3 views

Uploaded by cffyau

Sediment-laden turbulent buoyant jets are commonly encountered in the nat- ural and man-made environments. Examples of sediment-laden buoyant jets include volcanic eruptions, deep ocean hydrothermal vents (“black smokers”), ocean dumping of dredged spoils and sludge, and submarine discharge of wastew- ater effluent. It is important to understand the fluid mechanics of sediment jets for environmental impact assessment, and yet there is currently no general model for predicting the mixing of sediment-laden jets. This study reports a theoretical and experimental investigation the sediment mixing, fall-out and deposition from sediment-laden buoyant jets.
It is well known that turbulence generates fluctuations to the particle mo- tion, modulating the particle settling velocity. A general three-dimensional (3D) stochastic particle tracking model is developed to predict the particle settling out and deposition from a sediment-laden jet. Particle velocity fluctuations are modelled by a Lagrangian velocity autocorrelation function that accounts for the loitering and trapping of sediment particles in turbulent eddies which results in the reduction of settling velocity. The model is validated against results of independent experimental studies. Consistent with basic experiments using grid- generated turbulence, the model predicts that the apparent settling velocity can be reduced by as much as 30% of the stillwater settling velocity.
The mixing and deposition of sediment-laden horizontal momentum jets are studied using laboratory experiments and 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling. It is shown that there is a significant settling velocity reduction up to about 25-35%, dependent on jet turbulent fluctuations and particle proper- ties. The CFD approach necessitates an ad hoc adjustment/reduction on settling velocity and lacks generality. Using classical solutions of mean velocity, and tur- bulent fluctuation and dissipation rate profiles derived from CFD solutions, 3D particle tracking model predictions of sediment deposition and concentration pro- files are in excellent agreement with measured data over a wide range of jet flow and particle properties. Unlike CFD calculations, the present method does not require any a priori adjustment of particle settling velocity.
A general particle tracking model for predicting sediment fall-out and deposition from an arbitrarily inclined buoyant jets in stagnant ambient is successfully developed. The model incorporates the three flow regimes affecting the sediment dynamics in a buoyant jet, namely turbulent jet flow, jet entrainment-induced external flow and surface spreading current. The jet mean flow velocity is de- termined using a well-validated jet integral model. The external jet-induced irrotational flow field is computed by a distribution of point sinks along the jet trajectory. The surface spreading current is predicted using an integral model accounting for the interfacial shear. The model is validated against experimental data of sediment deposition from vertical and horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jets.

- Thesis Openfoam 2d Airfoil
- CFD Modeling of the Gas–Particle Flow Behaviour in Kiln Burner Pipe
- Two-phase Flow Structure
- Using Computational Fluid Dynamics as a tool for improved prediction of pressure characteristics of a pilot chamber of PRSOV
- 141231
- multiple layer identification
- 0f31752f049526c164000000
- CFX-Intro_16_L10_Turbulence.pdf
- 65-74ff
- Revista
- Turbulence
- Acoustical characterization of perforated facings
- Blazej 2dairlift Manuscript
- Respond Areas in Space (1)
- 10.1.1.193.6540
- CFD Supercritical Airfoils
- week 1
- 85.pdf
- grid turbulence
- p803035_A1b

You are on page 1of 262

Advisor(s) Lam, KM

laden buoyant jets. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam,

Citation Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b5060572

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/188746

Rights and the right to use in future works.

Abstract of thesis entitled

submitted by

at the University of Hong Kong

in January 2013

ural and man-made environments. Examples of sediment-laden buoyant jets

include volcanic eruptions, deep ocean hydrothermal vents (black smokers),

ocean dumping of dredged spoils and sludge, and submarine discharge of wastew-

ater effluent. It is important to understand the fluid mechanics of sediment jets

for environmental impact assessment, and yet there is currently no general model

for predicting the mixing of sediment-laden jets. This study reports a theoretical

and experimental investigation the sediment mixing, fall-out and deposition from

sediment-laden buoyant jets.

It is well known that turbulence generates fluctuations to the particle mo-

tion, modulating the particle settling velocity. A general three-dimensional (3D)

stochastic particle tracking model is developed to predict the particle settling

out and deposition from a sediment-laden jet. Particle velocity fluctuations are

modelled by a Lagrangian velocity autocorrelation function that accounts for

the loitering and trapping of sediment particles in turbulent eddies which results

in the reduction of settling velocity. The model is validated against results of

independent experimental studies. Consistent with basic experiments using grid-

generated turbulence, the model predicts that the apparent settling velocity can

be reduced by as much as 30% of the stillwater settling velocity.

The mixing and deposition of sediment-laden horizontal momentum jets are

studied using laboratory experiments and 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

modelling. It is shown that there is a significant settling velocity reduction up

to about 25-35%, dependent on jet turbulent fluctuations and particle proper-

ties. The CFD approach necessitates an ad hoc adjustment/reduction on settling

velocity and lacks generality. Using classical solutions of mean velocity, and tur-

bulent fluctuation and dissipation rate profiles derived from CFD solutions, 3D

particle tracking model predictions of sediment deposition and concentration pro-

files are in excellent agreement with measured data over a wide range of jet flow

and particle properties. Unlike CFD calculations, the present method does not

require any a priori adjustment of particle settling velocity.

A general particle tracking model for predicting sediment fall-out and deposi-

tion from an arbitrarily inclined buoyant jets in stagnant ambient is successfully

developed. The model incorporates the three flow regimes affecting the sediment

dynamics in a buoyant jet, namely turbulent jet flow, jet entrainment-induced

external flow and surface spreading current. The jet mean flow velocity is de-

termined using a well-validated jet integral model. The external jet-induced

irrotational flow field is computed by a distribution of point sinks along the jet

trajectory. The surface spreading current is predicted using an integral model

accounting for the interfacial shear. The model is validated against experimental

data of sediment deposition from vertical and horizontal sediment-laden buoyant

jets.

Mixing and Deposition of

Sediment-Laden Buoyant Jets

A thesis submitted

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

at The University of Hong Kong

January 2013

2

Declaration

I declare that this thesis represents my own work, except where due acknowl-

edgment is made, and that it has not been previously included in a thesis, dis-

sertation or report submitted to this University or to any other institution for a

degree, diploma or other qualifications.

...............................................

(CHAN Shu Ning)

i

ii DECLARATION

Acknowledgement

Lee, for his guidance and encouragement throughout my study. Throughout the

years, I have learned a lot from his rigorous attitude towards research and his

commitment on engineering a better world. His critical comments and insightful

suggestions are always useful to my research and future work. I am the most

grateful that he spared his busy times with extreme patience in commenting and

editing my thesis and papers.

The advice and suggestions from Dr. K.M. Lam on my study are beneficial

and gratefully acknowledged.

I express my gratitude to all my colleagues in the Croucher Laboratory of

Environmental Hydraulics, The University of Hong Kong. Special thank goes to

Dr. Ken Lee, who shared with me his experimental expertise, without which this

work would not have been completed successfully. The professional and efficient

technical support from the lab technicians, Mr. C.H. Tong and Mr. T.O. Chan,

is the most appreciated. Stimulating discussions with Dr. P. Liu and Mr. Chris

Lai on experimental techniques are always gainful. Dr. Adrian Lai provided

me fruitful ideas on theoretical aspects of the subject. The work on Project

WATERMAN with Dr. David Choi, Dr. Ken Wong, Dr. Wai Thoe and other team

members has broadened my horizon on the challenging environmental problems.

The days and nights in the Laboratory would be memorable in my life.

I would like to thank Prof. X.Y. Li and Mr. Keith Wong for allowing me to

use their laboratory facilities. My gratitude also goes to Ms. Candice Fong in

the Department of Civil Engineering, HKU for her administrative support.

The financial support from the Area of Excellence (AoE) in Marine Environ-

mental Research and Innovative Technology (MERIT), Hong Kong University

Grants Committee on my study is gratefully acknowledged.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their wholehearted

support during my study journey.

iii

iv

Contents

Declaration i

Acknowledgement iii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.1 Volcanic eruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1.2 Submarine hydrothermal vents - black smokers . . . . . 2

1.1.3 Marine disposal of dredged spoils and sludge . . . . . . . . 4

1.1.4 Wastewater disposal in the marine environment . . . . . . 5

1.2 Motivation and objective of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.3 Outline of the present work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Literature Review 11

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2 Single-phase buoyant jet in stagnant fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.1 The mean flow properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2.2 Jet/plume turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.3 Jet induced external flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.2.4 Gravitational spreading current induced by jet impingement 14

2.3 Sediment-laden jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3.1 Vertical downward sediment-laden jets . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3.2 Vertical upward sediment-laden jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3.3 Horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jets . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2.3.4 Sediment-laden jet applications in ocean dumping . . . . . 17

2.3.5 Prediction of sediment impact of ocean outfalls . . . . . . 18

2.3.6 Summary of previous studies of sediment-laden jets . . . . 18

v

2.4 The equation of motion of sediment particle . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.1 Sediment settling velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.4.2 Basset history force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.5 Particle settling in turbulent flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.6 Mathematical modelling of two-phase flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.6.1 Eulerian modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.6.2 Lagrangian modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2 The governing equation of particle motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.1 Components of the equation of motion . . . . . . . . . . . 27

3.2.2 Solution of the equation of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3 The autocorrelation function of a sediment particle in turbulence . 31

3.3.1 Taylors autocorrelation function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3.2 Derivation of the equivalent Eulerian particle velocity au-

tocorrelation function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.3.3 The autocorrelation of sediment particle in turbulence . . 34

3.3.4 Generation of turbulent velocity fluctuations . . . . . . . . 38

3.3.5 Physical interpretation of the autocorrelation function . . . 38

3.4 Model validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.4.1 Accelerated motion of a particle in stagnant fluid . . . . . 42

3.4.2 Motion of particles in homogeneously vertically oscillating

fluid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.4.3 Motion of particles in homogeneous grid turbulence . . . . 49

3.4.4 Vertically downward sediment-laden jets . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

4 Experiments 65

4.1 Experimental set-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.1.1 Experimental tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.1.2 Jet discharge system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.1.3 Sediment supply system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

4.1.4 Bottom sediment collection and measurement . . . . . . . 68

4.2 Particle properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4.2.1 Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

vi

4.2.2 Polymethylmethacrylate, IP3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4.2.3 Melamine formaldehyde, MF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.2.4 Measurement of settling velocity and determination of par-

ticle equivalent diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4.3 Flow visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.4 Fluid density and viscosity calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

4.5 Summary of experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

4.6 Cross-sectional sediment concentration measurement . . . . . . . 80

4.7 Measurement of jet turbulent velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4.7.1 Particle Imaging Velocimetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4.7.2 Mean flow and turbulent fluctuations . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

4.7.3 Experimental support of trapping effect in jet turbulence . 86

4.7.4 Experimental support of negligible cross-correlations be-

tween partial velocity derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.2 Horizontal sediment-laden momentum jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.3 Experimental observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.3.1 Flow visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

5.3.2 Sediment bottom deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

5.4 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics modelling . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.5 Particle tracking modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.5.1 Mean flow velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.5.2 Turbulence quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

5.5.3 Particle size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

5.5.4 Computational procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.6 Particle tracking modelling results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.6.1 1D sediment deposition profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

5.6.2 2D sediment deposition profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.6.3 Importance of different forces in the equation of motion to

the prediction of deposition profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

5.6.4 Cross-sectional sediment concentration profiles . . . . . . . 128

5.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

vii

6.2 The flow regimes in buoyant jets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

6.2.1 The buoyant jet flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

6.2.2 The external flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

6.2.3 The surface spreading layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

6.3 Particle tracking model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

6.4 Vertically upward sediment-laden buoyant jet . . . . . . . . . . . 157

6.4.1 General observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

6.4.2 Sediment fall out from jet margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

6.4.3 Sediment fall out from spreading current . . . . . . . . . . 165

6.4.4 Comparison of the Full Model and the Simplified Model . 167

6.5 Horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

6.5.1 Experiments of Li (2006) and Lee (2010) . . . . . . . . . . 169

6.5.2 CFD model prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

6.5.3 Particle model prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

6.5.4 Plastic particle experiments: Lee (2010), Cuthbertson and

Davies (2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

6.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

7 Conclusion 189

7.1 Summary of this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

7.2 Recommendations for future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

7.3 Application examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

A.1 General numerical solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

A.2 Numerical implementation of the Basset force term . . . . . . . . 210

B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

B.2 Governing equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215

B.3 Turbulence closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216

B.4 Model of horizontal sediment-laden jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

B.4.1 Grid configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

B.4.2 Boundary and initial conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

B.4.3 Computational details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

B.4.4 Model results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

B.5 Model for spreading current . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

viii

C Particle Settling Velocity in Ethanol-Water Mixture 227

ix

x

List of Figures

volcanic plume of hot gases and volcanic ashes, and streams of

pyroclastic flows running down the slope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 A deep ocean hydrothermal vent - black smoker in Atlantic

Ocean. Precipitated minerals are deposited around the vent. . . . 3

1.3 Dumping of dredged spoils from a barge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.4 Sewage outfalls in Hong Kong (preliminary, primary and sec-

ondary treatment), marine dumping sites and sensitive receivers

(bathing beaches, fish culture zones and marine reserves). The

solid line is the transfer tunnels of HATS Stage 1 in operation.

The dashed line is the transfer tunnels of HATS Stage 2A com-

mencing in 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.5 3D depiction of the diffuser of Harbour Area Treatment Scheme

(HATS) outfall (1.2km long, 24 rosette risers, each with 8 jets).

Two of the rosette risers are shown in detail. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.6 Experimental image of a sediment-laden jet in this study. Jet

velocity = 0.79m/s; glass particles of 180 m and settling velocity

2.0 cm/s are used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 Trapping of sediment particle in a forced vortex adapted from

Nielsen (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

and Gauvin (1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3.2 Turbulent length scale LE variation of a round jet. (a) Schematic

illustration. (b) Self-similar RMS turbulent velocity profile esti-

mated using Eq. 5.7, Chapter 5. uc is the jet centerline mean

velocity. (c) Turbulent length scale normalized with Gaussian jet

half-width bg = 0.114x, estimated using Eqs. 5.7 and 5.8, Chapter

5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3.3 Motion of sediment particle in fluid. xp is the particle position; up

is particle velocity; uf is fluid velocity at the location of particle;

ur is relative velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

xi

3.4 Time history of turbulent velocity (w ) and autocorrelation (R)

of a single realization, t = 0.001s. LE = 0.005m, = 0.01m/s,

TE = 0.5s, ws = 0.01m/s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.5 Time history of particle position (z) of a single realization, t =

0.001s. LE = 0.005m, = 0.01m/s, TE = 0.5s, ws = 0.01m/s. . . . 40

3.6 Ten realizations (black lines) of the time history of particle posi-

tion (z), t = 0.001s. LE = 0.005m, = 0.01m/s, TE = 0.5s,

ws = 0.01m/s. Red thick line is constant settling velocity. . . . . . 41

3.7 Comparison between analytical (Eqs. 3.39 and 3.41) and numerical

solutions of particle falling in stagnant fluid, d = 50m, p = 2500

kg/m3 , f = 1000 kg/m3 , ws = 2.044mm/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3.8 Comparison of numerical model prediction and experimental data

of particle falling in stagnant fluid (Brush et al. , 1964). s =

p /f = 2.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.9 Comparison of the numerical model and the experimental results

of Ho (1964) of spheres settling in homogeneously vertically oscil-

lating fluid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.10 The particle and fluid velocities, and forces acting on the particle.

Rep = 230, s = 2.65, T = 0.2s, wf 0 = 2m/s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.11 Schematic representation of a hypothetical experiment of dropping

sediment particles in homogeneous turbulence. . . . . . . . . . . . 49

3.12 Cumulative probability distribution of model predicted sediment

settling velocities under different /ws with AE = 1 and LE =

0.005m, (a) glass particles, (b) plastic particles. . . . . . . . . . . 52

3.13 The predicted apparent settling velocity compared with the ex-

perimental data of settling particle in grid turbulence of Murray

(1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.14 The predicted apparent settling velocity compared with the ex-

perimental data of settling particle in grid turbulence of Zhou and

Cheng (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3.15 The predicted apparent settling velocity for the particles used in

this experiment, (a) without Basset force, (b) with Basset force. . 54

3.16 The predicted apparent settling velocity, best-fitted with Eq. 3.44,

and compared with the experimental data of settling particle in

grid turbulence of Murray (1970), Nielsen (1993) and Zhou and

Cheng (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

3.17 A downward sediment laden jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

3.18 Predicted sediment concentration (C/C0 ) of vertical sediment laden

jet, cases of Singamsetti (1966), (a) 68m, (b) 230m, (c) 460m

and (d) analytical pure jet tracer concentration. . . . . . . . . . . 58

xii

3.19 Comparison of centerline sediment concentration for experimental

cases of Singamsetti (1966). Model prediction with Basset force

is carried out on cases of 68, 230 and 460 m, with very little

difference with the one without Basset force. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.20 Comparison of cross-sectional sediment concentration for experi-

mental cases of Singamsetti (1966). Model prediction with Basset

force is carried out on cases of 68, 230 and 460 m, with very little

difference with the one without Basset force. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

3.21 Comparison of predicted and measured centerline sediment mass

flux for experimental cases of Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987) . . 62

3.22 Comparison of predicted and measured cross-sectional sediment

sediment mass flux for experimental cases of Parthasarathy and

Faeth (1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4.2 The two types of hourglass for feeding sediment in the experiment:

(a) for glass particles, (b) for plastic particles (IP3 and MF). . . . 69

4.3 Detailed internal dimension of hourglasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

4.4 Time-mass discharge relationships of hourglasses for (a) IP3 par-

ticles and (b) MF particles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

4.5 The two types of sediment collection trays for measuring: (a) 1D,

(b) 2D deposition profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

4.6 Glass vials for collecting sediment for weighing (diameter = 4cm;

height = 5cm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4.7 Calibration of sediment concentration measurement by mass bal-

ance between the jet cross section and bottom deposition. . . . . . 82

4.8 Comparison of measured and analytical axial centerline velocity

uc (Eq. 4.9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.9 Comparison of measured and analytical cross-sectional axial cen-

terline velocity u(x, r)/uc (x), Eq. 4.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

4.10 Axial RMS turbulent fluctuations u u /uc . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

4.11 Radial (vertical) RMS turbulent fluctuations w w /uc . . . . . . . 85

4.12 Measured time history of turbulent velocity fluctuations (u , w )

and its local acceleration (u /t, w /t). u0 = 0.39 m/s (Qj =

40 L/h), x = 30D, z = 0, u = 0.080 m/s, w = 0.0014 m/s.

Measurement interval = 0.01s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.13 The correlation between |u | and |u /t|, |w | and |w /t|, at jet

centerline (z = 0). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.14 The correlation between |u | and |u /t|, |w | and |w /t|, along

vertical transects at x = 30D and x = 50D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

xiii

5.2 Visualization of case u0 = 0.786 m/s, (a) sediment laden, (b) pure

jet. The dashed line is the jet centerline; the dash-dotted line is

the top-hat width of the jet, defined by bT = 0.16x. . . . . . . . . 96

5.3 Visualization of case u0 = 0.492 m/s, (a) sediment laden, (b) pure

jet. The dashed line is the jet centerline; the dash-dotted line is

the top-hat width of the jet, defined by bT = 0.16x. . . . . . . . . 97

5.4 Visualization of IP3J80, u0 = 0.786 m/s, plastic IP3 particle d50 =

716m , ws = 2.2cm/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5.5 Typical 1D sediment deposition profiles (present study and Lee,

2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

5.6 Normalized 1D deposition profiles of glass (Lee, 2010) and natural

sand particles (Li, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.7 Normalized 1D deposition profiles of plastic IP3 particles (present

study) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5.8 Normalized 1D deposition profiles of melamine MF particles (present

study) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.9 Normalized 1D deposition profiles (fitted equations, Eq. 5.2) of

different particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

5.10 2D deposition profiles of G180 particles (present study). Contours

in g/m2 /s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.11 2D deposition profiles of IP3 particles (present study). Contours

in g/m2 /s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5.12 CFD predicted and observed (Li, 2006) longitudinal particle depo-

sition pattern of four experiments using sand particles. The solid

lines represent the prediction using the adjusted settling velocity:

0.75ws whole field adjustment; wsa local adjustment according to

/ws . The dashed line is prediction using the stillwater settling

velocity ws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

5.13 CFD predicted and observed (Lee, 2010) longitudinal particle de-

position pattern of six experiments using spherical glass particles.

The solid lines represent the prediction using the adjusted settling

velocity: 0.75ws whole field adjustment; wsa local adjustment ac-

cording to /ws . The dashed line is prediction using the stillwater

settling velocity ws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

5.14 (a) Ratio of RMS turbulent velocity to settling velocity (/ws ),

and (b) ratio of apparent settling velocity to terminal settling

velocity (wsa /ws ), in different cross-section of a jet, Jet case FJ42:

deq = 133m, u0 = 0.41m/s, ws = 1.41cm/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5.15 CFD predicted and observed (Lee, 2010) longitudinal particle de-

position pattern of two experiments using plastic particles. 0.65ws , 0.75ws

whole field uniform adjustment of stillwater settling velocity ws ;

wsa local adjustment according to /ws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

xiv

5.16 Theoretical and CFD predicted jet mean velocity profiles, (a) Lon-

gitudinal velocity, Eq. 5.5, (b) transverse velocity (positive out-

wards), Eq. 5.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

5.17 Turbulent velocity fluctuation and dissipation rate dissipation,

predicted by CFD model and fitted with empirical equations, (a)

RMS turbulent velocity fluctuation, Eq. 5.7, (b) Turbulent energy

dissipation rate, Eq. 5.8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.18 Comparison of measured and particle tracking predicted deposi-

tion rate profiles of experiments using natural sand particles (Li,

2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

5.19 Comparison of measured and particle tracking predicted depo-

sition rate profiles of experiments using spherical glass particles

(Lee, 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

5.20 Comparison of measured and particle tracking predicted deposi-

tion rate profiles of experiments using spherical plastic particles

(IP3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

5.21 Comparison of measured and particle tracking predicted deposi-

tion rate profiles of experiments using plastic particles (Lee, 2010). 116

5.22 Comparison of measured and particle tracking predicted deposi-

tion rate profiles of experiments using melamine particles. . . . . . 117

5.23 Observed and predicted (particle tracking) deposition pattern of

the experiment CJ58 (Li, 2006), deq = 166m, u0 = 0.57m/s,

ws = 1.97m/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

5.24 Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

G215 particles, d50 = 215m, ws = 2.65m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s.

The jet nozzle is located at x = 0, y = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

5.25 Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

G180 particles, d50 = 180m , ws = 1.98m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s.

The jet nozzle is located at x = 0, y = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5.26 Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

G115 particles, d50 = 115m , ws = 1.00m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s.

The jet nozzle is located at x = 0, y = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

5.27 Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

IP3 particles, d50 = 716m , ws = 2.2m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s.

The jet nozzle is located at x = 0, y = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5.28 Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

MF particles, deq = 347m , ws = 2.2m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s.

The jet nozzle is located at x = 0, y = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.29 Sensitivity tests on the Basset, added mass and fluid acceleration

forces. 1D deposition profiles. G: gravity; D: drag force; F: fluid

acceleration; A: added mass; B: Basset. (a)-(c): Glass (Lee, 2010);

(d): Sand (Li, 2006); (e)-(f): plastic, present study . . . . . . . . 126

xv

5.30 Sensitivity tests on the Basset force (present experiments). 2D

deposition profiles. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle is located

at x = 0, y = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

5.31 Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum),

Case G180J80 (Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.78m/s, ws = 2.06cm/s, lm /D =

32.9. Dashed circle represents the top-hat profile of the jet. . . . . 130

5.32 Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum),

Case G180J50 (Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.49m/s, ws = 2.05cm/s, lm /D =

20.8. Dashed circle represents the top-hat profile of the jet. . . . . 131

5.33 Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum),

Case G215J60 (Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.59m/s, ws = 2.69cm/s, lm /D =

18.9. Dashed circle represents the top-hat profile of the jet. . . . . 132

5.34 Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum),

Case G115J70 (Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.68m/s, ws = 1.03cm/s, lm /D =

57.6. Dashed circle represents the top-hat profile of the jet. . . . . 133

5.35 Measured and particle tracking predicted (full model) cross-sectional

sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case

IP3J80 (present experiment), u0 = 0.78m/s, ws = 2.02cm/s,

lm /D = 34.5. Dashed circle represents the top-hat profile of the jet.134

5.36 Measured and particle tracking predicted (full model) cross-sectional

sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case

IP3J50 (present experiment), u0 = 0.49m/s, ws = 2.02cm/s,

lm /D = 21.5. Dashed circle represents the top-hat profile of the jet.135

5.37 Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, G215 particles, ws = 2.69cm/s (Lee, 2010). Dashed

line is the theoretical tracer concentration variation for a free jet. 136

5.38 Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, G180 particles, ws = 2.06cm/s (Lee, 2010). Dashed

line is the theoretical tracer concentration variation for a free jet. 136

5.39 Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, G115 particles, ws = 1.03cm/s (Lee, 2010). Dashed

line is the theoretical tracer concentration variation for a free jet. 137

5.40 Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, IP3 particles, ws = 2.02cm/s (present experiments).

Dashed line is the theoretical tracer concentration variation for a

free jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

6.2 The JETLAG model (Lee and Cheung, 1990; Lee and Chu, 2003). 145

xvi

6.3 The Gaussian variation of mean axial velocity and the equivalent

top-hat profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

1

6.4 Comparison of theoretical ucu(x)

0

= 6.2 Dx and JETLAG model

predicted centerline velocity for a pure jet (u0 = 0.786m/s, D =

6mm), showing the effect of inclusion of the zone of flow estab-

lishment (ZFE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

the jet and plume regime. F rl is the local densimetric Froude

number defined as Eq. 6.6. Solid symbols: plume regime; open

symbols: jet regime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

6.6 (a) The external flow field of a horizontal buoyant jet (u0 =

0.65m/s, F r = 19.5) and (b) its influence on particle velocity.

Note the different vector scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

6.7 The point sink approach for determining the external flow (Lai,

2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

6.8 Comparison of the radial velocity using the point sink method (as-

suming a solid boundary for the plane x = 0) with the analytical

solution (Eq. 6.13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

6.9 The spreading current after jet impingement at the free surface. . 153

current velocity us , thickness hs and mean reduced gravity gs . . . 155

6.11 The two fall out mechanisms from vertical sediment-laden buoyant

jet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

sediment-laden jets and experimental data of Neves and Fernando

(1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

prediction for vertical sediment-laden jet experiments of Neves and

Fernando (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

6.14 Relation of the maximum deposition rate Fmax and position rmax

of 3.0 and 0.1 are compared with the value of 1.4 and 0.15 given

by Neves and Fernando (1995) (Eqs. 6.31 and 6.32. . . . . . . . . 162

tion profile of the four vertical sediment-laden jet cases of Ernst

et al. (1996). r is the radial distance from the nozzle. F/Fmax

is the deposition (g/m2 /s) normalized against the maximum pre-

dicted/measured values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

xvii

6.16 Comparison of predicted and measured radial sediment deposition

profile of the four vertical sediment-laden plume cases of Ernst et

al. (1996). r is the radial distance from the nozzle. F/Fmax is

the deposition (g/m2 /s) normalized against the maximum pre-

dicted/measured values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

6.17 Comparison of numerical model prediction and experimental data

of vertical sediment jet experiments: (a)-(c) Sparks et al. (1991),

(d) Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000). r is the radial distance from

the nozzle. F/Fmax is the deposition (g/m2 /s) normalized against

the maximum predicted/measured values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

6.18 Comparison of the Full Model (with and without Basset force) and

Simplified Model for vertical sediment jet experiments of (a)-(b):

Neves and Fernando (1995) (p = 1040 kg/m3 ); (c)-(f): Ernst et

al. (1996) (p = 3210 kg/m3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

6.19 Comparison of CFD predicted and measured longitudinal deposi-

tion profile (g/m/s) of Li (2006)s horizontal sediment-laden buoy-

ant jet experiments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

6.20 CFD predicted sediment concentration and conservative tracer

concentration for buoyant jets, coarse sand experiments. The

dashed line is the jet trajectory and top-hat boundary. . . . . . . 174

6.21 CFD predicted sediment concentration and conservative tracer

concentration for buoyant jets, fine sand experiments. The dashed

line is the jet trajectory and top-hat boundary. . . . . . . . . . . . 175

6.22 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Li (2006)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, Coarse Sand. . . . . . . . 178

6.23 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Li (2006)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, Fine Sand. . . . . . . . . 178

6.24 Predicted 2D deposition profiles for (a) CB66 and (b) FB58. . . . 179

6.25 Examples of particle trajectory in case FB66 with fine sediment.

The dash-dotted line is the jet centerline; dashed lines are the jet

top-hat boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

6.26 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, S199 particles. . . . . . . 180

6.27 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, S153 particles. . . . . . . 181

6.28 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, G215 particles. . . . . . 182

xviii

6.29 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, G180 particles. . . . . . 183

6.30 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, G115 particles. . . . . . 184

6.31 JETLAG predicted jet trajectories and boundary profiles. . . . . . 184

6.32 Comparison of particle tracking model predicted and measured

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal

sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments, plastic particles (p =

1.16 g/cm3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

6.33 Comparison of model predicted and measured 1D and 2D deposi-

tion profiles Cuthbertson and Davies (2008)s horizontal sediment-

laden buoyant jet experiments, plastic particles (p = 1.5 g/cm3 ).

The 1D deposition profiles are normalized by the sediment mass

flux at the jet nozzle, in the unit of m1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

- Example 1. The box is for visualization only. Free lateral bound-

ary is used in the model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

7.2 Predicted deposition profile of vertical sediment-laden jet discharg-

ing upwards - Example 1. The jet and spreading current profiles

are also indicated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

7.3 (a) The predicted jet trajectory of Wah Fu Outfall - prototype.

(b) Experimental image of a 1:11 scale model (Lee and Chu, 2003) 195

7.4 Predicted deposition profiles of horizontal sediment-laden buoy-

ant jet - Wah Fu Outfall: (a) 1D (in tonnes/m/yr); (b) 2D (in

tonnes/m2 /yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

7.5 Predicted jet trajectory of Wah Fu Outfall in a coflowing ambient

current of 0.03m/s and a visualization of the predicted sediment

distribution on the centerline plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

7.6 Predicted deposition profiles of horizontal sediment-laden buoyant

jet - Wah Fu Outfall with an ambient current of 0.03m/s: (a) 1D

(in tonnes/m/yr); (b) 2D (in tonnes/m2 /yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

before time t is known and the velocity at time t + t is to be

predicted. The Basset integral is to be evaluated from 0 to t + 21 t.212

A.2 Numerical solution of a particle falling in stagnant ambient, with

the Basset force term. d = 50m, p = 2500 kg/m3 , f = 1000

kg/m3 , ws = 2.0437mm/s, t = 104 s. (a) Time history of

particle velocity and acceleration; (b) the Basset integrand at

t = 0.002, 0.005, 0.01s. The particle velocity wp is normalized by

the stillwater settling velocity ws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

xix

B.1 Computation mesh for horizontal sediment-laden jets . . . . . . . 218

B.2 CFD predicted velocity and tracer concentration (C/C0 ) field of

x z plane at y = 0. u0 = 0.41 m/s; D = 6 mm; C0 = 5.29 g/L.

The dashed lines are the jet top-hat boundary defined as bT = 0.16x.220

B.3 CFD predicted tracer concentration field (C/Cc ) of y z plane at

x = 10D and x = 30D. u0 = 0.41 m/s; D = 6 mm. The dashed

circles are the jet top-hat boundary defined as bT = 0.16x. . . . . 220

B.4 Comparison of CFD predicted and theoretical centerline velocity

uc /u0 = 6.2(x/D)1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

B.5 Predicted jet Gaussian half width using the realizable k model.

= 0.114 is the commonly adopted value for round jets. . . . . . 221

B.6 CFD predicted horizontal buoyant jet velocities. (i) Initial region,

(ii) bend up region. The dashed lines are the JETLAG predicted

jet boundary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

B.7 Comparison of computed horizontal buoyant jet trajectories of

CFD and JETLAG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

B.8 Comparison of CFD computed horizontal buoyant jet centerline

dilutions with Cederwall equation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

B.9 Computation mesh for vertical axisymmetric buoyant jet imping-

ing the surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

B.10 CFD predicted spreading layer velocity field and concentration

field (C/C0 ). u0 = 0.351m/s, D = 7mm, F r = 10.0. . . . . . . . . 225

B.11 CFD predicted spreading layer velocity field and concentration

field (C/C0 ). u0 = 0.146m/s, D = 7mm, F r = 4.0. . . . . . . . . . 226

C.2 Dynamic viscosity of ethanol-water mixture. . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

C.3 Variation of settling velocity in a horizontal buoyant jet using

ethanol-water mixture as the source of buoyancy. Case FB58 (Li,

2006): u0 = 0.57m/s; F r = 14.5; d = 133m (sand). (a) JETLAG

predicted centerline jet fluid density (c ) and estimated dynamic

viscosity (c ) using Figs. C.1 & C.2. (b) Estimated sediment set-

tling velocity at jet centerline using Soulsby equation. . . . . . . . 229

C.4 Variation of settling velocity in a horizontal buoyant jet using

ethanol-water mixture as the source of buoyancy. Case G180B90Fr17

(Lee, 2010): u0 = 0.88m/s; F r = 18.3; d = 180m (glass). (a)

JETLAG predicted centerline jet fluid density (c ) and estimated

dynamic viscosity (c ) using Figs. C.1 & C.2. (b) Estimated sed-

iment settling velocity at jet centerline using spherical drag law. . 230

C.5 Model comparison of using local settling velocity and ambient set-

tling velocity in the prediction of sediment deposition on buoyant

jets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

xx

List of Tables

1.1 Typical sewage effluent quality and Hong Kong Water Quality

Objective (EPD, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

vertically oscillating fluid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

3.2 Particles used in grid turbulence experiments of Murray (1970).

= 106 m2 /s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.3 Particles used in grid turbulence experiments of Zhou and Cheng

(2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3.4 Experiments of Singamsetti (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

3.5 Experiments of Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987) . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.2 Properties of particles in the present experiments. . . . . . . . . . 76

4.3 Horizontal momentum jet experiments using glass particles, mea-

suring 2D bottom depositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.4 Horizontal momentum jet experiments using IP3 particles, mea-

suring 1D and 2D bottom depositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

4.5 Horizontal momentum jet experiments using MF particles, mea-

suring 1D and 2D bottom depositions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4.6 Cross-sectional sediment concentration measurement, IP3 particles. 81

4.7 Time average of the velocity derivatives for the jet case of Q = 50

L/h (u0 = 0.492 m/s). D = jet diameter = 6mm. . . . . . . . . . 91

4.8 Velocity derivatives and the result of correlation for the jet case

of Q = 50 L/h (u0 = 0.492 m/s). D = jet diameter = 6mm. . . . 92

jet experiments for bottom deposition and cross-sectional sedi-

ment concentration measurement. Jet diameter D = 6mm. lm =

1/2

momentum-settling length scale = M0 /ws . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

5.2 The inferred particle equivalent diameter deq for non-spherical

particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

xxi

6.1 Numerical experiments for vertical sediment-laden pure jets (Neves

and Fernando, 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

6.2 Vertical buoyant jet experiments (fall out from jet margin) in

Ernst et al. (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

6.3 Vertical buoyant jet experiments (fall out from surface current) of

Sparks et al. (1991), and Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000) . . . . . . 166

6.4 Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Li (2006). . . . . . . . . . . 170

6.5 Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Lee (2010), S199 and S153

particles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

6.6 Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Lee (2010), G215, G180 and

G115 particles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

6.7 Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Lee (2010), plastic particles

(d = 621m , p = 1.16 g/cm3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

6.8 Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Cuthbertson and Davies

(2008), plastic particles (d = 550m , p = 1.5 g/cm3 ). . . . . . . 186

xxii

List of Symbols

TE

AE = , parameter in autocorrelation function

LE

Ap = projected area of particle = d2 /4

b, bg = Gaussian jet half-width

bT = top-hat jet half-width

B = Basset integral

B0 = Q0 g0 , initial jet specific buoyancy flux

Bs = specific radial buoyancy flux of spreading layer

C0 = jet initial sediment concentration

CD = drag coefficient = f (Rep )

CM = added mass coefficient

Cmax = maximum jet cross-sectional sediment concentration

C = 0.09, constant in k turbulence model

d = particle diameter

d50 = median particle diameter for spherical particles

deq = equivalent particle diameter for non-spherical particles

D = Jet diameter

F = Bottom deposition rate in vertical sediment-laden jets,

in g/m2 /s

Fs = transversely lumped (1D) sediment bottom deposition rate,

in g/m/s

Fr = initial jet densimetric Froude number

F rl = local jet densimetric Froude number

g = gravitational acceleration = 9.81 m/s2

g0 = jet initial reduced gravity

gs = reduced gravity for spreading layer

hs = thickness of spreading layer

H = height of release in homogeneous grid turbulence

k = turbulent kinetic energy

lb = particle inertia-buoyancy length scale, Chapter 6

xxiii

lm = momentum-settling length scale

ls = momentum-buoyancy length scale

LE , Lz = turbulent length scale

mi = strength of point sink i

M0 = Q0 u0 , initial jet kinematic momentum flux

Ms = kinematic radial momentum flux of spreading layer

N, Np = number of particles in numerical simulations

Q0 = u0 D2 /4, jet initial flow rate

Qs = volumetric flux of spreading layer

r = radial coordinate

R = velocity autocorrelation function

Ri = Richardson number for spreading layer

Re = jet Reynolds number

Rep = particle Reynolds number

s = specific gravity of particles

s = streamwise coordinate along jet centerline (Chapter 6)

Sct = turbulent Schmidt number in CFD model

t = time

t = time step

T = average settling time of particles in turbulence

TE = Eulerian time scale of turbulence

TL = Lagrangian time scale of turbulence

u0 = initial jet velocity

ua = ambient velocity

uc = jet centerline velocity

us = radial velocity of spreading layer

uT = jet top-hat velocity

uf = (uf , vf , wf ) = fluid velocity

uf = time-mean fluid velocity

u , uf

= turbulent fluid velocity fluctuations

up = (up , vp , wp ) = particle velocity

ur = relative velocity between particle and fluid

vr = mean radial velocity of a jet

Vp = volume of particle = d3 /6

we = interfacial entrainment velocity for spreading layer

ws = sediment settling velocity in stillwater

wsa = apparent sediment settling velocity in turbulence

x, y, z = Cartesian coordinates

xi , yi , zi = location of the ith jet element

xxiv

xp = (xp , yp , zp ), particle position

Greek symbols

T = jet entrainment coefficient at r = bT

= jet spreading rate

= turbulent energy dissipation rate

= ratio between the jet Gaussian half-width

of concentration and velocity

i = interfacial friction coefficient for spreading layer

= dynamic molecular viscosity of fluid

= kinematic molecular viscosity of fluid = /f

t = turbulent viscosity of fluid

a = ambient fluid density

0 = initial jet fluid density

f = fluid density

p = particle density

= root-mean-square turbulent fluctuation

= dummy time variable in Basset integral

= velocity potential

= randomly generated numbers following a Gaussian

distribution with zero mean and unit variance

= oscillation frequency

Empirical constants

wsa and , Chapter 3

A, B, C Empirical constants in the relation of

normalized sediment bottom deposition rate

and normalized longitudinal distance, Chapter 5

C1 C3 Empirical constants in normalized

jet turbulent intensity profile

C4 C6 Empirical constants in normalized

jet turbulent dissipation rate profile

xxv

xxvi

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

The turbulent transport of sediment or particulate matters in a fluid flow (water,

air) is a common and important phenomenon. Turbulent jets and plumes (buoy-

ant jets) constitute a major class of turbulent flows. Sediment or particle-laden

buoyant jets are common in natural environment and engineering applications.

Volcanic eruption and black smokers released from deep ocean hydrothermal

vents are examples of particle-laden jets in the natural environment. Sediment-

laden river plumes bring huge amount of sediment to the ocean, shaping the

land-form of coastal/estuarine area. In marine engineering, reclamation and

dumping of dredged spoil and sludge to the ocean is usually carried out in the

form of sediment-laden jets. Submarine discharge of wastewater effluent in the

form of buoyant jets also contains sediment particles.

Volcanoes are prominent geological features on the Earth. They exists on land

and beneath the ocean, releasing hot magma, volcanic ash and gases. Volcanoes

have been shaping the landscape of the Earth since the formation of the Earth

4.6 billion years ago. There are about 1500 active volcanoes in the world and

around 50 of them erupt each year. An estimated 500 million people live near

active volcanoes (European Space Agency, 2009).

Erupting volcanoes can pose many hazards to human life. During a vol-

canic eruption, a mixture of volcanic gases and pyroclastic materials (magma,

suspended crystals, volcanic ashes) are discharged vertically upwards into the

atmosphere in the form of a particle-laden plume. The hot solid materials over

1000 C finally fall back to the Earth, forming a gravity flow of pyroclastic materi-

als that travels down the volcano (Fig. 1.1). Volcanic ashes and pyroclastic flows

can be deadly and disastrous. The ancient city of Pompeii was buried by falling

volcanic ashes from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 A.D., killing about

20,000 people. In 1902, the pyroclastic flow from the eruption of Mount Pelee

on Martinique, Caribbean Sea, destroyed the town of Saint-Pierre. Only two of

1

its 30,000 residents survived in the disaster. Deposited materials on the ground

mix with water and snow to form debris flow called lahar which is tremendously

destructive. A small eruption of Nevado del Ruiz, Colombia in 1987, produced

large lahars that covered the city of Armero, claiming the lives of 25,000 people.

Suspended volcanic ashes threaten aviation safety as they cause aircraft en-

gines to malfunction. In 1989, a flight carrying 245 passengers lost power to all

four engines after flying into an ash cloud from the erupting Mount Redoubt,

Alaska, luckily landed safely for emergency. In mid April 2010, the spreading

of volcano ashes from a volcanic eruption in Iceland (about 1800km from Lon-

don) resulted in the suspension of flights in northern Europe for a week and

resulted tremendous economic losses. It is important to understand and predict

the transport and deposition of volcanic materials from an eruption in order to

safeguard human lives and reduce economic loss.

geothermally heated water issues. It was first discovered in 1979 in the Eastern

Pacific Ocean, and later found in other places of the worlds ocean. Hydrothermal

vents are commonly located near tectonically and volcanically active places such

as submarine ridges. Seawater seeped into the seabed rocks is heated by the hot

rocks at depth. Heated water emerges from these vents at temperatures ranging

from 60 C up to as high as over 400 C, under the great pressure from the above

sea water (over 2000 m deep). Many of these hydrothermal plumes are black

in colour because of the dissolved sulphuric minerals, hence the name black

smokers (Fig. 1.2).

Submarine hydrothermal vents are locations of high scientific values on biol-

ogy, geology and oceanography. Hydrothermal vents provide energy and nutri-

ents to the unique deep sea organisms. Besides the scientific values, their poten-

tial economic values cannot be overlooked. As the hot water discharges into sea-

water, the mineral-rich discharge cools due to mixing with the low-temperature

ambient ( 2 C) and the mineral precipitates to form a sediment mound around

the vent. These mineral-rich sediment consists of iron, copper, zinc sulphides and

other rare earth minerals with high economic values. Rare earth elements (scan-

dium, yttrium, etc.) are important raw materials for high-technology products

including flatscreen televisions, smart phones and lasers, but they exist sparsely

on the land and are costly to explore and excavate. Recent research showed

that deep-sea mud contains high concentrations of rare-earth elements, possibly

sourced from hydrothermal plumes (Kato et al. 2011). The hydrothermal vent

fields will become an alternative and continuous source of natural mineral supply

other than the limited but diminishing land resources. The scientific research on

the sediment formation and deposition from hydrothermal vents contributes to

the effective exploration of these natural resources with minimal impact to the

ocean environment and ecology.

2

Volcanic plume

Pyroclastic flow

Figure 1.1: Eruption of Mayon Volcano, the Philippines in 1984, showing the

volcanic plume of hot gases and volcanic ashes, and streams of pyroclastic flows

running down the slope.

Figure 1.2: A deep ocean hydrothermal vent - black smoker in Atlantic Ocean.

Precipitated minerals are deposited around the vent.

3

1.1.3 Marine disposal of dredged spoils and sludge

ation and the supply of sand for land reclamation and other construction ac-

tivities. Dredging spoils have to be properly disposed of as they may contain

various pollutants. Sewage treatment produces organic and bacteria-rich sludge.

Disposal of dredged spoils and sewage sludge in landfill takes up the precious

land resources. They are often disposed of by dumping in the coastal/marine

environment. The waste materials are transported to designated sites by a barge,

and released to the sea in the form of sediment thermal or sediment-laden jets

(Fig. 1.3). Polluted wastes are capped with a thick layer of clean sediments to

isolate them from the marine environment and protect them from storm erosion.

The dumping of waste to the sea can adversely impact the aquatic life. Ma-

rine dumping of contaminated sediment may cause increased turbidity, reduced

dissolved oxygen level and increased organic and heavy metal pollutants. There

are currently four marine disposal sites in Hong Kong waters (Fig. 1.4). The

dumping sites are usually close to sensitive receivers such as marine parks and

fish culture zones. One of the dumping pit for contaminated dredged spoils at

the East of Sha Chau, is within the habitat of the endangered Chinese White

Dolphin. The dumping operation has to be carefully controlled to minimize the

loss of contaminated materials to the ambient, with regular monitoring on water

quality. Predicting the transport and deposition of disposed spoils and sludge

is necessary to ensure that the operations will not cause unacceptable impact to

the marine environment.

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/)

4

1.1.4 Wastewater disposal in the marine environment

In coastal cities like Hong Kong, marine waters are important resources for

recreation, fish culturing, water supply (for toilet flushing, cooling), navigation,

etc. At the same time, domestic or municipal wastewater is often discharged

into coastal waters after treatment, in proximity to sensitive receivers such as

beaches, fish culture zones and marine reserves (Fig. 1.4). Water quality ob-

jectives/standards (WQO) of these sensitive receivers have to be maintained

to protect public health and the marine environment (see Table 1.1 for Hong

Kong WQO). Water quality parameters of raw sewage often exceeds the WQOs

(Table 1.1), thus proper design of sewage treatment/discharge is essential to re-

move/dilute for complying with the WQO. Submerged sewage outfalls, typically

in the form of a long diffuser pipe with a number of risers, is commonly used

to discharge wastewater in form of buoyant jets into the water body, due to the

large dilution achieved by active turbulent mixing (Fig. 1.5).

Wastewater contains different kinds of solids in a wide range of sizes (<0.1

m to >3 cm). In untreated domestic sewage, the total solid content is 350-1200

mg/L, in which 100-300 mg/L is suspended solid (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991). The

removal of solids is essential in wastewater treatment as large solids may block

pipes and damage equipment. Subjected to various treatment levels, solids of

different sizes are removed. For example, preliminary screening can remove solids

smallest to 200 m in diameter; around 50% of the total solids can be removed.

In chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT), up to 80% of suspended

solids can be removed by adding chemicals such as ferric chloride to enhance the

flocculation and settling of suspended solids. The Stonecutters Island Sewage

Treatment Work (SCISTW) under the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS)

in Hong Kong is the largest CEPT plant in the world, occupying 100,000 m2 of

land and currently treating 1.4 million m3 /d sewage collected from the urban

area of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon via deep tunnels (Fig. 1.4). Nevertheless,

the land scarcity problem in many densely-populated cities prevents the use of

extensive land-based sewage treatment. High-level sewage treatment requires

high cost to build and operate for small communities and developing countries.

Preliminary treatment is still adopted due to its relatively small land occupation

and lower cost. In Hong Kong, there are 11 marine outfalls discharging 0.73

million m3 /d preliminarily treated sewage in 2012 (Fig. 1.4). Eight of them will

be abondoned under HATS Stage 2A in 2014 with sewage transferred to SCISTW

for centralized treatment. Some of these outfalls have been in operation since the

1970-80s and discharged a susbstantial amount of sewage sludge to the marine

environment. The cumulative and long-term impacts of these sediment needs

further assessment.

The environmental and ecological impacts of settled particulate matter are

multi-fold: (1) formation of sediment/sludge banks at the vicinity of an outfall.

Anaerobic decomposition of organics in the deeper sediment layer forms gases

such as hydrogen sulphide which may result in odour and foaming at water

surface (Thomann and Mueller, 1987). (2) Dissolved oxygen demand is exerted

due to the oxidation of organics in the sediment/water interface and may cause

5

severe dissolved oxygen depletion in a stratified water body. (3) Enrichment and

accumulation of harmful chemicals such as heavy metals, carcinogenic substances

(e.g. chlorination byproducts, DDT, PCBs) and endocrine disrupting compounds

(EDCs) as they tend to be stably adsorbed on particle surface and create far-

reaching effects to the ecology system through bio-accumulation in the food web.

Worldwide there is an emerging concern on the environmental impact of en-

docrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceuticals (e.g. antibiotics).

Many chemicals used as ingredients or additives in a number of household prod-

ucts such as personal health products and cosmetics, are found as EDCs. Labora-

tory studies have revealed that a number of these chemicals are capable of causing

reproductive disorders in animals, disrupting their hormone system and result-

ing in cancers, under concentrations as low as the order of 0.1 ng/L (Gomes and

Lester, 2003). Medical evidence on their impact on human health is emerging.

The overuse of antibiotics causes bacterial pathogen resistance. These chemi-

cals are inevitability discharged to marine waters with treated sewage. Minh et

al. (2009) found that antibiotics are ubiquitous in sea water throughout Victoria

Harbour in Hong Kong and sewage discharge is one of the major sources. EDCs

and antibiotics have also been found to adsorb on marine sediment, providing

ground for their accumulation (e.g. Gomes and Lester, 2003; Xu and Li, 2010).

Their impact to aquatic organisms and human beings may last for years.

The understanding on sediment/particle jet physics is essential for the safeguard

of human lives, the protection of environment and economic development. Math-

ematical modelling and prediction for the mixing and deposition of sediment jets

is required to achieve these purposes.

Single-phase buoyant jets has been extensively studied with robust models

developed for engineering design, prediction and assessment purposes. However

there has been limited research on sediment-laden buoyant jets. Turbulence-

particle interaction in buoyant jets is not well understood. There is hitherto no

general model for predicting the mixing and deposition of a sediment-laden jet

for the impact assessment of sediment/sludge discharged with sewage.

The objective of the present study is to develop a general model to pre-

dict the sediment mixing and deposition of dilute sediment-laden buoyant jets

in arbitrary inclination in stagnant and unstratified ambient (Fig. 1.6). The

model framework is based on three-dimensional (3D) Lagrangian stochastic par-

ticle tracking. Laboratory experiments is conducted to understand the physics

of sediment-laden jets and to acquire data for model validation. 3D computa-

tional fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling is used to study the turbulence-particle

interaction in sediment-laden jets.

6

Sewage outfalls - screening/preliminary

Sewage outfalls - primary/CEPT

Sewage outfalls - secondary

Beaches

SHENZHEN

Fish Culture Zones

Marine Dumping Sites

Marine Parks/Reserves

2230'N

Pearl River New Territories

Estuary

HONG KONG

Sha

Chau

2220'N SCISTW

Kowloon

HATS

2210'N

0 3 6 12 km

Figure 1.4: Sewage outfalls in Hong Kong (preliminary, primary and secondary

treatment), marine dumping sites and sensitive receivers (bathing beaches, fish

culture zones and marine reserves). The solid line is the transfer tunnels of HATS

Stage 1 in operation. The dashed line is the transfer tunnels of HATS Stage 2A

commencing in 2014.

(HATS) outfall (1.2km long, 24 rosette risers, each with 8 jets). Two of the

rosette risers are shown in detail.

7

Table 1.1: Typical sewage effluent quality and Hong Kong Water Quality Objec-

tive (EPD, 2006).

Treatment level BOD5 Suspended Unionized E.coli

Solid Ammonia

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (count/100mL)

Raw sewage 220 220 20 107

After preliminary 220 200 20 107

treatment

After primary 120 80 20 106 107

treatment

After CEPT 50 40 20 106 107

After secondary 20 20 3 5 104

treatment

HK Water - not to raise Annual mean a Annual geomean

Quality natural ambient 0.021 610

Objective level b Geomean of 5

by 30% 180

a Secondary contact and fish culture zones

b Bathing beaches

Figure 1.6: Experimental image of a sediment-laden jet in this study. Jet velocity

= 0.79m/s; glass particles of 180 m and settling velocity 2.0 cm/s are used.

8

1.3 Outline of the present work

Chapter 2 reviews the physics governing pure and sediment-laden buoyant jets.

Previous studies on sediment-laden jets and plumes are reviewed in detail. The

physics governing the motion of particles, in both stagnant and turbulent fluid

is discussed, followed by a summary on the Eulerian and Lagrangian modelling

of two-phase flows.

Chapter 3 presents the development of a three-dimensional (3D) stochastic

particle tracking model. Two particle tracking models are developed: the Full

Model solves the equation of particle motion for particle velocity and the Sim-

plified Model assumes the particle velocity is a sum of the fluid velocity and the

sediment stillwater settling velocity. The core of both models are a Lagrangian

velocity autocorrelation function which models the loitering and trapping of par-

ticle in turbulent eddies. The particle tracking models are validated against

previous basic experiments.

Chapter 4 provides the details on the experimental investigations performed

for horizontal sediment-laden jets. Bottom deposition and cross-sectional sedi-

ment concentration are measured. Jet turbulent velocity measurement is carried

out to support the assumption in the autocorrelation function in the particle

tracking model.

Chapter 5 summarises the experimental observation and findings of horizontal

sediment-laden momentum jets. 3D Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) mod-

elling is utilized to investigate the turbulence-particle interaction in horizontal

momentum jets. The particle tracking model based on the theory in Chapter 3

is developed to predict sediment deposition and concentration and extensively

validated with experimental measurement.

Chapter 6 presents the development of a general particle tracking model for

arbitrarily inclined sediment-laden buoyant jets in stagnant ambient. It is essen-

tially an integration of the mathematical models for mean jet flow, jet-induced

external current and surface spreading current. The model is validated exten-

sively against previous experiments of vertical and horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jets.

Chapter 7 summarises the contributions of the present study; suggestions for

future research areas and topics are given.

9

10

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

In this thesis, the focus will be on sediment-laden buoyant jets in unstratified

and stagnant fluid (without any cross flow). The study of turbulent sediment-

laden buoyant jets requires the understanding of the physics of turbulent buoyant

jets and turbulence-particle interactions. In this chapter, previous studies of

single-phase turbulent buoyant jet are firstly reviewed, followed by the review

on particle-laden jets, including experimental investigations, and theoretical and

numerical modelling. Secondly, the physics governing the motion of particles, in

both stagnant and turbulent fluid is discussed. The modelling of particle motion

in a turbulent flow is critical to the successful modelling of sediment-laden jets.

Previous studies on particle motion in a turbulent flow is reviewed.

A buoyant jet is an important turbulent flow commonly encountered in engineer-

ing applications and natural environment. As fluid exits the nozzle, turbulence

is induced by shearing with the ambient fluid leading to entrainment and mix-

ing with the environment. A non-vertical buoyant jet gradually bends upwards

under the increased vertical momentum due to buoyant acceleration (Fig. 2.1).

The dynamics of a turbulent buoyant jet in stagnant fluid is governed by its

initial kinematic momentum flux M0 = Q0 u0 = u20 D2 /4 and specific buoyancy

flux B0 = Q0 g0 = g0 u0 D2 /4. As the cross-sectional dimension of a jet is much

smaller than the stream-wise dimension, it can be considered a boundary-layer

type problem. The jet becomes completely turbulent after a short distance from

the nozzle, named as the zone of flow establishment (ZFE), inside which the

turbulence has not penetrated into the potential core. In the zone of established

flow (ZEF), the cross-sectional distributions of time-mean velocity and buoyancy

11

External jet

entrainment

induced flow

of velocity and tracer concentration can be well described by Gaussian profiles.

Morton et al. (1956) introduced the entrainment hypothesis for turbulent closure

to obtain analytical solutions of mean velocity and concentration for pure jets

or plumes in stagnant ambient. Alternatively, a jet spreading hypothesis can be

used to for turbulent closure. The time-mean velocity and concentration prop-

erties of pure round jet and plume have been extensively studied (e.g. Fischer et

al. 1979; Woods et al. 1993).

The governing Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow can

be numerically solved with a turbulence closure model which adopts the Boussi-

nesq eddy viscosity assumption. The turbulent shear stresses are related to the

mean flow gradient with a proportionality factor termed as the turbulent viscos-

ity/diffusivity. The turbulent viscosity/diffusivity is a not a constant and has

to determined from mean flow properties. A commonly adopted model is the

k model (Rodi, 1984), where k and refer to the kinetic energy of turbulence

and its dissipation rate respectively. However the turbulence model may not

necessarily give satisfactory prediction of complex turbulent buoyant flows.

In engineering application, integral model is considered to be a robust and

efficient way for the prediction of a free buoyant jet. With the self similarity

assumption, the governing equations are integrated over the jet cross sections to

obtain the integral equations in terms of jet volume, momentum and buoyancy

fluxes. The jet trajectory as well as the mean jet properties can be predicted with

conservation of momentum and buoyancy, using either entrainment or spreading

hypotheses. The JETLAG model (Lee and Cheung, 1990; Lee and Chu, 2003)

is a comprehensive and well-validated model for predicting buoyant jets over

a wide range of ambient conditions. For stagnant condition, the unknown jet

trajectory and mean flow properties of an arbitrary inclined buoyant jet can be

12

well-predicted by an integral model using the shear entrainment hypothesis.

Turbulence is induced with shearing of the jet flow with the stagnant ambient,

giving rise to jet entrainment and mixing. A number of experimental studies

have been carried out to understand jet and plume turbulence. Wygnanski and

Fielder (1969) measured air jet turbulence using hot-wire anemometry (Re =

Jet Reynolds number = u0 D/ 105 ; Papanicolaou and List (1988) measured

water jet and plume turbulence using Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA) (Re =

1800 10600); Wang and Law (2002) carried out measurement using Particle

Imaging Velocimetry (PIV) (Re = 150013000). Their study consistently shows

that the maximum root-mean-square (RMS) turbulent velocity is about 25% of

the centerline mean flow velocity in the axial direction and about 20% in the

radial direction. Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987) and Wang and Law (2002)

also showed that in the plume regime, the maximum RMS turbulent velocity

is similar to that of a jet, but the RMS tracer concentration is much higher

(40% of centerline mean concentration compared to 25% for a pure jet). The

cross-sectional distribution of measured RMS turbulent velocity fluctuation is

shown to be self-similar (collapse into the same profile after normalization with

the characteristic jet mean flow velocity and half width) despite the wide range

of Re in the independent experiments. Thus the turbulent quantities can be

deduced from the mean flow properties, for both laboratory (Re 103 104 )

and prototype conditions (Re 105 106 ).

the jet (Fig. 2.1, Regime ii). This external flow field is important to the prediction

of sediment particle motion when the particle falls out from the turbulent jet

region. Experimental studies on vertical upward sediment-laden jets and plumes

show that the external flow results in the re-entrainment of particles back to

the jet. However, the external flow field in the previous sediment jet models are

either crudely modelled or neglected.

For their study on multiple jet interaction (Lai and Lee, 2012a), Lai (2009)

developed a general model for predicting the external flow field induced by a

buoyant jet. As far as the outside irrotational flow is concerned, the jet acts as

a distributed entrainment sink. The entrainment flow strength per unit stream-

wise length can be predicted using an integral jet model. The irrotational flow

induced at any given point due to one jet can be predicted as the sum of the

velocities induced by the entrainment sinks. Bottom and free surface boundaries

can be accounted for using the method of images. This greatly contributes to

the modelling of sediment trajectory outside the jet in this study.

13

2.2.4 Gravitational spreading current induced by jet im-

pingement

When a buoyant jet reaches the surface, it spreads radially outwards as gravity

current (Fig. 2.1, Regime iii). The dynamics of the spreading current depends on

the water depth, initial jet configuration and the surface layer thickness. With

experiment and analytical modelling, Lee and Jirka (1981) observed that the

initial thickness of the radial spreading layer is about 0.08 of water depth H

of a vertical buoyant jet in deep water. Kuang and Lee (2006) showed that a

3/4 1/2

stable internal hydraulic jump occurs when ls /H < 3.5, where ls = M0 /B0

is the jet momentum-buoyancy length scale. Akar and Jirka (1994) developed a

model for predicting the gravitational spreading and dilution of ocean outfalls,

accounting for the interfacial and wind-induced mixing. Their modelling idea

is incorporated in the present study for predicting the dynamics of buoyant jet

induced spreading current.

2.3.1 Vertical downward sediment-laden jets

Vertically downward sediment jet is a simple case for the study of turbulence-

sediment interaction, as the fluid flow moves in the same direction with the

sediment natural gravitational settling. Singamsetti (1966) is the first to study

the diffusion of sediment in a downward jet using sand particles of different sizes.

Particle concentration across the jet was measured using isokinetic suction. By

estimating the spreading of particle concentration half-width, it was concluded

that sediment diffusion increases with the particle size because of the tendency

of particles to be thrown out of the eddies. However, only the sediment concen-

tration within one Gaussian half width was measured; the estimated spreading

rate may also be prone to measurement error.

Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987) measured simultaneously fluid and particle

velocity, and the particle number flux for a downward vertical sediment-laden jet

in water, using Laser Doppler Anemometry (LDA). Experimental results showed

that the fluid phase is not significantly affected by the presence of sediment

in dilute concentration. Particle velocity does not decay according to x1 like

the liquid due to their finite settling velocity. Numerical Eulerian-Lagrangian

models were compared with experimental data, but the increasing complexity in

modelling the turbulence-particle interaction did not result in predictions that

compare well with data. A simple model regarding the two phase flow as single

phase can also predict sediment-laden jet in water well.

Jiang and Law (2005) reported simultaneous PIV measurement fluid and

particle phase for vertical downward particle-laden jets. Analysis based on two-

phase conservation equations showed that the mean sediment velocity can be

taken as the sum of fluid velocity and the sediment settling velocity. The general

applicability of this assumption has not been studied on horizontal sediment-

14

laden buoyant jets.

group of them aims at studying the dynamics of volcanic ash and understanding

its deposition around the volcano. Carey et al. (1988) carried out experiments on

vertical sediment laden upward plumes with low and high sediment concentra-

tions. A plume with low sediment concentration behaves as a pure plume with

reduced buoyancy flux. Re-entrainment of sediment back to the plume results in

increased particle flux along the plume.

Sparks et al. (1991) studied the the deposition from the radial surface spread-

ing current of dilute vertical upward sediment-laden plumes. Falling sediment

particles were observed to be drawn towards to the plume and may be re-

entrained. A simple model was developed to predict the sedimentation from

the spreading current with sediment mass conservation. The model compared

well with their experimental data.

Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000) studied the sediment deposition from the spread-

ing current of a vertical buoyant jet. They developed a similar model with Sparks

et al. (1991), but accounting for particle re-entrainment. The model explained

their experimental data well. Sedimentation from the margin of the plume is nev-

ertheless not accounted for. A similar study on vertical sediment-laden upward

pure jets is reported in Cardoso and Zarrebini (2002). Enhanced entrainment at

the surface is observed for pure jets.

Ernst et al. (1996) studied the particle fall out from the margin of vertical

buoyant jet and plume with experimental measurement and theoretical mod-

elling. For small particles and strong jets with large buoyancy, sediment re-

entrainment was observed and the effect had to be empirically accounted for in

their model. Similar study on the deposition of vertical upward sediment-laden

momentum jets was carried out by Neves and Fernando (1995) and empirical

equations were developed using dimensional analysis to predict the deposition

around the jet nozzle.

All the previous studies are limited in that they only focus on one or two of the

important mechanisms involved in the sedimentation process, including fall out

from spreading current, fall out from jet margin and reentrainment. The complex

sediment dynamics of vertical sediment laden buoyant jets cannot be properly

reflected in a integral jet model without introducing assumption and empiricism.

In particular, the buoyant jet induced flow in the ambient has hitherto not been

properly accounted for in a general way. A model which can incorporate all these

important mechanisms is necessary for a satisfactory prediction of sediment-laden

buoyant jets.

15

2.3.3 Horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jets

momentum round jets in stagnant ambient by experiments. They developed

a model to estimate the 2D bottom deposition pattern based on dimensional

analysis and an analytical equation to solve the particle motion. Particles are

assumed to fall out from the jet when the terminal settling velocity is greater

than the jet entrainment velocity. Particles are tracked using the time-averaged

longitudinal and radial velocity superimposed on the particle settling velocity. A

Gaussian transverse deposition profile is assumed. However, their experimental

data showed huge scatter as their sediment supply method could not guarantee

constant sediment concentration. The model prediction did not compare well

with experiment data as particle-turbulence interaction is not modelled.

For a buoyant jet with the jet trajectory bending up, the settling mechanism

is much more complicated. Two-modes of settling mechanism from horizontal

buoyant jets has been identified in previous studies. A narrow, concentrated

deposition region is found near the source, representing the fall out from the

jet edge. As the jet bends over, sediment is carried upwards to the surface

spreading current. Sediment settling out from spreading current forms a large

and near circular deposition region.

McLarnon and Davies (1999) studied the dynamics of a dilute particle-laden

plane buoyant jet with finite volume experimentally (as a starting buoyant jet

with a thermal-like cap and plume like tail). Dimensional analysis was carried

out to relate the bottom deposition characteristics to jet and sediment properties.

Lane-Serff and Moran (2005) developed an integral model to describe the sed-

imentation from a turbulent, buoyant round jet into a stationary ambient. Sedi-

ment is assumed to fall out from the jet where the normal component of settling

velocity to the jet boundary exceed the entrainment velocity. For the spreading

current fall out, Sparks et al. (1991)s model is used. A uniform concentration

of sediment is assumed in the jet, which is not supported by experimental obser-

vation. Jet-induced external flow field is not considered. Only six experiments

were carried out to validate the model.

Based on the idea of Lane-Serff and Moran (2005), Li (2006) and Lee et

al. (2012) further developed a two-layered sediment jet integral model using

JETLAG (Lee and Cheung, 1990) to account for the heterogeneity of sediment

concentration and the sediment mass transfer between the layers. It has consid-

ered the external flow, though crudely, to track the sediment trajectory outside

the jet. Several empirical factors are required to model the particle-turbulence

interactions.

Li (2006) and Lee (2010) carried out extensive experiments on horizontal

sediment-laden momentum and buoyant jets in stagnant water respectively. The

experimental set-up features an hourglass sediment supply system for effective

control of source sediment concentration, which is a significant improvement

to previous investigations using mechanical stirrer for maintaining sediment in

suspension. Lee (2010) developed a particle imaging method to measure the

16

cross-sectional sediment concentration in horizontal sediment-laden momentum

jets. The method is extensively compared with suction sampling measurement

and cross-checked against the bottom deposition profile. The heterogeneity of

sediment concentration in the upper and lower layers of the jet is experimentally

supported.

In addition, Lee (2010) also developed a 3D stochastic particle tracking model

to predict the sediment bottom deposition and concentration in horizontal mo-

mentum jets. Nevertheless, the model cannot compare well with experiments.

Cuthbertson et al. (2008) carried out experimental and CFD modelling on

the deposition from sediment-laden plane buoyant jets in stagnant ambient.

They found that jet trajectories are unaffected by source sediment concentra-

tion < 0.1% by volume. Two modes of deposition were identified: near source

deposition indicative of particle fall-out from the buoyant jet margins, and depo-

sition from spreading gravity current. Using dimensional analysis, the deposition

distributions can be described using the jet specific buoyancy flux, source den-

simetric Froude number and sediment settling velocity. Eulerian CFD model

prediction showed that the source configuration and lateral boundary confine-

ment can significant affect the trajectory of settling particles.

Cuthbertson and Davies (2008) studied experimentally the deposition from

particle-laden, round, buoyant jets in stationary and coflowing ambient. They

utilized photographic techniques to measure the bottom deposition. Similar to

their study for plane buoyant jet in stagnant waters, the two main sediment fall-

out mechanisms, the fall-out from jet margin and from the spreading current,

are identified. Dimensional analysis is used to quantitatively characterize the

deposition distributions.

One of the engineering application of sediment-laden jet is ocean dumping of

dredge spoil or sludge. Sediment is dumped either instantaneously through an

ocean barge or continuously through pipes. For instantaneous dumping, the

sediment cluster acts as an instantaneous source of negative buoyancy, form-

ing a thermal as it travels down the water column. For continuous dumping,

the sediment flow acts as a high-concentrated sediment-laden jet with negative

buoyancy.

Koh and Chang (1973) developed a mathematical model to predict the trans-

port and deposition for instantaneous and continuous dumping. The model ac-

counts for three sediment transport phases: (1) the convective jet or thermal

phase influenced by initial momentum and negative buoyancy, (2) the collapse

phase as sediment falls out from the jet or thermal, and (3) the far field advective-

diffusion phase.

Many experimental and theoretical studies have been carried out on instan-

taneous thermal-like dumping (e.g. Li, 1997; Buhler and Papantoniou, 2001;

Bush et al. 2003; Gensheimer et al. 2012). Three phases of sediment dynamics

are identified: (1) the particle cloud accelerates under initial momentum and

17

buoyancy, transforming it into a well defined sediment thermal; (2) the thermal

with self-similar internal vortex circulation entrains ambient fluid and grows in

size; (3) as the vortex circulation and turbulence weaken, sediment segregates

from the thermal and enters the swarm phase, falling under their stillwater set-

tling velocity with weak dispersion. CFD and integral models were developed to

predict the sediment thermal dynamics.

Unlike the present study of sediment-laden jets in dilute concentration, these

sediment thermal studies are carried out at much higher sediment concentration;

thus sediment-induced buoyancy is not negligible.

Sewage carries sediment of varies sizes. Sediment removal ability depends on

sewage treatment level. For preliminary screening, solids > 200m size are re-

moved while smaller solids are discharged through submarine outfalls. These fine,

organic-rich sediment, may deposit close to the outfall and negatively impact the

benthic ecology. Models have been developed for prediction and assessment of

the fate and transport of sediment from submarine outfalls. Farley (1990) de-

veloped a two-layer model for predicting the sediment deposition from an ocean

outfall in stratified environment. The model incorporatef tidal transport and

mixing, fine sediment coagulation and sediment-nutrient dynamics. The model

was validated against measured field data near an ocean outfall in California,

USA. Cromey et al. (1998) developed a model for predicting sediment deposi-

tion from sewage discharge and its biological impact. The model used stochastic

particle tracking to simulate sediment transport and settling. It incorporated

models of sediment resuspension, organic carbon chemistry and benthic biology.

The model is applied for environmental assessment of a British marine outfall.

These models account only for far field sediment dynamics.

As a microscopic view, Zhang and Li (2006) researched on the coagulation and

sedimentation of fine particulate in sewage. They hypothesized that higher sed-

iment concentration at the jet nozzle increases the flocculation of fine sediment,

thus increases the settling velocity and sediment settles close to the discharge.

Nevertheless, such hypothesis has not been supported by any experimental or

field observation of sediment-laden jets.

Previous studies of sediment-laden jets is carefully reviewed. The following can

be summarised:

been carried out, covering a wide range of sediment and jet flow conditions.

The general features of sediment-laden jets is fairly well-known, but a more

fundamental understanding of sediment fall-out and deposition mechanisms

is lacking.

18

2. Analytical and numerical integral models have been developed to explain

the experimental data. Nevertheless there is hitherto no general model to

satisfactorily predict the bottom deposition of a sediment-laden buoyant

jet.

Physical mechanisms governing particle motion has to be understood for pre-

dicting sediment dynamics in turbulent flows. The equation of motion consists

of the forces acting on a particle, including gravitational/buoyancy, fluid drag,

fluid acceleration due to local pressure gradient, added mass and Basset history

force (see Chapter 3).

The settling velocity of a sediment particle in stillwater ws is normally deter-

mined from the balance of drag and gravity. The drag force depends on particle

diameter, particle and fluid densities and fluid kinematic viscosity. An expression

relating drag coefficient and the particle Reynolds number Rep = ws d/ can be

obtained (see Chapter 3).

For natural sediment or irregular particles, the drag force deviates from the

spherical drag law and depends on the shape of the particle. Empirical equations

are often used to correlate the settling velocity with the particle size derived from

median sieved diameter (e.g. Hallermeier, 1981; Soulsby, 1997).

Stillwater settling velocity is widely used in environmental flow modelling,

such as sediment transport modelling in rivers. Nevertheless, particle-turbulence

interaction on settling velocity received little attention.

For a group of particles settling in quiescent water, Bulher and Papantoniou

(2001) studied the sediment dynamics when they enter the final stage of settling

- the swarm/cluster stage. It was observed that the particles descends in their

stillwater settling velocity and the surrounding fluid is motionless. Though the

sediment concentration is low enough, the width of the swarm still increases due

to the diffusion effect formed by the wake of the falling particles and their own

random lateral motion during the descent.

The Basset history force (Basset, 1888) accounts for the viscous effect due to

the delay in boundary layer development. Whenever there is a change in the

relative velocity between particle and fluid, the fluid around the sphere exerts an

additional unsteady force by viscosity. Since the evaluation of the Basset force

involves the integration of particle-fluid relative velocity accelerations through-

out its time history, it is computationally demanding with additional memory

storage.

19

Brush et al. (1964) derived analytical solution for the unsteady motion of

particle settling under linear drag with the Basset force. Numerical solution is

required for the non-linear drag range. Several studies aimed at developing more

efficient/more accurate method in computing the Basset force have also been

reported (e.g. Michaelides, 1992; Alexander, 2004; Bombardelli et al. 2008)

While most previous studies using Lagrangian particle tracking method ig-

nore the Basset force term, some studies showed that it can be important for

certain conditions. Michaelides (1997) pointed out that the necessity to include

the transient force terms (Basset, added mass, fluid acceleration) depends on the

quantity of interest of prediction. For an integrated quantity, like particle disper-

sion or time-averaged particle velocity, the transient force terms make negligible

contributions because their values change signs frequently and their integrated

effect becomes very small. On the other hand, the Basset force may be an im-

portant portion of the instantaneous total force on the particle. Therefore the

conclusions of previous studies on Basset force have to be viewed with caution.

For example, Mei et al. (1991) found that the Basset force has little effect on

particle diffusivity; but Liang and Michaelides (1992) showed the Basset force is

about 20% of the instantaneous total force on the particle when the fluid to par-

ticle density ratio is comparable to one and when the particle size is very small.

Bombardelli et al. (2008) showed that the Basset force considerably lengthens

the trajectory of a saltating sand grain.

The previous studies on Basset force are limited in several aspects. The linear

equation of motion is assumed (Rep << 1). The application of Basset term to

larger particles (Rep > 1) is problematic. These previous theoretical studies are

carried out for simple flow conditions only. Most importantly, these findings

are only based on theoretical model computations, without any experimental

support. The importance of Basset force has hitherto not been addressed for

turbulent sediment-laden jet flows.

Many previous studies showed that particles settle more slowly in a turbulent

flow. Ho (1964) measured the settling velocities of spheres in homogeneous verti-

cally oscillating fluid. The apparent settling velocity can be reduced to as much

as 40% of the settling velocity in stillwater, when the fluid acceleration is about

10g, where g = gravitational acceleration.

Murray (1970) and Nielsen (1993) carried out particle settling experiments

on oscillating grid turbulence. They showed that the apparent settling velocity is

significantly modulated by turbulence; when the ratio of turbulent fluctuations

to terminal settling velocity is less than 3-4, a reduction of settling velocity up

to 30% is observed. Recent studies by Doroodchi et al. (2008) and Zhou and

Cheng (2009) have also shown a maximum settling velocity reduction of 25%

under grid-turbulence.

Hwang (1985) derived analytical solutions to explain the experimental results

20

of Ho (1964) and Murray (1970). Mei (1991) carried out stochastic numerical

simulation to study the effect of turbulence on particle settling velocity and

concluded that settling velocity reduction is due to non-linear drag. Stout et

al. (1995) carried out numerical prediction using the equation of motion to in-

vestigate the effect of non-linear drag on settling velocity in oscillating flows and

homogeneous turbulence. It was found that settling velocity reduction depends

on the particle Reynolds number Rep , ratio of turbulent fluctuation to settling

velocity (/ws ) and the frequency of oscillation.

In turbulent flows, the eddies are not simple sinusoidal unidirectional fluctua-

tions but in the form of rotating eddies rapidly varying spatially and temporally.

It is not necessary that reduction of settling velocity in turbulent eddies is entirely

caused by the non-linear drag effect. Stommel (1949) first found that small set-

tling particles (algae) follow closed trajectories in idealized circulation cells and

thereby remain suspended. Tooby et al. (1977) observed experimentally that

a sphere moves in closed circular trajectory in a forced vortex. Nielsen (1984)

showed analytically that some circular vortex flows (e.g. forced vortex, Rankine

vortex) can result in the trapping of sediment particles (Fig. 2.2).

Turbulence arises from shear instabilities at large Reynolds numbers and dis-

sipated by fluid viscosity. Turbulent eddies are random and three-dimensional

with a wide spectrum of time and length scales. Similar to the idealized vor-

tices, the 3D eddies would induce sediment trapping. Nielsen (1992) postulated

that a sediment particle may be trapped in a turbulent eddy during the eddy

formation and released until the eddy dissipates. Nielsen developed an velocity

autocorrelation function to describe this effect, but his assumption has not been

substantiated experimentally or examined in a turbulent shear flow such as a

sediment jet.

21

Figure 2.2: Trapping of sediment particle in a forced vortex adapted from Nielsen

(1984).

Eulerian and Lagrangian models have been applied in the study of particle trans-

port in turbulent flows. The characteristics and advantages of both modelling

techniques are reviewed and discussed.

Eulerian two-phase modelling solves the continuity and momentum equations

for both fluid and solid phases. Momentum transfer between phases is incorpo-

rated into the momentum equations as source/sink terms. For a 3D two-phase

application, at least 10 partial differential equations (PDEs) have to be solved

simultaneously for two-phase flows (1 continuity and 3 momentum equations for

each phase, 2 for typical k- turbulence model). This poses high demand to

computation power, and most importantly, the turbulent interaction between

liquid and solid phases has not been understood thoroughly. Such modelling ap-

proach is only typically used in high-concentration two-phase flows in industrial

application.

For dilute sediment-laden flows in the environment, the solid phase does not

significantly affect the fluid phase. The solid phase transport is described by

mass conservation equation only. This approach is called a mixture model. A

settling flux is included in the vertical direction using a drift velocity (usually

taken as the stillwater settling velocity). The modelling of sediment transport

in the environment usually adopts this approach (e.g. Ji, 2009). Modelling the

22

sediment-induced buoyancy can be included in the equation of state and as a

damping function in the turbulent closure model. The approach is reported in

some studies on cohesive sediment transport (Toorman, 2002; Winterwerp and

van Kessel, 2003). Computation using the mixture model is more efficient as

only 7 PDEs have to be solved, but the use of stillwater settling velocity is

questionable.

The Lagrangian modeling approach solves the trajectories of individual fluid par-

ticles in a stochastic manner. In his classical analysis, Taylor (1921) showed that

the turbulent velocity fluctuation of fluid particles in successive time steps pro-

cess certain autocorrelation. The autocorrelation function can be approximately

described by a exponential decay function

hu (t)u (t + t)i t

R(t) = 2

= exp (2.1)

TL

where TL is a characteristic Lagrangian time scale of turbulence

Z

TL = R( )d (2.2)

0

individual fluid particles can be modelled stochastically. The turbulent diffusivity

in the Eulerian modeling can be related to the RMS turbulent velocity fluctuation

and Lagrangian time scale by

D = 2 TL . (2.3)

inertia and its natural settling tendency. Csanady (1963) is among the first ones

to address this problem systematically. The settling of a particle under gravity

results in the crossing trajectory effect; as the particle does not follow the

turbulent eddy motion, the sediment particle autocorrelations are different from

that of fluid particles. By ignoring the particle inertia effect, Csanady derived

an autocorrelation function for a particle falling in atmospheric turbulence:

v

u 2 2

t u w T

R(t) = exp t1 + s 2 L (2.4)

TL Lz

direction. It can be seen that when the particle is neutrally buoyant (ws = 0), the

correlation reverts to that of Taylors correlation. Whenr ws > 0, the correlation

ws2 TL2

is smaller than Taylors due to the positive term of 1+ L2z

. As explained

by Csanady (1963), this means owing to the finite mean settling velocity, the

heavier particle continuously changes its fluid-particle neighbourhood. The heavy

particle falls out from the eddy and therefore will lose its velocity correlation more

rapidly than a fluid particle which changes its turbulent velocity only owing to the

23

eddy decay. Csanadys autocorrelation function is supported by experimental

measurement of the particle Lagrangian velocity in grid turbulence by Snyder

and Lumley (1971).

The analysis of Csanady has certain limitations despite its pioneering contri-

bution. Firstly, it does not include particle inertia effect and assumes particles

respond to fluid motion instantaneously. This assumption may be plausible for

small-sized particles falling in air as the solid-air density ratio is usually large

(> 1000). The inertia effect may be significant for large particles in water. Sec-

ondly, the autocorrelation function cannot model the loitering and trapping effect

of particles in turbulence.

Besides based on the autocorrelation function, another type of stochastic

modelling is the eddy interaction time model proposed by Gosman and Ioan-

nides (1983). The eddy interaction time TI is defined as the minimum of

turbulent time scale TE and the residence time of a particle in an eddy TR ,

representing the cross trajectory effect,

TI = min(TR , TE ) (2.5)

where

LE LE

TE = =q (2.6)

2k/3

LE

TR = (2.7)

|up uf |

k 3/2

LE = C (2.8)

where C is a calibration constant; LE is the length scale of turbulence and

|up uf | is the particle-fluid relative velocity magnitude. The fluctuation ve-

locity is selected randomly from a Gaussian distribution with variance equal to

the RMS turbulent velocity . The particle is assumed to be in the eddy for

the duration of the interaction time, and then a new eddy with lifetime and

scale corresponding to the local turbulence field is established and a new fluctu-

ation velocity is randomly generated. This model has been integrated with CFD

models using the k turbulence closure.

2.7 Summary

In this chapter, previous studies of sediment-laden buoyant jets have been re-

viewed. For a single-phase turbulent buoyant jet, its trajectory and mean veloc-

ity can be robustly predicted using an integral jet model. The jet RMS turbulent

velocity is self-similar and can be predicted from the mean flow properties. The

jet-induced external flow can be modelled by a distribution of point sinks of

strength equal to the entrainment per unit length along the jet trajectory. The

surface spreading current formed by an impinging jet is extensively studied and

characterized. The understanding and predictability of these three important

24

flow regimes paves the way to the general modelling of sediment-laden buoyant

jets.

The governing equation of particle motion is reviewed. The importance of

Basset history force has hitherto not been studied on sediment-laden jets. Sedi-

ment motion in turbulence is discussed. The trapping and loitering of a sediment

particle in turbulent eddies has not been examined in sediment-laden jets. Eu-

lerian and Lagrangian modelling approaches of two-phase flows are discussed.

Previous sediment-laden jet studies have been reviewed. They contributed

some insights on the physics of sediment-laden jets. Various models have been

developed for sediment-laden jets. Nonetheless, the models are specifically de-

veloped for particular types of sediment-laden jets. There exists no satisfactory

general model for predicting the mixing and bottom deposition of an arbitrarily

inclined sediment-laden buoyant jet.

25

26

Chapter 3

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter the development of a three-dimensional stochastic particle track-

ing model is presented. The core of the particle tracking model is (1) the equation

of motion of sediment and (2) the Lagrangian autocorrelation function which

models the turbulent fluid velocity fluctuations along the sediment particle tra-

jectory. The chapter begins with the equation of motion of sediment particle

and the physical meaning of each force term. Secondly, the development of the

stochastic model on particle-turbulence interaction is discussed in detail. A de-

tailed validation of the model is presented, showing that the model is capable

of predicting sediment motion in various flow conditions. The influence of the

computationally demanding Basset force term on the settling velocity reduction

is discussed.

3.2.1 Components of the equation of motion

The equation of motion of a spherical particle in an unsteady, non-uniform fluid

field is given as according to Maxey and Riley (1983):

dup

p Vp = (f p )Vp g (3.1)

dt

1

f CD Ap |up uf | (up uf )

2 !

duf

+f Vp

dt f

!

dup duf

f CM Vp

dt dt f

Z t d(up uf )

3

d2 f d d

2 0 t

27

where

up =

particle velocity = (up , vp , wp )

uf =

fluid velocity = (uf , vf , wf )

Vp volume of particle = d3 /6

=

Ap projected area of particle = d2 /4

=

p =

particle density

f =

fluid density

g (0, 0, g) = gravitational acceleration, g = 9.81 m/s2

=

CD =

drag coefficient = f (Rep )

CM =

added mass coefficient = 0.5

d =

particle diameter

|up uf |d

Rep = particle Reynolds number =

= kinematic viscosity of fluid = /f

= dynamic viscosity of fluid

The left hand side of the equation denotes the acceleration of the sphere and

the right hand side of the equation represents the forces acting on the spherical

particle. The terms are (i) body force (gravity/buoyancy), (ii) drag force, (iii)

fluid acceleration due to local pressure gradient, (iv) added mass force and (v)

Basset history force. For a solid particle in steady motion, only the gravitational

and drag forces are present. The fluid acceleration, added mass and Basset

history forces appear for unsteady particle motion. Except for the gravitational

acceleration which is self-explanatory, here the physical meaning of each of the

force terms are illustrated.

Drag

The drag

1

f CD Ap |up uf | (up uf )

2

is the force exerted by the fluid on the particle due to skin friction and pressure

difference between the upwind and downwind faces of the sphere. It depends on

the projected area of the particle, the relative velocity between particle and fluid,

and the fluid density and viscosity. The drag coefficient for spherical particle CD

is a function of the particle Reynolds number Rep based on the relative velocity

of particle and fluid.

d|up uf |

Rep = (3.2)

where is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. For small Rep < 0.4, the drag

force, thus CD can be analytically determined using potential flow theory as

24/Rep . For large Rep > 1000, CD is equal to a constant value of about 0.45. In

between the relation of CD and Rep is obtained by experimental measurement.

28

A mathematical expression is fitted for modelling purposes. The CD Rep curve

used here is (Fig. 3.1)

24 0.42

CD = 1 + 0.15Re0.687

p + (3.3)

Rep 1 + 42500Re1.16

p

particle Reynolds numbers. The expression corresponds to the limiting values in

the Stokes (laminar) drag range for small Rep (< 1) and the constant of 0.42 in

large Rep . For the particles used in the present study, their Rep is in the order

of 1-20.

10000

CD Stokes

(1970)

100

10

Rep

0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Gauvin (1970).

Fluid acceleration

duf

f Vp

dt f

due to unsteady fluid motion (e.g. spatially varied flow, turbulence) act as force

to the particles. The local pressure gradient gives rise to a force in the direction

of the pressure gradient. It is important

to note that the derivative represents

duf

the fluid local pressure gradient dt as if the particle is absent, i.e.

f

!

duf uf

= + (uf )uf (3.4)

dt f

t

duf

It is not the same as dt

, which is the pressure gradient along the path of a

p

sediment particle, i.e.

!

duf uf

= + (up )uf (3.5)

dt p

t

29

Only the former is meaningful to the physical interpretation of the equation of

motion. The two are only equivalent in case of non-spatially varying flow, i.e.

! !

duf duf uf

= = , (3.6)

dt f

dt p

t

like a homogeneously oscillating fluid (e.g. Ho, 1964). In the case of sediment-

duf

laden turbulent jets, the term dt is prescribed using the mean flow only,

f

as the stochastic model does not involves the modeling of spatial turbulence

structures. The term can be analytically calculated with the analytical mean

flow solutions at any position. However, it is shown that the fluid acceleration

term is negligible in predicting the deposition of sediment-laden jets.

Added mass

dup duf

f CM Vp

dt dt f

is an additional force that the surrounding fluid has to be displaced at the expense

of work done by the particle. The value of the added mass coefficient of a spherical

particle is theoretically determined as 0.5 (Lamb, 1932), which means that the

mass of fluid needed to be displaced equal to half of the mass of fluid occupied

by the sphere.

Z t p d(u u )

3 2 f

d f d d

2 0 t

accounts for the viscous effects as the delay in boundary layer development as

the relative velocity changes with time. It represents the viscous shear force

acting on the particle as there exists a velocity gradient between the moving

particle and the stagnant ambient. It is called history force as it depends on

the acceleration history up to the present time. Since the evaluation of the

Basset force involves the integration of the accelerations throughout its time his-

tory, it is computationally demanding with additional storage needed for storing

the previous accelerations. It has to be noted that the Basset term is derived

based on laminar flow around the sphere thus it is applicable only to Stokes flow

(Rep < 1). The application of Basset term to larger particle with higher Rep is

problematic. In this study Rep > 1 for all the particles used in the turbulent

jet experiment. Nevertheless the importance of the Basset force is still evaluated

using the original expression, as the Rep are less than 20, for which the flow at

the vicinity around the sphere are still in laminar state. In the later chapters,

importance of the Basset force term will be further discussed.

30

3.2.2 Solution of the equation of motion

The equation is to be solved by numerical integration together with the particle

position.

dxp

up = (3.7)

dt

In sediment jet applications, the particle position provides the mean flow velocity

and the turbulent properties (RMS turbulent velocity and dissipation rate). The

numerical method used in the present study to solve the equation of motion and

the treatment of the Basset term, is described on Appendix A.1 and A.2.

The unknown in the equation of motion is the particle velocity up which is

dependent on the particle properties (density, diameter), and the fluid velocity.

In unsteady turbulent flow, the fluid velocity is particularly important as it gov-

erns the motion of the particle. At each time step, the fluid velocity has to be

known for the prediction of the particle velocity. In a stochastic random walk

model, the turbulent fluctuations has to be generated based on the autocorrela-

tion of turbulent fluid velocities along the particle trajectory, which is derived in

the next section.

particle in turbulence

3.3.1 Taylors autocorrelation function

The theoretical consideration starts from Taylor (1921)s classical analysis on

turbulent diffusion. As turbulence is in the form of coherent eddies, a particle

moves along with an eddy until the eddy dissipates and is taken up by another

one. Therefore the motion of particles is not completely random but certain

autocorrelation exists for the particle velocity at two consecutive times. The

Lagrangian correlation function of the turbulent fluctuating velocity u in a ho-

mogeneous turbulent field with zero mean flow is represented by

hu (t)u (t + t)i

R(t) = (3.8)

2

where t is the current time; t is the time difference and is the root-mean-

square (RMS) turbulent velocity fluctuation; hi denotes the ensemble average.

According to Taylor, in homogeneous turbulence, the Lagrangian autocorrelation

function R of the velocity of a neutrally buoyant particle following the fluid flow

can be described by an exponential function,

t

R(t) = exp (3.9)

TL

where TL is the Lagrangian integral time scale for turbulence. For small time

difference t 0, the particle velocity is completely correlated with itself (R =

31

1). At large time difference t , the particle losses its memory at the

previous times with correlation drops to zero.

For a foreign particle like sediment, the velocity autocorrelation also exists

but the drift velocity and particle inertia complicate the form of the function,

thought it is still partly following the fluid motion.

ity autocorrelation function

The derivation of the equivalent Eulerian particle velocity autocorrelation func-

tion is based on the work of Nielsen (1992). ConsideringDtheEensemble mean of

the absolute value of the time derivative of the velocity du

dt

, by definition

* +

du

h|u|i = t =

t (3.10)

dt TL

!

h|u|i

R = exp (3.11)

du u u u u

= +u +v +w (3.12)

dt t x y z

Eq. 3.10 may be written as

* +

u u u u

h|u|i = +u +v + w t (3.13)

t x y z

(1992) has made two assumptions:

1. the ensemble average depends on the velocity of the previous time step as

small turbulent velocity fluctuation correspond to small changes of velocity,

and

2. the cross-correlations

between the velocity components (u, v, w) and their

u u u u

partial derivatives t , u x , v y , w z are zero.

ping the sediment particle by vortex motion, generating the so called loitering

effect as discussed in Nielsen (1992). The assumption is indeed a heuristic one

as different turbulent structures may affect the behaviour of sediment particles

in various ways. Experimental support is required to confirm the validity of the

assumption. Particle Imaging Velocimetry (PIV) measurement of the velocity of

turbulent jet flows has been carried out to show the validity of this assumption

32

in turbulent jet flows (see Chapter 4, Section 4.7.3). The second assumption can

also be substantiated using PIV velocity measurement (see Chapter 4, Section

4.7.4).

Thus the ensemble average is written as

v* + * + * + * +

u

u u u u u

h|u|i = tt ( )2 + u2i ( )2 + vi2 ( )2 + wi2 ( )2 (3.14)

t x y z

Applying the Eulerian equivalents to the ensemble values of the partial deriva-

tives, as like in Eq. 3.10 * +

u

= (3.15)

t TE

and * + * + * +

u u u

= = = , (3.16)

x y z LE

the ensemble average of the Eulerian velocity increment is derived as

v " #

u

t u

t1 + A ui 2 vi 2 wi 2

h|u|i = E ( ) + ( ) + ( ) (3.17)

TE

TE

AE = . (3.18)

LE

where LE and TE are the Eulerian spatial and time scale of the turbulence

respectively. In turbulent jets and plumes, the Inserting back to Eq. 3.11, the

corresponding autocorrelation function is

v

u ! !2 !2

u 2

t u u i vi wi

Ri = exp t1 + AE + + . (3.19)

TE

step, thus denoted by the subscript i. With the first assumption of Nielsen

(1992), the correlation is different from the one by Taylor which is a constant

relationship independent of the current velocity. This correlation can be viewed

as a local adaptation of Taylors correlation function in turbulence.

The particle tracking model can be readily incorporated with the turbulent quan-

tities (k, LE and TE ) estimated from commonly used two-equation turbulence

closure models. Using the k model, LE and TE can be estimated according

to Launder and Spalding (1974), where

k 3/2

LE = C3/4 (3.20)

33

s

3 3/4 k

TE = C (3.21)

2

where k and are turbulence kinetic energy and its dissipation rates and C =

0.09 is the constant in the k model. The root-mean-square velocity fluctuation

can be related to the turbulence kinetic energy by

s

2

= k. (3.22)

3

With Eqs. 3.20 and 3.21,

TE

AE = =1 (3.23)

LE

In a jet with self-similar profiles of RMS turbulent fluctuations and turbulent

energy dissipation rates (see Chapter 5, Fig. 5.17), the turbulent length scales

LE can be shown as in the order of 0.1b, where b is the characteristic half-width

of a jet (Fig. 3.2).

If the first assumption is waived, the ensemble averages of the spatial deriva-

tives can be written as

* + * + * +

u u u 2

u = v = w = , (3.24)

x y z LE

With AE = 1, the autocorrelation function can be recovered as

2t

R(t) = exp (3.25)

TE

In this case, the expression is equivalent to Taylor original one with TL = 0.5TE .

Csanady (1973) suggest that TL = 0.25TE , while experimental data of Sato and

Yamamoto (1987) suggested that TL = 0.30.6TE for grid generated turbulence,

which is in good agreement with the derivation here.

lence

In the present work, the Full Model solving the governing equation of motion

is proposed, using the velocity autocorrelation function derived for sediment

particles settling in turbulence. The Simplified Model is originally proposed

by Nielsen on modelling the trapping of sediment particles in grid turbulence; in

the present study it is extended to apply for sediment-laden jets.

Full Model

Sediment particles do not completely follow the fluid motion but with a relative

velocity due to the gravity or its own inertia (Fig. 3.3). In a turbulent flow, the

particle velocity up can be written as

up = uf + ur (3.26)

= uf + uf + ur

34

(a) Schematic illustration

0.4 0.4

/uc LE/bg

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

0 1 2 r/bg 3 0 1 2 r/bg 3

(b) Self-similar RMS turbulent velocity (c) Normalized Turbulent length scale

profile

Figure 3.2: Turbulent length scale LE variation of a round jet. (a) Schematic

illustration. (b) Self-similar RMS turbulent velocity profile estimated using

Eq. 5.7, Chapter 5. uc is the jet centerline mean velocity. (c) Turbulent length

scale normalized with Gaussian jet half-width bg = 0.114x, estimated using

Eqs. 5.7 and 5.8, Chapter 5.

35

where uf = uf + uf is the fluid velocity (mean+turbulent fluctuation) and ur is

the relative velocity between the particle and the fluid. Without loss of generality,

the time mean flow can be assumed as zero (uf 6= 0 in a turbulent jet flow) and

the particle velocity is

up = uf + ur (3.27)

is particle velocity; uf is fluid velocity at the location of particle; ur is relative

velocity.

On the solution of the equation of motion of particles, the turbulent fluctua-

tion of fluid has to be generated for each time step, based on the autocorrelation

of fluid velocity along the particle path. Thus it is important to obtain this

autocorrelation function.

By definition, the change of the fluid velocity along the particle path (take

the vertical component w as an example), denoted by the subscript p, is

! ! ! ! !

dwf wf wf wf wf

= + up + vp + wp (3.28)

dt p

t p

x p

y p

z p

v* + * + * + * +

u

u u u u u

h|u|i = tt ( )2 + u2p,i ( )2 + vp,i

2 2

( )2 + wp,i ( )2 (3.29)

t x y z

The mean properties of turbulence along the particle path should be the same

as the turbulent properties of the fluid. Therefore the mean values of the partial

derivatives are the same as Eqs. 3.15 and 3.16 (/TE , /LE ). Similar to Eq. 3.17,

the velocity change is

v " #

u

t u

t1 + A up,i 2 vp,i

w

2 + ( p,i )2

h|u|i = E ( ) + ( ) (3.30)

TE

The autocorrelation function can be expressed as

v " #

u

t u u v w

Ri = exp t1 + AE ( p,i )2 + ( p,i )2 + ( p,i )2 (3.31)

TE

36

Simplified Model

For a fluid particle following completely the fluid motion, up = uf = u , Eq. 3.19

is recovered. For a particle settling with constant velocity ws in the vertical

direction only, the relative velocity is

0

ur = 0

(3.32)

ws

With this assumption, the solid particles follows the fluid velocity completely

except in the vertical direction. The particle velocity is

uf

up = u + ur = vf , (3.33)

wf ws

v " #

u

t u u v w ws 2

Ri = exp t1 + AE ( f,i )2 + ( f,i )2 + ( f,i ) (3.34)

TE

which is the same as derived in Nielsen (1992). Eq. 3.31 is applicable for the

Full model which the equation of motion is solved, while Eq. 3.34 is for the

simplified model with the assumption of constant relative velocity (Eq. 3.32),

with the assumption that the statistical properties of the particle velocity is the

same as the turbulent fluid velocity. It has to be noted that the simplified model

is based on the assumption of particles following the fluid velocity except in the

vertical direction which is the superposition of the fluid velocity and the particle

stillwater settling velocity. Nevertheless the loitering and trapping of particles in

turbulent eddies are generated by the autocorrelation function itself (see Section

3.3.5).

Interestingly, if the first assumption of Nielsen is waived, like Eq. 3.24, the

autocorrelation would becomes independent of the instantaneous velocity fluctu-

ations and can be written as

v

u

t u w2 T 2

R(t) = exp t4 + s 2 E (3.35)

TE LE

which is indeed similar to the form given by Csanady (1963), derived for particles

falling in atmospheric turbulence, with the inertia of particles ignored.

v

u

t u w2 T 2

R(t) = exp t1 + s 2 L (3.36)

TL Lz

Eqs. 3.31 and 3.34 appears to be applicable to modeling both loitering effect as

suggested by Nielsen and the cross-trajectory effect as suggested by Csanady.

37

3.3.4 Generation of turbulent velocity fluctuations

The turbulent diffusion process is often viewed similar to a molecular diffusion

process (see e.g. Pope, 2000). With the autocorrelation function, the turbulence

fluctuation can be generated by

q

uf ,i+1 = Ri uf ,i + (1 Ri2 ) (3.37)

where the subscript i denotes the current time step and i + 1 denotes the next

step. denotes randomly generated numbers (in x, y, z-directions) following a

Gaussian distribution with zero mean and unit variance. With the instantaneous

particle velocity determined, the particle position can be found by numerically

integrating the velocity with respect to time (Eq. 3.7). In the Full Model, the

particle position is integrated with the equation of motion using a predictor-

corrector method (see Appendix A.1). The particle position (Eq. 3.7) in the

Simplified Model is integrated using a predictor-corrector approach.

1

xi+1 = xi + (ui+1 + ui )t. (3.38)

2

tion

Eq. 3.34 can be viewed as a heuristic local correlation that mimics the vortex

trapping of sediment particles demonstrated by Nielsen (1992). From Eq. 3.34,

there is an asymmetry between updrafts (w > 0) and downdrafts (w < 0). On

an updraft w and ws tend to cancel, so the argument of the exponential is closer

to 0 and correlation is greater (the exponential function is closer to 1). A particle

would tend to retain any upward motion for longer, whereas for a downdraft the

motion becomes decorrelated more quickly. Thus on average particles stay in the

upward moving flow longer than in the downward moving flow, resulting in the

reduction of settling velocity.

Extensive numerical experiments have confirmed the characteristic feature of

Eq. 3.34. Fig. 3.4 shows a time series of one realization of turbulent velocity

fluctuation of a settling particle in homogeneous turbulence (in the z direction

only, u , v = 0) with the following parameters: stillwater settling velocity ws =

0.01m/s; RMS turbulent fluctuation = 0.01m/s; turbulence length scale LE =

0.005m; turbulence time scale TE = LE / = 0.5s. Computation time step is

taken as 0.001s. The velocity fluctuation generated by Nielsens autocorrelation

function dependent on instantaneous velocity is compared to that generated by

a constant autocorrelation function

s

t w2

R(t) = exp 2 + 2s

TE

fluctuation ; it is similar to the autocorrelation by Csanady (1963) (Eq. 3.36).

38

The autocorrelation in the present model can be viewed as a local correlation

that varies with the instantaneous velocity (or turbulent fluctuation w ) in order

to capture the vortex trapping feature. This is heuristically reasonable in view

of the small time step as compared with the time scale of turbulence (i.e. the

instantaneous velocity is like a quasi-steady local velocity). When w and the

settling velocity ws cancel out, the autocorrelation reaches its maximum. The

turbulent velocity generated by Nielsens autocorrelation is slightly higher than

that by a constant autocorrelation. Fig. 3.5 shows the position of the settling

particle as integrated from the particle velocity wp = w ws . It can be seen

that the particle position using Nielsens function is always higher than that

by a constant autocorrelation and the particle is in general falls more slowly in

turbulence under the loitering effect. The reduction in settling velocity using

Nielsens autocorrelation is also supported by a number of realizations of the

particle position (Fig. 3.6).

0.05 1

0.04 0.998

0.03 0.996

0.02 0.994

0.01 0.992

w' (m/s)

0 0.99

-0.01 0.988

w' (constant R)

-0.03 Ws 0.984

R (Nielsen)

-0.04 R (Constant) 0.982

-0.05 0.98

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t (s) 3

a single realization, t = 0.001s. LE = 0.005m, = 0.01m/s, TE = 0.5s,

ws = 0.01m/s.

39

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t (s) 3

-0.01

-0.02

z (Nielsen)

-0.03

z (Constant)

z (stillwater)

-0.04

z (m)

-0.05

0.001s. LE = 0.005m, = 0.01m/s, TE = 0.5s, ws = 0.01m/s.

40

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t (s) 3

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

Constant settling

-0.04

z (m)

-0.05

(a) Nielsens autocorrelation

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 t (s) 3

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03

Constant settling

-0.04

z (m)

-0.05

(b) Constant autocorrelation

Figure 3.6: Ten realizations (black lines) of the time history of particle position

(z), t = 0.001s. LE = 0.005m, = 0.01m/s, TE = 0.5s, ws = 0.01m/s. Red

thick line is constant settling velocity.

41

3.4 Model validation

The particle tracking model is validated against four different tests: (1) accel-

erated motion of particles in stagnant water, (2) motion of particles in homoge-

neously oscillating fluid, (3) motion of particles in homogeneous grid turbulence,

and (4) vertically downward sediment-laden jets.

The accelerated motion of a sediment particle in stagnant water is the first ba-

sic validation test to the particle tracking model, as analytical solution can be

24

derived for the case of linear (Stokes) drag law (CD = Re p

). Ignoring the Basset

history term, the time variation of the particle velocity can be derived with zero

initial velocity of zero

!

wp (t) 18t

= 1 exp 2 (3.39)

ws d (s + CM )

(s 1)gd2

ws = (3.40)

18

The analytical solution of an accelerating sphere in the Stokes range with the

Basset force can be found in Brush et al. (1964) in a closed form solution.

wp (t) c2 + h2 h

= 1+ exp(h2 t) exp(c2 t) sin(2cht )erfc(c t) (3.41)

ws h

s

Z h i

t

2 exp(y 2 t) cos[2c(h y)t ]dy

0

where

9

c =

2d(s + CM )

3 q

h = [8(s + CM ) 9]

2d(s + CM )

!

1 h

= tan

c

2 Z

erfc(x) = exp(t2 )dt

Fig. 3.7 shows the comparison of analytical and numerical solutions of the

motion of a 50m diameter sphere falling in water with the parameters p =

2500 kg/m3 , f = 1000 kg/m3 , = 106 m2 /s. The stillwater settling velocity

42

ws is 2.044 mm/s. For this small particle, the time to reach its terminal settling

velocity is in the order of 0.001s, thus a time-step of 2 104 s is about one fifth

of the transient period and can be considered as coarse time step. The numerical

solution lies close to the analytical solution, for both time steps of 1 104 s and

2 104 s. This ensures the correctness of the numerical implementation.

Significant difference can be observed for the motion of the particle with

and without the Basset force. Without the Basset term, the particle reaches its

stillwater settling velocity at about 0.002s. With the Basset term solution, the

particle accelerates at a much slower rate, only reaching 95% of the stillwater

one at 0.1s. The Basset force is important in the accelerating motion of particles.

It decays much more slowly than the added mass force due to the slow infinity-

approaching nature of the Basset integrand. This contributes an additional drag

to the particle and considerably lengthens the time for particle to approach its

still water settling velocity. However, this example only shows the effect of Basset

force for a particle moving uni-directionally. The overall effect of the Basset force

on the motion, dispersion and deposition of sediment particles in oscillating flow

and turbulence has to be demonstrated by further numerical experiments.

As the analytical solution is only strictly applicable to the Stokes drag law,

validation of the model in the non-linear drag range requires experimental data.

Brush et al. (1964) reported a number of experiments which the velocities of

settling particles are measured by dropping spheres in liquids. In the results only

the density ratio s and the particle Reynolds number Rep is given thus the particle

diameter is inferred from the given paramaters. A total of six experiments are

presented. In the numerical model the time step is 0.001s for all the cases.

Fig. 3.8a shows the comparison of the numerical model with the experimental

data with a normalized time without Basset force. The comparison is considered

satisfactory as the general trend of the time history of the particle velocity is

captured, despite the model result shows a shorter time for reaching the steady

state for some of the cases. A simulation with the Basset force (Fig. 3.8b) shows

that the comparison is slightly better at the beginning of the particle motion.

However, at the later stage of particle motion, the Basset force seems to delay

the steady motion of the particle, thus the particle velocity is lower than the

measurement. The Basset force may not be strictly applicable in the case of

high particle Reynolds number as the viscosity effect is no longer dominating the

flow around the sphere.

cillating fluid

Ho (1964) studied the motion of falling spherical particles in a homogeneously

vertically oscillating fluid. The experiments were conducted in a cylinder of 45.7

cm long and 8.9 cm inner diameter. The cylinder was filled up with fluids with

different density and viscosity, and oscillated vertically with different amplitudes

and frequencies. Spheres were released into the cylinder during the experiments

and the particle motion was recorded on a camera to determine its velocity. Three

43

1.2

w/ws

0.8

0.6

0.4

Analytical w/o Basset

Analytical w/ Basset

0.2

Numerical dt = 0.0001s

Numerical dt = 0.0002s

0

0.0001 0.001 t (s) 0.01

Figure 3.7: Comparison between analytical (Eqs. 3.39 and 3.41) and numerical

solutions of particle falling in stagnant fluid, d = 50m, p = 2500 kg/m3 , f =

1000 kg/m3 , ws = 2.044mm/s

different fluids and five sizes of particles of various specific gravity were used to

give a combination of 11 conditions of particle Reynolds number Rep based on

the stillwater settling velocity and two density ratio conditions (s = p /f = 7.8

and 2.5).

In the numerical model, a particle is released at rest in the oscillating fluid

for which the time-dependent motion is described by the equation:

= 2/T

oscillation. The motion of the particle is computed for a number of oscillation

cycles (at least 50) until the velocity variation is less than 0.1% different from the

previous cycle. Typical time step is chosen as 1/50 of the period of an oscillation

cycle. The average settling velocity is computed by averaging the velocities in

an oscillation cycle. Four of the Rep conditions: Rep = 1.1, 6, 28 and 230 are

simulated and compared with the experimental data as these particle Reynolds

number is similar to those used in the present study. For each case of Rep , there

were two oscillation period conditions same as the experiments (normalized as

/d2 , where = 2/T ); and by varying the velocity amplitude, a number of

experiments were carried out for each frequency condition. Table 3.1 shows the

eight cases used for validation of the particle tracking model.

44

w/ws w/o Basset

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

Re p = 540, d = 2028m m

0.2 Rep = 153, d = 1026m m

Re p = 28, d = 440mm

0

0.001 0.01 0.1 T = t/d

2 1

(a) Without Basset force

w/ws w/ Basset

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

R e p = 540, d = 2028mm

0.2 R e p = 153, d = 1026mm

R e p = 28, d = 440mm

0

0.001 0.01 0.1 T = t/d

2 1

(b) With Basset force

particle falling in stagnant fluid (Brush et al. , 1964). s = p /f = 2.5.

45

Fig. 3.9 shows the comparison between the model predicted ratio of apparent

settling velocity to terminal settling velocity (wsa /ws ), as a dependent variable

of the ratio of oscillation acceleration to the gravitational acceleration (wf 0 /g)

for the four cases of Rep . The comparison between model and experiment is very

good. For all the cases, a general trend can be observed that, as the oscillation

amplitude (thus acceleration) increases, the reduction in wsa becomes more sig-

nificant. Also, for the same acceleration, the settling velocity reduction increases

with Rep . For example when wf 0 is about 7 time of the gravity acceleration, the

settling velocity reduction is about 30% for Rep = 1.1. This increases to about

40% for Rep = 6 and even 60% when Rep = 280. Conversely, the dependence of

velocity reduction on the parameter /d2 is relatively small with only noticable

difference at the larger Rep .

As shown, with the Basset force included, the apparent settling velocity is

only slightly different. The difference is larger for experiments with the largest

Rep of 230, about 7-8% of ws . For Rep = 1.1, 6 and 28, which is the range

of particle Reynolds number in the present sediment-laden jet experiments, the

difference is mostly less than 5%.

The settling velocity reduction can be attributed to the particle inertia during

the oscillating motion of the fluid. Fig. 3.10 shows the time history of particle

and fluid velocity, and the forces acting on the particle. Due to particle inertia,

the particle velocity always lags behind the fluid velocity. This results in the

variation of the drag force as the relative velocity between particle and fluid

varies. Since the drag force does not vary linearly with the relative velocity

for large particles (Rep > 0.4), the enhanced drag force results in the overall

reduction of the settling velocity. On the other hand, the added mass only

contributes an insignificant portion of the forces.

cally oscillating fluid.

m density density p /f 106 velocity Period

kg/m3 kg/m3 m2 /s cm/s s

230 1201 2650 1000 2.65 0.929 17.79 0.20 0.021

230 1201 2650 1000 2.65 0.929 17.79 0.16 0.016

28 3175 9358 1206 7.76 35.77 31.54 0.19 0.110

28 3175 9358 1206 7.76 35.77 31.54 0.15 0.085

6 1587 9527 1206 7.90 35.77 13.52 0.19 0.430

6 1587 9527 1206 7.90 35.77 13.52 0.15 0.330

1.1 3175 9801 1263 7.76 250.8 8.69 0.19 0.740

1.1 3175 9801 1263 7.76 250.8 8.69 0.15 0.590

46

wsa /ws Rep = 1

1

0.8

2

/d

0.6

0.74-w/ Basset

0.59-w/ Basset

0.4

0.74-w/o Basset

0.59-w/o Basset

0.2

0.74-exp

0.59-exp wf0 /g

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(a) Rep = 1

wsa/ws

1 Rep = 6

0.8

2

/d

0.6 0.43-w/ Basset

0.33-w/ Basset

0.4 0.43-w/o Basset

0.33-w/o Basset

0.2 0.43-exp

0.33-exp wf0 /g

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(b) Rep = 6

wsa/ws

1 Rep = 28

0.8

2

0.6 /d

0.11-w/ Basset

0.4 0.085-w/ Basset

0.11-w/o Basset

0.085-w/o Basset

0.2

0.11-exp

0.085-exp wf0/g

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(c) Rep = 28

wsa/ws

1 Rep = 230

0.8

0.6

2

/d

0.021-w/ Basset

0.4 0.016-w/ Basset

0.021-w/o Basset

0.2 0.016-w/o Basset

0.021-exp

0.016-exp wf0/g

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 3.9: Comparison of the numerical model and the experimental results of

Ho (1964) of spheres settling in homogeneously vertically oscillating fluid.

47

m/s

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

wa, -0.08

0

-0.5 0ws, -0.19 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-1

Particle

-1.5 Fluid

-2

-2.5

Force

8

Gravity

6

Fluid

4 Drag

2 Added mass

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

-2

-4

-6

-8

Figure 3.10: The particle and fluid velocities, and forces acting on the particle.

Rep = 230, s = 2.65, T = 0.2s, wf 0 = 2m/s.

48

3.4.3 Motion of particles in homogeneous grid turbulence

The test of the model of the auto-correlation relationship is on a random turbu-

lent field. Oscillating grid turbulence is commonly used to study the basic char-

acteristics of turbulence for the calibration of turbulence closure models. The

turbulence generated by an or a pair of oscillating grid(s) resembles the charac-

teristics of homogeneous isotropic turbulence (Cheng and Law, 2001). Fig. 3.11 is

an schematic representation of dropping a particle in turbulence. Murray (1970)

and Nielsen (1993) reported experiments of particle settling under grid-generated

turbulence and measured the particle velocity. Zhou and Cheng (2009) carried

out particle imaging velocimetry measurement on sediment settling in grid tur-

bulence. Numerical model simulation is carried out and comparison is made to

Murray (1970) and Zhou and Cheng (2009)s experiments.

N = 1000 releases

w s = 0.02 m/s

H = 1m

T = STi / N

1m

wsa = H / T

sediment particles in homogeneous turbulence.

Laboratory Experiments

Murray (1970)

The experiment was carried out in a 50cm wide channel with 40cm water

depth. Three grids with 5 cm grid size, separated 30cm apart are oscillated in

phase to generate the turbulence. The oscillation stroke is 40cm with speeds

from 16 to 45 cm/s. Particles with nominal diameter 2mm with various densities

are used to obtain different settling velocities in water (Table 3.2). A neutrally

buoyant particle with 2mm diameter are used to measure the RMS fluid veloc-

ity fluctuation. High-speed images were taken to evaluate the particle velocity.

Particle settling velocity reduction up to 60% is observed.

49

Table 3.2: Particles used in grid turbulence experiments of Murray (1970). =

106 m2 /s

d p f ws = ws d/

mm kg/m3 kg/m3 cm/s

2.0 1010 1000 1.0 20

2.0 1027 1000 2.0 40

2.0 1049 1000 3.0 60

2.0 1075 1000 4.0 80

Zhou and Cheng (2009) studied the motion of a single particle in grid turbu-

lence. The experiments are carried out in a tank of 50 50 80 cm height. A

single grid 5cm size, located at the mid-depth, is oscillated vertically at a stroke

of 10.4 cm and frequencies of 2 and 3 Hz (grid velocity amplitude of 65 and 98

cm/s). Spherical particles of 6.35 and 7.94mm with density p = 1050 kg/m3

(ws = 8.85 and 10.29 cm/s) are used. In addition, cylindrical particles (p =

1077 kg/m3 ) of 2.4 mm diameter and 3 mm in length, ws = 2-6 cm/s are used

(Table 3.3). The particle velocity is measured by tracking the sediment particle

position in subsequent images. Particle Imaging Velocimetry (PIV) is used for

measuring the fluid velocity by seeding it with neutrally buoyant 20 m particles.

Their /ws ratio is modest, ranging from 0.05 to 0.4 and the result shows a mean

reduction of about 10% of the stillwater settling velocity.

Table 3.3: Particles used in grid turbulence experiments of Zhou and Cheng

(2009)

d p f ws = ws d/

mm kg/m3 kg/m3 cm/s

6.35 1050 1000 8.85 562

7.94 1050 1000 10.29 817

2.4 (cylindrical) 1077 1000 2-6 48-144

Numerical Predictions

turbulence on the settling velocity. In each hypothetical experiment, N = 1000

particles are allowed to settle for a distance of H = 1m in a field of homogeneous

turbulence and zero mean flow. The turbulence properties are specified with

the RMS turbulent velocity fluctuation and the turbulence length scale LE .

Various ratio of /ws are specified. LE is taken as 0.1 of the grid size, both

LE = 5mm for of Murray (1970) and Zhou and Cheng (2009)s experiments. TE

is computed from Eq. 3.23 with AE = 1 specified. The time for falling for 1m for

50

each particle Ti is recorded and the apparent settling velocity wsa is calculated

from the mean settling time.

H

wsa = 1 PN (3.43)

N i=1 Ti

Fig. 3.12 shows the cumulative probability distribution of the apparent set-

tling velocity of numerical experiments using glass particle of 180m and plastic

particles of 716m under different to ws ratios. With increasing turbulence

level, the mean apparent settling velocity decreases but the variance in apparent

settling velocity increases. Turbulence results in both dispersion of particle and

a reduction in the mean settling rate. With the same /ws (e.g. 1 and 5), plastic

particles have a greater reduction in settling velocity under turbulence, despite

their similar stillwater settling velocity with glass particles.

Fig. 3.13 shows the comparison of apparent settling velocities as a function of

/ws with the experimental data of Murray (1970). The model prediction follows

broadly the trend of the experimental data, despite the considerable scattering.

As turbulent level increases, the apparent settling velocity decreases. For the four

particles, their velocity reduction is about the same with slightly larger reduction

for the heaviest particle. Fig. 3.14 shows the model comparison with the data

of Zhou and Cheng (2009) for which the ws ratio is less than 0.4. Very little

settling velocity reduction is predicted by the model, corresponding well to the

measured apparent settling velocity. The considerable scattering also illustrates

the uncertainties in these oscillating grid turbulence experiments. Nevertheless

the model follows broadly the trend of settling velocity reduction measured in

independent experiments.

The particles used in the sediment jet experiments in this study are smaller

in size than those used in previous grid-turbulence experiments. Fig. 3.15 shows

the settling velocity in different to ws ratios for the glass particles G115, G180

and G215 and the plastic IP3 particle. LE = 0.005m is assumed for all the

cases. Reduction of settling velocity can be observed as /ws increases. For

/ws < 1 the trend of the four kinds of particles are about the same. For

/ws > 3, the largest sized glass particle G215 has the highest reduction in

settling velocity. For the smallest particle G115, the reduction is the smallest.

For the IP3 particles, the settling velocity reduces much more when compared

with the glass particles. This is attributed to the particle inertia of the larger

and lighter IP3 particles. The numerical prediction provides explanations to the

deposition profile difference in the sediment-laden jets using plastic particles (see

Chapter 5).

The difference between the full model and the simplified model is shown

in Fig. 3.15. While the predicted settling velocity reduction of both models lies

at the same curve for /ws < 1, the result deviate for /ws > 1, for which

the particle inertia has an effect on the settling velocity reduction. The pre-

dicted settling velocity reduction by simplified model shows a level off at about

80% beyond /ws > 1, while the prediction from the full model shows further

reduction.

51

Cumulative probability

1

G180

0.9 / ws

0.8 0.1

0.5

0.7

1

0.6 5

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

ws (m/s)

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

3

(a) Glass particle, d = 180m , p =2500 kg/m , ws = 1.95cm/s

Cumulative probability

1

IP3

0.9 / ws

0.8 0.1

0.5

0.7

1

0.6 5

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

ws (m/s)

0

0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

(b) Plastic particle, d = 716m , p =1140 kg/m3 , ws = 2.02cm/s

settling velocities under different /ws with AE = 1 and LE = 0.005m, (a) glass

particles, (b) plastic particles.

52

wsa/ws

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

1cm/s

0.5 2cm/s

0.4 3cm/s

4cm/s

0.3 1cm/s-exp

0.2 2cm/s-exp

3cm/s-exp

0.1 4cm/s-exp

0

/ws

0.1 1 10

Figure 3.13: The predicted apparent settling velocity compared with the exper-

imental data of settling particle in grid turbulence of Murray (1970).

wsa/ws

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Model

0.0

0.01 0.1 /ws 1

Figure 3.14: The predicted apparent settling velocity compared with the exper-

imental data of settling particle in grid turbulence of Zhou and Cheng (2009)

53

1.2

wsa/ws w/o Basset

1

0.8

0.6

G180

0.4 G115

G215

0.2 IP3

Simp. Model

0

0.1 1 /ws 10

(a) Without Basset force

1.2

wsa /ws w/ Basset

1

0.8

0.6

G180

0.4 G115

G215

0.2 IP3

Simp. Model

0

0.1 1 /ws 10

(b) With Basset force

Figure 3.15: The predicted apparent settling velocity for the particles used in

this experiment, (a) without Basset force, (b) with Basset force.

54

Fig. 3.15(a) and (b) compare the effect of the Basset force on the overall

settling velocity reduction. The trend of all curves in both figures are very

similar, indicating that the Basset force has little contribution on the reduction

of settling velocity.

models

Since the settling velocity reduction depends on the RMS turbulent velocity

which can be estimated with a computational fluid dynamics model using a k

turbulence closure, the predicted reduction is settling velocity from the particle

tracking model can be utilized to provide a functional estimate of the apparent

settling velocity in CFD calculation. The numerical results can be fitted in a

curve in the form of

wsa A

= (1 + A) (3.44)

ws B + (1 + B) exp(C/ws )

where A = 0.265, B = 0.459 and C = 1.285 are empirical constants. Fig. 3.16

shows the apparent settling velocities as a function of /ws . The experimen-

tal data of Murray (1970), Nielsen (1993) and Zhou and Cheng (2009) under

grid turbulence is shown together and lies quite close to the two curves, de-

spite considerable scatter. Since the RMS fluctuation is readily available using a

two-equation turbulence closure (such as k , assuming isotropic turbulence),

the reduction in settling velocity would be reasonably predicted using Eq. 3.44

and adopted in Eulerian modeling of sediment/particle transport (see Chapter

5, Section 5.4).

55

wsa/ws

1.0

0.8

0.6

Nielsen (1993)

0.2 Zhou and Cheng (2009)

Eq.14

0.0

0.01 0.1 1 /ws 10

Figure 3.16: The predicted apparent settling velocity, best-fitted with Eq. 3.44,

and compared with the experimental data of settling particle in grid turbulence

of Murray (1970), Nielsen (1993) and Zhou and Cheng (2009)

A vertically downward jet is utilized to study the effect of turbulence on sed-

iment particles (Fig. 3.17). Particles are injected into the jet flow in the noz-

zle and carried by the flow downward, same as the direction of gravity, with

turbulent mixing with the ambient. As a simpler case of particle laden flows,

a number of studies has been carried out on vertical downward sediment laden

jets. Singamsetti (1966) carried out experiments using natural sand particles and

measured the radial particle concentrations in different jet longitudinal sections.

Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987) measured the particle velocity and particle flux.

The data from these experiments are used for validation of the particle tracking

model.

cylindrical tank of 1.83m (72) diameter and 1.22m (48) depth, with a jet

nozzle of D = 6.655mm (0.262) diameter. The jet velocity was 6.096 m/s (20

fps) for all experiment cases with different sediment diameter. Natural sands

with median diameter of 68, 115, 230, 320 and 460m were used. Sediments are

sampled using isokinetic suction sampling at various positions (all less than 50D)

along the jet centerline and radial positions for concentration analysis. Table 3.4

summarises the jet flow and sediment properties. It has to been noted that

56

Figure 3.17: A downward sediment laden jet.

the mean jet velocity is much higher than the sediment settling velocity at the

sampling locations.

Fig. 3.18 shows the model predicted sediment concentration for three cases

of sediment-laden jet and the solution of a pure jet. The sediment concentration

has close resemblance with that of a pure jet. Fig. 3.19 shows the comparison

of the centerline sediment concentration predicted by particle tracking model

and experimental measurement. For all the cases, the sediment concentration

decays with the -1 power law, same as the decay of tracer concentration. As

the fluid velocity is much greater than the settling velocity at the region x <

50D, particles exhibit tracer-like behaviour. Fig. 3.20 shows the comparison of

predicted and measured cross-sectional profiles of sediment concentration. The

model predicted profiles are slightly narrower, and the data compares better with

Gaussian profiles; nevertheless the general trend is well predicted. Singamsetti

(1966) suggested that the larger particles have a larger spread than the smaller

particles, but such phenomenon is also not observed in the model prediction.

The effect of the Basset force on sediment dispersion is compared for three of

the experimental cases (68, 230 and 460 m). Predictions (Fig. 3.19) show that

Basset force has very little contribution to the sediment concentration profiles.

57

0 0

0.15 0.05

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.05

0.1

0.05

0.0 0.2

20 20

0.1

0.3

0.05

0.2

0.2

0.01

0.1

0.01

0.01

0.01

40 40

0.05

z/D

z/D

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.1

0.1

60 60

0.05

0.01

0.1

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.05

80 80

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.05

100 100

-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40

x/D x/D

0 0

0.5

0.05

0.4 0.4

0.05

0.1

0.05 0.1

0.3

0.2

20 20

0.01

0.1

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.01

40 40

0.01

0.05

0.01

0.1

0.05

z/D

z/D

0.05

0.1

0.01

0.1

60 60

0.05

0.01

0.01

80 80

0.05

0.01

0.05

0.01

100 100

-40 -20 0 20 40 -40 -20 0 20 40

x/D x/D

jet, cases of Singamsetti (1966), (a) 68m, (b) 230m, (c) 460m and (d) ana-

lytical pure jet tracer concentration.

58

10 10

C max /C 0 Cmax/C0

68m 115m

1 1

Model w/ Basset

Free jet

Meas.

0.01 0.01

1 10 x/D 100 1 10 x/D 100

10 10

Cmax/C 0 Cmax/C0

230m 320m

1 1

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

1 10 x/D 100 1 10 x/D 100

10

C max/C 0

460m

0.1

0.01

1 10 x/D 100

cases of Singamsetti (1966). Model prediction with Basset force is carried out

on cases of 68, 230 and 460 m, with very little difference with the one without

Basset force.

59

1.2 1.2

C/Cmax 68m C/Cmax 115m

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r/z

0 0

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 r/z 0.2

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

1.2 1.2

C/Cmax C/C max

230m 320m

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r/z r/z

0 0

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

1.2

C/Cmax 460m

1

Model w/ Basset

0.6 Free jet

Meas.

0.4

0.2

0 r/z

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

mental cases of Singamsetti (1966). Model prediction with Basset force is car-

ried out on cases of 68, 230 and 460 m, with very little difference with the one

without Basset force.

60

Table 3.4: Experiments of Singamsetti (1966)

velocity diameter velocity w s wf

a

m/s m cm/s in terms of D

1 6.096 68 0.374 10108

2 6.096 115 1.024 3689

3 6.096 230 3.199 1182

4 6.096 320 4.815 785

5 6.096 460 6.873 550

Jet diameter D = 6.655mm

a Estimated based on Soulsby (1997)s settling velocity formula for natural sediments.

Water density = 998.2 kg/m3 , water viscosity = 1.004 103 kg/m/s (20 C).

a rectangular tank of 410 530 910 mm high with jet nozzle 5.08mm. Parti-

cle and liquid velocities are measured using phase-discriminating Laser Doppler

Anemometry (LDA) technique. Particle number flux in the longitudinal direc-

tion was measured. The two experiments have similar jet velocity but only differ

in the initial concentration (Table 3.5). 501m diameter spherical glass particles

were used in the experiments.

velocity volume fraction diameter velocity ws wf

m/s (%) m cm/sa in terms of D

1 1.66 2.4 501 7.52 137

2 1.72 4.8 501 7.52 142

Jet diameter D = 5.08mm

a Estimated based on drag law for spherical particles.

water density = 997.1 kg/m3 , water viscosity = 0.8937 103 kg/m/s (25 C).

Model prediction and measured particle number flux are compared (Fig.

3.21). The predicted particle number flux is obtained by summing up of the

number of particles passes through an area. Theoretically the centerline tracer

mass flux decays in x2 manner as the centerline velocity and tracer concentra-

tion both decays in x1 manner. The measured centerline particle number flux is

higher than the x2 trend due to the particle inertia which inhibits the particles

61

from dispersion by turbulent eddies. The model predicted particle flux compares

very well with the data. The prediction shows that the mass flux remains nearly

constant until 10D, indicating a increased potential core length. This is sug-

gested also by Jiang and Law (2005) that the particle inertia results in lower

turbulent mixing. The comparison of the cross-sectional particle number flux

is shown in Fig. 3.22. The model compares very well with measurements and

highly resembles a Gaussian profile.

10

Nc/N 0

Model

0.1

Case I (P&F 1987)

-2

x

0.01

x/D

1 10 100

flux for experimental cases of Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987)

62

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax F/Fmax

z = 16D z = 24D

1 Model 1 Model

Case I (P&F

0.8 Case I (P&F 0.8 1987)

1987)

Case II (P&F

0.6 Case II (P&F 0.6 1987)

1987)

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r/z r/z

0 0

-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

1.2

F/Fmax

z = 40D

1 Model

Case I (P&F

0.8

1987)

Case II (P&F

0.6 1987)

0.4

0.2

r/z

0

-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

sediment mass flux for experimental cases of Parthasarathy and Faeth (1987)

63

3.5 Summary

In this chapter, a particle tracking model is developed. The core of the model

is the governing equation of sediment particle motion and the turbulent veloc-

ity autocorrelation function for the fluid velocity along the particle path. The

autocorrelation function models the loitering and trapping of sediment particles

in turbulent eddies. Two particle tracking models are developed to predict the

movement of sediment particles in turbulent flows. The Full Model solves the

equation of motion numerically. The Simplified Model assumes the sediment

particle follows the fluid motion except at the direction of gravity. The particle

tracking model is validated with four basic tests. The model shows very good

comparison with previous experimental data. It is shown that the simplified

model works well for sand and glass particles with density 2500 kg/m3 , while

the full model is required for the modelling of particles with density close to wa-

ter. Model predictions have shown that the computationally demanding Basset

force term can be neglected in turbulent conditions.

64

Chapter 4

Experiments

predict the transport and deposition of particulate matter in sediment-laden

buoyant jets. To test the applicability of the theory and study the gross fea-

tures of two-phase buoyant jets, experiments are carried out for validating the

developed model.

This chapter first describes the sediment-laden jet experiments carried out in

this study. The experiments were performed in the Croucher Laboratory of Envi-

ronmental Hydraulics at the University of Hong Kong. The experiments includes

horizontal particle momentum jets discharged in stagnant water with different

kind of particles injected. The experimental set-up is similar to that described

in Li (2006) and Lee (2010), except for the modifications to suit different types

of particles. Secondly, turbulent jet velocity measurement is carried out to give

experimental support to the loitering effect assumption in the autocorrelation

function developed in Chapter 3.

A schematic diagram of the experimental set-up for horizontal particle-laden jets

is shown in Fig. 4.1. The set-up consists of a water tank of 1m 1m 0.5m high

made up of glass walls. The jet nozzle, fabricated with brass with an internal

diameter of 6mm is discharged horizontally. The jet nozzle is 15 cm long, located

at the mid-way of the side wall, and 0.25m above the bottom of the tank (0.15m

above the top of the sediment collection tray).

The jet discharge system consists of a storage tank, a constant head tank, a cal-

ibrated Tokyo Keiso rotameter to measure the discharge and a valve to regulate

the flow. The water is pump from the storage tank to the head tank with an

65

Figure 4.1: Experimental set up of horizontal sediment-laden jet.

1m x 1m x 0.5m Tank

hourglass

From particle feeder

Headtank Sediment

Sediment-laden jet

66

Argon Laser

bottom sediment

collection tray

High-speed camera

overflow to maintain constant pressure head. Fresh tap water is used for both

jet and ambient fluids in the horizontal momentum jet experiments. The source

and ambient temperatures are measured before each experiment to ensure that

their difference is less than 1 C to avoid unexpected buoyancy.

In many previous studies of sediment-laden jets, the sediment was usually pre-

mixed with the stored source fluid using mechanical mixers. This poses great

difficulty in providing constant initial sediment concentration for the jet, espe-

cially for heavier particles. Li (2006) developed a sediment supply method which

greatly alleviate this difficulty and improved the experimental accuracy. This

sediment supply system is adopted in this study. The sediment feeding system

consists of an hourglass and a vertical settling tube of 6mm internal diameter

(Fig. 4.2). Sediment is temporally stored in the hourglass and gradually fed into

the settling tube through a small opening. It can be shown experimentally (see

Fig. 4.4) and theoretically (Lee, 1981) that the sediment draining rate from the

hourglass is constant, dependent on the size of the opening only but independent

with the head of sediment above the opening. The particles released from the

hourglass fall under gravity into the settling tube and mix with the water, like

a buoyancy induced sediment thermal. It allows sufficient time for the solids to

be well-mixed before entering the jet flow stream. The solids are continuously

and constantly supplied from the hourglass, continuously travel down the set-

tling tube with mixing until it meet the jet flow, resulting a constant sediment

concentration discharged from the jet. Upstream of the sediment supply sys-

tem (about 20 cm), a mesh is installed inside the jet pipe to generate sufficient

turbulent mixing to prevent the segregation of particles inside the jet pipe.

To suit the properties of different kinds of particle, the design of the sediment

feeding system is different in their size, shape and installation location. Detailed

internal dimensions of the hourglasses are shown in Fig. 4.3. For glass particles

(Figs. 4.2a and 4.3a), the hourglass is located above the water surface of the tank,

thus particles travel for some distance in air under free fall before hitting the

water surface in the settling tube to form the sediment thermal. The hourglass

consists of a perspex tube and a brass assembly which the small opening is

located at. Three brass assemblies are manufactured with difference sized holes

for the release of glass particles in different diameter: 0.6mm for G115, 1mm for

G180 and 1.3mm for G215.

For plastic particles, the situation is more complicated due to the strong

surface tension between the particle and water. If the particles are released

above water it may only hit the water surface without sinking into the water, as

the particle surface tension force is stronger than gravity, clogging the settling

tube. A different design is adopted: the hourglass is partially-submerged below

the water surface of the tank (Fig. 4.2b). During each experiment, the particles

are pre-wetted and fed carefully into the hourglass sealed up with a stopper

which could equalize the pressure between the hourglass and the tank in the

neck. When the experiment starts, the stopper is removed and the particles are

67

released steadily through the neck into the settling tube, while the water in the

hourglass and settling tube is maintained in hydrostatic pressure.

The hourglasses, either installed submerged or above the water surface, are

shown to have a constant rate of discharging particles under initial testing exper-

iments. This is determined by measuring the time for a certain mass of particles

to be fully drained from the hourglass. Fig. 4.4 shows the time-mass discharge

relations for the submerged hourglasses for the plastic particles. The drainage

time-particle mass relationship is summarised in Table 4.1, with those measured

in the experiments of Lee (2010). The relationships provide estimation of the

time of an experiment with a known mass of particle, or vice versa, in order for

experimental planning. During each experiment, the experiment duration Texp

is still recorded to estimate actual initial jet sediment concentration C0 with the

equation

Mp

C0 = (4.1)

QTexp

where Mp is the mass of particle used; Q is the flow rate of the jet.

Hourglass Type Opening diameter Sediment feeding rate

Particles (mm) (g/s)

a

IP3 Submerged 5.0 0.0337

a

MF Submerged 3.0 0.0111

G115b Surface 0.6 0.0206

G180b Surface 1.0 0.0534

G215b Surface 1.3 0.0928

a

This study.

b

Lee (2010).

The bottom sediment deposition rate is measured either one-dimensionally (trans-

versely lumped) or two-dimensionally. In some experiments, 1D profiles are de-

rived from the 2D measurement by summing the transverse deposition at the

same longitudinal location. For 1D profiles, a set of 26 rectangular removable

trays is used as sediment traps (Fig. 4.5a). The trays are fabricated with alu-

minum plates with sizes of 30cm length (y) 2.5cm height (z). For the first 20

trays laid close to the jet nozzle the width (x) is 2.5 cm, while for the last 6

trays, the width is 5 cm. This design of removable trays provides sufficient reso-

lution near the jet exit and the efficiency in sediment collection for 1D profiles.

The trays are placed inside one base tray made of perspex (83 cm length 32

cm width 7 cm height) and the top level of the removable trays are located

15cm below the jet nozzle.

68

(a) Hourglass for glass particles

Figure 4.2: The two types of hourglass for feeding sediment in the experiment:

(a) for glass particles, (b) for plastic particles (IP3 and MF).

69

2 cm

6 cm

Perspex Perspex

1.7 cm

Brass

assembly

neck

Copper

(0.6mm, 1mm

Assembly

or 1.5mm dia.)

(a) Hourglass for glass particles

6 cm

7 cm

Perspex

3 cm

45

5 mm

neck

(5mm dia.)

(b) Hourglass for IP3 particles

3 cm

5.5 cm

Perspex

60 3 cm

5 mm

neck

(3mm dia.)

(c) Hourglass for MF particles

70

500

Time (s)

450

400

350 y = 29.638x

2

300 R = 0.9964

250

200

150

100

50 Hourglass for IP3 particles

0

0 5 10 15 20

Dry Mass (g)

(a) Hourglass for IP3 particles

800

Time (s)

700

600

500

400 y = 89.768x

2

R = 0.9891

300

200

100

Hourglass for MF particles

0

0 2 4 6 8 10

Dry Mass (g)

(b) Hourglass for MF particles

Figure 4.4: Time-mass discharge relationships of hourglasses for (a) IP3 particles

and (b) MF particles.

71

For measuring the 2D sediment deposition profiles, the base tray is made of

gluing a plastic screen board onto a plastic plate. The screen board consists of

square grids of size 1.43cm, with 58 grids in the longitudinal and 21 grids in the

transverse directions (x = 83cm, y = 30cm). The height of each grid is 2 cm.

Same as the 1D bottom tray, the top level of the 2D tray are located 15cm below

the jet nozzle (Fig.4.5b).

The base trays are coloured in black to increase the contrast between the

white coloured sediment and the tray for photographic documentation purpose

after each experiment. It also minimizes the reflection when a laser light sheet

is used for illumination.

After each experiment, the trays are removed from the ambient tank carefully

with minimum disturbance. Sediment particles fallen into each tray/grid are

collected with a syringe and transferred to small glass vials (4cm diameter

and 5cm height, Fig. 4.6). The mass of each glass vial is weighed before they

are used for experiments. In the 1D removable trays, the sediment mass at the

bottom tray is also collected as sediments may leak to the bottom tray through

the small gaps between the removable trays. The mass collected in the base tray

is usually below 2% of the total input mass. The glass vials with particles are

dried in an oven of 105 C for about 12 hours. After that they are taken out

and cooled to room temperature in a desiccator and weighed with an electronic

balance with 4 decimal-place accuracy to measure the sediment mass.

72

30 cm

6 trays @ 5 cm

20 trays @ 2.5 cm

Base tray

x

Removable

trays

y

Jet nozzle

21 grids at 1.43 cm

35 grids @ 1.43 cm

Jet nozzle

Figure 4.5: The two types of sediment collection trays for measuring: (a) 1D,

(b) 2D deposition profiles.

73

Figure 4.6: Glass vials for collecting sediment for weighing (diameter = 4cm;

height = 5cm).

The present study aims at studying the behaviour of sediment particles with dif-

ferent density and size in turbulent jet flows. Three kinds of particles are used,

including spherical glass particles, spherical polymethylmethacrylate resin parti-

cles (IP3) and irregular melamine formaldehyde particles (MF). The properties

of particles are summarised in Table 4.2.

4.2.1 Glass

The glass particles are spherical with density of 2500 kg/m3 , appears as transpar-

ent to white colour. Three sizes are used for experiments, with median diameters

115, 180 and 215m. The particles have a narrow size range for each class. Since

a number of experiments, including 1D bottom deposition and sediment concen-

tration measurement has been carried out using these glass particles as reported

in Lee (2010), only a few of them are repeated for checking of consistency and they

are not reported in this thesis. Nevertheless, six experiments (two experiments

for each particle size) are carried out to determine the 2D bottom deposition

profiles.

The plastic particles of polymethylmethacrylate resin (denoted as IP3) are spher-

ical with density of 1140 kg/m3 , appears in translucent white colour. The particle

has a median diameter of 716m. The particles have a narrow size range. Pre-

wetting is required and a submerged hourglass is used for storing them in the

experiments. Six experiments are carried out for 1D deposition measurement

and three for 2D measurement.

74

4.2.3 Melamine formaldehyde, MF

The melamine formaldehyde (MF) are irregular shaped particles with density

of 1500 kg/m3 . The particles are multi-coloured. They are sieved with British

Standard sieves into the range of 300-425m, then washed with tap water to

remove soluble impurities and oven dried before using them for experiment. Like

IP3 particles, MF particle requires wetting by water and a submerged hourglass

is used for storing them in the experiments. A total of six experiments are

carried out using MF particles, with three for 1D measurement and three for 2D

measurement.

of particle equivalent diameter

For the irregular MF particles, its sieve size range (300-425m) is considered too

wide for use in the particle tracking model using the equation of motion. Since

the size distribution is unknown, the mean or median of this size range, 363m,

is not suitable to be taken as a characteristic size. An equivalent diameter

deq for MF, and also the irregular natural sand particles particles in Li (2006)

is defined for the application in the equation of motion. deq is defined using the

expression for estimating the terminal settling velocity of spherical particles,

3CD

deq = ws2 (4.2)

4g(s 1)

velocity; CD = f (deq , ws , ) is the drag coefficient for spherical particles (Eq. 3.3)

and f and are the density and kinematic viscosity of water respectively which

is dependent on the temperature of water. CD and deq can be determined itera-

tively.

The particle settling velocities for MF particles are determined by measuring

the time the particle traveled downward for a known distance. The measurement

is carried out with a perspex cylindrical settling column with diameter of 7cm

and height of 65cm, filled with tap water. The vertical dimension is marked by

a tape ruler. A small cluster of particles is introduced into the water column

and the time for the middle of the cluster to travel for a distance by 20cm at the

mid-level of the column is measured. The experiment is repeated for 50 times to

obtain the mean settling velocity and its standard deviation. Water temperature

in the settling column is measured to determine the water density and viscosity

for calculation of the equivalent diameter. For the spherical particles (Glass

and IP3), the actual median diameter is used.

75

Table 4.2: Properties of particles in the present experiments.

Particles Shape Density Mean measured Standard Equivalent Size

(kg/m3 ) settling velocity deviation diameter rangea

(cm/s) (cm/s) (m ) (m )

G115 Spherical 2500 2.64 0.15 115 100-132

G180 Spherical 2500 1.83 0.13 180 156-209

G215 Spherical 2500 1.03 0.09 215 191-243

IP3 Spherical 1140 2.06 0.20 716 617-832

MF Irregular 1500 2.20 0.17 347 N/A

a Lee (2010).

Flow visualization is carried out for a number of experiments to observe the

dynamics of sediment particle and the fluid. The flow visualization system com-

prises of a laser light sheet for illuminating the flow and the particles, with a

high-speed camera for capturing particle motion (Fig. 4.1). The light source is

an Argon-ion laser (Coherent Innova 90) with maximum power of 7 Watt with

wavelengths 514-488nm. The laser is turned on to warm up for one to two hours

before experiments and kept for 6.5 W for every experiment. A laser sheet is

formed as a vertical plane along the jet centerline by directing the laser beam

through a series of mirrors and a cylindrical lens. The position of the laser sheet

is well adjusted prior to the experiment for covering the whole area of interest.

Typical laser sheet thickness is about 2mm.

Upon illumination, the sediment particles appears as brilliant blue-green

colour, same as the light of the laser. For some of the experiments, fluores-

cent dye Rhodamine 6G (appears as bright yellowish colour when illuminated)

is added to the source fluid for the observation of the fluid phase turbulent flow.

Images of the experiments was captured by a 10 bit high speed CMOS camera

(PCO 1200 hs) with 2 Gigabyte memory and resolution 1280x1024 pixel. For

some of the preliminary experiments a Sony video camera with 24 frames per

second is used to capture video recordings of the experiment. The experiments

are carried out with all the lights switched off to eliminate background light and

maximize the lighting effect of the laser.

Fluid density and viscosity is required for the full particle tracking model and the

calculation of terminal settling velocity for the simplified model. In the present

experiments, the water density is determined from the measured temperature

using the well-known UNESCO formula (Millero and Poison, 1981). Before each

experiment, the temperature in both the supply tank and the water tanks is

measured by a FLUKE 54 II contact thermometer to ensure both source and

76

ambient temperature difference are less than 1 C to prevent unexpected buoy-

ancy. With the salinity of tap water close to zero, the density of freshwater can

be calculated by

(S, T ) = T + s (4.3)

2

T = 999.842594 + 6.793952 10 T

9.095290 103 T 2 + 1.001685 104 T 3 (4.4)

6 4 9 5

1.120083 10 T + 6.536332 10 T

s = AS + BS 1.5 + 4.8314 104 S 2

A = 0.824493 4.0899 103 T + 7.6438 105 T 2

8.2467 107 T 3 + 5.3875 109 T 4

B = 5.72466 103 + 1.0277 104 T 1.6546 106 T 2

where (S, T ) is the water density (kg/m3 ), T and S are the temperature ( C)

and salinity (ppt) respectively (S = 0). Viscosities of freshwater under differ-

ent temperature can be obtained from reference tables (Smithsonian Institution,

1954).

The experiments carried out in this study are summarized in Tables 4.3(glass),

4.4(IP3) and 4.5(MF). The run number designations listed on the tables follows

the systems as this: The first part designate the particle type - G for spherical

glass particles, with the later number as the particle size in m, IP3 for plastic

polymethylmethacrylate resin particles and MF for melamine formaldehyde par-

ticles. J stands for jets and the two-digit number is the jet flow rate in L/h. A

suffix of -2D indicates that 2D deposition profiles are measured.

The experiments cover a wide range of flow rates from 30L/h (u0 = 0.29m/s)

to 90L/h (u0 = 0.88m/s) in comparison with previous experimental studies

which has a much narrower range of jet flow velocity and Reynolds numbers

(e.g. Bleninger et al. 2002: Re = 700 1400, Lane-Serff and Moran, 2005:

Re = 3300 3600). The experimental flows has Reynolds numbers over 1500 to

ensure turbulent flow condition for all the experiments. Due to limited tank size

and avoiding jet interaction of the back wall, the jet Reynolds numbers Re of the

experiments are mainly around 2000-6000. Although the Res are much smaller

than the prototype (Re 200, 000), jets are turbulent for Re > 2000 and the jet

properties are not dependent on Re (e.g. Fischer et al. 1979).

The experimental procedures are:

fully transferred to the hourglass with a stopper preventing the release of

sediment.

2. The bottom tray is placed in the tank and aligned precisely with the jet.

77

3. The temperature in the source and ambient water are measured prior to

the experiment to ensure that the temperature difference is less than 1 C

to avoid unexpected buoyancy.

4. The experiments are initialized with the ambient kept stagnant, which is

achieved by waiting for at least 1 hour to damp out any disturbance.

5. The jet flow is first introduced to the tank without sediment added, for 2-3

minutes to stabilize the flow field.

6. Sediment is then introduced through the hourglass and this marks the start

of experiment. Time measurement (for estimating the sediment concentra-

tion) starts as the sediment starts to come out from the jet and ends as the

sediment ceases to appear. Each experiment typically lasts for 5 minutes.

7. Video or high-speed camera recordings are carried out for selected experi-

ments with room light switched off.

8. Photos are taken for the bottom deposition profile immediately after the

experiment, for documentation record and future cross checking against

deposition data.

9. The bottom collection trays are then taken out of water carefully. For the

1D removable trays, they can be taken out one by one, but for the 2D

tray, it has to be taken out of water with great care as a whole to avoid

resuspension of sediment during the movement.

10. The sediment in each tray/grid is transferred to the glass vials carefully

using a syringe of 2mm nozzle.

11. The glass vials with sediment are oven dried for 12 hours, then taken out

and cooled to room temperature and measured for the mass.

that there is no mis-measurement of the mass.

total mass collected after experiment

RM = 100% (4.5)

Total mass input

The mass recovery of the present experiments are mostly over 90%. The mass loss

can be attributed to the loss during the bottom tray removal, and the transfer of

sediment from bottom tray to the glass vials. The 1D sediment deposition rate

(g/m/s) in a tray i is given as

Mi

Fs,i = (4.6)

Texp x

where Mi is the measured sediment mass in the tray and x is the longitudinal

size of the tray (2.5cm or 5cm). The 2D sediment deposition rate (g/m2 /s) in a

grid is given as

Mi

Fs,i = , (4.7)

Texp xy

where x and y are the bottom grid sizes.

78

Table 4.3: Horizontal momentum jet experiments using glass particles, measuring

2D bottom depositions.

Run u0 Re C0 a ws lm RM

No. (m/s) (g/L) (kg/m3 ) (cm/s) (m) (%)

G215J90-2D 0.8842 5603 3.82 997.7 2.65 0.177 97.2

G215J60-2D 0.5895 3735 5.14 997.7 2.60 0.121 95.8

G180J80-2D 0.7860 4980 4.78 997.7 2.04 0.205 93.8

G180J50-2D 0.4912 3142 7.64 997.6 2.05 0.127 97.4

G115J60-2D 0.5895 3805 1.04 997.5 1.00 0.315 94.1

G115J40-2D 0.3930 2490 1.77 997.7 0.98 0.213 93.8

u0 = Jet initial velocity

Re = Jet Reynolds number

C0 = Jet initial sediment concentration

a = Water density in the ambient

ws = Stillwater settling velocity predicted from drag law for spherical particles

1/2

lm = Momentum-settling length scale = M0 /ws = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws

RM = Mass recovery ratio

Table 4.4: Horizontal momentum jet experiments using IP3 particles, measuring

1D and 2D bottom depositions.

Run u0 Re C0 a ws lm RM

No. (m/s) (g/L) (kg/m3 ) (cm/s) (m) (%)

1D deposition profile measurement

IP3J80 0.7860 4616 1.17 998.4 1.98 0.211 96.5

IP3J70 0.6877 4020 1.45 998.5 1.97 0.185 96.1

IP3J60 0.5895 3937 1.90 997.1 2.12 0.148 94.9

IP3J50 0.4912 3251 2.04 997.2 2.11 0.124 90.2

IP3J40 0.3930 2625 2.63 997.1 2.12 0.098 97.3

IP3J30 0.2947 1710 3.75 998.5 1.96 0.080 96.5

2D deposition profile measurement

IP3J80-2D 0.7860 5062 1.21 997.5 2.12 0.197 95.7

IP3J60-2D 0.5895 3893 1.74 997.2 2.16 0.145 97.5

IP3J40-2D 0.3930 2560 2.06 997.4 2.13 0.098 98.8

79

Table 4.5: Horizontal momentum jet experiments using MF particles, measuring

1D and 2D bottom depositions.

Run u0 Re C0 a ws lm RM

No. (m/s) (g/L) (kg/m3 ) (cm/s) (m) (%)

1D deposition profile measurement

MFJ70 0.6877 4981 0.484 996.09 2.33 0.157 89.8

MFJ60 0.5895 3946 0.687 997.05 2.31 0.136 88.1

MFJ50 0.4912 3273 0.825 997.13 2.22 0.118 88.8

2D deposition profile measurement

MFJ80-2D 0.7860 5097 0.473 997.43 2.18 0.191 92.4

MFJ60-2D 0.5895 4197 0.621 996.32 2.22 0.141 89.4

MFJ40-2D 0.3930 2572 0.806 997.33 2.20 0.095 98.0

surement

laden horizontal momentum jet using the particle imaging technique developed

by Lee (2010) and Lee et al. (2012). The principle of the method is to count the

number of particles (as bright spots) on high speed images based on the candi-

date particles size and light intensity. A 2mm thick laser sheet was generated by

an Argon-ion laser to cut across specific locations of the jet, using the same appa-

ratus described in Fig. 4.1. Scattered light from particles passing the laser sheet

was captured by a high-speed CMOS camera (PCO 1200 hs). Image to object

size ratio of 0.04 and f -number (ratio of focal length to aperture size) f # = 2 are

used for the experiments. Camera exposure time is 2 ms, less than the minimum

travel time of a particle across the laser sheet thickness. Each experimental run

for taking images for a cross-section is typically 3-4 minutes. Images capturing

begins 1 minute after start of an experiment. The image capturing interval is set

as 0.02 s and about 3400 images with 8-bit resolutions are recorded for about 70s.

The present experiments for particle concentration measurement is summarized

in Table 4.6.

Captured digital images are then analysed using a particle counting algorithm

developed in MATLAB programming language (Lee, 2010). The recognition of

candidate particles depends on the threshold light intensity value and the particle

image diameter. Particle image diameter can be estimated by optical theory (Lee,

2010). The particle image intensity value mainly depends on particle reflectance

properties, camera optical settings and laser intensity. Direct measurement such

as suction measurement can be used to calibrate the threshold intensity value.

Alternatively in a horizontal sediment-laden jet it can be calibrated by checking

mass balance with the bottom deposition rate data (Lee, 2010), i.e. the sum of

the sediment mass flux across a cross section Fx at xk and the total sediment

80

deposition flux Fb before xk should be equal to the jet sediment mass flux Fh

(Fig. 4.7), i.e.

Z xk Z

Fh = Fb (xk ) + Fx (xk ) = Fs (x)dx + u(x)c(x)dA (4.8)

0 A

experiments.

In order to apply the same threshold intensity value at different jet flows and

cross sections, the camera optical settings are set as the same for all experiments

(Lee, 2010). A dimensionless threshold intensity parameter = Ith /Ip is intro-

duced where Ith is the threshold intensity value and Ip is the peak intensity value

( 242) after removal of the background noise. is found by trial and error to

best-match the mass balance with bottom deposition. The threshold intensity

parameter used for IP3 particles is 0.25. Particle overlapping is negligible for the

dilute particle concentrations in the present experiments.

The jet cross section with y, z coordinates [R, R; R, R] are divided into a

9 9 grid, where R = 2bT , bT = 0.16x = top-hat jet half-width. The number

of particles in each grid in each image is counted. The sediment concentration

Ci in each grid is determined by multiplying the average particle number by

the mass of each particle m = d3 /6 and dividing by the measurement volume

Vi = xyz, where x = 2mm is the laser sheet thickness, y and z are

the grid sizes = 0.4bT .

Run u0 Re C0 a ws lm Location of transverse

No. (m/s) (g/L) (kg/m3 ) (cm/s) (m) profiles (x/D)

IP3J80-C 0.7860 4616 1.17 998.4 1.98 0.211 12.5, 20.8, 33.3, 50.0, 66.7

IP3J50-C 0.4912 3251 2.04 998.4 1.98 0.124 8.3, 12.5, 20.8, 33.3, 50.0

81

Figure 4.7: Calibration of sediment concentration measurement by mass balance

between the jet cross section and bottom deposition.

Experiments are carried out to study the loitering effect assumption in Nielsens

Lagrangian auto-correlation function. The horizontal and vertical velocities of a

turbulent jet are measured for four pure single phase jet cases (Qj = 40, 50, 60, 80

L/h) using the same experimental set up using high measurement frequency (100-

200Hz). Particle Imaging Velocimetry (PIV) is used for the velocity measure-

ment. PIV is a whole-field velocity measurement technique which utilizes the

correlation between successive images to determine the Eulerian velocity of each

interrogation window in the image (Raffel et al. 1998). It is a non-intrusive and

much more efficient technique for determining a large number of 2D velocity vec-

tors at the same time, compared to the tedious point measurement using Laser

Doppler Anemometry (LDA) or the intrusive point measurement of Acoustic

Doppler Velocimetry (ADV).

The experimental set up is the same as the sediment-laden jet, only with-

out sediment added. Before the experiment, neutrally buoyant (d = 50m ,

p = 1.003g/cm3 ) seeding particles are added to the source and ambient fluid.

A laser sheet is used to illuminate seeding particles at the jet centerline plane

in the vertical direction. The laser sheet is generated using an Argon ion con-

tinuous laser with a series of mirror and a cylindrical lens. Although the power

(light intensity) of continuous Argon-ion laser is considerably lower than a pulsed

Nd:YAG laser typically used in many PIV studies, the pulse laser available is not

able to generate pulses in high frequency of 100-200 Hz for the continuous turbu-

lence measurement. Such high frequency measurement has to be achieved by the

delay of a high-speed camera. Images of the experiments are captured by a 10

82

bit high speed CMOS camera (PCO 1200 hs, maximum frequency 500Hz) with 2

Gigabyte memory, resolution of 1280x1024 pixel. Before the experiment, a grid

is placed in the water tank to adjust the camera focus and calibrate the cameras

pixel to actual size ratio for later analysis. The exposure time of each image is set

as 2-3 ms depending on the flow velocity to freeze the particles in the image.

The time interval for each photo is 5ms for Qj = 80L/hr (u0 = 0.79m/s), 7.5ms

for Qj = 50 and 60L/hr (u0 = 0.49 and 0.59 m/s) and 10ms for Qj = 40L/hr

(u0 = 0.39m/s). A total of over 2300 images can be captured continuously. De-

pending on the jet flow rate, a total duration of 25-50s of turbulent flow data

can be captured. For each image, the coverage is 0-60D (about 0.4m) in the

longitudinal direction and 20D (about 0.12m) in the vertical direction.

After the experiment, the images are analysed using the Dantec FlowManager

PIV software (Dantec Dynamics, 2000). The image is divided into a number of

interrogation windows of 32 (horizontal) by 16 (vertical) pixels an overlapping

ratio of 50%. Vectors are analysed from the image by the software. Raw vectors

after correlation analysis were subjected to a screening procedure - to filter out

unrealistic and excessively large or small vectors. The filtering was based on the

maximum velocity at the source, i.e. it is impossible to get velocities at any point

larger than the exit velocity u(x, z) u0 . Over 90% of the vectors are considered

as valid in the measurement. Any stray vector is replaced by the average of the

eight vectors surrounding it. Only the results starting from x = 20D (0.12m) is

used for analysis as the spatial resolution is insufficient to resolve the flow near

the jet nozzle.

The measured mean flow velocities are shown in Fig. 4.8 for centerline and Fig. 4.9

for cross-sectional profiles. They compare well with the classical analytical solu-

tion for a simple jet.

uc (x) x 1

= 6.2 (4.9)

u0 D

!

u(x, r) r2

= exp 2 (4.10)

uc (x) b

Figs. 4.10 and 4.11 show the RMS turbulent velocity fluctuations normalized

with the centerline axial velocity ( u u /uc , w w /uc ). The measured turbulent

intensity has a peak of about 0.25 at the centerline for axial velocity fluctuations

and about 0.2 for radial velocity fluctuations. The measurement compares well

with the past studies (e.g. Papanicolaou and List, 1988; Wang and Law, 2002)

and correspond well to the CFD prediction using realizable k turbulence model

(see Fig. 5.7, Chapter 5). The normalized turbulent profiles are similar for the

experiments with a wide range of jet initial velocity, indicating the applicability of

a single turbulence intensity profile in the numerical particle tracking model. The

experimental data also shows that the current set-up using continuous Argon-ion

laser is capable of measuring the turbulent velocity with high accuracy and the

velocity data can be further utilized for analyses of turbulence characteristics of

83

jet flow. The correlations between |u | and |u /t|, and |w | and |w /t| for

the experimental support of the loitering effect are presented in Chapter 3.

1 1

uc/u0 uc/u0

Measured

Analytical

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

1 10 100 1 10 x/D 100

(Eq. 4.9).

1.2 1.2

u/uc 20D u/uc 60D

30D 40D

1 40D 1 50D

50D 30D

60D 20D

0.8 Gaussian 0.8 Gaussian

J40

J80

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 r/b 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 r/b 3

line velocity u(x, r)/uc (x), Eq. 4.10.

84

0.4 0.4

20D 20D

u ' u' 30D

u ' u'

0.35 0.35 30D

uc 40D uc 40D

50D 50D

0.3 0.3

60D 60D

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

r/b

0 0

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 r/b 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Figure 4.10: Axial RMS turbulent fluctuations u u /uc .

0.4 0.4

0.35 0.35

20D

uc 30D

uc

0.3 40D 0.3

50D

0.25 60D 0.25

0.2 0.2

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 r/b 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 r/b 3

Figure 4.11: Radial (vertical) RMS turbulent fluctuations w w /uc .

85

4.7.3 Experimental support of trapping effect in jet tur-

bulence

Nielsens Lagrangian auto-correlation function for a sediment particle consists

of an important assumption that generate the so called loitering effect which

results in the reduction of settling velocity - the assumption of slow velocity

corresponds to slow change of velocity. This represents a turbulent structure

that when a particle reaches a region of slow velocity, the particle would be

trapped with reduced velocity as the change of velocity w is slow. With this

assumption the particle tracking model works well in predicting the deposition

of horizontal turbulent sediment laden jets. However, as remarked by Nielsen

(1992), the assumption has not been studied in any types of flow.

Such an assumption can be supported if it can be shown a positive correlation

exists between the velocity magnitude |u | and the absolute value in the change

in velocity |u /t|. The basis of this assumption is studied using high frequency

PIV measurements of turbulent flow velocities of a horizontal jet. The horizontal

and vertical velocities of a turbulent jet are measured in a longitudinal vertical

plane. Fig. 4.12 shows an example of the measured time history of turbulent

velocity fluctuations. The change in turbulent velocity is estimated using forward

difference, e.g. !

w (w wi )

= i+1 (4.11)

t i t

The correlations between |u | and |u /t|, and |w | and |w /t| are analysed.

The measured correlations of |u | and |u /t|, and |w | and |w /t| are

presented in Figs. 4.13 and 4.14 for two jet flow cases. There is a significant

correlation between |w | and |w /t|, from about 0.3 at x = 30D to 0.6 at

x = 50D along the jet centerline (Fig. 4.13). On the other hand the correlation

between |u | and |u /t| is much less significant. Also, along the shown cross-

sections, the correlation of |w | and |w /t| is significantly higher (Fig. 4.14).

This gives the first direct experimental evidence that the assumption of slow

velocity corresponds to slow change of velocity is valid in a jet. The trapping

and loitering effect in particularly important and governing the sediment fall-out

in horizontal jets.

86

0.1

u' (m/s)

0.05

-0.05

t (s)

-0.1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0.1

w' (m/s)

0.05

-0.05

t (s)

-0.1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

10

2

u'/ t (m/s )

5

-5

t (s)

-10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

10

w'/ t (m/s ) 2

-5

t (s)

-10

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

its local acceleration (u /t, w /t). u0 = 0.39 m/s (Qj = 40 L/h), x = 30D,

z = 0, u = 0.080 m/s, w = 0.0014 m/s. Measurement interval = 0.01s.

87

0.9 u' u' / t w' w' / t u0 = 0.49m/s

,

u' u' / t w' w' / t z = 0 (centerline)

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1 x/D

-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

u'

-0.3

w'

-0.5

(a) Qj = 40 m3 /s, u0 = 0.49 m/s

,

u' u' / t w' w' / t z = 0 (centerline)

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.1 x/D

-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

u'

-0.3

w'

-0.5

(b) Qj = 80 m3 /s, u0 = 0.79 m/s

Figure 4.13: The correlation between |u | and |u /t|, |w | and |w /t|, at jet

centerline (z = 0).

88

u ' u ' / t w' w' / t u ' u ' / t w' w' / t

, ,

u ' u ' / t w' w' / t u ' u ' / t w' w' / t

x = 30D 0.9 x = 30D 0.9

0.7 0.7

0.5 0.5

0.3 0.3

-3 -2 -1 -0.1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 -0.1 0 1 2 3

u' u'

-0.3 w' -0.3 w'

-0.5 -0.5

r/b r/b

, ,

u ' u ' / t w' w' / t u ' u ' / t w' w' / t

0.7 0.7

0.5 0.5

0.3 0.3

-3 -2 -1 -0.1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 -0.1 0 1 2 3

u' u'

-0.3 w' -0.3 w'

-0.5 -0.5

r/b r/b

3

(a) Qj = 40 m /s, u0 = 0.49 m/s (b) Qj = 80 m3 /s, u0 = 0.79 m/s

Figure 4.14: The correlation between |u | and |u /t|, |w | and |w /t|, along

vertical transects at x = 30D and x = 50D

89

4.7.4 Experimental support of negligible cross-correlations

between partial velocity derivatives

The second assumption of the autocorrelation function: the cross-correlations

between the velocity components (u , v , w ) and their partial derivatives u

t

,

u u u

u x , v y , w z are zero, can be substantiated by the same data of jet velocity

measurement by PIV. Expanding the square of the partial derivative of velocity

components, it can be written as:

u component:

!2

u u u u

+u +v +w (4.12)

t x y z

!2 !2 !2 !2

u 2 u 2 u 2 u

= +u +v +w

t x y z

| {z } | {z }

Type 1 Type 2

! ! ! ! ! !

u

u

u

u

u

u

+2 u +2 v +2 w

t x t y t z

| {z }

Type 3

! ! ! ! ! !

u u u u u u

+2 u v +2 u w +2 v w

x y x z y z

| {z }

Type 4

v component:

!2

v v

v

v

+u +v +w (4.13)

t x y z

!2 !2 !2 !2

v v 2 2 v

2 v

= +u +v +w

t x y z

! ! ! ! ! !

v

v

v

v

v v

+2 u +2 v +2 w

t x t y t z

! ! ! ! ! !

v v v v v v

+2 u v +2 u w +2 v w

x y x z y z

w component:

!2

w w w w

+ u + v + w (4.14)

t x y z

!2 !2 !2 !2

w w w w

= + u2 + v 2 + w2

t x y z

! ! ! ! ! !

w

w

w

w

w w

+2 u +2 v +2 w

t x t y t z

90

! ! ! ! ! !

w w w w w w

+2 u v +2 u w +2 v w

x y x z y z

1. The square of time derivatives: e.g. ( u

t

)2 , ( w

t

)2 ,

2. The square of spatial derivatives: e.g. (u u

x

)2 , (w u

z

)2 ,

3. The product of time and spatial derivatives: e.g. ( u

t

)(u u

x

), ( u

t

)(w u

z

),

and

4. The product of spatial derivatives: e.g. (u u

x

)(w u

z

).

Types 1 and 2 are square terms thus their mean are non-zero. Types 3 and 4

arises from the cross multiplication due to the squaring of the partial derivative

thus can be positive or negative. By examing the velocity measurement using

PIV, the magnitude of the mean value of these four types of partial derivatives

can be compared for their relative importance. Because of the axisymmetric

nature of a round jet, the v and w are taken as the same statistically. In

estimating the partial derivatives, the spatial derivatives are computed using a

central difference scheme centered at the interrogation window, while the time

derivative is computed using a forward difference scheme.

Table 4.7 shows the magnitude of the four types of velocity derivatives for

the jet case of Q = 50 L/h (u0 = 0.492 m/s) at the jet centerline z = 0. The

major contribution to the square of the partial derivative is Type 1: the time

derivative, with an order of magnitude of 1 m2 /s4 . Types 2 and 3 have a much

less significant contribution of the order of 104 103 m2 /s4 . Type 4 is negligible

with the order of 107 106 m2 /s4 . Table 4.8 shows the cross-correlations of

the velocity derivatives for the jet case of Q = 50 L/h (u0 = 0.492 m/s) which

are all less than 0.1, substantiating the assumption that the cross-correlations

can be neglected.

Table 4.7: Time average of the velocity derivatives for the jet case of Q = 50

L/h (u0 = 0.492 m/s). D = jet diameter = 6mm.

Velocity derivatives Type Time average (m2 /s4 , N = 2325)

x = 30D x = 40D x = 50D x = 60D

(u /t)2 1 2.30E+00 1.58E+00 9.71E-01 9.53E-01

(u u /x)2 2 1.08E-03 3.25E-04 1.54E-04 1.28E-04

(w u /z)2 2 1.67E-03 5.75E-04 1.91E-04 4.13E-05

(u /t)(u u /x) 3 2.85E-03 -1.42E-03 3.09E-04 4.32E-04

(u /t)(w u /z) 3 -2.06E-03 1.02E-03 2.71E-04 -2.65E-04

(u u /x)(w u /z) 4 3.77E-05 -6.40E-07 -3.50E-06 2.45E-07

91

Table 4.8: Velocity derivatives and the result of correlation for the jet case of

Q = 50 L/h (u0 = 0.492 m/s). D = jet diameter = 6mm.

Velocity derivatives Correlation results (z = 0)

Time

D

derivatives

E D E D E

x = 30D x = 40D x = 50D x = 60D

u u u u

u / u 0.057 -0.063 0.025 0.039

D t x E D t E D x E

u

t

w uz

/ u

t

w uz

0.035 0.034 0.020 0.010

D E D ED E

w

u w / w u w -0.061 -0.066 0.023 -0.017

D t x E D t E D x E

w

t

w w

z

/ w

t

w w

z

0.039 0.016 0.047 -0.060

Spatial

D

derivatives

(x zEplane)

E D D E

30D 40D 50D 60D

u u

u

u x w z / u u x

w z

0.026 -0.002 -0.022 0.003

D

E D

ED

E

u w

x

w w

z

/ u w

x

w w

z

0.012 -0.034 0.038 0.044

4.8 Summary

In this chapter, the experiments of sediment-laden horizontal jets are described.

Twenty-one sediment-laden jet experiments are carried out to measure the 1D

and 2D bottom deposition profiles using three types of particles of different size

and density, with flow visualization recorded. Checking of the mass balance

between system input and output showed excellent mass recovery percentage.

Cross-sectional sediment concentration of plastic particle-laden jets (two cases)

is measured using particle imaging technique. The experimental data will be

used for validating the numerical models and presented in Chapter 5.

Measurement of single phase jet velocity using PIV technique is carried out

for experimental support of the autocorrelation function developed in Chapter 3.

The measured mean flow and RMS turbulent velocity show very good comparison

with the analytical solution and results of past investigations. The positive

correlation between the radial (vertical) velocity magnitude and the absolute

change in velocity supports the assumption in the autocorrelation function for

modelling the loitering and trapping of sediment particles in jet turbulent eddies.

92

Chapter 5

Modelling of Sediment-Laden

Horizontal Momentum Jets

5.1 Introduction

The particle tracking model developed in Chapter 3 aims to predict the sediment

transport and deposition of horizontal momentum jet. In this chapter, the results

of experimental and numerical modelling of sediment-laden horizontal momen-

tum jet are presented. First, the experimental results of the present and previous

studies are discussed. As a preliminary investigation tool, Computational Fluid

Dynamics (CFD) modelling is utilized to study the interaction between parti-

cle and turbulence in horizontal momentum jets. Finally, the results of particle

tracking model prediction is compared with the experimental data of sediment

deposition and concentration. The importance of various forces in the equation

of motion is discussed through comparison with experimental measurements.

Fig. 5.1 shows a schematic depiction of the structure of a horizontal sediment-

laden momentum jet with dilute concentration. The jet with a diameter D and

initial velocity u0 mixes with ambient fluid by shear-induced turbulent entrain-

ment. Sediment particles with source concentration C0 are transported in the

horizontal direction and dispersed by turbulent mixing. As the flow velocity and

turbulence intensity reduce, particles fall to the bottom under gravity, forming

a deposition profile with a peak close to the jet nozzle and an elongated tail.

For the present experiments, the sediment concentration is less than 7.7 g/L,

corresponding to a volume fraction of less than 0.29%. Cuthbertson et al. (2008)

showed experimentally that for sediment volumetric fraction of 0.1%, the jet

trajectory is unaffected by the presence of the sediment. Consistent with the

present experiments, the dilute particle concentration is considered to have little

influence on the fluid jet flow.

93

Turbulent jet

u0, C0

Particle

Fallout

Sediment

Deposition

To qualitatively study the dynamics of horizontal sediment-laden jets, high-speed

images are taken for a sediment-laden jet on a vertical laser sheet plane along

the jet flow direction. Fluorescent Rhodamine-6G dye is added to the jet flow

for the visualization of the fluid phase. As the exposure time of each photo is

very short (1-2 ms depending on jet flow), the particles are essentially frozen

on the image.

Fig. 5.2a shows a reversed gray-scale image of the experimental case of G180J80

(u0 = 0.786 m/s, glass particle d50 = 180m, ws = 2cm/s, C0 2.4g/L). The

turbulent nature of the jet fluid flow can be clearly observed with the turbulent

eddies visible under the fluorescent dye. Particles at first travelled along the

direction of the jet flow. The particles are seen to be bursting upward and down-

ward with the turbulent eddies. At some distance, particles starts to drop out

from the jet flow as the mean flow velocity reduces and turbulent intensity weak-

ens. The number of sediment particles at the upper part of jet starts decreasing

and particles are concentrated at the lower half of the jet. Further downstream,

the sediment in the turbulent jet has been reduced to low numbers that almost

only the turbulent fluid phase remains. Fig. 5.2b shows the visualization of a

pure jet of the same initial velocity. The jet centerline and top-hat width, defined

by bT = 0.16x, is included for illustration. Compared to the pure jet case, the

94

fluid phase of the sediment-laden jet is similar to the pure jet one, indicating that

the dynamics of the jet flow is not significantly affected by the presence of sed-

iment. The sediment volume fraction for this case is 0.096%; the visualization

confirms the conclusion by Cuthbertson et al. (2008) that when the sediment

volume fraction is less than 0.1%, the jet flow is not significantly affected by the

presence of sediment.

Fig. 5.3a shows the visualization of the experimental case of G180J50 (u0 =

0.492 m/s, glass particle d50 = 180m, ws = 2cm/s, C0 3.8g/L), which the

jet initial velocity is smaller than the previous case. Because of the lower jet

velocity, sediment falls out closer to the nozzle, leaving a clean fluid phase behind

downstream. Higher sediment concentration is used in this case (volume fraction

0.152%) which is slightly higher than the limit of no-impact by Cuthbertson et

al. (2008). Nevertheless, the mean flow and turbulent structures of the sediment-

laden jet is similar to those of the pure jet (Fig. 5.3b).

Fig.5.4 shows the visualization of a jet with u0 = 0.786m/s and laden with

plastic IP3 particles of 716 m diameter (ws = 2.1cm/s, p = 1140 kg/m3 ).

For the plastic particle experiments, the initial concentration of sediment are

lower in order to cater for the larger particle size. Due to the low concentration

(vol. fraction 0.1%), the trajectory of the jet fluid phase is unaffected by the

presence of the particle (Cuthbertson et al. 2008). The particles travel with the

turbulent eddies and fall out from the lower jet edge but with a longer distance

compared to the glass particles.

One- and two-dimensional sediment deposition profiles are measured in the present

study using various particles. The experiments are summarised in Chapter 4. In

addition, extensive 1D sediment deposition has been reported in Li (2006) and

Lee (2010) for a large number of horizontal momentum sediment-laden jet exper-

iments using natural sand and glass particles respectively, and limited number of

experiments using plastic particles. A summary of the experimental parameters

for their work is given in Table 5.1.

in the transverse y-direction. Fig. 5.5 shows typical measured 1D bottom depo-

sition profiles from horizontal momentum jets with glass and plastic particles.

The deposition is initially close to zero near the jet nozzle as sediment has not

begun falling out from the jet edge. At some distance particle deposition appears

and rises to a maximum at a distance of xm which correspond to the maximum

rate of falling out from the jet. Then the deposition drops with the shape of a

longer tail to zero, as the sediment concentration in the jet decreases due to fall

out. The higher the jet flow velocity, the longer the deposition pattern is, as the

sediment particles are transported further downstream.

95

0.08

0.04

(m)

0.04

0.08

0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32

(m)

(a) Sediment laden jet, glass particle d50 = 180m , ws = 2cm/s

0.08

0.04

(m)

0.04

0.08

0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32

(m)

(b) Pure jet

Figure 5.2: Visualization of case u0 = 0.786 m/s, (a) sediment laden, (b) pure

jet. The dashed line is the jet centerline; the dash-dotted line is the top-hat

width of the jet, defined by bT = 0.16x.

96

0.08

0.04

(m)

0.04

0.08

0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32

(m)

(a) Sediment laden jet, glass particle d50 = 180m , ws = 2cm/s

0.08

0.04

(m)

0.04

0.08

0 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.32

(m)

(b) Pure jet

Figure 5.3: Visualization of case u0 = 0.492 m/s, (a) sediment laden, (b) pure

jet. The dashed line is the jet centerline; the dash-dotted line is the top-hat

width of the jet, defined by bT = 0.16x.

97

0.08

0.04

0

(m)

0.04

0.08

(m)

Figure 5.4: Visualization of IP3J80, u0 = 0.786 m/s, plastic IP3 particle d50 =

716m , ws = 2.2cm/s

Fs (g/m/s) Fs (g/m/s)

0.5 0.1

0.4 G180J80 0.08 G115J60

0.07

0.3 0.06

0.05

0.2 0.04

0.03

0.1 0.02

0.01

x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(a) Glass, d50 = 180m, ws = 2.0 cm/s (b) Glass, d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0 cm/s

(Lee 2010) (Lee 2010)

Fs (g/m/s) Fs (g/m/s)

0.2 0.06

IP3J80 MFJ80

0.18

IP3J60 0.05 MFJ60

0.16

IP3J40 MFJ40

0.14

0.04

0.12

0.1 0.03

0.08

0.02

0.06

0.04

0.01

0.02

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(c) IP3, d50 = 716m, ws = 2.2 cm/s (d) MF, d50 = 347m, ws = 2.2 cm/s

(present study) (present study)

Figure 5.5: Typical 1D sediment deposition profiles (present study and Lee,

2010).

98

Table 5.1: Summary of Li (2006) and Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden jet

experiments for bottom deposition and cross-sectional sediment concentration

measurement. Jet diameter D = 6mm. lm = momentum-settling length scale

1/2

= M0 /ws .

Particle Particle Settling Jet Jet Sediment Momentum/

Type diameter velocity flow rate velocity concentration settling

daeq /db50 ws Q0 u0 C0 length scale

(m) (cm/s) (L/hr) (m/s) (g/L) lm /D

3

Li (2006), sediment bottom deposition measurement, p = 2.65g/cm

Coarse 166a 1.98 50,54,58, 0.49 - 0.65 3.39 - 4.49 22.2 - 29.2

sand 62,66

(CJ)

Fine 133a 1.41 30,34,38, 0.30 - 0.57 3.93 - 7.73 18.5 - 35.7

sand 42,46,50,

(FJ) 54,58

Lee (2010), sediment bottom deposition

and concentration measurement, p = 2.5g/cm3

Spherical 215b 2.64 60,70, 0.57 - 0.86 3.39 - 4.49 18.9 - 28.3

Glass 215m 80,90

(G215J)

Spherical 180b 1.83 50,60, 0.48 - 0.76 2.32 - 3.71 20.6 - 32.9

Glass 180m 70,80

(G180J)

Spherical 115b 1.03 40,50, 0.38 - 0.67 1.03 - 1.83 32.9 - 57.6

Glass 115m 60,70

(G115J)

Lee (2010), sediment bottom deposition measurement, p = 1.14g/cm3

Spherical 716b 2.06 50,58, 0.48 - 0.63 1.56 - 2.26 18.5 - 24.8

Plastic 66

(IP3J)

Lee (2010), sediment bottom deposition measurement, p = 1.16g/cm3

Irregular 634a 2.11 50,58, 0.48 - 0.63 1.03 - 1.83 20.2 - 26.1

Plastic 66

(PJ)

99

For a horizontal sediment-laden jet, the sediment deposition pattern and

concentration profiles depends on the relative importance of the jet momentum

and sediment settling velocity. Based on the heuristic assumption that particles

start to settle when the settling velocity exceeds the jet entrainment velocity

ve = uc , where is the entrainment coefficient and uc is the centerline mean

flow velocity (Bleninger et al. 2002; Li, 2006 and Lee, 2010), a settling-momentum

length scale lm can be defined,

1/2

M

lm = 0 (5.1)

ws

where lm is a measure of the distance at which sediment starts to fall out of the jet.

The range of lm /D is 19-58 in the experiments of present study. When x < lm ,

the horizontal transport of sediment by jet flow dominates over the settling while

the other way occurs when x > lm . By dimensional analysis, Li (2006) and Lee

(2010) have found that if the longitudinal coordinate x is normalized as x/lm ,

and the deposition rate is normalized by the jet sediment flux Fs lm /Q0 C0 , the

deposition profiles of experiments using similar types of particles collapse into a

single profile and can be described by a log-normal distribution, as

" 2 #

Fs lm x

= A exp B ln C (5.2)

Q0 C0 lm

Fig. 5.6 shows the normalized profiles of 1D deposition using natural sand and

glass particles, from the experiments of Li (2006) and Lee (2010). The stillwater

settling velocity ws is used to calculate the momentum-settling length scale lm .

The profiles collapse well into a single curve fitted by a log-normal function.

Figs. 5.7 and 5.8 show the normalized deposition profiles of sediment-laden

jets with plastic IP3 and MF particles measured in this study. It can be observed

that the profiles collapse onto a single curve for each kind of particles. Never-

theless, comparing the three profiles (Fig. 5.9), the curves for glass and plastic

particles cannot be collapsed into a single one despite their similar shapes. The

jet turbulence-particle interaction may be quite different for glass and plastic

particles, even for similar jet flow conditions. The stillwater settling velocity ws

is not the only governing factor for the deposition in horizontal sediment-laden

jets. A general model incorporating the physics of particle-turbulence interaction

is required for the correct prediction of the bottom deposition profiles.

2D Deposition Profiles

Fig. 5.10 shows the measured 2D deposition profiles of experiments using G180

particles. The profiles are consistent with the previous measured 1D profiles,

with a peak deposition at about 0.2m for G180J80-2D and 0.1m for G180J50-2D.

It is noted that the deposition profiles are not symmetric about the centerline

of the jet. This is probably due to the unstable entrainment flow by the jet

in a finite sized tank together with the falling out of the sediment particles.

100

1

Glass (Lee, 2010)

0.6

Fs lm /Q0 C0

0.4

0.2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5

x/lm

Figure 5.6: Normalized 1D deposition profiles of glass (Lee, 2010) and natural

sand particles (Li, 2006)

1

IP3-Present Study

0.8

IP3-Lee (2010)

NQP-Lee (2010)

0.6

Fs lm /Q0C0

0.4

0.2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5

x/lm

study)

101

1

Measured

0.8 Fitted eqn.

0.6

Fs lm /Q0C0

0.4

0.2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5

x/lm

study)

1

IP3 (present)

0.8 MF (present)

0.6

Fs lm /Q0 C0

0.4

0.2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5

x/lm

Constants Glass and Sand IP3 MF

Li (2006), Lee (2010) present study present study

A 0.702 0.594 0.560

B 1.5 2.01 1.87

C 1.19 0.875 0.921

Figure 5.9: Normalized 1D deposition profiles (fitted equations, Eq. 5.2) of dif-

ferent particles

102

Such phenomenon can be observed in the cross-sectional sediment concentration

measurement in Lee (2010). For plastic particles, the deposition profile shows

similar features (Fig. 5.11).

0.06

G180J80

Observed

0.04

1 1

0.02 3 2

y (m)

0

6 4

5

1

1

-0.02 3 4 3

2

2

1

-0.04

-0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m)

0.06

G180J50

Observed

0.04

2

0.02

6

y (m)

0

2

6

-0.02 2

-0.04

-0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

x (m)

in g/m2 /s.

103

0.06

IP3J80

Observed

0.04

0.5 0.25

0.02

0.5 0.75

y (m)

5

0.2

0

1.25

0.75

5

1.

1

1

75

-0.02 0. 25

0.5

0.5 0.

-0.04 0.25

-0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m)

0.06

IP3J40

Observed

0.04

0.02

0.5 1.5 0.

5

y (m)

23 3 1

0

3.5

2

2.5

-0.02 1 1.5

0.5

-0.04

-0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

x (m)

g/m2 /s.

elling

3D Computation Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modelling is initially adopted for study-

ing the dynamics of sediment laden jets. The 3D Reynolds-averaged Navier-

Stokes (RANS) equations are solved numerically for the steady jet flows. The

following sediment transport equation commonly adopted in environmental and

engineering sediment transport modelling is solved to estimate the sediment con-

centration C. !

C t C

(Ui ws ) = (5.3)

xi xi Sct xi

where C is the sediment concentration and Sct is the turbulent Schmidt number

taken as 0.85. The term ws C z

is added for the settling flux of sediment, where

ws is the settling velocity. The CFD model is described in detail in Appendix B.

Fig. 5.12 shows the comparison of the sediment deposition profiles by labo-

ratory measurement and CFD for a number of experiment cases. When the still

water settling velocity is used in the Eulerian CFD model, the predicted deposi-

tion profile does not compare well with the experimental measurement. A higher

maximum deposition rate is predicted with its position closer to the jet nozzle.

This indicates the importance of jet turbulence in reducing the settling velocity.

If the settling velocity is reduced by 25% in the whole flow field, a much closer

comparison is obtained. This 25% reduction applies to all the experimental cases

104

using natural sand and glass particles (Fig. 5.13).

Another approach to adjust the settling velocity is to reduce it locally accord-

ing to the ratio of RMS turbulent fluctuation to terminal settling velocity /ws ,

based on the model predicted apparent settling velocity in grid turbulence in

Chapter 3, i.e. Eq. 3.44. Fig. 5.14a shows the /ws ratio in various cross-section

of a jet experiment case FJ42. Within two Gaussian width b the RMS turbulent

fluctuation is very high and nearly 4 times of the settling velocity. Fig. 5.14b

shows the apparent settling velocity estimated from Eq. 3.44. Near the centerline

of the jet, a reduction close to 30% of the terminal settling velocity is possible.

This value is consistent with the empirical reduction factor used by Li (2006)

for her jet integral model which is merely obtained by fitting with experimental

data. The reduction decreases as the radial position increases. When r > 2b, the

terminal settling velocity resumes as the jet turbulence no longer influences the

particle settling. The CFD predicted bottom deposition using this local adjust-

ment approach is shown in Figs. 5.12 and 5.13 and shows similar performance

compared to the whole field adjustment approach.

For the lower density plastic particles (Fig. 5.15), a further 10% reduction

is required to repredict the deposition profile correctly, although they have sim-

ilar stillwater settling velocity as the glass particles. This is consistent with

the prediction in homogeneous turbulence (Fig. 3.15) for which plastic particles

tends to settle much more slowly in high turbulent intensity. Thus the empirical

correction of settling velocity does not only depends on the stillwater settling

velocity and the turbulence level, but is also related to the particle properties

(size, density). The local adjustmust according to /ws ratio does not work well

for plastic particles (Fig. 5.15).

In summary, model-data comparison shows that a simple incorporation of

the settling flux using the still water settling velocity in CFD models is found

not to work well in the modelling of bottom deposition of horizontal sediment-

laden jets. Empirical adjustment of stillwater settling velocity is required for the

satisfactory prediction of the sediment deposition. A whole field adjustment

factor of 0.75 can be multiplied to the stillwater settling velocity to achieve

a better comparison with measured data for sand and glass particles, but for

plastic particles a smaller factor of 0.65 has to be used. A local adjustment factor

according to the /ws ratio can also be applied to give satisfactory prediction on

the deposition of sand and glass particles. The non-universality of the empirical

correction factor necessitates the development of a general model that does not

require any empirical a priori adjustment to the settling velocity for sediment-

laden jets, which will be described in next section.

105

0.5 0.5

CJ66 CJ50

0.4 CFD 0.75Ws CFD 0.75Ws

0.4

CFD Wsa CFD Wsa

Fs (g/m/s)

CFD Ws CFD Ws

Fs (g/m/s)

0.3 0.3

Meas. Meas.

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) CJ66, u0 = 0.648 m/s, ws = 1.96 cm/s (b) CJ50, u0 = 0.491 m/s, ws = 1.96 cm/s

0.5 0.5

FJ58 FJ30

0.4 CFD 0.75Ws 0.4 CFD 0.75Ws

CFD Wsa CFD Wsa

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured Measured

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(c) FJ58, u0 = 0.570 m/s, ws = 1.41 cm/s (d) FJ30, u0 = 0.295 m/s, ws = 1.41 cm/s

Figure 5.12: CFD predicted and observed (Li, 2006) longitudinal particle depo-

sition pattern of four experiments using sand particles. The solid lines represent

the prediction using the adjusted settling velocity: 0.75ws whole field adjust-

ment; wsa local adjustment according to /ws . The dashed line is prediction

using the stillwater settling velocity ws .

106

0.7 0.7

G215J90 G215J60

0.6 0.6

CFD 0.75Ws CFD 0.75Ws

0.5 CFD Wsa 0.5 CFD Wsa

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

CFD Ws CFD Ws

0.4 0.4

Measured Measured

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) G215J90, u0 = 0.884 m/s, ws = 2.66 cm/s (b) G215J60, u0 = 0.592 m/s, ws = 2.74 cm/s

0.8 0.8

G180J80 G180J50

CFD 0.75Ws CFD 0.75Ws

0.6 CFD Wsa 0.6 CFD Wsa

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

CFD Ws CFD Ws

Measured Measured

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(c) G180J80, u0 = 0.786 m/s, ws = 1.95 cm/s (d) G180J50, u0 = 0.491 m/s, ws = 1.98 cm/s

0.1 0.1

G115J70 G115J40

CFD-Wsa CFD Wsa

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured Measured

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(e) G115J70, u0 = 0.688 m/s, ws = 1.00 cm/s (f) G115J40, u0 = 0.393 m/s, ws = 1.04 cm/s

Figure 5.13: CFD predicted and observed (Lee, 2010) longitudinal particle de-

position pattern of six experiments using spherical glass particles. The solid

lines represent the prediction using the adjusted settling velocity: 0.75ws whole

field adjustment; wsa local adjustment according to /ws . The dashed line is

prediction using the stillwater settling velocity ws .

107

4.5

s/ws 1.2

wsa /ws

(a) (b)

4

1

3.5

3 x = 10D 0.8

x = 20D

2.5

x = 30D 0.6

2 x = 10D

x = 40D

x = 20D

1.5 x = 50D 0.4

x = 30D

1

0.2 x = 40D

0.5 x = 50D

0 0

0 1 2 r/b 3 0 1 2 r/b 3

Figure 5.14: (a) Ratio of RMS turbulent velocity to settling velocity (/ws ),

and (b) ratio of apparent settling velocity to terminal settling velocity (wsa /ws ),

in different cross-section of a jet, Jet case FJ42: deq = 133m, u0 = 0.41m/s,

ws = 1.41cm/s

0.25 0.25

IP3J66 IP3J50

CFD-0.75Ws CFD-0.75Ws

CFD-Wsa CFD-Wsa

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

CFD-Ws

Measured

Measured

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m)

x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(a) IP3J66, u0 = 0.648 m/s, ws = 2.28 cm/s (b) IP3J50, u0 = 0.491 m/s, ws = 2.25 cm/s

Figure 5.15: CFD predicted and observed (Lee, 2010) longitudinal particle depo-

sition pattern of two experiments using plastic particles. 0.65ws , 0.75ws whole

field uniform adjustment of stillwater settling velocity ws ; wsa local adjustment

according to /ws .

108

5.5 Particle tracking modelling

Based on the velocity autocorrelation function developed in Chapter 3, a particle

tracking model is developed to predict the sediment concentration and bottom

deposition of horizontal sediment-laden jets. The model incorporates the ana-

lytical mean flow velocity (axial and radial) of a pure momentum jet, with the

best-fitted self-similar RMS turbulent fluctuations (turbulent kinetic energy) and

turbulent dissipation rate predicted using the realizable k turbulent closure

model in CFD solution for a jet.

The theoretical Gaussian axial jet mean flow velocity is adopted in the model

and are given by

1

uc (x) x

= 6.2 (5.4)

u0 D

!

u(x, r) r2

= exp 2 (5.5)

uc (x) b

where uc is the jet centerline velocity, u0 is the initial velocity, D is the initial jet

diameter and b = x is the Gaussian half width and = 0.114 is the jet linear

spreading rate. The mean transverse velocity of the jet is given by the following

expression deduced by applying continuity to the jet cross-section (Lee and Chu,

2003).

vr (r) (1 exp(r2 /b2 )) (/)(r2 /b2 ) exp(r2 /b2 )

= (5.6)

uc r/b

where ve = uc is the entrainment velocity at r = b; = 0.057 is the jet

entrainment coefficient. Fig. 5.16 shows the mean velocity profiles of a jet and

the comparison with CFD prediction.

Velocity gradient is required in the full model for the fluid accelerations

(duf /dt)f . Only the spatial derivatives based on the mean flow velocity (e.g.

u/x, u/y, etc) are modelled. It is found the the contribution of the force

due to fluid acceleration has negligible effect on the predicted deposition and

concentration profiles.

q

Assuming isotropic turbulence, the RMS turbulent fluctuation = 23 k is ob-

tained from the turbulent kinetic energy k of a momentum jet using a k

turbulence closure model with CFD simulation of a pure jet. The length and

time scales TE and LE are obtained from Eqs. 3.21 and 3.20 (Chapter 3) using k

and the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate . The CFD model predicted

1/3

and are normalized with the mean jet properties as uc and (b)uc respectively,

109

and fitted with an equation with the form of

(r) r r

= C1 exp C2 ( C3 )2 + exp C2 ( + C3 )2 (5.7)

uc b b

and

((r)b)1/3 r r

= C4 exp C5 ( C6 )2 + exp C5 ( + C6 )2 (5.8)

uc b b

C1 0.2006 C4 0.2458

C2 = 1.4147 , C5 = 1.2498

C3 0.6647 C6 0.6594

are obtained using a least-square best-fitting method. Fig. 5.17 shows the nor-

malized radial distribution of turbulence quantities in a jet. The RMS turbulent

velocity fluctuation profiles are corresponding very well to the experimental mea-

surement by Papanicolaou and List (1988) and Wang and Law (2002), with a

centerline turbulence intensity of about 0.22, within the range of the previous

studies. A slightly higher /uc and is obtained by the CFD model at x = 20D.

Inclusion of this effect in the particle tracking model is tested and found to be

insignificant for predicting the deposition pattern. Thus a single normalized

turbulent quantity profile is used for all longitudinal locations.

1.2 0.6

uc/u0 Qj = 42 L/h 10D vr/auc 10D

Qj = 42 L/h

1 20D 0.4 20D

30D 30D

0.8 0.2 40D

40D

50D 50D

0.6 0

Theoretical

Theoretical

0.4 -0.2

0.2 -0.4

0 -0.6

0 1 2 r/b 3 0 1 2 3 4 r/b 5

(a) (b)

Figure 5.16: Theoretical and CFD predicted jet mean velocity profiles, (a) Lon-

gitudinal velocity, Eq. 5.5, (b) transverse velocity (positive outwards), Eq. 5.6.

In the full model, a single particle diameter d is used. For spherical particles,

due to their narrow size range, the diameter is taken as the median diameter d50

of the particles used in the experiments. For irregular particles, an equivalent

110

/uc 1/3

0.4 0.4 (b) /uc

10D 10D

20D 20D

0.3 30D 0.3 30D

40D 40D

50D 0.2 50D

0.2

Best-fit Best-fit

0.1 0.1

Qj = 42 L/h

Qj = 42 L/h

0 0

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

r/b r/b

(a) (b)

Figure 5.17: Turbulent velocity fluctuation and dissipation rate dissipation, pre-

dicted by CFD model and fitted with empirical equations, (a) RMS turbulent

velocity fluctuation, Eq. 5.7, (b) Turbulent energy dissipation rate, Eq. 5.8.

and inferred from the settling velocity formula with spherical drag law,

3CD

deq = ws2 (5.9)

4g(s 1)

where CD = f (Re) = f (ws deq /) is the drag coefficient determined iteratively

using Eq. 3.3. This deq obtained is different from the one used in Li (2006) which

is obtained using the equation for estimating the stillwater settling velocity of

natural sand particles (Sousbly, 1997).

h i

ws = (10.362 + 1.049D3 )1/2 10.36 (5.10)

deq

" #1/3

g(s 1)

D = deq (5.11)

2

For both natural irregular sand and spherical particles, the drag law and added

mass of a spherical particle is used. Table 5.2 shows the inferred particle equiv-

alent diameter deq .

The stochastic particle tracking is performed using Eqs. 3.1, 3.7 and 3.31 for

Full Model (Eqs. 3.32 and 3.34 for Simplified Model) in Chapter 3 with the

mean jet flow velocity determined from Eqs. 5.4-5.6, and turbulent quantities

from Eqs. 3.20, 3.21, 5.7 and 5.8. Np = 50, 000 particles are used for each

jet simulation to obtain the deposition profile. Each particle shares an equal

fraction of the total sediment mass used in the experiment. The total sediment

mass can be computed by the product Qj C0 Texp , Texp as the total duration of

the numerical experiment, which is set as 5 minutes. It should be noted that the

111

Table 5.2: The inferred particle equivalent diameter deq for non-spherical par-

ticles

velocity ws (cm/s) ( C) ratio m

Coarse sanda 1.98 21 2.65 171

Fine sanda 1.41 23 2.65 135

Nan Qiang Plasticb 2.11 27 1.16 634

(NQP)

Melamine (MF)c 2.2 27 1.50 347

a Li (2006), b Lee (2010), c Present study

mass represented by each numerical particle in the simulations is not the same as

the actual mass of a sediment particle in the physical experiments. The particles

are initially distributed as a Gaussian profile and released at the end of the zone

of flow establishment (ZFE, x = 6.2D), and tracked until they reach the level

of the bottom tray (depends on the experiments: z = 15cm above the bottom

collection tray for present experiments and Lee (2010)s experiment, z = 7cm

for Li (2006)s experiment). The 1D longitudinal deposition rate (in g/m/s) are

obtained by summing all particles at the y-direction under intervals of 0.02m at

the x-direction and divided by the experiment time Texp . The 2D longitudinal

deposition rate (in g/m2 /s) are obtained by summing all particles within grid cell

size of x = 0.045m and y = 0.015m and divided by the experiment time Texp .

Particle tracking calculations have been performed for all experiments in Tables

4.3, 4.4, 4.5 (present study) and Table 5.1 (Li, 2006 and Lee, 2010) using a time-

step of 0.001s and selected results are shown in the next section. Sensitivity tests

have shown that even when a larger time-step up to 0.005s is used, the predicted

maximum deposition rates differ by less than 3% difference.

Fig. 5.18 shows the comparison with particle tracking models for the natural

sand experiments by Li (2006). The particle tracking model predicts the 1D de-

position pattern very well without any a priori correction to the settling velocity

with turbulence. The autocorrelation function developed in Chapter 3 correctly

models the turbulent velocity fluctuations which accounts for the induced set-

tling velocity reduction. The model predicts similarly well for the deposition of

spherical glass particles (Fig. 5.19).

The predicted deposition profiles, using either full model or simplified model,

are similar for these cases using natural sand and glass particles with density

ratio about 2.5. By the assumption of the simplified model, the particle velocity

112

is the same as the fluid velocity except in the vertical direction. The similar per-

formance of both models indicates that these particles response almost instantly

to turbulent fluctuations. The simplified model provides a more efficient alterna-

tive for use in general engineering design purposes, without the need for solving

the full equation of motion. The simplified model will be extensively applied in

the deposition from sediment-laden buoyant jets in Chapter 6.

0.5 0.5

CJ66 CJ50

0.4 Measured 0.4 Full Model

Full Model Simplified model

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.3 Simplfied model 0.3 Measured

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

CJ66: u0 = 0.65 m/s, C0 = 3.39 g/L, CJ50: u0 = 0.49 m/s, C0 = 4.49 g/L,

deq = 171m, ws = 1.98 cm/s deq = 171m, ws = 1.97 cm/s

0.5 0.5

FJ58 FJ30

Full Model Full Model

0.4 0.4

Deposition rate (g/m/s)

Simplified Model

Simplified Model

Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8

FJ58: u0 = 0.57 m/s, C0 = 3.93 g/L, FJ30: u0 = 0.29 m/s, C0 = 7.73 g/L,

deq = 135m, ws = 1.41 cm/s deq = 135m, ws = 1.41 cm/s

rate profiles of experiments using natural sand particles (Li, 2006).

The bottom deposition characteristic of jets with plastic particles differs sig-

nificantly from that of sand and glass particles. The full model predicts the de-

position profiles very well, while the simplified model predicts higher peak closer

to the nozzle (Figs 5.20 and 5.21). This is consistent with the CFD prediction

for which a further 10% reduction is required to match the prediction with the

observed deposition, and supported by the the greater reduction in settling veloc-

ity in homogeneous turbulence (Chapter 3). The unsatisfactory prediction of the

simplified model shows that due to particle inertia, the plastic particles are not

following the fluid completely. The prediction of melamine particles with density

ratio 1.5 also shows similar results (Fig. 5.22), with the full model predicts better

than the simplified model.

113

0.7 0.7

G215J90 G215J60

0.6 0.6

Full Model Full Model

0.5 Simplified Model 0.5 Simplified Model

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.4 Measured 0.4 Measured

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8

G215J90: u0 = 0.88 m/s, C0 = 3.84 g/L, G215J60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 5.51 g/L,

d50 = 215m, ws = 2.66 cm/s d50 = 215m, ws = 2.74 cm/s

0.7 0.7

G180J80 G180J60

0.6 Full Model 0.6

Full Model

0.5 Simplified Model 0.5 Simplified Model

Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

G180J80: u0 = 0.79 m/s, C0 = 4.94 g/L, G180J60: u0 = 0.57 m/s, C0 = 6.18 g/L,

d50 = 180m, ws = 1.95 cm/s d50 = 180m, ws = 1.82 cm/s

0.2 0.2

G115J60 G115J40

Full Model Full Model

0.15 0.15

Simplified Model Simplified Model

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured Measured

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8

G115J60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 1.10 g/L, G115J40: u0 = 0.39 m/s, C0 = 1.91 g/L,

d50 = 115m, ws = 1.01 cm/s d50 = 115m, ws = 1.04 cm/s

rate profiles of experiments using spherical glass particles (Lee, 2010).

114

0.3 0.3

IP3J80 IP3J70

0.25 0.25

Full Model Full Model

0.2 Simp. Model Simp. Model

0.2

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured Measured

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

IP3J80: u0 = 0.79 m/s, C0 = 1.17 g/L, d50 = 716m, ws = IP3J70: u0 = 0.69 m/s, C0 = 1.45 g/L, d 50 = 716m, ws =

2.02 cm/s 2.01 cm/s

0.3 0.3

IP3J60 IP3J50

0.25 Full Model 0.25 Full Model

Simp. Model Simp. Model

0.2 0.2 Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

IP3J60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 1.90 g/L, d50 = 716m, ws = IP3J50: u0 = 0.49 m/s, C0 = 2.04 g/L, d 50 = 716m, ws =

2.16 cm/s 2.15 cm/s

0.3 0.3

IP3J40 IP3J30

0.25 0.25 Full Model

Full Model

Simp. Model Simp. Model

0.2 0.2

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured Measured

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

IP3J40: u0 = 0.39 m/s, C0 = 2.63 g/L, d50 = 716m, ws = IP3J30: u0 = 0.29 m/s, C0 = 3.75 g/L, d 50 = 716m, ws =

2.16 cm/s 2.00 cm/s

rate profiles of experiments using spherical plastic particles (IP3).

115

0.3 0.3

IP3J66 IP3J50

0.25 Full Model 0.25 Full Model

Simplified Model Simplified Model

0.2 0.2

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured Measured

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

IP3J66: u0 = 0.65 m/s, C0 = 1.56 g/L, IP3J50: u0 = 0.49 m/s, C0 = 2.26 g/L,

d50 = 716m, ws = 2.28 cm/s d50 = 716m, ws = 2.32 cm/s

0.3 0.3

PJ66 PJ50

0.25 Full Model 0.25 Full Model

Simplified Model Simplfied Model

0.2 0.2 Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured

0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

PJ66: u0 = 0.65 m/s, C0 = 1.57 g/L, PJ50: u0 = 0.49 m/s, C0 = 2.09 g/L,

deq = 634m, ws = 2.08 cm/s deq = 634m, ws = 2.08 cm/s

rate profiles of experiments using plastic particles (Lee, 2010).

116

0.1 0.1

MFJ80 MFJ70

0.08 0.08

Full Model Full Model

Simp. Model Simp. Model

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.06 0.06 Measured

Measured

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

MFJ80: u0 = 0.79 m/s, C0 = 0.47 g/L, d50 = 347m, ws = MFJ70: u0 = 0.69 m/s, C0 = 0.48 g/L, d50 = 347m, ws =

2.18 cm/s 2.33 cm/s

0.1 0.1

MFJ60 MFJ50

0.08 0.08

Full Model Full Model

Simp. Model Simp. Model

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

Measured

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

MFJ60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 0.69 g/L, d50 = 347m, ws = MFJ50: u0 = 0.49 m/s, C0 = 0.82 g/L, d50 = 347m, ws =

2.22 cm/s 2.22 cm/s

0.1

MFJ40

0.08

Full Model

Simp. Model

Fs (g/m/s)

0.06

Measured

0.04

0.02

x (m)

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

2.20 cm/s

rate profiles of experiments using melamine particles.

117

5.6.2 2D sediment deposition profiles

Fig. 5.23 shows the comparison of the observed and predicted sediment deposition

profiles of one experiment, CJ58. The bottom deposition pattern are predicted

with favourable agreement by the particle tracking model for both longitudinal

and transverse extent. It is noticed that in the observation, the deposition is not

symmetric about the longitudinal axis, but tends to deposit more on the lower

side of the axis and shows a slight curving pattern.

For the 2D deposition profiles measured in the present experiments (Glass

particles: Figs. 5.24-5.26), the predicted extent of the deposition compares rea-

sonably well with the observations. The performance of the full model and

simplified model are very similar. Similar to Fig. 5.23, the deposition profile

is not symmetric in the transverse direction, except for the cases with low jet

velocity and high settling velocity (e.g. G215J60 and G180J50). The most sig-

nificant asymmetric profile is the one of G115J60 with high flow velocity and

smallest settling velocity (Fig. 5.26a). This experiment is repeated for several

times and it is observed that such asymmetric bottom deposition is not repeat-

able as the asymmetry in external current is generated at random. The closer

to the jet nozzle, the greater is the asymmetry in the profile. In addition, the

predicted transverse spread is smaller than observation, leaving a higher peak at

the centerline.

Previous cross-section particle concentration measurement (Lee, 2010, also

see e.g. Fig. 5.34) shows that as the particles fall out from the turbulent re-

gion of the jet, they are not falling vertically as expected, but with an inclined

trajectory. The particle trajectories are not stable, but tends to swing across

the cross-section periodically. The instability of the external flow is probably

due to the limited size of the experimental tank and the interaction with the

settling particles. The closer to the jet nozzle (the greater the entrainment flow),

the more prominent is this phenomenon. This is probably the reason for the

asymmetry and the increased spread of the observed deposition profiles. In the

particle tracking model, such complex flow phenomenon has not been modelled.

2D deposition profiles of plastic IP3 and melamine particles are shown in

Fig. 5.27 and Fig. 5.28. Similar to the previous observations, the extent of

the deposition depends on the jet flow velocity. Asymmetry is observed in the

transverse direction. In these cases, the full model predicts better agreement

with the experimental observation, while the simplified model usually predicts

narrower and shorter deposition profiles, with a much higher peak deposition.

The result is consistent with the conclusion in 1D modelling.

motion to the prediction of deposition profile

In the equation of motion, the gravitational and drag forces appears to be the

most important factor governing the motion of sediment particles. The other

forces (fluid acceleration, added mass and Basset) is of different importance in

118

a) observation

8

y (cm)

6 CJ58

4

-2

-4

-6

x (cm)

-8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

b) predicted

the experiment CJ58 (Li, 2006), deq = 166m, u0 = 0.57m/s, ws = 1.97m/s

119

is located at x = 0, y = 0.

G215 particles, d50 = 215m, ws = 2.65m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle

Figure 5.24: Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

0.06 0.06

G215J60 G215J90

Observed Observed

0.04 0.04

1 3 1

0.02 2 0.02 6

6

y (m)

y (m)

2

3

0 0

10

6

-0.02 -0.02 3

1

6 1

2

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

(b) G215J60-2D, u0 = 0.58m/s

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

G215J60 G215J90

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

Simplified Model Simplified Model

2 1

0.02 0.02

6

10

120

y (m)

y (m)

10 18 36 3

0 22 0 14

14 1 6

2

-0.02 2 -0.02 1

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

G215J60 G215J90

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

Full Model 1 Full Model

2

0.02 0.02 3

y (m)

y (m)

0 22 0 6 14

610 14 6 13 10

1

10

2

6

-0.02 2 -0.02

3

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

x (m) x (m)

is located at x = 0, y = 0.

G180 particles, d50 = 180m , ws = 1.98m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle

Figure 5.25: Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

0.06 0.06

G180J50 G180J80

Observed Observed

0.04 0.04

2 2 1

0.02 0.02

6 2 4 4

y (m)

y (m)

0 0

1

2 3

6

5

-0.02 2 -0.02 2

1

3

2 4

-0.04 -0.04

1

-0.06 -0.06

(b) G180J50-2D, u0 = 0.49m/s

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

G180J50 G180J80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

Simplified Model Simplified Model

0.02 0.02 3 4 1

8 6

121

y (m)

y (m)

2104 12 10

2

0 1 22 2 0

6 18 6 812 3

10 463

-0.02 -0.02 4

1

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

G180J50 G180J80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04 1

Full Model Full Model

2 2 3

0.02 0.02

10 6 4

y (m)

y (m)

6 18 22 1102

0 0

14 14

1

6 3 2 8

2

-0.02 2 -0.02 3

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

is located at x = 0, y = 0.

G115 particles, d50 = 115m , ws = 1.00m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle

Figure 5.26: Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

0.06

G115J40 0.1

G115J60

Observed Observed

0.04

0.05

0.3

0.02 1

0. 0.3

0.1

0.1

0.5

y (m)

y (m)

0 0.5 0

0.7

0.9

0.7

0.1 0.2

0.3 0.3

-0.02 5 0.3

0.1

0.

0.3

-0.05 0.5

0.1 0.3

-0.04 0.4 0.1

0.1 0.2

-0.1

-0.06

(b) G115J40-2D, u0 = 0.39m/s

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

x (m) x (m)

0.06

G115J40 0.1

G115J60

Predicted Predicted

0.04

0.1 Simplified Model Simplified Model

0.3 0.05

0.02 0.5 0.1

0.7 0.5

122

y (m)

y (m)

1.1 0.9

1.9 00.3.7 1.1

0

000..10.35.9 1.25.3 0 0.9

0.3

0.7 0.

1

1.5 0.1 0.1

-0.02 0.5 0.3 -0.05

-0.04

-0.1

-0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

x (m) x (m)

0.06

G115J40 0.1

G115J60

Predicted Predicted

0.04

Full Model Full Model

0.1 0.3 0.

1 0.05

0.02 0.9 0.1

1.1 0. 0.3

7

y (m)

y (m)

0.5

0.

00.2.7 0.5

0.

1

5

0 0

0.

00.3.7 2.3 1.5

2

1.5 0.9

0.1 0.1.91 0.3

-0.02 0.5 0.3 0.1

0.1

-0.05

-0.04

-0.1

-0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

x (m) x (m)

located at x = 0, y = 0.

IP3 particles, d50 = 716m , ws = 2.2m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle is

Figure 5.27: Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

0.06 0.06

IP3J40 IP3J80

Observed Observed

0.04 0.04 0.25

0.5

0.02 0.5 0.02 0.5

0.75

01.5 1.5

2.5 1

y (m)

y (m)

5

0 3.5 5 0 0.7 1.5

0.25

0.2

2.5

4

5

3 1 0.5 1 1.25

-0.02 2 1.5 -0.02

0.5

0.75 0.5

-0.04 -0.04

0.25

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(b) IP3J40-2D, u0 = 0.39m/s

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

IP3J40 IP3J80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

Simplified Model Simplified Model

0.02 0.02 0.25 0.5

1 0.7 0.

.5 2.5 1.21

123

0.5 2.25 5 1 4 25

y (m)

y (m)

7 5 5

0

1.5 8 0 00.711.72 3

6 5 3 .55 1

4 1.5 0.5 .25

0.2 2 1.75

1 1.5

-0.02 -0.02 5

0.25 0.5

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

IP3J40 IP3J80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04 0.25

Full Model Full Model

0.02 0.02 0.5

1 1.5 2 1.5 1

5 0.75

0.

0.

5

y (m)

y (m)

4 5 4.5 0.02.15 11.2.

3 5

75

5

0.

0 0

2.

3.5 75

0.25

1

5

3 2.5 5

1.5 1.5 1.2

-0.02 -0.02

0.2 0.5

5

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

located at x = 0, y = 0.

MF particles, deq = 347m , ws = 2.2m/s. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle is

Figure 5.28: Observed and predicted deposition profile of the experiment with

0.06 0.06

MFJ60 MFJ80

0.1 Observed Observed

0.04 0.04

0.3 0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

0.02 0.02

0.7 0.3

1

0.1

0.3

0.

y (m)

y (m)

0 0.5 0

0.7

0.1

0.3 0.5

-0.02 0.1 -0.02

0.3

-0.04 -0.04 0.1

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(b) MFJ40-2D, u0 = 0.59m/s

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

MFJ60 MFJ80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

Simplified Model Simplified Model

0.1 0.1

0.02 0.02

0.3 0.3

0.5

1.5

124

0.9 0.7

y (m)

001..57.1.1

y (m)

1.7 0 1.1 1.5

1.7

1.9 1.3

0 0 0.1 .9

00..13 2 2.5

1.1 0.9 0.3

0.7 0.5 0.5

-0.02 -0.02 0.1

0.1

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

MFJ60 MFJ80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

Full Model Full Model

0.3 0.1

0.02 0.1 0.02

35

0.0. 0 0.1

0.1 0.9.7 0. 0.

y (m)

y (m)

1.5 3 0.7 5

0 1.1 0 0.5 1.3 1.1

1.1

0.7 0.5 0.3

-0.02 -0.02 0.3 1

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

unsteady turbulent motion. To investigate the importance of these forces, sensi-

tivity study has been carried out in predicting the 1D and 2D deposition profiles.

By excluding the forces one by one in the order of Basset, added mass and fluid

acceleration from the equation of motion, the predicted bottom deposition pro-

files are compared with each other to show their relative importance. The test

on six experimental cases of Qj = 60L/hr (Qj = 58L/hr for sand particle) using

sand, glass and plastic particles are presented.

It is observed that the removal of Basset, added mass and fluid acceleration

forces does not have a significant impact on the predicted bottom deposition

profile, both in terms of 1D (Fig. 5.29) and 2D (Fig. 5.30) profiles. These tran-

sient forces are unimportant to the prediction of particle motion in turbulent

jets. The major cause of the difference in deposition pattern between glass and

plastic particles are due to their inertia. The higher inertia of the plastic par-

ticles results in slower response to turbulent fluctuations and thus increases the

instantaneous drag force and longer suspension time in turbulence. Indeed a very

simple equation of motion containing the buoyancy and drag force terms suffices

for the prediction. In this study, the computationally demanding Basset force

can be excluded for the use in sediment-laden jets, while the other transient force

terms are retained as they pose no difficulty in the numerical solution.

125

0.7 0.7

G215J60 G180J60

0.6 G+D+F+A+B 0.6

G+D+F+A+B

G+D+F+A 0.5

0.5 G+D+F+A

G+D+F

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

G+D G+D+F

0.4 0.4

Measured G+D

0.3 0.3 Measured

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 x (m) 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(a) Glass, G215J60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 5.51 g/L, (b) Glass, G180J60: u 0 = 0.57 m/s, C0 = 6.18 g/L,

d 50 = 215m, ws = 2.74 cm/s d50 = 180m, ws = 1.82 cm/s

0.2 0.5

G115J60 FJ58

G+D+F+A+B G+D+F+A+B

0.4

0.15 G+D+F+A

G+D+F+A

G+D+F

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.1 Measured G+D

0.2 Measured

0.05

0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(c) Glass, G115J60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 1.10 g/L, (d) Sand, FJ58: u 0 = 0.57 m/s, C0 = 3.93 g/L,

d 50 = 115m, ws = 1.01 cm/s deq = 135m, ws = 1.41 cm/s

0.3 0.1

IP3J60 MFJ60

0.25 G+D+F+A+B 0.08 G+D+F+A+B

G+D+F+A G+D+F+A

0.2 G+D+F G+D+F

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

G+D 0.06

G+D

0.15 Measured

Measured

0.04

0.1

0.05 0.02

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

(e) Plastic, IP3J60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 1.90 g/L, (f) Plastic, MFJ60: u0 = 0.59 m/s, C0 = 0.69 g/L,

d 50 = 716m, ws = 2.16 cm/s deq = 347m, ws = 2.20 cm/s

Figure 5.29: Sensitivity tests on the Basset, added mass and fluid acceleration

forces. 1D deposition profiles. G: gravity; D: drag force; F: fluid acceleration; A:

added mass; B: Basset. (a)-(c): Glass (Lee, 2010); (d): Sand (Li, 2006); (e)-(f):

plastic, present study

126

y = 0.

deposition profiles. Contour in g/m2 /s. The jet nozzle is located at x = 0,

Figure 5.30: Sensitivity tests on the Basset force (present experiments). 2D

0.06 0.06

(a) IP3J60 G180J80

Observed Observed

0.04 0.04

1 0.5

1.5 1

1.5 2

5

0.02 0.02

1 0.

2

2.5

2

y (m)

y (m)

1 6

0 1.5 0

1 5 4 3

0.5 0.5

-0.02 -0.02 1

4 2

2

3

-0.04 -0.04

1

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(b) IP3J60-2D, u0 = 0.59m/s

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

(b) IP3J60 G180J80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

w/ Basset force 1 w/ Basset force

0.02 1 0.5 0.02

1.5 3

4

127

6

0.5

y (m)

y (m)

2

2.5 2 12

0 0 8 10

3.5

3 8

1

4

3

1 2 6

-0.02 1.5 1 -0.02 2

0.5 1

-0.04 -0.04

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

0.06 0.06

(c) IP3J60 G180J80

Predicted Predicted

0.04 0.04

w/o Basset force w/o Basset force

0.5 1 1

0.02 0.02 3 2

4

6 8

y (m)

y (m)

12.5.35 4

1

0 2 0

3.5 2

1.

5 23 10

0.5

0. 1 2.5 4

1

-0.02 5 -0.02 1

3 2

-0.04 -0.04 1

-0.06 -0.06

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

x (m) x (m)

5.6.4 Cross-sectional sediment concentration profiles

Sediment concentration measured in the jet cross-section using particle imaging

technique (Lee, 2010) is utilized as comparison with the predicted concentration

profiles. Transformation of particle mass to sediment concentration is required for

the discrete particle tracking model. Within a control volume V = xyz,

the concentration can be evaluated with the average number of particles inside it.

The transverse grid size (y and z) is defined as one sixth of the top-hat width,

similar to the grid size used in particle imaging measurement. The thickness of

the grid x, is half the diameter of the jet = 3mm.

Figs. 5.31 to 5.34 show the comparison of measured and particle tracking

predicted cross-sectional sediment concentration profiles of four of the experi-

mental cases by Lee (2010). The results presented here are all obtained by the

simplified model. For all the cases, the sediment concentration profiles in three

longitudinal locations, respectively, x < lm , x lm and x > lm , are included.

The top-hat half-width of the jet, defined as bT = 0.161x, is included for the ease

of comparison.

The particle concentration across the sediment momentum jet is in general

horseshoe-shaped, except for the case of G115J70 (Fig. 5.34, the highest lm among

all cases) with the location close to the jet nozzle, where the settling of particles

is counter-balanced by jet turbulence and the entrainment flow. For x < lm ,

the maximum concentration (enclosed by the contour of 0.8Cmax ) is well defined

inside the jet top-hat turbulent region. Most of the contour line are still enclosed,

though the outer ones become elliptically elongated downwards. The vertical

location maximum particle concentration Cm is approximately at the center of

the jet, while some of the sediment start to settle out from the jet. For x lm ,

the sediment cloud starts to depart from the water jet; the location of maximum

concentration starts to drop downwards, but still within the top-hat jet boundary.

The contour of 0.8Cmax is still enclosed but the concentration pattern is much

elongated in vertical direction and becomes elliptic. For x > lm , the particle cloud

separates significantly from the water jet; a complete horseshoe profile appears

as all the concentration contours are no longer closed. The maximum particle

concentration (actually the line of the maximum concentration) is located below

the top-hat jet region. In the measurement, the horseshoe trail is often skewed

to one side reflecting the complexity and instability of the external entrainment

flow.

The predicted cross-sectional concentration contours in general compares very

well to the experimental measurements. For some cases the predicted concen-

tration width (defined by 0.25Cmax is somewhat narrower than the observation.

However, given the measurement error of the particle concentration by the imag-

ing method (the identification of a particle depends on a threshold light intensity

which has to be calibrated using the result from other measurement methods,

e.g. suction), the discrepancy is considered to be minor and does not affect the

subsequent discussions.

Figs. 5.35 and 5.36 are the comparison of measured and predicted cross-

section concentration profiles for plastic IP3 particles in the present experiments

128

using the full model. It is observed that, due to the particle inertia, plastic parti-

cles are maintained in the jet for a longer distance by jet turbulence. For example,

in the case of IP3J80, x/D = 12.5 < lm /D (Fig. 5.35), particles have not yet

significantly fallen out from the jet. The concentration contours remain nearly

circular like a pure jet. On the other hand for the glass particle case of G180J80

(Fig. 5.31), significant sediment fall out can be observed at the same location

(x/D = 12.5) as the outer concentration contours become elongated ellipses.

The predicted cross-sectional concentration profiles of IP3 particles compares

very well with the experimental measurements.

The comparison of predicted and measured maximum sediment concentra-

tion at the centerline plane is shown in Figs. 5.37-5.39. The measurement and

predicted concentrations compares very well. The result from the full model on

the glass particles are very similar to the simplified model with less than 5%

difference in the maximum concentration for each plane. Such difference would

already been resulted from the nature of the stochastic model. When x < lm , the

sediment concentration lies very close to the theoretical centerline concentration

profile for a simple jet with neutral buoyant tracers. As x > lm , the center-

line maximum concentration departs rapidly from the theoretical values due to

the massive fall out of sediment particles. Fig. 5.40 shows the predicted and

measured centerline maximum sediment concentration for plastic IP3 particles.

The full model shows better performance over the simplified model on plastic

particles, especially on x > lm .

129

Measured Predicted

4 4

3 3

2 2

0. 25

0 .4

1 0.6

1

0. 25

0.

0.2

0.06.8

25 0.4

4

z/D

z/D

0.

0 0

5

0.25

0.6

0.4

-1 -1

0.8

0.4

-2 -2

6

5

0.

0.2

0.25

0 .2 5

0.

4

-3 -3

5

0.2

0.4

-4 -4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

y/D y/D

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 0. 2

25

0.4 0.25

0 .6

z/D

z/D

0 0 0.6

5

0.2

0.

0.4

0.8

8

-2 -2

0.4

0.25

0.4

0.2 5

0.4

0.25

0 .6

-4 -4

0.6

0.6

0.

8

0.6

-6 -6

0 .25

0.4

-8 -8

-5 0 5 -5 0 5

y/D y/D

10 10

5 5

z/D

z/D

0 0 5

0 .4 0.2

0.2

5

0.2

0.6

5

0 .8

0.2 5

0.4

0.6

0.4

-5 -5

0.4

0.6

8

0.

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.25

0.8

-10 -10

5

0.2

5

0.6

0.2

0.8

-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10

y/D y/D

Figure 5.31: Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case G180J80

(Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.78m/s, ws = 2.06cm/s, lm /D = 32.9. Dashed circle repre-

sents the top-hat profile of the jet.

130

Measured Predicted

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 0.4

1

0.4

25

0.

25 0.6

25

0.

0.

z/D

z/D

0 0

0 .25

0.6

0.8

-1 -1

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.4

0.8

0.4

-2 -2

0.6

0.25

0.2

0.4

5

0.25

-3 -3

0.6

0.25

-4 -4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

y/D y/D

6 6

4 4

2 2

25 0.4

0. 2

5 0

0.

z/D

z/D

.4

0 0

0 .2 5

.6

0. .6

0

0

8

-2 -2 0.25

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.8

0.25

0.4

0.4

0.6

-4 -4

0.25

0.6

0.25

0.6

-6 -6

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

y/D y/D

10 10

5 5

z/D

z/D

0 0 0.2

5

5

0.2

0.25

0.6

0 .8

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

-5 -5

0.6

0.25

0.6

0.8

0.25

0.6

0.25

0.8

-10 -10

-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10

y/D y/D

Figure 5.32: Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case G180J50

(Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.49m/s, ws = 2.05cm/s, lm /D = 20.8. Dashed circle repre-

sents the top-hat profile of the jet.

131

Measured Predicted

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0.25

25 0. 4

0.

z/D

z/D

0 0 0.6

0.4

0.6

0.25

0 .8

-1 -1

0.25

0.4

0.8

0.4

0.25

0.8

-2 -2

0.6

0.25

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.4

-3 -3

5

0.6

0.2

-4 -4

-4 -2 0 2 4 -4 -2 0 2 4

y/D y/D

6 6

4 4

2 2

5

0.2

z/D

z/D

0 0 .25 0

0.

8 6

0.

0.4

0.6 0 .4

0.4

-2 -2

0.25

0.4

0.25

0.8

0.6

-4 -4

0.25

0.8

0.25

0. 8

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.6

-6 -6

-5 0 5 -5 0 5

y/D y/D

10 10

5 5

z/D

z/D

0 0

5 0.2

0.2 5

0.4

0 .6

0.8

0.25

0.4

0.4

-5 -5

0.6

0.25

0.4

0 .8

0.25

0.6

0.6

0.25

0.8

-10 -10

-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10

y/D y/D

Figure 5.33: Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case G215J60

(Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.59m/s, ws = 2.69cm/s, lm /D = 18.9. Dashed circle repre-

sents the top-hat profile of the jet.

132

Measured Predicted

4 4

3 3

0.3

2 0.4 2

3

6 0.6

0.

1 0. 1

0.4 0.4

0.2

5

0.60 .8

0 .2

z/D

z/D

5

0 0

0 .8

0.3

0.4

-1 -1

0 .4

0.6

0.3

-2 -2

0.

25

4

0.4

0.

0.

2

-3 -3

5

3

0.

-4 -4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

y/D y/D

15 15

10 10

5 5

5

25

0.4 0.2

z/D

z/D

0.

0 0 4

0.

0.25

0 .6

-5 -5

0.6

0.25

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.25

0.6

0.4

-10 -10

0.25

0.8

.4

0.4

0.2 0

-15 -15

5

0.6

y/D y/D

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0.2

5

z/D

z/D

0 0

5 0. 4

0.2 0 .8

-5 -5

0.25

0.4

0 .6

0.4

0.6

0.25

-10 -10

0.25

4

25

0.

0.4

-15 -15

0.8

0.

0.6

0.

8

-20 .6 -20

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

y/D y/D

Figure 5.34: Measured and particle tracking predicted (simplified model) cross-

sectional sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case G115J70

(Lee, 2010), u0 = 0.68m/s, ws = 1.03cm/s, lm /D = 57.6. Dashed circle repre-

sents the top-hat profile of the jet.

133

Measured Predicted

4 4

3 3

2 5

2

0.2

1 1 25

0. 0.4

0.

0 .4

0.25

0.6

0.4 6

0.2

8

0.

z/D

z/D

0 0

5

8

0.4

0.6

0.

0 .25

0.6

-1 -1

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.2

-2 2 5 -2

0.

0.25

-3 -3

-4 -4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

y/D y/D

10 10

5 5

0.25

0.6

0.25 0

0 .4

0.4

.4

z/D

z/D

0 0 0.6

0.25

0.8

0.8

0.25

0.25

0.8

0.4

0.6

-5 -5

0.25

0.6

0.

0.4

0.6

4

0.6

0.4

0.

25

0 .6

-10 -10

-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10

y/D y/D

15 15

10 10

5 5

0.2 5

0.4 0.6

z/D

z/D

0 0

0.4 0.0.6

0.2

8

5

0.25

0.25

-5 -5

5

0.8

0 .6 0.8

0.2.4

0

-10 -10

0.4

0.6

0.4

0 .6

0.25

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.2

y/D y/D

Figure 5.35: Measured and particle tracking predicted (full model) cross-sectional

sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case IP3J80 (present

experiment), u0 = 0.78m/s, ws = 2.02cm/s, lm /D = 34.5. Dashed circle repre-

sents the top-hat profile of the jet.

134

Measured Predicted

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 0.4 1

0. 2

0. .4

25

5 6

5

0. 0.8

2

25

0 .6

z/D

0.

0.

z/D

0

0

0

0.4

0.8

-1 -1 0.6

0.2 0.4

0.6

5

0.4

-2 -2

0.2

0 .4

0.25

5

0.

0.2

-3 -3

5

-4 -4

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

y/D y/D

6 6

4 4

2 0.25 2

0.4

0.4 0.2

0.6

z/D

y/D

5

0 0

0.2 5

0.25

0.4

0.6

0.

8

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.4

0.2 5

-2 -2

0.

8

0 .6

0.25

0.4

0.6

0.4

-4 -4

0.25

0.25

0.4

0.6

-6 -6

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

y/D x/D

10 10

5 5

5

0.2

z/D

z/D

0 0 5

0.

4 0.2

6

0 .6

0.4

0.

0.2

0.8

0.8

0.4

0 .4

5

-5 -5

0.25

0.25

0.8

0.6

0.25

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

-10 -10

-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10

y/D y/D

Figure 5.36: Measured and particle tracking predicted (full model) cross-sectional

sediment concentration (normalized with the maximum), Case IP3J50 (present

experiment), u0 = 0.49m/s, ws = 2.02cm/s, lm /D = 21.5. Dashed circle repre-

sents the top-hat profile of the jet.

135

10 10

Cmax /C0 Cmax/C0

Meas. Meas.

Full Model

Full Model

Simp. Model

Simp. Model Free jet

1 1

Free jet

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

x/D x/D

1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

Figure 5.37: Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, G215 particles, ws = 2.69cm/s (Lee, 2010). Dashed line is the theo-

retical tracer concentration variation for a free jet.

10 10

Cmax/C0 Cmax/C0

Meas. Meas.

Full Model Full Model

Simp. Model Simp. Model

1 Free jet 1 Free jet

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

x/D x/D

1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

Figure 5.38: Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, G180 particles, ws = 2.06cm/s (Lee, 2010). Dashed line is the theo-

retical tracer concentration variation for a free jet.

136

10 10

Cmax /C0 Meas. Cmax /C0

Meas.

Full Model Full Model

Simp. Model

Simp. Model

Free jet

1 1 Free jet

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

x/D x/D

1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

(a) G115J70: u0 = 0.68m/s, lm /D = 57.6 (b) G115J40: u0 = 0.39m/s, lm /D = 32.9

Figure 5.39: Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, G115 particles, ws = 1.03cm/s (Lee, 2010). Dashed line is the theo-

retical tracer concentration variation for a free jet.

10 10

Cmax/C0 Cmax/C0

Meas. Meas.

Full Model Full Model

Simp. Model Simp. Model

1 Free jet 1 Free jet

0.1 0.1

0.01 0.01

x/D x/D

1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

Figure 5.40: Measured and particle tracking predicted centerline maximum con-

centration, IP3 particles, ws = 2.02cm/s (present experiments). Dashed line is

the theoretical tracer concentration variation for a free jet.

137

5.7 Summary

In this chapter, the mixing and deposition of sediment-laden horizontal mo-

mentum jets are studied using laboratory experiments and computational fluid

dynamics modelling (CFD). A stochastic particle tracking model is developed to

model the bottom deposition and sediment concentration in horizontal sediment-

laden momentum jets.

Experimental flow visualization shows that the jet fluid phase is not sig-

nificantly altered by the presence of sediment under the dilute concentration

(C0 < 7.7g/L, volume fraction < 0.3%) in this study. Dimensional analysis of

experimental measurement shows that for the same type of particles, the 1D

bottom deposition profiles collapse into a single log-normal profile upon normal-

ization by the jet momentum-settling length scale lm and the source sediment

mass flux.

CFD modelling shows that there is a significant settling velocity reduction

up to about 25-35% under the influence of jet turbulence, which is dependent

on the RMS turbulent velocity to stillwater settling velocity ratio /ws and the

particle properties. Using a relationship for estimating the reduction in settling

velocity locally based on the /ws ratio, the Eulerian CFD model predicted

bottom deposition of sand and glass particle-laden jets are significantly improved

as compared to using directly the stillwater settling velocity. Alternatively, a

whole field reduction of 25% on the stillwater settling velocity works well for

sand and glass particles, nevertheless a 35% whole-field reduction is required for

plastic particles.

The stochastic particle tracking model adopts the autocorrelation function

developed in Chapter 3 which accounts for the trapping and loitering effect of

particles in turbulent eddies. Analytical axial and radial mean flow solutions

for a pure jet is used. Turbulent velocity fluctuations and turbulent time scales

are modelled with best-fitted self-similar RMS turbulent velocity and dissipation

rate profiles derived from CFD solution of a pure jet. The particle tracking

model is applied to predict the deposition and concentration profiles of horizontal

sediment-laden jets. The model has been fully tested on existing sediment-laden

jet experimental data, with initial jet velocity u0 = 0.3 0.9m/s and covering a

wide range of particle properties, including

Model predictions are in excellent agreement with experimental data. The parti-

cle tracking model is superior to a 3D Eulerian CFD model as it does not require

any a priori empirical adjustment to the stillwater settling velocity.

138

Comparison with experimental data shows that the simplified particle track-

ing model (assuming particle responses to change in fluid velocity immediately)

works well for sediment-laden jet with sand and glass particles. However, when

lighter plastic particles of relative density 1.1 and 1.5 are used, a more general

model (the Full Model) based on solving the full equation of motion of sedi-

ment particles needs to be used to explain the deposition profiles of horizontal

sediment-laden jets with a wide range of particle density and sizes. Supported by

experimental data, a sensitivity study shows that the computationally demand-

ing Basset history force can be neglected for all kind of particles used in present

sediment-laden jet experiments, thus greatly simplifying the model. The model

is further generalized for arbitrarily inclined buoyant jets in in Chapter 6.

139

140

Chapter 6

A General Model of

Sediment-Laden Buoyant Jets

6.1 Introduction

A particle tracking model has been developed to predict the deposition and

sediment concentration of horizontal sediment-laden momentum jets in Chapter

5. The predictions are in excellent agreement with experimental data. However,

many environmental flows are also influenced by the density difference between

the effluent and the ambient. For example, in submarine sewage discharge the

effluent density is similar to that of freshwater (1000 kg/m3 ), while seawater

has a density of about 1025 kg/m3 (salinity = 33ppt). The sewage outfalls are

usually designed such that the jets are discharged in a horizontal direction to

maximize turbulent mixing. The jet flow is initially horizontal, but eventually

the buoyancy dominates the dynamics of the flow and results in bending up of

the jet. Ambient stratification and jet-induced external flow further complicate

the problem.

In this chapter, a general particle model for predicting the bottom deposition

of sediment-laden buoyant jet in stagnant condition is developed. The model is

based on the theoretical development in Chapter 3 and essentially an extension

from the model for sediment-laden momentum jet in Chapter 5. Nevertheless,

the model incorporates the three flow regimes affecting the sediment dynamics,

namely the turbulent jet flow, external entrainment flow and surface spreading

current. The three mean flow regimes can be determined analytically and/or

semi-analytically at any location. The model prediction of sediment deposition

is validated by extensive experimental measurements in previous studies.

For a buoyant jet, the three flow regimes involved are (Fig. 6.1):

141

2. the external irrotational flow field induced by jet entrainment, and

A sediment particle, once ejected from the jet nozzle, would at least encounter the

first and second flow regime before they deposit on the bottom. Some particles

which are lighter and carried by stronger flows will rise to the water surface and

encounter all the three regimes. Some of the particles that fall out from the jet

or the spreading current may even be re-entrained back into the jet flow before

they eventually deposit on the bottom.

Jet-induced

external flow

General phenomenon

The buoyant jet flow regime is characterised by the intensive turbulence induced

by shearing with the ambient environment. A single-phase horizontal buoyant

jet is governed by the initial kinematic momentum flux M0 = Q0 u0 and initial

specific buoyancy flux B0 = Q0 g0 . The jet densimetric Froude number

q

F r = u0 / g0 D (6.1)

jet. Here u0 is the initial jet velocity; Q0 = u0 D2 /4 is the jet flow rate; g0 =

(/a )g is the reduced gravity; is the density difference between the jet and

ambient fluid; a is the ambient fluid densities; D is the jet diameter. When

142

F r is large, the buoyant jet behaves like a momentum jet for a large part of its

length. On the other hand, the jet becomes a plume quickly when F r is small.

A momentum-buoyancy length scale can be defined as

3/4 1/2

ls = M0 /B0 (6.2)

to describe the transition of momentum dominated region to buoyancy-dominated

region. Close to the jet exit (x << ls ), the buoyant jet is dominated by the initial

momentum and behaves like a pure momentum jet. The jet entrains the am-

bient fluid and gradually rises by the buoyancy force acting vertically upwards.

At a distance x ls , the buoyancy effect becomes comparable to the initial mo-

mentum. In the region x >> ls the buoyant jet is dominated by buoyancy and

behaves like a plume. The entrainment velocity is directly proportional to the

centerline velocity uc and so it varies x1 with the downstream distance in the

jet-like region, and x1/3 in the plume-like region.

In the present study, the buoyant jet flow is modelled using the integral La-

grangian model JETLAG (Lee and Cheung, 1990; Lee and Chu, 2003) (Fig. 6.2).

JETLAG predicts the mixing of buoyant jets with three-dimensional trajectories

in a wide range of ambient conditions (e.g. stratification, crossflow) using the

entrainment hypothesis. The unknown jet trajectory is viewed as a sequential

series of non-overlapping plume elements which increase in mass as a result of

shear-induced entrainment close to the jet discharge, and vortex entrainment

due to the crossflow. The model adopts a top-hat profile and tracks the average

properties of a plume element at each step by conservation of horizontal and

vertical momentum, conservation of mass accounting for entrainment, and con-

servation of tracer mass/reduced gravity. It has been validated against extensive

basic experimental and field data over a wide range of ambient conditions. For

the present study only the shear entrainment is invoked for stagnant conditions.

The key of the JETLAG model is the entrainment hypothesis for turbulent

closure. For a buoyant jet in stagnant ambient, the increase in jet volume flux

dQ along the jet trajectory s is expressed in terms of the local jet velocity and

width via an entrainment coefficient. It assumes that the local jet radial entrain-

ment velocity ve is proportional to the local streamwise jet velocity, taken as the

maximum velocity uc or an average velocity uT .

dQ/ds = 2bg ve (6.3)

ve = g uc = T uT (6.4)

The entrainment coefficient g or T is found to be different for the asymptotic

jet (g = 0.057) and plume (g = 0.088) regimes. The general dependence of

the entrainment coefficient on the local jet densimetric Froude number can be

derived as (Fox, 1970; Lai and Lee, 2012b)

1 0.554 sin k

g = T = 0.057 + (6.5)

2 Fl2

143

where k is the jet orientation angle with respect to the vertical. Fl is the local

densimetric Froude number defined as

F uT,k

Fl = r (6.6)

T,k

a

gbT,k

where the subscript k denotes the kth jet element and all other values are defined

as top-hat profile values, F is a proportional constant = 1.8. The entrainment

coefficient has the asymptotic values of 0.057 for a pure jet (Fl ) and 0.088

for that of a pure vertical plume (Fl = 4.2). All the quantities (uT , T , bT ) for

computing the local densimetric Froude number can be readily obtained from

the prediction of JETLAG.

For the use in the particle tracking model, the top-hat profile of the JETLAG

prediction has to be converted to the corresponding Gaussian profiles by the

following equations derived from the mass and momentum balance of a jet cross

section (Fig. 6.3).

uc = 2uT (6.7)

bg = 2bT (6.8)

1

g = T (6.9)

2

1 + 2

()c = ()T (6.10)

2

where the subscripts g and T denote the Gaussian and top-hat properties respec-

tively; subscript c denotes the centerline values; u is the streamwise jet velocity;

b is the jet half-width; is the shear entrainment coefficient dependent on lo-

cal densimetric Froude number and jet orientation (Eq. 6.6); is the density

difference between the jet and the ambient; = 1.2 is the ratio between the

Gaussian half-width of concentration and velocity.

Along the jet trajectory, the cross section mean flow are described by a Gaus-

sian profile. The velocity profile in the streamwise direction s is

!

u(s, r) r2

= exp 2 (6.11)

uc (s) bg

The radial velocity normal to the jet trajectory can be derived from the continuity

equation (Lee and Chu, 2003)

Z

d r

u(s, r )2r dr = 2rvr (r) (6.12)

ds 0

= (6.13)

uc r/bg

where the jet spreading rate

144

Figure 6.2: The JETLAG model (Lee and Cheung, 1990; Lee and Chu, 2003).

u/uc

1

0.6

Top-Hat Profile

uT = 0.5uc

0.4

0.2

r/bg

0

bT = 2bg

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Figure 6.3: The Gaussian variation of mean axial velocity and the equivalent

top-hat profile.

145

The original JETLAG model does not distinguish between the potential core

(zone of flow establishment, ZFE) and the fully turbulent self-similar region

(zone of established flow, ZEF). However, testing calculation of a pure momen-

tum jet shows that if the ZFE is excluded (the jet computation starts from the

nozzle), the predicted mean flow velocity is smaller than analytical free jet solu-

tion (Fig. 6.4) which results in lower entrainment flow and turbulence intensity,

causing more sediment to drop out close to the jet nozzle which is incomparable

to the experimental data. In the present study the potential core is separately

determined before the commencement of JETLAG calculation. Unlike a pure

momentum jet which the potential core length is dependent on the jet diame-

ter only (6.2D), the length of potential core of a buoyant jet/plume varies with

the initial buoyancy. The trajectory of the potential core is predicted with the

balance in horizontal and vertical momentum, by assuming the spreading rate

of the turbulence development region to be constant (see Lee and Chu, 2003).

JETLAG computation starts at the end of the potential core with the predicted

top-hat width there and ceases as the upper top-hat boundary hits the water

surface.

Modelling of turbulence

lent fluctuation is modelled using the RMS turbulent velocity and turbulent

energy dissipation rate to predict the time and length scales of turbulence,

with Eqs. 3.21 and 3.20. CFD prediction of a vertical buoyant jet (u0 = 1.0m/s,

D = 6mm and F r = 50) shows that the RMS turbulent velocity fluctuations

and turbulent energy dissipation rate profiles in the asymptotic jet and plume

regimes are similar if they are normalized with the centerline velocity uc and

Gaussian jet half-width bg (Fig. 6.5). This is also supported by previous experi-

mental measurement

which showed little difference in the RMS turbulent velocity

fluctuation (e.g. u u ) between a pure jet and a pure plume (Papanicolaou and

List, 1988; Wang and Law, 2002). Thus a single profile of normalized and

are used, using the best fitted equations of Eqs. 5.7 and 5.8, disregarding the

asymptotic jet and plume regimes.

146

uc/u0

10

establishment established flow

Theoretical

6.2(D/x)

0.1 JETLAG w/

ZFE

JETLAG

w/o ZFE x/D

0.01

1 10 100

1

Figure 6.4: Comparison of theoretical ucu(x) 0

= 6.2 Dx and JETLAG model

predicted centerline velocity for a pure jet (u0 = 0.786m/s, D = 6mm), showing

the effect of inclusion of the zone of flow establishment (ZFE).

0.5 0.5

/uc 15D, Fr_l = 15 (b)1/3/uc 15D, Fr_l = 15

0.4 0.4 20D, Fr_l = 12

20D, Fr_l = 12

70D, Fr_l = 5

70D, Fr_l = 5

0.3 0.3 85D, Fr_l = 4.5

85D, Fr_l = 4.5

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

r/b r/b

0 0

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

(a) Normalized RMS turbulent fluctuation (b) Normalized turbulent dissipation rate

/uc

Figure 6.5: CFD model predicted turbulent intensity and dissipation rate in the

jet and plume regime. F rl is the local densimetric Froude number defined as

Eq. 6.6. Solid symbols: plume regime; open symbols: jet regime.

147

6.2.2 The external flow

The entrainment by the buoyant jet acts as a sink to the surrounding fluid

and creates an external irrotational flow field. Previous studies (e.g. Sparks et

al. 1991) on vertical sediment-laden buoyant jet showed that, when the external

flow field is strong enough compared with the settling velocity of sediment par-

ticles, the vertical trajectory of the particle is deviated towards the jet, resulting

in re-entrainment and the change in deposition profile. In Chapter 5 the external

flow field is incorporated in the analytical solution of radial entrainment velocity

(Eqs. 5.6 and 6.13). However, in general buoyant jet situation, the entrainment

flow field is difficult to be determined analytically. Fig. 6.6a shows the external

flow field in a horizontal buoyant jet experiment predicted by the point sink ap-

proach, illustrating the complexity and three-dimensional nature of the external

flow. Fig. 6.6b show the particle velocity by superimposing the fluid velocity with

settling velocity. It clearly indicates that close to the jet, particles are attracted

back to the jet by the entrainment flow, while far away from the jet, the particle

velocities are less influenced and particles fall vertically.

The jet entrainment induced external flow is determined by the point sink

method introduced by Lai (2009) and Lai and Lee (2012a) (Fig. 6.7). The buoy-

ant jet is regarded as a number of point sinks (conveniently as each jet element

from the computation of JETLAG) along its trajectory. The strength of point

sink i at position (xi , yi , zi ) is equal to the entrainment flow per unit streamwise

length of the jet

dQi

mi = = 2bg g uc (6.15)

ds

where Qi is the jet volumetric flux

Qi = b2g uc . (6.16)

The velocity potential i induced by this jet element at an arbitrary location

(x, y, z) is given by

mi

i = s (6.17)

4r

q

where r = (x xi )2 + (y yi )2 + (z zi )2 is the distance from the sink.

The three-dimensional flow field (ui , vi , wi ) induced by this single jet element

can be given by differentiating the velocity potential with respect to x, y and z

directions.

i mi s r

ui = = (6.18)

x 4r2 x

mi (x xi )s

=

4 [(x xi ) + (y yi )2 + (z zi )2 ]3/2

2

i mi s r

vi = =

y 4r2 y

mi (y yi )s

=

4 [(x xi )2 + (y yi )2 + (z zi )2 ]3/2

i mi s r

wi = =

z 4r2 z

148

mi (z zi )s

=

4 [(x xi ) + (y yi )2 + (z zi )2 ]3/2

2

By summing up the induced velocities at a point (x, y, z) by all the sinks, the

total induced velocity by the jet entrainment can be found as (Lai, 2009)

N

X

u(x, y, z) = ui (x, y, z) (6.19)

i=1

XN

v(x, y, z) = vi (x, y, z)

i=1

XN

w(x, y, z) = wi (x, y, z)

i=1

where N is the number of jet elements. This represent the velocity field induced

by one jet. The induced flow determined by the above method is for an infinite

domain without any boundary. To account for the free surface and bottom

boundary, the method of images is used to compute the jet-induced flow, with

mirror images of the jet imposed for the bottom and surface boundaries.

It has to be noted that the potential flow theory is not valid inside the tur-

bulent jet, which is determined using the JETLAG solution. The location of the

transition between jet flow and external flow has to be determined. By compar-

ing the semi-analytical solution of the radial velocity using the point sink method

(assuming a solid boundary at the nozzle side) and the analytical radial velocity

from continuity equation Eq. 6.13 for a pure jet (Fig. 6.8), the velocity estimated

by point sink method is very close to that estimated using the analytical solu-

tion, for r > 3bg . It is adopted that the external flow is applied to the region

over three Gaussian jet widths from the jet centerline. Inside the jet (r < 3bg )

the velocity is calculated by Eqs. 6.11 and 6.13. Turbulence is negligible in the

external flow region.

149

0.4

0.01 m/s

0.2

z (m)

x (m)

0.4

0.02 m/s

0.2

z (m)

x (m)

Figure 6.6: (a) The external flow field of a horizontal buoyant jet (u0 = 0.65m/s,

F r = 19.5) and (b) its influence on particle velocity. Note the different vector

scales

150

Figure 6.7: The point sink approach for determining the external flow (Lai,

2009).

0.02 0.02

x = 10D ur (m/s) x = 20D ur (m/s)

0.02 0.015

Point sink solution Point sink solution

0.01 Solution by continuity 0.01 Solution by continuity

0.01 0.005

r/b r/b

0.00 0

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-0.01 -0.005

-0.01 -0.01

-0.02 -0.015

-0.02 -0.02

0.02

x = 35D ur (m/s)

0.015

Point sink solution

0.01 Solution by continuity

0.005

r/b

0

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

Figure 6.8: Comparison of the radial velocity using the point sink method (as-

suming a solid boundary for the plane x = 0) with the analytical solution

(Eq. 6.13).

151

6.2.3 The surface spreading layer

As the jet impinges the water surface, the excess pressure results in the jet fluid to

spread horizontally and radially in a layer. The dynamics of the spreading layer

is very complicated as it involves the transition from a near vertical turbulent

buoyant jet flow to a horizontal density-driven current. Internal hydraulic jump

may occur depending on the momentum and buoyancy flux of the jet. The

complex transitional flow field cannot be represented exactly. A simple integral

approach is adopted to calculate the spreading layer flow and the sedimentation.

This approach is based on the following assumptions.

gible and not included in the spreading layer calculation.

Assuming azimuth symmetry on the radial velocity us (r) and buoyancy gs (r) =

g across the spreading layer with thickness hs (r) at a radial location of r from

the center of impingement (Fig. 6.9), the governing equations for the steady

spreading layer are:

Continuity:

dQs

= 2we r (6.20)

dr

Conservation of radial momentum:

!

dMs 1 d(rgs h2s )

= 2 i u2s r (6.21)

dr 2 dr

Conservation of buoyancy:

dBs

=0 (6.22)

dr

where

Qs = 2rhs us (6.23)

Ms = 2rhs u2s

Bs = 2rhs us gs

are the volumetric, kinematic momentum and specific buoyancy flux at radial

distance r from the center of impingement. we is the entrainment velocity from

the interface between the spreading current and the fluid below, given as a func-

tion of a Richardson number for the spreading layer (Pedersen, 1980; Akar and

Jirka, 1994).

gs hs

Ri =

u2s

152

s (r0) s s s

Figure 6.9: The spreading current after jet impingement at the free surface.

153

i is the interfacial friction coefficient with values 0.002-0.005 (Abraham and

Eysink, 1971; Akar and Jirka, 1994) and taken as 0.003 in this study. The

variables hs , us and gs in governing equations can be solved numerically with

the initial conditions specified according to the prediction of JETLAG at the jet

terminal level.

The computation of JETLAG ceases as the upper top-hat boundary (xu , zu )

hits the water surface. The initial thickness hs (r0 ) of the spreading layer is

given by the vertical difference between the upper (zu ) and lower (zb ) top-hat

boundaries of the jet (hs (r0 ) = zu zb ) at the impingement. A minimum value

of hs (r0 ) = 0.08H is provided for the jet hitting the water surface near vertically,

according to experimental data and analytical prediction of vertical buoyant jets

(Lee and Jirka, 1981). The impingement point (xs , zs ) is defined as the jet

centerline position for which its jet upper boundary hits the water surface. The

initial flow rate Qs (r0 ) and buoyancy gs (r0 ) of the spreading current is essentially

taken as the jet volumetric flow rate and buoyancy at the terminal level. The

initial radius r0 is taken as the horizontal component of the top hat width of the

jet at the impingement. The initial radial velocity us (r0 ) can thus be estimated.

Qs (r0 )

us (r0 ) = (6.25)

2r0 hs (r0 )

Across the spreading layer, the vertical velocity distribution is assumed as

half-Gaussian with the surface at its maximum,

!

z2

us (r, z) = usm exp 2 (6.26)

hsm

where z is the distance from the free surface. By continuity and conservation of

momentum, the maximum velocity usm and Gaussian thickness hsm (r) can be

related to the average values us and hs by

usm = 2us (6.27)

s

2

hsm = hs (6.28)

For r < r0 (the transition zone), a quadratic relation is used to interpolate

the radial velocity from zero at the impingement to the maximum value at the

jet boundary r0 . A Gaussian profile is adopted for the vertical velocity, reducing

from the jet velocity to zero at the surface quadratically.

A CFD model is developed to predict the surface spreading current induced

by a vertical buoyant jet and validate the integral model. Details of the model

is given in Appendix B. Two buoyant jet conditions are simulated: Case A:

u0 = 0.351m/s, D = 7mm and F r = 10.0; Case B: u0 = 0.146m/s, D = 7mm

and F r = 4.0. Height of the jet H = 0.3m. In the integral model, the initial

condition at r = r0 is determined from the corresponding JETLAG simulation of

the buoyant jet. Fig. 6.10 shows the comparison between CFD and integral

models for the mean spreading layer current, thickness and reduced gravity.

The integral model successfully captures the variation of the spreading layer

dynamics.

154

0.06 0.06

ur (m/s) hs (m)

0.05 0.05 Integral Model

Integral Model

0.04 CFD 0.04

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

0.02

2

g' (m/s )

Integral Model

CFD

0.01

r (m)

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

(a) Case A: u0 = 0.351m/s, D = 7mm, F r = 10.0

0.06 0.06

usm (m/s) hs (m)

0.05 0.05 Integral Model

Integral Model

0.04 CFD 0.04

0.03 0.03

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

0.02

2

g' (m/s )

Integral Model

CFD

0.01

0

r (m)

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4

(b) Case B: u0 = 0.146m/s, D = 7mm, F r = 4.0

Figure 6.10: Comparison of integral model and CFD predicted mean spreading

current velocity us , thickness hs and mean reduced gravity gs .

155

6.3 Particle tracking model

The flow field of an arbitrarily inclined buoyant jet in stagnant water can be

determined readily using the semi-analytical methods described in the previous

section. Any sediment particles introduced to the flow field can hence be tracked

for its position without difficulty using the particle tracking model developed in

Chapter 3. The simplified model, assuming particle velocity as the sum of fluid

and stillwater settling velocity, is extensively used for all cases reported hereafter.

The full model, solving the governing equation of particle motion, is utilized for

sensitivity analysis for experimental cases using particles other than sand/glass

(Neves and Fernando, 1995; Ernst et al. 1996). The importance of the Basset

force is evaluated for these independent studies on vertical sediment-laden jets

(Section 6.4.4).

For each case, the mean flow field is pre-computed. Jet turbulent velocity

fluctuation and turbulence length and time scales are determined from best-

fitted self-similar profiles of RMS turbulent velocity and turbulent kinetic energy

dissipation rate from CFD solutions of single-phase vertical buoyant jets. Par-

ticles are introduced at the end of the zone of flow establishment and tracked

until they reached the tank bottom level. In these cases, Np = 10, 000 particles

are used to obtain the deposition profile.

156

6.4 Vertically upward sediment-laden buoyant

jet

The vertically upward sediment-laden buoyant jet is an important special case

for studying the sediment deposition from general buoyant jets. Extensive ex-

perimental studies and theoretical modelling have been documented (e.g. Carey

et al. 1988; Sparks et al. 1991; Neves and Fernando, 1995; Ernst et al. 1996;

Zarrebini and Cardoso, 2000; Cardoso and Zarrebini, 2002). Most of these stud-

ies aim at explaining and predicting the ash deposition from volcanic eruption.

Sediment particles are mixed with jet fluid and ejected by the jet flow upwards.

When the jet velocity is sufficient high (wj >> ws ), the sediment particles are

carried upwards. Jet velocity decays due to turbulent momentum transfer with

ambient fluid. Two regimes of particle fall-out is in general observed in these

past studies:

(wj ws ), the sediment is no longer carried upwards but reaches its max-

imum height of rise. Particles near the edge of the plume, will first settle

out along the jet boundary while those near the centerline is pushed out

to the edge. Particles fall to the bottom near the plume edge with slightly

curved trajectories. Some particles are re-entrained to the plume and some

are recycled several times before they deposit (Neves and Fernando, 1995;

Ernst et al. 1996). (Fig. 6.11a)

2. If the fluid velocity is sufficiently high to carry the particle until it reaches

the water surface, particles are transported laterally to the horizontal

spreading current. In the spreading current, turbulence maintains the par-

ticles in suspension, until it is not strong enough to carry the particles and

they fall out from the interface of the spreading current and the ambient

water. The falling particles follow a curved trajectory towards the nozzle

due to the ambient entrainment flow. Re-entrainment occurs when the

particle fall out near the edge. A region of re-entrainment close to the

plume can be observed where particles must be re-entrained as they fall

out from the spreading current. The size of the region is characterised by

a critical radius which depends on the strength of the gravity current and

the settling velocity of particles (Sparks et al. 1991; Zarrebini and Cardoso,

2000; Cardoso and Zarrebini, 2002). (Fig. 6.11b)

Particle model simulations are carried out to compare with experimental data

of these studies. The numerical results of Section 6.4.2 and 6.4.3 are obtained

using the Simplified Model. Since the particle properties in these independent

experiments are different from those used in the present study, the Full Model is

also utilized to investigate the validity of the simplified model. The comparison

of model results using both models are presented in Section 6.4.4.

157

zm

Figure 6.11: The two fall out mechanisms from vertical sediment-laden buoyant

jet.

158

6.4.2 Sediment fall out from jet margin

Neves and Fernando (1995)

The experiments were carried out with pure momentum jets, in a 0.4 0.4

0.6m deep tank with a jet nozzle diameter of 5.6mm. Sediment are light

polystyrene particles of diameter d = 530m (p = 1025.1kg/m3 ), 799m (p =

1044.5kg/m3 ) and 868m (p = 1044.5kg/m3 ). Settling velocity ws is estimated

to be 0.33, 0.97 and 1.09 cm/s respectively. Initial concentration of sediments

ranges from 0.0045%-0.23% by volume fraction, which are very dilute conditions

similar to those used in the present study. Sediment deposition is collected using

annular trays circumfencing the jet nozzle and measured by manual counting of

particles.

Details of experimental jet flow conditions were not provided but expres-

sions for estimating the maximum height of rise, deposition profile, maximum

deposition rate and its location were presented based on best-fitting of their

experimental data. The expressions are expressed in terms of the momentum-

1/2

settling length scale lm = M0 /ws and a particle inertia-buoyancy length scale

lb = ws d2 / = Rep d. lb is the length scale for which a particle to reach its ter-

minal velocity, which is very short compared with lm and the distance travelled

by the particle in the jet (see Table 6.1). Their results shows that:

Deposition profile:

! !2

F r r

= 65 exp 0.054 + 7.8 (6.29)

Fmax rmax

rmax

r = r 0.5D

zm = 6.9lm (6.30)

2

Fmax = 1.4Q0 C0 /lm (6.31)

rmax = rmax 0.5D = 0.15lm (6.32)

jets, several numerical test experiments are designed based on the set-up of Neves

and Fernando (1995). Constrained by the tank depth of 0.5m and the maxi-

mum height of particle rise given by Eq. 6.30, the jet velocity in the numerical

experiments cannot exceed 0.15 m/s for particles of 799m and 868m , and

0.05 m/s for particles of 530m . Table 6.1 shows the numerical experiment

conditions. It can be seen that lm is 1 order greater than lb . The deposition

159

Table 6.1: Numerical experiments for vertical sediment-laden pure jets (Neves

and Fernando, 1995).

Case Jet Sediment Sediment Settling lm = lb = z(ws = wc )

1/2

velocity density diameter velocitya M0 /ws ws d2 /

m/s g/cm3 m cm/s cm cm cm

NF530-1 0.030 1.025 530 0.33 4.51 0.093 23.9

NF530-2 0.040 1.025 530 0.33 6.02 0.093 31.9

NF530-3 0.050 1.025 530 0.33 7.52 0.093 47.8

NF799-1 0.075 1.045 799 0.97 3.84 0.619 26.8

NF799-2 0.100 1.045 799 0.97 5.12 0.619 35.8

NF799-3 0.150 1.045 799 0.97 7.67 0.619 53.7

NF868-1 0.075 1.045 868 1.09 3.41 0.821 31.6

NF868-2 0.100 1.045 868 1.09 4.55 0.821 42.1

NF868-3 0.150 1.045 868 1.09 6.83 0.821 52.6

Sediment concentration = 0.05g/L

wc = jet centerline velocity

a

Particle settling velocity in 20 C water, estimated based on spherical particle drag law.

profiles are obtained from summing the mass of particles in concentric regions of

gap width 5mm and divided by the area of the region.

The comparison between model predicted and experiment measured deposi-

tion rate around the jet nozzle is very good for all the cases, showing a profile of

a peak deposition rate close to the jet nozzle and a long tail behind it (Fig. 6.12).

The numerical predictions collapse into a similar curve after normalizing against

the maximum values according to Eq. 6.29. The maximum height of rise of each

experiment zm can be treated as a visual upper boundary of the sediment-laden

jet, which is determined by the mean zm of all particles plus 2 standard devia-

tions. It is about equal to the level where ws = wc , where wc is the centerline

jet velocity. As some particles are laterally transported by turbulent fluctuations

and the fluid velocity away from the centerline is not sufficient to support further

upward transport of sediments, not all particles travel to zm . Fig. 6.13 shows

the linear relationship between zm and lm . The fitted constant of 6.77 is very

close to the value of 6.9 in Eq. 6.30, which indicates that the model predicts

very well the dynamics of the particles in turbulent jet flow. Fig. 6.14 shows

the normalized maximum deposition rate and its radial location by the model

prediction. The maximum deposition is about twice that than of Eq. 6.31 (3 vs

1.4). The location of maximum deposition is similar (Eq. 6.32, 0.1 vs 0.15). It

has to be noted that the deposition measurement close to the jet nozzle is highly

uncertain. Overall the comparison is satisfactory.

a jet nozzle diameter of 4mm. Freshwater jets with various initial velocity are

directed to the tank filled with salt water with various density to produce different

160

1.2 F/Fmax

530m u0 = 0.03m/s

1 u0 = 0.04m/s

u0 = 0.05m/s

0.8

N&F (1995)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

r'/r max'

(a) 530m

1.2

F/Fmax u0 = 0.075m/s

1

799m u0 = 0.1m/s

u0 = 0.15m/s

0.8 N&F (1995)

0.6

0.4

0.2

r'/r max'

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(b) 799m

1.2

F/Fmax u0 = 0.075m/s

1 868m u0 = 0.10m/s

u0 = 0.15m/s

0.8 N&F (1995)

0.6

0.4

0.2

r'/rmax'

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(c) 868m

sediment-laden jets and experimental data of Neves and Fernando (1995).

161

zm (m)

0.6

0.5

0.4 y = 6.7704x

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 0.05 l m (m) 0.1

Figure 6.13: Relation between lm and the maximum height of rise zm , model

prediction for vertical sediment-laden jet experiments of Neves and Fernando

(1995).

Fmax/(Q0C0/lm 2)

10

Model

1 N&F

530um

799um

868um

0.1

0.01 0.1 lb/lm 1

(a) Maximum deposition rate Fmax

1

rmax'/lm

N&F

0.1

Model 530um

799um

868um

0.01

0.01 0.1 lb/lm 1

(b) Location of maximum deposition rate rmax

Figure 6.14: Relation of the maximum deposition rate Fmax and position rmax

with lm in vertical sediment-laden jet experiments. The constant of 3.0 and 0.1

are compared with the value of 1.4 and 0.15 given by Neves and Fernando (1995)

(Eqs. 6.31 and 6.32.

162

buoyancy conditions. Sediment used is silicon carbide particles with a density

of 3210 kg/m3 . Sediment concentration ranges from <0.2 g/L to 2.5 g/L (<

0.08% by volume) to avoid influence of sediment-induced buoyancy. A total of

17 experiments are reported in the paper in which the results of 10 of them are

presented. Eight experiments are used for the present study and their parameters

are shown in Table 6.2. The first four are jet-like cases with high F r while the

other four are plume-like cases. All bottom deposition data presented in the

paper is normalized with the maximum accumulated mass deposition near the

nozzle.

Table 6.2: Vertical buoyant jet experiments (fall out from jet margin) in Ernst

et al. (1996)

3/4

M0

Case Jet initial Jet sediment ls = 1/2 Fr Sediment Settling

B0

vel. (m/s) conc. (g/L) (cm) = uj dia. (m ) vel.a (cm/s)

g0 D

Jet cases:

406 0.4775 0.2 8.1 21.4 275.0 4.3

407 0.7479 0.4 12.9 34.2 275.0 4.3

709 0.7479 <0.4 12.3 32.6 134.5 2.1

710 0.7479 <<0.2 12.2 32.4 327.5 5.3

Plume cases:

327 0.1512 <1 2.49 6.6 193.5 2.9

402 0.0796 <<2.4 1.33 3.5 193.5 2.9

404 0.0796 <<1.7 1.44 3.8 115.0 1.6

805 0.1512 <<0.8 1.15 3.0 193.5 2.9

a

Settling velocity as in Ernst et al. (1996).

Comparisons of model prediction and experimental data are shown in Fig. 6.15

for the four jet-like cases of Ernst et al. (1996). The comparison is excellent for

all the cases, showing a peak deposition close to the jet nozzle consistent with

the observation. The higher the jet flow, the larger the extent of the deposition

profile is (Case 406 vs 407). With the same jet flow, the extent of the deposi-

tion profile is smaller for larger settling velocity (Cases 709 vs 710). The lighter

particle and/or stronger jet flow result in the expelling of particles further away

from the jet and particles deposit in a wider region.

Results for the plume-like cases are shown in Fig. 6.16. Compared with the

jet like cases, it is observed that the maximum deposition is much closer to

the jet nozzle and the bottom deposition profile decays much faster, because

of the higher entrainment velocity induced by plumes (entrainment coefficient

g = 0.057 for a pure jet vs 0.088 for a pure plume). This is consistent with

the conclusion of Ernst et al. (1996) that the decay of deposition rate in radial

direction follows r1 for jet and r1/3 for plume.

163

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax F/Fmax

Prediction 407 Prediction

1 406 1

Measurement Measurement

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(a) Case 406: u0 = 0.48m/s, Fr = 21.4, ws = (b) Case 407: u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 34.2, ws =

4.3 cm/s 4.3 cm/s

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax F/Fmax

709 Prediction 710 Prediction

1 1

Measurement

0.8 0.8 Measurement

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(c) Case 709: u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 32.6, ws = (d) Case 710: u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 32.4, ws =

2.1 cm/s 5.3 cm/s

profile of the four vertical sediment-laden jet cases of Ernst et al. (1996). r is the

radial distance from the nozzle. F/Fmax is the deposition (g/m2 /s) normalized

against the maximum predicted/measured values.

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax F/Fmax

327 402

1 Prediction 1 Prediction

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(a) Case 327: u0 = 0.15m/s, Fr = 6.6, ws = 2.9 (b) Case 402: u0 = 0.08m/s, Fr = 3.5, ws = 2.9

cm/s cm/s

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax F/Fmax

404 805

1 Prediction 1 Prediction

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(c) Case 404: u0 = 0.08m/s, Fr = 3.8, ws = 1.6 (d) Case 805: u0 = 0.15m/s, Fr = 3.0, ws = 2.9

cm/s cm/s

profile of the four vertical sediment-laden plume cases of Ernst et al. (1996).

r is the radial distance from the nozzle. F/Fmax is the deposition (g/m2 /s)

normalized against the maximum predicted/measured values.

164

6.4.3 Sediment fall out from spreading current

Sparks et al. (1991)

a jet nozzle diameter of 8mm. Freshwater jets with u0 = 0.0215m/s (Q0 =

1.08cm3 /s) are directed to salt water with density 1021 kg/m3 in the tank. The

densimetric Froude number is about 0.5, representing a pure plume. The present

model independently computes the potential core development and accounts for

the contraction and velocity acceleration due to buoyancy (Lee and Chu, 2003).

Non-spherical silicon carbide particles with a density of 3210 kg/m3 are used

as sediment seedings with concentration 10 g/L (0.3% by volume). Sediment

diameter d ranges from 28m to 131m . Settling velocity ws is estimated using

Hallermeier (1981)s formula, same as that in Sparks et al. (1991):

ws = D2.1 /6d for 39 < D3 < 104

ws = 1.05D1.5 /d for 104 < D3 < 3 106

h i1/3

D = g(s 1)/ 2 d

The characteristics of three experiments used in this study are shown in Table

6.3.

jet nozzle diameter of 7mm. Freshwater jets with various flow rates are directed

to salt water in the tank to produce different buoyancy flux. The densimetric

Froude number ranges from 4.0 to 10.5. Spherical Ballotini particles with a

density of 2470 kg/m3 are used with sediment concentration 5-6 g/L ( 0.2% by

volume). Sediment sizes ranges from 49m to 81m . The characteristics of the

one experiment used in the present study is shown in Table 6.3.

Results

The comparison between predicted and measured deposition profiles are shown

in Fig. 6.17. The deposition is a cone-like shape with a maximum close to the

jet nozzle. Compared with the fall out from jet margin, the sediment fall out

from the spreading current produces a much larger region of deposition, extent to

over 0.1-0.4m, depending on the particle size and the height of jet impingement.

Sparks et al. (1991) derived that the decay of the deposition follows the r2 law,

representing a much larger deposition extent than the r1 law for jet and r1/3

law for plume. The model predicted deposition agrees well with a wide range of

particle size (57-96m ). The reason for the discrepancy in Sparks et al. (1991)s

experiment using 67m particles (Fig. 6.17b) is not clear.

165

Table 6.3: Vertical buoyant jet experiments (fall out from surface current) of

Sparks et al. (1991), and Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000)

Case Jet initial Jet sediment Fr Sediment Settling

u

vel. (m/s) conc. (g/L) = j dia. (m ) velocity (mm/s)

g0 D

Sparks et al. (1991)

83-2 0.0215 10 0.53 58 4.03a

810-2 0.0215 10 0.53 67 5.38a

86-1 0.0215 10 0.53 96 11.05a

Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000)

13 0.3513 6 10.0 65.03 3.34b

Jet diameter - Sparks et al. (1991): 8mm; Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000): 7mm

a

Predicted settling velocity using Hallermeier (1981)s formula (Eq. 6.33), in 20 C water.

b

Predicted settling velocity using spherical drag law, in 20 C water.

F/Fmax F/Fmax

1.2 1.2

Model Model

1 Expt. (Sparks) 1 Expt. (Sparks)

57m 67m

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

(a) Sparks et al. (1991) Expt 83-2, u0 = (b) Sparks et al. (1991) Expt 810-2, u0 =

0.0215m/s, F r = 0.53, d = 57m 0.0215m/s, F r = 0.53, d = 67m

F/Fmax F/Fmax

1.2 1.2

Model Model

1 Expt. (Sparks) 1 Expt 13. (ZC2000)

96m 65m

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

(c) Sparks et al. (1991) Expt 86-1, u0 = (d) Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000) Expt 13,

0.0215m/s, F r = 0.53, d = 96m u0 = 0.35m/s, F r = 10, d = 65m

vertical sediment jet experiments: (a)-(c) Sparks et al. (1991), (d) Zarrebini and

Cardoso (2000). r is the radial distance from the nozzle. F/Fmax is the deposition

(g/m2 /s) normalized against the maximum predicted/measured values.

166

6.4.4 Comparison of the Full Model and the Simplified

Model

Particles in the independent investigations of vertical upward sediment-laden jets

are different from those used in the present study: Neves and Fernando (1995)

used polystyrene particles of p = 1040 kg/m3 ; Ernst et al. (1996) and Sparks et

al. (1991) used silicon carbide particles of 3210 kg/m3 . The full model is used to

simulate selected cases to justify the importance of the Basset force and the use

of simplified model on these particles.

Fig. 6.18 shows the comparison of Full Model (both with and without the

Basset force) and the Simplified Model on predicting the bottom deposition of

vertical jet cases of Neves and Fernando (1995) and Ernst et al. (1996). Surpris-

ingly, the both model works similarly well for vertical jets for the light polystyrene

particles used by Neves and Fernando (1995), contrary to the previous hori-

zontal jet experiments which the Full Model is required for plastic particles of

specific gravity of 1.1 and 1.5. The initial jet velocity for these experiments

(u0 = 0.03 0.15m/s, Re = 168 840) are smaller than the present horizontal

jet experiments (u0 = 0.3 0.9m/s). The turbulent intensity is smaller such that

even these light particle can follow the fluid motion. Both models also works

well for the high density silicon carbide particles used by Ernst et al. (1996).

Similar to the previous sensitivity analysis (Chapter 5, Section 5.6.3), Basset

force has little importance in the prediction of deposition profiles, thus can be

tacitly ignored.

167

2 2

0.05 F (g/m /s) 0.16 F (g/m /s)

Full model w/o Basset Full model w/o Basset

0.14

0.04 Full model w/ Basset Full model w/ Basset

0.12

Simp. Model Simp. Model

0.03 0.1

530 m 868 m

0.08

0.02 0.06

0.04

0.01

r (m) 0.02

r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

3 3

(a) NF530-3: u0 = 0.05 m/s, s = 1025 kg/m , (b) NF868-3: u0 = 0.15 m/s, s = 1045 kg/m ,

d = 530m, ws = 1.09 cm/s d = 868m, ws = 0.33 cm/s

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax Full Model w/o Basset F/Fmax Full Model w/o Basset

710 406

1 Full Model w/ Basset 1 Full Model w/ Basset

Simp. Model Simp. Model

0.8 0.8 Meas.

Meas.

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(c) Case 710: u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 32.4, s = (d) Case 406: u0 = 0.48m/s, Fr = 21.4, s =

3210 kg/m3, d = 328m, ws = 5.3 cm/s 3210 kg/m3, d = 275m, ws = 4.3 cm/s

1.2 1.2

F/Fmax F/Fmax

402 Full Model w/o Basset 404 Full Model w/o Basset

1 1

Full Model w/ Basset Full Model w/ Basset

0.8 Simp. Model 0.8 Simp. Model

Meas. Meas.

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

r (m) r (m)

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(e) Case 402: u0 = 0.08m/s, Fr = 3.5, s = (f) Case 404: u0 = 0.08m/s, Fr = 3.8, s =

3210 kg/m3, d = 194m, ws = 2.9 cm/s 3210 kg/m3, d = 115m, ws = 1.6 cm/s

Figure 6.18: Comparison of the Full Model (with and without Basset force) and

Simplified Model for vertical sediment jet experiments of (a)-(b): Neves and

Fernando (1995) (p = 1040 kg/m3 ); (c)-(f): Ernst et al. (1996) (p = 3210

kg/m3 ).

168

6.5 Horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jet

6.5.1 Experiments of Li (2006) and Lee (2010)

Li (2006) and Lee (2010) investigated the dynamics of sediment-laden horizontal

buoyant jet and its bottom deposition profile with extensive experiments. The

experimental data cover a wide range of buoyant jet conditions and sediment

characteristics (Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6). They provide a comprehensive dataset

for validating the present particle tracking model.

The experiments were carried out in a tank similar to the present experiments,

in the size of 1m1m0.45m depth and filled with freshwater. The jet nozzle

was 0.04m above the top of the sediment collecting tray and 0.38m below the

water surface. The jet fluid was a mixture of freshwater and ethanol in different

volume fractions to simulate jets with different buoyancy flux. Sediment was

introduced to the buoyant jet flow through an hourglass to provide constant

sediment concentration to the jet. Sediment concentration ranges from 0.8 g/L

to 6.9 g/L (0.03%-0.28% by volume). Sediment in such dilute concentration

does not affect the fluid-phase properties significantly. Natural sand particles

(p = 2.65 g/cm3 , Coarse Sand: deq = 166m , Fine Sand: deq = 133m ) are

used in experiments of Li (2006). Spherical glass particles (p = 2.50 g/cm3 ,

S199, S153: d50 = 199, 153m , G215, G180, G115: d50 = 215, 180, 115m )

were used in experiments of Lee (2010). The longitudinal deposition profiles (in

g/m/s) were measured.

In Tables 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6, lm refers to the momentum-settling length scale

defined as Eq. 5.1 and ls is the momentum-buoyancy length scale (Eq. 6.2). For

a horizontal buoyant jet, its trajectory is significantly curved upwards by the

buoyancy beyond x 3ls (Fischer et al. 1979; Lee and Chu, 2003). There are

two modes of bottom deposition in horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jets - the

fall out from jet region and fall out from spreading current. x lm represents

the location of the maximum deposition of fall out from jet region, while and

x 3ls represents the the location of the maximum deposition of fall out from

spreading current. The two length scales compare the importance of the two

sedimentation regions. When lm < 3ls , most sediment falls out from the jet

region before it is significantly curved upwards, similar to a pure momentum

horizontal jet. Little sediment is transported to the surface layer, resulting in

a significant first peak and a very small second peak. When lm > 3ls , a large

proportion of sediment is transported to the surface spreading layer before falling

out from the jet, forming a double peak deposition profile. The significance of

these length scales is discussed in the model comparison section.

169

Table 6.4: Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Li (2006).

Case u0 C0 ws0 wsa a 0 Fr lm 3ls

(m/s) (g/L) (cm/s) (cm/s) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (m) (m)

Coarse sand, deq = 166m

CB66 0.6484 3.2358 1.298 1.947 998.2 979.4 19.47 0.2656 0.3300

CB62 0.6091 3.2700 1.332 1.947 998.2 980.4 18.80 0.2432 0.3186

CB54 0.5305 3.6347 1.648 1.947 998.2 980.4 16.37 0.1712 0.2775

CB50 0.4912 4.2000 1.308 1.947 998.2 979.7 14.87 0.1997 0.2520

Fine sand, deq = 133m

FB66 0.6484 3.5960 0.940 1.358 998.0 981.5 20.79 0.3668 0.3522

FB58 0.5698 4.0780 0.741 1.358 998.0 971.8 14.50 0.4089 0.2456

FB46 0.4519 4.9000 0.940 1.358 998.0 981.5 14.49 0.2556 0.2455

1/2

lm = M0 /ws = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws

3/4 1/2

ls = M0 /B0 = (/4)1/4 F rD

Table 6.5: Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Lee (2010), S199 and S153

particles.

Case u0 C0 ws0 wsa a 0 Fr lm 3ls

(m/s) (g/L) (cm/s) (cm/s) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (m) (m)

S199 particles, d50 = 199m

S199B46-Fr9 0.4519 5.73 1.24 2.20 998.3 962.6 9.85 0.1092 0.1669

S199B58-Fr12 0.5698 3.31 1.32 2.24 998.0 960.9 12.18 0.1353 0.2064

S199B50-Fr14 0.4912 4.46 1.60 2.21 997.4 978.3 14.63 0.1182 0.2479

S153 particles, d50 = 153m

S153B46-Fr9 0.4519 4.06 0.77 1.50 998.0 961.8 9.78 0.1602 0.1657

S153B52-Fr11 0.5109 1.94 0.77 1.48 997.7 962.4 11.19 0.1835 0.1897

S153B58-Fr12 0.5698 2.72 0.76 1.50 998.0 960.7 12.15 0.2020 0.2059

1/2

lm = M0 /ws = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws

3/4 1/2

ls = M0 /B0 = (/4)1/4 F rD

170

Table 6.6: Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Lee (2010), G215, G180 and

G115 particles.

Case u0 C0 ws0 wsa a 0 Fr lm 3ls

(m/s) (g/L) (cm/s) (cm/s) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (m) (m)

G215 particles, d50 = 215m

G215B50-Fr15 0.4912 6.90 2.07 2.66 997.1 980.1 15.51 0.0982 0.2628

G215B50-Fr12 0.4912 6.71 1.82 2.69 996.3 969.9 12.44 0.0971 0.2108

G215B50-Fr10 0.4912 6.73 1.56 2.68 996.7 956.5 10.08 0.0975 0.1708

G215B90-Fr27 0.8842 3.84 2.09 2.68 997.0 980.0 27.91 0.1754 0.4729

G215B90-Fr22 0.8842 3.78 1.81 2.68 996.4 970.3 22.52 0.1754 0.3816

G215B90-Fr17 0.8842 3.81 1.56 2.67 996.3 956.3 18.19 0.1761 0.3082

G180 particles, d50 = 180m

G180B50-Fr15 0.4912 3.80 1.57 2.06 997.1 980.0 15.46 0.1268 0.2620

G180B50-Fr12 0.4912 3.92 1.34 2.06 996.8 970.4 12.44 0.1268 0.2108

G180B50-Fr10 0.4912 3.84 1.16 2.07 996.3 955.8 10.04 0.1262 0.1702

G180B90-Fr27 0.8842 2.07 1.58 2.06 997.1 980.5 28.25 0.2282 0.4786

G180B90-Fr22 0.8842 2.16 1.33 2.05 996.3 970.5 22.65 0.2293 0.3838

G180B90-Fr17 0.8842 2.12 1.16 2.06 996.1 956.6 18.30 0.2282 0.3101

G115 particles, d50 = 115m

G115B50-Fr15 0.4912 1.34 0.75 1.02 996.6 980.3 15.83 0.2561 0.2683

G115B50-Fr12 0.4912 1.35 0.61 1.01 996.5 970.4 12.51 0.2586 0.2120

G115B50-Fr10 0.4912 1.34 0.55 1.00 996.2 957.1 10.22 0.2612 0.1732

G115B90-Fr28 0.8842 0.79 0.73 1.00 996.6 980.1 28.32 0.4702 0.4800

G115B90-Fr22 0.8842 0.77 0.61 1.00 996.1 970.5 22.73 0.4702 0.3852

G115B90-Fr17 0.8842 0.75 0.54 1.00 996.3 956.6 18.26 0.4702 0.3094

1/2

lm = M0 /ws = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws

3/4 1/2

ls = M0 /B0 = (/4)1/4 F rD

171

6.5.2 CFD model prediction

laden buoyant jets. Details of model and the comparison on single phase jets is

discussed in Appendix B. The model grid and boundary conditions are similar

to the one used for horizontal momentum jet. It should be noted that the water

surface is represented by a symmetric boundary to account for the zero gradient

condition there. Except for the bottom and the wall which the jet nozzle is at,

the other three vertical walls are set as open boundaries to allow for a steady

state solution. Since the particle settling velocities in ethanol-water mixture

and in freshwater are significantly different (see Tables 6.4-6.6), instead of us-

ing a single settling velocity, the local settling velocity, evaluated using Soulsby

(1997)s equation (Eq. 5.10) based on the local computed density and molecu-

lar viscosity is used for calculating the settling flux in the sediment transport

equation in these buoyant jet cases. The temperature-dependent density and

molecular viscosity of water-ethanol mixtures is shown in Appendix C. In the

model, the local fluid density is predicted, the percentage of ethanol by weight is

then back-estimated to obtain the molecular viscosity of the fluid. An empirical

correction factor of 0.75 is applied to account for the settling velocity reduction

by turbulence, similar to that in momentum jets. A total of 7 experiments of

particle-laden horizontal buoyant jets from Li (2006), involving fine and coarse

sand particles, are studied using CFD (Table 6.4).

The CFD predicted sediment deposition profiles are compared with the ex-

perimental results (Fig. 6.19). The comparison is very good for coarse sands

(Fig. 6.19a), showing clearly the two deposition pattern: the sharp peak caused

by fall out from the momentum dominated region near the jet exit and a slowly

decaying deposition region from the gravitational current. The first peak is the

dominant deposition model for coarse particle jets. For the cases of fine sand

(Fig. 6.19b), the computed profile is less comparable to the measured deposition

profiles, nevertheless the general two-peak characteristics of the profiles can still

be predicted. As the sediment are mainly fall out from the gravitational spread-

ing current, the deposition is significantly affected by the large region outside the

jet which the flow is induced by the jet entrainment. The deposition prediction

is prone to model uncertainties in the CFD prediction of the external current,

spreading current and turbulence intensity.

Figs. 6.20 and 6.21 show the predicted sediment concentration profiles in the

centerline plane, with the conservative tracer concentration profiles side by side.

Due to the effect of settling, the sediment concentration profiles migrates towards

the lower edge of the jet. The maximum sediment concentration is always located

in the lower half of the buoyant jet, unlike the tracer concentration maximum

following the jet centerline. The coarse particles show significant drop out prior

to the curve up of the buoyant jet, leading to very little sediment rising up with

the buoyant jet to the top spreading current. For fine sand, the particles could

rise up to the spreading current but through the lower half of the jet.

To summarise, CFD model predicts the bottom deposition of sediment-laden

buoyant jets reasonably, provided that the settling velocity is empirically cor-

172

rected according to the turbulent level. Nevertheless, the prediction is subjected

to the model inaccuracy in external flow and turbulent level prediction.

0.4 0.4

CB66 CB62

FLUENT

FLUENT

0.3 0.3 Measured

Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0.4 0.4

CB54 CB50

FLUENT

0.3 0.3 FLUENT

Measured

Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0.4 0.4

FB66 FB58

FLUENT FLUENT

0.3 0.3

Measured Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

Fs (g/m/s)

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0.4

FB46

0.3 FLUENT

Measured

Fs (g/m/s)

0.2

0.1

x (m)

0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

profile (g/m/s) of Li (2006)s horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments.

173

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(a) CB66: u0 = 0.65m/s, Fr = 19.5, deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(b) CB62: u0 = 0.61m/s, Fr = 18.8, deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(c) CB54: u0 = 0.53m/s, Fr = 16.4, deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(d) CB50: u0 = 0.49m/s, Fr = 14.9, deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s

Figure 6.20: CFD predicted sediment concentration and conservative tracer con-

centration for buoyant jets, coarse sand experiments. The dashed line is the jet

trajectory and top-hat boundary.

174

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(a) FB66: u0 = 0.65m/s, Fr = 20.8, deq = 133m, ws = 1.36cm/s

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(b) FB58: u0 = 0.61m/s, Fr = 14.5, deq = 133m, ws = 1.36cm/s

Jet centerline sediment concentration Jet centerline tracer concentration

Cs/Cs0 Cc/C0

0.35 1 0.35 1

0.9 0.9

0.3 0.3

0.8 0.8

0.25 0.7 0.25 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3

0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.01 0.01

0 0

-0.05 -0.05

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

(c) FB46: u0 = 0.53m/s, Fr = 14.5, deq = 133m, ws = 1.36cm/s

Figure 6.21: CFD predicted sediment concentration and conservative tracer con-

centration for buoyant jets, fine sand experiments. The dashed line is the jet

trajectory and top-hat boundary.

175

6.5.3 Particle model prediction

In this section the particle tracking model prediction is discussed in detail with

comparison with data. The simplified model is used for all 31 cases with sand

and glass particles (Tables 6.4-6.6). The Full Model is used for the 4 cases with

plastic particles (Tables 6.7 and 6.8). For each case, the flow field is firstly

predicted using the methods described in Section 6.2. Np = 10000 particles are

used for each simulation. The particles are initialized at the end of the zone of

flow establishment (length deduced before the simulation of JETLAG). For Li

(2006) and Lee (2010)s experiments using ethanol-water mixture as source fluid,

the local fluid density and viscosity is estimated based on the relations shown in

Appendix C to predict the particle velocity locally. The longitudinal deposition

profile is determined by summing all particle masses at the y-direction under

intervals of x = 0.04m.

Experiments of Li (2006)

The seven experiments of Li (2006) are carried out with jet initial densimetric

Froude number F r > 14. For the four experiments using coarse sand particles

(Fig. 6.22), the lm s (0.17-0.26m) are all smaller than 3ls (0.25-0.33m), indicating

the bottom deposition pattern is dominated by falling out from the jet region.

The deposition from spreading current is of minor importance. Similar to a

horizontal momentum jet, the higher the jet velocity, the further the location of

the maximum deposition rate from the jet nozzle and the smaller the maximum

deposition rate. The model predictions compare well with experimental data.

For the three experiments using fine sands (Fig. 6.23), their lm s (0.26-0.49m)

are all larger than 3ls (0.25-0.35m), indicated that a substantial portion of sed-

iment is transported to the surface spreading current by the curving upward

jet flow. A double peak deposition structure is formed. The numerical particle

model well predicts the location of the second peak and compares much better

than the CFD prediction (Fig. 6.19).

Comparing the 2D particle deposition patterns (Fig. 6.24) of the coarse and

fine sand experiments, it can be seen that in both experiment there is a narrow

zone of high particle density closer to the jet nozzle. Its transverse extent spreads

up further downstream. This zone refers to the jet fall out and similar to those

observed in horizontal momentum jets (Chapter 5). The deposition spreads up

dramatically as a circular pattern. This is the deposition from the spreading

layer. For coarse sand experiments, the circular deposition pattern is hardly

visible as only a small portion is brought up to the spreading current. For fine

sand experiment, the circular spread is larger and consists of more particles,

indicates the dominance of the fall out from spreading current.

Fig. 6.25 shows the several trajectories of particles in the fine sediment case

FB66, indicating the complex dynamics of particles in buoyant jets with surface

impingement. Particles can fall out directly from the jet before it bends up

(Trajectory i). They can also rise up to the surface spreading layer, fall out and

move along the jet boundary due to the entrainment induced current, but without

176

being entrained back into the jet (Trajectory ii). As the most complicated,

particles can move within the impingement zone and re-entrained several times

before they deposit in the bottom (Trajectory iii).

Six experiments were carried out using glass particles S199 and S153, with rela-

tively low jet densimetric Froude number (F r=10-14, Table 6.5). The buoyant

jets bent up quickly after a short distance of horizontal travel. For S199 ex-

periments (Fig. 6.26), both measured and predicted deposition pattern shows

a significant one-peak structure due to fall out from the jet, as lm < 3ls for

all cases (lm = 0.11 0.14m, 3ls = 0.17 0.25m). For the S153 experiments

(Fig. 6.27), their lm and 3ls are quite similar, both 0.16-0.20m. A significant

portion of particles is brought to the surface current before they settle out from

the jet region. The close lm and 3ls (Table 6.5) indicates that the first and second

peak merges together to form a flat plateau. For both cases, the depositions are

well predicted.

Another 18 experiments were carried out using the G215, G180 and G115

spherical glass particles which are the same as those in present study. Six ex-

periments were carried out for each type of particles (Table 6.6). Two sets of

flow rate - 50 L/s and 90L/s are tested for each type of particles. In each flow

rate, the densimetric Froude numbers are controlled by varying the density of

the source fluid so that different trajectories are obtained.

For G215 experiments, the particles have a high settling velocity of about

2.65cm/s. The lm (0.10m, 0.18m) are all much smaller than 3ls (0.17-0.47m).

Most sediment is settled from the jet region, which insignificant portion brought

up to the spreading current. The bottom deposition is well predicted for these

momentum jet-like cases.

For G180 experiments, the deposition profiles are also jet-fall-out dominated

as lm (0.13m, 0.23m) is in general smaller than ls (0.17-0.47m). For some cases

with low F r, the second peak is more significant, like G180J90Fr17, G180B50Fr12

and G180B50Fr10. The predictions compares very well with the measurement.

The G115 experiments are the most challenging for prediction, as the most

particles are transported to the spreading current and their dynamics are influ-

enced by the external current. For these experiments, lm (0.26m and 0.47m) is

all close to, or greater than 3ls . This results in a significant portion of sediment

brought to the surface current and the second peak. From the measurement re-

sults it is observed that the deposition of G115B50Fr10 and G115B50Fr12 cases

of Q = 50L/h are completely due to the surface spreading current fall out. The

particle model predicts the observed single peak very well, despite the predicted

profile has a large spread and smaller peak.

Significant discrepancies are also seen in the high flow cases of G115B50Fr22

and G115B50Fr28. The predicted second peak is much higher and closer to the

jet nozzle. This is attributed to two reasons: 1) the spreading current prediction

ignored the horizontal momentum, which is is highest for the high flow rate of

177

0.5 0.5

Fs (g/m/s) CB66 Fs (g/m/s) CB62

0.4 0.4

Meas.

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s

0.5 0.5

Fs (g/m/s) CB54 F (g/m/s) CB50

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s deq = 166m, ws = 1.95cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Li (2006)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, Coarse Sand.

0.5 0.5

Fs (g/m/s) FB66 Fs (g/m/s) FB58

Predicted

0.4 0.4

Measured

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

deq = 133m, ws = 1.36cm/s deq = 133m, ws = 1.36cm/s

0.5

FB46

Fs (g/m/s)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

x (m)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

deq = 133m, ws = 1.36cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Li (2006)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, Fine Sand.

178

0.4

y (m) CB66

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

x (m)

-0.4

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

(a) CB66: u0 = 0.65m/s, F r = 19.5, deq = 166m , ws =

1.95cm/s

0.4

y (m) FB58

0.3

0.2

0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

x (m)

-0.4

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

(b) FB58: u0 = 0.61m/s, F r = 14.5, deq = 133m , ws =

1.36cm/s

Figure 6.24: Predicted 2D deposition profiles for (a) CB66 and (b) FB58.

179

0.38

z (m)

0.33

0.28 (iii)

0.23

0.18

0.13

(ii)

0.08

0.03

-0.02 (i) x (m)

-0.07

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Figure 6.25: Examples of particle trajectory in case FB66 with fine sediment. The

dash-dotted line is the jet centerline; dashed lines are the jet top-hat boundaries

0.7 0.7

Fs (g/m/s) S199B46Fr9 Fs (g/m/s) S199B58Fr12

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 Predicted 0.4

Measured

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 199m, ws = 2.20cm/s d50 = 199m, ws = 2.24cm/s

0.7

Fs (g/m/s) S199B50Fr14

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

x (m)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 199m, ws = 2.21cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, S199 particles.

180

0.5 0.4

Fs (g/m/s) S153B46Fr9 Fs (g/m/s) S153B52Fr11

Predicted

0.4

Measured 0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 153m, ws = 1.50cm/s d50 = 153m, ws = 1.50cm/s

0.4

Fs (g/m/s) S153B58Fr12

0.3

0.2

0.1

x (m)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 153m, ws = 1.50cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, S153 particles.

Q = 90L/s (u0 = 0.88m/s); 2) with such high initial velocity, the jet trajectory

covers almost half of the tank (Fig. 6.31a), compared with a low flow buoyant jet

(e.g. u0 = 0.49m/s, Fig. 6.31b). The entrainment induced flow and the spreading

current in this limited-sized tank may be more complicated as the influence of

boundary is significant. Except for these two cases, the particle model predicts

the deposition for horizontal buoyant jets well.

181

1 1

F (g/m/s) G215B90Fr27 Fs (g/m/s) G215B90Fr22

0.8 0.8

Measured

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 215m, ws = 2.70cm/s d50 = 215m, ws = 2.70cm/s

1 1

F (g/m/s) G215B90Fr17 Fs (g/m/s) G215B50Fr15

0.8 0.8

Predicted

0.6 0.6 Measured

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 215m, ws = 2.70cm/s d50 = 215m, ws = 2.70cm/s

1 1

Fs (g/m/s) G215B50Fr12 Fs (g/m/s) G215B50Fr10

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 215m, ws = 2.70cm/s d50 = 215m, ws = 2.70cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, G215 particles.

182

0.5 0.5

Fs (g/m/s) G180B90Fr27 Fs (g/m/s) G180B90Fr22

0.4 0.4

Predicted

0.3 Measured 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 180m, ws = 2.06cm/s d50 = 180m, ws = 2.06cm/s

0.5 0.5

Fs (g/m/s) G180B90Fr17 Fs (g/m/s) G180B50Fr15

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 180m, ws = 2.06cm/s d50 = 180m, ws = 2.06cm/s

0.5 0.5

Fs (g/m/s) G180B50Fr12 Fs (g/m/s) G180B50Fr10

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 180m, ws = 2.06cm/s d50 = 180m, ws = 2.06cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, G180 particles.

183

0.2 0.2

Fs (g/m/s) G115B90Fr28 Fs (g/m/s) G115B90Fr22

Predicted

Measured

0.1 0.1

x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 x (m)0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0cm/s d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0cm/s

0.2 0.2

Fs (g/m/s) G115B90Fr17 Fs (g/m/s) G115B50Fr15

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0cm/s d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0cm/s

0.2 0.2

Fs (g/m/s) G115B50Fr12 Fs (g/m/s) G115B50Fr10

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0cm/s d50 = 115m, ws = 1.0cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, G115 particles.

0.4 0.4

z (m) z (m)

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0

x (m) x (m)

-0.1 -0.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

184

6.5.4 Plastic particle experiments: Lee (2010), Cuthbert-

son and Davies (2008)

Horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jet experiments using plastic particles are

used to validate the full model on bottom deposition prediction. Lee (2010)

reported two buoyant jet experiment using granular plastic particles of density

p = 1.16 g/cm3 (Table 6.7) carried out using similar experimental apparatus as

in this study.

Cuthbertson and Davies (2008) carried out plastic particle-laden buoyant

jet experiments in a water channel of length 10m, width 1m and depth 0.75m.

The jet nozzle of 11.5mm internal diameter is located at the mid-way of the

channel and 15cm above the channel bottom, discharging freshwater to saline

ambient. 43 experiments in stagnant ambient and 32 experiments in coflowing

ambient are reported. Their experiments covers a wide range of jet discharge

(Q0 = 3 10L/min) and buoyancy conditions (F r = 7.2 35), with two types

of plastic particles used. Photographic technique is used to measure bottom

deposition. In this study, two of the experiments using POLY1 particles (p = 1.5

g/cm3 , d = 550m ) are used for model validation (Table 6.8).

The comparison of model prediction and measurement of Lees experiments

is shown in Fig. 6.32. The comparison is very good for the Full Model predic-

tion. Consistent with the previous conclusion, the Simplified Model prediction

is less satisfactory for these lighter plastic particles. Fig. 6.33 shows the model

prediction with measured 1D and 2D deposition data by Cuthbertson and Davies

(2008). The difference in the Full and Simplified Models can be observed clearly

in these cases. Due to the particle inertia effect, generalization of the previous

experimental results obtained by dimension analysis using particles of different

properties has to be viewed with caution. The predicted 2D deposition profiles

compare qualitatively well with the photographic measurement.

Table 6.7: Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Lee (2010), plastic particles

(d = 621m , p = 1.16 g/cm3 ).

Case u0 C0 ws0 wsa a 0 Fr lm 3ls

(m/s) (g/L) (cm/s) (cm/s) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (m) (m)

PB50Fr12 0.4912 1.57 1.87 2.09 996.0 964.7 10.9 0.1397 0.1935

PB66Fr15 0.6484 1.36 1.83 2.09 996.8 966.4 14.6 0.1884 0.2593

1/2

lm = M0 /ws = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws

3/4 1/2

ls = M0 /B0 = (/4)1/4 F rD

185

Table 6.8: Horizontal buoyant jet experiments of Cuthbertson and Davies (2008),

plastic particles (d = 550m , p = 1.5 g/cm3 ).

Case u0 ws a 0 Fr lm 3ls

(m/s) (cm/s) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (m) (m)

341 1.041 2.97 1020.0 1000.0 22.1 0.357 0.718

365 1.295 2.97 1040.0 1000.0 19.7 0.444 0.640

1/2

lm = M0 /ws = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws

3/4 1/2

ls = M0 /B0 = (/4)1/4 F rD

0.3 0.3

F (g/m/s) PB50Fr12 F (g/m/s) PB66Fr15

Full Model Full Model

0.2 Simp. Model 0.2 Simp. Model

Meas. Meas.

0.1 0.1

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

d50 = 621m, ws = 2.09cm/s d50 = 621m, ws = 2.09cm/s

longitudinal deposition profile (g/m/s) of Lee (2010)s horizontal sediment-laden

buoyant jet experiments, plastic particles (p = 1.16 g/cm3 ).

186

0.4 0.4

y (m) 341

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2

x (m)

-0.4 -0.4

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2

0.4 0.4

y (m) 341 y (m) 365

0.2 0.2

0 0

-0.2 -0.2

x (m) x (m)

-0.4 -0.4

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2

4 4

-1 341 -1

3.5 F/Q0 C0 (m ) 3.5 F/Q0 C0 (m ) Full Model 365

3 Full Model 3 Simp. Model

2.5 Simp. Model 2.5 Meas.

2 Measured 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

x (m) x (m)

0 0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

(a) Case 341: u0 = 1.04m/s, Fr = 22.1, ws = (b) Case 365: u0 = 1.30m/s, Fr = 19.7, ws =

2.97cm/s 2.97cm/s

profiles Cuthbertson and Davies (2008)s horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jet

experiments, plastic particles (p = 1.5 g/cm3 ). The 1D deposition profiles are

normalized by the sediment mass flux at the jet nozzle, in the unit of m1 .

187

6.6 Summary

In this chapter, a general model for the prediction of sediment deposition from

buoyant jets in stagnant water is developed. The three flow regimes of a buoyant

jet impinging a free surface, namely, the mean jet velocity, external entrainment

current and surface spreading current, can be predicted using semi-analytical

models:

and mean flow velocities of buoyant jet. Turbulent fluctuations are pre-

dicted using the CFD solutions of turbulent intensity and dissipation rate

with a two-equation turbulence closure model for pure jets and plumes.

model accounting for interfacial shear and validated with CFD prediction.

The model is successfully applied to predict the deposition from vertical buoy-

ant jets with two distinct regimes of particle fall out: (1) fall out from jet margin,

and (2) fall out from spreading current. Model prediction is well compared to

experimental data in past studies and supports the observation that sediment

deposits the closest to the jet nozzle in the jet margin fall out from plumes, as

a plume have the highest entrainment velocity. On the other hand, sediment

fall out from surface current has the greatest spread. Sensitivity analysis shows

that both Full Model and Simplified Model works well for these independent

experiments using polystyrene and silicon carbide particles, and the Basset force

is negligible.

The model is further validated with extensive data of horizontal sediment-

laden buoyant jets, including sand, glass and plastic particles (specific gravity

s = 1.16 2.65). The two modes of deposition: fall out from jet lower boundary

and fall out from spreading current, are very well predicted.

188

Chapter 7

Conclusion

engineering applications. The objective of the present study is to develop a gen-

eral model to predict the sediment mixing and deposition of dilute sediment-laden

buoyant jets in arbitrary inclination in stagnant ambient. This work reports a

theoretical, numerical and experimental investigation on the mixing and sedi-

mentation of particulate matters from sediment-laden buoyant jets.

A particle tracking model is developed for the motion of sediment in turbu-

lence, using a velocity autocorrelation function that describes the trapping and

loitering effect of particles in turbulence. Two particle tracking models are devel-

oped to predict the movement of sediment particles in turbulent flows. The Full

Model solves the governing equation of particle motion numerically. The Sim-

plified Model assumes the particle velocity is the sum of the fluid velocity and

the stillwater settling velocity. Measurement of single phase jet velocity is carried

out for the experimental support of the autocorrelation function. The positive

correlation between the radial (vertical) velocity magnitude and the absolute

change in velocity supports the assumption in the autocorrelation function.

The particle tracking model is validated with results in independent stud-

ies, including (1) analytical solution and experimental measurement of parti-

cle motion in stagnant fluid; (2) experimental measurement on particle settling

in homogeneous vertically oscillating fluid field; (3) experimental measurement

on particle settling in oscillating grid turbulence and (4) vertically downward

sediment-laden jets.

The mixing and deposition of sediment-laden horizontal momentum jets are

studied using laboratory experiments and computational fluid dynamics mod-

elling (CFD). Laboratory experiments and CFD modelling shows that there is

189

a significant settling velocity reduction up to about 25-35% under the influence

of jet turbulence, which is dependent on the RMS turbulent velocity to stillwa-

ter settling velocity ratio /ws and the particle properties. Using a relationship

for estimating the reduction in settling velocity locally based on the /ws ra-

tio, the Eulerian CFD model predicted bottom deposition of sand and glass

particle-laden jets are significantly improved as compared to using directly the

stillwater settling velocity. However, this CFD approach necessitates an ad hoc

adjustment/reduction of particle settling velocity and lacks generality.

A stochastic particle tracking model is developed to predict the bottom depo-

sition and sediment concentration in horizontal sediment-laden momentum jets.

Analytical solutions for a pure jet is used. Turbulent velocity fluctuations and

turbulent time scales are modelled with best-fitted self-similar RMS turbulent

velocity and dissipation rate profiles derived from CFD solution of a pure jet.

The model has been fully validated on sediment-laden jet experimental data,

with initial jet velocity u0 = 0.3 0.9m/s and covering a wide range of par-

ticle properties, including sand, glass and plastic particle (p =1.1-2.6 g/cm3 ,

d = 115 716m , ws = 1.0 2.7cm/s)

Model predictions are in excellent agreement with experimental data. The

particle tracking model is superior to a 3D Eulerian CFD model as it does not

require any a priori empirical adjustment to the stillwater settling velocity. Sup-

ported by experimental data, a sensitivity study shows that the computationally

demanding Basset history force is negligible for all kind of particles used in

present sediment-laden jet experiments.

jets

A general model for the prediction of sediment deposition from buoyant jets

in stagnant water is developed. The three flow regimes of a buoyant jet impinging

a free surface, namely, turbulent jet flow, external entrainment flow and surface

spreading current, can be predicted using semi-analytical models. The integral

Lagrangian model JETLAG is used to predict the trajectory and mean flow

velocities of the buoyant jet. Turbulent fluctuations are predicted using the

CFD derived profiles of turbulent intensity and dissipation rate with a two-

equation turbulence closure model. The external flow is predicted using a recently

developed point sink approach. The surface spreading current is predicted using

a semi-analytical integral approach and validated with CFD prediction.

The model is successfully applied to predict the deposition from vertical buoy-

ant jets with two distinct regimes of particle fall out: (1) fall out from jet margin,

and (2) fall out from spreading current. Model prediction is in good agreement

with past experimental data. Sensitivity analysis shows that both Full Model and

Simplified Model works well for these independent experiments using polystyrene

(specific gravity s = 1.04) and silicon carbide particles (s = 3.2), and the Basset

force is negligible.

The model is further validated with horizontal sediment-laden buoyant jets

with extensive experimental data, including sand, glass and plastic particles (s =

190

1.16 2.65). The two modes of deposition: fall out from jet lower boundary and

fall out from spreading current, are very well predicted.

This is the first time that a general model for predicting the mixing and

deposition of sediment-laden buoyant jets in arbitrary inclination is successfully

developed and extensively validated with experimental data over a wide range

of jet conditions and particle properties. The turbulence-particle interaction -

trapping and loitering of particles in turbulent eddies in a sediment-laden jet

are supported by experimental observation and numerical modelling for the first

time. This modelling framework is beneficial to many types of geophysical and

engineering problems, including volcanic eruption, hydrothermal vents, sediment

disposal, sewage treatment and discharge and many other industrial applications.

This work has made significant progress to the modelling and prediction of

sediment-laden jets, yet the topic still has many aspects to be explored. The

following future works are recommended:

ambient conditions, including ambient current and stratification. Further

laboratory and numerical modelling studies are required to understand the

physics of sediment-laden jets in a cross-flowing and/or stratified ambient

and to validate the model.

water circulation has been developed by Choi and Lee (2007) and validated

with experimental and field data. The present particle model can be in-

corporated in this coupled near-far field system to study the transport of

sediment from sewage outfalls to sensitive receivers seamlessly.

(open channel flow, atmospheric turbulent flow, stratified flow) is required

to support the applicability of the autocorrelation function and understand

the physics of loitering and trapping of particles in turbulent eddies.

has to be studied and quantified with laboratory experiment and field mea-

surement. The field application of the present model for the design and

assessment of submarine outfalls has to be explored.

191

7.3 Application examples

Example 1 - Vertical sediment-laden jet

In many small communities or developing countries, the lack of capital allows

only for preliminary sewage treatment. This example shows the impact assess-

ment of sewage sludge particles to the recreational and fish cultural activities at

the water surface of an outfall discharging vertically. The outfall is situated at

a depth of 20m. Screened effluent is discharged from the 0.1m diameter outfall

in the velocity of 0.5 m/s (Q0 = 340m3 /d) with density of freshwater of 1000

kg/m3 . The ambient sea water density is 1020 kg/m3 . The suspended solid

concentration is 0.2 g/L, consists of sand particles of median diameter 200 m .

q

The jet densimetric Froude number F r = u0 / gD(a 0 )/a can be deter-

mined as 3.6. The particle settling velocity is determined using Soulsby (1997)s

equation as ws = 2.5 cm/s. The model simulated the situation for 1 hour. Fig. 7.1

shows the sequential 3D depiction of the particle laden jet. It can be observed

that the particles reaches the surface in about 3 min, and transported later-

ally into the spreading current. Particles gradually fall out from the spreading

current, forming a particle cloud moving down the water depth. The falling sed-

iment from the spreading current covers a much larger radial extent compared

with the original buoyant jet. The sediment veil gradually converges towards

the bottom, showing the effect of re-entrainment. Fig. 7.2 shows the predicted

bottom deposition profile. Because of the external entrainment flow, the radial

extent of deposition is about 6m, while particle in the spreading current reaches

a radius of 8m.

192

(a) 3 min (b) 6 min

Example 1. The box is for visualization only. Free lateral boundary is used in

the model.

193

2

Fs (tonnes/m /yr) z (m)

1 20

Spreading current 18

0.8 16

Jet boundary

14

0.6 12

10

0.4 8

Sediment 6

deposition

0.2 4

2

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 r (m) 10

upwards - Example 1. The jet and spreading current profiles are also indicated.

jet

This example illustrates the assessment of sediment deposition from a single-

jet outfall discharging preliminarily treated domestic sewage in southern Hong

Kong Island - the Wah Fu outfall. Stagnant and unstratified ambient condition

is assumed. The outfall has 14 identical jets spaced large enough to avoid jet

interaction. The outfall discharges a daily averaged flow of 0.088 m3 /s. Ambient

sea water density a is assumed to be 1018 kg/m3 and sewage density 0 is

assumed as 1004 kg/m3 due to the use of seawater for toilet flushing in Hong

Kong. For each jet, the following configuration is assumed.

Depth of jet = 7 m

Vertical angle = 20

The initial sediment concentration is 200 mg/L with median diameter of 300

m composed of mainly natural sand of density p = 2650 kg/m3 . About 560

tonnes of sewage sludges per year are discharged to the marine environment

through the outfall. Here the deposition profile of one jet is predicted.

q

The jet densimetric Froude number F r = u0 / gD(a 0 )/a can be deter-

mined as 6.86. The momentum-buoyancy length scale ls = (/4)1/4 F rD = 0.65

m. The particle settling velocity is determined using Soulsby (1997)s equation

as ws = 4.27 cm/s. The momentum-settling length scale lm = (/4)1/2 u0 D/ws =

194

1.65 m. The predicted jet trajectory is shown in Fig. 7.3. Since lm 3ls for this

case, both fall out from jet margin and fall out from the spreading current are

contributing similar portions to the deposition profile. Using the particle model,

the bottom deposition profile can be obtained (Fig. 7.4). The deposition profile

consists of a narrow concentrated zone corresponding to fall out from the jet

margin, and a spread-out circular region corresponding to fall out from surface

current. This gives a general idea on how the sediment forms a sludge bank

close to the outfall and its potential impact to the marine water quality. In re-

ality, the ambient current would also affect the sediment transport and erosion.

Particle size distribution and flocculation are also complicating factors.

7

(m)

6

-1

(m)

-2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Figure 7.3: (a) The predicted jet trajectory of Wah Fu Outfall - prototype. (b)

Experimental image of a 1:11 scale model (Lee and Chu, 2003)

195

Fs (tonnes/m/yr)

30

25

20

15

10

5

lm = 1.65m

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 x (m) 6

(a) Predicted 1D deposition profile (transversely summed)

4

tonnes/m2/yr

3 100

50

20

2 10

5

2

1 1

y (m)

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 2 4 6 8

x (m)

(b) Predicted 2D deposition profile

jet - Wah Fu Outfall: (a) 1D (in tonnes/m/yr); (b) 2D (in tonnes/m2 /yr)

196

Example 3 - Sediment-laden horizontal buoyant jet in a weak coflowing

current

The present method can be readily extended to predict the sediment deposi-

tion from a horizontal buoyant jet in a weak coflowing current. In a weak current,

the coflow jet is slightly advected but the turbulent motion is similar to that in

stagnant condition. Shear entrainment dominates the increase in jet volumetric

flux. A more general form of the entrainment coefficient (Chapter 6, Eq. 6.5) is

adopted to account for the effect of ambient current (Lee and Chu, 2003).

!

0.554 sin k 2uk

T = 2 0.057 + (7.1)

Fl2 u + uk

where

u = uk ua cos k (7.2)

is the excess jet velocity and ua is the ambient velocity. The entrainment velocity

ve and local densimetric Froude number Fl is determined based on the excess jet

velocity, i.e.

F u

ve = T u, Fl = r

T,k

a

gbT,k

The stagnant condition equations Eqs. 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 are recovered when

ua = 0, u = uk . A Gaussian profile is adopted for the streamwise jet excess

velocity. The jet induced irrotational flow field in excess of the ambient velocity

can be predicted using the point sink approach (Lai, 2009; Lai and Lee, 2012a).

The spreading current in excess of the ambient velocity is determined using the

integral model developed in Section 6.2.3. The ambient current is superimposed

on the predicted excess velocity flow field.

Using the Wah Fu outfall as example, the sediment deposition profile is pre-

dicted with an ambient current of ua = 0.03 m/s in the x-direction. A length scale

delineating the asymptotic regions of buoyancy-dominated near field (BDNF)

and buoyancy-dominated far field (BDFF) is defined as (Wood et al. , 1993; Lee

and Chu, 2003)

F0 Q0 g

lb = 3 = 3 0 (7.3)

ua ua

Using the jet parameters in Example 2, lb can be estimated as 31m. Since the

height of rise of the jet is only 7m, the jet is completely within the BDNF region

(z << lb ) in which shear entrainment applies. Vortex entrainment dominates in

the BDFF region (z >> lb ).

The predicted jet trajectory is shown in Fig. 7.5; the jet is advected down-

stream by the ambient current. Predicted sediment deposition profile is dif-

ferent from the stagnant ambient case (Fig. 7.6). The whole profile is shifted

downstream by about 1.5m, which is consistent with the advection of sediment

particles during their settling for a vertical distance of 2m from the jet

!

z 2m

x = ua = 0.03m/s = 1.4m

ws 0.043m/s

197

Secondly, there is no spreading-out region in the deposition profile, indicating

that sediment particles mainly fall out from the jet margin. Sediment is blown

out of the rising plume by the ambient current, leaving very little sediment

reaching the spreading layer (Fig. 7.5).

7

(m)

6

5 ua = 0.03m/s

-1

(m)

-2

0 2 4 6 8 10

current of 0.03m/s and a visualization of the predicted sediment distribution on

the centerline plane.

198

Fs (tonnes/m/yr)

30

25

ua = 0

20

ua = 0.03m/s

15

10

0

0 2 4 6 8 x (m) 10

(a) Predicted 1D deposition profile (transversely summed)

4

tonnes/m2/yr

3 100

50

20

2 10

5

2

1 1

y (m)

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 2 4 6 8

x (m)

(b) Predicted 2D deposition profile

- Wah Fu Outfall with an ambient current of 0.03m/s: (a) 1D (in tonnes/m/yr);

(b) 2D (in tonnes/m2 /yr)

199

200

Bibliography

exchange flow. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 9(2).

[2] Acton, F.S. (1970). Numerical Methods That Work, Harper & Row.

[3] Akar, P.J. and Jirka, G.H. (1994). Buoyant spreading processes in pollu-

tant transport and mixing. Part 1: Lateral spreading with ambient current

advection. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 32(6), 815-831.

[4] Alexander, P. (2004). High order computation of the history term in the

equation of motion for a spherical particle in a fluid. Journal of Scientific

Computing, 21(2), 129-143.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 179, 43-63

[6] Bleninger, T., Carmer, C. V., Jirka, G., and Neves, M. (2002). Sedimenta-

tion from low concentration particle-laden jets. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Marine

Waste Water Discharges, Istanbul, Sept 16-20.

[7] Bombardelli, F.A., Gonzalez, A.E. and Nino, Y.I. (2008). Computation of

the particle Basset force with a fractional-derivative approach., Journal of

Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 134(10), 1513-1520.

[8] Brush, Jr.L.M., Ho, H.-W. and Yen, B.-C. (1964). Accelerated motion of

a sphere in a viscous fluid., Journal of Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of

ASCE, 90(HY1), 149-160.

thermals and particle swarms. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 39(6), 643-

653.

[10] Bush, J.W.M., Thurber, B.A. and Blanchette, F. (2003). Particle clouds

in homogeneous and stratified environments. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,

489, 29-54.

currents generated by particle-laden jets. Chemical Engineering Science,

57(8), 14251437.

201

[12] Carey, S.N., Sigurdsson, H., and Sparks, R.S.J. (1988). Experimental stud-

ies of particle-laden plumes. Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12),

15314-15328.

draulics Div., Chalmers Institute of Technology, Sewden, Report No.42.

[14] Cheng, N.-S. and Law, A.W.-K. (2001). Measurements of turbulence gener-

ated by oscillating grid. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 127(3),

201208.

[15] Choi, K.W. and Lee, J.H.W. (2007). Distributed Entrainment Sink Ap-

proach for Modelling Mixing and Transport in the Intermediate Field.

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 133, 804-815.

[16] Clift, R. and Gauvin, W.H. (1970). The motion of particles in turbulent

gas streams, Proceedings of Chemeca 70, Melbourne and Sydney, 1, 14-28.

[17] Cromey, C.J., Black, K.D., Edwards, A. and Jack, I.A. (1998) Modelling

the deposition and biological effects of organic carbon from marine sewage

discharges. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 47, 295-308.

[18] Csanady, G.T. (1963) Turbulent diffusion of heavy particles in the atmo-

sphere. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 201-208.

Publishing Company, Holland

[20] Cuthbertson, A.J.S. and Davies, P.A. (2008) Deposition from Particle-

Laden, Round, Turbulent, Horizontal, Buoyant Jets in Stationary and

Coflowing Receiving Fluids Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE,

134(4), 390-402.

[21] Cuthbertson, A.J.S., Apsley, D.D., Davies, P.A., Lipari, G., Stansby, P.K.

(2008) Deposition from particle-laden, plane, turbulent, buoyant jets.

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE, 134(8), 1110-1122.

Instrumentation: Software Users guide.

[23] Doroodchi, E., Evans, G., Schwarz, M., Lane, G., Shah, N. and Nguyen,

A. (2008) Influence of turbulence intensity on particle drag coefficients.

Chemical Engineering Journal, 135, 129-134.

[24] EPD (2006). 20 Years of Marine Water Quality Monitoring in Hong Kong,

1986-2005. Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR.

[25] Ernst, G. G. J., Sparks, R. S. J., Carey, S. N., and Bursik, M. I. (1996).

Sedimentation from turbulent jets and plumes. Journal of Geophysical

Research B: Solid Earth, 101(3), 55755589.

202

[26] European Space Agency (2009). Volcanoes. In Space and Earth Monitor-

ing, retrieved 20 Jan 2013, from http://www.esa.int/.

[27] Farley, K.J. (1990). Predicting organic accumulation in sediments near

marine outfalls. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 116(1), 144-

165.

[28] Fox, D.G. (1970). Forced plume in a stratified fluid. Journal of Geophysical

Research, 75, 6818-6835.

[29] Fischer, H.B., List, E.J., Koh, R.C.Y. Imberger, J. and Brooks, N.H. (1979).

Mixing in Inland and Coastal Waters. Academic Press.

[30] Gensheimer, R.J., Adams, E.E. and Law, A.W.K. (2012). Dynam-

ics of Particle Clouds in Ambient Currents with Application to Open-

Water Sediment Disposal. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE. doi:

10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000659 (in press).

[31] Gomes, R.L. and Lester, J.N. (2003). Endocrine disrupters in receiving

waters. In: Endocrine Disrupters in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment

Processes, eds. J.W. Birkett and J.N. Lester, Lewis Publishers, 177-217.

[32] Gosman, A.D. and Ioannides, E. (1983). Aspects of computer simulation

of liquid-fueled combustors. Journal of Energy, AIAA, 7(6), 482-490.

[33] Hallermeier, R.J. (1981). Terminal settling velocity of commonly occurring

sand grains. Sedimentology, 28(6), 859-865.

[34] Ho, H. W. (1964). Fall velocity of a sphere in a field of oscillating fluid. PhD

thesis, State University of Iowa.

[35] Hwang, P.A. (1985). Fall velocity of particles in oscillating flow. Journal

of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 111(3), 485-502.

[36] Ji, Z.G. (2008). Hydrodynamics and Water Quality: Modelling Rivers, Lakes

and Estuaries. Wiley-Interscience.

[37] Jiang, J., Law, A. W. K., and Cheng, N. S. (2005). Two-phase analysis

of vertical sediment-laden jets. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 131(3),

308318.

[38] Kato, Y., Fujinaga, K., Nakamura, K., Takaya, Y., Kitamura, K., Ohta,

J., Toda, R., Nakashima, T. and Iwamori, H. (2011) Deep-sea mud in

the Pacific Ocean as a potential resource for rare-earth elements. Nature

Geoscience, 4(8), 535-539.

[39] Koh, R.C.Y. and Chang, Y.C. (1973) Mathematical Model for Barged Ocean

Disposal of Wastes, USEPA.

[40] Kuang, C.-P. and Lee, J.H.W. (2006) Stability and Mixing of a Vertical

Axisymmetric Buoyant Jet in Shallow Water. Environmental Fluid Me-

chanics, Vol.6, 153-180.

203

[41] Lai, A. C. H. (2009). Mixing of a Rosette Buoyant Jet Group. Ph.D. thesis,

The University of Hong Kong.

buoyant jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 708, 539-575.

stationary ambient. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, 6(1), 9-28.

jets. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 131(3), 166174.

turbulent flows. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering.

485, 3(2), 269-289.

Mechanics and Engineering Education 9(1), 39-46.

[48] Lee, J.H.W. and Cheung, V. (1990). Generalized lagrangian model for

buoyant jets in current. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE,

116(6), 10851106.

[49] Lee, J.H.W. and Chu, V.H. (2003). Turbulent Jets and Plumes: A La-

grangian Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[50] Lee, J. H. W. and Jirka, G.H. (1981). Vertical round buoyant jet in Shallow

Water. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 107(HY12), 16511675.

[51] Lee, K.W.Y. (2010). Mixing of Sediment-Laden Jet. Ph.D. thesis, The Uni-

versity of Hong Kong.

[52] Lee, K.W.Y., Li, A.C.Y. and Lee, J.H.W. (2012) Structure of a horizontal

sediment-laden momentum jet. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE.

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000662 (in press).

Particle-Laden Plumes from Wastewater Discharges. M.Phil. thesis, The

University of Hong Kong.

Research, 35(3), 363-376.

[55] Liang, L., Michaelides, E.E. (1992). The magnitude of Basset forces in

unsteady multiphase flow computations., ASME Journal of Fluids Engi-

neering, 114, 417-419.

[56] Metcalf, Eddy, I., Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F. L., and Stensel, H. D.

(1991). Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. McGraw-Hill series

in civil and environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2nd edition.

204

[57] Maxey, M.R. and Riley, J.J. (1983). Equation of motion for a small rigid

sphere in a nonuniform flow., Physics of Fluids, 26, 883-889.

[58] McLarnon, C.P. and Davies, P.A. (1999) Sedimentation of particles from

a finite volume horizontal buoyant jet. Proceedings of the 28th IAHR

congress, Graz, Austria, 22-27 Aug, 1999

[59] Mei, R. (1991). Effect of turbulence on the particle settling velocity in the

nonlinear drag range., International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 20(2),

273-284.

[60] Mei, R., Adrian, R.J., Hanratty, T.J. (1991). Particle dispersion in isotropic

turbulence under Stokes drag and Basset force with gravitational settling.,

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 225, 481-495.

[61] Michaelides, E.E. (1992). A novel way of computing the Basset term in

unsteady multiphase flow computations., Physics of Fluids A, 7, 1579-1582.

[62] Michaelides, E.E. (1997). Review - the transient equation of motion for

particles, bubbles and droplets, ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 119,

233-247.

tion of state of seawater. Deep Sea Research Part A, Oceanographic Re-

search Papers, 28(6), 625-629

[64] Minh, T.B., Leung, H.W., Loi, I.H., Chan, W.H., So, M.K., Mao, J.Q.,

Choi, D., Lam, J.C.W., Zheng, G., Martin, M., Lee, J.H.W., Lam, P.K.S.,

Richardson, B.J. (2009). Antibiotics in the Hong Kong metropolitan area:

Ubiquitous distribution and fate in Victoria Harbour. Marine Pollution

Bulletin, 58(7), 1052-1062.

[65] Morton, B.R., Taylor, G.I., and Turner, J.S. (1956). Turbulent gravita-

tional convection from maintained and instantaneous sources. Proceedings

of Royal Society of London, A234, 1-23.

in turbulent water. Journal of Geophysical Research, 75(9), 1647-1654.

[67] Neves, M.J. and Fernando, H.J.S. (1995) Sedimentation of particles from

jets discharged by ocean outfalls: a theoretical and laboratory study. Water

Science and Technology, 32(2), 133-139.

Geophysical Research, 89(C1), 616-626.

[69] Nielsen, P. (1992). Coastal Bottom Boundary Layers and Sediment Trans-

port. Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering - Vol.4. World Scientific.

cles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 63(5), 835-838.

205

[71] Papanicolaou, P. N. and List, E. J. (1988). Investigations of round vertical

turbulent buoyant jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 195, 341391.

turbulent water jets in still water. International Journal of Multiphase

Flow, 13(5), 699716.

in Two-Layer Stratified Flow. Institute of Hydrodynamics and Hydraulic

Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Series Paper No. 25.

[75] Raffel, M., Willert, C. and Kompenhans, J. (1998) Particle Image Velocime-

try: A Practical Guide. Springer

state of the art review. (2nd rev. ed.). International Association for Hydraulic

Research.

particle motion in an isotropic turbulent field. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,

175, 183-199.

[78] Shih, T. H., Liou, W. W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., and Zhu, J. (1995). A

new k- eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows.

Computers and Fluids, 24(3), 227238.

of Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of ASCE, 92(2), 153-168.

Institution Press, 9th rev. ed.

[81] Snyder, W.H. and Lumley, J.L. (1971). Some measurements of particle

velocity autocorrelation functions in a turbulent flow. Journal of Fluid

Mechanics, 48(1), 41-71.

applications. Thomas Telford, London.

from gravity currents generated by turbulent plumes. Sedimentology, 38(5),

839856.

convection cells. Journal of Marine Research, 8(1), 24-29.

[85] Stout, J.E., Arya, S.P. and Genikhovich, E.L. (1995). The effect of nonlin-

ear drag on the motion and settling velocity of heavy particles. Journal of

the Atmospheric Sciences, 52(22), 3836-3848.

206

[86] Taylor, G.I, (1921). Diffusion by continuous movements. Proceedings of

the London Mathematical Society, 20, 196-211.

[87] Thomann, R.V. and Mueller, J.A. (1987). Principles of Surface Water Qual-

ity Modeling and Control, Harper & Row.

[88] Tooby, P.A., Wick, G.L. and Issac, J.D. (1977). The Motion of a Small

Sphere in a Rotating Velocity Field: A Possible Mechanism for Suspending

Particles in Turbulence. Journal of Geophysical Research, 82(15), 2096-

2100.

[89] Toorman, E.A. (2002). Modelling of turbulent flow with suspended cohesive

sediment. in: Fine Sediment Dynamics in the Marine Environment, eds.

J.C. Winterwerp and C. Kranenburg, 155-169.

[90] Wang, H. and Law, A. W.-K. (2002). Second-order integral model for a

round turbulent buoyant jet. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 459, 397428.

[91] Wood, I.R., Bell, R.G., Wilkinson, D.L. (1993). Ocean Disposal of Wastew-

ater, World Scientific

preserving jet. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 38(3), 577-612

density currents. Ocean Dynamics, 53, 186-196.

[94] Xiao, Y., Lee, J.H.W., Tang, H.-W. and Yu, D.Y. (2006) Three-

Dimensional Computations of Multiple Tandem Jets in Crossflow. China

Ocean Engineering, 20(1), 99-112.

[95] Xu, X.-R. and Li, X.-Y. (2010). Sorption and desorption of antibiotic tetra-

cycline on marine sediments. Chemosphere, 78, 430-436.

Surface Currents Generated by Turbulent Plumes. AIChE Journal, 46(10),

1947-1956.

[97] Zhang, J.J. and Li, X.Y. (2006). Coagulation and sedimentation of partic-

ulate pollutants in marine waters after wastewater outfall discharge. Water

Science and Technology: Water Supply, 6(1), 79-86.

particle settling in turbulence generated by oscillating grid. Chemical En-

gineering Journal, 149, 289300.

207

208

Appendix A

Equation of Particle Motion

An analytical solution of the governing equation of particle motion (Chapter 3,

Eq. 3.1) can only be obtained in simplified flow fields with linearized drag forces.

Numerical integration is sought to solve the equation for more general cases, such

as in turbulent flow field. Rearranging the force terms, the equation of particle

motion can be simplified to

!

dup duf

(s + CM ) = (1 s)g + (1 + CM ) (A.1)

dt dt f

r

3CD 9

|up uf | (up uf ) + B

4d d

where s is the specific gravity s = p /f ; B is the integral in the Basset force

term. Eq. A.1 and the particle position (Eq. 3.7) are integrated using a predictor-

corrector approach. At time-step i with the particle position xi , particle velocity

up,i and fluid velocity uf ,i , an initial guess of particle velocity ufp,i+1 = up,i is

applied to estimate a predicted particle position xfi+1 at the next time step i + 1

(predictor step, denoted by superscript f).

With this, the right hand side of Eq. A.1, representing the net forces of the

particle can be estimated using condition at the mid-point between xi and xfi+1 ,

including the fluid velocity and drag coefficient. Then an updated estimation of

the particle velocity ucp,i+1 can be estimated using the corrected right hand side

of Eq. A.1 (corrector step, denoted by superscript c), i.e.

where Fi+1/2 represents the right hand side of Eq. A.1 (gravity, drag, fluid ac-

celeration, added mass and Basset force terms) at the mid-step. A corrected

209

particle position of xci+1 at the next time-step can be reestimated and thus the

net forces. The iteration repeats until the convergence criteria is met. Iteration

stops when the difference of particle velocity magnitude at successive iterations

is less than 0.1%. Typically less than 5 iterations are required for convergence.

force term

Evaluating the Basset force term requires the integration of the particle relative

velocity gradients throughout its time history

Z t p d(u u )

3 2 f

d f B, where B = d d

2 0 t

It poses two challenges to the solution of the equation of particle motion. Firstly,

the integral has to be evaluated every time step. As t increases, the numerical in-

tegration becomes increasingly cumbersome and time-consuming with additional

storage for the relative accelerations. Secondly, the integrand is ill-behaved as

t and becomes a infinity (Fig. A.1). Usual mathematical treatment like

subtracting out the singularity (see e.g. Acton, 1970) is not suitable here as the

relative velocity gradient d(upduf ) is unknown at time t. Although the integrand

is infinite at = t, the Basset integral is still finite.

The integral has to be evaluated by another approach. First, the integral is

decomposed into a sum of M integrals with each integrated within a small equal

time step t, as t = M t.

Z t dur Z t dur Z 2t dur Z M t dur

d d = d d + d d +...+ d d (A.4)

0 t 0 t t t (M 1)t t

where ur = up uf is the particle relative velocity. Secondly, the change of

relative velocity is evaluated with central difference within the time step t,

dur ur,i+1 ur,i

=

dt t

and the acceleration is assumed constant within the time interval, thus can be

separated out from the integral. The integral involving the square root is evalu-

ated as

Z kt q

d

= 2 t (k 1)t t kt (A.5)

(k1)t t

= 2 t M k + 1 M k

Z dur

t 2 MX 1 h i

B= d d = (ur,n+1 ur,n )( M n M n 1)

0 t t n=0

(A.6)

210

During the actual computation, particle velocity at time t is known and the

velocity at time t + t is going to be predicted. The Basset integral is integrated

from = 0 to = t + 12 t, as dur /dt is evaluated at the middle of the time step

(Fig. A.1).

Z t+t/2 dur

d

B = q d (A.7)

0 t + t/2

Z t dur Z t+t/2 dur

d d

= q d + q d

0 t + t/2 t t + t/2

d(up uf )

= Bt0 + 2t

dt

The last remaining integral of the half time step involves the acceleration at the

current time step, which is not known a priori. An implicit approach is used by

solving it together with the other terms in the equation to ensure stability. With

the Basset term Eq. A.1 can be written as

r !

9 dup duf

s + CM + 2t = (1 s)g + (1 + CM ) (A.8)

d dt dt f

r !

3CD 9 duf

|ur | ur Bt0 2t

4d d dt

where Bt0 is the Basset integral between = 0 t. Here the term involving

dup /dt in Eq. A.7 has been moved to the left hand side of the equation and to

be solved using a predictor-corrector approach using Eqs. A.2 and A.3. Finally

the accelerations are stored in arrays which are used for next time step compu-

tation. The validation of the Basset force formulation on the accelerated motion

of a spherical particle in a stagnant ambient is shown in Fig. 3.7 and shows

very good comparison with the analytical solution. Fig. A.2(a) shows the time

history of particle velocity for a spherical particle in a stagnant ambient with

its change, numerically solved with the Basset force term. The particle velocity

increases rapidly for the first 0.002s and the rate of increase slows down after-

wards. Fig. A.2(b) shows the Basset integrand which has an initial large value

but slowly decreases due to the reduction in particle acceleration. As t, the

integrand approaches rapidly to infinity.

Since the Basset force term is shown to be negligible for all sediment-laden jet

applications in this study, Eq. A.1 or Eq. A.8 can be simplified to the following

form excluding the Basset force term.

!

dup duf

(s + CM ) = (1 s)g + (1 + CM ) (A.9)

dt dt f

3CD

|up uf | (up uf )

4d

211

Figure A.1: Numerical integration of the Basset force term. Velocities at and

before time t is known and the velocity at time t + t is to be predicted. The

Basset integral is to be evaluated from 0 to t + 21 t.

212

1 1600

-1

wp ' = wp /ws dwp '/dt (s )

1400

0.8

wp' 1200

0.6 1000

800

0.4 600

400

0.2

dwp '/dt 200

t (s)

0 0

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01

(dwp'/dt) /

t-) (s-3/2)

1.0E+05

t = 0.002s

1.0E+04

t = 0.005s

1.0E+03

1.0E+02 t = 0.01s

1.0E+01

t (s)

1.0E+00

0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01

the Basset force term. d = 50m, p = 2500 kg/m3 , f = 1000 kg/m3 , ws =

2.0437mm/s, t = 104 s. (a) Time history of particle velocity and acceleration;

(b) the Basset integrand at t = 0.002, 0.005, 0.01s. The particle velocity wp is

normalized by the stillwater settling velocity ws .

213

214

Appendix B

Modelling

B.1 Introduction

In this appendix, the details of the 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

model for sediment-laden jet prediction are described. The CFD modelling serves

the following purposes:

and compared with experimental measurement and particle tracking model.

CFD modelling provides insights to understand the particle-turbulence in-

teraction which results in the reduction of particle settling velocity.

q

2. The CFD predicted RMS turbulent velocity fluctuations ( = 23 k, k =

turbulent kinetic energy) and the dissipation rate are used in the particle

tracking model for determining the turbulence length and time scales.

3. To provide numerical results for validating the integral model for spreading

current (Chapter 6).

The 3D Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible steady

state are solved numerically. The Boussinesq approximation (density difference

is retained in the terms with gravitational acceleration) is adopted in buoyant

jet flows by virtue of small density difference. This governing equations are:

Continuity:

Ui

=0 (B.1)

xi

Momentum:

Ui 1 p ij f 0

Uj = + + gi (B.2)

xj f xi xj 0

215

where Ui is the fluid velocity in x, y and z directions; f is the density of jet

fluid; 0 is the ambient density; p is the dynamic pressure; g is the gravitational

acceleration; ij is the Reynolds stresses estimated as with the gradient transport

analogy: !

Uj Ui 2

ij = t + kij (B.3)

xi xj 3

where k is the turbulent kinetic energy; is the dissipation rate of k; t is the

turbulent eddy viscosity. A linear relationship between temperature and water

density is prescribed for the modelling of density-driven buoyant jets.

The equation for sediment transport, assuming very dilute concentration, is:

!

C t C

(Ui ws ) = (B.4)

xi xi Sct xi

where C is the sediment concentration and Sct is the turbulent Schmidt number

taken as 0.85, as default in the code. The term ws C

z

models the settling flux of

sediment, where ws is the settling velocity.

The time averaging process of the Navier-Stokes equations results in additional

terms as the cross-correlation of the velocity fluctuations (the turbulent shear

stresses, e.g, u v ). The turbulent stresses arising from the fluctuating velocities

can be modelled as the product of the mean velocity gradient and the turbulent

viscosity (see e.g. Rodi, 1984), i.e.

u

= u v = t

y

Two-equation k turbulence closure model is used for estimating the turbulent

eddy viscosity t . In the standard k model (Launder and Spalding, 1974),

the equations for turbulent kinetic energy k and the dissipation rates are

!

k t k

Ui = + Gk + Gb (B.5)

xi xi k xi

!

t 2

Ui = + C1 (Gk + (1 C3 )Gb ) C2 (B.6)

xi xi xi k k

where Gk and Gb are the production of k due to shear and buoyancy respectively:

!

Ui Uj Uj

Gk = t + (B.7)

xj xi xi

t

Gb = gi (B.8)

h xi

The turbulent eddy viscosity t is estimated as

k2

t = C (B.9)

216

The constants C , C1 , C2 , C3 , k , and h are determined by fitting the model

with experimental data of basic shear flows. In the standard k model, the

constants are C = 0.09, C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, C3 = 1.0 for stable stratification

and zero for unstable stratification, k = 1.0, = 1.3 and h = 0.7. It is

reported (Rodi, 1984; Kuang and Lee, 2006) that the standard k model

cannot satisfactorily predict the spreading rate of axisymmetric jets.

In the present study, the turbulent closure utilizes the realizable k turbu-

lence closure model (Shih, 1995). The model differs from the standard k model

in two important ways: i) The eddy viscosity coefficient C is not a constant,

but determined as a function of k, , and the local strain rate;

1

C = (B.10)

A0 + As kU

where q

U = Sij Sij (B.11)

and

A0 = 4.04, As = 6 cos (B.12)

1 Sij Sjk Ski e q Ui Uj

= cos1 ( 6W ), W = ,S = Sij Sij , Sij = +

3 Se3 xj xi

and ii) a new transport equation for the dissipation rate is used

!

t 2

Ui = + C1 S C2 + C1 C3 Gb (B.13)

xi xi xi k + k

where !

k q

C1 = max 0.43, , = S , S = 2Sij Sij

+5

and C2 = 1.9, C1 = 1.44 and C3 = 1.0 for stable stratification and zero for

unstable stratification are the empirical constants. The realizable k is shown

to give more accurate prediction of the spreading rate for both planar and round

jets (Shih, 1995). The model has been successfully applied in the study of mul-

tiple tandem jets in crossflows (Xiao et al. , 2006). For the present jet flow

cases, the predicted spreading rate of jet half width is 0.12, comparable with the

experimentally measured value of 0.114 and better than the value of 0.13-0.14

obtained using standard k model (Fig. B.5).

B.4.1 Grid configuration

A three-dimensional unstructured mesh with 182,420 non-uniform hexahedral

elements is used to discretise the half-experimental tank and jet nozzle with

diameter of 6mm (Fig. B.1). The smallest mesh size in the direction of the jet is

6mm, about 1/10 of the length of the zone of flow establishment. The smallest

217

transverse mesh size at the jet nozzle is of size 0.6mm, 1/10 the diameter of the

jet nozzle. The jet tube is not separately modelled but located on the same plane

with the wall of the jet inlet.

Inflow velocity and sediment concentration are prescribed at the jet nozzle. The

turbulent kinetic energy k is estimated from well-established relations for fully

developed smooth pipe flow, k = 23 (uI)2 , where u = inflow velocity, I = tur-

bulence intensity related to the Reynolds number via the Blassius equation

3/2

I = 0.16Re1/8 . The value of at the inlet is then given by = C3/4 k l ; l

is the length scale of energy containing eddies and adopted as l = 0.07D similar

to mixing length. For the tank bottom and tank wall adjacent to the jet nozzle,

a no slip wall boundary is used. For other boundaries, a zero pressure condition

is used, and k and are specified as 1% of the values of the jet inlet. By virtue

of symmetry about the vertical jet centerline plane (the x z plane), only half of

the tank is modeled. For the sediment transport, a zero flux boundary condition

is applied on all boundaries except at the bottom where a sediment flux ws C is

prescribed.

Zero velocity, pressure and sediment concentration are prescribed as initial

values for iteration. The initial k and in the whole domain are specified as 0.01

times the values of the inlet. Sensitivity tests show that the prescribed initial

218

values of k and do not have a significant effect on the final steady flow, since

the turbulence in the tank will evolve as the flow develops from the inlet.

The governing equations are solved numerically using the finite volume method

as embodied in the FLUENT software. Velocities and other variables are defined

at the cell center. Cell face dependent variables are interpolated from the cell

center values using a second order upwind scheme. The SIMPLEC algorithm is

employed for velocity-pressure correction with under-relaxation factor of 0.3 for

pressure, 0.7 for momentum, 0.8 for k and , and 1.0 for turbulent viscosity and

sediment concentration. Convergence is declared when the normalized residual

is less than 106 for sediment concentration and 103 for all other variables.

Typically about 5000 iterations are required for convergence.

The model predictions on sediment-laden jets have been presented in Chapters

5 and 6. Here the single-phase jet results are presented.

Fig. B.2 shows the CFD predicted velocity and tracer concentration field at the

centerline vertical plane, showing the decay of jet velocity and tracer concentra-

tion. Fig. B.3 shows the predicted cross-sectional tracer concentration profiles

which reveals the self-similarity of concentration profiles in different jet cross-

sections. Fig. B.4 shows the comparison between predicted and theoretical jet

centerline velocity. Fig. B.5 shows the comparison between CFD predicted Gaus-

sian half-width of a pure round jet and the commonly adopted spreading rate of

0.114. The prediction using the realizable k model compares well with the

theoretical value.

Fig. B.6 shows the computed centerline vertical plane velocity of horizontal buoy-

ant jets of two cases of Li (2006)s experiments. Fig. B.7 shows the predicted jet

trajectories using CFD and integral model JETLAG and both model predictions

compares well. The predicted dilution also compares with the experimentally

derived Cederwall equation (Cederwall, 1968) (Fig. B.8).

z z

Sc = 0.54F r(0.38 + 0.66)5/3 for > 0.5 (B.14)

F rD F rD

z 7/16 z

Sc = 0.54F r( ) for 0.5 (B.15)

F rD F rD

where Sc is the minimum dilution defined at jet centerline, F r is the initial jet

densimetric Froude number and D is the jet diameter.

219

0.04

0.3 m/s

0.02

(m)

-0.02

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

(m)

0.04

0.05

0.02

0.1 0.1

0.05

0.15 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.15

(m)

0

0.15 0.3 0.6 0.4

0.2

00.1.0

5 0.15

-0.02 0.1

0.05

-0.04

(b) Tracer

Concentration

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

(m)

Figure B.2: CFD predicted velocity and tracer concentration (C/C0 ) field of

x z plane at y = 0. u0 = 0.41 m/s; D = 6 mm; C0 = 5.29 g/L. The dashed

lines are the jet top-hat boundary defined as bT = 0.16x.

0.04 0.04

x = 10D = 0.06m x = 30D = 0.18m

0.1

0.03

1 2 0.2

0. 0 .

0.02 0.02

0.4 0.4

0.1

6 0.

0.01 0. 6

0.4

0.1

0.

(m)

(m)

0.2

8

0 0

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.8

0.4

-0.01 0.2 .1

0

0.6

0.6

0.1

-0.02 -0.02

0.4

0.2 0.4

-0.03 0.1 0.2

0.1

-0.04 -0.04

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04

(m) (m)

x = 10D and x = 30D. u0 = 0.41 m/s; D = 6 mm. The dashed circles are the

jet top-hat boundary defined as bT = 0.16x.

220

uc /u0

10

Theoretical

FJ58, u0 = 0.57 m/s

FJ42, u0 = 0.41 m/s

x/D

0.1

1 10 100

uc /u0 = 6.2(x/D)1 .

7

FJ42

6 FJ58

b = 0.114x

5

4

b/D

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

x/D

Figure B.5: Predicted jet Gaussian half width using the realizable k model.

= 0.114 is the commonly adopted value for round jets.

221

0.4

(i) x = 0 - 0.2m (ii) x = 0.15 - 0.55m

0.5 m/s 0.1 m/s

0.35

0.1

0.3

0.25

0.05

(m)

(m)

0.2

0.15

0

0.1

0.05

-0.05

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55

(m) (m)

0.1

0.3

0.25

0.05

(m)

(m)

0.2

0.15

0

0.1

0.05

(i) x = 0 - 0.2m (ii) x = 0.1 - 0.45m

-0.05

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5

(m) (m)

Figure B.6: CFD predicted horizontal buoyant jet velocities. (i) Initial region,

(ii) bend up region. The dashed lines are the JETLAG predicted jet boundary.

222

0.4

CB50, Fr=14.9

0.35 CB54, Fr=16.4

CB66, Fr=19.5

0.3

JetLag

0.25

z (m)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

x (m)

and JETLAG.

10

CB50, Fr=14.9

CB54, Fr=16.4

CB66, Fr=19.5

Cederwall

Sc/Fr

0.1

0.01 0.1 1 10

z/FrD

dilutions with Cederwall equation.

223

B.5 Model for spreading current

The three-dimensional flow of a vertical axisymmetric buoyant jet impinging on

a free surface in stagnant water is obtained by solving the Reynolds-averaged

Navier-Stokes equations (RANS) assuming axisymmetry. The model domain

is 0.53m (r) 0.3m (z). The model grid consists of 10000 2D cells with both

100 cells in the radial and axial direction. The half-jet inlet (D = 7mm) is

correspondingly resolved by 5 cells. Grid resolution increases towards the jet

axis and the surface layer. The free surface is modelled by symmetric boundary

condition to provide zero velocity gradient and zero mass flux condition. The

bottom boundary is modelled as a no-slip wall and the remaining side is modelled

as an open boundary of zero excess pressure (Fig. B.9).

Figs. B.10 and B.11 show the computed flow field and tracer concentration

field at the spreading layer region for two cases, illustrating the transition from

the vertical jet to the radial spreading current. There is a weak internal hydraulic

jump in the spreading layer as depicted by the slight increase in thickness of the

current. The tracer concentration decays in the spreading layer slowly due to

the much weaker entrainment by the spreading current. The comparison of CFD

and integral model predictions on spreading layer velocity and reduced gravity

can be found in Chapter 6.

0.3

0.2

Axis Open

z (m)

0.1

0

Wall

Jet

-0.1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

r (m)

Figure B.9: Computation mesh for vertical axisymmetric buoyant jet impinging

the surface.

224

(a) velocity

0.3

0.25

z (m)

0.2

0.1 m/s

r (m)

(b) concentration

0.3 0.05

0.025

0.01

0.075

0.025

0.

0.05

1

0.01

0.25

z (m)

0.075

0.1

0.025

0.05

0.2

0.01

0.125 .15

0

r (m)

Figure B.10: CFD predicted spreading layer velocity field and concentration field

(C/C0 ). u0 = 0.351m/s, D = 7mm, F r = 10.0.

225

(a) velocity

0.3

0.25

z (m)

0.2

0.1 m/s

r (m)

(b) concentration

0.3 5

0.0

0.01

5

0.02

0.01

0.25

0.05

z (m)

0.025

0.2

0.05

0.01

0.075

0.1

r (m)

Figure B.11: CFD predicted spreading layer velocity field and concentration field

(C/C0 ). u0 = 0.146m/s, D = 7mm, F r = 4.0.

226

Appendix C

Ethanol-Water Mixture

and Lee (2010) used ethanol-water mixture as a buoyancy source for the jet

(Tables 6.4-6.6). Density of source fluid is measured using density meter. Source-

ambient density difference are about 20-40 kg/m3 , which indicates that ethanol

concentration is 10-30% by weight (Fig. C.1). It is well known that the fluid

viscosity in ethanol-water mixture in this concentration range can be up to 2-3

times that of pure/tap water (Fig. C.2). The particle settling velocity in ethanol-

water mixture (jet fluid) can be much less than its counterpart in the tap water

ambient. Two examples are used to illustrate the effect of ethanol-water mixture

on sediment settling velocity (Figs. C.3 and C.4). In these two cases, the source

fluid viscosity is about 2 times of ambient viscosity and gradually decreases due to

turbulent mixing. The estimated sediment settling velocity at the jet centerline

is about half of that in the ambient.

The local settling velocity for the buoyant jet experiments of Li (2006) and

Lee (2010) is estimated based on the local density and molecular viscosity in the

particle tracking model and CFD simulations. In the particle tracking model,

the local fluid density is predicted using JETLAG; the ethanol concentration (%

by weight) is then back-estimated using Fig. C.1. The molecular viscosity of the

fluid is then estimated using Fig. C.2. The graphical relationships of density

and dynamic viscosity versus the percentage by weight of ethanol in water and

temperature are adopted from Smithsonian Physical Tables (Smithsonian Insti-

tution, 1954). A sensitivity study shows that using the locally estimated settling

velocity, the model prediction compares better with measured data than using a

single settling velocity based on the ambient density and viscosity (Fig. C.5).

For experiments using saline water as the ambient and freshwater as the

buoyancy source (e.g. Sparks et al. 1991; Ernst et al. 1996), the difference in

viscosity between saline water and freshwater are less than 5% (at 20 C, =

1.004 106 m2 /s for freshwater; = 1.04 106 m2 /s for seawater, salinity =

33ppt, f = 1023 kg/m3 ); a constant viscosity of freshwater is used for computing

the settling velocity in these cases.

227

3

Density (g/cm )

1

0.99

0.98

0.97

Temperature C

o

0.96

0.95

0.94 15

20

0.93 25

30

% by weight of ethanol

0.92

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

4

Dynamic viscosity o

Temperature C

-3

3.5 (10 kg/m/s) 15

3

20

2.5

25

2 30

1.5

0.5

% by weight of ethanol

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

228

3 -3

c (kg/m ) c (10 kg/m/s)

1010 2.0

a

1000

1.5

990

980 1.0

c c

970

0.5

960

x (m)

950 0.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

(a) Centerline jet fluid density and viscosity

ws (cm/s)

1.6

ws - ambient

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

x (m)

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

(b) Estimated sediment settling velocity at jet centerline.

ethanol-water mixture as the source of buoyancy. Case FB58 (Li, 2006):

u0 = 0.57m/s; F r = 14.5; d = 133m (sand). (a) JETLAG predicted cen-

terline jet fluid density (c ) and estimated dynamic viscosity (c ) using Figs. C.1

& C.2. (b) Estimated sediment settling velocity at jet centerline using Soulsby

equation.

229

3 -3

c (kg/m ) c (10 kg/m/s)

1010 2.5

a

1000 2.0

990

1.5

980 c

c

1.0

970

960 0.5

x (m)

950 0.0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

(a) Centerline jet fluid density and viscosity

ws (cm/s)

2.5

ws - ambient

2

1.5

0.5

x (m)

0

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

(b) Estimated sediment settling velocity at jet centerline.

ethanol-water mixture as the source of buoyancy. Case G180B90Fr17 (Lee, 2010):

u0 = 0.88m/s; F r = 18.3; d = 180m (glass). (a) JETLAG predicted centerline

jet fluid density (c ) and estimated dynamic viscosity (c ) using Figs. C.1 &

C.2. (b) Estimated sediment settling velocity at jet centerline using spherical

drag law.

230

0.5

F (g/m/s) FB58

0.4 Local ws

Ambient ws

0.3

Meas.

0.2

0.1

x (m)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

(a) Case FB58 (Li, 2006): u0 = 0.57m/s; F r = 14.5; d = 133m .

0.5

Fs (g/m/s) G180B90Fr17

0.4 Local ws

Ambient ws

0.3

Meas.

0.2

0.1

x (m)

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

(b) Case G180B90Fr17 (Lee, 2010): u0 = 0.88m/s; F r = 18.3; d =

180m .

Figure C.5: Model comparison of using local settling velocity and ambient set-

tling velocity in the prediction of sediment deposition on buoyant jets.

231

- Thesis Openfoam 2d AirfoilUploaded byvictoria
- CFD Modeling of the Gas–Particle Flow Behaviour in Kiln Burner PipeUploaded byTahseen AlHattab
- Two-phase Flow StructureUploaded byAnonymous H9n5g3aaCE
- Using Computational Fluid Dynamics as a tool for improved prediction of pressure characteristics of a pilot chamber of PRSOVUploaded byInternational Journal of computational Engineering research (IJCER)
- 141231Uploaded bysaulomon
- multiple layer identificationUploaded byChanchai Srisutam
- 0f31752f049526c164000000Uploaded byAbin Jacob
- CFX-Intro_16_L10_Turbulence.pdfUploaded byMoh Sen
- 65-74ffUploaded bymh
- RevistaUploaded byAnonymous mv84nhz
- TurbulenceUploaded byabcd1231981
- Acoustical characterization of perforated facingsUploaded byGowtham Reddy
- Blazej 2dairlift ManuscriptUploaded bylrodriguez_892566
- Respond Areas in Space (1)Uploaded byArijit Sharma
- 10.1.1.193.6540Uploaded byMukesh Bohra
- CFD Supercritical AirfoilsUploaded byyash1239
- week 1Uploaded byanis
- 85.pdfUploaded bygunjandpatel05
- grid turbulenceUploaded byabhi71127112
- p803035_A1bUploaded byJason Stanley
- Sculptor in Racetech MagazineUploaded bygosculptor
- Chemical EngineeringUploaded byJeyakumar Raja