Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byTheodora Reynolds Modified over 9 years ago
1
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Erosion rate formulation and modeling of turbidity current Ao Yi and Jasim Imran Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
2
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Recent Progress in numerical modeling of density currents considering the vertical structure Stacey & Bowen (1988): Temporal evolution of vertical structure of density and turbidity current using zero Equation turbulence model. Convective and diffusive terms in the flow direction neglected. Meiburg et al. : (2000) Used DNS to solve the Navier Stokes equations for density current at low Reynolds number (with Boussinesq assumption) Imran, Kassem, & Khan AND Kassem & Imran (2005): Used the commercial flow solver FLUENT to simulate density current in confined and unconfined straight and sinuous channel. The model used RANS Equations and k-e turbulence closure Felix (2001): Solved the RANS equations for lock exchange particulate currents at large scale using 2 equation Mellor-Yamada level 2.5 model Choi and García (2002): Simulated continuous dilute saline density current on a ramp by solving 2- D steady state boundary layer equation using the 2 equation k-epsilon turbulence model Huang, Imran & Pirmez (2005): Solved 2 equation k-epsilon model for turbidity current for well- sorted sediment. Considered bed level change by adjusting the bed boundary and the grids during the computation. Successfully reproduced Garcia’s (1990) experiment including the flow structure and bed level changes.
3
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA For conservative density currents, numerical modeling has certainly reached very high level of sophistication. Where are we in terms of modeling turbidity currents and the morphological changes at the field scale ? Does not matter how much detail of the current one can churn out from the most sophisticated solution of the Navier-Stoke Equations, there is no escape from van Rijn or Akiyama-Fukushima, or Garcia-Parker or Smith-McLean or some other ‘empirical relationship’ that defines sediment entrainment from the bed!
4
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Suppose we make numerical model runs keeping the boundary conditions and computational grid same but choose different entrainment relationships in different runs Can we expect to see the same result?
5
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA We need to pay serious attention to the modeling of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) & the sediment entrainment from the bed
6
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Peak velocity region poses a strong barrier to mixing Barrier to diffusion If there is a sediment pick up, can The particles diffuse above the ‘fish-trap’?
7
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA How turbulence closure affects the result?
8
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Consider three different closure models k – l model ( 1 eq n model) Turbulence kinetic energy (k) is calculated using transport equation where turbulence length scale (l) is calculated using an empirical formula. q 2 – l model ( 1 eq n model) Turbulence velocity scale (q) is calculated using transport equation where turbulence length scale (l) is calculated using an empirical formula. k – ε model ( 2 eq n model) Both turbulence kinetic energy (k) and its dissipation rate (ε) are calculated using transport equations.
9
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
10
Let us revisit the Parker et al. (1986) work
11
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Four equation model
12
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Three erosion rate relationships 1. Akiyama and Fukushima (1985) –E-I
13
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA 2. Garcia and Parker (1993)-E-II
14
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA 3. Smith and McLean (1977) –E-III ;
15
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Four Equation model under steady-state condition
16
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA What is ignition condition? For known values of current thickness, sediment size, and bed slope, there is a combination of velocity, turbulent kinetic energy, and concentration at which the flow will ignite or become erosional.
17
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Set the left side of these equations equal to zero and find solution for U, and K Pick the lowest positive value
18
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ignition Condition
19
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA E-II-I E-III-I E-III-II
20
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
21
UI vs. h0/Ds for Ds = 0.03 mm, 0.06 mm, and 0.1 mm. S and Cf* are respectively set equal to 0.05 and 0.004
22
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Phase diagram computed for the case: Ds = 0.1 mm, h0 = 5 m, Cf* = 0.004 and S = 0.1. A - U0 = 0.6 m/s, 0 = 2.0×10-4 m 2 /s, and K0 = 8.0×10-3 m 2 /s 2
23
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Phase diagram computed for the case: Ds = 0.03 mm, h0 = 1 m, Cf* = 0.004 and S = 0.05. C- U 0 = 0.2 m/s, 0 = 2.0×10-5 m 2 /s, and K0 = 1.0×10 -3 m 2 /s 2
24
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Cross field for case Ds = 0.1 mm, h0 = 5 m, Cf* = 0.004, and S = 0.1
25
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Cross field for case Ds = 0.03 mm, h0 = 1 m, Cf* = 0.004, and S = 0.05
26
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA A
27
C
28
Conclusions 1. The ignition values obtained with different models can vary widely. 2. A turbidity current predicted to be subsiding by one entrainment relation could turn out to be igniting when a different entrainment model is used. 3. Important implication in the numerical modeling of turbidity current 4. Further research on the topic of sediment entrainment is crucial
29
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA ACKNOWLEDGMENT Funding from the National Science Foundation (OCE-0134167) is gratefully acknowledged.
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.