Environmental Fluid Mechanics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 41–66 | Cite as

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

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.

Keywords

Dredging Sediment Plume Environmental impact Near field mixing Turbulence Large eddy simulation 

References

  1. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bray R (ed) (2008) Environmental aspects of dredging. Taylor & Francis/Balkema, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eisma D (ed) (2006) Dredging in coastal waters. Taylor & Francis/Balkema, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rhee CV (2002) On the sedimentation process in a trailing suction hopper dredger. Ph.D. thesis, TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nichols M, Diaz RJ, Schaffner LC (1990) Effects of hopper dredging and sediment dispersion, Chesapeake Bay. Environ Geol Water Sci 15(1):31–43Google Scholar
  10. 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)Google Scholar
  11. 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 877–892Google Scholar
  12. 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, 1–30Google Scholar
  13. 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-15Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer HB, List EJ, Koh RCY, Imberger J, Brooks NH (1979) Mixing in inland and coastal waters. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. 16.
    Jirka G (2007) Buoyant surface discharges into water bodies. II: jet integral model. J Hydraul Eng 133(9):1021–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee JHW, Chu VH (2003) Turbulent jets and plumes: a Lagrangian approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 19.
    Sykes RI, Lewellen WS, Parker SF (1986) On the vorticity dynamics of a turbulent jet in a crossflow. J Fluid Mech 168:393–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones WP, Wille M (1996) Large eddy simulation of a plane jet in a cross-flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 17:296–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schlüter JU, Schönfeld T (2000) LES of jets in cross flow and its application to a gas turbine burner. Flow Turbul Combust 65:177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wegner B, Huai Y, Sadiki A (2004) Comparitive study of turbulent mixing in jet in cross-flow. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 25:767–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Majander P (2006) Large eddy simulation of a round jet in a cross-flow. Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yuan LL, Street RL (1998) Trajectory and entrainment of a round jet in crossflow. Phys Fluids 10(9):2323–2335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Devenish BJ, Rooney GG, Webster HN, Thomson DJ (2010) The entrainment rate for buoyant plumes in a crossflow. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 134:411–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ayoub GM (1973) Test results on buoyant jets injected horizontally in a cross flowing stream. Water Air Soil Pollut 2:409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chu VH, Goldberg MB (1974) Buoyant forced plumes in crossflow. J Hydraul Div 100(9):1203–1214Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Crabb D, Durao DFG, Whitelaw JH (1981) A round jet normal to a crossflow. J Fluids Eng 103:142–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andreopoulos J, Rodi W (1984) Experimental investigation of jets in a crossflow. J Fluid Mech 138:93–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Winterwerp JC (2002) Near-field behavior of dredging spill in shallow water. J Waterw, Port, Coast Ocean Eng 128(2):96–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 35.
    Narayanan S, Barooah P, Cohen JM (2003) Dynamics and control of an isolated jet in crossflow. AIAA J 41(12):2316–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fric TF, Roshko A (1994) Vortical structure in the wake of a transverse jet. J Fluid Mech 279:1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 36:35–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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):699–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Najm HN, Wyckoff PS, Knio OM (1998) A semi-implicit numerical scheme for reacting flow. J Comp Phys 143:381–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nicoud F, Ducros F (1999) Subgrid-Scale Stress Modelling Based on the Square of the Velocity Gradient Tensor. Flow Turbul Combust 62(3):183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Wit L, van Rhee C, Keetels G (2013) Turbulent interaction of a buoyant jet with crossflow. J Hydraulic Eng (submitted)Google Scholar
  43. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 congressGoogle Scholar
  46. 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):246–262Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Prosser MJ (1986) Propeller induced scour. BHRA Report RR 2570Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nienhuis U (1992) Analysis of thruster effectivity. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  49. 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):265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pope SB (2000) Turbul flows. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lumley JL (1978) Computational modeling of turbulent flows. Adv Appl Mech 18:123–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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. 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):2419–2432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Dredging Engineering, Faculty 3mEDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Svasek HydraulicsRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.DeltaresDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations