onset of scouring
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
1/23
.Coastal Engineering 42 2001 313335
www.elsevier.comrlocatercoastaleng
Onset of scour below pipelines and self-burial
B.M. Sumer ), C. Truelsen, T. Sichmann, J. Fredse( )Department of Hydrodynamics and Water Resources ISVA , Technical Uniersity of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark
Received 3 April 2000; received in revised form 19 October 2000; accepted 8 November 2000
Abstract
This paper summarizes the results of an experimental study on the onset of scour below and self-burial of pipelines in
currentsrwaves. Pressure was measured on the surface of a slightly buried pipe at two points, one at the upstream side andthe other at the downstream side of the pipe, both in the sand bed. The latter enabled the pressure gradient which drives a
.seepage flow underneath the pipe to be calculated. The results indicated that the excessive seepage flow and the resultingpiping are the major factor to cause the onset of scour below the pipeline. The onset of scour occurred always locally but
.not along the length of the pipeline as a two-dimensional process . The critical condition corresponding to the onset of scourwas determined both in the case of currents and in the case of waves. Once the scour breaks out, it will propagate along the
.length of the pipeline, scour holes being interrupted with stretches of soil span shoulders supporting the pipeline. As thespan shoulder gets shorter and shorter, more and more weight of the pipeline is exerted on the soil. In this process, a critical
.point is reached where the bearing capacity of the soil is exceeded general shear failure . At this point, the pipe begins to .sink at the span shoulder self-burial . It was found that the self-burial depth is governed mainly by the KeuleganCarpenter
number. The time scale of the self-burial process, on the other hand, is governed by the KeuleganCarpenter number and the
Shields parameter. Diagrams are given for the self-burial depth and the time scale of the self-burial process. q 2001 ElsevierScience B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Currents; Onset of scour; Pipeline; Scour; Self-burial; Waves
1. Introduction
If the initial embedment of a pipeline laid on aseabed is not very large, and the flow induced by
.currentsrwaves is sufficiently strong, the bed maybe washed away underneath the pipe, the onset of
scour it may be noted that the bed may not bewashed away underneath the pipe, and yet some
slight scour may occur at the pipeline. In this paper,
however, the term Aonset of scourB will be used for
)
Corresponding author. Fax: q45-45-932860. .E-mail address: [email protected] B.M. Sumer .
the case when the bed is washed away underneath.the pipe . The onset of scour is basically related to
the seepage flow in the sand beneath the pipeline,
which is driven by the pressure difference between
the upstream and downstream sides of the pipe.
The critical conditions for the onset of scour have . .been studied by Mao 1986 , Chiew 1990 , Sumer . .and Fredse 1991 and Klomp et al. 1995 .
.Mao 1986 has described the role of vortices thatform in front and at the rear of the pipe. He has also
discussed the seepage flow underneath the pipe in
relation to the onset of scour. The latter has been .further elaborated by Chiew 1990 . The latter author
0378-3839r01r$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. .P I I : S 0 3 7 8 - 3 8 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 - 1
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
2/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335314
has also linked the onset of scour to the process of
piping. Although the previous work has given a
considerable insight into the process of onset of
scour, the precise impact of the above mentioned
pressure difference on the soil behaviour was not
fully described.
Another problem regarding the onset of scour
concerns the critical condition defining the onset of .scour. Sumer and Fredse 1991 conducted experi-
ments to determine the critical conditions in the case
of waves, and expressed it in terms of two parame-
ters, namely the KeuleganCarpenter number, KC,
and the initial embedment-to-diameter ratio, erD. .Klomp et al. 1995 later extended the Sumer and
.Fredse 1991 study to the case of combined wavesand current. However, no study is yet available
investigating this matter for the case of currents, a
common case which is of large practical importance,
considering pipelinesrcables laid on a riverrseastrait bed.
The first part of the present study addresses the
two issues mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, .namely: 1 the mechanism of the onset of scour, and
the role of the pressure gradient in the latter process .in wavesrcurrents; and 2 the critical condition for
the onset of scour incurrents.
Once the scouring commences, it will propagate
along the length of the pipeline, as sketched in Fig.
1. A three-dimensional scour pattern emerges in
which the scour holes are interrupted by stretches of
Fig. 1. General scour picture around a pipeline.
soil, called span shoulders, where the pipe obtains its
support, section A-A in Fig. 1a.
Various modes of self-burial of the pipe may
occur, depending on the flow, the soil, and the pipe
stiffness:
1. Scour, sagging, backfilling and eventual self-burial of the pipeline between span shoulders.
2. The soil supporting the pipeline may fail due to
liquefaction, leading to the self-burial of the
pipeline.
3. The self-burial of the pipeline occurs at span
shoulders due to the so-called general shear
failure.
The first case has been investigated by Fredse et .al. 1988 . Various accounts of the spreading process
the spreading of scour along the length of the.pipeline have been given in Leeuwenstein et al. . .1985 , Bernetti et al. 1990 , and Hansen et al. .1991, 1995 .
The second case has been investigated by Sumer .et al. 1999 , and various quantities such as the
sinking depth, the time scale, the influence of the
pipes specific gravity, the influence of wave charac-
teristics, etc. have been discussed. It was demon-
strated that a pipe initially sitting on the bed could
sink to a depth of 22.5 D in a soil confined with an
impermeable base below.
The third case, i.e. the self-burial of pipelines at
span shoulders, has been investigated by Sumer and .Fredse 1994 . However, in this latter work, the
flow environment was limited only to steady current.
In the second part of the present study, attention
is concentrated on the self-burial of pipelines at span
shoulders in waves. It turns out that the self-burial
depth is a function of KC, and the variation of the
self-burial depth with KC is the same as that for the
scour depth for a fixed pipeline.
2. Experimental set-up
.Two kinds of experiments were conducted: 1The experiments related to the onset of scour; and .2 those related to the sinking of pipeline at spanshoulders.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
3/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 315
2.1. Experiments related to onset of scour
.Two kinds of experiments were carried out: 1 .current experiments; and 2 wave experiments.
The current experiments were conducted in an
open flume, 2 m in width, 0.5 m in depth and 23 m
in length. The water depth was maintained at 0.30 m.
A 5.5-m-long and 0.10-m-deep sand-bed section was
established in the flume, protected at two ends by .sections of crushed stones 3.5 cm in size with 1:10
slope. The upstream end of the sand-bed section was
12 m from the inlet section of the flume. The test
section itself was 3 m from the upstream end of thesand-bed section. A vertical, guiding wall made of
.plywood divided the working section into two partsalong the length of the sand-bed section so that one
section had the same width as the length of the test
pipe in the wave flume, namely 0.6 m. Two pipe
sizes were used in the experiments, diameter Ds10and 5 cm. The pipe was rigidly fixed in this section
to the side wall of the flume at one end, and to the
guiding wall at the other. The pipe surface was
smooth except in one test where the surface of the
10-cm diameter pipe was roughened, as will be
detailed later. The junction between the pipe and the
side wall may be a critical section for the onset of
scour. This is because a half horseshoe vortex may
form due to the separation of the boundary layer on
the side wall, and cause scour. To avoid this, the
upstream part of the junction between the pipe andthe side wall was filled with sand with an extent ofabout one diameter, both along the length of the pipe
.and along the side wall , moulded in the form of astreamlined surface. This prevented the scour at the
two ends of the pipe.
The wave experiments were carried out in a flume,
0.6 m in width, 0.8 m in depth and 26.5 m in length.
The water depth was maintained constant at 0.33 m.
Monochromatic waves were produced by a piston-
type wave generator. Similar to the current experi-
ments, a 0.10-m deep sand section was established in
the flume, 3-m-long, protected at the ends by crushed
stones. The offshore end of the sand section was 11
m from the wave generator. The test section was
halfway through the length of the sand section. The
pipe was rigidly fixed to the two side walls of the
flume. A wave absorber at the onshore side of the
wave flume was used to minimize the reflection. The
flow velocity was measured by a bi-directional mi-
cropropeller.
The pipe was equipped with two pressure tap-
pings, 5 mm in diameter and covered with 40 mm
nylon filters, 328 apart, as sketched in Fig. 2. They
were connected to pressure transducers. The pres-
sures were recorded automatically at a sampling
frequency of 30 Hz. The length of recording was . .O 10 s for the current experiments, and O 30 s for
the wave experiments, corresponding to the length of
time from the start of the flow to the instant when
the scouring commences. The purpose of the pres-
sure measurement was to obtain the pressure gradi- .ent that causes the seepage flow at the instant of
the onset of scour, as will be detailed later in the
paper. In these measurements, the pipe was slightly
buried with a burial depth of es0.64 cm, as sketched
in Fig. 2.
Two kinds of sand were used in the experiments:d s0.18 mm and geometric standard deviation s50 g
.1r2s d rd s1.2, and d s1.25 mm and ss84 16 50 g1.2.
In the wave experiments, flow visualization tests
were also made. For this, a laser sheet of light
scanned the experimental section vertically, and the
flow was made visible with the sand itself.
The test conditions regarding these experiments
are given in Table 1.
Fig. 2. Set-up for the pressure measurement.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
4/23
Table 1
Test conditions for the onset of scour
2 . Test Flow Burial Pipe Wave U or U , Bed friction Sand Shields Pipe U r gm . .num be r de pth, de pt h, di am ete r, pe riod, c mrs velocity U or size, parameter, Reynolds 1y n Df
2 . . . . . . h cm erD D cm T s U , cmrs d mm u number, U r gw fm 50 m . Re 1y n D
( )a Steady current experiments smooth pipe4
O1.1 30 0.064 10 Increased 0 2.5 0.18 0 0.20 0 5.0= 10 0 0.30
O1.12 gradually
from 0 up
to about 50
4
O2 30 0.01 10 22 1.0 0.18 0.03 2.2= 10 0.06
4O3 30 0.02 10 26 1.2 0.18 0.05 2.6= 10 0.09
4O4 30 0.03 10 28 1.3 0.18 0.06 2.8= 10 0.10
4O5 30 0.05 10 33 1.5 0.18 0.08 3.3= 10 0.14
4O6 30 0.10 10 56.5 2.6 0.18 0.23 5.7= 10 0.42
4O7 30 0.15 10 72.5 3.3 0.18 0.38 7.3= 10 0.69
4O8 30 0.04 5 27 1.3 0.18 0.06 1.4= 10 0.17
4O9 30 0.07 5 37 1.8 0.18 0.12 1.9= 10 0.35
4O10 30 0.10 5 41 2.0 0.18 0.14 2.0= 10 0.44
4O11 30 0.08 10 54 3.2 1.25 0.05 5.4= 10 0.38
4O12 30 0.10 10 58 3.4 1.25 0.06 5.8= 10 0.44
4O13 30 0.125 10 66 3.9 1.25 0.08 6.6= 10 0.57
4O14 30 0.15 10 70 4.2 1.25 0.09 7.0= 10 0.64
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
5/23
( ) y2b Steady current experiments. Rough pipe k rDs 6.0= 10s4
O15 30 0.10 10.0 76 3.4 0.18 0.40 6.0= 10 0.72
( )c Wae experiments4
O16 33 0.064 10 4 45 2.4 0.18 0.19 4.5= 10 0.27
4O17 33 0.07 10 1.8 12.0 1.5 0.18 0.08 1.2= 10 0.02
3O18 33 0.01 10 5 9.0 1.0 0.18 0.04 9.0= 10 0.01
4O19 33 0.02 10 4.8 10.0 1.1 0.18 0.04 1.0= 10 0.01
4O20 33 0.10 10 5.2 14.1 1.2 0.18 0.05 1.4= 10 0.03
4O21 33 0.03 10 4 20.0 1.1 0.18 0.04 1.0= 10 0.05
4O22 33 0.01 10 7.4 13.2 1.1 0.18 0.04 1.3= 10 0.02
4O23 33 0.07 10 3.2 30.5 2.1 0.18 0.15 3.0= 10 0.12
4O24 33 0.05 10 4.3 26.0 1.8 0.18 0.11 2.6=
10 0.09
4O25 33 0.04 10 6.9 21.6 1.4 0.18 0.07 2.1= 10 0.06
4O26 33 0.10 10 6.3 25.0 1.6 0.18 0.09 2.5= 10 0.08
3O27 33 0.10 5 2.6 13.0 1.4 0.18 0.07 6.5= 10 0.04
4O28 33 0.10 5 4.4 21.0 1.6 0.18 0.09 1.1= 10 0.17
4O29 33 0.10 5 4.8 25.0 1.7 0.18 0.10 1.3= 10 0.12
4O30 33 0.15 5 4.3 25.3 1.7 0.18 0.11 1.3 x 10 0.17
4O31 33 0.15 5 3.6 40.4 2.3 0.18 0.18 2.0= 10 0.43
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
6/23
Table 2
Test conditions for self-burial of pipelines. Sand size was d s0.18 mm and angle of internal friction was ws43850
Test Flow Pipe Wave Wave U or U Bed friction Shields Pipe Reynoldm
.number depth, diameter, period, height, cmrs velocity U or parameter, number, f . . . . .h cm D cm T s H cm U cmrs u Rew fm
( )a Steady current experiments4S1 25 10 45 1.7 0.09 4.5=10
( )b Wae experiments4S2 33 10 1.5 10.0 19.6 2.0 0.14 2.0=104S3 33 10 1.5 11.7 25.3 2.3 0.18 2.5=103S4 33 5 2 6.4 13.0 1.5 0.08 6.5=103S5 33 5 2 6.9 18.2 1.8 0.11 9.1=104S6 33 5 2 10.1 20.6 1.9 0.13 1.0=104S7 33 5 2 10.3 23.1 2.0 0.14 1.2=104S8 33 5 2 11.6 28.0 2.2 0.17 1.4=10 4S9 33 5 2.5 12.1 26.5 2.0 0.14 1.3=10 4S10a 33 5 2.5 14.6 31.3 2.2 0.17 1.6=10 4S10b 33 5 2.5 14.6 31.3 2.2 0.17 1.6=10 4S10c 33 5 2.5 14.6 31.3 2.2 0.17 1.6=10 4S10d 33 5 2.5 14.6 31.3 2.2 0.17 1.6=10 4S10e 33 5 2.5 14.6 31.3 2.2 0.17 1.6=10 4S11 33 5 3 10.5 27.1 2.0 0.14 1.4=10 4S12 33 5 3 12.1 30.5 2.1 0.15 1.5=10 4S13 33 5 3 12.6 32.0 2.2 0.16 1.6=10 4S14 33 5 3 14.3 37.2 2.3 0.19 1.9=10 4S15 33 5 3 15.2 41.3 2.4 0.21 2.1=10 4S16 33 5 3 15.7 42.3 2.5 0.21 2.1=10 4S17 33 5 3 16.3 47.1 2.6 0.23 2.4=10 4S18 33 5 3 17.2 50.0 2.7 0.25 2.5=10 4
S19 33 5 3.5 18.5 48.1 2.5 0.22 2.4=10 3S20 33 2 3 8.2 22.2 1.8 0.11 4.4=10 3S21 33 2 3 9.3 30.0 2.1 0.15 6.0=10 3S22 33 2 3 13.6 40.1 2.4 0.20 8.0=10 4S23 33 2 3 16.6 50.2 2.7 0.25 1.0=10
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
7/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 319
In Table 1, U is the undisturbed flow velocity at
the top of the pipe in the case of the steady current,
U is the maximum value of the undisturbed, orbitalmvelocity of water particles at the bed, U is thefundisturbed friction velocity in the case of the steady
current, and U is the maximum value of the undis-fmturbed friction velocity in the case of waves, u is the
Shields parameter defined by
U2fus 2.1 .
g sy1 d . 50
in which s is the specific gravity of sand grains, g is
the acceleration due to gravity. In the case of the
waves, U is replaced by U . Also, in Table 1, Re isf fmthe Reynolds number
UDRes 2.2 .
n
the velocity U is replaced by U for the case of them.waves , and KC is the KeuleganCarpenter number
U Tm wKCs 2.3 .
D
in which T is the wave period. Furthermore, k inw sTable 1 is Nikuradses equivalent sand roughness.
The porosity of the sand used in the tests was
ns0.53 for d s0.18 mm sand and ns0.47 for50d s1.25 mm sand.50
Finally, as seen from Table 1, almost all the tests
correspond to the live-bed conditions, i.e. u)u .cr
2.2. Experiments related to sinking of pipeline at
span shoulders
.Two kinds of experiments were carried out: 1 .current experiments; and 2 wave experiments.
The current experiments were conducted in the
same current flume as that for the onset-of-scour
experiments with the same test setup but without the
splitter wall, yielding a width of the test section of 2
m. The mean water depth was 0.25 m.
An aluminium, 10 cm diameter pipe with hy-
draulically smooth surface was used in the current
experiment. It was 1.98 m in length, with a 1-cm gap
between the pipe and the side wall at each end.
These gaps were designed on purpose, to enable the
scour process to start at the two ends of the pipe, and
.propagate towards the center of the pipe Fig. 13a , .similar to that in Sumer and Fredse 1994 . This
enabled controlled tests.
The pipes were mounted to a vertical frame. The
frame itself was mounted to another frame with
frictionless supports, enabling the pipe to move freely
in the vertical direction. The details of the system .can be found in Sumer and Fredse 1994 . The
vertical displacement of the pipe was measured with
the aid of a potentiometer.
The wave experiments were carried out in the
same wave flume as in the onset-of-scour experi-
ments. The test setup was the same as that in the
current experiments described in the preceding para-
graph. The water depth was 0.33 m. Three kinds of
pipes were used in the tests, with diameters Ds2, 5
and 10 cm, all measuring 59.4 cm in length, allow-
ing 0.3 cm gap at the ends. The gap was large
enough for the scour to start at the two ends of thepipe in the same way as in the current experiments.
The time development of the scour along the length
of the pipe was recorded with the aid of two video
cameras, one viewing the entire length of the span
shoulder in plan view, and the other viewing the .process a close-up view at the junction between the
.pipe and the scoured bed Fig. 13a . Experimentswere done for different values of the specific gravity
of the pipe. This was achieved by applying addi-
tional weights to the frame to which the pipe was
mounted. The flow velocity was measured by abi-directional micropropeller, similar to the onset-
of-scour experiments.
The same sand was used in these tests as for the
onset-of-scour tests. The angle of internal friction of
the sand was measured in a vacuum tri-axial test and
was found to be ws438.
Test conditions for these tests are summarized in
Table 2.
3. Mechanism of onset of scour
3.1. Seepage flow and piping underneath the pipe
When a pipeline is laid on a sediment bed, and .subject to a current Fig. 3 , the pressure difference
between the upstream and the downstream of the
pipe will induce a seepage flow underneath the pipe.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
8/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335320
.Fig. 3. Seepage flow underneath the pipe cf. Fig. 2 .
When the current velocity is increased, a critical
point is reached where the discharge of the seepage
flow will be increased more rapidly than the driving
pressure difference dictates, and simultaneously, the
surface of the sand at the immediate downstream of
the pipe will rise, and eventually a mixture of sand
and water will break through the space underneaththe pipe. This process is called piping, and is well-
known in soil mechanics in conjunction with the
so-called piping failures at hydraulic structures such .as dams, cofferdams, etc. Terzaghi, 1948 .
. .Mao 1986 , Chiew 1990 and Sumer and Fredse .1991 considered the piping as the main mechanismresponsible for the onset of scour below pipelines.
. .Piping or quicksand conditions occur Fig. 3 ina cohesionless granular material when the pressure
.gradient E prg rEx exceeds the floatation gradient . .sy1 1yn :
E pG sy1 1yn 3.1 . . . /Ex g
. .in which Ep r Ex is the pressure gradient driving .the seepage flow just underneath the pipe Fig. 3 , s
.is the specific gravity of sand grains ssgrg , gs sis the specific weight of sand grains, g is the spe-
cific weight of water, and n is the porosity at the
.moment when these two quantities in Eq. 3.1 areequal, the soil element at the exit has lost its internal
.shear strength .The previous investigators Mao, 1986; Chiew,
.1990; Sumer and Fredse, 1991 emphasized, how-ever, that the vortices that form in front of the pipe
and in the lee-wake may contribute to the process of
the onset of scour. We shall return to this point later
in the paper.
3.2. Current case
Fig. 4 shows the time series of the pressure .gradient E prg rEx in the case of the steady cur-
Fig. 4. Time series of the pressure gradient just underneath the pipe that drives the seepage flow. Current case. Test O1.6.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
9/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 321
Fig. 5. Sequence of piping process captured by video. Time
instants correspond to those in Fig. 4.
rent. In this test, the flow velocity is increasedgradually until the critical point where the mixture
of sand and water breaks through underneath the.pipe is reached. The pressure gradient is calculated
from the two pressure time series recorded at points .A and B Fig. 2 :
E p p ypA Bs 3.2 . /Ex g gAB
It may be noted that the pressure distributionalong the surface of the pipe in the soil measured in
a separate test, by rotating the pipe at small incre-.ments showed that the pressure distribution, when
.plotted as a function of the distance x Fig. 3 , islinear, revealing the way in which the pressure gradi-
..ent is calculated Eq. 3.2 .In the test, the junction between the downstream
side of the pipe and the bed was videotaped simulta-
neously with the pressure measurements with a mini .underwater camera Fig. 5a . To enable the onset of
scour to occur precisely at the section of the pressure
measurements, the bed was loosened by removing
the sand at this section, and then replacing it in a
very gentle way. In addition to that, a small channelon the bed 15 cm long, and with decreasing depth,
.from 3 to 0 mm was established, as sketched in Fig.6 note that the figure is not to scale; the dimensions
.of the channel are grossly exaggerated . With thisarrangement, the onset of scour occurred precisely at
the same section where the pressure measurements
were made. This arrangement enabled us to relate the
measured pressure gradient to the videotaped onsetof scour. The obtained picture from the video record-
ing is displayed in Fig. 5b and c cf. the time instants.in Figs. 4 and 5 .
From Figs. 4 and 5, the following deductions can
be made. .1 There are two stages in the process of piping,
.leading to the onset of scour Fig. 5b and c . As the .pressure gradient increases with increasing velocity ,
a point is reached where the surface of the sand at
the immediate downstream of the pipe begins to rise
.Fig. 5b , consistent with the description of the pip-ing process described in conjunction with dams in
. Terzaghi 1948 it may be noted that the videorecording showed clearly that this change in the bed
level was not in the form of piling-up of the sand
due to the lee-wake vortex, but rather in the form of.rise of the bed en masse .
.Fig. 6. Small channel 15-cm long, and with decreasing depth from 3 to 0 mm on the bed, enabling the onset of scour to occur precisely at
the section of the pressure measurements. The figure is not to scale; the dimensions of the channel are grossly exaggerated.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
10/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335322
.2 This stage continues for some period of time .about 5 s, Figs. 4 and 5bc , and is subsequentlyfollowed by the process where a mixture of sand and
.water breaks through Fig. 5c . The instant when thesurface downstream starts the rise marks the instant
when the pressure gradient exceeds the floatation
gradient. Subsequently, grains are progressively re-
moved and a breakthrough develops. The process
will depend on the porosity, internal friction, andlength of flow path the longer the path, the longer it
.takes for the breakthrough to develop . .3 The onset of scour never occurred concur-
rently along the length of the pipe in a two-dimen-
sional fashion, rather it always occurred locally, as
illustrated in Fig. 7. If the bed were absolutely
homogenous, the piping would occur over the full-
length simultaneously. The local occurrence is asso-
ciated with the weakest point.
.4 Fig. 4 shows that, for the piping condition to .occur, the pressure gradient E prg rEx has to reach
. . ..the value equal to 1yn sy1 cf. Eq. 3.1 . Note .that 1 the porosity value used here is ns0.53, and
it was determined for the sand in the loosest condi-
tion, consistent with the condition experienced in the .actual tests; 2 a total of 12 experiments were made,
and the mean value of the pressure gradient .E prg rEx was found to be 0.74 with a standard
deviation 0.14; the slight variation of the pressure
gradient from one experiment to the other may be
attributed to the turbulent wake behind the pipeline; .and 3 as seen the mean value of the pressure
.gradient E prg rEx, namely 0.74, is slightly smaller . .than the floatation gradient 1yn sy1 s0.77.
As described in the preceding paragraphs, the bed
was loosened at the measurement section, and conse-
quently, the floatation gradient was probably less
than 0.77 with a porosity larger than the measured
value 0.53, consistent with the expectation that the
piping occurs when the pressure gradient just ex-
ceeds the floatation gradient. However, we were
unable to measure what exactly the porosity was for
the loosened sand at the measurement section.To facilitate comparison, a supplementary test
was conducted somewhat similar to the staticpres-.sure-gradient test of Chiew, 1990 . In this test, the
pipe was placed in the same flume on the sand bed
Fig. 7. Onset of scour.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
11/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 323
with the same burial depth, namely es0.64 cm
corresponding to erDs0.064. The sand bed was
prepared in exactly the same way as in the current
experiment, corresponding to the loosest condition.
Then, both sides of the pipe were filled with waterhalfway through the pipe height see the small sketch
.in Fig. 8 . Subsequently, the water level at Side A of .the pipe Fig. 8 was gradually increased, and the
pressures at Points A and B were continuously
recorded. Fig. 8 displays the time series of the .pressure gradient E prg rEx obtained from these
.records. In the test, it was observed that 1 thepiping occurred in much the same way as in the
.current experiment, and 2 for the piping to occur, .the pressure gradient E prg rEx has to reach the
. . value 1yn sy1 as seen in Fig. 8, cf. Figs. 4. .and 8 , revealing the criterion in Eq. 3.1 .
Comparison of this result and that in the case of
the current experiment indicates that, in the current .case Fig. 4 , although the pressure-gradient force is
apparently the major mechanism, there is also an
additional mechanism which contributes to the onset
of scour. This mechanism may be related to thevortices mentioned earlier see the small box in Fig.
.4 . These vortices do not exist in the supplementarytest, however, they do exist in the current test, and
therefore they may have contributed to the piping
process exhibited in Fig. 4. However, no clear expla-
nation has been found as to how these vortices
contribute to the onset of scour.
Finally, it should be noted that visual observations
made in the current test showed that the vortices
generated at the downstream and upstream parts of .the pipe see the small box in Fig. 4 did not
undermine the pipe prior to the onset of scour whichwould otherwise lead to a slight reduction in the
length of the streamline of the seepage flow, presum-.ably resulting in larger pressure-gradient forces .
3.3. Wae case
Fig. 9 shows the time series of the pressure .gradient E prg rEx in the wave case. The experi-
mental setup was precisely the same as that in the
current case. For the onset of scour to occur, the
wave height had to be selected very large, and thisled to a highly asymmetric wave asymmetric be-
. .tween the crest and the trough Fig. 9 . As seenfrom the figure, the onset of scour takes place in the
crest half period; clearly, the pressure gradient in the
trough half period is not large enough to cause
piping.
As seen from Fig. 9, the onset of scour occurs .when the pressure gradient E prg rEx reaches the
Fig. 8. Time series of the pressure gradient just underneath the pipe that drives the seepage flow. No current. The seepage flow is caused by
the rising water level at side A.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
12/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335324
Fig. 9. Time series of the pressure gradient just underneath the pipe that drives the seepage flow. Wave case. Test O16.
. .value sy1 1yn , and even exceeds it. This resultis different from that obtained for the current case .Fig. 4 . This difference may be attributed to thetime over which the sand is exposed to the critical
pressure-gradient force. In the case of the current,
this time is quite large, namely in the order of .magnitude of 5 s Fig. 4 , the mixture of sand and
.water breaks through only after O 5 s upon the
application of the critical pressure-gradient force inthe case of the supplementary test mentioned in
connection with the current test, this time is also
large, even larger than that experienced in the case of.the current, Fig. 8 . By contrast, in the case of the
waves, the pressure gradient necessary for the onset
of scour is available only for a very short period of .. .time O 0.5 s for each crest half period, Fig. 9 . It
seems that apparently this small exposure to the
critical pressure gradient is not long enough for the
piping to occur. It is only when the pressure gradient
is increased further, and after some number of expo-
sures, the piping takes place, resulting in the onset of
scour. It may be added that the breakthrough is a
progressive process; each wave loosens some grains
on the exit side.
Simultaneous measurements of the surface eleva-tion h not shown in Fig. 9 to keep the figure
.relatively simple and the pressure gradient
.E prg rEx showed that there is a phase difference .between h and E prg rEx: the pressure gradient
.Fig. 9 lags about 20258 behind the surface eleva-tion. Fig. 10 shows a sequence of flow picturesfrom the laser-sheet flow visualization study for the
Fig. 10. Sequence of flow pictures over one period of wave. Test
O16. h is the surface elevation. A new vortex, vortex N, forms . .frame 3 after vortex M is washed over the pipeline frame 2 .
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
13/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 325
.same wave conditions as in Fig. 9 over one waveperiod. The instant where the onset of scour occurs
coincides almost with the passage of the wave crest .frame 1 in Fig. 10 where the flow is in the direc-
tion of wave propagation and the lee-wake with.vortex M is well established. This observation rec-
onciles with the flow pattern in the case of the .steady-current see the small sketch in Fig. 4 . Al-
though the flow picture is similar when the trough is .passing frame 3 in Fig. 10 , the onset of scour did
not occur in this half period because the magnitude
of the pressure gradient was not large enough, as has
been pointed out in conjunction with Fig. 9.
4. Criterion for the onset of scour
4.1. In steady current
..The criterion for the onset of scour Eq. 3.1 canbe written in the following non-dimensional form:
Onset of scour occurs if
Ep ) U2
qR G1 4.1 .) 5Ex gD 1yn sy1 . .
cr
in which
p x) )p s , x s 4.2 .2
DrU
r is the water density, U is the undisturbed flowvelocity at the top of the pipeline the top velocity
rather than the center-line velocity is adopted here,
considering the cases where the pipeline may be.buried with erD larger than 0.5 , and g is the
acceleration due to gravity. The term R is a small,
non-dimensional term, and is included here to repre-
sent the effects other than the pressure-gradient forcemainly the effect of the vortices forming in front ofthe pipe and, particularly, in the lee-wake discussed
. ) . ) .in the preceding paragraphs . Both Ep r Ex andR are essentially a function of the burial-depth-to-di-
ameter ratio, erD. Therefore, the criterion for the
onset of scour can be written in the following form.
2U eGf 4.3 . /gD 1yn sy1 D . .
cr
.where the function f erD is to be determined fromexperiments. It may be noted that f is actually a
function of not only the gap-to-diameter ratio, erD,
but also the pipe Reynolds number, ResUDrn,
and the relative roughness krD in which n is theskinematic viscosity and k is the surface roughnesssof the pipe. However, it is expected that the influ-
ence of these latter parameters will not be very
significant, if there is no significant change in the
flow regime, i.e. if the flow around the pipe does not
change from the subcritical regime to the supercriti-
cal regime, or from the supercritical regime to thetranscritical regime see, e.g. Sumer and Fredse,
.1997, Chapter 1 , as will be demonstrated later in thesection. Also, it may be mentioned that cohesionless
granular material is considered in the present analy-sis. Otherwise, soil properties including permeabil-
. ity will also influence the onset of scour clearly, in
the case when the permeability0, the break-.through will never occur . The focus in this subsec-
tion will be on the variation with erD.
The data obtained in the present investigation for .the onset of scour is plotted in the form of Eq. 4.3
in Fig. 11. The procedure used in the tests is as
follows. .1 Level off the bed. . 2 Place the pipe on the sand bed gently without
.pressing it , and fix it to the side walls. Then, fill thetwo sides of the pipe with sand up to the level
corresponding to the burial depth, e, to be studied inthe test. Make sure that the bed at the two sides of
the pipe is more or less horizontal. .3 Increase the flow velocity in small increments
until the onset of scour occurs. Identify this criticalvelocity at this point keep the time of increasing the
flow velocity as short as possible to ensure that no
buildup of sand at the downstream side of the pipe
occurs; the latter would obviously change the picture
regarding the seepage flow and the piping, and there-.fore not desired .
.4 Repeat the exercise in items 1 3 for the nextburial depth to be investigated.
Fig. 11 shows that the larger the burial depth, the
higher the critical velocity for the onset of scour, as
expected. This is because, as the burial depth in-
creases, the pressure gradient will be decreased,
therefore relatively higher velocities will be required
to cause piping.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
14/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335326
Fig. 11. Critical condition for the onset of scour. Current case. Tests O1O14.
.Fig. 11 further shows that 1 the results for twodifferent pipe diameters, namely Ds5 and 10 cm,
seem to coincide, when plotted in terms of the .non-dimensional quantities in Fig. 11, and 2 like-
wise, the results for two different sand sizes, namely
d s0.18 and 1.25 mm, seem to collapse on a50single curve, revealing that the results are unaffected
by the sand size. Note that the experiments forcoarser sand were not conducted for burial depths
smaller than erDs0.08. This is because, for such
small values of erD, the sand will no longer act as acontinuous medium. Therefore, the results will not
.make sense .The data in Fig. 11 can be represented by the
following empirical expression2 0 .5U ecr
s0.025 exp 9 4.4 . /gD 1yn sy1 D . .in which U is the critical undisturbed flow velocitycr .measured at the level of the top of the pipeline forthe onset of scour.
Finally, it may be noted that the time required for
the flow to remove the grains and open a AbreachBwill be appreciably longer for larger diameter pipes
than for those used in the present study.
4.2. Effect of change in flow regime
To see the effect of change in the flow regime
around the pipeline, the 10 cm diameter pipe was
coated with 0.3 cm diameter and 0.3 cm height
cylinder-shaped plastic grains. The burial depth tested
in this experiment was erDs0.1. The grains were .glued in a densely packed manner to the cylinder,
and the roughness height measured from the base.pipe surface to the top of the roughness elements
was 0.3 cm, or alternatively the Nikuradses equiva-
lent sand roughness k +2=0.3s0.6 cm, giving asrelative roughness of krDs6=10y2 . To keep thesboundary condition in the sand the same as in the
case of the smooth pipe, the holes between theroughness elements were filled with plastic for the
portion of the pipe that stays in the sand bed. The
only difference between the rough-pipe test and the
smooth-pipe test is that, in the smooth-pipe case, the
flow around the pipe was in the subcritical regime 4 .Res5.7=10 , whereas, in the rough-pipe case, it
4was in the transcritical regime Res6=10 , krDsy2 . .s6=10 Sumer and Fredse, 1997 .
The result of this experiment is compared with its
smooth-pipe counterpart in Table 3.
As seen, the critical value of the parameter2 . ..U r gD 1yn sy1 is now a factor of 1.7 larger
than that for the smooth-pipe case. This is because,
in the case of the rough pipe, the flow is in the
transcritical regime, therefore the pressure gradientwill be smaller due to the relatively larger wake
.pressure, see, e.g. Sumer and Fredse, 1997, p. 41 ,and hence, relatively larger velocities will be re-
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
15/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 327
Table 3
Comparison of critical condition for the onset of scour for two different flow regimes. Burial depth, erDs0.1
2Test Pipe Critical Pipe Reynolds Pipe Flow regime U rcr .number velocity for number at the roughness, gD sy1 ..the onset of scour, critical velocity, krD 1yns
.U cmrs ResU Drncr cr4O6 Smooth 56.5 5.7=10 Subcritical 0.424 y2
O15 Rough 76.0 6.0=
10 6=
10 Transcritical 0.72
quired for the onset of scour. This result suggests
that, for extremely large pipelines with smooth sur- 5..face Re)O 10 , or for mediumrlarge size
4 .pipelines with very large roughness Re)O 10 , y2 .. krD)O 10 where the flow regime is trans-s
.critical, see, e.g. Sumer and Fredse, 1997 , thecritical curve for the onset of scour displayed in Fig.
11 may be shifted upwards so that the critical value
2 . ..of the parameter U r gD 1yn sy1 would be afactor of 1.52 larger than depicted in Fig. 11.
4.3. In waes
In the case of waves, the criterion given in Eq. .4.3 can be adopted provided that the following willbe followed.
Fig. 12. Critical condition for the onset of scour. Tests O16O31. Steady-current result is taken from Fig. 11.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
16/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335328
.1 U is replaced by U , the maximum value ofmthe orbital velocity of water particles at the bed.
.2 There will be an additional parameter regard- .ing the function f, namely f erD, KC . This is ) . ) .because, in this case, the terms Ep r Ex and R
.in Eq. 4.1 are also governed by the KeuleganCarpenter number KC see, e.g. Sumer and Fredse,
.1997 .The dependence of the onset of scour on KC has
.been discussed by Sumer and Fredse 1991 . In thelatter study, the variation of the critical burial depth
for the onset of scour with KC was obtained; how-2 .ever, the role of the parameter U r gD 1yn sy
..1 was not recognized. .The data obtained by Sumer and Fredse 1991
has been recast, and plotted in Fig. 12 together with
the present data. It is seen that both parameters,2 . ..namely KC and U r gD 1yn sy1 , are equallym
significant.For a given value of KC, the critical value of the
2 . ..parameter U r gD 1yn sy1 increases with in-mcreasing erD. This can be explained in the same
way as in the case of the steady current. Likewise,
for a given value of erD, the critical value of the2 . ..parameter U r gD 1yn sy1 increases with in-m
creasing KC. This is because the pressure gradientdecreases with increasing KC cf. the pressure dia-
gram given in Sumer and Fredse, 1991, Fig. 3, and.that in Bearman and Zdravkovich, 1978, Fig. 1 ,
therefore larger and larger velocities will be neededfor the onset of scour, meaning that the critical value
2 . ..of U r gD 1yn sy1 will increase with in-mcreasing KC.
Fig. 12 indicates that, as the KeuleganCarpenter2 number increases, the critical value of U r gD 1ym
. ..n sy1 approaches that in the case of the steady .current. For example, for erDsO 0.05 , the critical
2 . ..value of U r gD 1yn sy1 approaches that form .the steady current for KC)O 20 . This is linked to
the fact that the pressure gradient in the case of the
waves approaches that experienced in the case of the
steady current.
The present study focuses on the variations with
respect to KC and erD. The variation with the .number of waves or the time required for the
piping to occur has not been studied. Similar to the
case of steady current, the time required for the
piping to develop will be appreciably longer for
larger diameter pipes than for those used in the
present study.
5. Self-burial of pipeline at span shoulder
After the scour breaks out underneath the pipe, it
propagates along the length of the pipeline, as
sketched in Fig. 1. A three-dimensional scour pattern
emerges in which the scour holes are interrupted by
stretches of soil, called span shoulders, where the
pipe obtains its support, section A-A in Fig. 1a. As
has been mentioned in Section 1, various cases may
occur, depending on the flow, the soil, and the pipe
stiffness. The present study focuses on the self-burial
of pipelines at span shoulders. As indicated in Sec-
tion 1, attention will be concentrated on the case of
waves.
5.1. Mechanism of self-burial
The process of self-burial occurs as follows. The
scour begins to propagate along the length of thepipeline after the onset of the process Hansen et al.,
.1991 . As the process continues, the length of thefree span will be larger and larger at the expense of
the span shoulder. Therefore, more and more weight
of the pipe will be exerted on the soil over a shorter .and shorter length of the span shoulder Fig. 13a .
This process may reach such levels that the bearingcapacity of the soil is exceeded, and therefore the
soil fails. The failure occurs by sliding in the two
outward directions, as indicated in Fig. 13b. This
type of failure is known as a general shear failure in .soil mechanics Terzaghi, 1948 . Clearly, as the scour
continues, the bearing capacity of the soil will be
exceeded constantly due to the continuous reduction
of the bearing area, leading to the permanent sinking
of the pipe. The process will stop, only when the
pipe sinks to such depths that it will be protected
against the scour. When the scour stops, obviously
the constant failure of the soil will stop, and conse-
quently the sinking of the pipe will come to an end.
As implied in the preceding paragraph, the scour .at the two ends of the span shoulder Fig. 13a is the
key mechanism for the process of pipe sinking. The
scour process itself is governed mainly by the Keule-ganCarpenter number Sumer and Fredse, 1994,
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
17/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 329
Fig. 13. Definition sketch. Sinking of pipeline at span shoulder.
.1999 . This is essentially linked to the lee-wake,precisely in the same way as in the case of two-di-
mensional scour below a pipeline; the higher the
KeuleganCarpenter number, the longer the lee-wakethat forms behind the pipe in each half period of the
. motion , the larger the scour see Sumer and Fredse,.1990, for a detailed discussion . This suggests that,
.first of all, the sinking depth the self-burial depth ,e, normalized by the pipe diameter D, should be a
function of the KeuleganCarpenter number KC;
and secondly erD should increase with increasing
KC. The following sections will basically discuss
this issue.
5.2. Self-burial depth
Fig. 14 presents the results of a self-burial testmade in the present study. Here KC was 16 Table
.2 . There are three stages in the process.
.1 During the first 40 s, the scour spreads alongthe length of the pipe until the length of the bearing
.area is reduced to ls40 cm Fig. 14b . .2 At this point, the pipe begins to sink in the
.sand Fig. 14a due to the general shear failure, asdescribed in the preceding paragraphs. This stage
continues for about a little more than 400 s. .3 Subsequently, the space between the pipe and
the scour hole is gradually backfilled with sand, and
the length of the span shoulder begins to increase by
virtue of the backfilling process. This stage takes .place from 480 to 540 s Fig. 14b . With the comple-
tion of this stage, the pipe is eventually buried to a .depth of 2.0 cm erDs0.39 .
The process occurs in precisely the same manner .as described by Sumer and Fredse 1994 for the
case of the steady current.
Fig. 15 displays the data regarding the equilib-
rium self-burial depth obtained in the present experi-
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
18/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335330
. .Fig. 14. a Time series of sinking of the pipe and b that of the length of span shoulder. Test S10c.
ments. The existing steady current data from the .present work and from Stansby and Starr 1991 isalso included note that only the data of Stansby and
. .Starrs work with u)u live-bed is included .crFirst of all, Fig. 15 shows clearly that the self-
burial depth is a function of the KeuleganCarpenter
number, KC. It increases with increasing KC, asexpected see the discussion in the previous Section
.5.2 . Secondly, the influence of the pipes specificgravity, s, on the end results is insignificant see the
data point for KCs16, the cross, and also the.legend in Fig. 15 , for this KC number, five tests
were conducted with five different values of s in the
range 1.256, and it was found that the sinking
depth was practically unchanged. Sumer and Fredse .1994 reached the same conclusion in the case ofthe steady current. The sinking is uninfluenced, be-
cause the key element in the process is the scour;
when the scour stops, the sinking will also stop, as
discussed in the preceding subsection. Since thepipes specific gravity is not an influencing factor for
the scour, it will therefore not affect the self-burial
depth.
Although not included here, the present wave
results compare well with those of Stansby and Starr .1991 . However, this is for KC larger than about20. For KCQ20, the self-burial depths of Stansby
and Starr begin to assume smaller and smaller values
with decreasing KC for KCQ20. This may be
attributed to the small pipe size in Stansby and
Starrs experiments; for KC numbers smaller than
about 20, the self-burial depth measured by the latter .authors is esO 0.20.3 cm , and clearly, such
small values of e may be subject to considerable
uncertainty.
Fig. 16 compares the present self-burial data with .the data of Sumer and Fredse 1990 for the scour
depth below a fixed pipeline with an originally zero
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
19/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 331
Fig. 15. Self-burial depth vs. KC. Tests S1 S23. Live bed. u)u .cr
.clearance between the pipe and the bed ; see thelegend in Fig. 16. As seen, these two sets of data
agree quite well. This is an interesting result. It can
be explained as follows.
Now, as the sand at the span shoulder fails pro-
gressively, the pipe sinks in the sand, and, at the
same time, it falls in the scour holes at the two sides .of the span shoulder Fig. 13a . The scour process
comes to an end when the pipe reaches the bottom of .these scour holes Fig. 17b . At this moment, the
.scour depth, S Fig. 17b will be fairly close to thatobtained for a fixed pipe originally in contact with
. .the bed Fig. 17a , Fredse et al. 1988 . This im-plies that the self-burial depth at the span shoulder
should be the same as the latter, as revealed by Fig.
16.
Although not tested directly due to the experi-.mental constraints , the preceding results imply that:
1. a pipeline may be self-buried completely for .KC larger than O 100 ; and
2. the self-burial depth of pipelines may reach
values as high as erD, 3, for very large KC .numbers such as O 1000 , representing the tidal
flow conditions.
The following empirical expression, given origi- .nally by Sumer and Fredse 1990 for the equilib-
rium scour depth below a fixed pipeline with an.initial zero gap between the pipe and the bed , can be
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
20/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335332
Fig. 16. Self-burial depth, and scour depth vs. KC. Live bed. u)u .cr
used to assess the self-burial depth of pipelines at .span shoulders for KCQ100 Fig. 16 :
e 's0.1 KC . 5.1 .D
Caution must be exercised when extrapolating the
preceding equation for KC larger than 100, as it has
not been tested for the self-burial of pipelines for
such large KC numbers.
Finally, it may be noted that the process of self-
burial studied here is due to general shear failure of
the soil. However, the self-burial may occur due to
other processes as well, as mentioned in Section 1. .Sumer et al. 1999 report self-burial of pipelines in
the laboratory to depths as much as 22.5 D, due to
liquefaction of soil caused by the buildup of pore .pressure. Sakai et al. 1994 report block subsidence
in the laboratory, due partly to the so-called momen-tary liquefaction where the soil is, over a short
period of time, liquefied during the passage of wave.troughs, see Sakai et al., 1992 , and partly to the
.oscillatory flow action. Raudkivi 1976, p. 365 re- .ports a pipeline settling in the surf zone in the field
4 m under the bed level, due to liquefactionrfluidi-zation of bed under waves.
Fig. 17. Definition sketch.
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
21/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 333
5.3. Time scale of self-burial process
The sinking of the pipe develops towards theequilibrium stage through a transitional period Fig.
.14a . The time scale of the process may be definedby the following equation
`1Ts eye d t 5.2 . .H t
e 0
.see the definition sketch in Fig. 18 . Here, e is theequilibrium sinking depth and e is the sinking depthtat time t. The time scale T can be interpreted as the
time over which a substantial amount of self-burial
takes place.
The data regarding the time scale is plotted in Fig.
18 as a function of two parameters, namely the
KeuleganCarpenter number, KC, and the Shields
parameter, u. Here, T) is the normalized time scale
defined by
1r23g sy1 d .)T s T 5.3 .2D
.Fredse et al., 1992 , considering that the time scale
of the self-burial process is similar to that of thescour process that induces the self-burial. Fredse et
.al. 1992 gives the background regarding the non-dimensional time scale T) . This non-dimensional
quantity can easily be obtained by normalizing the
equation of sediment continuity. .1 As seen from Fig. 18, the time scale decreases
with increasing u. This is because the larger the
value of u, the higher the sediment transport in the
scour process, the faster the sinking of the pipe in the
sand; therefore, the time scale should increase with
Fig. 18. Time scale of sinking process as a function of KC and u)u .cr
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
22/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335334
increasing u. On the other hand, the figure shows
that the larger the KeuleganCarpenter number, the
larger the time scale. This is because the larger the
value of KC, the larger the scour depth, therefore the
larger the volume of the sand undergoing scour,
hence the larger the time scale. .2 Although there is only one data point for the
case of the steady current, apparently the time scale
of the self-burial process in the case of the steady
current seems to be quite close to that for the case of
waves with KCs24. This may be linked to the
self-burial depth. Fig. 16 suggests that the self-burialdepth for the two cases namely, the steady-current
.case and the case of KCs24 are rather close.Therefore, the time scale of the self-burial process
should also be close to each other.
6. Conclusions
.1 The pressure difference between the upstreamand downstream sides of a pipeline drives a seepage
flow underneath the pipe. When this seepage flow
becomes excessive, piping occurs; a mixture of water
and sand breaks through underneath the pipe, result-
ing in the onset of scour below the pipeline. .2 The previously mentioned pressure difference
together with other effects of secondary importancesuch as vortices forming in front of and at the
.lee-wake of the pipe are the agitating forces for thepiping process.
