Deel 3 002 PDF

Test no.
61
0.3-
0.25-
Relative scour depth S/D
0.2
]7
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time (sec)
Test no. 62
0.14-
0.12-
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (sec)
Test no. 63
0.18
0.14
08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time (sec)
Test no. 64
0.12-
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
°0 TOO 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Time (sec)
#
Test no. 77
0.25
0.15
o.i
0.05
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Time (sec)
Test no. 82
0.25
0.15
0.1
0.05
500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)
Test no. 22
-*e
0.14
12
0.1
08
0.06
04
0.02
500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Time (sec)
Test no. 94
0.18
0.16
14
0.12
0.08
0.06
04
0.02
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Time (sec)
APPENDIX C
Photo Series of Time Development
Dansk Hydraulisk Insotut/Danish Hydraulic Institute

I
10 15
" -
40 45 50 55
"nrr
15
10
•>
10 15 20 25 fe 30
iii.i
msg" 40 45 50 55
25
20
15
10
S-.f.
LU..U^~b-
10 15 20 40 45 50 55
i i i i ■
i
25
20
15
10
*•
» r 'ryf^. Uj-
,a
' F J i
10 15 20 so mm 40 45 50 55
1
I f
E\-
25
«»v
20
- /
15
10
10 15 20 40 45 50 55
25
20
15
10
I
, -t
:—-t—j
• •4
10 15 20 25 SO ?* 40 45 50 55
rr-ne i i
25 i—
—i
20
15
10 • - 4
’..tvl'.rs I- .
• • •TT\
10 15 45 50 55
"r 'l-i' vi"
25
v . —
£
,r (**.-•*>
20 h
15
10
-
t-'r-
*•*
s;
10 15 20 40 45 50 55
■ Ml
I
*-‘-K
25 — i
IT I
20 --4-
r
15
^ - '
1
%'*
10
..a
..
Prepared for:
The Joint Venture DHI/DH
Physical Model Study on

Scour Development along a Pipeline
W.Klomp and Z. Chen

Physical Model Study on Scour Development Along a Pipeline H 1354 May 1993
Contents
List of tables
List of figures
List of symbols
page
1 Introduction *
1.1 Terms of reference 1

1.2 Scope of work *
2 Summary ^
2.1 Objective
2.2 Test conditions 2
2.3 Measurements 2
2.4 Test results 3
3 Model set-up
3.1 Boundary conditions 4

3.1.1 Scaling requirements . 4
3.1.2 Prototype conditions 4
3.1.3 Model conditions . . . 5
3.1.4 Scaling arguments . . . 5
3.2 Test programme 6
3.3 Instrumentation 7
3.3.1 Wave height meters . . 7
3.3.2 Current meters 7
3.3.3 Scour celerity meter . . 7
3.3.4 Sounding 8
3.3.5 Video recording . . . . 8
3.3.6 Photographs 8
4 Test execution
4.1 Test procedure

4.2 Observations
4.2.1 General observation on the scour process
4.2.2 Dye injections
I
delft hydraulics
Contents (continued)
page
5 Test results ^
5.1 Test conditions ^

5.2 Geometry of scour hole 13
5.2.1 Transverse (2D) scour hole geometry 13
5.2.2 Longitudinal (3D) geometry 14
5.3 Longitudinal scour celerity 14
6 Analysis to test results 1'
6.1 Critical conditions for longitudinal erosion 12

6.2 Sediment transport computation 17
6.3 Model set-up 18
6.4 Model calibration 19
7 Conclusions and recommendations 21
7.1 Summary of test results 21

7.2 Major limitations of the test data 21
7.3 Recommendations 21
References
Tables
Figures
delft hydraulics **
List of tables
3.1 Test programme 3D-scour
5.1 Measured wave and current parameters

5.2a Representative flow conditions for each test
5.2b Near-bed current velocities
5.3 Characteristic parameters calculated with Van Rijn method
5.4 Geometry of scour hole
5.5 Measured span celerities
6.1 Results of transport calculations
delft hydraulics
in
List of figures
3.1 Sieve curve of sediment

3.2 Layout of the large wind wave flume
3.3 Locations of sounding lines
3.4 Locations of all instruments
3.5 Photographs
4.1 Geometry of span support

4.2 Geometry of scour hole, Test P915025
5.1a Bottom profiles along line no. 1, Test P910010

5.1b Bottom profiles along line no.2, Test P910010
5.1c Bottom profiles along line no.3, Test P910010
5. Id Bottom profiles along line no.4, Test P910010
5.1e Support slopes along line no.2, Test P910010
5. If Support slopes along line no.3, Test P910010
5.2a Bottom profiles along line no.l, Test P910025
5.2b Bottom profiles along line no.2, Test P910025
5.2c Bottom profiles along line no.3, Test P910025
5.2d Bottom profiles along line no.4, Test P910025
5.2e Support slopes along line no.2, Test P910025
5.2f Support slopes along line no.3, Test P910025
5.3a Scour hole geometry, transverse direction (2D)
5.3b Scour hole geometry, longitudinal direction (3D)
5.3c Scour hole geometry, transverse direction, Test P910010
5.4a S as a function of KC
5.4b Lu as a function of KC
5.4c Ld as a function of KC
5.4d A,, as a function of KC
5.5a p as a function of KC
5.5b Lc as a function of KC
5.6a Span length as a function of time, Test P910010
5.6b Span celerity as a function of time, Test P910010
5.6c Span length as a function of time, Test P910025
5.6d Span celerity as a function of time, Test P910025
5.7a Span celerity as a function of KC, linear scales
5.7b Span celerity as a function of KC, log scales
5.7c Span celerity as a function of embedment
5.7d Span celerity as a function of wave-related Shields number
5.7e Span celerity as a function of current-related Shields number
5.7f Span celerity as a function of Shields number
5.7g Span celerity * e/D versus KC
5.7h Span celerity as a function of relative current strength
5.7i Span celerity as a function of pipeline orientation
5.7j Span celerity as a function of pipeline orientation
delft hydraulics IV
List of figures (continued)
6.1a Critical embedment versus KC, linear scales

6.1b Critical embedment versus KC, linear-log scales
6.2a Transport rate as a function of KC, linear scales
6.2b Transport rate as a function of KC, log scales
6.2c Transport rate as a function of Shields number
6.3 (3D) Span development module
6.4a a as a function of e/D
6.4b a as a function of KC
V
delft hydraulics
May 1 993
Physical Model Study on Scour Development Along a Pipeline H 1354
List of symbols
\ = area of scour hole

c = Chezy coeefficient
D = pipe diameter
e/D = relative embedment
fc = current-related friction factor
fw = wave-related friction factor
Hs = significant wave height, calculated
Hscw = significant wave height measured in the case of waves and current
Hsw = significant wave height measured in the case of waves alone
KC = Keulegan-Carpenter number
K = length of span support
Ld = scour extent in the downstream direction
K = scour extent in the upstream direction
phi = pipe orientation with respect to the flow direction
S = equilibrium scour depth
Tp = wave period calculated from the velocity measurements
Tpcw = wave period measured in the case of waves and current
Tpw = wave period measured in the case of waves alone
Uc = crest velocity
Us = wave orbital velocity at height z above the bed
 = depth-averaged current velocity
< Uz> = current velocity at height z above the bed
Ut = trough velocity
Uw = near-bed wave orbital velocity, calculated from Uc and Ut
xo = amplitude of near-bed excursion
z = height
P = slope index
= Shields number
0
6
e
. =
=
critical Shields number
embedment of pipe
cs = scour celerity along pipe axis
P = porosity
^50 = median diameter
a = sediment transport increase in span corner
q. = transport rate in corner of free span
q0 = transport rate undisturbed
delft hydraulics
1 Introduction
1.1 Terms of reference
As part of the Joint Industry Project "Pipe/Cable Burial, Phase 2; Free Span Development
and Self-Lowering of Pipelines", physical model tests were proposed to study the scour
development along a pipeline. The objective of the JIP project is to develop a model to
predict Pipeline/Seabed Interaction.
The Joint Venture DHI-DH commissioned DELFT HYDRAULICS in their letter of October 2,
1992 (ref.: HK7291/H1354/RB/gd) to execute a physical model study on the scour develop-
ment along a pipeline. In their letter of October 27, 1992 (ref.: HK7848/H1354/RB/hm) the
Joint Venture commissioned DELFT HYDRAULICS to carry out additional tests as specified
in DELFT HYDRAULICS’ proposal of October 12, 1992 (ref.: H1354).
Together with the physical model study on the scour process along a pipeline, a physical
model study on the onset of scour and provoked scour was executed at the Danish Hydraulic
Institute. The test conditions were comparable in both studies so that the results of both
studies can be compared and combined in a numerical model to predict self-lowering of
pipelines.
The physical model study was executed from September to November 1992. The actual
testing was performed from October 5 to October 22, 1992 in the large wind and wave flume
of DELFT HYDRAULICS. The tests were performed by Mr. H. Westhuis and Mr. J. Koopmans
and the study was managed by Mr. W.H.G. Klomp.
The analysis of test results was made by Z. Chen. This report was written by W. Klomp
and Z. Chen.
1.2 Scope of work
Free span development along a pipeline plays an important role in the process of self-
lowering of a pipeline. However, the process of span development and especially the process
of span growth has only been investigated to a very limited extent.
Since free spans can lead to failure of a pipeline, prediction of the free span length and the
time of existence of a free span is very important.
A very important parameter for the prediction of free span development is the horizontal
scour celerity. The main objective of the model study was therefore, to measure the horizon-
tal scour celerity for different wave and current conditions. Furthermore, the influence of
initial embedment on the scour celerity should be studied.
The second objective of the study was to determine the scour hole geometry, especially the
slope of a support in the direction along the pipeline axis was of interest.
delft hydraulics
2 Summary
As part of the Joint Industry Project "Pipe/Cable Burial, Phase 2", physical model tests were
carried out in the large wave flume to study the scour development along a pipeline.
2.1 Objective
The main objective of the study was as follows:
• to measure the longitudinal scour celerity for different wave and current conditions,
and for different initial embedment;
• to measure the scour hole geometry, especially the slope of span support.
2.2 Test conditions

The tests were carried out in the large wind and wave flume of DELFT HYDRAULICS, which
has a length of 100 m, a width of 8.0 m and a depth of 0.8 m. A current and regular as well
as irregular waves could be generated. The water depth in the model was 0.6 m. The peak
wave period was 3.6 s, while the wave height varied between .04 m and .20 m. The
maximum depth-averaged flow velocity in the flume was 0.20 m/s.
A steel pipe with an outer diameter of 0.114 m was used. The sediment used in the experi-
ments had a djo of 140 p m.
The main characteristics of the tests are listed below.
• Keulegan Carpenter numbers of 2.5, 7.5, 10 and 15;

• Initial embedments of 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5 times the pipe diameter;
• Pipeline angles of 90°, 60° and 30° relative to the direction of waves and current;
• Ratio’s of depth-averaged flow velocity and near-bed orbital velocity 0.2, 0.5 and
1.0;
• The effect of a spoiler was studied for 4 combinations of Keulegan Carpenter
Numbers and initial embedments.
2.3 Measurements
Wave characteristics were measured at two locations. The instantaneous velocities were
measured at four locations. In a line 8.5 m upstream of the pipe three velocity meters were
placed at 0.05 m above the bed. Furthermore, a velocity meter was placed at 7.5 cm
upstream of the pipe above the scour hole. This meter moved every 10 min along the
pipeline in order to follow the span support.
24 concentration meters were built in the wall of the pipeline at a distance of 25 cm apart
to measure the scour celerity.
At the start and at the end of each test the bed profile is measured along 4 lines parallel to
the pipeline.
delft hydraulics
2
H 1354 May 1993
Physical Model Study on Scour Development Along a Pipeline
2.4 Test results
The slope of the span support in a test is approximately constant in time. It becomes steeper
with an increase in KC and embedment e/D. However, the length of the corner area is less
dependent on KC and e/D, and has a length of approximately two times the pipe diameter.
The celerity did not vary too much in time in most tests. The celerity increases with KC and
Shields number and decreases with embedment.
The influence of the relative current strength is insignificant for ratio’s of depth-averaged
flow velocity and wave orbital velocity ranging from 0.2 to 1.
The influence of the pipe orientation on the scour celerity along the pipe is not clearly
understood. When the pipeline is not placed at 90 degrees to the flow direction the scour
celerity at both sides of the scourhole differ. For a pipeline orientation of 60 degrees the
scour celerity along the pipeline is largest in the direction of the flow. The scour celerity
along the pipe opposite to the flow direction is approximately half of the scour celerity in
the flow direction. The latter is comparable with the scour celerity along the pipeline in the
case of an orientation of the pipeline of 90 degrees.
Fo' an pipeline orientation of 30 degrees the situation changes. The scour celerity along the
pipeline opposite to the flow direction is now approximately twice the value of the scour
celerity in the flow direction. However, the scour celerity opposite to the flow direction is
less than half of the scour celerity along the pipeline in the case of a perpendicular cur-
rent/waves.
delft hydraulics
3
H 1354 May 1993
3 Model set-up
3.1 Boundary conditions
3.1.1 Scaling requirements
In order to model the scour processes along a pipeline correctly in a physical model and to
be able to study the processes, the following requirements have to be met:
1) Scour processes should be the same in model and prototype;
2) The ratio water depth over pipe diameter should be larger than 4 in order to reduce
the shallow water effect;
3) The facility should be wide enough to study the scour development along the
pipeline;
4) Visual observation of the scour process should be possible (directly or by video

recording);
5) Bed ripples should not interfere with the scour process.
The scour processes near a pipeline are dependent on the Shields number and the Keulegan
Carpenter number. The Shields number gives the relation between the wave and current
conditions and the seabed characteristics and the Keulegan Carpenter number gives the ratio
between wave amplitude near the bed and the pipe diameter. Both numbers should be in the
same range for model and prototype conditions.
3.1.2 Prototype conditions
The model study should be representative for the conditions in the Southern North Sea, since
that area is of primary interest to the JIP sponsors. The conditions to be modelled should
reflect the prototype conditions occurring in the North Sea and should be responsible for the
self-lowering of a pipeline. Since the self-lowering of a pipeline is mainly dependent on the
normal conditions including the once per year storm, these conditions should be considered.
Significant wave heights with a return period of 1 year can reach 5.0 m in the Southern
North Sea, corresponding peak periods up to 10 sec may occur. Depth averaged current in
the Southern North Sea can reach 0.75 m/s. The upper limit for the normal conditions are.
Significant wave height: 2.5 m

Peak period: 8.0 s
Flow velocity: 0.7 m/s.
The range of Shields number in prototype is from 0 to 1, while during normal conditions
the Shields number will not exceed 0.4. The Keulegan Carpenter number is dependent on
the pipe diameter. For a 4 inch pipe, values of 100 are reached during storms and values
of 30 for normal conditions. For a 42 inch pipe the values are 10 and 3 respectively.
4
delft hydraulics
3.1.3 Model conditions
Due to the three dimensional character of the experiments, the model facility should be a
basin or a wide flume. For the facilities available at DELFT HYDRAULICS waves and flow
velocities which can be generated are limited to wave height of 0.20 to 0.30 m and dis-
charges through the flume of 1 m3/s.
To derive the same range of Shields numbers in model and prototype a fine sediment is
required. However, the characteristics of the sediment should not be changed. Therefore,
the minimum sediment diameter (d^) to be used in model is 100 /xm. The sediment used in
the experiments had a d^ of 140 pm and a silt percentage smaller than 3 per cent. A sieve
curve of the sediment is given in Figure 3.1.
Also the pipe diameter has a minimum value which can be used in the model. Firstly the
bed level changes which are related to the pipe diameter should be larger than 1 cm.
Secondly, the bed ripples generated in the model should be much smaller than the pipe
diameter. Therefore, the minimum pipe diameter has been defined as 10 cm. In the experi-
ments, a steel pipe with an outer diameter of 0.114 m was used.
The scaling requirements could be met in DELFT HYDRAULICS large wind and wave flume.
The large wind and wave flume has a length of 100 m, a width of 8.0 m and a depth of 0.8
m. Over the last 30 m a current can be generated. Irregular waves can be generated with
a wave paddle. In Figure 3.2 the lay-out of the large wind and wave flume is given.
The maximum Keulegan Carpenter number which could be reached with the given pipe
diameter and with irregular waves was 10. Using regular waves the maximum value
increased to 15. For large prototype pipe diameters the total range of prototype values could
be reached, for smaller prototype pipe diameters the storm conditions could not be modelled.
The maximum Shields number which could be reached in the large wind and wave flume
was 0.3. The sheet flow regime which is present during storm conditions could not be
modelled. However, live-bed conditions were reached easily.
The water depth in the model was fixed to 0.6 m. The peak period of the wave spectrum
was set constant at 3.6 s, while the significant wave height varied between .04 and .20 m.
The maximum depth-averaged flow velocity in the flume was 0.20 m/s.
3.1.4 Scaling arguments
Comparing the model conditions with the prototype conditions we find two major differences:
• the Shields number in the model is smaller than in prototype,

