Fig. 9. Simulated separation regions for surface mounted cylinder

China Ocean Engineering volume 35, pages422–431 (2021)Cite this article


피기백 파이프라인은 2개의 파이프로 구성되어 2차 라인이 2개의 파이프 사이의 길이가 고정된 거리로 메인 파이프에 탑승합니다. 새로운 전략은 단일 흐름 라인 대신 연안 지역에서 활용됩니다.

이와 관련하여 정상 전류에서 피기백 파이프라인 아래의 세굴 효과를 조사하는 실험 및 수치 연구는 소수에 불과합니다. 따라서 본 연구에서는 수치모사 및 실험적 실험을 통해 관직경, 관간격 등 정류에 의한 세굴에 영향을 미치는 요인을 살펴보고자 합니다.

따라서 연구의 첫 번째 단계에서 단일 파이프를 설치하고 실험식의 결과와 결과를 비교하기 위해 실험실에서 테스트했습니다. 실험적 검증을 마친 후, 피기백 파이프라인도 조립하여 안정된 전류 조건에서 정련을 연구했습니다. 파이프 사이의 간격을 늘리면 최대 세굴 깊이가 감소한다는 결론이 내려졌습니다.

그러나 작은 파이프의 직경이 증가하면 최대 세굴 깊이가 커집니다. 둘째, 본 연구의 수치적 조사에 적합한 도구인 FLOW-3D 소프트웨어를 사용하여 수치해석을 수행하였습니다.

마지막으로, 수치 결과를 해당 실험 데이터와 비교했으며, 이들 사이에 비교적 좋은 일치가 달성되었습니다.

A piggyback pipeline consists of two pipes such that the secondary line rides on the main pipe with a fixed distance between two pipes in length. The novel strategy is utilized in offshore areas instead of a single flow line. In this regard, there are only a handful of experimental and numerical studies investigating the effect of scour below a piggyback pipeline under steady current. Hence, this study focuses on examining the influential factors on scouring due to steady current including the pipe diameter and the gap between pipes through numerical simulations and experimental tests. Accordingly, at the first phase of the research, a single pipe was established and tested in laboratory to compare the results with those of an empirical equation. After finishing experimental verifications, piggyback pipelines were also assembled to study the scouring under steady current conditions. It was concluded that by increasing the gap distance between the pipes, the maximum scour depth decreases; however, an increase in the small pipe’s diameter results in a larger maximum scour depth. Secondly, numerical simulations were carried out using the FLOW-3D software which was found to be a suitable tool for the numerical investigation of this study. Finally, the numerical results have been compared with the corresponding experimental data and a relatively good agreement was achieved between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1.   (a) Arrangement of piggyback pipeline, (b) Plan view of experimental flume.
Fig. 1. (a) Arrangement of piggyback pipeline, (b) Plan view of experimental flume.
Fig. 3.   Initial photos of two mounted piggyback pipelines in experimental setup for d/D=0.25.
Fig. 3. Initial photos of two mounted piggyback pipelines in experimental setup for d/D=0.25.
Fig. 9.     Simulated  separation  regions  for  surface  mounted  cylinder
Fig. 9. Simulated separation regions for surface mounted cylinder


  • Alfonsi, G., Lauria, A. and Primavera, L., 2012. Structures of a viscous-wave flow around a large-diameter circular cylinder, Journal of Flow Visualization and Image Processing, 19(4), 323–354.Article Google Scholar 
  • Brørs, B., 1999. Numerical modeling of flow and scour at pipelines, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 125(5), 511–523.Article Google Scholar 
  • Cheng, L., Yeow, K., Zang, Z.P. and Li, F.J., 2014. 3D scour below pipelines under waves and combined waves and currents, Coastal Engineering, 83(5), 137–149.Article Google Scholar 
  • Chiew, Y.M., 1991. Prediction of maximum scour depth at submarine pipelines, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 117(4), 452–466.Article Google Scholar 
  • Dey, S. and Singh, N.P., 2007. Clear-water scour depth below underwater pipelines, Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, 1(2), 157–162.Article Google Scholar 
  • Flow Science, 2015. Flow-3D Solver, Version win64 2015, Interface version 11/2/2015.
  • Fredsøe, J. and Deigaard, R., 1992. Mechanics of Coastal Sediment Transport, Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering: Volume 3, World Scientific, Singapore.Book Google Scholar 
  • Hatipoglu, F. and Avci, I., 2003. Flow around a partly buried cylinder in a steady current, Ocean Engineering, 30(2), 239–249.Article Google Scholar 
  • Hosseini, D., Hakimzadeh, H. and Ghiassi, R., 2005. Numerical and experimental modeling of scour around submarine pipeline due to currents, Pipelines 2005, Houston, Texas, United States, pp. 793–802.
  • Kumar, V., Ranga Raju, K.G. and Vittal, N., 1999. Reduction of local scour around bridge piers using slots and collars, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 125(12), 1302–1305.Article Google Scholar 
  • Lauria, A., Calomino, F., Alfonsi, G. and D’Ippolito, A., 2020. Discharge coefficients for sluice gates set in weirs at different upstream wall inclinations, Water, 12(1), 245.Article Google Scholar 
  • Myrhaug, D., Ong, M.C., Føien, H., Gjengedal, C. and Leira, B.J., 2009. Scour below pipelines and around vertical piles due to second-order random waves plus a current, Ocean Engineering, 36(8), 605–616.Article Google Scholar 
  • Olsen, N.R.B., 2012. Numerical Modelling and Hydraulics, Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar 
  • Postacchini, M. and Brocchini, M., 2015. Scour depth under pipelines placed on weakly cohesive soils, Applied Ocean Research, 52, 73–79.Article Google Scholar 
  • Richardson, E.V. and Davis, S.R., 1995. Evaluating Scour at Bridges, Third Edition, Office of Technology Applications, HTA-22, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar 
  • Sudhan, C.M., Sundar, V. and Rao, S.N., 2002. Wave induced forces around buried pipelines, Ocean Engineering, 29(5), 533–544.Article Google Scholar 
  • Sumer, B.M., Truelsen, C., Sichmann, T. and Fredsøe, J., 2001a. Onset of scour below pipelines and self-burial, Coastal Engineering, 42(4), 313–335.Article Google Scholar 
  • Sumer, B.M., Whitehouse, R.J.S. and Tørum, A., 2001b. Scour around coastal structures: A summary of recent research, Coastal Engineering, 44(2), 153–190.Article Google Scholar 
  • Sumer, B.M. and Fredsøe, J., 2002. The mechanics of scour in the marine environment, in Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering: Volume 17, World Scientific, Singapore.Google Scholar 
  • Yang, H., Ni, H. and Zhu, X.H., 2007. An applicable replacement bundled pipeline structure for offshore marginal oilfield development, Shipbuilding of China, 48, 563–570. (in Chinese)Google Scholar 
  • Zakeri, A., Høeg, K. and Nadim, F., 2009. Submarine debris flow impact on pipelines-Part II: Numerical analysis, Coastal Engineering, 56(1), 1–10.Article Google Scholar 
  • Zang, Z.P. and Gao, F.P., 2014. Steady current induced vibration of near-bed piggyback pipelines: Configuration effects on VIV suppression, Applied Ocean Research, 46, 62–69.Article Google Scholar 
  • Zhang, X.L., Xu, C.S. and Han, Y., 2015. Three-dimensional poroelasto-plastic model for wave-induced seabed response around submarine pipeline, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 69, 163–171.Article Google Scholar 
  • Zhao, E.J., Shi, B., Qu, K., Dong, W.B. and Zhang, J., 2018. Experimental and numerical investigation of local scour around submarine piggyback pipeline under steady current, Journal of Ocean University of China, 17(2), 244–256.Article Google Scholar 
  • Zhao, M. and Cheng, L., 2008. Numerical modeling of local scour below a piggyback pipeline in currents, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134(10), 1452–1463.Article Google Scholar 
  • Zhou, X.L., Wang, J.H., Zhang, J. and Jeng, D.S., 2014. Wave and current induced seabed response around a submarine pipeline in an anisotropic seabed, Ocean Engineering, 75, 112–127.Article Google Scholar