(10), 106603
(2017).
41
K. Bhaganagar, “Role of head of turbulent 3-D density currents in mixing during
slumping regime,” Phys. Fluids 29(2), 020703 (2017).
42
A. A. Alahyari and E. K. Longmire, “Development and structure of a gravity
current head,” Exp. Fluids 20(6), 410–416 (1996).
Phys. Fluids 32, 063302 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0009102
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
43
S. Longo, M. Ungarish, V. Di Federico, L. Chiapponi, and F. Addona, “Gravity
currents in a linearly stratified ambient fluid created by lock release and influx in
semi-circular and rectangular channels,” Phys. Fluids 28(9), 096602 (2016).
44
T. Séon, “From turbulent mixing to gravity currents in confined geometry,”
Ph.D. thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI, 2006.
45
T. Séon, J.-P. Hulin, D. Salin, B. Perrin, and E. J. Hinch, “Laser-induced fluo-
rescence measurements of buoyancy driven mixing in tilted tubes,” Phys. Fluids
18(4), 041701 (2006).
46
S. M. Taghavi, “From displacement to mixing in a slightly inclined duct,” Ph.D.
thesis, University of British Columbia, 2011.
47
E. Kaloudis, D. G. E. Grigoriadis, and E. Papanicolaou, “Numerical simulations
of constant-influx gravity currents in confined spaces: Application to thermal
storage tanks,” Int. J. Therm. Sci. 108, 1–16 (2016).
48
C. Staquet, “Two-dimensional secondary instabilities in a strongly stratified
shear layer,” J. Fluid Mech. 296, 73–126 (1995).
49
H. B. Fischer, J. E. List, C. R. Koh, J. Imberger, and N. H. Brooks, Mixing in
Inland and Coastal Waters (Academic Press, New York, 1979).
50
A. Nasr and J. C. S. Lai, “Comparison of flow characteristics in the near field
of two parallel plane jets and an offset plane jet,” Phys. Fluids 9(10), 2919–2931
(1997).
51
S. S. Aleyasin, “On the effects of initial conditions on statistical properties of
single and twin turbulent jets,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Manitoba, 2018.
52
T. Séon, J.-P. Hulin, D. Salin, B. Perrin, and E. J. Hinch, “Buoyancy driven
miscible front dynamics in tilted tubes,” Phys. Fluids 17(3), 031702 (2005).
53
N. B. Kaye and G. R. Hunt, “Overturning in a filling box,” J. Fluid Mech. 576,
297–323 (2007).
54
P. G. Drazin and W. H. Reid, Hydrodynamic Stability (Cambridge University
Press, 2004).
55
K. C. Sahu, H. Ding, P. Valluri, and O. K. Matar, “Pressure-driven miscible two-
fluid channel flow with density gradients,” Phys. Fluids 21(4), 043603 (2009).
32, 063302-17