9 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Rafael

Soil erosion test modeling for dam works.

Soil erosion test modeling for dam works.

© All Rights Reserved

- 1. IJAMSS - Solution of the MHD Boundary Layer Flow Moving Continuous Flat Surface Using Spline Method
- CHEE2940 Lecture 7 Part a - Particle Fluid Interaction
- Best Practice Guide CFD 2
- viscous incompressible flow.
- Source Level
- Highlight Conclusions - Sehoul Study Site
- ne_21_U.pdf
- Flare Net
- Project Fluid
- Steel production
- AtriumCalcReport-V 1-1a.pdf
- FM 3e SI Chap01 Lecture
- reference-MS.pdf
- FM 3e SI Chap01 Lecture
- Report Bench 1
- Technical Challenges With the Small Scale LNG Terminals
- 084Kua
- CH2001_6_RM
- Pirozzoli Sergio
- Pasha2018 AJSE Three-DimensionalModelingShock With Front Coverpage Published

Anda di halaman 1dari 23

Published online 3 March 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.683

pressure drop

Stephane Bonelli1, , and Olivier Brivois1, 2

1 Cemagref,

2 Laboratoire

de Mecanique et dAcoustique (UPR-CNRS 7051), 31 chemin Joseph Aiguier,

13402 Marseille, France

SUMMARY

A process called piping, which often occurs in the soil at dams, levees, and dykes, involves the formation

and development of a continuous tunnel between upstream and downstream ends. The hole erosion test

is commonly used to quantify the critical stress and the rate of piping erosion progression. The aim of

this study is to draw up a model for interpreting the results of this test. A characteristic internal erosion

time is defined and expressed as a function of the initial hydraulic gradient and the coefficient of surface

erosion. It is established here that the product of the coefficient of erosion and the flow velocity is a

significant dimensionless number: when this number is small, the kinetics of erosion are low, and the

particle concentration does not have any effect on the flow. This finding applies to most of the available

test results. Theoretical and experimental evidence is presented showing that the evolution of the pipe

radius during erosion with a constant pressure drop obeys a scaling exponential law. Copyright q 2008

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 5 September 2006; Revised 1 October 2007; Accepted 28 November 2007

KEY WORDS:

1. INTRODUCTION

Piping, or the internal erosion of soil resulting from seepage flow, is the main cause of serious

failure at hydraulic works (dykes, levees, dams), in terms of the risk of downstream areas being

flooded [1]. These processes are also liable to occur in natural soils [2, 3]. When erosion is

suspected of occurring or has already been detected in situ, it is difficult to predict the time to

Correspondence

to: Stephane Bonelli, Cemagref, 3275 Route de Cezanne, CS 40061, 13182 Aix-en-Provence Cedex

5, France.

E-mail: stephane.bonelli@cemagref.fr

Contract/grant sponsor: French National Research Agency; contract/grant number: 0594C0115

Copyright q

1574

failure. To be able to develop effective emergency action plans preventing heavy casualties and

damage to property, it is necessary to have a characteristic time to use as a basis.

Four types of processes have been identified in this context [1]: (1) the development of defects

(cracks and microfissures) in the soil matrix, (2) backward erosion (which is also known as

regressive erosion), (3) suffusion, which affects the soil structure, and (4) contact erosion between

two soils. Overviews of current research on piping or internal erosion in the field of soil mechanics

and earthdam industry are given in Fell and Fry [1] and Wan and Fell [46].

In petroleum (oil and gas) industry, the sand production processes occurring in wellbores are

similar to the piping and internal erosion processes. Accumulated sand can bring production to a

halt or give rise to problems in the topside processing facilities. This makes sand production an

important issue. Sand erosion occurs in the perforation channels used to transport the hydrocarbon

produced into the wellbore. This erosion is mainly caused by radial flow (that occurs in the normal

direction with respect to the sand surface), but axial flow (that occurs tangential to the sand surface)

can also be significant. An overview of the research on this topic is available in Papamichos

et al. [7].

This study deals with the progression phase of the piping erosion process: that in which a

continuous pipe is enlarged by a tangential flow of water. Several experimental methods have been

developed for simulating this process experimentally, focusing, in particular, on the hole erosion

test with a constant pressure drop [46] or a constant flow rate [8, 9]. The experience acquired in

more than 200 tests has confirmed that this method is an excellent tool for quantifying the rate of

piping erosion in soil and determining the critical shear stress corresponding to the initiation/onset

of piping erosion. However, few attempts have been made so far to model this process.

There exists a large body of literature on the modelling of soil erosion in the field of sediment

transport and the hydraulics of free-surface flows [1012]. Most of these studies have taken a

global approach to the subject. Water flow is often expressed in terms of its average velocity in the

framework of shallow water equations. Erosion is regarded as a spatial transport capacity gradient

rather than a process of particle removal caused by the flow, and the question as to how fluid/soil

interfaces behave has been rather neglected. Dam breach models have been developed using a

similar approach [13]. More detailed descriptions have been published on cases where the erosion

processes take place near the wall (i.e. near the fluid/soil interface), and these problems are often

solved using integral boundary layer theory or two-dimensional boundary layer models [14, 15].

This study was based on a model of the latter kind.

The piping erosion process involves pressure-driven flows. The term piping is actually used in

the geomechanics literature to denote two processes, namely (i) backward erosion piping, which

is driven by a normal outward flow (the exfiltrating seepage causes the fluidization of grains at an

exit face) and (ii) progression erosion piping, which is driven by a tangential flow (the pipe flow

causes the removal of soil particles at the fluid/soil interface). The critical head liable to initiate

piping backward erosion in granular materials has been determined by modelling the flow through

this porous medium and introducing Bernoullis equation [16].

Several models for surface sand erosion under axial and radial flow conditions have been

proposed in the framework of continuum mixture theory [1721]. The process of erosion is assumed

in these studies to involve a smooth transition from solid-like to fluid-like behaviour. This transition

is described with a three-phase model (comprising solid, fluid, and fluidized phases). These three

phases interact while being constrained by balance equations. A sink term is introduced into the

mass balance equations to describe the detachment of sand particles via an erosion law. In [22], it is

assumed in addition that erosion follows a path of least resistance, given by the porosity gradient.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1575

These models have been mainly applied to granular materials and piping backward erosion. This

study was intended to provide a step towards modelling piping progression erosion in cohesive

soils.

The philosophy underlying the present approach differs from that in which previous theories of

surface erosion were based, in that our description deals with singular (or discontinuous) fluid/soil

interfaces [15] and not with smooth fluid/soil interfaces. The aim is simply to model the enlargement

of a continuous cylindrical pipe generated in a cohesive soil by a turbulent tangential flow.

After this Introduction, Section 2 summarizes the axially symmetrical equations for flow

involving fluid/soil interface erosion. In Section 3, the scaling law for the hole erosion test with a

constant pressure drop is presented. Some comparisons are made in Section 4 between the model

and experimental data. In Section 5, some of the hypotheses on which this study was based are

discussed.

2.1. The reduced NavierStokes/Prandtl equations

It is first proposed to study the surface erosion of a fluid/soil interface subjected to a flow running

parallel to the interface. The soil is eroded by the flow, which then carries away the detached

particles. The basic balance equations and erosion constitutive law were developed by Brivois

et al. [15]. The quantity of particles present in the fluid is taken here to be small enough to be able

to assume that the properties of the carrier fluid are not significantly affected: this is the dilute

suspension flow assumption. We assume the gravitational forces to be negligible in comparison

with the turbulent forces: the sedimentation and deposition processes are therefore neglected here.

Let us take a long circular cylinder with radius R (initial value R0 ). Figure 1 shows a sketch

of the flow and the notations. A list of nomenclature is provided in the Appendix. The flow is

assumed to be axisymmetrical, and circumferential variations are therefore neglected. Here, x and r

are used to denote the axial and radial coordinates, u and v to denote the mean axial and radial

velocities, w to denote the constant water density, and to denote the mean shear stress. The

equations describing the flow are the mass and momentum balance equations, which are given by

1 *

*

(r v)+ (u) = 0

r *r

*x

*

1 *

*

*p

1 *

* 2

w

(u)+

(r vu)+ (u ) =

(r r x )+ x x

r *r

r *r

*t

*x

*x

*x

*

*

*p

1 *

1 *

*

+ r x

(v)+

(r v 2 )+ (uv) =

(r rr )

w

r *r

r *r

r

*t

*x

*x

*r

(1)

(2)

(3)

Copyright q

rr = 2eff

*v

,

*r

x x = 2eff

*u

,

*x

v

r

*u *v

r x = eff

+

*r *x

= 2eff

(4)

(5)

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1576

Figure 1. Sketch of the axisymmetrical flow involved in erosion of the soil and

transport of the eroded particles.

where eff is the effective viscosity. This parameter can be the molecular viscosity of water in the

case of laminar flow or the eddy viscosity in the case of turbulent flow in simplified models (such

as the Prandtl mixing length model [23]). It should be noted that eff relates to the flow behaviour

and not only to the fluid behaviour.

Characteristic values are required to simplify these equations by using an asymptotic

approach in the boundary layer theory spirit [23, 24]. The reference radial lengthscale is the

initial radius R0 , while the reference longitudinal lengthscale, which has to be determined,

is denoted by . The geometric scale ratio = R0 /, which is a small parameter ( 1), is

introduced.

The reference pressure is the pressure drop p0 over the length . Pipe flow theory gives the

order of magnitude of the stress exerted by the fluid on the wall, which is denoted as

P0 = p0 .

Bernoullis principle gives the order of magnitude of the longitudinal velocity V0 = p0 /w .

Variations in the streamwise direction are very small compared with variations in the transversal

direction. Consistent with the geometric ratio , we have the reference radial velocity V0 . Finally,

the reference flow time is t0 = /V0 .

To solve the equations, we introduce the following dimensionless variables:

t =

Copyright q

t

,

t0

r =

r

,

R0

x =

x

,

R0

u =

u

,

V0

v =

v

,

V0

=

,

p

eff =

eff

w V0 R0

(6)

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1577

If we now substitute the ratios in Equation (6) into Equations (1)(5), we obtain the following

balance equations:

*u

1 *

(r v)+

=0

r *r

*x

*

1 *

* 2

(u)+

(r v u)+

(u ) =

r *r

*t

*x

*

*v 1 *

2

+

(r v )+ (u v)

=

*t r *r

*x

(7)

1 *

*

* p

(r r x )+ x x

r *r

*x

*x

(8)

*r x

1 *

* p

+

(r rr )

1

r *r

r

*x

*r

(9)

rr = 2 eff

x x

*v

,

*r

*u

= 2 eff ,

*x

= 2 eff

r x = eff

v

r

*v

*u

+2

*r

*x

(10)

(11)

The special case of uniform steady flow (*()/*x = 0 and *()/*t = 0) yields v = 0, based on

Equation (7). Integrating Equation (8) gives

r x =

r * p

2 *x

where

*u

(12)

*r

Consequently, the condition eff = O(1) must hold to ensure consistency. This condition gives the

relevant longitudinal lengthscale , which depends on the flow. In the case of a laminar flow,

eff = w w (the molecular water viscosity) and can be given by the condition = O(Re1 ) (as

in [25, 26]), where Re = V0 R0 /w is the Reynolds number. With the turbulent flow assumed to

exist here, must fulfil = O[eff /(w V0 R0 )], but this analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.

Finally, the two assumptions eff = O(1) and 1 yield the elongational flow approximation

for piping flow [23, 24], which is similar to the reduced NavierStokes/Prandtl equations [25, 26].

In dimensional terms, these equations can be expressed as follows:

r x = eff

Mass:

1 *

*

(r v)+ (u) = 0

r *r

*x

Axial momentum:

w

1 *

*

1 *

* 2

*p

(u)+

(r vu)+ (u ) =

(r )

r *r

r *r

*t

*x

*x

(13)

(14)

Radial momentum:

*p

=0

*r

Copyright q

(15)

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1578

Flow behaviour:

= eff

*u

*r

(16)

As *u/*r <0 in axisymmetrical flows, was re-defined in order to yield a positive stress. The

pressure gradient in the radial direction is negligible, as in the classical boundary layer equations.

The flow has a streamwise component and a transversal component, whereas the deviatoric stress

has only a shear component.

2.2. The RankineHugoniot jump equations with erosion

Let denote the fluid/soil interface. The water/particle mixture is assumed to flow like a fluid

above , whereas a solid-like behaviour is taken to occur below . As there is a process of

erosion, a mass flux crosses this interface and undergoes a transition from solid-like to fluid-like

behaviour. As a result, is not a material interface: is not defined by the same particles at

different moments. We assume to be a purely geometric separating line, which has no thickness.

The description of the soil is a simplified one. It is assumed to be rigid, and the frame is attached

to the soil in question (u is uniform in the soil and equal to zero). Since this soil is saturated

and devoid of seepage, the mass flux crossing the interface is an erosion flux. Lastly, the soil is

homogeneous (the saturated density is uniform in the soil).

Balance equations can be transformed into RankineHugoniot jump conditions across . Let n

denote the unit vector normal to oriented from the flow to the soil and v denote the velocity of

. Let m denote the total flux of material (both particles and water) crossing the interface, which

is defined by

m = (v u)n

The mass jump equation over is (Appendix A)

'm(

=0

(17)

where 'a( = ag ab is the jump of any physical variable a across the interface, and ag and ab

stand for the limiting values of a on the solid and fluid sides of the interface, respectively. This

equation means that the total flux of the eroded material (both particles and water) crossing the

interface must be continuous across the interface:

v

leaving the soil

m

fluid and particles

crossing

= w (v ub n)

(18)

going into water

1

1

, sb sg = mu

Tb

b g = m 2

w

(19)

The tangential velocities are taken to be continuous across (no-slip condition at the interface):

uTb = 0. This is the only assumption about , mainly because of the lack of experimental data. The

shear stress is therefore continuous across . Note that the normal stress cannot be continuous

across , but this stress will not be included in the model.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1579

The motion of the interface is unknown and is a part of the solution of the problem. From

Equation (18), it emerges that the interface celerity can be expressed as a function of the mass

flux, and the latter therefore becomes the main unknown, for which a constitutive law is required:

the erosion law.

Erosion laws dealing with soil surface erosion by a tangential flow are often expressed in the

form of threshold laws, such as

m =

(20)

0

otherwise

where |sb | is the tangential shear stress exerted on the soil. As shear stresses are assumed to be

continuous across the interface, this is the fluid shear stress at the interface.

This erosion law dates back a long way. It was first used in studies on free-surface flows

[11, 2729]. We used the same constitutive law here to model piping flows. The threshold c can

be referred to as the critical shear stress [27], and ker is the coefficient of soil erosion [28].

Now, as the control volume is that of the fluid domain, the interface becomes a boundary, on

which the conditions are given by the jump equations. Based on the above assumption, these

boundary conditions, in addition to Equation (20), are

Mass jump equation:

1

1

m

vb = m

(21)

, v =

w

Momentum jump equation:

u b = 0,

|sb | = |sg |

(22)

Basic algebra shows that the interface celerity, which is normal to the interface, can be related to

the radius rate and gradient as follows:

2 1/2

*R

*R

v =

1+

*t

*x

(23)

The flow can now be accurately calculated using numerical solvers. A similar set of equations

was previously used to study various situations involving a permanent flow (a boundary layer and

a free-surface flow) over an erodable soil [15]. In addition, the above hypotheses are somewhat

basic and can be eliminated one after the other, making the model increasingly complex.

However, the aim here is to find a simple model giving the main features of piping erosion.

A simplified description leads to a better understanding of the process and the relevant scaling

processes, and some simplifications are both physically acceptable and expedient. The use of these

equations is extended here to study turbulent piping flow with erosion using spatial integration

methods.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1580

Let a denote the average value of any physical variable a across any section:

R(x,t)

2

R 2 (x, t)

a(x, t) =

S(x, t) 0

Time and space derivations of average quantities give

R

*a

*

*S

r dr = (Sa)ab ,

2

*

*

*

0

= t, x

(24)

(25)

We now integrate the system Equations (13)(14) on a cross section, with the boundary conditions

given by Equations (21)(22):

1

*

1

(26)

(Su) = 2

R m

w

*x

*

*p

*

2

w

(Su)+ (Su ) = 2

Rb S

(27)

*t

*x

*x

Let L denote the characteristic geometrical length of the system (it is not a wave lengthscale, but

the length of the pipe, for example). The significance of Equation (26) can best be assessed by

performing axial integration:

L

M(t)

Q out (t) Q in (t) =

1

with M =

2

R m dx

(28)

w

0

where Q = Su is the volumetric flow rate of water, and M is the mass flow rate of the eroded

material (both soil water and soil particles) crossing the interface.

The next step consists in generating simpler equations that will contain all the relevant factors.

This is achieved by determining the relative importance of the driving forces acting on the system

and by determining which terms can be simplified.

The aim is to show that, assuming that the flow rate of the eroded material to be much smaller

Q), the RHS of Equation (26) can be neglected, which means

that there will be a uniform flow rate in the pipe Q out (t) = Q in (t). The LHS of Equation (27) can

also now be neglected.

Characteristic values are again necessary here. These are summarized in Table I. They can be

said to be typically of the order of magnitude of a variable in the volume range and the time span

considered. As usual, these values are introduced by performing phenomenological analysis. The

reference water flow rate Q 0 is the initial value or the value just before erosion starts. This value

gives the reference water velocity V0 = Q 0 /(

R02 ). The reference stress is the initial value P0 of

the driving pressure P in the pipe, which is defined as follows:

P(t) =

2L

(29)

where R0 is an estimate of the initial radius, and pin and pout are the input and output pressures

( pin > pout ). The reference erosion velocity is Ver = ker P0 /. This gives the reference volumetric

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1581

Total flow rate

Flow velocity

Driving pressure

Q 0 = Q(t = 0+ )

V0 = Q 02

+ ) p (0+ ))

out

P0 = R0 ( pin (0 2L

Erosion velocity

Erosion time

R0

Q er = 2

R0 L Ver

Ver =

ker P0

ter = VR0

er

Friction factor

er

cref = (1n)Q

Q

f b = P0 2

m ref = Ver

w V0

R0 L Ver crossing the interface. The characteristic erosion

time is obviously ter = R0 /Ver .

To simplify this expression, the reference friction coefficient f b = P0 /(w V02 ) is introduced.

Lastly, ker = ker V0 is defined as erosion kinetic number, which is a key dimensionless number in

our analysis. The geometric scale ratio this time is = R0 /L.

To complete the equations, the following dimensionless variables are introduced:

t =

t

,

ter

V

V = ,

V0

x =

x

,

L

Q

Q =

,

Q0

m

m =

,

Ver

R

R = ,

R0

P

P = ,

P0

b =

=

b

,

P0

w

c =

c

P0

where V = u is the average velocity. The system Equations (20)(23) and (26)(27) can be recast

in a non-dimensional form as follows:

*

1 )

( Su)

= 2ker R m(1

f w *x

1 R0 * p

* 2

1 *

ker ( Su)+

( Su ) = 2 S

2 R b

f b *x

P0 2 *x

*t

2 1/2

*R

* R

= m 1+2

*t

*x

m =

b c

if b >c

otherwise

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

The geometric scale ratio = R0 /L is a small parameter ( 1), so that the last term of the RHS of

Equation (32), which gives the effect of the radius gradient on the erosion, can be neglected. When

f b ker , the amount of eroded material is lower than the amount of water (Q er Q 0 ), so that the

input and output water flow rates are equal: the RHS of Equation (30) can therefore be neglected.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1582

The characteristic volume concentration of eroded particles in the flow is cref = (1n)Q er /Q 0

(where n is the porosity of the soil). The above assumption f b ker is therefore consistent with

the initial assumption of a dilute suspension flow (cref 1). As the presence of eroded particles

does not affect the flow, the only possible source of inhomogeneity is the spatial gradient of the

radius.

We assume that the pipe is initially straight: *R0 /*x = 0. A careful examination of the above

system shows that under the above assumptions, the radius remains uniform during the erosion

process. Indeed, the flow is a dilute suspension, and the eroded particles do not interact with the

shear stress. All the other quantities are therefore uniform, including the pressure gradient and the

water momentum. The second term on the LHS of Equation (31) can therefore be neglected.

If ker 1, the erosion velocity is much lower than the flow velocity (Ver V0 ) and the flow

can be taken to be quasi-steady: the first term on the LHS of Equation (31) can be neglected, as

= O(1).

Lastly, if f b ker and ker 1, and if the pipe is initially straight, the system can considerably

simplified as follows:

R P c

d R

=

dt

0

if R P > c

otherwise

(34)

t) =

P(

0 if t<0

1 if t>0

t) =

R(

if t<0

(35)

V =

R,

Q = R 5/2

(36)

Equation (35) is the scaling law of piping erosion with a constant pressure drop. This important

result has far-reaching practical as well as theoretical consequences. It will be used below to

fit experimental data, after expressing the scaled radius R c as a function of the scaling time

t +ln(1 c ), and to obtain a unified description of piping erosion processes occurring in different

soils, in pipes of various diameters, etc.

The assumption ker 1 is supported by the fact that surface erosion is a very slow process,

which evolves on a very long time scale in comparison with the flow. The assumption f b ker

has a different meaning: it means that the pipe is not too long (L R( f b ker )1 ) and that the

accumulated eroded particles therefore do not transform the flow into a concentrated suspension.

Since the order of magnitude of the friction coefficient f b is 103 102 [30], even in rough pipes

[23, 31], this assumption can be simplified to L 100R(ker )1 .

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1583

4.1. Analysis of the scaling law

The scaling law has two parameters: the erosion time scale ter and the dimensionless critical stress

c . The influence of ter is obvious. The influence of c is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. The

dimensionless radius and flow rate are plotted in these figures as a function of the dimensionless

time. The parameter c is not only a threshold value but also has a considerable influence on

the kinetics of erosion, especially on the flow rate, which increases in Q R 5/2 . When c 1

(c < 1), or in other words, when P0 c (P0 > c ), the time is shifted as shown by the term

ln(1 c ) . Raw data obtained in the hole erosion test with a constant pressure are provided

by the flow rate time series. If c is nearly equal to one, with c < 1 (in which case so erosion

occurs), a rough interpretation of the raw data could lead to the conclusion that there is no erosion,

as the flow rate Q does not seem to initially increase with time. This point is discussed in the last

section.

4.2. Comparisons with experimental data

The scaling law Equation (35) is now compared with previously published data obtained in hole

erosion tests [4]. This test was designed to simulate piping flow erosion in a hole. The soil specimen

was compacted in a standard mould used for the standard compaction test. A hole was drilled

Figure 2. Influence of the critical stress on the evolution of the dimensionless radius (a) and the dimensionless flow rate (b) as a function of the dimensionless time.

Figure 3. Position of the evolution of the dimensionless radius on the scaling curve as a function of the

dimensionless critical stress.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1584

along the longitudinal axis of the soil sample. An eroding fluid was driven through the soil sample

to initiate erosion of the soil along the pre-formed hole. The results of the test are given in terms

of the flow rate versus time curve with a constant pressure drop. The flow rate is therefore used as

an indirect index to the erosion rate. For further details about this test, see Wand and Fell [46].

Parametric identification is performed as follows: Equation (36) gives the dimensionless radius

as a function of the flow rate (measurements), and Equation (35) gives the dimensionless radius

as a function of time (model):

Q(t) 2/5

c , ter ) = c +(1 c ) exp t

r (t) =

(37)

, R(t,

Q0

ter

Table II. Geological origin, particle size distribution, and particle density of soil

samples (data from Wan and Fell [4]).

Soil

Bradys

Fattorini

Hume

Jindabyne

Lyell

Matahina

Pukaki

Shellharbour

Waranga

Geological origin

Residual

Colluvial

Alluvial

Residual

Residual

Residual

Glacial

Residual

Alluvial

% Gravel

% Sand

% Fines

% Finer than 2 m

1

3

0

0

1

7

10

1

0

24

22

19

66

70

43

48

11

21

75

75

81

34

29

50

42

88

79

48

14

51

15

13

25

13

77

54

2.74

2.68

2.71

2.68

2.61

2.67

2.70

2.75

2.69

Table III. Geotechnical properties of soil samples (data from Wan and Fell [4]).

Soil

Bradys

Test name

BDHET001

BDHET002

Fattorini

Medium plasticity sandy clay FTHET010

Hume

Low plasticity sandy clay

HDHET001

HDHET005

HDHET006

HDHET007

HDHET009

Jindabyne

Clayey sand

JDHET001

JDHET005

JDHET013

JDHET016

Lyell

Silty sand

LDHET014

Matahina

Low plasticity clay

MDHET006

Pukaki

Silty sand

PDHET003

Shellharbour High plasticity clay

SHHET005

SHHET009

Waranga

Low plasticity clay

WBHET001

Copyright q

content (%)

content (%) porosity porosity

35.0

35.0

18.5

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

21.0

16.0

16.0

16.0

16.0

10.0

16.5

8.5

41.0

41.0

19.0

35.8

35.9

15.6

21.4

17.9

22.6

22.4

22.7

15.7

13.8

16.2

18.3

8

14.3

8.6

38.7

37.9

18.5

0.52

0.52

0.37

0.39

0.39

0.39

0.39

0.39

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.25

0.32

0.20

0.55

0.55

0.38

0.52

0.52

0.37

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.25

0.32

0.20

0.55

0.55

0.38

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1585

The mean-square error is minimized with respect to the unknown (c , ter ):

N

[r (tn ) R(t

(38)

(c ,ter )

n=1

c = c P0 ,

ker =

R0

ter P0

Scaling was performed in 18 tests, using nine different soils (including clay, sandy clay, clayey

sand, and silty sand). The initial radius and the length of the pipe were R0 = 3 mm and L = 117 mm.

Tables II and III give the geological origin, the particle size distribution, the particle density of

the soil samples, and the geotechnical properties of the soil samples. The soil density /w ranged

from 1.78 to 2.35. The initial water content ranged from 8 to 38.7%. The Reynolds numbers ranged

from 2000 to 8800.

Tables IVVI give the parameters of the hole erosion tests and the results of the modelling

study with the scaling law. The critical stress ranged from 6 to 128 Pa. The coefficient of erosion

ker ranged from 105 s/m (test HDHET009) to 102 s/m (test LDHET014). The erosion time

scale ranged from 60 s (test LDHET014) to 2200 s (test HDHET009). Since the erosion kinetic

numbers ker ranged from 104 to 102 , low erosion kinetics and dilute suspension flow were

present in all the cases studied. Nearly all the values of the dimensionless critical stress c were

practically equal to one, except for the FTHET010 test, which gave a low value of 0.07 due

to a very low critical stress (less than 7 Pa) and the high value of the driving pressure (94 Pa)

(Table IV).

Table IV. Parameters of the hole erosion test with a constant pressure drop

(data from Wan and Fell [4]).

Copyright q

Test

P0 (Pa)

V0 (m/s)

f b (102 )

BDHET001

BDHET002

FTHET010

HDHET001

HDHET005

HDHET006

HDHET007

HDHET009

JDHET001

JDHET005

JDHET013

JDHET016

LDHET014

MDHET006

PDHET003

SHHET005

SHHET009

WBHET001

79.96

53.22

93.78

92.87

66.13

79.30

79.43

79.57

77.74

9.65

53.22

6.91

7.96

129.00

16.43

106.30

102.39

105.91

2.20

1.87

2.57

2.43

2.22

2.29

2.33

2.15

2.26

0.71

1.52

0.63

0.81

2.93

1.02

2.68

2.71

2.71

1.65

1.52

1.42

1.57

1.34

1.51

1.47

1.72

1.53

1.94

2.32

1.72

1.21

1.51

1.57

1.48

1.39

1.44

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1586

tests with a constant pressure drop.

Test

c (Pa)

ter (s)

BDHET001

BDHET002

FTHET010

HDHET001

HDHET005

HDHET006

HDHET007

HDHET009

JDHET001

JDHET005

JDHET013

JDHET016

LDHET014

MDHET006

PDHET003

SHHET005

SHHET009

WBHET001

76.07

50.93

6.63

92.87

66.13

76.00

79.41

74.42

72.32

6.92

49.66

6.42

7.95

128.22

13.85

106.20

99.77

105.81

223

210

73

319

299

1712

600

2183

133

647

380

1165

57

424

424

152

975

213

1.35

1.43

4.10

0.94

1.00

0.18

0.50

0.14

2.26

0.46

0.79

0.26

5.22

0.71

0.71

1.98

0.31

1.41

3.02

4.80

8.57

2.01

2.93

0.44

1.26

0.35

5.89

9.59

3.03

7.73

139.19

1.13

10.05

3.22

0.52

2.62

tests with a constant pressure drop.

Test

Re0

ker (104 )

cref (105 )

c

BDHET001

BDHET002

FTHET010

HDHET001

HDHET005

HDHET006

HDHET007

HDHET009

JDHET001

JDHET005

JDHET013

JDHET016

LDHET014

MDHET006

PDHET003

SHHET005

SHHET009

WBHET001

6610

5606

7721

7298

6663

6875

6981

6452

6769

2115

4548

1904

2433

8779

3067

8038

8144

8144

7

9

22

5

6

1

3

1

13

7

5

5

113

3

10

9

2

7

11

14

39

9

10

2

5

1

25

16

13

10

185

6

21

13

2

12

0.9515

0.9570

0.0707

1105

1106

0.9583

0.9997

0.9354

0.9302

0.7170

0.9332

0.9283

0.9993

0.9940

0.8426

0.9990

0.9744

0.9990

Figure 4 shows the effect of the erosion process in terms of the flow rate with respect to time

and shows that the use of ter leads to efficient dimensionless scaling. Without this scaling, multiple

graphs would be necessary for clarity of presentation. Figure 5 shows the increase in the radius

R Q 2/5 , which ranged from 2 to 3.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1587

In Figure 6, dimensionless flow rates Q are plotted as a function of the scaling time t +ln(1 c ).

Nearly all the data can be seen to fall on a single curve. The scaling time is therefore an efficient

and simple means of plotting the flow rate.

Scaled radii are plotted as a function of the scaling time in a linear plot in Figure 7. Again,

nearly all the data can be seen to fall on a single curve. These graphs confirm the validity of

the scaling law Equation (35). Given the many simplifying assumptions used here, the agreement

speaks for itself: in spite of the large range of ker (covering three orders of magnitude), no further

operations are required to bring the model into line with the experimental data.

Figure 4. Hole erosion tests with a constant pressure drop, test (symbols) versus model (continuous lines).

Dimensionless flow is shown as a function of dimensionless time (data from Wan and Fell [4]).

Figure 5. Hole erosion tests with a constant pressure drop, test (symbols) versus model (continuous lines).

Dimensionless radius is shown as a function of dimensionless time (data from Wan and Fell [4]).

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1588

Figure 6. Hole erosion tests with a constant pressure drop, test (symbols) versus model (continuous lines).

Dimensionless flow is shown as a function of scaling time (data from Wan and Fell [4]).

Figure 7. Hole erosion tests with a constant pressure drop, test (symbols) versus model (continuous lines).

Scaling law of the radius as a function of time (data from Wan and Fell [4]).

5.1. On the uniformity of the flow

Turbulent piping flows are known to be non-uniform at the entrance. The entry length of the flow

is lin 1.6Re0.25 R, where Re is the Reynold number and R the radius of the pipe. Assuming

uniformity in the interpretation of the data requires lin L, yielding 15R L for a Reynolds

number Re = 8000. The tests described in the previous section give lin 45 mm, i.e. 38% of the

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1589

length of the pipe. It can be concluded that the pipe should be at least 1 m long in hole erosion

tests.

5.2. On the method of identification of erosion parameters

The LevenbergMarquartd method was used to solve the non-linear least-squares problem in

Equation (38). Establishing the existence and uniqueness of the parameters is fairly straightforward

due to the simplicity of the scaling law. Other methods were tested, such as linear regression

between b and dR/dt (the method used by Wan and Fell [46]) and linear regression between

b dt and R. The results obtained were similar; however, these linear regressions seem to be very

highly dependent on the quality of the raw data, and some of the data had to be removed. This

was not the case with the non-linear method used in Equation (38), which proved to be robust:

this method converged in a few iterations in all cases, with all the raw data, even when c was

almost equal to one (e.g. tests HDHET001 and HDHET005). It was concluded that the non-linear

method used in Equation (38) is a more reliable means of determining the critical stress and the

coefficient of erosion than the linear extrapolation method.

5.3. On the identification of the critical stress

The extrapolation method used by Wan and Fell [46] to obtain the critical stress yielded rather

inaccurate estimates. The authors suggested directly estimating the initial shear stress, i.e. the

minimum shear stress initiating the erosion. This method has a serious drawback: it gives values

of c , which are almost equal to one. Therefore, if the duration of the test is not large enough (i.e.

if the duration is less than ter ln(1 c )), the operator might conclude that a non-erosion process is

involved, although erosion has started and is slowly evolving. For this reason, the term ter ln(1 c )

is likely to reflect the patience of the operator more than anything else. A value of the driving

pressure P0 significantly greater than c is a more relevant criterion, as it improves the accuracy

of identification and decreases the duration of the test.

5.4. On the erosion law

The linear erosion law given by Equation (20) is a strong assumption. A non-linear expression can

of course be chosen, such as

p

ker c |b | 1

if |b |>c

c

m =

0

otherwise

Assuming that c <1, the closed-form solution generalizing Equation (35) is therefore

1

if t<0

= 1 and t>0

R(

c +(1 c ) exp(t)

if p = 1 and t > 0

(39)

The empirical exponent p0 can be higher or lower than one [3234]. However, the value p = 0

corresponds to an erosion law which does not depend on the stress, and this gives a constant flux

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1590

of eroded material, which is not relevant. On the other hand, if p>1, the radius takes an infinite

value in finite time:

p1

c

t) = with tu = 1

lim R(

if p>1

(40)

p 1 1 c

ttu

As this result has no mechanical significance, we can conclude that the condition for this third

parameter is 0< p1. This result confirms that the model developed by Meyer-Peter and Muller

cannot be used as an erosion law, as it involves the exponent p = 32 . This empirical model was

based on a spatial transport capacity gradient under steady-state conditions and, thus, on an overall

view of the subject.

Adding the third parameter p is just a matter of fitting the numerical and experimental results.

It provides a little insight into the real mechanism underlying surface erosion, contrary to the two

parameters c and ker , which are of obvious significance. The exponential scaling law compares

favourably with all the measured values, where |b |/c 1 ranged from 0 to 3. The values of p

differing significantly from one have been found to give poor fits. We conclude that p = 1 appears

to be suitable for interpreting hole erosion tests. Note that it is not possible to extend this conclusion

to case studies, as the eroding fluid velocity can be greater in the pipes occurring at dams or dykes.

Further research is now required to determine whether other sources of non-linearity should be

taken into account.

The fact that the erosion law does not depend on the normal stress is more fundamental. This

parameter includes the pressure and the normal component of the turbulent stress. A more general

expression has to be used if the eroding flow is not strictly tangential to the surface (as in the case

of turbulent jets). Another point that needs to be examined is the structure of the erosion law from

the point of view of the irreversible thermodynamics, as it is a constitutive law. This analysis is

beyond the scope of this paper.

6. CONCLUSION

The hole erosion test appears to provide a simple, efficient means of quantifying the rate of piping

progression erosion. However, few attempts have been made so far to model this process. The

aim of this study was to draw up a model for interpreting hole erosion tests with a constant

pressure drop.

In the present modelling study, we started with the axially symmetrical equations for flow

involving fluid/soil interface erosion. After making a few assumptions, asymptotic developments

and dimensional analysis were performed and some characteristic numbers were obtained; the two

most significant of which are the erosion kinetic number and the characteristic erosion time.

A particular case was defined which covers the range of soils usually met in practice, involving

low erosion kinetics and dilute suspension flows. This situation arises when the coefficient of

erosion is small and when the pipe is not too long. In this case, the erosion velocity is lower

than the flow velocity. The influence of both concentration of soil particles in the flow and inertial

effects can be neglected, and the flow is quasi-steady.

A scaling law was obtained for interpreting the results of the hole erosion test with a constant

pressure drop, making it possible to give a unified description of the piping erosion of different soils

in pipes of various diameters. Comparisons were made between the results of the present modelling

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1591

study and previously published experimental data. These comparisons confirm the validity of our

scaling law.

In this section, the mass jump equation is developed. Let = w soil be any control volume in

a fluid/solid domain, with a smooth boundary *, containing matter with density and velocity u.

The zero-thickness interface between the fluid and the soil is denoted by , with velocity v and

a normal vector n oriented outward w . This is a discontinuity interface: the density is that of

the fluid on the one side and that of the soil on the other side.

The mass balance equations of the fluid and solid phases are

*

+div(u) = 0

*t

in w and s

d

M() = 0

dt

with M() =

(A1)

d

(A2)

The mass M() can be split into M() = M(w )+ M(s ). The Reynolds transport theorem gives

the mass rates accounting for the material boundary *w (velocity u) and the geometrical

boundary (celerity v and unit normal n exterior to *w ):

*

d

M(w ) =

(un) ds + b (v n ) ds

(A3)

d+

dt

w *t

*w

where ab denotes the value of a on on the fluid side. The second term on the RHS of Equation

(A3) can be rewritten by applying the Gauss theorem to u in w :

un ds =

div(u) d b ub n ds

(A4)

*w

w

Substituting Equation (A4), and then Equation (A1) into Equation (A3) gives

d

M(w ) = b (v ub )n ds

dt

(A5)

The same reasoning holds for the solid phase. Keeping the same normal vector n on yields

d

M(s ) = g (v ug )n ds

(A6)

dt

where ag denotes the value of a on on the solid side. Summing Equations (A5) and (A6) yields

d

M() = '(v u)n ( ds

(A7)

dt

where 'a( = ab ag is the jump in a across the interface . Finally, substituting Equation (A2)

into Equation (A7) and assuming that this result will hold for any control volume , we obtain

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1592

'(v u)n ( = 0

on

(A8)

Hence, the following quantity, which is the mass flux crossing , is continuous across :

m = (v u)n

(A9)

In this section, the momentum jump equation is developed with the same control volume as in

Appendix A. The momentum balance equations for the fluid and solid phases are

*(u)

(B1)

+div(uu) = div T+g in w and s

*t

where T is the Cauchy stress order-two tensor, and g is the body force vector. The momentum

balance equation for the overall domain is

d

A() =

Tn ds + g d with A() = u d

(B2)

dt

*

The momentum can be split into A() = A(w )+ A(s ). The Reynolds transport theorem gives the

momentum rates accounting for the material boundary *w and the geometrical boundary :

dA

*(u)

(w ) =

u(un) ds + b ub (v n ) ds

(B3)

d+

dt

w *t

*w

The second term on the RHS of Equation (B3) can be rewritten by applying the Gauss theorem

to uu in w :

u(un) ds =

div(uu) d b ub (ub n ) ds

(B4)

*w

w

Inserting Equation (B4) and then Equation (B1) into Equation (B3) gives

dA

(w ) =

div T+g d+ mu

b ds

dt

w

The Gauss theorem can now be applied to the first term on the RHS of Equation (B5):

dA

(w ) =

Tn ds +

g d+ mu

b ds

dt

*w

w

(B5)

(B6)

The same reasoning holds for the solid phase. Keeping the same normal vector n on yields

dA

(s ) =

Tn ds +

g d mu

g ds

(B7)

dt

*s

s

Note that

*w

Copyright q

Tn ds +

*s

Tn ds =

*

Tn ds +

'T(n ds

(B8)

DOI: 10.1002/nag

Summing Equations (B6) and (B7) and substituting Equation (B8) into the result yield

dA

() =

Tn ds + g d+ 'T(n+ m'u(

ds

dt

*

1593

(B9)

Finally, substituting Equation (B2) into Equation (B9) and assuming that the result will hold for

any control volume , we obtain the momentum jump equation on :

'r(n+ m'u(

=0

on

(B10)

Taking the normal and tangential parts of Equation (B10) and substituting Equation (A9) into the

result yield

1

1

b g = m 2

, sb sg = m(u

Tb uTg )

(B11)

w

where = nTn is the normal stress on , s = Tn n is the shear stress vector on , and

uT = u(un)n is the tangential velocity on .

APPENDIX C: EROSION ONSET TIME

Before erosion starts, the velocity response is likely to be gradual because of the term dV /dt. The

closed-form solution of

R *V

ker

= R P b

2 *t

before the erosion starts is

1

t)

V (t) = tanh(2 kref

tc =

kref

arctan h c

2

As arctan h[1103 ] = 3.8, we have tc 1 if 1 c > 103 , which is of the same order of magnitude as the accuracy of the raw data. The erosion onset time can therefore be neglected in the

interpretation because ker 1, as shown by the TaylorLagrange development of tc (c ) around one:

tc =

ker

ln(1 c )+ O(ker )

4

APPENDIX D: NOMENCLATURE

a

a

a g , ab

'a(

fluid/soil interface

dimensionless value of any physical variable a

average value of a across any section

limiting value of a on the solid and fluid sides of

jump of a across

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1594

R

L

S

x,r

n

w ,

ker

c

eff

u

v

uT

u, v

V

Ver

, , s

p, p

P

m

M

t0

ter

Q

Q er

fb

ker

pipe lengthscale in elongational flow approximation (m)

pipe length (m)

pipe section (m2 )

axial and radial coordinates (m)

soil porosity

water and soil densities (kg/m3 )

coefficient of surface erosion (s/m)

critical shear stress (Pa)

effective (eddy) fluid viscosity (kg/m/s)

fluid (or soil) velocity (m/s)

interface celerity (m/s)

velocity tangential to (m/s)

axial and radial fluid velocities (m/s)

average axial velocity (initial value V0 ) (m/s)

reference erosion velocity (m/s)

fluid shear stress (Pa)

normal stress, tangential stress and shear stress vector on (Pa)

fluid pressure, pressure drop (Pa)

driving pressure (Pa)

mass flux of eroded material (water and particles) (kg/m2 /s)

mass flow rate of eroded material (kg/s)

characteristic flow time (s)

characteristic erosion time (s)

volumetric flow rate of water (m3 /s)

reference volumetric flow rate of eroded material (m3 /s)

reference friction coefficient

erosion kinetic number

geometric scale ratio ( 1)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was sponsored by the Region Provence Alpes Cote dAzur. This research project is continuing

under the sponsorship of the French National Research Agency under grant 0594C0115 (ERINOH). The

authors wish to thank Professor Robin Fell and Dr Chi Fai Wan for their valuable experimental data.

REFERENCES

1. Fell R, Fry J-J. Internal Erosion of Dams and Their Foundations. Taylor & Francis: London, 2007.

2. Hagerty DJ. Piping/sapping erosion. I: Basic considerations. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 1991; 117(8):

9911008.

3. Hagerty DJ. Piping/sapping erosion. II: Identification-diagnosis. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 1991; 117(8):

10091025.

4. Wan CF, Fell R. Investigation of internal erosion and piping of soils in embankment dams by the slot erosion

test and the hole erosion test. UNICIV Report No R-412, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, July

2002; ISSN 0077 880X.

5. Wan CF, Fell R. Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in embankment dams. Journal of Geotechnical and

Geoenvironmental Engineering 2004; 130(4):373380.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

1595

6. Wan CF, Fell R. Laboratory tests on the rate of piping erosion of soils in embankment dams. Geotechnical

Testing Journal 2004; 27(3):295303.

7. Papamichos E, Desmorat R, Vardoulakis I. Geomechanical and structural issues in energy production. European

Journal of Civil Engineering (Hermes) 2006; 10(67):640902.

8. Lefebvre G, Rohan K, Douville S. Erosivity of natural intact structured clay: evaluation. Canadian Geotechnical

Journal 1985; 22:508517.

9. Rohan K, Lefebvre G, Douville S, Milette J-P. A new technique to evaluate erosivity of cohesive material.

Geotechnical Testing Journal 1986; 9(2):8792.

10. Chanson H. The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flows: An Introduction. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, U.K.,

1999.

11. Graf WH. Hydraulics of Sediment Transport. McGraw-Hill: London, 1971.

12. Yalin MS. Mechanics of Sediment Transport (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill: London, 1977.

13. Singh VP. Dam Breach Modelling Technology (Water Science and Technology Library). Kluwer Academic

Publishers: Dordrecht, 1996.

14. Lagree P-Y. Erosion and sedimentation of a bump in fluvial flow. Comptes Rendus de lAcademie des Sciences

2000; 328:869874.

15. Brivois O, Bonelli S, Borghi R. Soil erosion in the boundary layer flow along a slope: a theoretical study.

European Journal of Mechanics/B Fluids 2007; 26:707719.

16. Ojha CSP, Singh VP, Adrian DD. Determination of critical head in soil piping. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

2003; 129(7):511518.

17. Vardoulakis I, Stavropoulou M, Papanastasiou P. Hydromechanical aspects of sand production problem. Transport

in Porous Media 1996; 22:225244.

18. Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I, Tronvoll J, Skjaerstein A. Volumetric sand production model and experiment.

International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 2001; 25:789808.

19. Wang J, Wan RG. Computation of sand fluidization phenomena using stabilized finite elements. Finite Elements

in Analysis and Design 2004; 40:16811699.

20. Vardoulakis I, Papanastasiou P, Stavropoulou M. Sand erosion in axial flow conditions. Transport in Porous

Media 2001; 45:267281.

21. Vardoulakis I. Fluidization in artesian flow conditions: II. Hydro-mechanically unstable granular media.

Geotechnique 2004; 54:165177.

22. Papamichos E, Vardoulakis I. Sand erosion with a porosity diffusion law. Computers and Geotechnics 2005;

32:4758.

