By the end of the time period, simulation M2M2-tight has values of ΔEb′ within 5% of the high resolution fixed mesh simulation F-high1 whilst using one order of magnitude SCH772984 fewer vertices. Simulation M2M2-tight therefore offers an improvement in Eb′ over M2M2-mid but has an increased computational cost.

The diapycnal mixing behaviour and distribution of vertices indicate that it is the ability of M2M2 to increase resolution even when the curvature is weaker that allows the improved representation of the field and the reduction in the diapycnal mixing. Snapshots of the mesh for simulation M∞M∞-var and M2M2-mid show higher resolution of the billows, particularly at their centre, and also extending away from the billow edges, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5. As the fluid in the billow begins to mix and the fields homogenise, the curvature of the fields is reduced (particularly in the temperature field). The smaller-scale variations in the fields are not captured adequately in the simulation with

M∞M∞ but are given more weight in M2M2 and, hence, are better represented. Furthermore, during the oscillatory stages, the simulations that use M∞M∞ have Selleck ABT 199 much coarser resolution in the majority of the domain than simulation M2M2-mid, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5. It is not surprising, therefore, that simulation M2M2-mid behaves more like the higher resolution fixed meshes and demonstrates that M2M2 provides a better guide of where the mesh resolution is needed. The values of the no-slip and free-slip Froude number tend to near constant

values as the fixed mesh resolution increases, Fig. 9. The no-slip values for the two higher resolution simulations, F-high1 and F-high2, are affected by the shedding of a billow at the nose of the gravity current; this results in an acceleration and deceleration of the front and is captured by the large error bars for these values (cf. Hiester et al., Thymidine kinase 2011). For F-high2 only part of the acceleration/deceleration occurs within the window over which the values of Froude number are calculated and, therefore, the average value is slightly over-estimated (Hiester, 2011). The values of the Froude number for simulations with MRMR and M2M2 show good agreement with the fixed meshes and M∞M∞-var, Fig. 9. Simulation M2M2-loose presents the best performance for the Froude number diagnostic, compared to both the fixed meshes and other adaptive meshes. The next best performing adaptive mesh simulation is M2M2-mid, followed by M∞M∞-var. Only simulation M∞M∞-const significantly under performs. An increase in boundary resolution ahead of the gravity current fronts can be seen in the mesh for simulations with M2M2 and MRMR, Fig. 5.