2.1. Background flow

We consider the two-dimensional (2-D) flow produced by oscillating a horizontal tank having a rectangular cross-section of depth $h$ , while the along-channel ( $x$ ) and cross-channel ( $y$ ) dimensions are infinite. The $z$ direction is positive upward; see figure 1 for the schematic of the set-up. The tank consists of a Boussinesq, two-layered, inviscid and immiscible fluid with the following density distribution:

(2.1) \begin{align} \rho (z) = \left \{ \begin{aligned} & \rho _1\,\,\, 0\lt z\lt h/2 ,\\ & \rho _2\,\,\, -h/2\lt z\lt 0. \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

The fluid is stably stratified, i.e. $\rho _1\,{\lt}\,\rho _2$ . A more generic setting in which the two layers have unequal depths is discussed in Appendix A. Throughout the paper, subscripts $1$ and $2$ will respectively denote quantities associated with the upper and lower fluid layers. The system is restricted to a small angle of oscillation $\alpha (t)$ , typically $\textrm{max}\, |\alpha (t)|\lesssim 7^\circ$ . The small tilt of the density interface functions as a geophysically plausible mechanism for generating shear; the vertical motions induced by the sloping interface have a negligible effect on the fluid dynamics (Lewin & Caulfield Reference Lewin and Caulfield2022). For the setting in figure 1, the governing Navier–Stokes equations under the Boussinesq approximation read (Inoue & Smyth Reference Inoue and Smyth2009; Lewin & Caulfield Reference Lewin and Caulfield2022)

(2.2a) \begin{align} \frac {\mathrm{D}u}{\mathrm{D}t} = -\frac {1}{\rho _0}\frac {\partial p}{\partial x} - g\frac {\rho }{\rho _0}\sin \alpha (t) + 2 \alpha _{,t} w, \end{align}

(2.2b) \begin{align} \frac {\mathrm{D}w}{\mathrm{D}t} = -\frac {1}{\rho _0}\frac {\partial p}{\partial z} - g\frac {\rho }{\rho _0}\cos \alpha (t) - 2 \alpha _{,t} u . \end{align}

Here, $\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{D}t = \partial /\partial t+\boldsymbol{u\cdot \nabla}$ , where $\boldsymbol{\nabla} =(\hat {\boldsymbol{x}}\,\partial /\partial x,\,\hat {\boldsymbol{z}}\,\partial /\partial z)$ , $\boldsymbol{u} = (u,\, w )$ is the velocity vector, $\rho _0$ is the constant reference density, $g$ is the acceleration due to gravity and the suffix, ‘ $_{,t}$ ’ denotes ordinary derivative ${\rm d}/{\rm d}t$ . The last terms in (2.2a )–(2.2b ) represent Coriolis accelerations arising from the time-dependent rotation. The incompressibility condition is satisfied by the continuity equation

(2.3) \begin{equation} \frac {\partial u}{\partial x}+\frac {\partial w}{\partial z}=0. \end{equation}

The background state velocity is assumed to be parallel to the $x$ -axis, i.e. $\boldsymbol{U}=(U,0)$ . Hence, the continuity equation, (2.3), implies that $U$ is only a function of $z$ and $t$ . Therefore, the background state equations yield

(2.4a) \begin{align} \frac {\partial U}{\partial t} &= -\frac {1}{\rho _0}\frac {\partial P}{\partial x} - g\frac {\rho }{\rho _0}\sin \alpha (t), \end{align}

(2.4b) \begin{align} P &= - \int \left [g \rho (z) \cos \alpha (t) + 2 \rho _0 \alpha _{,t} U(z, t)\right ] \mathrm{d}z + \mathcal{G}(x,t), \end{align}

where $P(x,z,t)$ denotes the background state pressure.

Equation (2.1) indicates that $\rho$ is a function of $z$ only. Consequently from (2.4b ), $P(x,z,t)$ can be expressed as the sum of a function that is dependent on $z$ and $t$ , and another function $\mathcal{G}$ dependent on $x$ and $t$ . This implies $\partial P/\partial x$ is a function of $x$ and $t$ . However, as per (2.4a ), both $\partial U/\partial t$ and $ g({\rho }/{\rho _0})\sin \alpha (t)$ are functions of $z$ and $t$ only. Therefore, $\partial P/\partial x$ must be a function of $t$ alone. Since the tank is enclosed and there is no net flux across the walls, we must have (Thorpe Reference Thorpe1969)

(2.5) \begin{align} \int _{-h/2}^{h/2} U(z, t)\, \mathrm{d}z =0. \end{align}

The above condition can be used to obtain the background state velocity profile. In this regard, we integrate (2.4a ) in both $z$ and $t$ and substitute (2.5)

(2.6) \begin{equation} \int _0^t \frac {\partial P}{\partial x} \mathrm{d}t = -\frac {g}{h} \int _{-h/2}^{h/2} \rho \mathrm{d}z \int _0^t\sin \alpha (\tilde {t})\, \mathrm{d}\tilde {t}. \end{equation}

Finally, we integrate (2.4a ) in $t$ and combine with (2.6) and (2.1), which yields the background state velocity profile

(2.7) \begin{align} U(z,t) =\left \{ \begin{aligned} & U_1(t)=\frac {g^\prime }{2} \int _0^t \sin \alpha (\tilde {t}) \, \mathrm{d}\tilde {t} \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 0\lt z\lt h/2 ,\\ & U_2( t)=- \frac {g^\prime }{2} \int _0^t \sin \alpha (\tilde {t}) \, \mathrm{d}\tilde {t} \,\,\,\,\,\,-h/2\lt z\lt 0, \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

where $g^\prime \,{=}\,{g}(\rho _2-\rho _1)/{\rho _0}$ is the reduced gravity. We assume that the tilt angle varies sinusoidally with time

(2.8) \begin{align} \alpha (t)=\alpha _f\sin (\omega _f t), \end{align}

where $\alpha _f$ and $\omega _f$ respectively denote the maximum angular amplitude and frequency of oscillation of the tilted tank. Since we have restricted our study to small oscillations ( $\alpha _f\,{\ll}\,1$ ), this implies $\sin \alpha \approx \alpha$ and $\cos \alpha \approx 1-\alpha ^2/2$ . Under this assumption, the background state velocity in (2.7) simplifies to

(2.9a) \begin{align}&\quad U_1(t)= \frac {g^\prime }{2} \frac {\alpha _f}{\omega _f} [1-\cos (\omega _f t)]\quad 0\lt z\lt h/2 ,\end{align}

(2.9b) \begin{align}& U_2(t) = - \frac {g^\prime }{2} \frac {\alpha _f}{\omega _f} [1-\cos (\omega _f t)] \quad -h/2\lt z\lt 0. \end{align}

The fact that the signs in (2.9a )–(2.9b ) agree with our intuition can be verified by simply inspecting figure 1, which can be regarded as the maximum angle in the counter-clockwise direction attained by the tank, equalling $\alpha _f$ . As per (2.8) this implies $\omega _f t\,{=}\,\pi /2$ , which, when substituted into (2.9a )–(2.9b ), yields $U_1\,{=}\,-U_2\,{=}\,g'\alpha _f/2\omega _f$ . The signs make sense because the heavier, lower layer must have a negative velocity since it would flow downwards due to gravity, and the upper layer should compensate for this by flowing upwards, yielding a positive velocity.

2.2. Linear perturbations

We now consider the effect of infinitesimal perturbations added to the background state, and follow an approach similar to Thorpe (Reference Thorpe1969). The displacement of the two-fluid interface, given by $z\,{=}\,\xi (x,\,t)$ , sets up an irrotational perturbation velocity field in the two layers. The total velocity reads

(2.10) \begin{align} \boldsymbol{u}= \left \{ \begin{aligned} & U_1(t) \hat {\boldsymbol{x}} +\nabla \phi _1(x,z,t) \qquad 0 \lt z\lt h/2 ,\\ & U_2(t) \hat {\boldsymbol{x}} +\nabla \phi _2(x,z,t) \qquad -h/2\lt z\lt 0, \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

where $\phi _{1}$ and $\phi _2$ are, respectively, the perturbation velocity potentials in the upper and lower fluid layers, which satisfy Laplace’s equation in their respective layers

(2.11a) \begin{align} \boldsymbol{\nabla}^2 \phi _1&=0 \qquad\; 0 \lt z\lt h/2, \end{align}

(2.11b) \begin{align} \boldsymbol{\nabla}^2 \phi _2&=0 \qquad -h/2\lt z\lt 0. \end{align}

The linearised dynamical boundary conditions at $z=0$ for the two layers are as follows:

(2.12a) \begin{align} \frac {P_1}{\rho _1}+\frac {\partial \phi _1}{\partial t} + \frac {\partial }{\partial t}\left (U_1 x\right ) + U_1 \frac {\partial \phi _1}{\partial x} + gx \sin \alpha (t) + gz\cos \alpha (t)=A_1(t), \end{align}

(2.12b) \begin{align} \frac {P_2}{\rho _2}+\frac {\partial \phi _2}{\partial t} + \frac {\partial }{\partial t}\left (U_2 x\right ) + U_2 \frac {\partial \phi _2}{\partial x} + gx \sin \alpha (t)+ gz\cos \alpha (t) =A_2(t), \end{align}

where $P_1$ and $P_2$ , respectively, denote pressure in the upper and lower fluid layers, and $A_1$ and $A_2$ are arbitrary functions of time. Likewise, the linearised kinematic boundary conditions at $z=0$ for the two layers read

(2.13a) \begin{align} \frac {\partial \xi }{\partial t} + U_1(t) \frac {\partial \xi }{\partial x} = \frac {\partial \phi _1}{\partial z},\\[-12pt]\nonumber \end{align}

(2.13b) \begin{align} \frac {\partial \xi }{\partial t} + U_2(t) \frac {\partial \xi }{\partial x} = \frac {\partial \phi _2}{\partial z}. \end{align}

The upper and lower boundaries satisfy the impermeability condition

(2.14a) \begin{align}&\,\, \frac {\partial \phi _1}{\partial z} = 0 \quad \text{at} \quad z=h/2, \end{align}

(2.14b) \begin{align}& \frac {\partial \phi _2}{\partial z} = 0 \quad \text{at} \quad z=-h/2. \end{align}

Next, we assume the perturbations in the form of Fourier modes

(2.15a) \begin{align} &\qquad\qquad\,\,\, \xi (x,t)= \eta (t) e^{\mathrm{i}kx}, \end{align}

(2.15b) \begin{align} & \phi _1(x,z,t) =\psi _1(t)\cosh k\left (z-\frac {h}{2}\right )e^{\mathrm{i}kx}, \end{align}

(2.15c) \begin{align} & \phi _2(x,z,t) =\psi _2(t)\cosh k\left (z+\frac {h}{2}\right )e^{\mathrm{i}kx}, \end{align}

where $k$ denotes the wavenumber and it is understood that the real parts of terms appearing on the right-hand sides are to be taken. It is straightforward to verify that the perturbation velocity potentials satisfy Laplace’s equations (2.11a )–(2.11b ) and the impermeability condition (2.14a )–(2.14b ). The continuity of pressure across the interface ( $P_1\,{=}\,P_2$ ) is applied in (2.12a )–(2.12b ), thereby combining these two equations into one

(2.16) \begin{align} \rho _1 A_1 &-\rho _1 \psi _{1,t} \cosh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right ) e^{\mathrm{i}kx} - \rho _1 x U_{1,t} -\mathrm{i}k \rho _1 U_1 \psi _1 \cosh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right ) e^{\mathrm{i}kx} - \rho _1 gx\sin \alpha (t) \nonumber \\ &- \rho _1 g \eta \cos \alpha (t) e^{\mathrm{i}kx} = \rho _2 A_2 -\rho _2 \psi _{2,t} \cosh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right ) e^{\mathrm{i}kx} - \rho _2 x U_{2,t} \nonumber \\ &-\mathrm{i}k \rho _2 U_2 \psi _2 \cosh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right ) e^{\mathrm{i}kx} - \rho _2 gx\sin \alpha (t) - \rho _2 g \eta \cos \alpha (t) e^{\mathrm{i}kx}. \end{align}

Note that, in the above equation, we have substituted (2.15a )–(2.15c ). Next we collect the coefficients of $e^{\mathrm{i}kx}$ (Thorpe Reference Thorpe1969, Appendix A), and invoke the Boussinesq approximation

(2.17) \begin{align} \left (\psi _{1,t}-\psi _{2,t}\right )\cosh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right ) + \mathrm{i}k \left ( U_1 \psi _1 - U_2 \psi _2 \right )\cosh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right ) = g' \eta \cos \alpha (t). \end{align}

Finally, we substitute the linearised kinematic boundary conditions (2.13a )–(2.13b ) in the above equation, yielding a second-order ordinary differential equation (ODE) only in terms of $\eta$

(2.18) \begin{align} \eta _{,tt} +\Bigg[ \underbrace {\frac {kg^\prime }{2} \tanh \left (\frac {kh}{2}\right )}_{\text{$\omega ^2$}} \cos \alpha (t) -\frac {k^2}{2}\big(U_1(t)^2+U_2(t)^2\big)\Bigg] \eta =0. \end{align}

The explicit time dependence of the background flow has been intentionally emphasised. For a tank at rest, meaning $\alpha \,{=}\,0$ and $U_1\,{=}\,U_2\,{=}\,0$ , we recover the equation governing interfacial gravity waves with frequency $\omega =\pm \sqrt {(g'k/2)\tanh (kh/2)}$ propagating in a two-layered fluid where each layer has a depth of $h/2$ , see Sutherland (Reference Sutherland2010). Hereafter, we will restrict our attention to $\tanh (kh/2 )\,{\approx}\,1$ , i.e. the waves are much shorter than the depth of the individual layers. The justification behind this choice is motivated by the fact that the wavelengths of KH instabilities arising in the pycnocline are usually much smaller than the pycnocline’s depth. Hence, the layer depths do not play any further role in governing the dynamics.

Substituting (2.9a )–(2.9b ) into (2.18) yields

(2.19) \begin{align} \eta _{,tt} + \left [\! \omega ^{2} \!\left (\!1- \frac {\alpha _f^2}{4} (1-\cos (2\omega _ft))\!\right )\! - \omega ^{4}\frac {\alpha _f^2}{\omega _f^2} \!\left ( \frac {3}{2} - 2 \cos \left (\omega _ft\right ) + \frac {1}{2}\cos \left (2\omega _f t\right )\!\right )\!\right ]\eta =0. \end{align}

Hereafter, $\omega _f$ will represent low-frequency oscillations of the density interface. Physically, this can represent low-order, basin-scale modes (Sutherland Reference Sutherland2010, Chapter 2.5) which are essentially standing waves equivalent to seiches in lakes. Furthermore, although the analogy is tenuous, $\omega _f$ can also represent the frequency of propagating long interfacial waves; see Inoue & Smyth (Reference Inoue and Smyth2009). In any case, the two-layered oscillating tank set-up in figure 1 is a simplified representation of the realistic scenario, and the key outcome in this context is the appearance of a small parameter $\epsilon \,{=}\,\omega _f/\omega \,{\ll}\,1$ . In other words, the frequencies (wavelengths) of the gravity waves at the density interface, which could be rendered unstable, are orders of magnitude greater (smaller) than the frequencies (wavelengths) characterising the mean density interface, i.e. the background flow. The mean density interface represents a small-amplitude long wave of infinite wavelength, which essentially makes it a straight line and further ensures that the background shear flow is parallel.

Defining a non-dimensional time $\tau \,{=}\,\omega _f t$ , (2.19) yields

(2.20) \begin{align} \epsilon ^2\eta _{,\tau \tau } + \Bigg[\underbrace {1- \frac {3}{2} \beta + \beta \left ( 2 \cos \left (\tau \right ) - \frac {1}{2}\cos \left (2\tau \right )\right ) }_{\text{$\mathcal{F}(\tau )$}}- \frac {\alpha _f^2}{4} \left (1-\cos (2\tau )\right ) \Bigg]\eta =0, \end{align}

where $\beta \,{=}\,\alpha _f^2/\epsilon ^2$ . Comparing $\beta$ with the definition of minimum Richardson number $Ri_{{min}}$ in Inoue & Smyth (Reference Inoue and Smyth2009), Equation (13), we observe that $\beta$ resembles the inverse of minimum Richardson number. However, we are cautious that there is no length scale (shear layer thickness) in our problem, hence a direct comparison with Inoue & Smyth (Reference Inoue and Smyth2009) might be misleading. Note that $\beta \,{\gg}\,\alpha _f^2$ , thus $\mathcal{O}(\alpha _f^2)$ terms can be neglected. This transforms (2.20) into the following governing equation of the interface, which can be classified as a Schrödinger-type equation with a periodic potential:

(2.21) \begin{align} \epsilon ^2\eta _{,\tau \tau } + \mathcal{F}(\tau ) \eta =0 \quad \mathrm{where} \;\, \mathcal{F}(\tau )=\mathcal{F}(\tau +2\pi ). \end{align}

It is worthwhile to compare (2.21) with the governing ODE obtained by Kelly (Reference Kelly1965), Equation (3.17). Kelly’s two-layered flow with imposed layer-wise oscillating shear is only applicable to non-Boussinesq flows (shear disappears under the Boussinesq limit, see Kelly Reference Kelly1965, Equation (2.3)) and hence is fundamentally different from our system. The ODE governing Kelly’s system is Mathieu-type and therefore undergoes parametric instability when the forcing frequency $\omega _f$ is twice the natural frequency $\omega$ . Such parametric resonance is not expected to be the mechanism driving instability in our system since $\omega$ and $\omega _f$ differ by many orders of magnitude. Furthermore, previous authors (Inoue & Smyth Reference Inoue and Smyth2009; Lewin & Caulfield Reference Lewin and Caulfield2022) do not report any finely tuned frequency ratios for observing the instability. The order separation of the two frequencies gives rise to the coefficient $\epsilon ^2$ in the second derivative, thereby rendering (2.21) into a Schrödinger-type equation. We note in passing that Onuki, Joubaud & Dauxois (Reference Onuki, Joubaud and Dauxois2021) numerically studied the situation for which $\omega \,{\sim}\,\omega _f$ (hence $\epsilon \,{\sim}\,1$ ), and indeed the authors report parametric subharmonic instability.

2.2.1. Necessary and sufficient condition for instability

The nature of the solution to (2.21) is determined by the sign of $\mathcal{F}(\tau )$ ; instability implies $\mathcal{F}(\tau )\,{\lt}\,0$ while the flow is stable for $\mathcal{F}(\tau )\,{\gt}\,0$ . After some algebra, the necessary and sufficient condition for instability is found to be

(2.22) \begin{align} \cos \tau \lt 1-\frac {1}{\sqrt {\beta }}\,{\implies}\,\beta \gt \beta _{{min}} = \frac {1}{4}. \end{align}

This implies all waves with wavenumbers $k\gt k_{{long\hbox{-}wave\hbox{-}cut\hbox{-}off}}=\omega _f^2/2g'\alpha _f^2$ are unstable. Figure 2 represents the variation of $\mathcal{F}(\tau )$ with $\tau$ for various $\beta$ values. Initially, the flow is stable for all finite $\beta$ values. For $\beta \,{\gt}\,0.25$ , the solution ‘tunnels’ into the unstable region after crossing the (first) turning point $\tau =\tau _c$ , which signifies $\mathcal{F}(\tau )$ changing sign from positive to negative. From (2.22), $\tau _c$ can be straightforwardly determined

(2.23) \begin{align} \tau _c = \cos ^{-1} \left (1-\frac {1}{\sqrt {\beta }}\right ). \end{align}

Noting that $\mathcal{F}(\tau )$ has a period of $2\pi$ and a mirror symmetry about $\tau =\pi$ , it changes sign (for $\beta \,{\gt}\,0.25$ ) twice within its period – first at $\tau =\tau _c$ and then at $\tau =2\pi -\tau _c$ . The stability condition provides an upper bound for the time of occurrence of the instability – if the flow is unstable, then instability will set in before $\tau =\pi$ . The second turning point at $\tau =2\pi -\tau _c$ signifies stabilisation, which may have little effect for higher $\beta$ values that allow sustained growth for a longer time interval ( $2\pi -2\tau _c$ ). This is because $\tau _c$ reduces as $\beta$ increases. Hence, the role of $\beta$ is analogous to that of the inverse of the Richardson number.

In Appendix A, we discuss the generic situation in which the two fluid layers have unequal depths: $h_1$ and $h_2\,{=}\,h-h_1$ . In this scenario, the necessary and sufficient condition for instability is given by (see (A5))

(2.24) \begin{align} \beta \gt \beta _{{min}}= \frac {1}{8\left [r^2+(1-r)^2\right ]}, \end{align}

where $r=h_1/h$ . Since $r\in (0,1)$ , we must have $1/8\,{\lt}\,\beta _{{min}} \,{\leqslant}\, 1/4$ . The upper bound for the time of occurrence of the instability is independent of $r$ and occurs at $\tau \,{=}\,\pi$ . In the oceanographic context, the typical depth of the pycnocline ( $h_1$ ) is much less than the total ocean depth ( $h$ ), i.e. $r\,{\ll}\,1$ , which leads to the instability condition $\beta \,{\gt}\,1/8$ .

Figure 2.

Variation of $\mathcal{F}(\tau )$ with $\tau$ for different $\beta$ values. The flow becomes unstable when $\mathcal{F}(\tau )\lt 0$ . For reference, $\tau \,{=}\,\pi /2$ implies the maximum counter-clockwise excursion (i.e. $\alpha =\alpha _f$ ) of the two-layered oscillating tank, while $\tau \,{=}\,\pi$ implies that the tank, through clockwise rotation, has reached the horizontal position.

2.2.2. Predictions from the steady background flow assumption

Undertaking a conventional, steady-state-based linear stability analysis for an inherently unsteady background flow could appear simplistic. However, such an analysis has a key advantage – the simplifications can result in an exact solution of (2.21), leading to a closed-form expression for the growth rate. Furthermore, if the growth is exponential (verified a posteriori), then the time scale of growth is much faster than the slow time dependence of the background flow, implying that the steady-state assumption is sensible. Here we intend to explore the predictions obtained from steady-state-based analyses and the extent of errors incurred.

One way of removing the explicit time dependence of the background flow is time averaging. By averaging (2.9a )–(2.9b ) over its period, we obtain

(2.25) \begin{equation} \overline {U_1}=-\overline {U_2}=\frac {g^\prime }{2} \frac {\alpha _f}{\omega _f}, \end{equation}

which when substituted into (2.18) converts (2.21) into a second-order constant coefficient ODE with $\mathcal{F}=1-\beta$ . This yields the instability condition $\beta \,{\gt}\,1$ , which implies normal-mode instabilities with a growth rate of $\sigma _{{normal\hbox{-}mode}}\,{=}\,\sqrt {\beta -1}/\epsilon$ . Comparison with (2.22) shows that the above instability condition is erroneous.

Next, we undertake another steady-state-based approach where the maximum background velocity of each layer given in (2.9a )–(2.9b ) is considered

(2.26) \begin{equation} U_{1,{max}}=- U_{2,{max}}=g^\prime \frac {\alpha _f}{\omega _f}. \end{equation}

The above background velocities are substituted in (2.18) yielding $\mathcal{F}=1-4\beta$ in the governing equation (2.21). This flow becomes unstable to normal-mode instabilities which has a growth rate of

(2.27) \begin{equation} \sigma _{{normal\hbox{-}mode}}=\frac {\sqrt {4\beta - 1}}{\epsilon }. \end{equation}

The resulting instability condition $\beta \,{\gt}\,1/4$ exactly matches the unsteady analysis in (2.22). To see how this growth rate compares with the classical KH instability of two discontinuous layers, we write the well-known expression for its dimensional growth rate (Drazin & Reid Reference Drazin and Reid2004; Guha & Rahmani Reference Guha and Rahmani2019)

(2.28) \begin{equation} \widetilde {\sigma }_{\textit{KH}}\,{=}\,\sqrt {U^2k^2-\frac {g'k}{2}}, \end{equation}

where the upper (lower) layer of density $\rho _1\,(\rho _2)$ is moving with a constant velocity $U\,(- U)$ . Substituting $U\,{=}\,U_{1,{max}}$ from (2.26) and non-dimensionalising (2.28) with $\omega _f$ , it is straightforward to verify that the non-dimensional growth rate ${\sigma }_{\textit{KH}}\,{=}\,{\widetilde {\sigma }_{\textit{KH}}}/{\omega _f}\,{=}\,\sigma _{{normal\hbox{-}mode}}$ in (2.27).

In summary, the steady-state-based linear stability analysis that considers the maximum (instead of time-average) background velocity in each layer provides the same instability condition as the time-dependent problem. The normal-mode growth rate exactly matches the classical KH instability. However, such an analysis is unable to capture key features of the actual system, which is inherently unsteady. For example, the steady-state-based analysis cannot predict the time of onset of the instability. Since $\tau$ is a slow time, a delayed onset of instability is a salient feature of this system. How well the growth rate predicted from the steady-state-based analysis compares with the unsteady analysis also needs to be examined.

3.1. Floquet analysis, numerical integration and normal-mode predictions

Equation (2.21) can be written as a 2-D dynamical system

(3.1) \begin{equation} \begin{bmatrix} \eta \\ v \end{bmatrix}_{,\tau } =\underbrace {\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -{\epsilon ^{-2}}\mathcal{F}(\tau ) & 0 \end{bmatrix}}_{\text{$\mathcal{L}(\tau )$}} \begin{bmatrix} \eta \\ v \end{bmatrix}, \end{equation}

where the linear operator $\mathcal{L}(\tau )$ has a fundamental period of $T\,{=}\,2\pi$ . The fundamental solution matrix $\Phi (\tau )$ satisfies

(3.2) \begin{align} \Phi _{,\tau }(\tau ) = \mathcal{L}(\tau )\Phi (\tau ) \quad \text{where} \;\, \Phi (0)=I. \end{align}

Floquet analysis is the standard technique for analysing the stability of linear periodic systems. If the analysis finds that the energy of the disturbance at the end of one period is larger than the energy at the outset, the system is deemed unstable. In this regard, the monodromy matrix $\Phi (T)$ (which is numerically computed in general) is first determined and its eigenvalues, known as Floquet multipliers $\mu$ , are sought. The Floquet exponents $\Omega$ , signifying the complex temporal growth rate, are related to the Floquet multipliers via the relation $\mu \,{=}\,\exp {(\Omega T)}$ . The system is deemed unstable if there exists at least one eigenvalue satisfying $|\mu |\,{\gt}\,1$ ( $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega )\,{\gt}\,0$ ). Likewise, the system is stable if all eigenvalues satisfy $|\mu |\,{\lt}\,1$ ( $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega )\,{\lt}\,0$ ). When all eigenvalues satisfy $|\mu |\,{=}\,1$ ( $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega )\,{=}\,0$ ), the system oscillates between finite bounds $\forall \tau$ (Richards Reference Richards2002). In this case, the solution is neutrally stable and can yield quasiperiodic behaviour in time (Kovacic, Rand & Mohamed Sah Reference Kovacic, Rand and Mohamed Sah2018).

We compute Floquet exponents and the Floquet multipliers using Matlab corresponding to different $\beta$ values in table 1. We keep $\alpha _f$ fixed at $0.05$ (which is equivalent to $2.86$ °) in the entire paper. The system is bounded for $\beta \,{=}\,0.1$ and $0.2$ , and unstable for $0.27$ , $0.3$ and $0.35$ , which are the expected outcomes as per the condition in (2.22). Furthermore, we also observe that, when $\beta \,{\gt}\,0.25$ , the higher the $\beta$ value, the higher the maximum growth rate $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega _{{max}})$ . We restrict our Floquet analysis to up to $\beta \,{=}\,0.35$ since, beyond this value, the numerical solution becomes unreliable owing to the resulting extremely large and extremely small Floquet multipliers.

Table 1.

Floquet analysis of the system (3.1).

To understand how the amplitude evolves in time, and to explore a bigger range of $\beta$ values, we numerically solve (2.21) using Matlab’s inbuilt ODE45 solver (which was also used to construct the monodromy matrix while performing the Floquet analysis). For the two initial conditions, we take

(3.3) \begin{align} \eta (0)=1 \quad \text{and} \quad \eta _{,\tau }(0) =\frac {\mathrm{i}}{\epsilon }, \end{align}

which satisfy the governing equation

(3.4) \begin{align} \epsilon ^2 \eta _{,\tau \tau } + \eta =0. \end{align}

The above equation, which can be obtained by taking the limit $\tau \rightarrow 0$ of (2.21), physically represents propagating deep water interfacial waves inside the two-layered horizontal tank at rest (i.e. non-oscillating).

Figure 3.

Plots of $|\eta |$ vs $\tau$ for different $\beta$ values. Unstable regions predicted from (2.23) are shaded in grey. Line colours are as follows: black – normal-mode solution (based on steady background flow (2.26)), blue – numerical solution of (2.21) and dashed red – MAF solution (3.21). The dashed-blue line in (b) represents the amplitude envelope.

Figure 3(a) shows that the system undergoes bounded oscillations for $\beta \,{=}\,0.2$ , which cannot be predicted from the normal-mode theory. As already noted in § 2.2, systems with $\beta \,{\gt}\,0.25$ start becoming unstable when $\tau \,{\gt}\,\tau _c$ . Within the $n$ th period, the system will grow when $2n\pi +\tau _c \,{\lt}\,\tau \,{\lt}\,2(n+1)\pi -\tau _c$ , i.e. the interval when $\mathcal{F}(\tau )\,{\lt}\,0$ is satisfied. This fact is evident in figure 3(b) which corresponds to $\beta \,{=}\,0.27$ . Furthermore, the plot also reveals the amplification of energy between consecutive periods. Figures 3(c) and 3(d) respectively correspond to $\beta \,{=}\,0.5$ and $\beta \,{=}\,0.8$ , and reveal a much larger growth rate, as is expected from the trend observed in table 1.

Finally, we compare the growth rate $\sigma _{{numerical}}$ obtained from the numerical solutions (calculated when $\tau \,{\gt}\,\tau _c$ ) with the normal-mode predictions in (2.27):

1. (i) $\beta \,{=}\,0.27$ : $\sigma _{{normal\hbox{-}mode}}=2.94\;\,\kern-1pt$ $\sigma _{{numerical}}=0.18$ (amplitude envelope growth rate);

2. (ii) $\beta \,{=}\,0.5$ : $\sigma _{{normal\hbox{-}mode}}=14.14$ $\sigma _{{numerical}}=14.12$ ;

3. (iii) $\beta \,{=}\,0.8$ : $\!\sigma _{{normal\hbox{-}mode}}=26.53$ $\sigma _{{numerical}}=26.53$ .

As evident from the above data and also from figures 3(c) and 3(d), the normal-mode growth rate predictions from (2.27) provide an excellent agreement with the numerical solution, and this agreement improves even further as $\beta$ increases. Since the normal-mode growth rate exactly matches with that of the classical KH instability, this conclusively proves that the instability is of KH type. However, for the $\beta \,{=}\,0.27$ (which is a $\beta$ value slightly greater than the instability condition) case, the normal-mode theory fails to predict the growth rate of the amplitude envelope, as well as the intricate temporal dynamics of the amplitude evolution, which is clear from figure 3(b).

We also emphasise here that $\beta$ , by definition, is proportional to $\omega ^2\,{=}\,g'k/2$ . The growth rate trend reveals the classical ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’, i.e. shorter waves are more unstable, which is an artefact of the absence of a length scale (i.e. finite thickness of the interface) in the problem.

Finally, we compare our theoretical predictions with the DNS results of Lewin & Caulfield (Reference Lewin and Caulfield2022). In this regard, we choose the case ‘NM72D’, where normal-mode perturbations have been used to seed the flow. Note that the authors use smooth profiles, hence, their parameters need to be suitably adjusted to fit our discontinuous set-up. Their parameters are as follows: $\alpha _f\,{=}\,7.28^\circ \,{=}\,0.127$ radians, $\lambda \,{=}\,14.28$ implying $k\,{=}\,0.44$ , half-shear layer thickness $\delta \,{=}\,1$ and $\omega _f/N_b\,{=}\,0.072$ , where $N_b$ denotes background buoyancy frequency. Noting that $g'\,{=}\, N_b^2\delta$ , we can state $\epsilon ^2$ in their variables

(3.5) \begin{align} \epsilon ^2=\frac {\omega _f^2}{\omega ^2}=\frac {2}{k\delta }\left (\frac {\omega _f}{N_b}\right )^2=0.024. \end{align}

This yields

(3.6) \begin{align} \beta =\frac {\alpha _f^2}{\epsilon ^2}=0.67\gt \frac {1}{4}, \end{align}

and thus the set-up for NM72D satisfies our instability condition (2.22). Indeed, the authors observe KH instability for the case NM72D. Furthermore, the onset of instability predicted from (2.23) is $\tau _c\,{=}\,0.57\pi$ , which excellently matches the corresponding DNS result $\tau _c\,{=}\,0.54\pi$ (see the Acknowledgement). However, we provide a note of caution that while certain instability characteristics (e.g. $\tau _c$ ) can have a direct quantitative agreement between discontinuous and smooth profiles, this does not guarantee a correspondence between other instability characteristics. For example, growth rates obtained from discontinuous profiles are unreliable. Moreover, discontinuous profiles cannot predict the band of unstable wavenumbers or the most unstable wavenumber. A proper evaluation of these parameters demands consideration of a finite-thickness shear layer.

3.2. Asymptotic solution: the modified Airy function method

Here, we aim to construct an approximate solution to the amplitude evolution. A standard approach in this regard would be to employ the well-known singular perturbation technique – the Wentzel–Kramers–Brillouin (WKB) method (Bender & Orszag Reference Bender and Orszag2013). In the WKB method, the asymptotic series in the small parameter $\epsilon$ is written as follows:

(3.7) \begin{align} \eta (\tau ) \sim \exp {\left (\frac {1}{\epsilon } \sum \limits _{n=0}^{\infty } \epsilon ^n S_n(\tau )\right )}, \end{align}

where $S_n(\tau )$ denotes the complex phase. Substitution of the above expansion in (2.21) yields the following first-order expressions for $\eta$ (valid for $0\,{\leqslant}\,\tau \,{\lt}\, 2\pi -\tau _c$ , i.e. up to the second turning point:

(3.8) \begin{equation} \eta (\tau ) = \left \{ \!\!\begin{array}{lll} C_1|\mathcal{F}(\tau )|^{-\frac {1}{4}} \,\exp \!\left (\frac {\mathrm{i}}{\epsilon } \int _{0}^{\tau } \sqrt {|\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })|}\,\mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau }\right ) &\text{for} &\!\!\kern-1pt 0\,{\leqslant}\,\tau \,{\lt}\,\tau _c,\\[6pt] C_2|\mathcal{F}(\tau )|^{-\frac {1}{4}} \,\exp \!\left (\frac {1}{\epsilon } \int _{\tau _c}^\tau \sqrt {|\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })|}\,\mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau }\right ) \\[6pt] \quad +C_3|\mathcal{F}(\tau )|^{-\frac {1}{4}} \,\exp \left (-\frac {1}{\epsilon } \int _{\tau _c}^\tau \sqrt {|\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })|}\,\mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau }\right ) & \text{for} &\!\!\! \tau _c\,{\lt}\,\tau \,{\lt}\,2\pi -\tau _c. \end{array} \right . \end{equation}

The solution exhibits an oscillatory behaviour when $\tau \,{\lt}\,\tau _c$ and grows monotonically (the decaying solution would rapidly become insignificant) when $\tau _c\,{\lt}\,\tau \,{\lt}\,2\pi -\tau _c$ . Note that $C_1$ can be straightforwardly determined from (3.3) and yields $C_1\,{=}\,1$ . To find $C_2$ and $C_3$ , turning point analysis at $\tau \,{=}\,\tau _c$ is required, which employs Airy functions to match the solutions on the two sides of the turning point. Instead of the standard WKB turning point analysis, we employ the modified Airy function (MAF) method, which can be regarded as an improved variant of WKB. The key aspect of MAF is its recognition of the fact that the Airy functions provide a uniformly valid composite approximation both near and far from a turning point. The MAF method was first introduced by Langer (Reference Langer1935); for a detailed discussion on this technique, also see Ghatak, Gallawa & Goyal (Reference Ghatak, Gallawa and Goyal1991), Bender & Orszag (Reference Bender and Orszag2013) and Wine, Achtymichuk & Marsiglio (Reference Wine, Achtymichuk and Marsiglio2025). Here, we employ MAF to analyse both turning points, and hence obtain a uniformly valid solution for the entire period of $2\pi$ . In MAF, the amplitude $\eta (\tau )$ is expressed as

(3.9) \begin{align} \eta (\tau ) =\left \{ \!\begin{aligned} & F_1(\tau ) Ai\left (\zeta _1(\tau )\right ) + G_1(\tau ) Bi\left (\zeta _1(\tau )\right ) \quad \mbox{for}\; 0\leqslant \tau \leqslant \tau _p, \\ &F_2(\tau ) Ai\left (\zeta _2(\tau )\right ) + G_2(\tau ) Bi\left (\zeta _2(\tau )\right ) \quad \mbox{for}\; \tau _p\leqslant \tau \leqslant 2\pi , \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

where $\tau _p\,{=}\,\pi$ is the location of absolute minima of the periodic potential $\mathcal{F}(\tau )$ , and $Ai(\zeta )$ and $Bi(\zeta )$ , respectively, the MAFs of the first and second kinds, satisfy

(3.10) \begin{align} Ai_{,\zeta \zeta } - \zeta Ai(\zeta )=0, \quad \mbox{and} \quad Bi_{,\zeta \zeta } - \zeta Bi(\zeta )=0. \end{align}

We will proceed by focusing on one of the terms (say, $F_1(\tau ) Ai (\zeta _1(\tau ) )$ ) in (3.9), as the other terms follow similar algebra, and they can be treated independently. Substituting $F_1(\tau ) Ai (\zeta _1(\tau ) )$ into the governing equation (2.21) and using the Airy function equations we obtain

(3.11) \begin{align} F_{1,\tau \tau } Ai(\zeta ) +2 F_{1,\tau } Ai_{,\zeta _1} \zeta _{1,\tau } + F_1 Ai_{,\zeta _1} \zeta _{1,\tau \tau }+ F_1\, Ai(\zeta _1) \big[ \epsilon ^2 \zeta _1(\tau ) \zeta _{1,\tau }^2 + \mathcal{F}(\tau ) \big]=0. \end{align}

To eliminate the terms in square brackets, $\zeta _1(\tau )$ is chosen to satisfy

(3.12) \begin{align} {\epsilon ^2} \zeta _1(\tau ) [\zeta _{1,\tau }(\tau )]^2 + {\mathcal{F}(\tau )}=0, \end{align}

which gives

(3.13) \begin{align} \zeta _1(\tau ) =\left \{ \begin{aligned} -&\left (\frac {3}{2\epsilon } \int _\tau ^{\tau _c} \sqrt {\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })} \mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau } \right )^{2/3} \quad \;\;\kern1pt\text{for} \;\, 0 \leqslant \tau \leqslant \tau _c,\\ & \left (\frac {3}{2\epsilon } \int _{\tau _c}^{\tau } \sqrt {-\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })} \mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau } \right )^{2/3} \quad \text{for} \;\, \tau _c \leqslant \tau \leqslant \tau _p. \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

Here, $F_1(\tau )$ is obtained by assuming $F_{1,\tau \tau } \approx 0$ . Thus, $F_1(\tau )$ satisfies

(3.14) \begin{align} 2 F_{1,\tau } Ai_{,\zeta _1} \zeta _{,\tau } + F_1 Ai_{,\zeta _1} \zeta _{1,\tau \tau }=0, \end{align}

which leads to

(3.15) \begin{align} F_1(\tau )= \frac {D_1}{\sqrt {\zeta _{1,\tau }(\tau )}}. \end{align}

Similarly, $G_1(\tau )$ , $F_2(\tau )$ , and $G_2(\tau )$ can be expressed as

(3.16) \begin{align} G_1(\tau )= \frac {D_2}{\sqrt {\zeta _{1,\tau }(\tau )}}, \quad F_2(\tau )= \frac {D_3}{\sqrt {\zeta _{2,\tau }(\tau )}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad G_2(\tau )= \frac {D_4}{\sqrt {\zeta _{2,\tau }(\tau )}}, \end{align}

where

(3.17) \begin{align} \zeta _2(\tau ) =\left \{ \begin{aligned} &\left (\frac {3}{2\epsilon } \int _\tau ^{2\pi -\tau _c} \sqrt {-\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })} \mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau } \right )^{2/3} \quad\kern2pt \text{for} \;\, \tau _p\leqslant \tau \leqslant 2\pi -\tau _c,\\ - & \left (\frac {3}{2\epsilon } \int _{2\pi -\tau _c}^{\tau } \sqrt {\mathcal{F}(\tilde {\tau })} \mathrm{d}\tilde {\tau } \right )^{2/3} \quad \hspace {4mm} \;\;\text{for} \;\, 2\pi -\tau _c \leqslant \tau \leqslant 2\pi . \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

The arbitrary constants $D_{1},\,D_2,\,D_3$ and $D_4$ will be determined by using the initial conditions (3.3) and the continuity of $\eta (\tau )$ and $\eta _{,\tau }(\tau )$ at $\tau _p=\pi$ . The initial conditions (3.3) give

(3.18) \begin{align} \begin{bmatrix} D_1 \\[6pt] D_2 \end{bmatrix} = \pi \sqrt {\zeta _{,\tau }(0)} \begin{bmatrix} Bi_{,\tau }\left (\zeta _1(0)\right ) \\[6pt] - Ai_{,\tau }\left (\zeta _1(0)\right ) \end{bmatrix} - \frac {\pi }{\sqrt {\zeta _{,\tau }(0)}} \left ( \frac {\mathrm{i}}{\epsilon }+ \frac {\zeta _{,\tau \tau }(0)}{2\zeta _{,\tau }(0)} \right ) \begin{bmatrix} Bi\left (\zeta _1(0)\right ) \\[6pt] - Ai\left (\zeta _1(0)\right ) \end{bmatrix}. \end{align}

The continuity of $\eta (\tau )$ and $\eta _{,\tau }(\tau )$ at $\tau _p=\pi$ yields the following system of linear equations with unknowns $D_3$ and $D_4$ :

(3.19) \begin{align} \begin{bmatrix} A_3(\tau _p) & B_3(\tau _p)\\[4pt] A_{3,\tau }(\tau _p) & B_{3,\tau }(\tau _p) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} D_3 \\[4pt]D_4 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} A_2(\tau _p) & B_2(\tau _p)\\[4pt] A_{2,\tau }(\tau _p) & B_{2,\tau }(\tau _p) \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} D_1 \\[4pt] D_2 \end{bmatrix}, \end{align}

where

(3.20) \begin{align} A_{j}(\tau )= \frac {Ai(\zeta _j(\tau ))}{\sqrt {\zeta _{j,\tau }(\tau )}} \quad \mbox{and} \quad B_{j}(\tau )= \frac {Bi(\zeta _j(\tau ))}{\sqrt {\zeta _{j,\tau }(\tau )}} \quad \mbox{for} \;\, j=2,\,3. \end{align}

Finally, the MAF solution of (2.21) over one period (and thus capturing both first and second turning points) is given by

(3.21) \begin{align} \eta (\tau )=\left \{\!\! \begin{aligned} & \left (\zeta _{1,\tau }(\tau )\right )^{-1/2} \big [D_1 Ai\left (\zeta _1(\tau )\right ) + D_2 Bi\left (\zeta _1(\tau )\right ) \big ] \quad \mbox{for} \;\, 0\leqslant \tau \leqslant \tau _p, \\ &\left (\zeta _{2,\tau }(\tau )\right )^{-1/2}\big [D_3 Ai\left (\zeta _2(\tau )\right ) + D_4 Bi\left (\zeta _2(\tau )\right )\big ]\quad \mbox{for} \;\, \tau _p \leqslant \tau \leqslant 2\pi . \end{aligned} \right . \end{align}

Figure 4.

Comparison between numerical solution (blue) and MAF (dashed red) for one period for the case $\beta =0.5$ . The first and second turning points are, respectively, $\tau _c$ and $2\pi -\tau _c$ ; the unstable region predicted from (2.23) is shaded in grey.

Figure 4, which is for the case $\beta \,{=}\,0.5$ , reveals that the MAF solution is nearly indistinguishable from the numerical solution. Unlike figure 3(c), figure 4 has been plotted for the entire $2\pi$ period and thus includes the behaviour around both turning points. While figure 4 reveals oscillations after the second turning point, the existence of such a behaviour is contentious in reality since, even before the second turning point is reached, the flow is likely to enter the fully nonlinear stages of KH instability, making the linear solution invalid.

5.1. Lake Geneva

We consider the background conditions of the summer of $1950$ given in Lemmin et al. (Reference Lemmin, Mortimer and Bäuerle2005): $h_1\,{=}\,15$ m, $h_2\,{=}\,175$ m, $\rho _1\,{=}\,998.49\,\rm kg\,m^-{^3}$ (corresponding to $19\,^\circ$ C) and $\rho _2\,{=}\,1000\,\rm kg\, m^-{^3}$ (corresponding to $5.5\,^\circ$ C). The frequency of mode-1 is $\omega _f\,{=}\,2.14\,{\times}$ $10^{-5}$ s $^{-1}$ (period of $81.5$ h) and corresponds to a Kelvin seiche. The maximum width of the lake is $13.8$ km and the maximum difference in thermocline excursions at the two extremities of the lake width (station-3 and station-8) due to mode-1 is $\approx \!2$ m. Hence, $\tan \alpha _f \approx \alpha _f = 2/13800=0.000145$ . Since the two layers are of unequal depths, the analysis provided in Appendix A will be applicable. The problem can be simplified since the lower layer is much deeper than the upper layer, which leads to the instability condition $\beta \,{\gt}\,1/8$ ; see (2.24). This yields

(5.1) \begin{align} \beta =\alpha _f^2\frac { \omega ^2}{\omega _f^2}\gt \frac {1}{8} \implies k \gt \frac {\omega _f^2}{4g'\alpha _f^2}\,\,\,\,\, \mathrm{or}\,\,\,\,\, \lambda \lt \frac {8\pi g'\alpha _f^2}{\omega _f^2}. \end{align}

For the parameters of Lake Geneva, the above equation would imply that interfacial waves at the pycnocline shorter than $\lambda _{{long\hbox{-}wave\hbox{-}cut\hbox{-}off}}=17.03$ m will be rendered unstable. An interfacial wave of wavelength $17$ m will start to grow after $\tau _c=\cos ^{-1}[1-(2\beta )^{-1/2}] = 40$ hours (see Appendix A) from initiation of the mode-1 oscillation.

5.2. Chesapeake Bay

Here, we consider the background conditions of May/June $1993$ of the Chesapeake Bay given in Frizzell-Makowski (Reference Frizzell-Makowski1997). In this case, $h_1\,{=}\,10$ m, $h_2\,{=}\,13$ m, $\rho _1\,{=}\,1004\,\rm kg\,m^-{^3}$ and $\rho _2\,{=}\,1011\,\rm kg\,m^-{^3}$ . Pycnocline oscillations had a period of $12$ h ( $\omega _f\,{=}\,0.00014$ s $^{-1}$ ), which was generated by the interaction of semi-diurnal tides with a discontinuity in the bathymetry. Approximately $4$ m of vertical displacement over half of the wavelength ( $0.5\times 25$ km $=12.5$ km) of the internal tide was observed, yielding $\tan \alpha _f \approx \alpha _f = 4/12500=0.00032$ . The two layers have unequal depths with $r\,{=}\,h_1/h\,{=}\,0.435$ , yielding the instability condition $\beta \,{\gt}\,0.246$ . Following the analysis in Appendix A, we obtain

(5.2) \begin{align} \beta =\alpha _f^2\frac { \omega ^2}{\omega _f^2}\gt 0.246 \implies k \gt \frac {0.492 \omega _f^2}{g'\alpha _f^2}\,\,\,\,\, \mathrm{or}\,\,\,\,\, \lambda \lt \frac {4.065\pi g'\alpha _f^2}{\omega _f^2}. \end{align}

Hence, for the parameters of Chesapeake Bay, interfacial waves at the pycnocline shorter than $\lambda _{{long\hbox{-}wave\hbox{-}cut\hbox{-}off}}=4.2$ m will become unstable. This implies that an interfacial wave of wavelength $4$ m would start to grow $\tau _c=5.4$ h (see (A6)) after the inception of the internal tide. However, it is important to note that these values should be taken as a rough estimate since the value of $4.2$ m for the longest unstable wavelength is not large enough to disregard the finite-thickness effects of the pycnocline (pycnocline always has a finite thickness, however small).