23. Schlichting H. Boundary Layer Theory (7th edn). McGraw-Hill: New York, 1987.

24. Landau L, Lifchitz E. Fluid Mechanics. Pergamon Press: Oxford, 1980.

25. Lagree P-Y, Lorthois S. The RNS/Prandtl equations and their link with other asymptotic descriptions. Application

to the computation of the maximum value of the wall shear stress in a pipe. International Journal of Engineering

Science 2005; 43(34):352378.

26. Lagree P-Y, Berger E, Deverge M, Vilain C, Hirschberg A. Characterization of the pressure drop in a 2D

symmetrical pipe: some asymptotical, numerical and experimental comparisons. Zeitschcrift fur Angewandte

Mathematik und Mechanik 2005; 85:16.

27. Partheniades E. Erosion and deposition of cohesive soils. Journal of the Hydraulics Division (ASCE) 1965;

91:105139.

28. Ariathurai R, Arulanandan K. Erosion rates of cohesive soils. Journal of the Hydraulics Division (ASCE) 1986;

104(2):279283.

29. Raudkivi AJ. Loose Boundary Hydraulics. Balkema: Rotterdam/Brookfield, 1998.

30. Brown GO. The history of the DarcyWeisbach equation for pipe flow resistance. In Environmental and Water

Resources History, Fredrich A, Rogers J (eds). ASCE: Reston, VA, 2002; 3443.

31. Shockling MA, Allen JJ, Smits AJ. Roughness effect in turbulent pipe flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2006;

564:267285.

32. Briaud JL, Ting FCK, Chen HC, Cao Y, Han SW, Kwak KW. Erosion function apparatus for scour rate prediction.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 2001; 127(2):105113.

33. Zhu JC, Gantzer CJ, Anderson SH, Peyton RL, Alberts EE. Comparison of concentrated-flow detachment

equations for low shear stress. Soil and Tillage Research 2001; 61:203212.

34. Knapen A, Poesen J, Govers G, Gyssels G, Nachtergaele J. Resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion: a

review. Earth-Science Reviews 2007; 80:75109.

Copyright q

DOI: 10.1002/nag

- 1. IJAMSS - Solution of the MHD Boundary Layer Flow Moving Continuous Flat Surface Using Spline MethodDiunggah olehiaset123
- CHEE2940 Lecture 7 Part a - Particle Fluid InteractionDiunggah olehapi-3835421
- Best Practice Guide CFD 2Diunggah olehsandiphirade
- viscous incompressible flow.Diunggah olehmustafaleeds
- Source LevelDiunggah olehAnonymous XD5arpEmr
- ne_21_U.pdfDiunggah olehsaurabhtyagi245
- Flare NetDiunggah olehPetrol Solly
- Steel productionDiunggah olehamitxt
- Highlight Conclusions - Sehoul Study SiteDiunggah olehmedesdesire
- Project FluidDiunggah olehisyraffitri
- AtriumCalcReport-V 1-1a.pdfDiunggah olehJon
- FM 3e SI Chap01 LectureDiunggah olehmohdrashdansaad
- reference-MS.pdfDiunggah olehmuco
- FM 3e SI Chap01 LectureDiunggah olehCecelia Chee
- Report Bench 1Diunggah olehNcks Hlfs
- Technical Challenges With the Small Scale LNG TerminalsDiunggah olehJosé Nunes
- 084KuaDiunggah olehKodok Pertapa
- CH2001_6_RMDiunggah olehSai Kumar
- Pirozzoli SergioDiunggah olehataere
- Pasha2018 AJSE Three-DimensionalModelingShock With Front Coverpage PublishedDiunggah olehAmjad Ali Pasha
- bernoulli_saleta.pdfDiunggah olehJanissa
- Structure of Turbulent Boundary LayersDiunggah olehSambhav Jain
- PHYSICS project viscosity.pptxDiunggah olehclinton peter pereira
- 11-2-6Diunggah olehConniefer Choi
- jeas_0218_6760Diunggah olehTarek Tarek
- e Chapter3 h HydrologyDiunggah olehRoselir Ribeiro
- Recent Developments on Active Flow ControlDiunggah olehRavi Kant
- RTYDDTHTBBBDiunggah olehFDAHTYHUJIKOL
- N SEquationsDiunggah olehKristine Marie Javier
- Unit IDiunggah olehshehzadshk01_3996181

- Abaqus tehniqueDiunggah olehKrokuss Emil
- Soil Calculation Parameter Shear Shear Strength CuDiunggah olehcharleshutabara951
- 29997895 Chapter 7 Solutions Modern Physics 4th EditionDiunggah olehhabanerochild
- Lecture 5Diunggah olehRevant Soni
- Shs Physical Science 12 Curriculum GuideDiunggah olehclay adrian
- semester exam 2 study guide with answersDiunggah olehapi-277964255
- Damping.pdfDiunggah olehshaker
- Helical Screw Tape Inserts Laminar Circular Tube[1]Diunggah olehinstrutech
- Wall Thickness OptimizationDiunggah olehPutune Mbah Dulah Kastari
- drawing a lumley triangleDiunggah olehgoldenthangam
- 1602.0234v4Diunggah olehGaro Ohanoglu
- Energy ConservationDiunggah olehPoorna Chander Naik
- Numerical method for PDE by finite differenceDiunggah olehsarkawt hamarahim muhammad
- The Energy[1]Diunggah olehabdikarimmohamoud
- Pipeline Defect Assessment ManualDiunggah olehalexrodriguezabc
- Notes on Linearisation(H.K.Khalil)Diunggah olehD.Viswanath
- Chimney Calculation SheetDiunggah olehVinoth Rajendra
- Comparative Parametric Study of Seismic Behaviour of RC Framed Building With & Without Floating Column In Different ConfigurationDiunggah olehAnonymous CUPykm6DZ
- Report on RC aeroplaneDiunggah olehSandeep Kr. Mishra
- Midterm 1-solutions.pdfDiunggah olehOnur ÖZÇELİK
- Prskalo_JHG_1Diunggah olehanyak1167032
- Transport Phenomena Syllabus SheetDiunggah olehMeethiPotter
- forces_studyguide_2015_2016.pdfDiunggah olehShiella Mae Baltazar Bulauitan
- Unit 1Diunggah olehRaj Bakhtani
- Experiment 3.Diunggah olehtracyymendoza
- Bardina 1997 (Turbulence Modeling Validation and Development)Diunggah olehAdemar Bender
- 2002 Non Linear Analysis and Safety Format for Practice _fib 2002 MANCINIDiunggah olehIffat Siddqiue
- HeatDiunggah olehShinji
- Rotational and Vibrational SpectraDiunggah olehSachin George Sachu
- Worm and Worm WheelDiunggah olehMBilal Mughal