Numerical Simulation of Scour

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SCOUR AROUND FIXED AND SAGGING
PIPELINES USING A TWO-PHASE MODEL

by
Zhihe Zhao
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

December 2006
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
UMI N u m b er: 3 2 4 1 3 7 0
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3241370
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SCOUR AROUND FIXED AND SAGGING

PIPELINES USING A TWO-PHASE MODEL
Zhihe Zhao
has been approved

September 2006
APPROVED:
, Chair
Supervisory Committee
ACCEPTED:
epartment
)ean, Division of Graduate Studies
ABSTRACT
A key aspect of design and the maintenance of underwater pipelines is the assessment of
local scour and its propagation. Scouring around objects placed on a sandy bottom is very
complex because it involves two-phase turbulent flows and a myriad of sediment
transport modes. This dissertation addresses two principal configurations of scour around
pipelines in two parts. First, clear-water scour around a long fixed pipeline placed just
above a non-cohesive sandy bed is numerically simulated. Second, live-bed scour around
a fixed pipeline and scour below a sagging pipeline are investigated. These two
simulations are conducted by using an Eulerian two-phase model that implements EulerEuler coupled governing equations for fluid and solid phases and a modified k - s
turbulence closure for the fluid phase, the modeling system being a part of software
FLUENT. Both flow-particle and particle-particle interactions are considered in the
model. During the simulations, the interface between sand and water is specified using a
threshold volume fraction of sand, and the evolution of the bedforms is studied in detail.
For clear-water scour around a fixed pipeline, the predictions of bedform evolution are
in agreement with previous laboratory measurements. Investigations into the mechanisms
o f scour reveal that three sediment transport modes (bed-load, suspended-load and
laminated-load) are associated with the scour development. While some previously
proposed scour development formulae for cylindrical objects are in good agreement with
the simulations, scour predictions based on some operational mine-burial models show
disparities with present simulations.
For investigations of live-bed scour and scour under a sagging pipeline, the flow and
pipeline evolve in two steps: (1) the local live-bed scour around the pipeline developed
around a fixed pipeline; and (2) the pipeline is lowered to the scour hole in controlled
fashion until it reaches the bottom of the scour hole. Three sagging velocities are
simulated, and predicted scour profiles agree well with the laboratory data. General
characteristics of flow fields, including turbulence, suspension of particles and sediment
transport, are described paying attention to their dependence on pipeline sagging. Scour
profiles simulated are also in agreement with a LES-based numerical study reported
earlier.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to extend my thanks to my advisor Professor Harindra J.S. Fernando for
his guidance, patience and support on my research work. I specially thank him for the
many hours he spent going through my drafts and giving me resourceful thoughts to
improve my work. I also thank him for showing me what it takes to be successful in the
graduate studies and beyond.
I am thankful for Professor Don L. Boyer for his insightful suggestions on my research
work. In addition, it is also a privilege for me to have Professor Ronald Calhoun,
Professor Kangping Chen and Professor Mark Schmeeckle as committee members.
Finally, I appreciate the administrative supports from Ms. Gabrielle Stidham, Ms.
Jennifer McCulley and Mr. Richard Hampton.
This work was funded by the U.S. office of Naval Research through its Coastal
Geosciences and Mine Burial Programs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER
1. SIMULATION OF SCOUR AROUND A FIXED PIPELINE.................................. 1
1.1. Motivation.............................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Overview o f Scour Models...................................................................................2
1.3. Overview of Using Two-phase Models on Sediment Transport Calculations..4
1.4. Summary.................................................................................................................6
2. MATHEMATICAL DISCRETION OF THE TWO-PHASE MODEL................... 8
2.1. Governing Equations...........................................................................................8
2.2. Turbulence Closure for Fluid Phase................................................................ 10
2.3. Turbulence for Solid Phase............................................................................... 12
2.4. Transport Equation for Granular Temperature.................................................13
3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION AND VALIDATION: FIXED PIPELINES
14
3.1. Maos Experimental Set-up.............................................................................. 14

3.2. Numerical Configuration..................................................................................16
3.3. Simulation with Fluent.......................................................................................18
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: SIMULATION WITH A FIXED PIPELINE....23
4.1. Clear-water Scour Simulation...........................................................................23
4.2. Scour Depth....................................................................................................... 27
4.3. Sediment Transport Modes............................................................................ 29
vi
CHAPTER
Page
4.3.1. Bed-load, suspended-load and laminated-load..................................... 29

4.3.2. Sediment velocity.....................................................................................33
4.3.3. Calculation of bed-load and suspended-load............................................35
4.4. Comparison with NBURY and DRAMBUIE Models.................................... 38
4.4.1. Formulation of NBURY and DRAMBUIE models................................. 38
4.4.2. Comparison with NBURY and DRAMBUIE models..........................39
4.5. Conclusions: Scour Under fixed Pipelines.....................................................43
5. SIMULATION OF SCOUR BELOW A SAGGING PIPELINE.............................45
5.1. Background.........................................................................................................45
5.2. Overview o f Sagging Pipeline Studies........................................................... 48
5.3. Summary............................................................................................................ 50
6. TWO-PHASE MODEL, SIMULATION AND VALIDATION: SAGGING
PIPELINES.................................................................................................................. 52
6.1. Fredsoe et al.s Experimental Set-up................................................................. 53
6.2. Numerical Configuration.................................................................................... 55
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS: SAGGING PIPELINES.................................... 60
7.1. Live-bed scour around a fixed pipeline........................................................... 60
7.2. Scour around a sagging pipeline........................................................................62
7.3. Comparisons with Cheng and Lis Simulation.................................................68
7.3.1. Vortex shedding in scouring process.......................................................68
7.3.2. Comparison with Cheng and Lis simulation...................................... 69
vii
CHAPTER
Page
7.4. Sediment Transport............................................................................................ 72

7.5. Conclusions: Scour under Sagging Pipelines.................................................81
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 83
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Fig 1. Numerical configuration for the simulation. X is in the streamwise direction, Y in

the cross-stream direction and 8s the thickness of the sand layer....................15
Fig 2. Maos physical experiment...........................................................
16
Fig 3. The Grid for the two-phase model calculations................................................... 17

Fig 4. The contours o f volume fraction of the sediment at t = 0. Note the introduction of
an interfacial disturbance (arrow) at the beginning...........................................19
Fig 5. A schematic diagram showing the interface, bed-load, suspended-load and

laminated-load layers. Here d s is the diameter of the sediment particles, 77 the
depth of the water, 70 the level where the sediment volume fraction is at 0.5
21
Fig 6. An example o f the grid that was used for the flow model. The bed profile is
specified as the contour with a s =0.5 obtained from the previous calculation
step conducted with the two-phase model..........................................................22
Fig 7. Bed profiles during the development of scouring...................................................25
Fig 8. Normalized turbulent intensity at a location 1cm above the bed; ws is the particle
settling velocity. The inset shows the location of turbulence measurements...26
Fig 9. The time evolution of scour depth in simulations and comparison with
equation (10)...................................................................................................... 28
Fig 10. Patterns of sediment motion from a flat bed, redrawn based on [8]................. 30
IX
Figure
Page
Fig 11. Vectors of the sediment velocity u / U x at (a) t = 10 minutes (b) t = 100 minutes
(c) t = 200 minutes............................................................................................... 31
Fig 12. Normalized turbulence intensity profiles at various downstream locations (X
= 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,0.4, 0.5, 0.6m) of the cylinder wake at t = 200 min.
a s = 0.5 is chosen as the bed profile (Fig.7). Note the scale for J u J / w s on
the upper left comer............................................................................................. 33
Fig 13. A. schematic diagram for the formulation of recirculation in the sediment zone.
The sediment movement is driven by interfacial shearing force and pressure
gradient................................................................................................................. 34
Fig 14. The bed load qb and suspended load qs . The arrow indicates the position of
the maximum height of the sand mound.............................................................37
Fig 15. Comparison of numerical calculations of the maximum scour depth with
those predicted by the NBURY model......................................................... 40
Fig 16. Comparison of present numerical results (for two sand-layer depth cases) with
DRAMBUIE model predictions. The inset shows DRAMBUIE model reaches
equilibrium after 1400 minutes........................................................................... 42
Fig 17. (i) The three-dimensional pipeline sagging process [14]. (ii) A Sketch for the
scour [38]. (iii) The variation in the position of pipeline at cross-section
B-B [14]. (iv) An underwater pipeline ready to be deployed in Port Kembla
harbor ...................................................................................................................46
Figure
Page
Fig 18. Freds0es Experimental set-up that mimicked the sagging pipeline [14]..........55
Fig 19. The numerical configuration for the simulation. X is in the streamwise
direction and Y the cross-stream direction..................................................... 56
Fig 20. The contours of volume fraction a of the sediment at t = 0. Note the
introduction of an interfacial disturbance (arrow) at the beginning...............57
Fig 21. An example of the grid that was used for the flow model. The bed profile is
specified as the contour with a s - 0.5 obtained from the previous calculation
step conducted with the two-phase model........................................................ 58
Fig 22. An example of the grid that was used for the two-phase flow model................ 58
Fig 23. Bed profile after the development of scouring around a fixed pipeline for
60 m inutes.........................................................................................................61
Fig 24. Comparison of the scour profiles between the present study and Fredsoe et al.
(1988)s measurements before the sagging starts....................................61
Fig 25. Comparison of bed profiles between the present study and Fredsoes
measurements at Vp = l.Omm/min, 3.1mm/min and 12.4mm/min............... 63
Fig 26. Sagging process with Vp = 1.0 mm / m in ............................................................. 65
Fig 27. Maximum scour depth development at V = 1.0 mm/min, 3.lmm/min and
12.4m m /m in.................................................................................................... 67
Fig 28. Comparison of bed profiles between the present study and Cheng and Lis
study when the pipe reaches the bottom of the scour sole atVp =1.0 mm/min,
3.lmm/min and 12.4mm/min............................................................................71
xi
Figure
Page
Fig 29. Comparison of the scour profiles before sagging between the present study
and that of Cheng and Li, and the experimental results, before the sagging
starts............................................................... ...................................................... 72
Fig 30. Vectors of the sediment velocity u / U m during the sagging process with the
sagging speed 3.lmm/min. The pipelines center is located at (0, 0.54D), (0,
0.34D) and (0 ,0.085D) separately (see Figurel9)............................................ 73
Fig 31. Sediment transport rate through the gap underneath the pipe during the sagging
process.................................................................................................................. 74
Fig 32. Average Flow velocity (average velocity = volume/gap) in the gap between the
pipe and interface...............................................................................................75
Fig 33. Sediment transport (bed-load and suspended load) above the bed surface........ 77
Fig 34.
Normalized turbulence intensity inside the gap between the lower sideof the
pipe and the scour hole. The sagging speed is 3.lmm/min...........................80
Fig 35. Normalized turbulent intensity at a location midway between the cylinder and
the sand layer gap, as a function of downstream distance for
Vp = 3.1/wm/min.................................................................................................81
xii
1. Simulation of scour around a fixed pipeline

1.1. MOTIVATION
Continuous scouring around pipelines under the action of waves and currents has an
enormous influence on the structural stability of pipelines and their environs. An
understanding of scouring processes and our ability to predict scour around pipelines,
therefore, are important in the design of offshore pipelines [44]. Scouring around objects
placed on a sandy bottom is very complex because in most cases it involves two-phase
turbulent flows and various sediment transport modes. The interface between water and
sand bed is also intricate [29], wherein the flow alters the bedform, which, in turn, affects
the flow. Added to this complexity are the flow-particle and particle-particle interaction
mechanics. Therefore, the Navier-Stokes equations as well as pertinent turbulence closure
schemes need to be properly modified to account for the ensuing complex phenomena.
The goal of the present study is to simulate scour around long cylindrical objects using an
Eulerian two-phase model with the hope of understanding scour around and the burial of
antiship mines that typically have kindred shapes; these mines are usually placed in the
ocean bottom. This study is part of an integral team effort of the Mine Burial Prediction
(MBP) program sponsored by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, of which the long range
goal has been to develop mine scour burial models that incorporate dynamic coupled
environmental processes, seafloor material properties, and different mine types. Currently
available operational mine burial prediction models are known to perform poorly, in view
o f which it deem necessary to investigate the efficacy of sour formulae used in these
models [41]. Over the past two decades, a large number of numerical models have been
developed for scour predictions, but the present effort is built upon more recently
developed two-phase flow theory.
1.2. OVERVIEW OF SCOUR MODELS

Mao [28] applied a modified potential flow theory and sediment continuity equation to
simulate scour below long cylinders placed on a sandy bottom subject to a mean current.
The model predictions were compared with complementary laboratory experiments, and
the potential flow model was able to simulate the upstream portion of the scour hole
satisfactorily. Li & Cheng [23] also developed a scour model based on the potential flow
theory. Instead of using an empirical sediment transport formula, they calculated the
equilibrium scour pit size by assuming that the bottom shear stress everywhere on the
seabed is equal to or less than the far field shear stress when the equilibrium state is
reached. A boundary adjustment technique based on Newton-Raphson method was
utilized for simulations. Their model also predicted the approximate upstream scour
depth reasonably well, but failed to give correct predictions for the downstream part of
the scour hole as a result of the limitations of potential flow theory. Later, the same
authors [24] solved flow equations by employing the Smagorinsky sub-grid scale (SGS)
closure. The predicted equilibrium scour hole agreed well with the experimental results.
This approach, however, solely relied on the above-mentioned assumption on the bed
shear stress, and it only produced equilibrium scour profiles, not the scour evolution.
Leeuwestein et al. [22] used a k - s turbulence model coupled with a sediment

transport equation to simulate scour around pipes. In this study, only the bed-load
transport was considered first, and in this case the main sediment transport occurred by
ripples. This prediction could not be corroborated by laboratory experiments. Suspended
sediments were then included in modeling, whence the ripples disappeared, indicating
that bed-load transport alone is not sufficient for representing complex sediment transport
processes around solid objects. Brerrs [3] utilized a finite element method to solve the
RANS equations with k - s closure, while simultaneously solving a sediment transport
model that included both the bed-load and suspended-load transports using a finite
difference method. The overall agreement between the predicted and measured scour
evolution of Mao [28] was good. However, the scour development almost stopped after
100 minutes into the simulation, although the measurements show continuous scouring
even after 300 minutes [28]. In addition, during the 6,000 bed profile updates conducted
in Brors' simulations, problems were often encountered with regard to numerical
instability of the bed update scheme as a result of the non-linear bed-load formula used.
Liang et al. [26] performed simulations of scouring around pipelines using a similar
approach. Two turbulence models, a standard k - s model and the Smagorinsky SGS
model, were applied. To avoid the appearance of unrealistically sharp irregular scour
profiles and numerical instabilities during their calculations, a special smoothing
technique, known as the sand-slide model, was employed in the simulation. Simulations
with the SGS model showed intense vortex shedding dining scour, but scour profiles
obtained with the k - s model were more realistic when compared with Mao's
measurements. Therefore, Liang et al. recommended the use of a standard k - s model

for scour predictions.
Dupuis & Chopard [10] proposed a Lattice Boltzman Method to simulate scour around
pipelines. In this method, fictitious fluid and sediment particles moved on a regular lattice
synchronously at discrete time steps, and time-dependent erosion processes involved
were simulated. However, only a portion of the equilibrium scour hole could be
quantitatively compared well with laboratory measurements. The model needed to be
tuned to match various other cases, thus limiting its utility as a robust predictive tool.
Ali & Karim [1] used CFD software FLUENT to predict the three-dimensional flow and
bed shear stress over a rigid bed. By employing experimental data and the one
dimensional sediment continuity equation, they derived the variation of maximum scour
depth with time as a function of the dimensionless bed-shear stress and streamwise
distance. Field measurements of scour around bridges were also applied to further verify
the latter result. Since the numerical simulation was only limited to a rigid bed, the
scouring was not simulated explicitly.
1.3. OVERVIEW OF USING TWO-PHASE MODELS ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

CALCULATIONS
In recent years, two-phase models, which consider the dynamics of particle and fluid
phases as well as interactions thereof, have been employed for sediment transport
calculations in the framework of Navier-Stokes equations. Such models predict sediment
transport from somewhat more fundamental (though modeled) dynamical equations,
thereby avoiding the use of purely empirical sediment transport formulae. Such formulae
are replete in literature and have been found to be case dependent, thus limiting their
general use to cover a broad range of flow configurations. The two phase formulations,
on the other hand, are developed based on more fundamental concepts, though naturally
some parameterizations are required for closure. As such, such models are expected to
have more general applicability to a range o f problems.
With regard to two-phase models, Yeganeh et al. [48] used an Euler-Lagrange coupled
two-phase model to simulate bed-load transport under high bottom shear. Although the
experimental results have shown the existence of a three-layer type velocity profile, the
model produced only a two-layer velocity profile. The authors ascribed this discrepancy
to the neglect of inter-particle collisions in the model. Hsu et al. [18] employed a twophase model to simulate suspended sediment transport, and demonstrated the ability of
such models to predict the time-averaged concentration under a range of conditions.
Greimann [16] employed a two-phase model to compute the average velocity of bed-load
and suspended-load sediments in a laboratory flume under two-dimensional uniform flow
conditions. To calculate the coefficient of momentum loss a particle would experience
when it is in contact with the bed, a critical Shields number was specified based on the
particle shape and bed characteristics; the measured and calculated sediment velocities
showed a reasonably good agreement. In this study, the two-phase flow equations were
used to calculate the velocity and concentration profiles of the sediment phase only.
Greim ann argued that there was no sufficient experim ental data or analytical
understanding of particle-turbulence interactions to develop a reliable two-phase model
for the flow phase. Wanker et al. [43] calculated sedimentation and sediment transport
using an Euler-Euler coupled two-phase model. The numerical model predicted the
movement of a sand mound well, and they concluded that the bedforms are dependent
mainly on the momentum exchange and particle-particle interaction terms.
In the present study, an Eulerian two-phase model embedded in FLUENT software is
employed to simulate scour around pipelines. The aim is to evaluate the model efficacy
using available benchmark data and, if successful, to use the model to educe important
information on flow dynamics, especially those that could not be conveniently obtained
with available laboratory techniques. The flow-particle interaction and particle-particle
interactions are considered in the model formulation. Each of the two phases (solid and
fluid) is described using appropriately modified Navier-Stokes equations, and coupling
between the phases is achieved through pressure and an interphasial exchange term. For
the solid phase, Boltzman's kinetic theory for dense gases is modified to account for the
inelastic collisions between particles. In order to include the effects of granular friction
between particles for the cases of highly concentrated beds, the frictional viscosity
derived from plastic potential theory is used [32]. The simulation results are validated
using experimental data available in literature.
1.4. SUMMARY
It is well known that there is no general universally accepted formula to quantify
sediment transport over a range of conditions. The sediment transport rate is one of the
most important characteristic for the two-phase flow motion. Finding an expression for
the transport rate has fascinated so many scientists. Consequently, since the first bed-load
transport formula by Du Boys in eighteen century (especially in the past three decades),
numerous transport formulae have been produced by various authors. Among them, some
representatives are E.Meyer-Peter, R. Muller, R.Bagnold, H.A. Einstein and M.S.Yalin
[47].
Also, numerical results based on available sediment transport models tend to be
sensitive to the selection of the sediment formula. In the present simulations, however,
there is no need for the selection of an empirical formula, given that such transport is
handled using dynamical equations, underpinned to the extent possible by fundamental
flow and sediment interaction mechanics. The novel feature of our simulations is the use
o f two-phase flow theory to compute scour below a pipeline placed transverse to the
flow. Although two-phase flow theory has been applied for sediment transport
calculations, it has not yet been applied for simulating scour. In the latter case, the
problem is more complex and due consideration should be given to the evolution of bed
profiles.
2. Mathematical description of the two-phase model

The mathematical model used in this simulation is an Eulerian two-phase model. It
assumes that the sediment-laden flow consists of solid s and fluid / phases, which are
separate, yet they form interpenetrating continua. The space occupied by each phase is
represented by the volume fraction a ( 0 < a <1). The laws for the conservation of mass
and momentum are satisfied by each phase individually. Coupling is achieved through
pressure and interphasial exchange coefficients. A symmetric drag model is employed to
describe the interaction between phases. In this Eulerian two-phase model, the equations
for the two phases are solved in an Eulerian frame. The model details are described in
[12], and for completeness, the essentials of the model development are outlined below.
Note that the model is intricate and thus an understanding of the fundamentals of the
parameterizations employed and implementation of various model components are
essential parts of the model usage.
2.1. GOVERNING EQUATIONS

The continuity equations for both the fluid / and solid s phases take the form:
^ - ( a tp t) + V * { a tp tvt) = 0,
ot
(1)
where t = s , f and a f + a s = 1; a f , a s = volume fraction for water and sediment and

p f , p = mass density o f water and sediment, respectively.
The studies of the dynamics of a single particle in a fluid have identified the following
important forces: the static pressure gradient; the solid pressure gradient, which is the
normal force due to particle interactions; the drag force, caused by the velocity
differences between the two phases; and the viscous force and the body forces. Other
forces, such as the virtual mass force and Basset force, are assumed negligible [4]. The
m om entum equations for the fluid and solid phases, respectively, are [11]:
Q
=
( af p f vf ) + V * ( a f p f vf vf ) = - a f VP + V * T f + a f p f g + K sf(vs - v f ),
(2)
~ ( a sp svs) + V (a sp svsvs) = - a sVP - VPS + V r s + a sp sg + K fi(vf - v s),
(3)
in which vf , v s= the mean-flow velocity for flow and sediment; P = pressure shared by
th e
tw o
phases;
rs = stress
2
tensor
for
the
solid
phase
a sp s(y v s + V v,s ) + a s{Xs - p sy7- vsI \ t f = stress ten so r for the flu id p h ase =
a f p f (Vvf + V v J ) ; / = the identity te n s o r;^ = bulk viscosity o f the sedim ent =

4
a , p . d , g 0.s(l + 0 (~)U2 Soss= radial distribution function, which is interpreted as

3
n
a
1
the probability o f a particle touching another particle = [ l - ( -) 3] ; a smia =
^"s.max
maximum value of the sediment volume fraction = 0.63; ,= granular temperature,
which is proportional to the kinetic energy of the fluctuating particle motion; eJS=
restitution coefficient; g = gravitational acceleration; d s = diameter of sediment; p f =
shear viscosity of water; p s = shear viscosity of sediment, p s = /jscol +nskin + jusJr, where
Pscoi= collisional viscosity = - a sPsdsg 0ss{1+ e^X )1/2, ^
5
= frictional viscosity =
]; I 1D = th e
d A = U n e tic viscosity- 5 i M S i [l4. i (1 + e )(3e _ l ) a g

2 i]I2D
6(3 - e )
second
invariant
asPss +
of
the
deviatoric
(1+ea)a 2g0>11, '

>$ = internal
momentum exchange coefficient =
stress
tensor;
friction
&s
Ps
solid
K sf(= K fs) =
angle;
pressure
interphasial
CD( U|v, -v ,} ; CD= drag fimction

Vrs
Re -- ,
=(0.63 + 4.8( -) 2) ; Res= relative Reynolds number between phase / and phase s =
^ r ,s
Pf ds| v,
-V /| .
Vrs =
terminal
velocity
correlation
for
solid
phase
Pf
=0.5(A - 0.06 Res+ J(0.06 Ref )2 + 0.12Re, (2B - A) + A2), where A = a /4 4, B = 0.8a}'28 for
a , < 0.85 and A = a } 14,B = a l 65 for a f > 0.85 .
2.2. TURBULENCE CLOSURE FOR FLUID PHASE

Predictions for turbulent quantities for the fluid phase are obtained using a standard k - s
model (Launder and Spalding [21]), supplemented by additional terms that take into
account the interfacial turbulent momentum transfer. The Reynolds stress tensor for the
fluid phase / is: r /
2
3
+ p f P t j V - U f ) I +p
the phase-weighted velocity, /ut f = turbulent viscosity =
+VC/J), w h e re !/ /
kl
, C^ = 0.09. The
ef
predictions for the turbulent kinetic energy kf and its rate of dissipation s f are obtained
from the following transport equations:
(af p f kf ) + V ( a f p f Uf kf ) = V ( a f - y - V k f ) + a f Gk J - a f p f ef + a f p f U kf ,
at
<rk
(4)
j t (af p f sf ) + 'V(af p f U/ f ) = V(a/ ^ - W f ) + a f ^-(CuGkJ- C 2ep f sf ) + a / p / IlSf- (5)

s
Here FI* and Y[f represent the influence of the solid phase s on the fluid phase / .
n t/ =
(ksf - 2 kf +v sf-vdr),
a fPf
^ / = Cse ~Kfk~^k/
where vdr = the drift velocity = - D tsf{ - V a s ----- V a , ) ; v , = the relative
<*#<*/
velocity between fluid phase and solid phase; Dtsf = the binary turbulent diffusion
coefficient (see definition in Sec. 2.3); <rsf = 0.75; ksf = the covariance of the velocities
o f the fluid phase / and the solid phase s (see definition in Sec. 2.3); K fs = the interphase
momentum exchange coefficient (see definition in Sec. 2.1); Gk f = the production of
turbulent kinetic energy in the flow; Cle = 1 .4 4 ; C2s = 1 .9 2 ; C3e = 1 .2 ; crk = 1 .0 and
<r = 1.3.
12
2.3. TURBULENCE FOR SOLID PHASE
To predict turbulence in the solid phase [33, 34], Tchens theory [17] on the dispersion of
discrete particles in homogeneous and steady turbulent flows are used. Dispersion
coefficients, correlation functions, and turbulent kinetic energy of the solid phase are
represented in terms of the characteristics of continuous turbulent motions of the fluid
phase based on two time scales. The first time scale is relevant to the inertial effects
acting on the particle, which is represented by r Fsf = a sp f K~l{-^J- + Cr ), where Cv =
Pf
0.5 = the added mass coefficient. The second one is the characteristic time of correlated
turbulent
r
motions
or
eddy-particle
-i
=rt / [l + C ^ 2] 2, where = Vr
interaction
2
/ J kf
V
time,
which
is
written
as
3
kf
, rt f = Cfl = a characteristic time of
2
sj
energetic turbulent eddies, Vr = the averaged value of the local relative velocity between
a particle and the surrounding fluid, and
Cp
1. 8 - 1.35 cos2 6 . Here 6 is the angle
between the mean particle velocity and the mean relative velocity. The ratio between
these two characteristic times is written as
(6)
T F ,sf
The turbulent kinetic energy for the solid phase ks is as follows

b2 + rj.
ks = k f ( ),
1 + 7,/
and the eddy viscosity for the solid phase is specified as
(7)
13
(8)
where b = (\ +CY) (ps / pf + C)' and ksf is the covariance of the velocities of the fluid
phase.
2.4. TRANSPORT EQUATION FOR GRANULAR TEMPERATURE

The granular temperature s for the solid phase describes the kinetic energy of random
motions of sediment particles. The transport equation derived from the kinetic theory
takes the form [12]:
where (~PSI + r s) : Vvs= the generation of energy by the solid stress tensor, k@ = the
diffusion coefficient
diffusive
Y&
(41
flux
of
granular
energy,
and
3 3 7 j ) ? i a s g 0^
rj = (l + ess);
f" )g'" psa]2

s , the collisional dissipation of energy, which represents the
energy dissipation rate within the solid phase due to collisions between particles;
(f>fs = - 3 K fs<ds , the transfer of the kinetic energy of random fluctuations in particle
velocity from the solid phase s to the fluid phase / .
3.
Numerical simulation of scour: Fixed Pipelines
Here, simulations are conducted with a spatially fixed pipeline to study scour around it.
The flow configurations in the experiments of Mao [28] are used, given that the data of
these experiments have been utilized many times for benchmarking numerical codes [3,
10, 23-24,26].
3.1. MAOS EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
A photograph of Mao's experiment is shown in Figure 2a and a schematic of the
experiment is shown in Figure 2b. A pipe with a diameter D = 0.1m was initially placed
just above a sand layer of thickness ^ - O . l r n (diameter of the sand particle d s = 0.36
mm); the sand layer depth was said to vary in 0.1 ~ 0.15 m, but careful examination
shows that it is close to 0.1m (also see Section 4.2). A turbulent channel flow with
Shields parameter 6 = 0.048 was introduced at time t = 0. Here the Shields parameter 0
X
is defined as 0 = ------------------ , where x is the bed shear stress. The pipe was held fixed
g { P s - P f )ds
by the end supports and the scour below the pipe was studied. The channel was 2m wide,
23m long with a height 0.5m. The water depth was H = 0.35 m (Fig. 2b). The time
variation of scour profiles was measured dining Mao's experiments.
15
S ym m etry^
Velocity inlet
Pressure outlet
W a te r
Sediment
5 *
Wall
Figure 1. Numerical configuration for the simulation. X is in the streamwise direction,
Y in the cross-stream direction and Ss the thickness of the sand layer.
16
(i) The Flume in Maos experiment.
...;
>
: ?------------------- ---------
H<*>
. .
Pipe
.................-------------- 8m
------- ----------- 2m *-
(ii) Sketch o f Maos experimental setup.
Figure 2. Maos physical experiment.
3.2. NUMERICAL CONFIGURATION

In the numerical computations, the two-phase model described in Section 2 was set up to
match the experimental configuration. A logarithmic velocity profile with U =0.31 m/s
was applied at the flow inlet. The profile for k and are given by referring to Brers [3].
Pressure outlet boundary conditions, which require specification of gauge pressure at the
17
outlet boundary, was applied at the flow exit. The water surface is defined as the
symmetry boundaries, wherein zero normal velocity and zero normal gradients of all
variables are satisfied. Wall boundary conditions were applied to the bottom of the sand
layer.
In the simulations, a two-dimensional grid system with 9803 nodes and 9575 cells was
generated with the grid generator GAMBIT of the FLUENT package. The grid consisted
of two zones, the water and the sediment. A 105x60 non-uniform grid was mapped in the
water zone with dimensions 2mx0.4m, and a 105x31 grid was mapped in the sediment
zone with dimensions of 2mx0.1m (Fig. 3). To match Maos experiment, the main
simulations were performed with a sand-layer thickness of Ss = ID, which constitutes
the main results to be described in Section 4. Nevertheless, to document the possible
influence of Ss , simulations were also performed with 5s - 1.5 D, the upper limit for 5S
in Mao [28]. The results of the latter are also presented, as appropriate.
I
, Water
Zone
s e d im en t z o n e
Figure 3. The Grid for the two-phase model calculations.
I. Sediment
I Zone
18
The inlet and exit boundaries, respectively, were placed 5D and 15D (D being the
diameter of the cylinder) from the center of the cylinder. At the beginning of the
simulations, a sinusoidal profile perturbation with amplitude 0.1D was introduced as a
small disturbance to the initial bed profile (Fig. 4).
3.3. SIMULATION WITH FLUENT

FLUENT uses the segregate solver to solve equations (1) - (9) sequentially. Firstly, the
fluid properties are updated based on the current solution. In order to update the velocity
field, each of the momentum equations is solved using current values of pressure and
mass fluxes at the faces. A Poisson-type equation for the pressure correction is derived
from the continuity and linearized momentum equations, which is then solved to obtain
necessary corrections to the pressure and velocity fields in such a way that the continuity
equation is satisfied. Finally, the equations for turbulent quantities and granular
temperature are solved using previously updated values of other variables.
19
Figure 4. The contours of volume fraction of the sediment at t = 0. Note the introduction
o f an interfacial disturbance (arrow) at the beginning.
As pointed out by Greimann [16], a bane of two-phase models is the inadequacy of the
parameterization of particle-turbulence interaction terms; these terms are too strong and
produce an unrealistically strong local reduction in the flow. This, in our case, caused
particles to settle rapidly, leading to an unrealistic pile-up of particles near the pipeline.
Another issue is the time delay of flow adjustment following the scour. When the bed
profile varies, the flow needs time to adjust to the bed profile variation. In the present
simulations, this flow adjustment takes place on a time scale on the order of time that a
fluid parcel takes to travel over the computation domain, which has a mismatch with the
time scale where particle-turbulence interactions are taking place in the model. This
disparity of time scales can cause significant errors in scour calculations, aggravated by
the fact that the response of flow to scour development is only approximately represented
in two-phase model dynamics.
20
To avert the above problem, we opted to calculate the single-phase velocity field using
the Navier-Stokes equations and k - s closure (Launder & Spalding [21]) without taking
into account the effects of particles. The fully developed velocity field for the fluid phase
so calculated (as a single-phase flow) was then used as the input field to conduct
supervening two-phase model calculations (rather than obtaining the velocity field o f the
fluid phase using the two-phase model itself). Thereafter, the steady single-phase velocity
field o f the flow was calculated again with an updated bedform. The procedure was
repeated until the equilibrium state of scour was reached. The interface between water
and sand in the physical experiments was taken as that corresponding to the sediment
volume fraction a s 0.5 of the numerical experiments, as shown in Fig.5 (see Section
4.1. for justification). Figure 6 shows a typical example of a grid used in the flow
calculations at an intermediate time, where 9567 nodes and 9300 cells are included; the
bed profile shown corresponds to the contour level of a s 0.5 obtained from the
previous calculation step conducted using the two-phase model. To obtain the fullydeveloped flow field, an adaptive grid that responds to the bedform evolution was used.
During the simulations, the grid has been generated manually only once. Thereafter, the
grid was regenerated with the updated scour profile. This was accomplished by running
the journal file (a sequential list of geometry, mesh, zone, and tools commands executed
during the first grid generation) using the grid generator GAMBIT, thus minimizing the
total computation time.
21
Suspended-load
Layer 3ds ~ H
Pipeline
a 0 .5
0 ~ 3*/,, Bed-load Layer
Laminated Load Layer
(developing slowly)
Figure 5. A schematic diagram showing the interface, bed-load, suspended-load

and laminated-load layers. Here d s is the diameter of the sediment particles, H the
depth of the water, Y0 the level where the sediment volume fraction is at 0.5.
22
Figure 6. An example of the grid that was used for the flow model. The bed
profile is specified as the contour with a s = 0.5 obtained from the previous
calculation step conducted with the two-phase model.
In this way, more realistic flow velocities could be maintained in the domain, thus
alleviating rapid velocity profile changes characteristic of pure two-phase calculations.
During the simulations, the time step size was chosen based on the number of iterations
per time step [12], which was 30 - 40 to guarantee satisfactory results. For the single
phase flow model, the time step was on the order of 10' s whereas the time step for the
two-phase model was on the order of 103s. The flow model for a given scour state was
run for a period of about three to four times the time it takes the flow to travel the
computation domain to ensure that the flow is fully developed. The corresponding
duration for running the two-phase model was chosen so that the maximum change of
scour depth along the sand-water interface is less than 0.03D for the first 10 mins and less
than 0.01D thereafter.
4. Results and discussion: Simulations with a fixed pipeline

4.1. CLEAR-WATER SCOUR SIMULATION
Figure 7 shows the results of bed profiles in the two-phase flow simulation described in
Section 3. As mentioned, the volume fraction of sediment contour a s 0.5 was chosen
as the bed profiles corresponding to the laboratory experiments in Mao [28]. This
selection was made in accordance with the experimental observations of Wang & Chien
[42], which indicated the laminar behavior of two-phase flows for a s > 0.5. Note that
our selection is consistent with the scour models in the literature [3, 26, 31], which have
considered only the bed-load and suspended-load transports above the bed surface. Our
study, however, revealed that the sediments could still be in motion in the region below
the bed-load layer although, in usual scour modeling literature, this region is assumed
immobile. Detailed measurements and analysis, however, have shown that the layer
immediately below the bed-load layer can be in motion, leading to a laminated load [8,
42]. This aspect is further addressed in Section 4.3.
The bed profile so determined computationally (Figure 7) is compared with Mao's
experimental data in the right column; the agreement is very satisfactory. Initially, the
flow is subjected to blockage due to the existence of the transversal pipeline, and the flow
beneath and above the pipe tends to accelerate. Hence, the sediment particles underneath
the pipeline have a tendency to be ejected fast. The ejected sediments are supported by
strong turbulent fluctuations, but further downstream, with the decay of turbulence (see
Figure 8), the particles are deposited to form a mound. As the scour depth continues to
increase slowly at later times, the mound slowly moves away from the pipeline as a result
of further downstream sand transport from the sand mound, above which the local flow
24
speed is larger (also see [41]). Finally, an equilibrium situation is achieved in such a way
that particles flown into and carried out from the scour pit are in balance.
02
0.19
02
01
09
X(m)
02
0.16
i><
-o*
-0.1
0A
02
02
0.19
01
-01
06
02
X(m)
0.19
+
-oi
t=200 mln
0.1
X(m)
02
0.19
1
-006
Ha
02
01
06
X (a)
Figure 7. Bed profiles during the development of scour.
26
1.5
*
$
- h
M O m ln
KlOmln
KtOOmln
t2Q0min
t=300m1n
0.5
*w
0.8
X(m)
0.8
1.2
Figure 8. Normalized turbulent intensity at a location 1cm above the bed; ws is the
particle settling velocity. The inset shows the location of turbulence measurements.
The agreement between the predicted and measured scour shown on the right hand side
of Figure 7 is highly encouraging, given the complexity of the model and the nascent
nature of this work in simulating scour without invoking a purely empirical sediment
transport formula. The deviations in scour hole depth between the observations and
predicted scour occurred at earlier times (t = 10 min), which could be attributed, at least
in part, to the transient forcing of initially imposed sinusoidal disturbance.
The evolution of normalized turbulent intensity at a distance 1cm above the interface is
shown in Figure 8. Because of the accelerating flow above and below the cylinder, initial
turbulence levels therein are large, but with the development of scour, the flow velocity
under the cylinder decreases, so do the turbulent velocity fluctuations. Note that at large
times the fluid turbulence intensity in the proximity of the scour pit approaches a
27
value
ws , where ws is the particle settling velocity, at a magnitude commensurate
with that is necessary to keep particles in suspension. This observation is consistent with
the arguments of Stommel [37] and Boothroyd [5] that particles can be in a continuous
state of suspension when the background turbulence velocities exceed the settling
velocity [also see Noh & Fernando [30] and Biihler & Papantoniou [6]].
4.2. SCOUR DEPTH

Figure 9 shows a plot o f scour depth (i.e. maximum depths of the scour hole as measured
from the initial level) as a function of time. Note the good agreement between the
simulated scour depth and that measured by Mao [28]. Also shown in the figure is the
simulated depth with a sand layer of Ss = 1.5D = 0.15 m, which shows a faster scouring
rate during period between 10 min and 140 min, indicating that the bottom layer depth is
a factor that determines the initial scour rate at least in the range of 8S = 0.1m ~ 0.15 m.
The solid line shown is the commonly used scour prediction formula in literature [44]
S = S ,[ l- p ( ~ ) ] ,
(10)
where Se denotes the equilibrium depth and T is the time at which the scour depth
reaches 63% of its equilibrium value. The scouring rate calculated using a deeper sand
layer agrees well with (10) over the entire time period. Therefore, we infer that in Maos
experiments the sand-layer thickness has been close to 1.0D. Also note that equation (10)
has been derived using measurements made with fairly thick sand layers, which may
explain why the thicker sand layer showed a better agreement with it.
28
Also note that there is a slight oscillation of the scour depth about the equilibrium value
at large times. This has also been observed in the simulation of scour with LatticeBoltzman method by Dupuis & Chopard [10]. Sumer and Fredsoe [38] compiled data
from four previous investigations and suggested the average equilibrium scour depth Se
under a fixed pipeline subjected to current as
= 0.6 0 . 1 .
( 11)
v J
The numerical simulation result of the present study gives S J D 0.6 (Figure 9), which
agrees well with experimental observations.
( 0 0 O'
E. 0.05
0 o 0 O0
+ simulation withthe thickness of a sand layer= 1.5D

Empirical formula (10)
Mao's measurement
O simulationwiththe thickness of a sand layer = 1D
100
150
Time(min)
200
250
300
Figure 9. The time evolution of scour depth in simulations and comparison with
equation (10).
29
4.3. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODES
4.3.1. BED-LOAD, SUSPENDED-LOAD AND LAMINATED-LOAD
In practice, sediment transport is subdivided into several modes, and the common
mechanisms often found in literature are the bed-load and suspended-load transports. No
precise definitions that help demarcate these modes clearly have been proposed thus far,
although they represent two different mechanisms of sediment transport in the flow. The
bed-load is the part o f the sediment load that is traveling immediately above the bed,
supported by intergranular collisions rather than fluid turbulence. According to Einstein
[11], the bed-load layer is confined to a few grain diameters, within ( 2 - 5 ) ^ [45]. On
the other hand, the suspended sediment load is supported by fluid turbulence [13]. These
definitions, nonetheless, are rather qualitative and inadequate to describe complex
dynamics o f sediment transport near movable beds. For example, when the shear stress is
high, not only the particles at the interface but also those immediately beneath it start
moving due to the penetration of momentum into the sediment layer by gradient transport
and intergranular collisions [8]. Unlike the bed and suspended loads, these sediments
move in laminar-like layers, producing a laminated sediment load [8,42].
Figure 10 illustrates the nature of sediment motion including the bed-load, suspendedload and laminated load at a river bed, based on Chien & Wan [8]. On the same provisos,
three sediment transport modes could be identified in the present simulations, as
exemplified in Figure 11. For a better appreciation of these layers, the normal horizontal
turbulence intensity profiles for t = 200 min are plotted in Figure 12, along different
locations downstream o f the cylinder. It is clear that the turbulence dies off quickly below
30
the interface ( a s 0.5), indicating that the drifting flow below the interface is of laminar
nature. According to Wang & Chien [42], when the volume fraction of sediment is
greater than the threshold value of sand volume fraction, the particles are so closely
packed that turbulence in the fluid is almost suppressed and the two-phase flow behaves
as a laminar one, leading to the layers of laminated transport [8].
0>
/*
Suspended load
x
; .e x
} Bed load
} Laminated load
|
Still bed
Figure 10. Patterns of sediment motion from a flat bed, redrawn based on [8].
Figure 11. Vectors of the sediment velocity u / U x at (a) t = 10 (b) t = 100 minutes
32
9.57-01
9.094-01
8.614-01
8.134-01
7.654-01
7.174-01
6.704-01
6.224-01
5.744-01
t = 200 min
a,
0.5
5.260-01
4.780-01
4,30o-01
3.83O-01
3.35O-01
2.87O-01
2.39O-01
1.910-01
1.430-01
9.57O-02
4.780-02
0.004400
(c)
Figure 11. Vectors o f the sediment velocity u / U mat (c) t = 200 minute.
Note that most of the numerical scour models in literature have considered only the
bed-load and suspended-load transports. For example, in Brors' simulations [3] discussed
in Section 1, the sediment particles below the bed-load layer were assumed to be
stationary and the results showed that bed development stopped completely after 200
mins, an observation that is at odds with laboratory results [28]. The lack of laminated
load may partly explain why the scour development stopped earlier in Brors' simulations
vis-a-vis the experiments. From Figure 11 it is clear that the laminated load, at least that
in the layer immediately below the interface, plays a certain role in scour development.
This observation suggests that frequently used sediment continuity equation [3, 26, 31]
ought to incorporate the laminar load, in addition to bed and suspended loads, in scour
calculations.
33
/, =1.5
I-------- H
04
Profile
ProSic
Profile
Profile
X=0.5m
00
>
0.18
<108
a , =0.5
-008
- 0.1
02
04
OS
OS
Figure 12. Normalized turbulence intensity profiles at various downstream

locations (X = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6m) of the cylinder wake at t = 200 min.
a s = 0.5 is chosen as the bed profile (Fig.7). Note the scale for ^JuJ/w s on the
upper left comer.
4.3.2. SEDIMENT VELOCITY

A noteworthy feature o f the particle motion in Figure 11 is the presence o f a
recirculation zone beneath the scour pit and the adjacent sediment mound. Analysis of
computational output shows that this is a result the shear stresses near the water-sediment
interface (which is transmitted downward through intergranular collisions and gradient
transport, parameterized in terms of collisional viscosity, for example) and pressure
gradients induced by flow surrounding the sand mound. As shown in Figure 13, under the
pipeline, the accelerating flow exacerbates interfacial stresses, which, aided by the
34
negative pressure gradient induced by the converging flow toward the sand mound is
expected to cause enhanced laminated transport beneath the interface. The decelerating
flow downstream of the sand mound neither exerts a high interfacial stress nor does it
produce a favorable pressure gradient for laminated flow. As such, the laminated load
that can be supported downstream of the sand mound is small. To maintain the
continuity, the flow under the sand mound forms a recirculating flow as shown in the
Figure 11, but it is spatially confined to the region where the driving forces are
substantial.
s h e a r s t r e s s d r iv e n
( a id in g p r e s s u r e g r a d ie n t)
P ip e lin e
s h e a r s t r e s s d r iv e n
( o p p o s in g p r e s s u r e g r a d ie n t)
'
S tr e a m lin e
Figure 13. A schematic diagram for the formulation of recirculation in the sediment
zone. The sediment movement is driven by interfacial shearing force and pressure
gradient.
Although the origin of laminated load can be explained as above, there are some issues
related to the magnitude of sediment velocity below the bed surface. Figure 11 displays
vector plots of dimensionless sediment velocities. The sediment velocity above the
35
surface ranges from 0.7U0 to l.3U0, where U0 is the background flow velocity, which is
reasonable given the small response time (d*/l8 vf ~ 0.007s, where vf = KT6 m2 Is is
the kinematic viscosity o f w ater) of particles that allow them to approximately follow the
fluid phase. The sediment velocity of recirculation zone inside the sand layer ( 0.2Uo),
however, is larger than that one would expect based on intuition, although there are no
available measurements within the sand layer to corroborate our suspicion. Perhaps this
overprediction of sand velocity reflects the difficulty of modeling highly concentrated
sediment flow as well as simplifying assumptions made in our simulations. For example,
frictional viscosity parameterizations employed could have yielded too low of a value,
allowing excessive momentum diffusion below the interface. Also, following previous
works [3, 26, 31], it was assumed in the calculations that the scour profile does not vary
during the flow adjustment (Section 3), which perhaps may not be tenable in reality albeit
this assumption works well in scour profile calculations. With sediment velocity higher
than the normal, sediment particles in the recirculation zone (driven by velocity input
from the single-phase flow simulation) may expedite the scour profile changes, thus
compensating for the plausible reduction of scour velocity resulting from this assumption.
These explanations, however, are speculative at best given that no relevant observational
results exist on the laminated load. Future studies should be directed at such studies.
4.3.3. CALCULATION OF BED-LOAD AND SUSPENDED-LOAD

Sediment loads in various layers were calculated as follows using the simulation results.
First, the effective sediment-water interface, which separates the laminated-transport
36
layer from the turbulent layer, was chosen as a s 0.5. As shown in Figure 5, the
sediment transport above this interface within a layer of thickness As = 3d s was
considered as bed load [45], and the suspended transport occurred aloft this layer. The
bed-load flux was calculated as qb = a SA SUS and the suspended-load flux as
q =T UsasdY, where Y0 is the vertical coordinate corresponding to the surface
* JYq+ScI.
a s 0.5, a s the volume fraction of the sediment (see definitions in Sec. 2.1), Us the
horizontal velocity o f the particles and A s the bed-load layer thickness.
Figure 14 shows the bed load qb and the suspended load qs during the scour evolution
at different times and distances. At the beginning, the bed-load transport is somewhat
non-uniform, but it became more spatially uniform at later stages of scour evolution. The
peak of the suspended load is roughly consistent with the peak of the sediment mound
formed by deposited sediment particles (see Figure 7), and this peak moves downstream
as the mound moves away from the pipeline. In general, the suspended load was found to
make a profound contribution to the development of scour around the pipe, and this result
agrees well with field observations of Johns et al. [20]. Given the uncertainty of
laminated flow velocity, the laminated loads are not shown in Figure 14, but it is worth
noting that the integral of laminated load over the entire layer depth is near zero in the
region where the driving force is substantial.
37
t = 10min
Bed-load and Suspended-load (rrf/s)
x 10
Bedload
Suspended load
0.8
o 0 .6
0.4
to 0.4
0.2
to 0.2
0.6
0.8
0.2
t = 100min
x 10
Bed-load and Suspended-load (rrf/s)
0.4
X(m)
0.4
w 0.4
0.2
a
0.6
0.8
-o 0.8
T3 0 . 6 -
0.4
X(m)
0.6
Bedload
Suspended load
0.6
0.2
0.4
X(m)
t = 200min
x 10
Bedload
Suspended load
0.8
Bedload
Suspended load
a 0.8
0.6
0.2
t = 30min
x 10
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.4
X(m)
0.6
0.8
t = 300min
x 10'
Bed load
Suspended load
-o 0 .8
o 0 .6
0.2
0.4
X(m)
0.6
0.8
Figure 14. The bed load qband suspended load qs . The arrow indicates the position
of the maximum height of the sand mound.
38
4.4. COMPARISON WITH NBURY AND DRAMBUIE MODELS
4.4.1. FORMULATION OF NBURY AND DRAMBUIE MODELS
At present, several models are in use for practical predictions of mine burial in the coastal
zone, which includes Defense Research Agency Mine Burial Environmental model or
DRAMBUIE (developed by H.R.Walingford, U.K., 1994), NBURY (German Navy,
Stender [36], 1980) and Wave-Induced Spread Sheet Prediction or WISSP (U.S. Navy,
1960's). Because o f the operational convenience, these models use (sometimes overly)
simple scour parameterizations mostly derived using field and laboratory observations
[15, 41], Of these, DRAMBUIE and NBURY use scour formulae based on (limited) data
collected in the presence of currents, and it is instructive to compare their scour
predictions with the present numerical calculations. NBURY implements the Carstens &
Martin equation [15] derived using U-tube tests. The sediment transport here is
characterized by the sediment Froude num berF = Um[(s- \) g d s~\ 2, Um being the
(orbital) velocity above the boundary layer and a Froude number threshold for the mine
burial
is defined
as
Fx =5.0A(ds ID )v u . For the present
study,
F = 4.126
andF, = 3.3719.For the caseF > Fx, the NBURY model calculates the maximum (scour)
depth Ym by solving the following equation,
d.
0.01F
D
0.5
0.786 m 4 4.45 Ym
m
1
+ 7.07 Y.
tan2 </> D
tan^ D
D
( 12)
where d s is the grain size, D the diameter of the cylinder, (f) the angle of repose of the
sand and t the (tidal) current duration. In the NBURY model, if F > Fx, the scour is
39
assumed to occur by the suspended-load transport, which is consistent with the results
shown in Fig. 13. An alternative expression is used when F < Fx.
4.4.2. COMPARISON WITH NBURY AND DRAMBUIE MODELS

Note that the NBURY formula does not incorporate a time period of current oscillations,
and thus can be construed as applicable to steady currents of velocity Um, although the
model has been often used in the context of flow under waves with a maximum orbital
velocity o f Um. Although the main mechanism of mine burial in NBURY is assumed to
be sand-ripple migration, it is instructive to investigate whether the main formula of this
model is valid under conditions for which it was originally derived (i.e. scour). Figure 15
shows a comparison o f the present numerical model results for scour with those predicted
by NBURY. The latter shows a higher scour level compared to numerical results.
On the other hand, DRAMBUIE uses a current-induced scour formula based on
observations around pilings, where
5 = S .[ l- e x p ( - ( ^ - r) ] .
(13)
A 0 bD 2
The time scale here is TD = = = = = , where A = 0.095, B = -2.02, g = 9.81 m / s 2, s
= sediment density relative to water (2.65 for silicious sediment) and 0 = Shields
parameter as defined in Sec. 3, which is related to the ambient flow away from the object.
This empirical equation is a variant of (10), and its equilibrium scour depth is given by
40
0
SL =
i f 0< U < 0.75U cr,

U - 0.15Ucr
oomax
0.5U
i f 0.75Z7cr <U <\.25Ucr,
(14)
i f \2 5 U cr<U,
where 5'00max = 1.15D is the maximum depth of scour at large free stream velocities (U )
and Ucr is the value of U for the initiation of grain movement without the object.
10'
* Present Model
-eNBURYModel
10'
10'-2
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Time(s)
Figure 15. Comparison of numerical calculations of the maximum scour depth

with those predicted by the NBURY model.
According to Whitehouse [44], it is reasonable to assume that(/cr /U )2 - 6 cr! 0 ,

where 9cr is the critical Shields parameter for the initial grain movement given by
Soulsby [35],
41
0 =
-3Q + 0.055[1 - exp(-0.02D,)],

1 + 1.2D,
(15)
v '
where D, = J[(s - l)g / v 2]1/3 and v = 10-6 m 2 / s is the kinematic viscosity of water.
Figure 16 shows present numerical results vis-a-vis the DRAMBUIE model
predictions. It appears that the initial scour in DRAMBUIE is taking place at a lower
pace. DRAMBUIE also shows an overprediction of the equilibrium depth and a large
relaxation time. Similar disparities have also been noted in the recent work of Testik et al.
[41] who compared DRAMBUIE predictions with laboratory field observational results
o f cylinder burial in wave shoaling zone. In summary, it appears that the scour formulae
used in practical mine burial models NBURY and DRAMBUIE needed to be revisited in
future studies.
42
0 .0 8
0
0 .0 7
P re s e n t M odel w ith th e th ic k n e s s o f a s a n d la y e r = 1.5D

P re s e n t M odel w ith th e th ic k n e s s of a s a n d la y e r = 1D
DRAMBUIE M odel
0 .0 6
N,
E 0 .0 5
'W '
.c
00000
Q.
<1)
"O
u. 0 .0 4
3
O
O
CO
DRAMBUIE M odel
0 .0 3
0.02
500
0.01
100
150
200
250
300
Time(min)
Figure 16. Comparison of present numerical results (for two sand-layer depth
cases) with DRAMBUIE model predictions. The inset shows DRAMBUIE model
reaches equilibrium after 1400 minutes.
4.5. CONCLUSIONS: SCOUR UNDER FIXED PIPELINES

A two-phase flow simulatioh of scour around a long (2-D) circular cylinder held fixed on
a sandy bed and subjected to a transverse channel flow was reported in this paper. The
simulation was conducted using the CFD software FLUENT, which allows
implementation of momentum equations for both solid and fluid phases individually, with
Euler-Euler coupling between them and a modified k - s turbulence closure scheme for
the fluid phase. Both flow-particle and particle-particle interaction mechanics were
considered and their effects are parameterized in the modeling system. The model was
applied to simulate an experiment conducted by Mao [28], which is often used as a
benchmark for scour simulations. The computation time for a single simulation was
260hrs on a 2.4GHz PC.
Several special features were needed to be adopted for successful simulations. The
method used for the direct coupling of two phases caused a strong reduction of fluid
phase intensity, which, in turn, caused unrealistic particle settling. In addition, the time
scales for flow adjustment and particle-turbulence interactions were different, which
caused unrealistic bedform predictions. Therefore, the flow simulations were conducted
independently, and the results were used to drive the two-phase system at each
computation step. The ensuing calculations were found to predict the bedform evolution
well. To our knowledge, this is the first time where scour calculations have been
performed using a two-phase model. The satisfactory prediction of the bedform evolution
clearly shows the efficacy of the modeling paradigm used in Euler-Euler coupled two-
44
phase models for simulating scour around a fixed pipeline under a current. In this
approach, no sediment transport formula needs to be invoked. Thus, it preludes the
necessity o f selecting an empirical sediment transport formula for scour modeling out of
many available; no standard formula is available in this regard.
Detailed study o f sediment motions in the bed shows three main types of sediment
loads related to bedform development. Suspended-load and bed-load are above the bed
surface and laminated-load is below the bed surface. The suspended load was found to
dominate sediment transport above the surface, but the effects of laminated load on scour
development need to be further studied in future, considering that no concrete inferences
could be made on the laminated layer due to nominally unrealistic sediment velocities
appeared in the recirculation zone. To our knowledge, no detailed study, either numerical
or experimental, on the motion of sediment particles inside the sediment bed during scour
evolution, here we make a first attempt to study the motion of these sediment particles
while successfully simulating the scour under a fixed pipeline.
Quantitative results of scour (burial) depth variation with time and the maximum scour
depth agree well with the results of previous research, which have been complied by
Whitehouse [44] and Sumer & Fredsoe [39]. The results also show the dependence of
scouring rate on the sediment layer depth for the depth range investigated, but this
dependence is expected to disappear at larger sediment layer depths. The scour predicted
by two commonly used (operational) mine burial models did not agree well with the
present results, pointing to the need of further research on scour predictions around solid
objects.
5. Simulation of scour below a sagging pipeline

5.1. BACKGROUD
The ability to transport petroleum products across waterways has always been an
important factor in the successM development of an oil or natural gas field, both onshore
and offshore, and historically pipelines (also known as hydropipelines) have been the
most common means of such transport. For example, in the U.S., products from offshore
oil and gas fields located in the shallower waters of the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) are
transported by some 45,000 km of pipeline laid on the seafloor of the GOM. Most of
these pipelines support shelf and near-shelf facilities and a small percentage supports
deepwater operations. The technology and methods involved in handling petroleum
pipelines have evolved to the level of routine and commonplace, but critical scientific
issues still linger with regard to the response of pipelines to sustained wave and current
loadings. For example, survey of pipelines in service has shown significant regional and
local scour occurs in the vicinity of pipelines. The scour leaves pipelines unsupported
over some sections, which has a considerable effect on the stability of the pipeline and
nearby beaches. As shown in Figure 17 (i), when the pipeline lies on the seabed, the
scour starts locally and then spreads along the pipeline. When the scour hole is
sufficiently long, the pipeline sags into the scour hole due to structural deflection. The
scour may cease when the sagging pipeline reaches the bottom of the scour hole, and
finally it may be covered partly by the sediment. This sequence of processes is called the
self-burial. Pipeline sagging disturbs the flow field, which, in turn, may exacerbate the
erosion in the scour hole. As shown in Figure 17 (ii), the scour in the free-span areas is
two-dimensional, whereas in the neighborhood of span shoulders, it is three-dimensional.
46
Figure 17 (iii) illustrates an end view of scour and sagging process, through a cross
section in the middle of the pipeline. A typical marine pipeline is shown in Figure 17 (iv)
before the deployment.
- a)
b)
d)
rr:=-l
3Dscour 2Dscour ' 3Dscour

longitudinal section
(ii)
Figure 17. (i) The three-dimensional pipeline sagging process [14]. (ii) A
Sketch for the scour [38].
47
t>i
CD
(iii)
(iv)
Figure 17. (iii) The variation in the position of the pipeline at cross-section B-B [14]. (iv)
An underwater pipeline ready to be deployed in Port Kembla harbor (from Australian
National Library).
48
5.2. OVERVIEW OF SAGGING PIPELINE STUDIES
Local scour and sagging is an extremely complex phenomenon due to interplay among
various components: the flow, bed material and pipeline. The goal of this part of our
study is to simulate scour around long cylindrical objects using the Eulerian two-phase
model described in Chapter 2 with the hope of understanding how sagging can change the
scour around a pipeline. This work is a natural extension of the work described in
Chapters 3 and 4 and also in [49], wherein the efficacy of an Eulerian two-phase model
associated with the CFD package FLUENT was demonstrated, at least partly, by
evaluating its predictions against experimental data taken around a fixed horizontal
pipeline initially placed on a sandy bed in a turbulent flow. A methodology was
developed to simulate scour, paying special attention to particle-turbulence interaction
mechanics, which is critical to realize effective scour around objects resting on a sandy
bed. The general predictions of the model were also used to infer aspects of mine burial
in the ocean bottom. In addition to obtaining new information, the work presented in this
Chapter on a related but different problem of pipeline sagging is helpful to further
evaluate the efficacy of two-phase Eulerian model described in Chapter 2 as well as the
scour prediction methodology used therein.
During the past three decades, considerable research effort has been devoted to
developing scour models, both experimentally and numerically. Bemetti et al. [2] created
an integrated empirical model considering both waves and a steady current. The model
was applied to scour around a pipe and a pipe sagging into its own scour hole. The model
was tested against laboratory experiments and a good agreement was noted. In this
49
model, however, the scour was mainly realized by implementing empirical relationships,
and the necessity of more refined models was emphasized.
Only a handful o f studies exist on scour around sagging pipelines. Fredsoe et al. [14]
investigated the effects o f sagging on the depth of the underlying scour-hole depth using
a two-dimensional laboratory model. In a series of laboratory flume experiments, the
sagging process was simulated in two steps: (i) the scour was allowed to develop around
a fixed pipeline, and (ii) the model pipe was lowered artificially into the scour hole at
different speeds to mimic pipe sagging. The scour profile around a fixed pipe (step 1) was
employed as the initial seabed profile for the pipeline sagging in step 2. The scour profile
before sagging was recorded and final scorn profiles when the pipe reached the bottom of
the scour hole (with different sagging speeds) were also measured.
Cheng et al. [7] simulated pipeline sagging by combining a flow model and a sediment
transport model. The former solved the Navier-Stokes equation using Smagorinsky
Subgrid Scale (SGS) closure and the sediment transport model consisted of equations for
mass conservation of sediments above the bed surface. To smooth out numerical
irregularities of scour profiles, a sliding procedure was incorporated. A well-defined
vortex shedding was found to exist in the flow field during sagging. The predicted final
scour profiles generally agree with Fredsoe et al.s (1988) experimental results. The scour
depth was found to be sensitive to the sagging velocity; for example, the maximum scour
depth increased ~ 20% as the sagging velocity decreased from 12.4 mm/min to 1.0
mm/min.
50
As mentioned before, no general universally accepted formula exists to quantify
sediment transport over a range of conditions, and numerical results based on available
sediment transport models tend to be sensitive to the selection of the sediment formula. In
the present simulations, as in our previous fixed pipelines simulation, no such empirical
sediment transport formula was needed because the sediment transport is realized using
dynamical equations governing solid and liquid phases. If the model can be validated for
different flow configurations without adjusting parameterizations, then it can be
employed for general use involving scour in two-phase turbulent flows.
5.3. SUMMARY
The scour occurs as a result of complex interactions between flow, turbulence, objects
and sediments, the full treatment of which is currently untenable. To simplify the
problem, previous studies [3, 26, 31] have executed the flow and sediment transport
models separately, thus decoupling two main contributors. Although the results have
often shown satisfactory agreements with experimental measurements, at least for certain
dependent parameters such as scour-hole depth, over the past three decades, the studies
have been limited to scour under the action of currents in laboratory test rigs. If robust
scour models that have wide applicability are to be built, it will be important to couple
sediment and fluid phases in a realistic way while accounting for the object that leads to
local scour. Recently developed two-phase models that consider flow and sediment
particle interaction mechanics are some alternatives in this regard, and such models are
beginning to be applied sediment transport and sedimentation [18, 43, 48] calculations.
Such a two phase model (Chapter 2) has been applied for the first time for scour
calculations under fixed pipelines in Chapter 3 and 4, and in this work the same twophase model is used for simulating scour below a sagging pipeline. In the latter case, the
problem is more complex and due consideration should be given to the interaction of the
moving pipe and the evolving bed profiles.
6. Two-phase model, simulation and validation: Sagging pipelines

The mathematical model used in this simulation is the Eulerian two-phase model
described in Chapter 2. It assumes that the sediment-laden flow consists of solid s and
fluid / phases, which are separate, yet they form interpenetrating continua. The space
occupied by each phase is represented by the volume fraction a (0 < a <l ). The laws for
the conservation o f mass and momentum are satisfied by each phase individually. For
example, the continuity equations for both the fluid / and solid s phases take the form:
^ ( (A ) + v , k M ) = .
at
(16)
where t = s , f and a f + a s - 1; a f , a s = volume fraction for water and sediment and

p f , p s = mass density o f water and sediment, respectively. The important forces acting
on single particle are the static pressure gradient, the solid pressure gradient (a normal
force due to particle interactions), the drag force, viscous and body forces. Assuming
negligible virtual mass and Basset force [4], the momentum equations for the fluid and
solid phases, respectively, are [12]:
~
(a f p f vf ) + V * ( a f p f vf vf ) = -ccf VP + V * T f + a f p f g + K sf(vs - v / ),
^ KAv , ) +
- a ,V P - V F J + V * r , + a sp sg + K fi(vf - v s),
(17)
(18)
in which vf , v s = the mean-flow velocity for flow and sediment; P = pressure shared by
the two phases; t s = stress tensor for the solid phase;
tf
= stress tensor for the fluid
phase; and K sf (= K fi) = interphase momentum exchange coefficient. The coupling is

achieved through pressure and interphase exchange coefficients. A symmetric drag model
53
is employed to describe the interaction between phases. Turbulent quantities for the fluid
phase are obtained using a standard k - s
model (Launder and Spalding [21]),
supplemented by additional terms that take into account the interfacial turbulent
momentum transfer. To predict turbulence in the solid phase [33, 34], Tchens theory
[17] on the dispersion of discrete particles in homogeneous, steady turbulent flows is
used. Dispersion coefficients, correlation functions, and turbulent kinetic energy of the
solid phase are represented in terms of the characteristics of continuous turbulent motions
of the fluid phase based on two time scales. The model closure is realized through the
modified kinetic theory for dense gas and plastic potential theory. In this Eulerian twophase model, the equations for the two phases are solved in an Eulerian frame. The model
details are described in Chapter 2 and hence are not repeated here.
6.1. FREDS0E ET AL.S EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

The numerical set-up followed the laboratory experiments of Fredsoe et al. [14], which
were designed to simulate sagging of the middle section of a pipeline in real situations
(Figure 17 (i)). In their experiments (Figure 18), the pipe was held fixed by the end
supports and the scour below the pipe was studied, starting from an initially flat bed.
After scour develops around the pipeline, the sagging of the pipeline was simulated by
lowering the model pipe vertically downward at a constant (controlled) speed. This was
achieved by a long screw bolt attached to the frame which was holding the pipe. By
turning the handler, the pipe could be moved up and down smoothly.
54
The sand used in the experiments had median diameter dSQ= 0.36mm. The diameter of
pipe D was 0.1m. There is a gap e between the pipe and the original sea bed, the gap ratio
e lD = 0.1 and the Shields parameter 6 = 0.098; here the Shields parameter 6 is defined
in the usual way as
q = -------1------- ,
where
is the bed shear stress. Since the Shields
g(ps - p f s
parameter is greater than the critical Shields parameter, the scour is in live-bed scour
regime (i.e. sediment transport takes place over the entire sand bed).
55
Figure 18. Freds0es Experimental set-up that mimicked the

sagging pipeline [14].
6.2. NUMERICAL CONFIGURATION

As mentioned, the two-phase model (Section 2) was set up to match the experimental
configurations. As shown in Figure 19, a logarithmic velocity profile with Um =0.5 m/s
was applied at the flow inlet, with a Shields parameter of 0.098. The model constants and
parameterizations used were identical to those used in Chapter 2 and in [49]. The
pressure outlet boundary condition, which requires specification of gauge pressure at the
outlet boundary, was applied at the flow exit. The water surface is defined as the
56
symmetry boundary, wherein zero normal velocity and zero normal gradients of all
variables are satisfied. Wall boundary conditions were used at the sandy bottom.
Symmetry
w |
Velocity infet
e /D -0 !
10 D
Water
Piearaie outlet
Sediment
^
40
1.5D
20 D
Figure 19. The numerical configuration for the simulation. X is in the streamwise
direction and Y the cross-stream direction.
A two-dimensional grid system with 10378 nodes and 10145 cells was generated with
the grid generator GAMBIT. The grid consisted of two zones, the water and the
sediment. The inlet and exit boundaries, respectively, were placed 10D and 20D (D being
the diameter of the cylinder) from the center of the cylinder. A small initial sinusoidalshape scour hole with an amplitude 0.1D underneath the pipeline was introduced at the
beginning of the simulation (Figure 20).
57
Figure 20. The contours of volume fraction a of the sediment at t = 0. Note

the introduction of an interfacial disturbance (arrow) at the beginning.
Following the methodology used for the clear-water scour around a fixed pipeline
described in Chapter 3 and 4, we calculated the steady single-phase velocity field using
the Navier-Stokes equations and k - s closure (Launder, Spalding [21]) without taking
into account the effects of particles. The fully developed velocity field for the fluid phase
so calculated (as a single-phase flow) was then used as the input field to conduct the twophase model calculations. Thereafter, the steady single-phase velocity field of the flow
was calculated again with an updated bedform. The interface between water and sand in
the physical experiments was taken as that corresponding to the sediment volume fraction
a s ~ 0.5 of the numerical experiments [42]. Figure 21 shows a typical example of a grid
used in the flow calculations at an intermediate time, where 11848 nodes and 12146 cells
are included. The bed profile shown corresponds to the contour level of a s * 0.5
obtained from the previous calculation step of the two-phase model. To obtain the fully
58
developed flow field, an adaptive grid that responds to the bedform evolution was used.
Figure 22 shows an exam ple o f the grid for the tw o-phase flow sim ulations.
Figure 21. An example of the grid that was used for the flow model. The bed
profile is specified as the contour with a s =0.5 obtained from the previous
calculation step conducted with the two-phase model.
Figure 22. An example of the grid that was used for the two-phase flow model.
During the simulations, the grid has been generated manually only once. After the first
generation, the grid was regenerated with the updated bed profile data and updated pipe
position. This was accomplished by running the journal file (a sequential list of
geometry, mesh, zone, and tools commands executed during the first grid generation)
using the grid generator GAMBIT, thus minimizing the total computation time. During
the sagging process, the mesh was updated, as appropriate, when the pipeline sagging
exceeded 0.005D ~ 0.015D, where D is the diameter of cylinder. The remeshing in the
second step was achieved by adjusting appropriately the parameters in the journal file
from the first step and then rerunning the journal file.
7. Results and discussions: sagging pipelines

7.1. LIVE-BED SCOUR AROUND A FIXED PIPELINE
In the first step, the scour is developed around a fixed pipeline. Initially, the flow is
subjected to partial blockage due to the existence of the transversal pipeline, and the flow
beneath and above the pipe tends to spatially accelerate, thus causing sediment particles
underneath the pipeline to be ejected preferentially. The ejected sediments are initially
supported by strong turbulent fluctuations, but further downstream, the turbulent intensity
decreases and particles are deposited to form a mound. As the scour depth continues to
increase slowly at later times, the mound slowly moves away from the pipeline as a result
o f downstream sand transport from the sand mound. When the pipeline was sagging into
the scour hole at a constant speed, which is the second step of simulations, the turbulence
intensity and scour rate around the pipe decline rapidly, given the flow inside the scour
hole is significantly weakened because the pipe is partly protected against the flow.
Finally, when the pipe reaches the bottom of the scour hole, the sagging is stopped.
According to Fredsoe et al.s experiments, the scoured bed at the end of the first step is
highly reproducible. Therefore, different sagging speeds are assumed to start from the
same scorned bed. In present study, the first step was taken as complete when the scour
hole is developed for about 60 minutes, as shown in Figure 23, where the interface
between water and sediment is taken as a s ~ 0.5 . The present calculation (Figure 24)
shows a very good agreement with Fredsoe et al.s measurements except that there are
some deviations in the downstream.
Figure 23. Bed profile after the development of scouring around a fixed pipeline
for 60 minutes.
HmwfcilSfcraihrtiDri
-m
oj
04
Figure 24. Comparison of the scour profiles between the present study and
that measured by Fredsoe et al. (1988) before the sagging starts.
7.2. SCOUR AROUND A SAGGING PIPELINE

In the second step, the pipe was allowed to descend into the scour hole with three
controlled sagging speeds (vp= l.Omm/min, 3.1mm/min and 12.4mm/min), and the
computationally determined bed profiles (with a s = 0.5 as the interface; Figure 25) were
compared with Fredsoe's experimental data, which is shown in the right column of
Figure 25. The agreement is satisfactory, except that disparities appear in the downstream
in some cases. Although in Fredsoe et al.s experiments, the sediment particles were
found to accumulate near the pipeline to some extent. In model results the water flow
tends to wash out the sediment particles in the vicinity of the pipeline.
F red sae et al's M easurem ent (t = 9 3 minutes)

P resen t Simulation (t = 9 3 5 m inutes)
Sagging sp a ed V = 3 .1 mmAnin
F red sae et al's M easurem ent (t = 31 minutes)
P re se n t Simulation (t = 29.5 minutes)
Sag g in g s p e e d V = 12.4 mmfmin

o
0.15
F re d s a e e t a l's M e a su re m e n t (t = 9 m inutes)
P r e s e n t Sim ulation (t = 6.1 m inutes)
J . 0.05 -
-0.05
-0.1
0.2
0.3
x(m)
Figure 25. Comparison of bed profiles between the present study and
Fredsoes measurements at Vp = l.Omm/min, 3.1mm/min and 12.4mm/min.
0.5
Figure 26 shows the sagging process of the pipeline at a speed vp= l.Omm/min. The
first image corresponds to the case where the motion of the pipeline has just begun and
the last one shows the state where the pipeline is about to touch the sandy bed. During the
sagging process, the scour hole deepens and the sediment particles are continuously
transported downstream. No experimental data is available, however, to compare with
these profile evolution calculations.
65
t = 0 min
t = 23.0 min
t = 65.0 min
t = 80.5 min
t = 93.5 min
Figure 26. Sagging with Vp = 1.0 mm / m in .
66
Figure 27 illustrates the computed scour depth variation during sagging at different
speeds. As the pipe is sagging into the scour hole, the maximum scour depth of the bed
increases, given that the flow velocity below the pipe, and thus the erosion under the
pipeline, increases as the pipe sags into the scour hole. At a glance, for the relatively fast
sagging case o f vp =12.4 mm/min, the increase in the maximum scour depth is limited.
For the intermediate velocity o f v/J=3.1 mm/min, the scour depth almost stops increasing
after the pipe sags into about half of the scour hole. For the lowest speed case vp=1.0
mm/min, the scour depth continues to show an increase even when the pipe is close to the
bottom of scour hole. Sagging with vp =1.0 mm/min increases in scour hole depth by
15.56% relative to the maximum scour depth after scour developed in the first step, but
the enhancement of the maximum scour depth with the sagging speed of
vp =12.4mm/min is less than 1%. This can be explained by considering the response of
the flow beneath the pipe to disturbances induced by sagging. When the sagging speed is
as large as 12.4mm/min, the flow distortions inside the scour hole is large, the resultant
flow perturbations inside the scour hole are rapid and the sediment particles do not have
sufficient time to respond to the change of flow and turbulence.
67
Sagging speed Vp = 3.1 mm/min

0.04
0 .0 2 -
0.04
Maximum scour depth in present study

Maximum scour depth In Fredsees Measurement
0.02
Maximum scour depth in present study

Maximum scour depth in Fredsees Measurement
0
y(m)
0.02
0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08 '
-0.08
- 0.1
- 0.1
- 0.12
- 0.12
-0.14
-0.14
0,1 0*
20
40
60
80
-0.16,
100
T(min)
T(min)
Sagging speed Vp * 12.4 mm/min

0.04
0.02
- Maximum scour depth in present study

Maximum scour depth in Fredsee's Measurement
0-
0.02
-0.04
i- 0 .0 6
-0.08
-0.1-0.12
-0 .1 4 -
-0.16L
T(min)
Figure 27. Maximum scour depth development at Vp = 1.0 mm/min,

3.1 mm/min and 12.4mm/min.
68
7.3. COMPARISONS WITH CHENG AND L I S SIMULATION
7.3.1. VORTEX SHEDDING IN SCOURING PROCESS
The role of vortex shedding on scour surrounding objects is still subjected to debate,
and there is evidence for and against the notion that vortex shedding behind the pipeline
plays a significant role in scour. Sumer et al. [40] conducted a series of experiments on
the scour around pipelines. They first placed the pipe 2D (D is diameter of the pipe)
above the bed. The scour developed downstream showed great difference when the
distance between the bed and the pipe was varied. Based on these observations, Sumer et
al. concluded that vortex shedding plays an important role in shaping the downstream
scour profiles. In the numerical context, Li & Cheng [23][25] presented a local boundary
adjustment technique to calculate the equilibrium scour hole. They first employed
potential flow theory to calculate the flow, but only the predictions for the upper stream
of the scour hole compared well with experimental measurements. When the potential
flow model was replaced by a large eddy simulation (LES) model, however, the scour
hole compared favorably with experimental data. Since the LES model permits welldefined vortex structures to develop, they inferred that vortex shedding behind the
pipeline can be a key mechanism that determines equilibrium scour profiles.
On the other hand, k - e models have difficulty of predicting vortex shedding in bluff
body wakes (Brers, 1999; Liang et al., 2005), given that they have a tendency to smooth
out the fluctuations produced by vortex shedding (due to averaged nature of the
approach when compared to the ability of LES to predict instantaneously resolved large-
69
scales structures). Therefore k - s models are expected to underestimate the interaction
between shed vortices from the pipe and the bed. Liang et als study [26] based on k - s
closure, on the other hand, showed that vortex shedding does not affect scour profile
predictions at later stages o f scour development. A similar conclusion was made by Lii et
al. [27], who studied scour around pipelines by employing renormalized-group (RNG)
and standard k - s models. Both models did not exhibit vortex shedding signatures, but
their predictions still compared well with experimental measurements. It was therefore
concluded that vortex shedding is not a decisive factor in scour that occurs
downstream of pipelines.
7.3.2. COMPARISON WITH CHENG AND LIS SIMULATION

As mentioned, Cheng & Li [7] simulated scour around a sagging pipeline with a LES
turbulence model. Well-defined vortex shedding patterns were found to form
continuously as the pipe started to sag into the scour hole, but the vortex shedding was
suppressed as half of the pipeline is under the original bed level. Although Cheng & Lis
LES study delivered more details on the flow field (regular vortex shedding, for example)
than the present model, a comparison shown in Figure 28 illustrates that their final bed
profiles compare well with those of the present study. There is a very good agreement for
the slow and intermediate sagging velocities of l.Omm/min and 3.1 mm/min. In contrast,
deviations were noted in the upstream profile of Cheng & Lis simulation when the
sagging velocity is increased to 12.4mm/min. The scour profiles used in the two studies
before the sagging is initiated are different, as shown in Figure 29, which may explain the
70
disparities observed at later times. In this regard, the present simulations clearly
outperform the LES simulation of Cheng and Li [7].
Cheng and Lis simulation started from a state where the scour hole reached about 0.6
times the pipeline diameter (Fredsoe et al. claimed that the sagging initiated when the
scour hole depth is about 0.6 times the pipeline diameter. However, according to their
quantitative measurements taken during the experiments, it appears that they actually
started from a slightly deeper scour hole). The present study was initiated from a scour
profile which has already shown a satisfactory agreement with Fredsoe et al.s
measurements during the first step of the experiment (Figure 24).
With the sagging velocity of V =12.4 mm/min, it takes the pipeline about 6 minutes to
reach the bottom of the scour hole. The scour profiles change so little during this fast
descent that the differences of initial scour profiles are still partly retained in the final
scour profile. For the two smaller velocities (F =3.1 mm/min, l.Omm/min) the bed
profile changes over a longer time, and thus the two simulations show a better agreement.
Considering the agreement between the LES study of Cheng and Li [7] and ours
performed with k - s model, which does not produce welldefined vortex shedding, we
conclude, as was by Lii et al. [27], that the effects of vortex shedding are not sufficiently
significant to alter downstream bed profiles in a sagging pipeline simulation.
71
Sagging s psd V_ * 1.0 mm/min

F rtd ss t rt afs Measurement
0.15
Present Simulation
Cheng and U s Simulation
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
Sagging s peed
0.2
0.4
* 3.1 mm/min
0.2
Fredsse et afs Measurement
0.15
Present Simulation
0.1
A
0.05
-0.05
0.1
0.1
0.1
Sagging s peed
0.2
0.4
0.5
= 12.4 mm/min
0.2
F r e d s s e e ta fs M easurement
0.15
Present Simulation
0.05
0.1
0.2
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
Figure 28. Comparison of bed profiles between the present study and Cheng and
Lis study when the pipe reaches the bottom of the scour sole at Vp = 1.0 mm/min,
3.1 mm/min and 12.4mm/min.
72
Scaur profile before s agoing

in Cheng and Lfs simulation
0.2
Scour profile before sagging

in present simulation
.15
Fredsee et afs M easurement
0.1
K 0.05
-0.05
-0.2
-0.1
x x t- i t
0.1
0.2
0.5
Figure 29. Comparison of the scour profiles before the initiation of

sagging for the present study and that of Cheng and Li. The
experimental measurement of Fredsoe et al. is also shown.
7.4. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

Figure 30 shows the spatial distribution of sediment velocity at different times. The
sediment velocity above the bed surface has been significantly suppressed as the pipe
sags into the scour hole. As for the sediment particles below the bed surface, the
recirculation is formed which is spatially confined to the region where the driving force is
substantial. Note that a pressure gradient is developed due to the curved flow path near
the cylinder and particle mound downstream. The velocity of the sediment particles is
about 50% o f that above the mound, which is larger than that one would expect
intuitively. However, there is no experimental data to evaluate the prediction on the
sediment velocity below the bed interface. A detailed discussion on the possible reasons
73
which may have led to the recirculation and hence the large calculated velocity prediction
below the bed interface was given in Chapter 4.3.2.
9.77*41
9.13*41
9,47*41
742*41
7.18*41
841*41
8.88*41
5.21*41
4.88*41
3.91*41
338*41
3.81*41
1.98*41
1.30*41
831*42
i o.oo*+oo
832*41
7.98*01
7.36*01
| 832*01
8.28*01
i 8.88*01
8.11*41
| 4.84*01
338*01
331*01
2.84*01
237*01
1.70*01
1.14*01
8.88*03
; o.oo*+oo
8/48*41
7.92*01
738*41
6.79*41
632*01
936*41
8.08*01
432*01
3.98*41
339*41
233*41
2.26*41
1.70*41
1.13*01
8 .88* 0 2
030*400
Figure 30. Vectors o f the sediment velocity u / U x during the sagging process
with the sagging speed 3.1mm/min. The pipelines center is located at (0 ,0.54D),
(0, 0.34D) and (0, 0.085D), where the vertical coordinate is measured from the
original bed level at the beginning (see Figure 20).
74
Figure 31 shows the sediment transport rate S through the gap between the bed and the
pipe, where S m!a is the largest sediment transport rate during the entire sagging process.
During the early period of sagging, there appears to be some fluctuations in the sediment
transport rate, but as the pipe sagged into the scour hole, the sediment transport rate starts
to decrease continuously, so does the average flow velocity in the gap (Figure 32).
.8
0.3
CD
55
0.4
S a g g in g s p e e d V = 1 .Q m rrfm in
0.2
20
40
30
T im e(m in)
Figure 31. Sediment transport rate through the gap underneath the pipe during the
sagging process.
75
0.30
0.34
0.2B
0.20
Avaragc Flaw V elocity in l h a gap b e to a a n t h a

pi pa and in tirfaca w h a n Sag g in g S p a a d V_ * lO m nV m in
.22
20
Figure 32. Average Flow velocity (average velocity = volume/gap) in the gap
between the pipe and interface.
Figure 32 illustrates the sediment transport above the bed surface downstream (x) of the
pipeline when the center of the pipeline is located at (0, 0.54D), (0, 0.34D) and (0,
0.085D) (The center o f the pipeline is located at (0, 0.6D) before sagging). Three sagging
speeds ( V =1.0m m /m in,3.1m m /m m and\2Am m /m m ) are investigated and suspended
and bed loads are calculated as was discussed in Chapter 4.3. As expected for live-bed
scour, the suspended-load is the dominating sediment transport mode above the bed
surface, the bed-load being much smaller than the suspended-load. For the slowest
sagging speed (V = 1.0mm/nun), the peak o f the suspended-load moved further
downstream as the sagging proceeded. However, for the two faster sagging speeds
( V = 3.1mm/ min and Vp = YlAmm / m in), there is no obvious change in the location of
the maximum suspended-load for the time period investigated. This can be explained by
the slow time scale during the slow descent (Vp = 1.0mm/min, for example), which
allows suspended particles to respond and adjust to the varying flow. The non
equilibrium flow situation prevalent during the faster descent of pipelines does not allow
such response. For all the three sagging cases, the suspended-load is reduced in the
vicinity of the pipe (X = -0.1m ~ 0.2m) due to sagging. The relatively faster sagging
(V = 12.4mm/min, for example) has more effect on the suspended-load in comparison
to the two slower ones (V = 1.0mm / min and V = 3.1mm / min ).
77
Vp = \ . O m m / m m ; Pipeline center is located at: a-(0,0.54D), b-(0,0.34D) and
c-(0,0.085D)
(a)
- 0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
X(m)
1.2
1.4
x 10'
(b)
0.2
0> -0.2
<Do
0.4
0.6
X(m)
1.2
0.8
1 .4
x 10
CO 3i--------
2
1
0>-0.2
(c)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.4
X(m)
Vp = 3.1 mm / m in ; Pipeline center is located at: a-(0, 0.54D), b-(0, 0.34D)
and c-(0, 0.085D)
0.2
0.2
.0
0.B
1.4
x 10'
0.2
0.4
0.Q
0.2
0.4
0 .0
12
T3
CO 3
- 0.2
1.4
78
Vp = \2 A m m l m in ; Pipeline center is located at: a-(0,0.54D), b-(0,0.34D)
and c-(0,0.08SD)
(a)
- 0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.4
X(m)
Suspended-load
Bed-load
(b)
<0 - 0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
(c)
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 33. Sediment transport (bed-load and suspended load) above the bed
surface.
Figure 34 shows the normalized turbulence intensity inside the gap between the pipe
and the scour hole. As the pipeline is lowered into the scour hole, the flow and turbulence
become increasingly weaker and thus reducing the suspended load, as shown in Figure
33. This distribution of turbulence has several connotations. As pointed out by Davila &
Hunt [9], heavy particle-laden flows are governed by the dimensionless parameters
Fp = Tp/ \ r / was+lU a~x~\la and VT =
. Fp (the rescaled Stokes Number) is defined as
the ratio between the relaxation time of the particle t p(= d] /18v/ ) and the time for the
particle to move around a vortex with circulation T and the characteristic velocity U
79
x w2
when VT is of order unity or small. For the typical case of a = 1, Fp becomes ^ J ,
where T = UL is a characteristic circulation, L the length scale and ws the settling
velocity. For the cases shown in Figure 31, U = u (horizontal averaged velocity between
the pipe and the bed) and L = 8 (gap width), Fp becomes 5.9808e-004, 7.695le-004 and
0.0012, respectively. Therefore, the particles suspended in the flow under the pipe are not
sensitive for the flow disturbance and approximately follow the main current flow until
they settle downstream due to the reduction of turbulent intensities.
The turbulence can effectively sustain particles in suspension (thus creating a
suspended load) only when VT < 1. Figure 34 shows the normalized turbulence intensity
in two-phase flow cases (under the pipe), which corroborates the conclusion that VT <1
is satisfied when the particles are in suspension. Also shown in Figure 35 are the
normalized turbulent intensities as a function of x at a height equal to half of the gap
width above the interface.
The center of the pipeline is at (0, 0.54D)

-
0.01

-
0.02
-0.03
-0.04
>
-0.05
-0.06
-0.07
-0.08
-0.09
0.4
0.6
0.8
2.2
2.4
lw s
Figure 34. Normalized turbulence intensity inside the gap between the lower
side of the pipe and the scour hole. The sagging speed is 3.1 mm/min.
81
1.6
1.41.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
The center of the pipeline at (0 ,0.54D)

The center of the pipeline at (0, 0.34D)
0.2
0.2
The center of the pipeline at (0, 0.085D)
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.2
Figure 35. Normalized turbulent intensity at a location midway between

the cylinder and the sand layer gap, as a function of downstream distance
for Vp = 3.1mm/m in .
7.5. CONCLUSIONS: SCOUR UNDER SAGGING PIPELINES

