Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of important near field processes on the source term of suspended sediments from a dredging plume caused by a trailing suction hopper dredger: the effect of dredging speed, propeller, overflow location and pulsing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Fluid Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Detailed Large Eddy Simulation (LES) results are presented on near field mixing of overflow dredging plumes generated at a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD). Special attention is given to the generation of a surface plume. A surface plume is that part of the dredging plume which separates from the main plume body and ends up near the free surface. A surface plume can stay suspended for hours and during this time it can be transported to ecological sensitive areas around a dredging site. Hence, for a correct environmental impact assessment of a dredging project with TSHD’s it is important to understand near field mixing and thus obtain a correct estimate for the source term of suspended sediments formed by the surface plume. The detailed LES are used to investigate systematically the influence of dredging speed, overflow location, propeller and pulsing frequency (caused by ship motions) on near field mixing of dredging plumes and the generation of a surface plume. LES results are validated with experimental results. The investigated variations have significant influence on the development of the dredging overflow plume in general and surface plume in particular. With normal dredging speed the surface plume varied between 0 and 2 % of the overflow flux with maximum time averaged prototype-SSC (suspended sediment concentration) levels of 1–31 mg/l at the free surface at a horizontal distance \(x/D\,=\,100\) (\(D\) is initial plume diameter). With high dredging speed the surface plume varied between 0.2 and 18 % with maximum time averaged prototype-SSC levels of 10–352 mg/l at the free surface. The large range in surface plume percentage indicates the importance of detailed near field modelling including all significant processes for a correct estimate of the source term of suspended sediment from a dredging plume. All results are obtained without influence of a bed, hence in shallow areas the amount of surface plume could be larger.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cognetti Varriale AM, Crema R (1985) Environmental impact of extensive dredging in a coastal marine area. Mar Pollut Bull 16(12):483–488. doi:10.1016/0025-326X(85)903819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bray R (ed) (2008) Environmental aspects of dredging. Taylor & Francis/Balkema, Leiden

  3. Eisma D (ed) (2006) Dredging in coastal waters. Taylor & Francis/Balkema, Leiden

  4. Erftemeijer PL, Lewis-III R, Roy R (2006) Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 52(12):1553–1572. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.09006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Erftemeijer PL, Riegl B, Hoeksema BW, Todd PA (2012) Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 64(9):1737–1765. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gilkinson KD, Fader GBJ, Gordon DC Jr, Charron R, McKeown D, Roddick D, Kenchington ELR, MacIsaac K, Bourbonnais C, Vass P, Liu Q (2003) Immediate and longer-term impacts of hydraulic clam dredging on an offshore sandy seabed: effects on physical habitat and processes of recovery. Cont Shelf Res 23(14–15):1315–1336. doi:10.1016/S0278-4343(03)00123-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith SJ, Friedrichs CT (2011) Size and settling velocities of cohesive flocs and suspended sediment aggregates in a trailing suction hopper dredge plume. Cont Shelf Res 31(10, Suppl):S50. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Nearshore and Estuarine Cohesive sediment transport processes.

  8. Rhee CV (2002) On the sedimentation process in a trailing suction hopper dredger. Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft

  9. Nichols M, Diaz RJ, Schaffner LC (1990) Effects of hopper dredging and sediment dispersion, Chesapeake Bay. Environ Geol Water Sci 15(1):31–43

  10. Spearman J, De Heer A, Aarninkhof S, Van Koningsveld M (2011) Validation of the TASS system for predicting the environmental effects of trailing suction hopper dredgers. Terra et Aqua (125)

  11. Whiteside PGD, Ooms K, Postma GM (1995). Generation and decay of sediment plumes from sand dredging overflow. In: Proceedings of the 14th world dredging congress, vol 2, pp 877–892

  12. Nakata K, Okayama Y, Lavelle JW (1989) An attempt to evaluate the effects of an anti-turbidity system on sediment dispersion from a hopper dredge. NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL PMEL-85 pp, 1–30

  13. Fan L (1967) Turbulent buoyant jets into stratified or flowing ambient fluids. W. M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water Resources, California Institute of Technology, Report No. KH-R-15

  14. Fischer HB, List EJ, Koh RCY, Imberger J, Brooks NH (1979) Mixing in inland and coastal waters. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jirka GH (2004) Integral model for turbulent buoyant jets in unbounded stratified flows. Part I: single round jet. Environ Fluid Mech 4(1). doi:10.1023/A:1025583110842

  16. Jirka G (2007) Buoyant surface discharges into water bodies. II: jet integral model. J Hydraul Eng 133(9):1021–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee JHW, Chu VH (2003) Turbulent jets and plumes: a Lagrangian approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Lai CCK, Lee JHW (2013) Initial mixing of inclined dense jet in perpendicular crossflow. Environ Fluid Mech. doi:10.1007/s10652-013-9290-7

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sykes RI, Lewellen WS, Parker SF (1986) On the vorticity dynamics of a turbulent jet in a crossflow. J Fluid Mech 168:393–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Demuren AO (1993) Characteristics of three-dimensional turbulent jets in crossflow. Int J Eng Sci 31(6):899–913. doi:10.1016/0020-7225(93)90102-Z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones WP, Wille M (1996) Large eddy simulation of a plane jet in a cross-flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 17:296–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schlüter JU, Schönfeld T (2000) LES of jets in cross flow and its application to a gas turbine burner. Flow Turbul Combust 65:177–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wegner B, Huai Y, Sadiki A (2004) Comparitive study of turbulent mixing in jet in cross-flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 25:767–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Majander P (2006) Large eddy simulation of a round jet in a cross-flow. Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki University of Technology

  25. Ziefle J, Kleiser L (2009) Large-eddy simulation of a round jet in crossflow. AIAA J 47(5):1158–1172. doi:10.2514/1.38465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Galeazzo FCC, Donnert G, Habisreuther P, Zarzalis N, Valdes RJ, Krebs W (2011) Measurement and simulation of turbulent mixing in a jet in crossflow. J Eng Gas Turbine Power 133(6):061504. doi:10.1115/1.4002319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yuan LL, Street RL (1998) Trajectory and entrainment of a round jet in crossflow. Phys Fluids 10(9):2323–2335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Devenish BJ, Rooney GG, Webster HN, Thomson DJ (2010) The entrainment rate for buoyant plumes in a crossflow. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 134:411–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ayoub GM (1973) Test results on buoyant jets injected horizontally in a cross flowing stream. Water Air Soil Pollut 2:409–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Chu VH, Goldberg MB (1974) Buoyant forced plumes in crossflow. J Hydraul Div 100(9):1203–1214

    Google Scholar 

  31. Crabb D, Durao DFG, Whitelaw JH (1981) A round jet normal to a crossflow. J Fluids Eng 103:142–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Andreopoulos J, Rodi W (1984) Experimental investigation of jets in a crossflow. J Fluid Mech 138:93–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Winterwerp JC (2002) Near-field behavior of dredging spill in shallow water. J Waterw, Port, Coast Ocean Eng 128(2):96–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. MCloskey RT, King JM, Cortelezzi L, Karagozian AR, (2002) The actively controlled jet in crossflow. J Fluid Mech 452:325–335. doi:10.1017/S0022112001006589

  35. Narayanan S, Barooah P, Cohen JM (2003) Dynamics and control of an isolated jet in crossflow. AIAA J 41(12):2316–2330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Muldoon F, Acharya S (2010) Direct numerical simulation of pulsed jets-in-crossflow. Comput Fluids 39(10):1745–7930. doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2010.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fric TF, Roshko A (1994) Vortical structure in the wake of a transverse jet. J Fluid Mech 279:1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cavar D, Meyer KE (2012) LES of turbulent jet in cross flow: Part 2 - POD analysis and identification of coherent structures. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 36:35–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. de Wit L, van Rhee C (2014) Testing an improved artificial viscosity advection scheme to minimise wiggles in large eddy simulation of buoyant jet in crossflow. Flow Turbul Combust 92(3):699–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Najm HN, Wyckoff PS, Knio OM (1998) A semi-implicit numerical scheme for reacting flow. J Comp Phys 143:381–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nicoud F, Ducros F (1999) Subgrid-Scale Stress Modelling Based on the Square of the Velocity Gradient Tensor. Flow Turbul Combust 62(3):183–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. de Wit L, van Rhee C, Keetels G (2013) Turbulent interaction of a buoyant jet with crossflow. J Hydraulic Eng (submitted)

  43. Nicoud F, Toda HB, Cabrit O, Bose S, Lee J (2011) Using singular values to build a subgrid-scale model for large eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 23(8):085106. doi:10.1063/1.3623274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Fadlun EA, Verzicco R, Orlandi P, Mohd-Yusof J (2000) Combined immersed-boundary finite-difference methods for three-dimensional complex flow simulations. J Comput Phys 161(1):35–60. doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Blaauw HG, Kaa JVD (1978) Erosion of bottom and sloping banks caused by the screw race of manoeuvring schips. In: Proceedings of the 7th international harbour congress

  46. Stern F, Kim HT, Patel VC, Chen HC (1988) A viscous-flow approach to the computation of propeller-hull interaction. J Ship Res 32(4):246–262

    Google Scholar 

  47. Prosser MJ (1986) Propeller induced scour. BHRA Report RR 2570

  48. Nienhuis U (1992) Analysis of thruster effectivity. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology

  49. Lam W, Hamill GA, Song Y-C, Robinson DJ, Raghunathan S (2011) Experimental investigation of the decay from a ship’s propeller. China Ocean Eng 25(2):265–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pope SB (2000) Turbul flows. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Rhee SH, Kim H (2008) A suggestion of gap flow control devices for the suppression of rudder cavitation. J Marit Sci Technol 13:356–370. doi:10.1007/s00773-008-0013-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lumley JL (1978) Computational modeling of turbulent flows. Adv Appl Mech 18:123–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Simonsen AJ, Krogstad P-A (2005) Turbulent stress invariant analysis: Clarification of existing terminology. Phys Fluids 17(8):088103. doi:10.1063/1.2009008

  54. Hartmann H, Derksen JJ, Montavon C, Pearson J, Hamill IS, Van den Akker HEA (2004) Assessment of large eddy and RANS stirred tank simulations by means of LDA. Chem Eng Sci 59(12):2419–2432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lamarque N, Zopp B, Lebaigue O, Dolias Y, Bertrand M, Ducros F (2010) Large-eddy simulation of the turbulent free-surface flow in an unbaffled stirred tank reactor. Chem Eng Sci 65(15):4307–4322. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2010.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper is written as part of a PhD study in the Building with Nature innovation program. The financial support and interaction with other research carried out within Building with Nature is highly appreciated. The Building with Nature program (2008–2012) is funded from several sources, including the Subsidieregeling Innovatieketen Water (SIW, Staatscourant nrs 953 and 17009) sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, and partner contributions of the participants to the Foundation EcoShape. The program receives co-funding from the European Fund for Regional Development EFRO and the Municipality of Dordrecht. For a part of the simulations this work was sponsored by NWO Exacte Wetenschappen (Physical Sciences) for the use of supercomputer facilities, with financial support from the Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, NWO).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Lynyrd de Wit

    Present address: Svasek Hydraulics, Schiehaven 13g, 3024 EC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Dredging Engineering, Faculty 3mE, Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD, Delft, The Netherlands

    Lynyrd de Wit, Cees van Rhee & Arno Talmon

  2. Deltares, Rotterdamseweg 185, 2629 HD, Delft, The Netherlands

    Arno Talmon

Authors
  1. Lynyrd de Wit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cees van Rhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arno Talmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lynyrd de Wit.

Appendix 1 Grid resolution check

Appendix 1 Grid resolution check

A grid resolution check is carried out for the LES results with a 1.5 times finer grid at the overflow. Two simulations with all near field processes taken into account are used (front overflow, propeller and pulsing \(St\,=\,0.18\)): simulation 5 with 56 million grid cells and simulation 14 with 35 million. At the plume outflow the grid size is now \(\Delta r\,=\,\Delta y\,=\,0.067D\) and \(\Delta z\,=\,0.13D\). This is 15 grid cells over the plume diameter at outflow, and 68–90 grid cells over the diameter of the bend over plume from \(x/D\,>\,5\). Time averaged cross sections at \(x/D\,=\,100\) in Fig. 16 are almost identical to the normal grid resolution results in Figs. 12 and 13 (top right). Table 3 compares the amount of surface plume and time averaged prototype-SSC for normal and fine grid resolution. The normal and fine time averaged prototype-SSC inside the main body of the dredging plume are within 10 % of each other. The maximum time averaged prototype-SSC at the free surface and the amount of surface plume are more subtle parameters and differ up to 27 % between normal and fine results. Fine grid resolution results show more surface plume than normal grid resolution results. The difference between normal and fine results is less than the influence of the investigated near field processes. Therefore the normal grid resolution results are sufficiently accurate to find the influence of these parameters on dredging plumes, but in absolute sense the presented amounts of surface plume appear to be rather low than high.

Fig. 16
figure 16

Simulated time averaged prototype-SSC at \(x\,=\,100\,D\) runs with fine grid. Arrows indicate the time averaged \(v,w\) velocity; each fifth grid cell in \(y\) direction is shown and each tenth in \(z\) direction

Full size image
Table 3 LES results buoyant dredging plume at \(x/D\,=\,100\) with infinite depth and no deposition at the bed normal grid size and 1.5 times finer grid size
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Wit, L., van Rhee, C. & Talmon, A. Influence of important near field processes on the source term of suspended sediments from a dredging plume caused by a trailing suction hopper dredger: the effect of dredging speed, propeller, overflow location and pulsing. Environ Fluid Mech 15, 41–66 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-014-9357-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-014-9357-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation