Proceedings of the 32 ^{r}^{d} International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2013
9-14 June 2013, Nantes, France
OMAE2013- 10635
NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF VORTEX INDUCED VIBRATIONS FOR MARINE RISERS SUBJECTED TO SHEARED FLOW
F. Van den Abeele Cranfield University Cranfield, UK
J. Vande Voorde OCAS N.V. Ghent, Belgium
F. Kara Cranfield University Cranfield, UK
ABSTRACT The increasing demand for oil and gas, currently estimated at 135 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, keeps pushing the boundaries of offshore engineering into ever deeper waters. Exploration and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance, are performed in water depths exceeding 3000 meters. For such deepwater developments, the suspended length of the marine risers adds up to several kilometers. When designing and installing risers in (ultra)deep water, the length/diameter aspect ratio of the marine riser can exceed L/D > 1000, and the features of the fluid flow in depth direction can no longer be neglected. Indeed, both the magnitude and the direction of the current change with water depth, giving rise to higher harmonics in the VIV response.
The prediction of vortex induced vibrations for deepwater risers is very challenging, owing to the fact that the incident flows are non-uniform and the associated fluid structure interaction phenomena are highly complex. These complex conditions give rise to a non linear coupled system with a large number of degrees of freedom, which depends on several physical and mechanical parameters.
In this paper, 3D CFD calculations are performed to evaluate the effect of the third dimension for risers subjected to uniform flow and sheared currents. For a uniform current velocity at the inlet boundary, it is shown that vortex shedding in the wake of long slender tubulars can give rise to the development of vortices with horizontal axis, resulting in a fluctuation of the flow in the Z-direction. These three dimensional vortices are strong enough to modulate the vortex shedding on the riser as a function of depth. The 3D simulations with uniform current velocity are then compared to marine risers subjected to sheared currents. It is shown that the presence of sheared currents invokes a shift in both phase and frequency of the vortex shedding.
VORTEX INDUCED VIBRATIONS IN MARINE RISERS Wall thickness design for marine risers is based on Barlow’s formula [1]
^{} 2 ^{} ^{}
_{}
(1)
which states that the hoop stress _{} expressed as a function of the internal pressure _{} , mean diameter and wall thickness , is limited by the specified minimum yield stress _{} of the material, multiplied by a safety factor 0.6 for hazardous service. Additional design guidelines are applied to account for corrosion allowance and continuity of the internal diameter.
Barlow’s formula (1) indicates that a smaller diameter riser can convey hydrocarbons at a higher internal pressure. Hence, multiple small diameter risers are typically preferred over one single large diameter riser. During the design of floating production platforms in deepwater, it has been recognized [2] that there is a risk of interference between adjacent production and export risers, or possibly between other combinations of tendons, drilling risers and production risers.
This paper presents numerical analyses to predict vortex induced vibrations in marine risers subjected to sheared flow. The paper subsequently addresses
Wake interference and proximity effects. First, 2D simulations on fixed rigid cylinders are performed to investigate wake interference and proximity effects for multiple marine risers in tandem arrangement. The influence of end spacing on the flow pattern is studied, and the drag and lift coefficients for both the upstream and downstream riser are compared to evaluate proximity effects.
1
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Multiphysics modeling of fluid structure interaction. In order to predict the displacements of marine risers experiencing vortex induced vibrations, multiphysics modeling of fluid structure interaction is needed. Fluid structure interaction requires co-simulation of a structural solver and a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code. In this paper, a weakly coupled solution is presented to estimate the VIV response of marine risers in close proximity.
Slender risers subjected to sheared flow. When designing and installing risers in (ultra)deep water, the length/diameter aspect ratio of the marine riser can exceed ⁄ 1000, and the features of the fluid flow in depth direction can no longer be neglected. Both the magnitude and the direction of the current change with water depth, giving rise to higher harmonics in the VIV response. At the end of this paper, 3D CFD calculations are performed to evaluate the effect of the third dimension for risers subjected to uniform flow and sheared currents.
COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS FOR RISERS
The simulations, reported in this paper, have been performed with OpenFOAM, an open source CFD solver. This solver uses the generalized version of the Navier-Stokes equations [3], solving for the velocity field , and the pressure . When the fluid flows past a fixed cylinder like a marine riser, a region of disturbed flow is formed, like schematically shown on Figure 1.
In this simulation of laminar flow, the free stream velocity is shown in green. Lower velocities are depicted in blue, whereas yellow indicates values higher than the stream velocity. Evidently, the velocity varies in terms of magnitude, direction and time, and four regions can be distinguished:
1. The retarded flow is a narrow region in front of the cylinder, where the local (time-averaged) velocity is lower than the free stream velocity
2. Two boundary layers attached to the surface of the cylinder
3. Two sideway regions where the local (time-averaged) velocity is higher than the free stream velocity
4. The wake, which is the downstream region of separated flow where the local (time-averaged) velocity is less than the free stream velocity
The fluid flow around a circular cylinder, as shown on Figure 1, is a well-known and documented [4-6] problem in computational fluid dynamics, and often used as a benchmark for CFD solvers [7].
Figure 1: Regions of disturbed flow
The flow pattern in the wake of the cylinder is primarily governed by the Reynolds number
^{}^{} ^{}
(2)
which expresses the ratio of inertia forces to viscous forces, with the fluid flow velocity, _{} the total outer diameter and
^{}
(3)
the kinematic viscosity as a ratio of the dynamic viscosity with the density _{} . A detailed analysis of the different flow regimes around subsea structures can be found in [8-9]. In summary, the regimes of fluid flow across a smooth subsea structure can be divided in
Unseparated flow for very low ( 5) Reynolds numbers
The regime for 5 40 , where a pair of Föppl vortices develop in the wake
The transition range (150 300) from laminar flow to turbulence
The regime where the vortex street is fully turbulent (300 3 ∙ 10 ^{} )
3 ∙ 10 ^{} ,
boundary layer undergoes turbulent
transition, and the wake will be narrower and disorganized
At very high Reynolds numbers ( 3 ∙ 10 ^{} ), re- establishment of a turbulent vortex street occurs
For even higher numbers 3 ∙ 10 ^{}
the laminar
For the range of Reynolds numbers relevant to offshore pipeline engineering, the flow is fully turbulent, and it becomes increasingly difficult –if not impossible- to predict the transient flow behavior with a laminar solver for the Navier Stokes equations.
2
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
The possible options for CFD simulations at very high Reynolds numbers are:
Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), which solves the Navier Stokes equations for the pressure and the velocity components in a time-dependent domain. This approach requires a very fine mesh size and very small time steps to resolve the smallest eddies and capture the fluctuations in the turbulent flow [10]. As a result, this approach is not economically feasible for pipeline design.
Large Eddy Simulation (LES), where large turbulent eddies are computed in a time-dependent simulation, whereas small eddies are predicted with a compact model. Indeed, smaller eddies have an isotropic (and hence more universal) behavior, but larger eddies in the turbulent flow tend to be anisotropic, and their behavior is directly influenced by the problem geometry. The viability and accuracy of Large Eddy Simulation for complex turbulent flows at high Reynolds numbers is investigated in [11], but has proven to be not feasible for full 3D analysis of offshore structures [12].
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) turbulence model. In the RANS approach, all flow characteristics are decomposed as the sum of a steady (mean) value and a fluctuating term. This decomposition gives rise to a Reynolds stress tensor, which adds six unknowns to the system of equations. As a result, turbulence models are required to provide additional transport equations to close the system [13]. In this paper, an enhanced model is used to simulate vortex induced vibrations in multiple marine risers. The mathematical details of the turbulence model applied are given in the Appendix.
WAKE INTERFERENCE FOR TANDEM RISERS
During the design of floating production platforms in deepwater, it has been recognized [2] that there is a risk of interference between adjacent production or export risers, or possibly between other combinations of tendons, drilling risers and production risers. The consequences of most concern are the possible increase in fatigue damage due to vortex induced vibrations (VIV), and the likelihood of contact between adjacent risers.
A large body of work has been published addressing measurement, modeling and analysis of marine risers in tandem arrangement [14]. A careful review of flow interference between two circular cylinders in various arrangements has been presented by Zdravkovich [15-16], including an extensive list of references on this subject. He has also introduced a classification of flow regimes around two circular cylinders, depending on their relative position.
Different studies for the tandem arrangement of two adjacent risers [2, 17-19] have shown that the changes in drag, lift and vortex shedding are not continuous. Instead, an abrupt change for all flow characteristics is observed at a critical spacing between the risers. An exhaustive description on proximity effects and wake interference can be found in [20], and a comprehensive summary of VIV in tandem risers is provided in [2]. Recent research results have been published in a.o. [21-23].
In this paper, the published data on riser interference tests for flexible tubulars [2] will be used as experimental validation. To simulate these experiments, a 2D CFD model is constructed, assuming fixed rigid cylinders with an outer diameter of 114.3 mm. The simulation setup, with a grid of 50 by 15 , is shown on Figure 2.