.3 In the case of the steady current the criticalcondition for the onset of scour is determined by two
parameters, the burial depth of the pipe, erD, and a2 parameter involving the flow velocity, U r gD 1y
. ..n sy1 . The critical condition can be assessed fora given pipeline and a given current climate from
Fig. 11. .4 In the case of the waves, there is an additional
parameter, namely the KeuleganCarpenter number,
KC. The critical condition in this case can be deter-
mined, using Fig. 12. .5 Once the scour breaks out, it will propagate
along the length of the pipeline. Scour holes are .interrupted with stretches of soil span shoulders
supporting the pipeline. As the span shoulders get
shorter and shorter, more and more weight of the
pipeline is exerted on the soil. In this process, a
critical point is reached where the bearing capacity .of the soil is exceeded general shear failure . At this
point, the pipe begins to sink at the span shoulder. . .6 The ultimate equilibrium self-burial depth is
a function of KC. The larger the value of KC, the
larger the self-burial depth of the pipeline. . .7 Eq. 5.1 may be used to assess the self-burial
depth for a given wave climate. In the case of the
steady current, on the other hand, the self-burial
depth is 5080% of the pipe diameter. .8 The time scale of the self-burial process is
d ep en de nt o f two p ara me te rs, n am ely th e
KeuleganCarpenter number and the Shields param-
eter, and it may be assessed, using Fig. 18.
List of symbols
D Pipe diameter
d50 Sand size
e .Embedment burial depth of the pipeline .for the onset of scour tests ; otherwise,equilibrium self-burial depth of pipeline
et .Self-burial depth sinking depth at time tg Acceleration due to gravity
h Water depth
KC KeuleganCarpenter number, U T rDm wn Porosity of sand
p Pressure
p ) 2 .Non-dimensional pressure, pr rURe Reynolds number, UDrn, or U Drnm
s Specific gravity of sand, rrrssp Specific gravity of pipeline, rrrpt Time
T Time scale of self-burial process
T) Nondimensional time scale of self-burialw . 3x1r2 2process, g sy1 d TrD
Tw Wave period
U Undisturbed flow velocity at the top of the
pipeline
Um Maximum value of the orbital velocity of
water particles at the bed
Uf
Friction velocity in the case of currents
Ufm Maximum value of the friction velocity in
the case of waves
x distance along the surface of the pipeline in .the sand Fig. 3
x ) Non-dimensional distance, xrD
g Specific weight of water
gs Specific weight of sand grains
-
7/29/2019 Onset of Scouring
23/23
( )B.M. Sumer et al.rCoastal Engineering 42 2001 313335 335
h Surface elevation
u Shields parameter
n Kinematic viscosity
w Angle of internal friction of sand
Acknowledgements
This study was partially funded by the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, Directorate-Gen-
eral XII for Science, Contract No. MAS3-CT97-097, .Scour Around Coastal Structures SCARCOST , and
.by the 5-year 19992004 Framework Programme
AComputational HydrodynamicsB of the Danish
Technical Research Academy, STVF.
References
Bearman, P.W., Zdravkovich, M.M., 1978. Flow around a circular
cylinder near a plane boundary. J. Fluid Mech. 109, 3348.
Bernetti, R., Bruschi, R., Valentini, V., Venturi, M., 1990.
Pipelines placed on erodible seabeds. Proc. 9th International
Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
Conference, ASME, Houston, TX, vol. V, pp. 155164.
Chiew, Y.-M., 1990. Mechanics of local scour around submarine .pipelines. J. Hydraul. Eng., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 116 4 ,
515529.
Fredse, J., Hansen, E.A., Mao, Y., Sumer, B.M., 1988. Three-di-
mensional scour below pipelines. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic
Eng., Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. 110, 373379.Fredse, J., Sumer, B.M., Arnskov, M.M., 1992. Time scale for
wavercurrent scour below pipelines. Int. J. Offshore Polar .Eng. 2 1 , 1317.
Hansen, E.A., Staub, C., Fredse, J., Sumer, B.M., 1991. Time-
development of scour induced free spans of pipelines. Proc.
10th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference,
ASME, Stavanger, Norway. Pipeline Technology, vol. 5, pp.
2531.
Hansen, E.A., Klomp, W.H.G., Smed, P.F., Bijker, R., Bryndum,
M.B., 1995. Free span development and self-lowering of
pipelinesrcables. Proc. 14th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering Conference, ASME, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pipeline Technology, vol. 5, pp. 409417.
Klomp, W.H.G., Hansen, E.A., Chen, Z., Bijker, R., Bryndum,
M.B., 1995. Pipeline seabed interaction, free span develop-
ment. Proc. 5th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf., The
Hague, Netherlands, June 1116, vol. II, pp. 117122.
Leeuwenstein, W., Bijker, E.A., Peerbolte, E.B., Wind, H.G.,
1985. The natural self-burial of submarine pipelines. Proc. 4thInternational Conf. on Behavior of Offshore Structures .BOSS , vol. 2. Elsevier, pp. 717728.
Mao, Y., 1986. The interaction between a pipeline and an erodi-
blebed. Series Paper 39, Tech. Univ. of Denmark, ISVA, in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Raudkivi, A.J., 1976. Loosed Boundary Hydraulics. 2nd edn.
Pergamon.
Sakai, T., Hatanaka, K., Mase, H., 1992. Wave-induced effective
stress in seabed and its momentary liquefaction. J. Waterw., .Port Coastal Ocean Eng., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 118 2 , 202
206, See also Discusions and Closure in vol. 119, No. 6, pp.
692697.
Sakai, T., Gotoh, H., Yamamoto, T., 1994. Block subsidence
under pressure and flow. Proceedings of the 24th Conference .on Coastal Engineering ICCE 94 , 2328 October, Kobe,
Japan. pp. 15411552.
Stansby, P.K., Starr, P., 1991. On a horizontal cylinder resting on
a sand bed under waves and current. Int. J. Offshore Polar .Eng. 2 4 , 262266.
Sumer, B.M., Fredse, J., 1990. Scour below pipelines in waves.
J. Waterw., Port Coastal Ocean Eng., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 116 .3 , 307323.
Sumer, B.M., Fredse, J., 1991. Onset of scour below a pipeline .exposed to waves. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 1 3 , 189 194.
Sumer, B.M., Fredse, J., 1994. Self-burial of pipelines at span
.shoulders. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 4 1 , 30 35.Sumer, B.M., Fredse, J., 1997. Hydrodynamics Around Cylindri-
cal Structures. World Scientific, xviiiq530 pp.
Sumer, B.M., Fredse, J., 1999. Wave Scour Around Structures. .In: Liu, P.L.-F. Ed. , Advances in Coastal and Ocean Engi-
neering, vol. 4. World Scientific, Chapter, 51 pp.
Sumer, B.M., Fredse, J., Christensen, S., Lind, M.T., 1999.
SinkingrFloatation of pipelines and other objects in liquefied .soil under waves. Coastal Eng. 38 2 , 5390, October.
Terzaghi, K., 1948. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New
York.