Scour below a sagging pipeline was simulated using an Eulerian two-phase model,
coupled with a modified k - s turbulence closure scheme for the fluid phase. The
sim ulation was conducted using the CFD softw are FLUENT, w hich allow s
implementation of momentum equations for both solid and fluid phases individually, with
Euler-Euler coupling between them. Both flow-particle and particle-particle interaction
mechanics were considered and their effects were parameterized in the modeling system.
The particular interest here was an experiment conducted by Fredsoe et al. [14], wherein
82
the scour was allowed to develop below a fixed 2-D pipeline in the first stage followed by
lowering of the pipe at a controlled speed to mimic sagging. The simulations agree well
with Fredsoe et al.s measurements.
One o f the advantage o f using the two-phase flow theory is that no sediment transport
formula needs to be invoked, thus avoiding necessity of selecting an empirical sediment
transport formula for scour modeling. Many such formulae are available, but no standard
or high fidelity formula has emerged yet. The two-phase theory was successfully used for
scour calculations below a fixed pipeline in our previous work [49], and a present work
extends this work to the case of a moving pipe. The success of the two-phase model
demonstrated here adds further credence to the versatility of the model.
By comparing the present results with those of Cheng & Li [7], which was conducted
using LES (and produces well defined vortex shedding behind the pipe), it was concluded
that vortex shedding is not a key factor in determining scour profiles below a sagging
pipeline.
Sagging can enhance erosion under the pipeline, especially at smaller sagging
velocities. For the cases investigated, the turbulence intensity under the pipeline is
sufficiently high so that sediments can be maintained in suspension, thus facilitating
suspended-load sediment transport. Sediment transport calculations also clearly showed
the dominance of suspended sediment transport.
References:
1. Ali, K., Karim, O.: 2002, Simulation of flow around piers, J. Hydr. Res. 40 , 161-174.
2. Bemetti, R., Bruschi, R., Valentini, V. and Venturi, M. : 1990, Pipelines placed on erodible seabed,
Proc. 9 th Int. Symp. Offshore Mech. And Arctic Eng., ASME 5, 155-164.
3. Brers, B . : 1999, Numerical modeling of flow and scour at pipelines, J. Hydr. Engrg., 125, 511-523.
4. Boemer, A., Qi, H., Renz, U., Vasquez, S., Boysan, F.: 1995, Eulerian computation o f fluidized bed
hydrodynamics - a comparison of physical models, Proc. o f the 13th Int. Conf. on Fluidized Bed
combustion, 2, 775-787.
5. Boothroyd, R .G .: 1971, Flowing, Gas-Solids and Suspensions, Chapman and Hall, London.
6. Biihler, J., Papantoniou, D.A.: 1991, Swarms of coarse particles falling through a fluid, Proc. o f the
International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics, Balkema, Rotterdam.
7. Cheng, L. and Li, F.: 2003, Modeling of local scour below a sagging pipeline, Coastal Engrg. Journal,
45, 189-210.
8. Chien, N., Wan, Z. : 1999, Mechanics of sediment transport, ASCE, Virginia, U.S.A.
9. Davila, J. and Hunt, J.C.R.: 2001, Settling of small particles near vortices and in turbulence, Journal o f
Fluid Mechanics, 440, 117-145.
10. Dupuis, A., Chopard, B.: 2002, Lattice gas modeling o f scour formation under submarine pipeline, J.
Compu. Phy., 178, 161-174.
11. Einstein, H.A.: 1950, The bed-load function for sediment transportation in open channel flows, Techn.
Bulletin No. 1026, U.S. Dept, of Agriculture.
12. FLUENT Incorporated: 2003, FLUENT 6.1 USER'S GUIDE, Lebanon, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
13. Fredsoe, J., Deigaard, R.: 1992, Mechanics of coastal sediment transport, World Scientific Publishing,
Singapore.
14. Fredsoe, J. , Hansen, E.A., Mao, Y. and Sumer, B.M.:1988, Three-Dimensional scour below pipelines,
Journal o f Offshore Mechanics and Artie Engineering, 110, 373-379.
15. Friedrichs, C.T.: 2001, A review of the present knowledge of mine burial processes, ONR MBP report,
available from the author.
84
16. Greimann, B.P.: 2002, Two-phase flow analysis o f sediment velocity, Proc. o f Sedimentation and
Sediment Transport, Switzerland, 83-86.
17. Hinze, J.O.: 1975, Turbulence, McGaw-Hill, New York.
18. Hsu, T., Jenkins, J.T., Liu, L.F.: 2001, Modeling o f sediment transport-a two-phase flow approach,
Proc. o f the 4th Conf. on Coastal Dynamics, Lund Sweden, 578-587.
19. Jeckins, J.T., Savage, S.B.:1983, A theory for rapid flow of identical, smooth, nearly elastic, spherical
particles, J. Fluid Mech., 130,187-202.
20. Johns, B., Soulsby, R.L, Chesher, T.J.: 1990, The modeling o f sandwave evolution resulting from
suspended and bed load transport of sediment, J. Hydr. Res., 428, 355-373.
21. Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B.: 1972, Lectures in mathematical models of turbulence, Academic Press,
London, England.
22. Leeuwestein, W., Bijker, B.W., Peerbolte, E.B., Wind, H.G.: 1985, The natural self-burial o f submarine
pipelines, Proc. o f the 4th Inter. Conf. on Behavior o f Offshore Structures, Elsevier Science, 717-728.
23. Li, F., Cheng, L.: 1999, A numerical model for local scour under offshore pipelines, J. Hydr. Engrg.,
125,400-406.
24. Li, F., Cheng, L.: 2000, Numerical simulation of pipeline local scour with lee-wake effects, Inter. J. of
Offshore and Polar Engrg., 10, 195-199.
25. Li, F. and Cheng, L.: 2001, Prediction of lee-wake scouring of pipelines in currents. J. Waterw. Port
Coast. Ocean Eng. 127, 106-112.
26. Liang, D., Cheng, L., Li, F.: 2005, Numerical modeling flow and scour below a pipeline in currents:
Part II. Scour simulation, Coastal engineering, 52,43-62.
27. Lu, L., Li, Y, Chen. B. :2006, Mechanism of local scour around submarine pipelines based on
numerical simulation of turbulence model, Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 25, 142-152.
28. Mao, Y. :1986, The interaction between a pipeline and an erodible bed, PhD thesis, Institute of
Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denm ark.
29. Nelson, J.M., Sbreve, R.L., McLean, S.R., Drake, T.G. : 1995, Role of near-bed turbulence structure in
bed-load transport and bed form mechanics, Water Resources Research, 31, 2071-2086.
85
30. Noh, Y., Fernando, H.J.S.: 1993, The transition in sedimentation pattern o f a particle cloud, Phys.
Fluids A, 5, 3049-3055.
31. Olsen, N.R.B., Melaaen, M.C.: 1993, Three-dimensional calculation of scour around cylinders, J. Hydr.
Engrg., 119, 1048-1054.
32. Schaeffer, D.G.: 1987, Instability in the evolution equations describing incompressible granular flow, J.
Diff. Eqns., 66, 19-50.
33. Simonin, O. : 1990, Eulerian formulation for particle dispersion in turbulent two-phase flows, Proc.
Fifth workshop on Two-phase Flow Predictions, Erlangen, Germany, 156-166.
34. Simonin, O., Viollet, P.L.: 1990, Predictions of an oxygen droplet pulverization in a compressible
subsonic coflowing hydrogen, Numerical Methods for Multiphase Flows, 91, 65-82.
35. Soulsby, R.: 1997, Dynamics of Marine Sands: A Manual for Practical Applications, Thomas Telford
Publications, London.
36. Stender, I.: 1980, Die Versandung von Grundminen durch Seegang: Theoretische Grundlangen. FWG
Rtp 1980-6, Forschungsanstalt der Bundeswehr fur Wasserschall-und Geophysik, Kiel, Germany.
37. Stommel, H.: 1949, Trajectories of small bodies sinking slowly through convection cells, J. Mar. Res.,
8, 24-49.
38. Sumer, B.M., Fredsoe, J.: 1992, A review o f wave/current-induced scour around pipelines, Proceeding
23rd international conference Coastal Engineering, 2839-2852.
39. Sumer, B.M., Fredsoe, J.: 1996, Scorn around pipelines in combined waves and current, Pipeline
Technology, 5, 595-602.
40. Sumer, B.M., Jensen H.R., Mao, Y. and Fredsoe, J. :1988, Effect of lee-wake on scour below pipelines
in current, J. Waterw., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 114, 599-614.
41. Testik, F.Y., Voropayev, S.I., Fernando, H.J.S., Balasubramanian, S., Mine Burial in the shoaling zone;
scaling o f laboratory results to oceanic situations, IEEE transactions (Ocean Engineering), accepted.
42. Wang Z., Chien, N.: 1985, Experimental study of motion of laminated load, Scientia Sinica, 28, 102112 .
86
43. Wanker, R., Goekler, G., Knoblauch, H.: 2001, Numerical modeling of sedimentation utilizing a
Euler/Euler approach, First Inter. Conf. on Computational Methods in Multiphase Flow, Orlando, Florida,
327-336.
44. Whitehouse, R.: 1998, Scour at marine structures: A Manual for Practical Applications, Thomas
Telford Publications, London.
45. Wiberg, P.L., Rubin, D.M.: 1989, Bed roughness produced by satiating sediment, J. Geophys. Res. 94,
5011-5016.
46. Van Beek, F.A., and Wind, H.G.: 1990, Numerical modeling of erosion and sedimentation around
offshore pipelines, Coastal Eng. 14, 107-128.
47. Yalin, M.S.: 1972, Mechanics o f sediment transport, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
48. Yeganeh, A., Gotoh, H., Sakai, T.: 2000, Applicability of Euler-Lagrange coupling multiphase-flow
model to bed-load transport under high bottom shear, J. o f Hydr. Res. 38, 389-398.
49. Zhao, Z. and Fernando, H.J.S.: 2006, Numerical simulation of scour around pipelines using an EulerEuler coupled two-phase model, submitted.

Numerical Simulation of Scour

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Numerical Simulation of Scour

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SCOUR AROUND FIXED AND SAGGING

PIPELINES USING A TWO-PHASE MODEL

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF SCOUR AROUND FIXED AND SAGGING

has been approved

)ean, Division of Graduate Studies

3.1. Maos Experimental Set-up.............................................................................. 14

4.3.1. Bed-load, suspended-load and laminated-load..................................... 29

7.4. Sediment Transport............................................................................................ 72

Fig 1. Numerical configuration for the simulation. X is in the streamwise direction, Y in

Fig 3. The Grid for the two-phase model calculations................................................... 17

Fig 5. A schematic diagram showing the interface, bed-load, suspended-load and

1. Simulation of scour around a fixed pipeline

1.2. OVERVIEW OF SCOUR MODELS

Leeuwestein et al. [22] used a k - s turbulence model coupled with a sediment

measurements. Therefore, Liang et al. recommended the use of a standard k - s model

1.3. OVERVIEW OF USING TWO-PHASE MODELS ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT

2. Mathematical description of the two-phase model

2.1. GOVERNING EQUATIONS

where t = s , f and a f + a s = 1; a f , a s = volume fraction for water and sediment and

~ ( a sp svs) + V (a sp svsvs) = - a sVP - VPS + V r s + a sp sg + K fi(vf - v s),

a f p f (Vvf + V v J ) ; / = the identity te n s o r;^ = bulk viscosity o f the sedim ent =

a , p . d , g 0.s(l + 0 (~)U2 Soss= radial distribution function, which is interpreted as

d A = U n e tic viscosity- 5 i M S i [l4. i (1 + e )(3e _ l ) a g

(1+ea)a 2g0>11, '

momentum exchange coefficient =

CD( U|v, -v ,} ; CD= drag fimction

2.2. TURBULENCE CLOSURE FOR FLUID PHASE

the phase-weighted velocity, /ut f = turbulent viscosity =

j t (af p f sf ) + 'V(af p f U/ f ) = V(a/ ^ - W f ) + a f ^-(CuGkJ- C 2ep f sf ) + a / p / IlSf- (5)

1. 8 - 1.35 cos2 6 . Here 6 is the angle

The turbulent kinetic energy for the solid phase ks is as follows

2.4. TRANSPORT EQUATION FOR GRANULAR TEMPERATURE

f" )g'" psa]2

Numerical simulation of scour: Fixed Pipelines

(i) The Flume in Maos experiment.

(ii) Sketch o f Maos experimental setup.

Figure 2. Maos physical experiment.

3.2. NUMERICAL CONFIGURATION

Figure 3. The Grid for the two-phase model calculations.

3.3. SIMULATION WITH FLUENT

Figure 5. A schematic diagram showing the interface, bed-load, suspended-load

4. Results and discussion: Simulations with a fixed pipeline

Figure 7. Bed profiles during the development of scour.

ws , where ws is the particle settling velocity, at a magnitude commensurate

4.2. SCOUR DEPTH

+ simulation withthe thickness of a sand layer= 1.5D

Figure 12. Normalized turbulence intensity profiles at various downstream

4.3.2. SEDIMENT VELOCITY

4.3.3. CALCULATION OF BED-LOAD AND SUSPENDED-LOAD

Bed-load and Suspended-load (rrf/s)

Fx =5.0A(ds ID )v u . For the present

4.4.2. COMPARISON WITH NBURY AND DRAMBUIE MODELS

i f 0< U < 0.75U cr,

i f 0.75Z7cr <U <\.25Ucr,

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Figure 15. Comparison of numerical calculations of the maximum scour depth

According to Whitehouse [44], it is reasonable to assume that(/cr /U )2 - 6 cr! 0 ,

-3Q + 0.055[1 - exp(-0.02D,)],

P re s e n t M odel w ith th e th ic k n e s s o f a s a n d la y e r = 1.5D

4.5. CONCLUSIONS: SCOUR UNDER FIXED PIPELINES

5. Simulation of scour below a sagging pipeline