Figure 2: Simulation setup to study wake interference
For the simulations of fluid flow around marine risers in tandem arrangement, the computational grid comprises some 250 000 cells. Depending on the end spacing, the dimensionless wall distance is in the range of
20 y ^{} ^{ρ} ^{} ^{u} ^{} ^{y} 30
(4)
μ
with the distance to the nearest wall, and _{} the friction
velocity defined by
u _{} ^{τ} ^{}
ρ
(5)
where _{} is the average wall shear stress. As long as (4) is satisfied, the problem is well conditioned. The enhanced model, presented in [24] and detailed in the Appendix, was used to simulate vortex induced vibrations in multiple marine risers in tandem arrangement.
On Figure 3, the turbulent eddy viscosity is shown for very high ( 2.5 ∙ 10 ^{} ) Reynolds numbers, clearly indicating that this enhanced eddy viscosity model is capable of simulating a turbulent wake with significant separation.
3
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Figure 3: Distribution of turbulent eddy viscosity
The parametric approach, suggested in Figure 2, enables the investigation of risers in staggered arrangements as well, for 0. In this paper, we focus on risers in tandem arrangement ( 0 with different end spacings 2 ⁄ 6. It has been shown experimentally [16-18] that there is strong interference between two cylinders in tandem arrangement for spacing ratios with ⁄ 3.5. At a spacing ⁄ 3.5, a sudden change of the flow pattern in the gap between the adjacent risers is observed.
On Figure 4, the influence of the end spacing on the fluid flow pattern in the wake of the tandem risers is shown for a Reynolds number 10 ^{} , i.e. the two-bubble regime of the transition in the boundary layers. These simulation results indeed endorse the experimental observations of Allen [2], Zdravkovich [16] and King [17]:
For small end spacing ( ⁄ 3), vortex shedding only occurs in the wake of the downstream riser: the free shear layers which separate from the upstream riser are permanently re-attached to the downstream riser. In [25], Zdravkovich refers to this type of wake interference as quasi-steady re-attachment.
Figure 4: Tandem risers with different end spacing
4
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
When increasing the gap ( ⁄ 3) between both risers, a turbulent vortex street appears in the wake of both the upstream and the downstream riser. The vortices shed by the upstream riser coalesce with the vortex street of the downstream riser, and binary eddy streets are observed. It can be clearly seen that there is no re-attachment of the free shear layers separated from the upstream riser to the downstream one.
Drag coefficient data [16, 18] shows that the upstream riser takes the brunt of the burden, and that the downstream riser has little or no effect on the upstream one. For different values of spacing ⁄ , the drag coefficient is shown on Figure 5.
Figure 5: Drag coefficients at Re = 10 ^{5}
Apparently, the drag coefficient on the upstream riser is not significantly influenced by the downstream one, but a significant change in drag is observed on the downstream cylinder for ⁄ 3. In [2], drag coefficients are measured on risers in tandem arrangement with increasing end spacing for Reynolds numbers from 1 ∙ 10 ^{} up to 2.5 ∙ 10 ^{} . On Figure 8, for instance, the measured drag coefficients for both upstream and downstream riser are shown for a spacing ⁄ 3. The drag coefficients, predicted by the CFD simulations at 1 ∙ 10 ^{} , are indicated as well, showing a very good agreement with the experimental data.
Figure 6: Drag coefficients for L = 3D [2]
Figure 6 shows that for the upstream cylinder, the drag crisis occurs somewhat earlier (i.e. at a lower Reynolds number) than traditional measurements of this phenomenon [17, 18], which could be attributed to the combined effects of free-stream turbulence and cylinder displacement. The combination of an early drag crisis on the upstream riser and large displacements of the downstream riser produces a larger total drag force on the downstream riser for 1.7 ∙ 10 ^{} .
MULTIPHYSICS: FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
The CFD simulations, presented in the previous section, were performed on fixed, rigid cylinders. Although such simulations are capable of identifying the proximity effects between adjacent risers by revealing their influence on drag coefficients and flow pattern in the wake, they cannot predict the VIV response of the riser.
cylinder
vibration can significantly affect the vortex shedding. In
summary, the cylinder displacement tends to
Blevins
[26]
pointed
out
that
the
cross-flow
Increase the d rag on the cylinder
Shift the vortex shedding frequency to the cylinder’s vibration frequency
Increase the strength of the vortices
Alter the vortex pattern and hence the vortex shedding frequency
Some quantitative details can be found in [26-27]. In addition to drag coefficients, Allen [2] reports measurements for the transverse displacements of the upstream and downstream cylinders as well. In order to predict the displacements of marine risers experiencing vortex induced vibrations, multi-physics modeling of fluid structure interaction is needed.
Fluid structure interaction requires co-simulation of a structural solver and a CFD code. In a strongly coupled solution, the fluid flow will dictate the displacements, which in turn will influence the flow pattern. The structural displacements are used as an input for the CFD simulation, and the resulting pressure distribution is fed back to the structural solver [28]. When simulating large displacements (e.g. vortex induced vibrations), the moving mesh is severely distorted and the strongly coupled solution procedure is prone to numerical instabilities.
In a weakly coupled solution, the structural solver and the CFD solver are executed sequentially. This approach provides a better balance between accuracy and computational expense, but is only applicable when the structural response does not significantly influence the fluid flow. In this paper, weakly coupled simulations of fluid structure interaction are conducted to estimate the VIV response of marine risers in close proximity.
5
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Figure 7: Comparison between weak and strong coupling
In the sequentially coupled simulations, we first calculate the flow patterns to estimate the lift and drag forces exerted on the structure. The CFD simulations are performed according to the approach described in the previous section: the fluid domain is modelled in 2D, and the cylinders are fixed and assumed to be rigid (cfr. Figure 2).
On Figure 8, the calculated lift and drag forces are shown for the downstream riser at a spacing ⁄ 3, for a Reynolds number 1 ∙ 10 ^{} . The oscillating signals reflect a fully developed turbulent wake. Note that the average lift force is zero, while the average drag force is a measure for the resistance against fluid flow.
On Figure 9, the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the lift and drag forces is shown, to reveal the frequency content of the signals. Clearly, the dominant frequency of the drag force is twice the lift frequency: _{} 2 _{} 0.42 Hz.
Figure 8: Lift and drag forces on the downstream riser
For the top-tensioned risers used in [2], the n-th eigenfrequency can be estimated by [29]
f
2 ^{}
_{} ^{}^{}
(6)
with the length, the tension, the distributed mass and the bending stiffness. In (6), the tubes are assumed to be simply supported, straight and with constant tension. As a result, the computed eigenfrequency is omni-directional and corresponds to the first bending mode of the cylinder. Note that the natural frequency (6) is a function of the tension, but is predominantly controlled by the bending stiffness [30].
The lowest natural frequency is calculated as _{} = 2.35 Hz, while the measured frequency (by means of Pluck tests) was found to be _{} = 2.23 Hz. Numerical modal analysis (solving the eigenvalue problem) confirmed a lowest natural frequency of _{} = 2.225 Hz.
Figure 9: Frequency spectrum of lift and drag forces
As indicated in Figure 9, the drag frequency _{} 0.42 Hz is still significantly lower than the first natural frequency of the test tubes, so only moderate displacements are expected.
6
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
To predict the response of the downstream riser when subjected to the lift and drag forces shown on Figure 8, the principle of virtual work [31] is applied:
σ _{}_{} _{} _{} _{} _{} _{}_{} _{}_{}
_{} _{}
(7)
where is the boundary of the Lagrangian body , _{}_{} are the stress components, _{}_{} the strain components, _{} the external forces (including lift and drag ), and _{} the unknown displacements. The top-tensioned test tube is modeled as a compliant structure, with Young’s modulus = 2700 MPa and density = 1050 kg/m³. The displacements are simulated with a finite element code using a transient dynamic explicit solver.
Figure 10: Predicted cross-flow displacements
The predicted cross-flow displacements ⁄ of the downstream riser are shown on Figure 10. After some 20 seconds, the signal reaches its maximum amplitude
^{y}
0.15
(8)
and
Reynolds number 10 ^{5} ), the maximum measured transverse
displacement [2] was _{}_{}_{} ⁄ 0.163.
For
the same
situation (end spacing 3 diameters
On Figure 11, the transverse RMS displacement measurements for both the upstream and downstream test tube are shown for the range 10 ^{} 2.5 ∙ 10 ^{} . Apparently, for the lower Reynolds numbers ( 1.7 ∙ 10 ^{} , the displacement of the downstream cylinder is smaller than for the upstream cylinder. For higher Reynolds numbers, the down- stream cylinder vibrates at larger transverse amplitudes than the downstream cylinder. However, other tests have shown [32] that for higher vibration modes [33], the downstream cylinder always vibrates less than the upstream one, when the magnitude of the displacements is sufficiently large.
Figure 11: Transverse displacements for L = 3D [2]
The prediction of the fluid structure interaction (FSI) simulation is included in Figure 11 as well, showing a good agreement with the experimental observation.
MARINE RISERS SUBJECTED TO SHEARED FLOW
In the CFD simulations presented in the previous sections, the risers were assumed to be fixed and rigid, and the length direction was not taken into account. However, when designing and installing risers in (ultra)deep water, the length/diameter aspect ratio of the marine riser can exceed ⁄ 1000, and the features of the fluid flow in depth direction can no longer be neglected. In this section, 3D CFD calculations are presented to evaluate the effect of this third dimension for risers subjected to uniform and sheared currents.
In order to assess the effect of the length direction on the flow pattern, a 3D CFD calculation was performed on a riser with a diameter 1 meter and length 50 meter. The calculation grid comprised 616 000 cells. On Figure 12, the pressure distribution on the riser is shown, and the corresponding flow pattern is visualized as well.
Figure 12: Fluid flow simulation around 3D riser
7
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Vortex shedding in the wake of the long slender tubular gives rise to the development of vortices with horizontal axis, resulting in fluctuation of the flow in the Z-direction. This could be expected, as it is known [3] that the transport of a vortex creates in itself a new vortex with perpendicular axis. The simulation shows that these 3D vortices are strong enough to modulate the vortex shedding on a riser as a function of depth, although the inlet boundary has a uniform current velocity.
On Figure 13, the lift coefficient integrated over the entire riser length is compared with a 2D simulation for the same riser diameter. While the dominant frequency is the same, the 3D signal exhibits higher harmonics, corresponding to a shift in vortex shedding frequency as a function of depth. The amplitude of the lift is also lower than expected based on the 2D calculations. A similar trend is observed when comparing the drag forces for a 2D and 3D simulation. In conclusion, a 2D simulation will give rise to conservative predictions.
Figure 13: Comparison of lift forces between 2D and 3D
The prediction of vortex induced vibrations for deepwater risers is very challenging, owing to the fact that the incident flows are non-uniform and the associated fluid structure interaction phenomena are highly complex [34]. These complex conditions give rise to a non-linear, coupled system with a large number of degrees of freedom, which depends on several physical and mechanical parameters. While a great deal of attention has been devoted to riser VIV modeling and prediction, most of the studies presented in literature [35-38] only account for a uniform incident current.
A good introduction on the subject of marine risers subjected to sheared flow is given by Vandiver [39-41], and a limited set of experiments [29] and simulations [34] have been published on VIV predictions for linearly sheared currents. At the end of this paper, a 3D CFD simulation is performed on a riser span of 50 meter, subjected to sheared flow. For the current profile [42], a one-seventh power law
_{V} _{z} _{} _{} ^{}^{}^{}
⁄
_{} _{0}
(9)
Figure 14: Marine riser subjected to sheared current
was chosen, where the flow velocity varies from 0 at the seabed to _{} at ⁄2. On Figure 14, the resulting fluid pattern around the marine riser is shown. The vortex street is visualized in five horizontal planes, uniformly distributed over the length of the riser. The influence of the current gradient over the length of the riser can clearly be observed in Figure 14.
On Figure 15, the lift and drag coefficients are shown as a function of depth. Close to the seabed ( 5 m), the riser experiences little or no fluctuating lift, and only moderate drag. When approaching the still water level, the lift and drag coefficients asymptotically converge towards the 2D solution. The presence of sheared currents invoke a shift in both phase and frequency of the vortex shedding. As a result, the lift and drag will be lower compared to the 3D simulation with a uniform current speed, shown in Figure 13.
Figure 15: Lift and drag as a function of depth
8
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
CONCLUSIONS
In his pioneering paper [43], Prof. Vandiver presented the most stringent research challenges in the prediction of vortex induced vibrations for marine risers. In addition to the need of acquiring high quality full-scale response data and developing cost effective mitigation measures, he highlights a more profound understanding of fluid structure interaction and the simulation of sheared flow as important research topics.
This results, presented in this paper, want to contribute to the numerical simulation of VIV for marine risers in close proximity. The main conclusions from this work read:
Given the high Reynolds numbers involved in deep water riser design (10 ^{} 10 ^{} ), turbulence modeling is required to capture vortex shedding. The enhanced model, proposed in [24], proves to be the most appropriate RANS closure to predict VIV.
For two risers in tandem arrangement, there is a sudden change in flow characteristics for a critical spacing ⁄ 3.5. The upstream riser takes most of the burden, while the drag coefficient on the downstream riser is lower at 1.7 ∙ 10 ^{}
Multiphysics modeling of fluid structure interaction allows predicting the VIV response of marine risers in tandem arrangement. For high Reynolds numbers, the downstream riser often experiences higher transverse displacements than the upstream riser.
For low Reynolds numbers, there is little effect of end spacing on the drag coefficients and displacements, whereas the effect of end spacing is obvious and distinct for 1.7 ∙ 10 ^{}
Fluid flow simulations in 3D indicate that 2D CFD calculations will yield conservative predictions: the amplitude of lift and drag are slightly over-estimated in 2D simulations.
The presence of sheared currents invoke a shift in both phase and frequency of the vortex shedding. As a result, the lift and drag will be lower compared to a 3D simulation with a uniform incident current.
APPENDIX ON TURBULENCE MODELLING
The Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible Newtonian liquids could be used for turbulent flow simulations. However, once the flow becomes turbulent, all quantities fluctuate in time and space with widely varied time scales and length scales. It is theoretically possible to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for all scales, yet the required computer resources render this approach impracticable.
Therefore, the turbulent influence is modeled, and the most commonly used models are the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) models [13]. In this RANS approach, all flow characteristics are decomposed as the sum of a steady (mean) value and a fluctuating term. This decomposition gives rise to a Reynolds stress tensor, which adds six unknowns to the system of equations. As a result, turbulence models are required to provide additional transport equations to close the system.
In this paper, the turbulence model was selected to simulate wake interference in adjacent marine risers. This model is frequently used to model turbulent flow, and was identified by [11] as the most appropriate RANS model to predict vortex induced vibrations in marine risers for Reynolds numbers up to 10 ^{} .
The turbulence model [44-45] is a two equation model, providing a transport equation for the kinetic energy
∂ ρ _{} k ∂ ρ _{} u _{} k
∂t
∂x _{} ^{} ^{τ} ^{}^{}
∂u _{}
_{x} ρ _{} ε
_{∂}_{x} μ ^{μ} ^{}
∂
^{}
∂k
σ ∂x _{}
2μ
k
d
^{}
(10)
and an additional expression for the viscous dissipation rate
∂ ρ _{} ε ∂ ρ _{} u _{} ε
∂t
_{∂}_{x} _{} C _{} f _{}
ε
_{k} τ
∂u _{}
_{∂}_{x} _{} C _{} f _{} ρ _{}
_{∂}_{x} μ ^{μ} ^{} 2μ _{} exp ^{d}
∂
σ
∂ε
∂x
ε
d
2
ε
^{}
k
(11)
where ^{} is a non-local function [45] of distance to the wall. The auxiliary functions read _{} 1 and
with
f _{} 1
0.4
1.8
exp ^{R}^{e} ^{} _{}
36
Re _{} ^{ρ} _{μ}_{ε} ^{} The turbulent eddy viscosity is computed from
k
^{}
μ _{} C _{} f _{} ρ _{}
k
ε
(12)
(13)
(14)
with _{} 0.09 and _{} 1 exp 0.0115 ^{} . The values for the other model constants are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Values for the k- model constants
_{} 1.35 |
_{} 1.80 |
_{} 1.0 |
_{} 1.3 |
9
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
This standard model is widely used in computational fluid dynamics, and was adopted by [11, 46] to predict vortex shedding around circular cylinders at high Reynolds numbers ( 10 ^{} ). The model performs quite well for boundary layer flows, but is less accurate for risers in which a high mean shear rate is present or massive separation occurs (which could be expected for risers in tandem arrangement). In these cases, the eddy viscosity is over-predicted by the standard formulation. Moreover, the dissipation rate equation (11) does not always give the appropriate length scale for turbulence.
To improve the ability of the standard model to predict complex turbulent flows, an enhanced eddy viscosity model is proposed in [24]. This model consists of a new formulation for the viscous dissipation rate
∂ ρ _{} ε ∂ ρ _{} u _{} ε
∂t
∂x _{}
μ
∂x _{} ^{} ∂x
∂
^{}
∂ε
σ
C _{} ρ _{} Sε C _{} ρ _{}
ε
^{}
k √υε
(15)
based on the dynamic equation of the mean square vorticity fluctuation at large turbulent Reynolds numbers. In addition, a new eddy viscosity formulation is introduced
with
μ _{} C _{} ρ _{}
k
ε
C
1
A _{} A _{} U ^{∗} ^{k}
ε
(16)
(17)
based on the positivity of the normal Reynolds stresses and the Schwarz’ inequality for turbulent shear stresses [24]. In (17), the coefficient _{} is determined by
with
U ^{∗} S _{}_{} S _{}_{} Ω _{}_{}
^{} ^{Ω}
Ω Ω 2ε ω
(18)
(19)
and the parameters _{} 4.0 and _{} _{√}_{6} cos , where
where
with
1
ϕ cos ^{}^{} _{√}_{6}_{W}
3
W ^{S} ^{S} ^{S}
S
S
S S
(20)
(21)
(22)
The other constants, calibrated in [24], are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Values for the enhanced k- model constants
_{} max 0.43, |
⁄ 5 ⁄ ^{} |
_{} 1.90 |
_{} 1.0 |
_{} 1.2 |
REFERENCES
[1] Mohitpour M., Golshan H. and murray A., Pipeline Design and Construction – A Practical Approach, Third
Edition, ASME Press (2007) Allen D.W., Henning D.L. and Lee L., Riser Interference Tests on Flexible Tubulars at Prototype Reynolds
numbers, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC-17290 (2005)
[3] Batchelor G.K., An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics,
[2]
[4] |
Cambridge University Press (1967) Norberg C., Flow Around a Circular Cylinder: Aspects of |
[5] |
Fluctuating Lift, Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 15, pp. 459-469 (2001) Rocchi D. and Zasso A., Vortex Shedding from a Circular |
Cylinder in a Smooth and Wired Configuration:
Comparison between 3D Large Eddy Simulation and Experimental Analysis, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 910, pp. 475-489 (2002) [6] Norberg C., Fluctuating Lift on a Circular Cylinder:
Review and New Measurements, Journal of Fluids and
Structures, vol. 15, pp. 57-96 (2003)
[7] Schäfer M. and Turek S., Benchmark Computations of Laminar Flow Around a Cylinder, Flow Simulation with High Performance Computers II, vol. 52, pp. 547-566
(1996)
[8] Sumer B.M. and Fredsoe J., Hydrodynamics around Cylindrical Structures, World Scientific, Signapore (1999) [9] Gourmel X., Numerical Simulation of the Flow over Smooth and Straked Riser at High Reynolds Numbers, M.Sc. Thesis, Cranfield University, School of Applied Sciences, Offshore and Ocean Technology (2010) [10] Mainçon P. and Larsen C.M., Towards a Time Domain Finite Element Analysis of Vortex Induced Vibration of Risers with Staggered Buoyancy, Proceedings of the 30 ^{t}^{h} ASME Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011-49046 (2011) [11] Catalano P., Wang M., Iaccarino G. and Moin P., Numerical Simulation of the Flow Around a Circular Cylinder at High Reynolds Numbers, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 24, pp. 463-469 (2003)
[12] Constantinides Y. and Oakley O., Numerical Prediction of Bare and Straked Cylinder Vortex Induced Vibrations,
Proceedings of the 25 ^{t}^{h} International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2006- 92334, Hamburg, Germany (2006) [13] Wilcox D.C., Turbulence Modelling for Computational Fluid Dynamics, Second Edition, DCW Industries (1998)
10
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
[14] Kondo N., Three Dimensional Analysis for Vortex Induced Vibrations of an Upstream Cylinder in Two Tandem Circular Cylinders, Proceedings of the 30 ^{t}^{h} ASME Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011-49655 (2011) [15] Zdravkovich M.M., Review of Flow Interference between Two Circular Cylinders in Various Arrangements, Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 99 (4), pp. 618-633 (1977) [16] Zdravkovich M.M., Flow Induced Oscillations of Two Interfering Circular Cylinders, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 101(4), pp. 511-521 (1985) [17] King R., Wake Interaction Experiments with Two Flexible Circular Cylinders in Flowing Water, Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 45(2), pp. 559-583 (1976) [18] Zhang H. and Melbourne W.H., Interference between Two Cylinders in Tandem in Turbulent Flow, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 41-44, pp. 589-600 (1992) [19] Allen D.W. and Henning D.L., Vortex Induced Vibration Current Tank Tests of Two Equal Diameter Cylinders in Tandem, Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 17, pp. 767-781 (2003) [20] Mittal S. And Kumar V., Flow Induced Oscillations of Two Cylinders in Tandem and Staggered Arrangements, Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 15, pp. 717-736
(2001)
[21] Lestang Parade E., Dual String Risers – Local Behaviour, M.Sc. Thesis, Cranfield University, School of Applied Sciences, Offshore and Ocean Technology (2010) [22] Li L., Fu S., Yang J., Ren T. and Wang X., Experimental Investigation of Vortex Induced Vibration of Risers with Staggered Buoyancy, Proceedings of the 30th ASME Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011-49046 (2011) [23] Corson D., Cosgrove S., Hays P.R., Constantinides Y., Oakley O., Mukundan H. And Leung M., CFD Hydrodynamic Databases for Wake Interference Assessment, Proceedings of the 30 ^{t}^{h} ASME Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011- 49407 (2011) [24] Shih T.H., Liou W.W., Shabbir A., Yang Z. And Zhu J., A New k- Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows, Computer Fluids vol. 24(3), pp. 227-238 (1995) [25] Zdravkovich M.M., Flow Around Circular Cylinders – Applications, Oxford University Press (2003) [26] Blevins R.D., Flow Induced Vibration, Second Edition, Krieger Publishing Company, Florida (1994) [27] Vandiver K.J., Drag Coefficients of Long Flexible Cylinders, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC-4490 (1983) [28] Tukovic Z., The Finite Volume Method for Fluid Structure Interaction with Large Structural Displacements [29] Lie H. and Kaasen K.E., Modal Analysis Measurements from a Large Scale VIV Model Test of a Riser in Linearly Sheared Flow, Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 22, pp. 557-575 (2006)
[30] Weimin C., Zhongqin Z. and Min Li, Effects of Varying Tension and Stiffness on Dynamic Characteristics and VIV of a Slender Riser, Proceedings of the 30 ^{t}^{h} ASME Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011-49295 (2011) [31] Rao S.S., The Finite Element Method in Engineering, Elsevier Science & Technology Books, 658 pp. (2004) [32] Allen D.W. and Henning D.L., Vortex Induced Vibration Current Tank Tests of Two Equal Diameter Cylinders in Tandem, Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 17, pp. 767-781 (2003) [33] Ashiru A., Assessment of Vortex Induced Vibration Response in Higher Harmonics Mode, M.Sc. Thesis, Cranfield University, School of Applied Ssciences, Offshore and Ocean Technology (2007) [34] Srinil N., Analysis and Prediction of Vortex Induced Vibrations of Variable Tension Vertical Risers in Linearly Sheared Currents, Applied Ocean Research, vol. 33, pp. 41-53 (2011) [35] Dixon M. and Charlesworth D., Application of CFD for Vortex Induced Vibration Analysis of Marine Risers in Projects, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 18348 (2006) [36] Huang K., Chen H.C. and Chen C.R., Deepwater Riser VIV Assessment by Using a Time Domain Simulation Approach, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 18769 (2007) [37] Ashuri H., Sadeghi K and Niazi S., A Numerical Model of Vortex Induced Vibrations on Marine Risers, Proceedings of the 30 ^{t}^{h} ASME Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011-49610 (2011) [38] Song J.N., Lu L., Teng B., Park H.I., Tang G.Q. and Wu H., Laboratory Tests of Vortex Induced Vibrations of a Long Flexible Riser Pipe subjected to Uniform Flow, Ocean Engineering voL. 38, vol. 1308-1322 (2011) [39] Kim Y.H., Vandiver K.J. and Holler R., Vortex Induced Vibration and Drag Coefficients of Long Cables Subjected to Sheared Flow, Proceedings of the Fourth International Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium, Ed. J.S. Chung, vol. 10185a (1985) [40] Vandiver K.J. and Chung T.Y., Predicted and Measured Response of Flexible Cylinders in Sheared Flow, Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting Symposium on Flow Induced Vibration, Chicago (1988) [41] Vandiver K.J., Predicting Lock-in on Drilling Risers in Sheared Flow, Proceedings of the Flow Induced Vibrations Conference, Lucerne, Switzerland (2000) [42] Adams A.J., Atkins W.S. and Thorogood J.L., On the Choice of Current Profiles for Deep Water Riser Design, Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference, Society for Petroleum Engineers, SPE 49262 (1998) [43] Vandiver K.J., Research Challenges in the Vortex Induced Vibration Prediction of Marine Risers, Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, OTC-8698 (1998)
11
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
[44] Jones W.P. and Launder B.E, Prediction of Laminarization with a Two Equation Model of Turbulence, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 15 (1972) [45] Chien K.Y., Predictions of Channel and Boundary Layer Flows with a Low Reynolds Number Turbulence Model, AIAA Journal, vol. 20(1), pp. 33-38 (1982) [46] Majumdar S. and Rodi W., Numerical Calculation of Turbulent Flow Past a Circular Cylinder, Proceedings of the 7 ^{t}^{h} Turbulent Shear Flow Symposium, pp. 3.13-25, Stanford, USA (1985)
12
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.
Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.
Jederzeit kündbar.