• the Keulegan Carpenter number in prototype can be larger than in the model
(especially for smaller diameter pipelines).
Fredsoe (1992) found from several experimental data sets that the time scale of the scour
process below pipelines was determined by the Shields number. For current only, as well
as for combined waves and currents the Shields number was found to be the governing
parameter.
delft hydraulics 5
Fredsee further found that the equilibrium scour depth was not related to the Shields number.
For current only a constant equilibrium scour depth of 60% of the pipe diameter was found,
whereas for waves the equilibrium scour depth was closely related to the Keulegan Carpenter
number.
From the study of Fredsoe the conclusion can be reached that a reduced Shields number will
only affect the time scale of the scour process below a pipeline. A prediction of this scale
effect can be made using the derived relation for the time scale by Fredsoe.
The effect of a smaller Keulegan Carpenter number in the model can not be given explicitely.
The scouring below a pipeline is caused by the disturbance of the flow by the pipe. Since
the Keulegan Carpenter is the ratio between the water particle excursion near the bed and
the pipe diameter, this parameter seems an adequate measure for the influence of the flow
disturbance.
Sumer and Fredsoe (1990) have derived a relation between equilibrium scour depth and
Keulegan Carpenter number. Their test results showed a very good correlation between both
parameters. Roughness changes and changes of Shields parameter did not have any signifi-
cant effects on the equilibrium scour depth. This indicates that the Keulegan Carpenter
number is indeed a good parameter for the flow disturbance and/or scour below the pipeline.
The relation of Sumer and Fredsoe (1990) was verified for Keulegan Carpenter numbers up
to 100 and even some results for Keulegan Carpenter number of 1.106 (tidal flow). At least
up to Keulegan Carpenter numbers up to 100 their relation seems to hold. They only verified
the relation for waves.
Since we are primary interested in wave-dominant conditions, the results of Sumer and
Fredsoe may be applied. This means that an extrapolation can be made for larger Keulegan
Carpenter numbers.
Finally it is noted that for model studies of scour development it is proven that the grainsize
diameter (or Shields number) has only an effect on the time scale of the process and not on
the geometry.
3.2 Test programme
The objective of the 3D scour development tests was to study the scour processes along the
pipeline. Since the processes were relatively unknown at the start of the study, it was decided
to study first the effect of
• the Keulegan Carpenter Number

• the initial embedment
• the pipeline angle relative to the wave and current direction
• the ratio between depth-averaged current and near-bed orbital velocity
• a spoiler.
delft hydraulics
6
The final test programme consisted of 21 tests. The test programme is given in Table 3.1.
Tests were executed with
• Keulegan Carpenter numbers of 2.5, 7.5, 10 and 15;

• Initial embedments of .1, .25 and .5 times the pipe diameter;
• Pipeline angles of 90°, 60° and 30° relative to the wave and current direction;
• Ratio’s of depth-averaged flow velocity and near-bed orbital velocity 0.2, 0.5 and
1.0.
Furthermore, the effect of a spoiler was studied for 4 combinations of Keulegan Carpenter
Number and initial embedment.
3.3 Instrumentation
3.3.1 Wave height meters
All measurement positions are shown in Fig. 3.3 and 3.4. Two wave height meters were
used. One was located approximately 10 m upstream of the current inflow section, while
the second was placed at 9.6 m upstream of the pipe.
The wave height meters measure the water level as a function of time. From these signals
the wave spectrum as well as the water depth could be derived.
3.3.2 Current meters
The instantaneous velocities were measured at four locations. In a line 4.5 m upstream of
the pipe three velocity meters were placed at 0.05 m above the bed. Furthermore, one
velocity meter was placed near the scour hole. This meter moved every 10 min along the
pipe axis when the scour hole progressed along the pipe. The exact location was recorded
in time.
The velocity meters used were the four quadrant electromagnetic liquid velocity meter (EMS).
The EMS can measure the velocity in two perpendicular directions simultaneously. Further-
more, the EMS is not influenced by the sediment concentration and can therefore be used
close to the bed. The sample frequency of the EMS is 25 Hz.
From the measured signal velocity spectra and time-averaged horizontal flow velocities were
perpendicular and parrallel to the flume axis.
3.3.3 Scour celerity meter
To measure the scour celerity 24 concentration meters were built in the wall of the pipeline
at a distance of 25 cm. With these concentration meters the presence of sediment underneath
the pipe could be detected.
delft hydraulics 7
The presence of sediment (or roughly the concentration) was measured by the conductivity
of the medium directly between the sensors. For clear water the voltage over the sensors
was 6 volt, while the voltage over the sensor in case of a sediment bed was 0 volt.
All 24 concentration meters were sampled 2 times every second. When the scour hole passed
one of the concentration meters the voltage increased from 0 to 6 volt within approximately
one minute. The one minute interval will result in an error of 6 per cent. However, the
increase in voltage during the passage of the scour hole was very similar for all passages.
The difference in time span of exceeding the 2, 3 or 5 Volt default values was maximum
10 seconds, reducing the error to less than 1 per cent. The elapsed time between the pass
of the scour hole of two succeeding meters will give the scour celerity.
3.3.4 Sounding
At the start and at the end of each test the bed profile was measured along 4 lines. The first
line was located one and a half pipe diameter upstream of the centre of the pipe. The second
line was at the upstream side of the pipe (+1 cm), the third line at the downstream side
of the pipe (- 1 cm) and the last line one and a half pipe diameter downstream of the centre
of the pipe. In Figure 3.3 the sounding lines are given.
For most tests the second and third line were also sounded halfway of the test. The test as
stopped to measure both lines.
The bed levels were measured with a distance of 0.2 m parallel to the pipe. The slope of
the scour hole parallel to the pipe was measured with a distance of 0.05 m for lines 2 and 3.
From the soundings near the pipe the geometry of the scour hole was derived.
3.3.5 Video recording
During the testing video recordings of the scour process were made with a submerged video
camera. The camera was pointed under an angle, the horizontal distance between the pipe
and the video camera was kept constant. The video was moved manually when the scour
hole had moved outside the reach of the camera.
One point-light was placed above the pipe, in order to create a sharp shadow of the pipe.
From this shadow the slope of the scour hole as well as the scour depth was derived.
A timer was connected to the video recorder. Therefore, also the scour celerity could be
derived from the video recordings.
The scour celerity measurements to both sides showed similar celerities. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the interference of the submerged video was negligible.
3.3.6 Photographs
During each test a photograph was taken of the lay-out of the scour hole. The photo’s
showed the ripple pattern and the contours of the scour hole (see Fig. 3.5a and 3.5b).
delft hydraulics 8
4 Test execution
4.1 Test procedure
A test started with the preparation of the sediment bed. This preparation consisted of refilling
the scour hole of the previous test, compressing the sediment bed. The compressing of the
sediment could be measured with the concentration meters underneath the pipe. The compres-
sion was stopped when the concentration meters measured a voltage of less than 0.5 volt.
The sediment bed was flattened over a distance of 0.5 m at both sides of the pipe on the level
of the prescribed embedment. An artificial hole was made at the centre of the flume. This
hole was always smaller than 0.25 m, so the scour hole was not yet recorded by the concen-
tration meters.
The water level was raised up to 0.6 m above the sediment bed.
The bed profile near the pipe was measured.
The zero-calibration for the velocity meters and wave height meters was done and the
velocity meter was placed near the scour hole. The video-camera was placed in the flume
and the recording were transmitted to a screen to monitor the scour hole.
The current was generated and allowed some five minutes to settle. During this period no
significant movement of sediment could be observed on the screen. After these five minutes
the wave generator was started. On the moment the first wave arrived at the location of the
pipe the data collection was started and simultaneously the timer of the video recorder was
started.
The scour hole was monitored by the video as well as the concentration meters. The video
camera was moved in steps as soon as the scour hole was migrated out of the reach of the
camera.
When the scour hole was progressing slowly the video recording on tape were stopped, while
the transmission to the screen was not interrupted.
After 20 minutes the data collection of the wave height meters and the velocity meters was
stopped, since the model conditions were cyclic with a period of 5 minutes. After this 20
minutes data was only collected from the velocity meter near the scour hole. Data was
collected for a period of 5 minutes, after which the meter could be relocated near the slope
of the scour hole again. The location of this velocity meter was recorded in relation to the
total test time.
Dependent on the scour hole migration the test was stopped after 30 to 90 minutes. The bed
profile was measured in sounding lines 2 and 3. Also a detailed sounding near both ends of
the scour hole was performed.
After the sounding the test was continued in the same way as it was started. The test time
continued at the arrival of the first wave at the pipe location. The test was stopped when the
scour hole reached the end of the test section or after a period of 3 to 4 hours depending
on the number of scour celerity measurements.
delft hydraulics 9
After a test the bed level was measured in the four sounding lines. Both ends of the scour
hole were measured in detail for the sounding lines 2 and 3.
The water level was slowly lowered to approximately 0.1 m above the top of the pipe. The
oscillations in the flume allowed to die out and a photograph of the lay-out of the scour hole
and the ripple pattern was taken. Preparation of the next test could start now.
4.2 Observations
4.2.1 General observation on the scour process
For small velocities the scouring of the seabed underneath the pipeline is due to eddies,
which are generated at the slope. These eddies stir up clouds of sediment which are trans-
ported away from the pipe. For larger velocities the generation of eddies is more frequent
and sediment is also transported through the scour hole. For the largest velocities, which
could be generated in the flume, larger clouds of sediment were transported from underneath
the pipe almost continuously. No visual observation of the scour process was then possible.
The scour hole underneath the pipe had a distinct geometry. At the support of the free span
the scour hole was wider and deeper than at the centre of the span, see Figure 4.1. Fur-
thermore, the scour hole was located very close to the pipe. In most of the tests the distance
between sediment bed and pipe was approximately 2 cm (a width of a finger).
When the pipe was placed with an angle of 30° and 60° relative to the direction of wave
propagation and flow direction, ripples were generated against the pipe. The distance between
pipe and seabed was influenced by the ripples. It seemed that the scour hole became
shallower.
For the tests with the highest flow velocities, scouring downstream of the pipe could be
observed. In test P915025 the scour profile was measured, see Figure 4.2. Downstream of
the pipe an erosion of 1.5 to 2.0 cm of the sediment bed could be observed.
4.2.2 Dye injections
For the tests P307510, P310010. P607510 and P610010 dye was injected to study the flow
pattern near the scour hole. The dispersion of the dye was monitored visually. The observa-
tions were made for each test. Since the transport patterns for P307510 and P310010 as well
as those for P607510 and P610010 were very similar they are described together.
P307510 and P310010
By tests P307510 and P310010 the pipeline was placed with an orientation of 30° relative
to the flume axis.
Dye was injected at different locations relative to the scour hole. Independent of the locations
the dye was transported over the pipe when injected at a level above half of the pipe
diameter.
delft hydraulics 10
H 1354 May 1993
Injection directly adjacent to the pipe upstream of the scour hole and below the center of
the pipe resulted in transport through the scour hole. When the dye was injected along the
scour hole approximately 0.5 times the pipe diameter away of the pipe, then only a small
portion of the dye was transported through the scour hole. Most of the dye was transported
some 0.5 m along the pipe, before washing over the pipe. When the dye was injected at the
downstream and of the scour hole directly adjacent to the pipe, then all dye was initially
transported along the pipe.
P607510 and P610010
For tests P607510 and P610010 the pipe was placed at an angle of 60° relative to the flume
axis. Again dye was injected at different location relative to the scour hole. Independent of
the location the dye was transported over the pipe when injected at a level above half of the
pipe diameter.
Injection directly adjacent to the pipe but upstream of the scour hole resulted in transport
over the pipe and along the pipe. The portion which was transported along the pipe was
eventually transported through the scour hole. When the dye was injected approximately 0.5
times the pipe diameter away from the pipe at the location of the scour hole half of the dye
was transported through the scour hole and half of it along the pipe. The portion which was
directed along the pipe was transported over the pipe within 0.5 m. Injection of dye at the
downstream end of the scour hole resulted in dye transport over and along the pipe.
ii
delft hydraulics
5 Test results
The test results are presented in this chapter. The topics covered include:
• Test conditions
• Geometry of scour hole
• Longitudinal scour celerity
5.1 Test conditions
The representative flow conditions for each test are discussed in this section.
During each test, a number of parameters was measured, which are described below.
Three velocity meters, located upstream of the pipeline, gave the orbital velocities at 5 cm
above the bottom. Analysis to these velocity measurements results in the following parame-
ters:
Uc = significant crest velocity, the maximum velocity in the wave direction

Ut = significant trough velocity, the maximum velocity opposite to the wave
direction
Tp = wave period, spectrum peak period
The measued results are listed in Table 5.1.
With Uc and U„ the near-bed maximum orbital velocity is obtained from:
u U;
U . =
The depth-averaged current velocities, denoted by , were measured at the beginning
stage of the experiments (in the absence of the pipeline). The magnitude of for each
test can also be found in Table 5.1.
In addition to the velocity measurements, wave characteristics were measured with two wave
gauges (see Fig. 3.4). They measured wave heights as well as wave periods both in the case
of waves alone and in the case of waves and current. The results are listed in Table 5.1.
However, these measurement data were not used directly in the analysis. Instead, the wave
period was taken from the velocity measurement (averages of the measurements from the
three velocity meters). The wave height (if needed in any calculation) was calculated from
a given set of Uw, Tp and water depth (h = 0.6 m).
The wave and current conditions of each test were described by Uw, Tp and . These
parameters are given in Table 5.2a. In Table 5.2b the near-bed current velocities (5 cm
above the bed) are listed. These velocities are the average of the three velocity measurements
upstream of the pipe.
delft hydraulics
12
The near-bed orbital velocities are also listed in Table 5.2b. These velocities were calculated
from the measured signal using spectrum analysis.
The Keulegan-Carpenter (KC) parameter is defined as:
U *T_
KC =
D
where
D = pipe diameter [m]

Uw = significant orbital velocity at 5 cm above the bed [m/s]
Tp = peak period [s]
A method suggested by Van Rijn (1989) is applied to calculated the Shields parameters,
which is further decomposed into a current-related part and a wave-related part. In the
calculation, bed roughness for waves and for currents are assumed to be 0.04 m. This was
based on the measured magnitude of bed forms (ripple height varies between 0.01 m to
0.02 m).
The KC and Shields parameters are listed in Table 5.3.
5.2 Geometry of scour hole
A set of plots is made in Fig. 5.1a through Fig. 5.2f, which shows the bottom profiles and
support slopes at different stages of a test.
With these bottom profile measurements, the geometry of the scour hole can be roughly
described. A distinction is made below between transverse (2D) scour hole geometry and
longitudinal (3D) geometry. Typical parameters, describing the scour hole geometry, are
shown in Fig. 5.3a through Fig. 5.3c.
5.2.1 Transverse (2D) scour hole geometry
The transverse (2D) scour hole geometry can be characterized by the following parameters:
• Equilibrium scour depth, S

• Extent in the upstream direction, L,,
• Extent in the downstream direction, Ld
In this study, S, L,, and Ld were determined by the measurements of the four bottom profiles.
These measurements yield four points along the transverse scour hole. Then S, and Ld
were obtained by fitting a curve through the four points.
After obtaining S, Lu and Ld, the area of the transverse scour hole is computed as follows:
K = | S(L„ . Ld)
delft hydraulics
13
H 1354 May 1993
where
A,. = area of transverse scour hole [m2]

S = equilibrium scour depth [m]
Lu = upstream extent of scour hole [m]
Ld = downstream extent of scour hole [m]
The magnitudes of S, Lu, Ld and Ae are given in Table 5.4. In Fig 5.4a through Fig. 5.4d,
they were plotted as a function of KC parameter for different embedments. A general trend
can be noted: these parameters increase with KC and embedment e/D.
5.2.2 Longitudinal (3D) geometry
The longitudinal (3D) geometry scour hole geometry can be characterized by the following
parameters:
• Equilibrium scour depth, S

• Slope index: P
The slope index P is defined as the horizontal length of the comer area divided by the scour
depth S (see also Fig. 5.3b).
During each test, the support slopes were measured along two line just beside the pipeline
(see Fig. 3.3 lines 2 and 3). It was found that the slope in a test was approximately constant
in time.
However, the slope measured at the downstream side of the pipe (along line 3) is usually
steeper than at the upstream side (along line 2). The difference in the two slopes, decreases
with KC parameter and also with the presence of a spoiler.
The measured slopes are given in Table 5.4. The slopes and the length of the corner area
are shown in Fig. 5.5a and Fig. 5.5b as a function of KC parameter for different
embedments. A general trend can be noted: P decreases with KC and embedment e/D. Lc
decreases slightly with KC. An average value of 4 is approximately two times the pipe
diameter.
5.3 Longitudinal scour celerity
The span length as a function of time was measured in each test. Consequently the scour
celerity as a function of time can be obtained.
In Fig. 5.6a through Fig. 5.7d, an example of the measured results was given. It was found
that the celerity does not vary too much in time in most of tests. The averaged celerities are
listed in Table 5.5.
delft hydraulics
14
Dependence on KC and e/D
In Fig. 5.7a through Fig. 5.7f, the measured celerities are plotted as functions of KC, Shields
number and embedment. A general trend is that the celerity increases with KC and Shields
number and deceases with embedment.
In Fig. 5.7g, the magnitude of span celerity multiplied by e/D is plotted as a function of KC.
An emperical relation was found, which reads:
_ 1.25 x IQ"4 KC3

s e/D
where
Cs = scour celerity along pipe axis [m/h]

KC = Keulegan Carpenter number [-]
e/D = relative embedment [-]
This relation is non-dimensionless and purely empirical, which holds probably only under
the present test conditions.
Dependence on relative current strength
In Fig. 5.7h, the celerity was plotted for varying relative current strengths but under the
same wave condition (KC = 7). It can be seen that the influence of the relative current
strength is insignificant in the range tested (0 - 1).
Dependence on pipeline orientation
In Fig. 5.7i and Fig. 5.7j, the scour celerity was plotted for different pipeline orientations
but for approximately the same wave condition (KC = 7 and 10). It can be seen that in the
case of 60 degrees, the scour celerity along the pipeline in the flow direction is larger than
the scour celerity opposite to the flow direction. However, in the case of 30 degrees, the
scour celerity along the pipeline opposite to the flow direction is larger.
In Section 4.2.2 it was also noted by the dye injections that for a pipe orientation of 30
degrees with respect to the flow direction (tests P307510 and P310010) dye was transported
through the scourhole when released upstream of the scourhole. For a pipe orientation of
60 degrees with respect to the flow direction this was only partly the case.
For 30 degrees pipeline orientation the flow through the scourhole is larger compared with
the flow along the pipe. This is also noticed in the scour celerities: scour celerities along
the pipeline opposite to the flow direction is larger.
A possible explanation might be the larger effect of refraction of the waves over the pipeline
for the pipeline orientation of 30 degrees. Due to the larger refraction the flow under the
pipeline is more reduced giving larger gradients.
delft hydraulics
15
It is noted that the absolute value of the scour celerity along the pipe is decreasing, this is
most probably caused by the larger sediment volume to be scoured, as the angle between
support and pipeline orientation is no longer 90 degrees.
16
delft hydraulics
6 Analysis to test results
The test results are further analyzed in this chapter. The topics covered include:
• Critical conditions for longitudinal erosion

• Sediment transport at the span support
• Set-up of model for the scour celerity prediction
6.1 Critical conditions for longitudinal erosion

As stated in Chapter 5, the longitudinal scour celerity decreases with embedment (see Fig.
5.7c). This means that under a specific flow condition (e.g. a given KC parameter), there
is a critical embedment where the longitudinal erosion stops (i.e., zero celerity).
The critical embedment for a specific KC, can be estimated by fitting a line through the
measurement points, extrapolating the line across the zero celerity axis in Fig. 5.7c.
In Fig. 6.1a and Fig. 6.1b, the critical embedment is plotted against KC parameter. For
comparison, the critical conditions for 2D scour is shown. The following relations can be
applied:
For 2D scour (after Summer and Fredsê (1991)):
- = 0.1 InKC
D
For longitudinal scour (3D provoked):
— = 0.25 InKC
D
6.2 Sediment transport computation
In the following paragraphs, the sediment transport rates at the comer of the span support
are calculated from the measured data.
The sand volume eroded at one support can be expressed as:
AV = (l-p)AeCsAt
where
AV = volume change at support [m3]

p = porosity [-]
Ac = area of transvers scour hole [m2]
Cs = scour celerity along pipe axis [m/s]
At = time interval [s]
17
delft hydraulics
The sediment transport rate per unit of length along the pipeline is then given by:
(1-P) AeCs
H
ps
where
Aq = increase in transport rate near free span support [m3/ms]

P = slope of scour hole along pipe axis [-]
S = equilibrium scour depth [m]
This transport rate is in fact the increase in the transport rate due to the presence of the
pipeline. If we assume q0 to be the transport rate in the absence of the pipeline, then the
actual transport rate at the support is:
qj = Aq + qo
Given the measurement data of the scour hole geometry and scour celerity, the magnitude
of Aq was calculated. The results are listed in Table 6.1. In Fig. 6.2a through Fig. 6.2c,
plots were made to show the transport rate Aq as function of KC and Shields number.
6.3 Model set-up
The objective of this section is to set up a model to predict scour celerity with given wave
and current conditions.
The model is based on the mass conservation equation (see Hansen et al (1991)), which can
be written as:
(l-p)AeC,
*i - q, - 4, - —
where:
q, = transport rate in the corner of the free span
q0 = transport rate upstream of pipeline
q0 can be obtained from the given environment conditions (this will be further discussed in
Section 6.4). In the model it is assumed that the transport rate in the corner can be related
to q0 with the help of the a coefficient:
qi = f (a)q0
where:
f( a) = function of a
This assumption means that the bed shear stress in the support corner is a times as large
as for the undisturbed situation.
18
delft hydraulics
H 1354 May 1993
The exact form of a will be discussed in Section 6.4. The magnitude of a can be calibrated
by the experimental results.
A diagram is made in Fig. 6.3 to show how the model runs.
6.4 Model calibration
In this section the a value will be calculated from the test results.
First the transport rate upstream of pipeline q0 will be estimated. This transport rate can be
calculated with the formula suggested by Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948).
^ = g^s-i) g4 (e-Scr)1-5
where:
q0 = transport rate upstream of pipeline [m3/ms]

s = relative sediment density [-]
g = acceleration of gravity [m2/s]
djo = sand diameter [m]
0 = Shields number [-]
0or = critical Shields number [-]
The formula of Meyer-Peter and Muller (1948) was originally developed for steady flow
condition. However, we apply this formula also in combined wave current condition with
a modified Shields number which takes both waves and currents effect into account.
The Shields number due to combined waves and currents is expressed as:
pg(s-l)d50
where:
p = density of fluid [kg/m3]

x = effective bed shear stress due to combined waves and currents [N/m2]
CW
The effective bed shear stress is calculated from:
where:
-c c,en„ = effective bed shear stress due to currents

x w,eit
„ = effective, bed shear stress due to waves
19
delft hydraulics
The effective bed shear stresses can be calculated with the method suggested by Van Rijn
(1989).
A basic assumption used in the model is that the transport rate below the pipeline can be
expressed similarly as the q0 expression with the help of the a coefficient:
q, = 8y(s-l)gd503(a6-ea)15
where:
q, = transport rate in the comer

a = coefficient, larger than 1
Generally, a depends on the flow conditions (e.g. KC number) as well as pipe embedment
e/D. In order to determine the magnitude of a , the following parameters should be known:
• the increase in transport rates q, - q0

• the scour hole geometry, which gives A,.
• measured scour celerity, Cs
The results are given in Table 6.1. In Fig. 6.4a and Fig. 6.4b, the magnitude of a is plotted
as functions of e/D and KC. It can be seen that a increases with KC and decreases with
embedment.
delft hydraulics
20
H 1354 May 1993
7 Conclusions and recommendations
7.1 Summary of test results
Physical model tests were carried out in the large wave flume at DELFT HYDRAULICS to study
the longitudinal scour development along a pipeline. Measurements of 3D scour hole
geometry as well as longitudinal scour celerity revealed the following aspects:
• The slope of the span support is approximately constant during the development of
a span. The longitudinal length of the support comer area is approximately 2 times
of pipe diameter.
• The scour celerity increases with KC and decreases with embedment. A spoiler on
the top of a pipeline accelerates the scour process.
7.2 Major limitations of the test data
The flow conditions in the present tests did not cover current-dominated environment. The
maximum near-bed current velocity was approximately one third of wave orbital velocity.
Tunnel erosion is a dominant process during the tests. Leeside erosion is insignificant.
7.3 Recommendation
The test data should be compared with those obtained from the 2D tests carried out at DHI
under comparable hydraulic conditions. A new framework to describe the process of the self-
lowering of a pipeline should be built up. The present test data can then be further examined
in this framework and applied in a new model according to this framework.
21
delft hydraulics
References
Fredsee, J., Summer, B.M. and Arnskov, M.M. (1990). Time scale for wave/current scour below pipelines.
International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Hansen, E.A., Staub, C., Fredsê, J. and Summer, B.M. (1991). Time development of scour induced free spans
below pipelines. Int. Symp. Offshore Mechanics and Artie Engineering, Stavanger, Norway. Vol. V,
pp. 25-32.
Meyer-Peter, E. and R. Muller (1948). Formulation for bed-load transport, Proc 3rd Meet. Int. Ass. Hydr. Res.
Stockholm.
Rijn, L.C. van (1989). Handbook sediment transport by currents and waves, Report H461, DELFT HYDRAULICS.
Sumer, B.M. and Fredsoe, J. (1991). "Onset of scour below pipelines exposed to waves”. Proc. first Interna-
tional Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Edinburgh, U.K., Vol. 2, pp. 290-295.
delft hydraulics Ref. - 1

TEST KC e/D phi /Uw Shields remarks
number
P902510 2.5 0.10 90 0.50 0.04

P907510 7.5 0.10 90 0.50 0.15
P910010 10.0 0.10 90 0.50 0.21
P915010 15.0 0.10 90 0.50 0.31 regular waves
P907525 7.5 0.25 90 0.50 0.15

P910025 10.0 0.25 90 0.50 0.21
P915025 15.0 0.25 90 0.50 0.31 regular waves
P910050 10.0 0.50 90 0.50 0.21

P915050 15.0 0.50 90 0.50 0.31 regular waves
S902510 2.5 0.10 90 0.50 0.04 spoiler

S910010 10.0 0.10 90 0.50 0.21 spoiler
S907525 7.5 0.25 90 0.50 0.15 spoiler
S910025 10.0 0.25 90 0.50 0.21 spoiler
P307510 7.5 0.10 30 0.50 0.15

P310010 10.0 0.10 30 0.50 0.21
P607510 7.5 0.10 60 0.50 0.15
P610010 10.0 0.10 60 0.50 0.21
P907511 7.5 0.10 90 0.25 0.15

P907512 7.5 0.10 90 0.50 0.15
P907513 7.5 0.10 90 0.75 0.15
P907515 7.5 0.10 90 1.00 0.15

Uw = near-bed wave orbital velocity
phi = pipe orientation with respect to the flow direction
Table 3.1 Test programme 3D-scour

TEST Hsw Tpw Hscw Tpcw Tp Uc Ut e/D phi
m s m s s m/s m/s m/s
P902510 0.037 3.53 0.034 3.53 3.56 0.070 0.070 0.037 0.10 90
P907510 0.103 3.60 0.091 3.78 3.56 0.189 0.189 0.110 0.10 90
P910010 0.136 3.56 0.119 3.90 3.56 0.280 0.250 0.140 0.10 90
P915010 0.171 3.56 0.075 3.56 3.56 0.400 0.360 0.182 0.10 90
P907525 0.116 3.56 0.101 3.90 3.56 0.204 0.180 0.110 0.25 90
P910025 0.157 3.56 0.138 3.80 3.56 0.305 0.250 0.140 0.25 90
P915025 0.240 3.56 0.138 3.56 3.56 0.400 0.360 0.182 0.25 90
P910050 0.163 3.63 0.140 3.56 3.70 0.290 0.250 0.143 0.50 90
P915050 0.145 3.60 0.213 3.59 3.60 0.388 0.350 0.182 0.50 90
S902510 0.041 3.56 0.036 3.72 3.56 0.070 0.070 0.037 0.10 90
S910010 0.139 3.56 0.119 3.90 3.56 0.255 0.220 0.140 0.10 90
S907525 0.100 3.56 0.090 3.90 3.56 0.185 0.170 0.110 0.25 90
S910025 0.160 3.61 0.134 3.81 3.63 0.300 0.250 0.140 0.25 90
P307510 0.121 3.56 0.108 3.56 3.56 0.215 0.185 0.110 0.10 30
P310010 0.165 3.56 0.146 3.56 3.56 0.270 0.220 0.140 0.10 30
P607510 0.121 3.56 0.107 3.56 3.67 0.235 0.225 0.110 0.10 60
P610010 0.165 3.61 0.146 3.59 3.69 0.300 0.255 0.140 0.10 60
P907511 0.103 3.59 0.095 3.57 3.69 0.195 0.180 0.037 0.10 90
P907512 0.103 3.60 0.091 3.56 3.68 0.190 0.180 0.110 0.10 90
P907513 0.100 3.61 0.089 3.56 3.70 0.195 0.175 0.140 0.10 90
P907515 0.101 3.59 0.087 3.56 3.70 0.190 0.180 0.182 0.10 90
Hsw = wave height measured in the case of waves alone

Tpw = wave period measured in the case of waves alone
Hscw = wave height measured in the case of waves and current
Tpcw - wave period measured in the case of waves and current
Uc crest velocity
Ut trough velocity
^ - depth-averaged current velocity
phi pipe orientation with respect to the flow direction
J pipe diameter
Table 5.1 Measured wave and current parameters

TEST Uc Ut Uw Hs Tp 
m/s m/s m/s m s m/s
P902510 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.037 3.56 0.037

P907510 0.189 0.189 0.189 0.100 3.56 0.110
P910010 0.280 0.250 0.265 0.140 3.56 0.140
P915010 0.400 0.360 0.381 0.201 3.56 0.182
P907525 0.204 0.180 0.191 0.101 3.56 0.110

P910025 0.305 0.250 0.278 0.147 3.56 0.140
P915025 0.400 0.360 0.381 0.201 3.56 0.182
P910050 0.290 0.250 0.271 0.143 3.70 0.140

P915050 0.388 0.350 0.370 0.195 3.60 0.182
S902510 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.037 3.56 0.037

S910010 0.255 0.220 0.239 0.126 3.56 0.140
S907525 0.185 0.170 0.178 0.094 3.56 0.110
S910025 0.300 0.250 0.277 0.146 3.63 0.140
P307510 0.215 0.185 0.201 0.106 3.56 0.110

P310010 0.270 0.220 0.246 0.130 3.56 0.140
P607510 0.235 0.225 0.230 0.121 3.67 0.110
P610010 0.300 0.255 0.280 0.147 3.69 0.140
P907511 0.195 0.180 0.190 0.100 3.69 0.037

P907512 0.190 0.180 0.190 0.100 3.68 0.110
P907513 0.195 0.175 0.190 0.100 3.70 0.140
P907515 0.190 0.180 0.190 0.100 3.70 0.182
Uc = crest velocity
Ut = trough velocity
Uw = near-bed wave orbital velocity, calculated from Uc and Ut
Hs = wave height calculated from Uw, h(=0.6 m) and Tp
Table 5.2a Representative flow conditions for each test

Test z <Uz> Us <Uz>/Us
m m/s m/s
P902510 ,05 .014

P907510 .05 .039 .187 .209
P910010 .05 .052 .255 .204
P915010 .50 .235 .454 .518
P907525 .05 .051 .179 ,285

P910025 .05 .064 .277 ,231
P915025 .05 .077 .442 ,174
P910050 .05 .071 .268 .265

P915050 .05 .070 .415 .169
S902510 .50 .043 .083 .518

S910010 .05 .055 .274 .201
S907525 .05 .051 .197 .259
S910025 .05 .067 .275 .244
P907511 .05 .009 .211 .043

P907515 .05 .096 .270 .356
P907513 .05 .065 .230 .283
P907512 .05 .045 .284 .158
P307510 .05 .061 .194 .314

P310010 .05 .058 .189 .307
P607510 .05 .036 .187 .193
P610010 .05 .053 .182 .291
z = height
<Uz> = current velocity at height z above the bed
Us = wave orbital velocity at height z above the bed, calculated from the
spectrum analysis
Remarks: P915010 and S902510: the velocity meters were located at 50 cm

above the bed; no measurement near the bed.
Table 5.2b Near-bed current velocities

TEST XO fw fc Shields parameter KC
m c w cw
P902510 0.040 0.300 0.047 40.6 0.000 0.028 0.028 2.5

P907510 0.107 0.185 0.047 40.6 0.005 0.124 0.129 6.7
P910010 0.150 0.141 0.047 40.6 0.008 0.186 0.194 9.4
P915010 0.216 0.108 0.047 40.6 0.015 0.293 0.308 13.6
P907525 0.108 0.183 0.047 40.6 0.005 0.125 0.130 6.8

P910025 0.158 0.136 0.047 40.6 0.008 0.197 0.205 9.9
P915025 0.216 0.108 0.047 40.6 0.015 0.293 0.308 13.6
P910050 0.160 0.135 0.047 40.6 0.008 0.186 0.195 10.1

P915050 0.212 0.110 0.047 40.6 0.015 0.280 0.295 13.3
S902510 0.040 0.300 0.047 40.6 0.000 0.028 0.028 2.5

S910010 0.135 0.153 0.047 40.6 0.009 0.163 0.172 8.5
S907525 0.101 0.194 0.047 40.6 0.005 0.115 0.120 6.3
S910025 0.160 0.135 0.047 40.6 0.008 0.193 0.201 10.1
P307510 0.114 0.176 0.047 40.6 0.005 0.133 0.137 7.1

P310010 0.139 0.150 0.047 40.6 0.009 0.170 0.178 8.8
P607510 0.134 0.154 0.047 40.6 0.004 0.153 0.157 8.4
P610010 0.164 0.132 0.047 40.6 0.008 0.193 0.201 10.3
P907511 0.112 0.179 0.047 40.6 0.000 0.121 0.121 7.0

P907512 0.111 0.179 0.047 40.6 0.005 0.121 0.126 7.0
P907513 0.112 0.178 0.047 40.6 0.010 0.121 0.131 7.0
P907515 0.112 0.178 0.047 40.6 0.020 0.121 0.141 7.0
XO = amplitude of near-bed excursion

fw = wave-related friction factor
fc = current-related friction factor
C = Chezy coeefficient
c = current related
w = wave related
cw = combined current and wave related
Table 5.3 Characteristic parameters calculated with Van Rijn method

TEST e/D s/D Lu/D Ld/D beta
P907510 0.10 0.27 1.0 1.5 9.0

P910010 0.10 0.32 1.5 2.5 6.0
P915010 0.10 0.35 2.0 3.0 5.0
P907525 0.25 0.33 0.8 1.2 5.8

P910025 0.25 0.40 1.0 1.7 4.2
P915025 0.25 0.48 1.5 2.5 3.0
P910050 0.50 0.60 1.8 1.8 3.2

P915050 0.50 0.65 2.1 2.5 2.8
S902510 0.10 0.15 0.8 1.0 9.0

S910010 0.10 0.45 1.7 2.8 6.2
S907525 0.25 0.55 1.7 3.0 4.3
S910025 0.25 0.60 2.5 3.8 2.6
P907511 0.10 0.30 0.8 1.2 8.0

P907515 0.10 0.22 0.8 2.0 8.0
Table 5.4 Geometry of scour hole

TEST Shields parameter KC e/D phi celerity (m/h)
cw mean down- up-
stream stream
P902510 0.000 0.028 0.028 2.5 0.10 90 .06

P907510 0.005 0.124 0.129 6.7 0.10 90 .56
P910010 0.008 0.186 0.194 9.4 0.10 90 .83
P915010 0.015 0.293 0.308 13.6 0.10 90 4.12
P907525 0.005 0.125 0.130 6.8 0.25 90 .32

P910025 0.008 0.197 0.205 9.9 0.25 90 .65
P915025 0.015 0.293 0.308 13.6 0.25 90 2.39
P910050 0.008 0.186 0.195 10.1 0.50 90 .22

P915050 0.015 0.280 0.295 13.3 0.50 90 1.10
S902510 0.000 0.028 0.028 2.5 0.10 90 .09

S910010 0.009 0.163 0.172 8.5 0.10 90 1.73
S907525 0.005 0.115 0.120 6.3 0.25 90 .57
S910025 0.008 0.193 0.201 10.1 0.25 90 1.42
0.005 0.133 0.137 7.1 0.10 30 .15 .08 .22

P307510
0.009 0.170 0.178 8.8 0.10 30 .25 .18 .33
P310010
0.004 0.153 0.157 8.4 0.10 60 .80 1.05 .54
P607510
0.008 0.193 0.201 10.3 0.10 60 .38 .51 .25
P610010
P907511 0.000 0.121 0.121 7.0 0.10 90 .45

P907512 0.005 0.121 0.126 7.0 0.10 90 .37
P907513 0.010 0.121 0.131 7.0 0.10 90 .38
P907515 0.020 0.121 0.141 7.0 0.10 90 .40
Table 5.5 Measured span celerities

Test e/D KC Ae Lc ql-qO qO alpha
m2 m m3/ms m3/ms
E- 6 E-6
P907510 0.10 6.7 .00338 .2430 1.296 1.252 1.385

0.10 9.4 .00640 .1920 4.611 3.005 1.651
P910010
0.10 13.6 .00875 .1750 34.333 7.109 2.897
P915010
P907525 0.25 6.8 .00330 . 1914 .920 1.275 1.278

P910025 0.25 9.9 .00540 .1680 3.482 3.348 1.469
P915025 0.25 13.6 .00960 .1440 26.556 7.109 2.542
P910050 0.50 10.1 .01080 .1920 2.063 3.036 1.313

P915050 0.50 13.3 .01495 .1820 15.060 6.585 2.018
.00135 .1350 .167 .002 1.427

S902510 0.10 2.5
8.5 .01013 .2790 10.464 2.356 2.521
S910010 0.10
6.3 .01293 .2365 5.192 1.052 2.386
S907525 0.25
.01890 .1560 28.673 3.222 3.766
S910025 0.25 10.1
.00300 .2400 .938 1.073 1.318

P907511 0.10 7.0
7.0 .00308 .1760 1.167 1.537 1.305
P907515 0.10
Table 6.1 Results of transport calculations

•x-. E
L_
<D
(D
E
o
D
a> o
c — Ol Tl- CO
M" C3>
O T- CM
odd
o o o
E E E
E E E
co co
<71
o ro CD
^
d o o
II II
o o o
lT) CD
o X) X>
O O o o O O O O o o
cn o
CM rO M" LT) CD r- oo o
}L|6iaM ;o 95D;u30J9d
SIEVE CURVE 0E SEDIMENT
DELET HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 3.1
0)c Q)c
o3 O3
S 5
o o
0)
CL
o% OE
^ "D
\ 7"
: "O ;
:
C :
Q_ O-
(/) :
CD
Q_
CL ^
CL
E
o E °
o
S E
_t:
-bcn ov
£ -c 1
c b;
CL E S w
oq
Q;.-E
-o5 b T3 3
-
E E E E E
-E.
oo o o o o o
CM o o q o
cd o tri iri
CM <-
■3
c
o
C/1
LAYOUT OF THE LARGE. WIND WAVE FLUME
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 3.2
x/^\x//C\x^x\N<^x\x/x\x/xxNt//C\x//0\k^'x\x/'x\xl/x\N<>'x\Nt/^r\x/x\x/^\X/xxx/x\x/x\x/
pipe
8 m
1 c^m%±z
N
/C\'x^/X.X//C\X//C\X/X\X/X\ ^4XX/^\X/t<\N<//^X/^X/X\X//f\X/X\X/X\X/X\X/X\X//C\X/X\
D
1
LOCATIONS OF SOUNDING LINES

Q EMS
10 m A
upstream of video
flow entry 2 m camera
EMSO
-x * 8 m- -6
X + 12.5 cm
2 m + 37.5 cm
wave wave X
height height
meter meter X
scour
6 EMS
x< celerity
meter
X
</x\x/x\x/^x/x\x/x\x/x\x/x\x/^'' yx\x/x\x//C\\/x^ X/XWy/CvX/XXX/X
■4 m-
■9.5 m-
LOCATIONS OF ALL INSTRUMENTS

m **>
V WI
V
' "f
A. Sand bed was flatted before a test
:S*
im
ifMliraM
-r
UPMni
";
HMMHC
.#:••• >5 . -»* %

—•_r>.--: ;... iTjjJi . Jr........:
B. An example of the scour hole
SAND BED WAS FLATTENED BEFORE A TEST AND

AN EXAMPLE OF THE SCOUR HOLE
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 3.5a

y- #■
....
mmm}
, -■'£
4
S \! ^d '■
A. Bed geometry, pipeline angle = 60'
... -r
• •
ir^:
-■
nn
■ !i
■A '
ST
-? /iv
’.. . > ,î>.
MT' 6fe * -v. ...
B. Bed geometry, pipeline angle = 30’
BED GEOMETRY, PIPELINE ANGLE = 60’ AND 30’
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 3.5b

Section A-A
GEOMETRY OF SPAN SUPPORT
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 IFIG. 4.1

horizontal
10 15 distance
£
10.2 11.5 12.0 11.2 10.7 vertical
<
distance
GEOMETRY OF SCOUR, TEST P915025

oo
distance from centre of flume (m)
o
<L>
V)
O0) ^,
W (X)
rsi
in
O oo CM
II II
o o CM
□ t>
m
m
m ■
i
m
■o
3
■*-> E
V) o CM
■
3 0.
O 6
0 i— in
CO
1 o ~ CM
■
-I- ^
n II cC a
_ O) (jj <D oo
"3 Q. »- "o i i i ^ I I I T n i i r ■
in in o in o
i CM CM CO
i
BOTTOM PROFILES ALONG LINE N0.1,
TEST P910010
CO —
o<D u0> E
(/) in
9
£ r-
I/) ^ to
CM CM
lO E
O ^ CO OJ
o
o
CM
□ x o
o
V 10 g
o
o
5
lO
m
T3
E
<0 a CM
a,
o
u H Lf>
«9
■ O
g5^
£
Q.
5b S ® 9 CO
-5 0.*- i i i I rn i rn
o in o m in
CM CM CO
BOTTOM PROFILES ALONG LINE NO.2,
TEST P910010
o(D u0) " E
. V)
0) 'd- ©
^ <x> E
io? 2
C\l CN
O fO 00 CM
II II II
O
o o o ©
□ X >
V
o
“JI
©
o
s
u>
in
in
>.
T3
03 CM
0L
o 04^
■
0 t-
«o h W
1 o -
CM
i
So co
9: 5 co Q. •
«>
-> OL cd T3
i i [ r1 r i i
CO
I
i i i r I I'T IT
IO o in
CM CM CO
TEST P910010
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.1c
” E
<Do
cn
Crt to
O
CM
00
ff CM
O
lO E
©
©
O O
CM g
□ > ©
o
E
H>■ O
©
o
IO
LO
in
>» i
T3
l1
Z3
E
« CM
■
l
3 a,
o O
O t- m
03 _
' O CM
Q h i
5
o_ r: co Q.
V CO
-3 o. £ ■o i i i i TT i i i r I I TT
lO o io o ID
CM CO
CM
i
TEST P910010
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.Id
<J o ❖ fN ^
0
^ *=
O
o
VO
lO
>
in
a
>*
T3
3
*-«
CO CM
i
3 04
o o
o h
<0
■ o CM
OgcA - i
S
a.
ti S CO
v. X)
i—^—r i—i—r 1—r I
LO 1C
l CM
i
SUPPORT SLOPES ALONG LINE NO.2,
TEST P910010
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.1 e
w
U
<V
in
<J
0)
in
i
©
iO
Csl CN «i
rO 03 OJ =
II II o
o o ©
[> ❖ CSJ ^
©
2I
©
o
in
in
- in
>. i
T3
E
CM
• l
3
o O
o in
X° CM
i
Sgn
tiS Q.
V
■o 1—i—i—r 1—^^—r 1—i—r
CO
I
1—i r
LO m
CM
TEST P910010
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 EIG. 5.If
o
(D
if)
U o
<D ID
LD
o ° ” 1
«
m E
o o CM i
□ >
o
CM •
e
4»
<3
" E
^ o
- s
2
«
TJ
m
10
_ 1
>. in
T>
■*-» E
o
- 1
40
CL CM
3 1
O 6
o
«0 in m
CM CM
CO 1
0._ £
a. a> CL
A OH « O
QL W T3
I I TT 1 I I TjH I I I | I I 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 r 1
O 10 O 1C o m o
CM CM CO
1
BOTTOM PROFILES ALONG LINE N0.1,
TEST P910025
O <uu
0) cn
o O
</)0)
o in
^ in
^ o
r-
«
m E
o o o CM g
□ X >
o
CM •
u
m
E
o
i u
c:
<g
JS
x»
m
m
1
i m
■u
E
to o
*_
£L CM
3 ■
O d
o
m m
CM
co 0._ £ i
“■ OL
^ 2»S
Q- Z -D O
T 'T I I in I r i i r i i r i lit T I 'l"l' i
m o m 0
OJ CM CO
1
TEST P910025
O 0)
0) CO
.to
(1) O LD
;
CO
^ O
' 1' LD
Cl ~
O ^ E
II II II
in E
o o o CM £
□ X >
o
CM ®
u
m
^ E
o
u
T3
«
o
m
m
■o
E
<n o
Q.
O
u
m
i CM m
CM
w
o«
a sg
OL w TJ O
rn i ! I I I
in o in o in o
CM CM CO
TEST P910025
<DC/l
O O
0)lO
O) LD
O CO.
O 1- E
o
in E
o o CM £
□ I>
o
CM •
. m
TJ
E
«> o
CL CM
3
O O
o
^ m m
Q
w
o
oS
CL
Q- S£ 4>
=5 0.2 TJ
i i i i rn Mil i i rn
CO
m o m o m o
CM oi co
TEST P910025
DELET HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.2d
<J
o
<D
(DQ) (/)
o °
^ m
5 2 ”1
«
m E
o o cvi 2
o
(M •
c
u
”
^ E
o
_ u
^ c
AS
«
TJ
m
m
>. m
E - i
<n <a
CL CM
3 i
O d
o I—
in m
Q SCM - CM
n SivsW «
Q.
— S' 00 4>
“> CL 1- T> CO
i r i r i i i r n—i—r
in m o
CM
■
TEST P910025
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.2e
O 0)u
cna> cn
^ O
O LD
^ in
^ o T—
in E
cvi 2
o o
> “O’ o
<M •
u
m
1 E
o
u
c
2
«
XJ
m
o
m
r
>. m
"O
3 - i
+* E
<n
■
CVI
CL ■
O 6
o
flO m in
Q ** oi
co oS2
*“3 -c
•»
0- o> Q.
^ CO 4>
~> 0. k. TJ <o
n—r n—^—r i—i—i—r "i—i—r ■
m m 0
r-
■ CM
1
TEST P910025
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.2f
Ae
SCOUR HOLE GEOMETRY,

TRANSVERSE DIRECTION (2D)
DELET HYDRAULICS H 1354 IEIG. 5.3a

£ VVVVVVV/////
I)
^^777777777777777)
Lc = /? * S

LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (3D)

77777'
‘e

TRANSVERSE DIRECTION, TEST P910010

s/D
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
KC
p e/D-0.1 +- p e/D-0.25 p e/D-0.5
■B- s e/D-0.1 s e/D-0.25
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
S AS A FUNCTION OF KC

Lu/D
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
KC
p e/D-0.1 —p e/D-0.25 p e/D-0.5
-B- s e/D»0.1 -s e/D-0.25
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
Lu AS A FUNCTION OF KC

Ld/D
0 4 8 10 12
KC
' p e/D-0.1 ^— p e/Da0.25 p e/D-0.5
“B- s e/D-0.1 s e/D-0.25
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
Ld AS A FUNCTION OF KC

Ae (m2)
0.02
0.015
0.01 -
0.005
12
KC
— p e/D-0.1 p e/D-0.25 p e/D»0.5
■S- s e/D"0.1 s e/D-0.25
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
Ae A5 A FUNCTION OF KC
DELFT HYDRAUi ICS H 1354 FIG. 5.4d

beta
0 2 4 6 8
KC
p e/Da0.1 p e/D*0.25 p e/D-0.5
■Q- s e/D«0.1 s e/D*0.25
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
/S AS A FUNCTION OF KC
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 I FIG. 5.5a

Lc/D
3
0.5
0 4 6 8
KC
p e/D-0.1 p e/D-0.25 p e/D-0.5
□ s e/D'0.1 s e/D=0.25
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
Lr AS A FUNCTION OF KC
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 I FIG. 5.5b

LO
C\J
LO
3
O
CD
E
span length (m)
plain e/D-0.1 KC-10 (p910010)

to
o
o m
SPAN LENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF TIME,
TEST P910010
LO
CM
O
a
CL
D
CO
■i—■
O)
CD
E o
CL
CL
D
CO
CD
E ID
O
CD
CD
O
CO CD ''T CM
O
O O O O O
i—
CT>
CL
SCOUR CELERITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME,
TEST P910010
LO
CM
r
CM
LO
CD
E
LO
CM
O
LO o
D) o 0>
CL
CD
O
*
03 LO
CM
Q. 6■
CO o
O LO LO CM Q
CM LO LO
O O 0)
c
—
CL
SPAN LENGTH AS A FUNCTION OF TIME,
TEST P910025
in
7-
O
a
a
3
CO
-»->
-C
O)
0
E o
Q.
CL
D
CO
CD
— U)
CM
o
o
E in
o
O)
a.
O
LO
CD CM
0 d■
O Q
00 CD CM 0
O O O O c
0
Q.
SCOUR CELERITY AS A FUNCTION OF TIME,
TEST P910025
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.6d
celerity (m/h)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
KC
p e/D*0.1 p e/D=0.25 s e/D=0.1
-B- s e/D-0.25 p e/D-0.5
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
SCOUR CELERITY AS A FUNCTION OF KC,

LINEAR SCALES

celerity (m/h)
10
0.1
0.01
1 10 100
KC
p e/D-0.1 —^— p e/D-0.25 s e/D-0.1
-s- s e/D»0.25 p e/D=0.5
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
SCOUR CELERITY AS A FUNCTION OF KC,

LOG SCALES

celerity (m/h)
□
4
+ *■
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
e/D
KC-2.5 + KC-7.5 ^ KC-10 □ KC-15
plain pipe
SCOUR CELERITY AS A FUNCTION OF EMBEDMENT

celerity (m/h)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Shields parameter - wave

p e/D*0.1 —I— p 6/0*0.25 s e/D-0.1
-B- s e/D*0.25 p e/D-0.5
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe
SCOUR CELERITY AS A FUNCTION OF

WAVE-RELATED SHIELDS NUMBER
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7d

celerity (m/h)
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
Shields parameter - current

p e/D"0.1 p e/D-0.25 s e/D-0.1
s e/D-0.25 p e/D-0.5
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe

CURRENT-RELATED .SHIELDS NUMBER
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7e

celerity (m/h)
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Shields parameter
p e/D-0.1 —t— p e/D-0.25 s e/D-0.1
s e/D-0.25 p e/D-0.5
P: plain pipe
S: spoilered pipe

SHIELD NUMBER
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7f

celerity*e/D (m/h)
w,
*
0.1
0.01 =
0.001
10 100
KC
e/D=0.1 e/D=0.25 ^ e/D=0.5
SCOUR CELERITY * e/D VERSUS KC
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7g

celerity (m/h)
0.8
0.6
0.4 -H—
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
/Uw

RELATIVE CURRENT .STRENGTH
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7h

celerity (m/h)
0.6 KC=6.7
KC=8.4
0.4
KC=7.1
KC=8.4
0.2
KC=7.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
pipeline orientation (degree)

downstream ^ upstream

PIPELINE ORIENTATION
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7i

celerity (m/h)
1.2
KC=10.3
KC=9.4
0.8 -
0.6
KC=10.3
0.4 KC=8.8
0.2
KC = 8.8
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
pipeline orientation (degree)

downstream ^ upstream

PIPELINE ORIENTATION
DELFT HYDRAULICS H 1354 FIG. 5.7j

e/D 1
0.8
no scour
3D
provoked
0.6
7^
0.4
2D
0.2
*
scour
o
0 p 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
KC
CRITICAL EMBEDMENT VERSUS KC

LINEAR SCALES ■

e/D
osh no scour
3D provoked
0.6 -
¥
0.4
2D
0.2
scour
10 100
KC
CRITICAL EMBEDMENT VERSUS KC,

LINEAR-LOG SCALES
DELET HYDRAULICS H 1354 IEIG. 6.1b

Deel 3 002 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deel 3 002 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Test no.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

°0 TOO 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

500 1000 1500 2000 2500

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Photo Series of Time Development

Dansk Hydraulisk Insotut/Danish Hydraulic Institute

The Joint Venture DHI/DH

Physical Model Study on

W.Klomp and Z. Chen

1.1 Terms of reference 1

3.1 Boundary conditions 4

4.1 Test procedure

5.1 Test conditions ^

6 Analysis to test results 1'

6.1 Critical conditions for longitudinal erosion 12

7 Conclusions and recommendations 21

7.1 Summary of test results 21

3.1 Test programme 3D-scour

5.1 Measured wave and current parameters

6.1 Results of transport calculations

3.1 Sieve curve of sediment

4.1 Geometry of span support

5.1a Bottom profiles along line no. 1, Test P910010

List of figures (continued)

6.1a Critical embedment versus KC, linear scales

\ = area of scour hole

1.1 Terms of reference

1.2 Scope of work

2.2 Test conditions

• Keulegan Carpenter numbers of 2.5, 7.5, 10 and 15;

2.4 Test results

3.1 Boundary conditions

3.1.1 Scaling requirements

1) Scour processes should be the same in model and prototype;

4) Visual observation of the scour process should be possible (directly or by video

5) Bed ripples should not interfere with the scour process.

3.1.2 Prototype conditions

Significant wave height: 2.5 m

3.1.3 Model conditions

3.1.4 Scaling arguments

• the Shields number in the model is smaller than in prototype,

3.2 Test programme

• the Keulegan Carpenter Number

Tests were executed with

• Keulegan Carpenter numbers of 2.5, 7.5, 10 and 15;

3.3.1 Wave height meters

3.3.2 Current meters

3.3.3 Scour celerity meter

3.3.5 Video recording

4.1 Test procedure

4.2.2 Dye injections

P307510 and P310010

P607510 and P610010

5.1 Test conditions

Uc = significant crest velocity, the maximum velocity in the wave direction

The measued results are listed in Table 5.1.

With Uc and U„ the near-bed maximum orbital velocity is obtained from:

The Keulegan-Carpenter (KC) parameter is defined as: