0
Research Papers: Piper and Riser Technology

Influence of Proximity of the Seabed on Hydrodynamic Forces on a Submarine Piggyback Pipeline Under Wave Action

[+] Author and Article Information
Xiaofei Cheng

Ph.D. Candidate
e-mail: chengxiaofei1985@163.com

Yongxue Wang

Professor
e-mail: wangyx@dlut.edu.cn

Guoyu Wang

Associate Professor
e-mail: wanggyu@dlut.edu.cn
State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering,
Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian, 116024, PRC

Contributed by the Ocean Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 24, 2011; final manuscript received March 26, 2012; published online February 25, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Antonio C. Fernandes.

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 135(2), 021701 (Feb 25, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: OMAE-11-1068; doi: 10.1115/1.4006931 History: Received July 24, 2011; Revised March 26, 2012

Experimental investigations were mainly carried out to clarify the influence of the seabed proximity on hydrodynamic forces on a submarine piggyback pipeline under regular and irregular wave action. Nondimensional force coefficients for drag, inertia and lift on the piggyback pipeline were obtained with an equivalent diameter based on the Morison equation. The effect of the gap ratio e/D between the bottom of the large pipeline and the seabed on force coefficients of the piggyback pipeline was studied. The results indicated that the force coefficients initially decreased and then remained constant when e/D was beyond 0.5. In addition, a two-dimensional hybrid numerical model, FEM-k-ω-VOF, was applied for a numerical analysis. A comparison of numerical and experimental results showed that the calculated values of wave forces agreed well with those of the experiments and that the numerical model can be employed to predict the hydrodynamic forces on the submarine piggyback pipeline.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Danish Hydraulic Institute, 1986, “Hydrodynamic Forces on Pipelines: Model Tests–Final Report Part 1,” PRCI/AGA Project No. PR-170–185.
Li, Y. C., and Zhang, N. C., 1994, “The Hydrodynamic Characteristic of Submarine Piggyback Pipeline in Wave-Current Coexisting Field,” Proceedings of the 4th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Osaka, Japan, Vol. 2, pp. 77–84.
Kamarudin, M. H., Thiagarajan, K. P., and Czajko, A., 2006, “Analysis of Current-Induced Forces on Offshore Pipeline Bundles,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on CFD in the Process Industries, Melbourne, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 1–6.
Kalghatgi, S. G., and Sayer, P. G., 1997, “Hydrodynamic Forces on Piggyback Pipeline Configurations,” ASCE J. Water, Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 123(1), pp. 16–22. [CrossRef]
Zhao, M., Cheng, L., and Teng, B., 2007, “Numerical Modeling of Flow and Hydrodynamic Forces Around a Piggyback Pipeline Near the Seabed,” ASCE J. Water., Port, Coastal, Ocean Eng., 133(4), pp. 286–295. [CrossRef]
Branković, M., Zeitoun, H., Sutherland, J., and Pearce, A., 2010, “Physical Modelling of Hydrodynamic Loads on Piggyback Pipelines in Combined Wave and Current Conditions,” Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, Vol. 5, pp. 933–942.
Li, Y. C., Wang, F. L., and Kang, H. G., 1991, “Wave-Current Forces on Slender Circular Cylinders,” China Ocean Eng., 5(3), pp. 287–310.
Wilcox, D. C., 1988, “Reassessment of the Scale-determining Equation for Advanced Turbulence Models,” AIAA J., 26(11), pp. 1299–1310. [CrossRef]
Wilcox, D. C., 1994, “Simulation of Transition With a Two-Equation Turbulence Model,” AIAA J., 32(2), pp. 247–255. [CrossRef]
Liang, D., and Cheng, L., 2005, “Numerical Modeling of Flow and Scour Below a Pipeline in Currents. Part I: Flow Simulation,” Coastal Eng., 52, pp. 25–42. [CrossRef]
Jiang, C. B., and Kawahara, M., 1993, “The Analysis of Unsteady Incompressible Flows by a Three-Step Finite Element Method,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 16, pp. 793–811. [CrossRef]
Ashgriz, N., Barbat, T., and WangG., 2004, “A Computational Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection Remap for Free Surface Flows,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 44, pp. 1–32. [CrossRef]
Lu, L., Li, Y. C., and Teng, B., 2008, “Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Free Surface Flow Over Obstruction,” J. Hydrodynam., 20(4), pp. 414–423. [CrossRef]
Sun, Y. W., Chen, B., and Kang, H. G., 2010, “Numerical Simulation of Broken Wave With the CLEAR-VOF-FEM Model,” Adv. Water Sci., 21(6), pp. 795–800 (in Chinese).
Zhao, X. Z., Sun, Z. C., and Liang, S. X., 2009, “A Numerical Study of the Transformation of Water Waves Generated in a Wave Flume,” Fluid Dyn. Res., 41(3), p. 035510. [CrossRef]
Zhao, X. Z., Hu, C. H., Sun, Z. C., 2010, “Numerical Simulation of Extreme Wave Generation Using VOF Method,” J. Hydrodynam., 22(4), pp. 466–477. [CrossRef]
Yu, Y. X., and Shi, X. H., 1994, “Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Grouping Piles Under the Action of Irregular Waves,” China Ocean Eng., 8(2), pp. 123–134.
Li, Y. C., Chen, B., and Wang, G., 1996, “Physical Model Test and Numerical Simulation of Pipeline Under Wave Action,” Marine Sci. Bull., 15(4), pp. 58–65 (in Chinese).
Sarpkaya, T., 1976, “Forces on Cylinders Near a Plane Boundary in a Sinusoidally Oscillating Fluid,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 98, pp. 499–503. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Submarine piggyback pipeline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Sketch of the experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometry of computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Computational mesh near the piggyback pipeline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Force coefficients on single pipeline for e/D = 0.25

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Force coefficients on piggyback pipeline for e/D = 0.25

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Comparison of force coefficients on piggyback pipeline and single pipeline for e/D = 0.25

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Effect of e/D on force coefficients on piggyback pipeline

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Numerical results for single pipeline for e/D = 0.22

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of numerical and experimental results for piggyback pipeline for e/D = 0.25, KC = 25.1

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In