Proceedings of the 19th IAHR-APD Congress 2014, Hanoi, Vietnam

ISBN 978604821338-1

STOCHASTIC LAGRANGIAN MODELLING OF VERTICALLY UPWARD SEDIMENT-LADEN BUOYANT JETS

S. N. CHAN(1) & J. H. W. LEE(2)

(1)
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
email: snchan@ntu.edu.sg
(2)
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China
email: jhwlee@ust.hk

ABSTRACT
A vertically upward sediment-laden buoyant jet is an important flow phenomenon in geophysical science and
engineering as it resembles the dynamics of volcanic eruptions, deep sea hydrothermal vents and wastewater discharge.
In an upward buoyant jet, sediment particles are carried by the rising jet fluid until they reach the maximum height of
rise or the water surface. Sediment fall-out occurs at the jet edge and/or from the radial spreading current and re-
entrainment of sediment occurs. For the first time, a three-dimensional stochastic Lagrangian particle tracking model for
predicting the deposition and dynamics of a vertical sediment-laden buoyant jet is developed. The model solves the
governing equation of particle motion in a predetermined fluid velocity field superimposed with stochastic turbulent
fluctuations. The three flow regimes involved in a buoyant jet - the turbulent jet flow, jet entrainment-induced external
flow and surface spreading current, are modeled using validated semi-analytical methods: (1) the jet mean flow velocity
is determined using a jet integral model; (2) jet-induced external irrotational flow field is computed by the point sink
approach; (3) surface spreading current is predicted using an integral model accounting for the interfacial shear.
Turbulent velocity fluctuations are modelled by an autocorrelation function that mimics the trapping of sediment
particles in turbulent eddies. Root-mean-square (RMS) turbulence velocity and turbulent time scale are estimated from
best-fitted self-similar profiles of turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate derived from a computational fluid
dynamics solution of vertical buoyant jets. Model prediction shows excellent agreement with previous experimental
data of bottom sediment deposition. Model prediction reveals the increase in sediment concentration due to sediment
reentrainment which has important significance for the dynamics of vertical sediment jets.

Keywords: buoyant jets, sediment transport, gravity current, particle tracking model

1. INTRODUCTION substances. Many emerging pollutants such as endocrine

Vertical particle-laden jet is a two-phase flow that is
commonly found in natural environment and
engineering processes. Volcanic eruption and black
smokers released from hydrothermal vents in a deep
ocean are some examples in natural environment. In a
volcanic eruption, ash and solid particles are carried by
the heated gas flow to a height of neutral buoyancy and
spread laterally (Veitch and Woods, 2000). Particle with
various sizes falls out from the ash plume column and
the ash cloud to form layered deposit on the ground.
Hydrothermal vents release hot buoyant mineral rich
fluids as high as 400 oC in a deep ocean of 1000-3000m.
Mixing of the hot vent fluid with cold sea water (2-4oC)
triggers chemical reactions, resulting precipitates
consisting of minerals which eventually deposits on the
seabed (Dissanayake et al. 2014). The seabed around
hydrothermal vents is a potential source of minerals and
metals. Partially-treated municipal or industrial
wastewater is often discharged in the form of multiple
vertical upward buoyant jets. The effluent often contains
inorganic and organic solids that may settle close to the
source, giving rise to the formation of sludge banks. The
bottom sediment can be a source of oxygen demand and
reservoir of micro-organisms, nutrients and toxic
disrupting compounds and heavy metals tend to attach to
small suspended particles in sewage. The suspended
sediment can also be transported to areas far from the
sewage outfall, adversely impact on the aquatic
environment and benthic fauna. Under the increasing
environmental impact awareness of these trace
pollutants, it is also necessary to assess the transport and
fate of sediment discharged from marine outfalls.
Vertical upward particle-laden buoyant jets have been
studied experimentally (e.g. Carey et al. 1988; Sparks et
al. 1991; Ernst et al. 1996; Zarrebini & Cardoso, 2000).
Neves and Fernando (1995) developed empirical relations
for predicting bottom sediment deposition of vertical
momentum jets. Ernst et al. (1996) developed theoretical
models for sediment deposition around a vertical
upward sediment jet, accounting for the sediment fall out
and reentrainment at jet margins. Theoretical models
have also been developed for predicting the deposition
from spreading current (Sparks et al. 1991; Zarrebini &
Cardoso, 2000; Cardoso & Zarrebini, 2002). However
these theoretical models usually account for a single
settling mechanism only and lacks generality in
predicting combinations of settling mechanisms.

1
This paper presents the development of a 3D stochastic
particle tracking model for vertical sediment-laden
buoyant jets, based on the previous work of Chan
(2013a,b) and Chan et al. (2014) on horizontal buoyant
jets. The formulation of the numerical particle tracking
model is first presented, especially on the unique and
simple semi-analytical prediction of the entire mean flow
field and the generation of turbulent fluctuations. The
model prediction is validated with laboratory data of
sediment bottom deposition of vertical buoyant jets. The
influence of reentrainment on the jet particle
concentration is discussed based on model prediction.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
In a vertically upward sediment jet, sediment particles
are directed by the jet flow upwards. The height of rise of
particles depends on the jet volumetric, momentum and
buoyancy flux of Q0, M0 and B0 and an initial sediment
concentration of C0. When the jet velocity is sufficiently
higher than the particle settling velocity ws, the sediment
particles are carried upwards. It is observed when the
sediment concentration is less than 0.1% by volume, the
reduction in jet buoyancy and influence on jet dynamics
by the sediment are negligible (Veitch and Woods, 2000;
Cuthbertson and Davies, 2008). Two regimes of particle
fall-out are observed.
carried upwards but reaches its maximum height of rise.
Particles near the edge of the plume, will first settle out
along the jet boundary while those near the centerline is
pushed out to the edge. Particles fall to the bottom near
the plume edge with attraction by jet entrainment.
Particles are re-entrained to the plume and some are
recycled several times before they deposit (Neves and
Fernando, 1995; Ernst et al. 1996).
The second mechanism is fall out from spreading layer
(Fig. 1b). Particles reach the water surface are transported
laterally in the horizontal spreading current. Turbulence
maintains the particles in suspension, until they fall out
from the interface of the spreading current and the
ambient water. The falling particles follow a curved
trajectory towards the nozzle due to the ambient
entrainment flow. Particles are re-entrained back to the jet
when they are close to the jet edge. Inside a critical radius
of the spreading layer particles must be re-entrained. The
size of this region depends on the strength of the gravity
current and the settling velocity of particles (Sparks et al.
1991; Zarrebini and Cardoso, 2000; Cardoso and
Zarrebini, 2002). It is now to develop a model that is
capable of predicting the sediment dynamics and
deposition in both fall-out regimes.
3. NUMERICAL MODEL

0.6
3.1 Equation of particle motion
0.55

0.5 The present modelling approach is to track the position

0.45 evolution of a large number of particles released from the
0.4 jet nozzle in the flow field based on the equation of
0.35
motion of a spherical particle:
z (m)

0.3

0.25
du p 1
0.2 r pV p = ( r f - r p ) Vp g - r f CD Ap up - uf ( up - uf )
dt 1 44 2 4 43 1 2 4 4 4 44 2 4 4 4 4 43
0.15 gravity
drag
0.1

du
du du
+ r f V p f + r f CM V p p - f
0.05

dt dt dt [1]
1 44 2 4 43f 1 4 4 4
0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
x (m) 4 2 4 4 4 43f
fluid acceleration added mass
(a) Settling out from jet margin - Case 710 (Ernst et al. 1996):
(
t d up - uf )
u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 32, ws = 5.3 cm/s 3
+ d 2 pr f m dt dt

0.6 2 t -t
1 4 4 44 2 04 4 4 43
0.55 Basset history
0.5

0.45
where up = (up, vp, wp) is the particle velocity; uf = (uf, vf,
0.4 wf) is the fluid velocity; Vp = d3/6 is the particle volume;
0.35 Ap = d2/4 is the particle projected area; p is particle
z (m)

0.3 density; f is fluid density; g = (0, 0, g) is gravitational

0.25
acceleration (g = 9.81 m/s 2); CD is drag coefficient taken
0.2
as a function of the particle Reynolds number Rep = |
0.15
upuf|d/ using the empirical equation of Clift et al.
0.1

0.05
(1978):
0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
24 0.42
x (m)

(b) Settling out from spreading current - Case 710 (Sparks et al.
CD =
Re p
( 1 + 0.15 Re p 0.687 ) +
1 + 42500 Re p -1.16
[2]
1996): u0 = 0.0215m/s, Fr = 0.5, ws = 0.37 mm/s
CM = 0.5 is the added-mass coefficient (Lamb, 1932); d is
Figure 1. Visualization of two sediment fall-out mechanisms of
vertical sediment buoyant jet as predicted by the particle model in particle diameter; = /f is kinematic viscosity of water
the present study. The dash lines represent the jet and spreading (10-6 m2/s); and is dynamic viscosity of fluid (10 -3
current boundaries. Water surface is at z = 0.5m. kg/m/s). t is the time from the start of computation and
is a dummy variable for integration. The subscripts f
The first mechanism is fall-out from jet margin (jet near and p represents the fluid and solid phases respectively.
field) (Fig. 1a). As jet velocity reduces to a level similar to
the settling velocity of particles, the sediment is no longer
2
The left hand side of the equation of motion [1]
represents the acceleration of the sphere and the right
hand side represents the forces acting on the spherical
particle: body, drag, fluid acceleration, added mass and
Basset. The fluid acceleration term represents the gradient
along the trajectory of a fluid particle and determined
based on the mean flow. The Basset history force
represents the temporally changing viscous shear force
acting on the particle due to the velocity gradient
between the moving particle and the ambient. Sensitivity
tests (Chan, 2013) have shown that the Basset force is
negligible in the prediction of sediment deposition
profiles for sediment sizes of 100-700 m, as in the size of
natural sands.
The fluid velocity uf is composed of the mean flow
velocity and the turbulent fluctuation u.
u f = u + u' [3]
is determined based on the analytical mean flow
velocity of buoyant jet, jet-induced external flow and
surface spreading current (Session 3.2). u is determined
by a stochastic approach from computation fluid
dynamic (CFD) derived turbulent kinetic energy and
dissipation rate (Session 3.3). The particle velocity up is to
be solved by numerical integration together with the
particle position xp using a second-order predictor-
corrector scheme (Eq. [4]).
dx p
up = [4]
dt
In turn, the particle position provides the mean flow
velocity and the turbulent properties (turbulent kinetic
energy and dissipation rate).
3.2 Semi-analytical mean flow models
3.2.1 Turbulent jet mean flow
For a vertical buoyant jet, the streamwise mean velocity u
can be described as a Gaussian profile
r2
u(s , r )
= exp - 2 [5]
uc (s ) bg
where uc is the centerline maximum velocity and bg is the
Gaussian half-width defined as u(bg)/uc = exp(-1). By
continuity, the radial velocity distribution vr can be found
as (Lee and Chu, 2003):
2
2 2
1 - exp(- r ) - r exp(- r )
v r (r ) b g b g
2
bg 2
= , =
g uc r /bg
[6]
where g is the jet shear entrainment coefficient.
In the present study, the mean buoyant jet flow is
modelled using the well-validated integral Lagrangian
model JETLAG (Lee and Cheung, 1990; Lee and Chu,
2003). JETLAG predicts the trajectory and mixing of
buoyant jets in a wide range of ambient conditions using
the entrainment hypothesis. The unknown jet trajectory is
viewed as a sequential series of non-overlapping plume
elements which increase in mass due to entrainment (Fig.
2). JETLAG tracks the average properties of a plume
element by conservation of horizontal and vertical
momentum, water and tracer masses.
For a buoyant jet in stagnant ambient, the increase in jet
volume flux dQ along the jet trajectory s is expressed in
terms of the local jet velocity and width via a shear
entrainment coefficient g. It assumes that the local jet
radial entrainment velocity ve is proportional to the local
streamwise maximum jet velocity uc.
dQ
= 2 b g v e = 2 b g g uc [7]
ds
The jet entrainment coefficient g is dependent on the
local jet densimetric Froude number (Fox, 1970; Lai and
Lee, 2012b):
0.554 sin k F = uk
g = 0.057 + , l k
Fl 2 a gb g , k
[8]
where is the jet orientation angle with respect to the
vertical. Fl is the local densimetric Froude number; where
the subscript k denotes the kth jet element; k is the
maximum density difference between jet fluid k and
ambient fluid a. The entrainment coefficient has the
asymptotic values of 0.057 for a pure jet (Fl ) and
0.088 for that of a pure vertical plume (Fl = 4.2). The
equivalent Gaussian profiles (Eqs. [5] & [6]) of all
quantities can be readily transformed from the top-hat
profiles in JETLAG prediction by conservation of mass
and momentum (Lee and Chu, 2003).
The jet potential core is separately determined. The
trajectory of the potential core is predicted with the
balance in horizontal and vertical momentum (Lee and
Chu, 2003). JETLAG computation starts at the end of the
potential core and ends as the upper jet boundary hits the
water surface.
mi Jet element
uc(r)
ve = uc
g
(xp , yp , zp )
db g
z
ds m2
m1 y
D x
Q0, M 0, B0
Figure 2. The JETLAG model (Lee and Cheung, 1990; Lee and Chu,
2003) for a vertical jet and the point sink approach for
determining the external flow (Lai, 2009; Lai and Lee, 2012a).
3
3.2.2 External entrainment flow dQs d( 2 rhs ur )
= = 2 w e r [12]
The entrainment by the buoyant jet acts as a sink to the dr dr
surrounding fluid and creates an external irrotational
flow towards the jet. The jet entrainment induced dM s d( 2 rh s ur 2 )
=
1 d rg s ' hs 2
= 2 -
(
- i ur 2 r
)
external flow is determined by the point sink method
introduced by Lai (2009) and Lai and Lee (2012a). The
dr dr 2 dr
[13]
buoyant jet is regarded as a number of point sinks along
its trajectory. The strength of point sink i at position (xi, yi, dBs d( 2 rhs ur g s ')
zi) is the entrainment per unit length (Fig. 2) = =0 [14]
dr dr
dQ i
mi = - = -2 b g g uc [9] where Qs, Ms, Bs are the volumetric, kinematic
ds momentum and specific buoyancy fluxes of the surface
spreading layer at radial distance r from the center of
where Qi is the entrainment flow. The velocity potential
impingement respectively. i = 0.003 is the interfacial
i induced by this jet element at an arbitrary location (x,
friction coefficient (Akar and Jirka, 1994). we is the
y, z) is given by
entrainment velocity from the interface between the
spreading current and the ambient fluid, given as a
mi
i = - s [10] function of a Richardson number for the spreading layer
4 r (Akar and Jirka, 1994).

where r = [(x - xi)2 + (y - yi)2 + (z - zi)2]1/2 is the distance gs ' hs

from the sink i (Fig. 2). we = 0.0015 urRi-2, Ri = [15]
ur 2
The three-dimensional flow field (ui, vi, wi) induced by
The variables hs, ur and gs' in governing equations can be
this single jet element is given by differentiating the
solved numerically with the initial conditions specified
velocity potential i with respect to x, y and z directions.
according to the JETLAG prediction at the jet terminal
By summing up the induced velocities at a point (x, y, z)
level, i.e. the upper jet boundary hits the water surface.
outside the jet by all the sinks (Fig. 2), the total induced
The initial flow rate Qs(r0) and buoyancy gs'(r0) of the
velocity (u, v, w) at that point by the jet entrainment can
spreading current are taken as the jet volumetric flow rate
be found as
and buoyancy at the terminal level. The initial radius r0 is
N m i ( x - x i ) s the jet top-hat width at the impingement. The initial
u( x , y , z) = spreading layer thickness hs(r0) is given by 0.08 times
i =1 4 r3 water depth H (Lee and Jirka, 1981). Initial radial velocity
N m ( y - y ) s is given by ur(r0) = Qs(r0)/(2r0hs).
v( x , y , z) = i 3
i
[11]
r0
i =1 4 r
N m ( z - z ) s h0 = 0.08H hs(r), ur(r), gs'(r)
w( x , y , z) = i 3
i
Equivalent
i =1 4
Gaussian wi
r profile Q0 top-hat profile
Jet top-hat
boundary z

where N is the number of jet elements. To account for the

free surface and bottom boundary, the method of images
is used (Lai, 2009). The external flow computation is
applied to locations greater than three Gaussian jet
widths from the jet centerline. Inside the jet (r < 3bg) the
mean jet velocity is calculated by Eqs. [5] and [6].
3.2.3 Surface spreading current
As the jet impinges the water surface, the jet fluid spreads
horizontally in a layer. A simple integral approach is
adopted to predict the spreading layer flow. Assuming
the horizontal jet momentum flux has negligible
influence on the spreading layer dynamics, the governing
equations (continuity [12], radial momentum [13] and
buoyancy [14]) for the steady spreading layer can be
formulated using the layer thickness hs(r), the radial
velocity ur(r) and buoyancy gs'(r) = (/a)g (Fig. 3):
r
Figure 3. Surface spreading current. H is the distance from jet
nozzle to water surface.
To validate the integral model, a CFD model is developed
to predict the axisymmetrical surface spreading current
induced by a vertical buoyant jet. The axisymmetrical
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are solved
using the FLUENT code with the realizable k- turbulence
model (Shih et al., 1995). Two buoyant jet conditions are
simulated (see Fig. 4). The model covers an area of 0.53m
(r) x 0.3m (z) with 100 x 100 cells. The half-jet inlet (D =
7mm) is resolved by 5 cells. Grid resolution increases
towards the jet axis and the surface layer. The free surface
is modeled by zero velocity gradient and zero mass flux
conditions. The bottom boundary is modeled as a no-slip
wall and the remaining side is modeled as an open
boundary of zero excess pressure. By comparing with the
CFD solution, the integral model successfully captures

4
the velocity and reduced gravity distributions of the
spreading current for both cases (Fig. 4).
(a) Case A: u0 = 0.351 m/s; D = 7mm; Fr = 10.0
For application in turbulent jets, the RMS turbulent
fluctuation is obtained from the turbulent kinetic
energy k using a realizable k- turbulence closure model
(Shih et al., 1995) with CFD simulation of a buoyant jet.
LE and TE can be obtained from Eqs. [18] & [19] using
and . The CFD predicted and are normalized with the
jet mean flow properties, and fitted with an empirical
equation (Eqs. [20] and [21]) to provide their spatial
functions (Fig. 5). The empirical coefficients C1-C6 are
obtained using least-square best-fitting.

r
2
r
2
= C 1 exp - C 2 - C 3 + exp- C 2 + C 3
uc b b

(b) Case B: u0 = 0.146 m/s, D = 7mm and Fr = 4.0 [20]
Figure 4. Comparison of integral model and CFD predicted mean
spreading current velocity ur and mean reduced gravity gs. ( b ) 1 / 3 r
2
r
2
= C 4 exp- C 5 - C 6 + exp- C 5 + C 6
uc b b

3.3 Stochastic modeling of turbulent fluctuations
[21]
Turbulent fluctuations u' are modeled using a stochastic
approach described by Nielsen (1992). Nielsen postulated
C 1 0.2006 C 4 0.2458

the loitering effect for which particles are trapped in
C 2 = 1.4147 , C 5 = 1.2498
turbulent eddies and delayed from settling. The
C 3 0.6647 C 6 0.6594
autocorrelation function has been successfully applied for
the prediction of horizontal sediment-laden momentum It is observed experimentally (e.g. Papanicolaou and List;
and buoyant jets (Chan, 2013b; Chan et al. 2013). Chan Wang and Law, 2002) and numerically (Fig. 5) that the
(2013a) generalized Nielsens autocorrelation function Ri RMS turbulent fluctuation and dissipation rate for jets
for use in governing equation of particle motion for the and plumes are similar thus the same empirical equations
generation of turbulent velocity fluctuation along the (Eqs. [20] & [21]) are adopted for the entire trajectory of a
particle path. general buoyant jet. The turbulent quantities (, LE and
TE) in the spreading layer are determined using a similar
AE 2 u p, i - u i
2
approach as in the turbulent jet.
t
Ri = exp - 1 + [16]
TE 2

With CFD simulation (see Section 3.2.3) of a vertical
buoyant jet impinging the surface the predicted and LE
(obtained from Eqs. [17] & [19]) are normalized with the
In the expression, is the root-mean-square (RMS)
maximum spreading layer velocity usm and Gaussian half
velocity fluctuation which can be determined from the
width hs respectively and shows self-similarity (Fig. 6).
turbulent kinetic energy k.
They are fitted with the following equations in order to
obtain semi-analytical profiles for the spreading current:
2
= k [17]
3 s z / h s - 0.673 2
The subscript i denotes the values in the current time step = 0.251 exp - [22]
usm 1.011
and t is the time-step size; AE = LE / TE. LE and TE are the
Eulerian spatial and time scale of the turbulence
LE z z
2

respectively, and can be estimated as = 0.435 exp - 0.483 [23]
hs hs hs
k 3 /2
LE = C 3 / 4 [18] With the autocorrelation function, the turbulence

fluctuation can be generated by
3 3/4 k
TE = C [19]
u' i + 1 = i u' i + 1 - i 2
2
is the turbulent dissipation rate; C = 0.09. It is of is randomly generated numbers (in x, y, z-directions)
interest to note that the autocorrelation function depends following a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and
on the instantaneous turbulent velocity (u'i, v'i, w'i) and unit variance.
can be viewed as a heuristic local correlation that
captures the vortex trapping of sediment particles. It can
be shown that this form of autocorrelation can generate
the reduction in settling velocity in turbulence (Nielsen,
1992; Chan, 2013a).

5

Figure 5. CFD predicted turbulent intensity and dissipation rate in
the jet and plume regime (u0 = 1m/s, D = 6mm, Fr = 50). Frl is the
local densimetric Froude number defined as Eq. [8]. Solid
symbols: plume regime; open symbols: jet regime. Fitted equation:
(a) Eq. [20]; (b) Eq. [21].
The experiments of Ernst et al. (1996) represent the
sediment fall-out from jet boundary. They were carried
out in a tank of size 1.2m x 1.2m and water depth of 0.5m
with a jet nozzle diameter of 4mm. Freshwater jets with
different flow rate are directed to the tank filled with salt
water to produce jet initial Froude number of 3-34.
Silicon carbide particles (p = 3.21 g/cm 3) are used as
sediment. Sediment concentration ranges from 0.2 g/L to
2.5 g/L (<0.08% by volume) to avoid influence of
sediment-induced buoyancy. Eight of the 17 experiments
reported are used for the present study and their
parameters are shown in Table 1. The first four are jet-
like cases with high Fr while the other four are plume-
like cases. All bottom deposition data presented in the
paper is normalized with the maximum accumulated
mass deposition near the nozzle (F/Fmax).

Table 1. Experiments of upward vertical sediment-laden

buoyant jets by Ernst et al. (1996). The letter after the case
number: J - jet-like case; P - plume-like case. D = 4mm.

u 0 Sediment
Case
Jet vel. Fr = Set. vel.
(m/s) g0 'D
dia. (m) ws (cm/s)

Figure 6. Turbulent quantities for the spreading layer, predicted 406 (J) 0.478 21.4 275 4.3
by CFD model and fitted with empirical equations, (a) RMS 407 (J) 0.748 34.2 275 4.3
turbulent fluctuation Eq. [22], (b) turbulent length scale, Eq. [23]. 709 (J) 0.748 32.6 135 2.1
710 (J) 0.748 32.4 328 5.3
327 (P) 0.151 6.6 194 2.9
3.4 Numerical Implementation 402 (P) 0.080 3.5 194 2.9
404 (P) 0.080 3.8 115 1.6
The stochastic particle tracking is performed solving the 805 (P) 0.151 3.0 194 2.9
governing equations of particle motion (Eqs. [1] & [4]).
The mean jet flow velocity is determined from the jet
Comparisons of model prediction and experimental data
integral model for turbulent jet, the potential flow model
are shown in Fig. 7 for the four jet-like cases. The
for external flow and the integral model for spreading
comparison is excellent for all the cases, showing a peak
layer (Section 3.2). Turbulent quantities are determined
deposition close to the jet nozzle consistent with the
from Eqs. [17]-[24]. Np = 10,000 particles are used for each
observation. The higher the jet flow, the larger the extent
jet simulation to obtain the deposition profile. Each
of the deposition profile is (Case 406 vs 407). With the
particle shares an equal fraction of the total sediment
same jet flow, the extent of the deposition profile is
mass used in the experiment (Mi = QjC0Texp/Np). Particle's
smaller for larger settling velocity (Cases 709 vs 710). The
are released at equal intervals in a numerical experiment
lighter particle and/or stronger jet flow result in the
of total duration Texp = 10-20 min. The particles are
expelling of particles further away from the jet and
released at the end of the zone of flow establishment
particles deposit in a wider region. A visualization of
according to a Gaussian distribution and tracked until
case 710 is shown in Fig. 1a.
they fall back to the level of the bottom tray (z = 0). Fluid
density f is determined based on the JETLAG and Results for the plume-like cases are shown in Fig.
spreading layer integral model prediction. The radial Compared with the jet like cases, it is observed that the
deposition rate (in the unit of g/m 2/s) profiles are maximum deposition is much closer to the jet nozzle and
obtained by summing all particles in a region bounded the bottom deposition profile decays much faster,
by two concentric circles with separation r = 0.05-0.1 m, because of the higher entrainment velocity induced by
and divided by the area and experiment time Texp. Particle plumes (entrainment coefficient g = 0.057 for a pure jet
tracking calculations have been performed using a time- vs 0.088 for a pure plume). This is consistent with the
step of 0.5-1ms which is much less than the typical time conclusion of Ernst et al. (1996) that the decay of
of turbulence of jets and plumes. The model predictions deposition rate in radial direction follows r-1 for jet and r-
are validated using a number of reported laboratory data 1/3
for plume.
in previous studies.
The theoretical model by Ernst et al. (1996) accounts for
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS the reentrainment of sediment fallen out from the jet
margin by an empirically determined reentrainment
4.1 Sediment bottom deposition coefficient. This theoretical treatment oversimplified the
complex reentrainment mechanism and the interaction
4.1.1 Sediment fall-out from jet boundary between the turbulent eddies and the ambient jet-induced
entrainment flow. Thus different values of reentrainment

6
coefficient are required for different cases, determined
based on fitting of experimental results. Unlike Ernsts
model, our model does not require any empirical
adjustment for the reentrainment as the mechanism is
already embedded in the equation of particle motion [1].
ws is estimated using Hallermeier (1981)'s formula, same
as that in Sparks et al. (1991).
The experiments of Zarrebini and Cardoso (2000) were
carried out in a tank of 0.75m x 0.75m x 0.3m depth with
a jet nozzle diameter of 7mm. Freshwater jets with
various flow rates are directed to salt water in the tank to
produce different buoyancy flux. The densimetric Froude
number ranges from 4.0 to 10.5. Spherical Ballotini
particles with a density of 2.47 g/cm 3 are used with
sediment concentration 5-6 g/L (0.2% by volume).
Sediment sizes ranges from 49m to 81m. The
characteristics of the one experiment used in the present
study are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Vertical buoyant jet experiments (fall out from surface

current) of Sparks et al. (1991) (D = 8mm) and Zarrebini and
Cardoso (ZC) (2000) (D = 7mm).
Jet Vel. Sediment Set. Vel.
Case Fr Source
(m/s) dia. (um) (mm/s)
83-2 0.0215 0.53 58 4.0
Figure 7. Comparison of predicted and measured radial sediment Sparks et
810-2 0.0215 0.53 67 5.4
deposition profile of the four vertical sediment-laden jet cases of al. (1991)
86-1 0.0215 0.53 96 11.1
Ernst et al. (1996). F/Fmax is the radial deposition (g/m2/s)
13 0.3513 10 65 3.3 ZC (2000)
normalized against the maximum predicted/measured values.

The comparison between predicted and measured

deposition profiles are shown in Fig. 9. The deposition is
a cone-like shape with a maximum close to the jet nozzle.
Compared with the fall out from jet margin, the sediment
fall out from the spreading current produces a much
larger region of deposition, extent to over 0.1-0.4m,
depending on the particle size and the height of jet
impingement. Sparks et al. (1991) derived that the decay
of the deposition follows the r-2 law, representing a much
larger deposition extent than the r-1 law for jet and r-1/3
law for plume. The model predicted deposition agrees
satisfactorily with the data under a wide range of particle
size (57-96 m). A visualization of the particle field of
Case 83-2 is shown in Fig. 1b.

Figure 8. Comparison of predicted and measured radial sediment 4.2 Sediment concentration
deposition profile of the four vertical sediment-laden plume cases
of Ernst et al. (1996). F/Fmax is the radial deposition (g/m2/s) The developed model is applied to study the sediment
normalized against the maximum predicted/measured values. concentration in a vertical sediment-laden buoyant jet.
Sediment concentration is determined from the average
number of particles inside a concentric control volume of
4.1.2 Sediment fall-out from spreading current
V = 2rrz, where z = 2.5D, r = 0.1bT and bT is the
The experiments of Sparks et al. (1991) and Zarrebini and top-hat half width of the jet.
Cardoso (2000) represent the sediment fall-out from
spreading current. The experiments were carried out in a
tank of size 1.2m x 1.2m x 0.5m depth with a jet nozzle
diameter of 8mm. Freshwater jets with u0 = 0.0215 m/s
(Q0 = 1.08 cm 3/s) are directed to salt water with density
1021 kg/m 3 in the tank. The densimetric Froude number
is about 0.5, representing a pure plume. The present
model independently computes the potential core
development and accounts for the contraction and
velocity acceleration due to buoyancy (Lee and Chu,
2003). Non-spherical silicon carbide particles with a
density of 3.21 g/cm 3 are used as sediment seedings with
initial concentration 10 g/L (0.3% by volume). Sediment
diameter ranges from 28m to 131m. Settling velocity

7

Figure 9. Comparison of predicted and measured radial sediment
deposition profile of the vertical sediment-laden jet cases of
Sparks et al. (1991), and Zarrebini and Cardoso (ZC, 2000). F/Fmax
is the radial deposition (g/m2/s) normalized against the
maximum predicted/measured values.
Fig. 10 shows the centerline sediment concentration for a
vertical sediment jet with dominant fall-out from the jet
boundary. The centerline sediment concentration is
significant higher than that of a simple jet, due to the
reenentrainment and recycling of particles fallen out from
the jet margin back to the jet. Fig. 11 shows the cross-
sectional sediment concentration (normalized by the
centerline concentration of a simple jet) for the same jet. It
is predicted that the maximum sediment concentration is
about 70-80% higher than that of the simple pure jet, with
increased jet width. The prediction is comparable to the
measurement by Carey et al. (1988) which shows similar
effect for a plume with sediment fall out from surface
current. The increase in sediment concentration may
reduce the buoyancy of the plume and cause the
instability and collapse of the stable plume structure.
Veitch and Woods (2000) found that owing to the
recycling of particles, the plume becomes unstable if the
initial particle loading exceeds a critical value of about
0.1% by volume. The instability leads to the collapse of
the sediment plume and forms a density current as a
mixture of fluid and particles close to the ground. An
example is the collapse of volcanic plumes, forming the
pyroclastic flow which is much more devastating than
the volcanic ash itself.
Figure 10. Centerline maximum sediment/tracer concentration
(Cmax/C0) for a vertically upward sediment buoyant jet and a
simple jet. Case 710: u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 32, ws = 5.3 cm/s.
Figure 11. Cross sectional sediment concentration for a vertical
upward sediment jet at z = 40D. Sediment concentration is
normalized by that of maximum tracer concentration in a simple
jet. Case 710: u0 = 0.75m/s, Fr = 32, ws = 5.3 cm/s.
5. CONCLUSIONS
A 3D stochastic particle tracking model for the prediction
of sediment deposition from vertical upward buoyant jets
in stagnant water is developed. The model is unique in
solving the full governing equation of particle motion,
using simple semi-analytical models to predict the three
flow regimes of a buoyant jet impinging a free surface -
and the generation of turbulent fluctuation using an
autocorrelation function that realistically simulates the
trapping of particles in turbulent eddies. The model is
validated against previously reported experimental data
for vertical upward buoyant jets in stagnant water and
predicts well the two regimes of sediment fall out: from
jet boundary and from spreading current. Model
prediction reveals the increase in jet sediment
concentration caused by the re-entrainment process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research in supported by a grant from the Hong
Kong Research Grants Council (RGC HKU719408) and in
part by a grant from the University Grants Committee of
Hong Kong (Project No. AoE/P-04/04) to the Area of
Excellence (AoE) in Marine Environment Research and
Innovative Technology (MERIT).
REFERENCES
Akar, P.J. and Jirka, G.H., (1994). Buoyant spreading
processes in pollutant transport and mixing. Part 1:
Lateral spreading with ambient current advection.
Journal of Hydraulic Research, 32(6), 815-831.
Cardoso, S.S.S. and Zarrebini, M., (2002). Sedimentation
from surface currents generated by particle-laden jets.
Chemical Engineering Science, 57(8), 14251437.
Carey, S.N., Sigurdsson, H., and Sparks, R.S.J. (1988).
Experimental studies of particle-laden plumes. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 93(B12), 15314-15328.
Chan, S.N. (2013a) Mixing and deposition of sediment-laden
buoyant jets. PhD thesis. The University of Hong
Kong.
Chan, S.N. (2013b). Modelling the Bottom Deposition of
Sediment-Laden Buoyant Jets. Proceedings of 2013
IAHR World Congress, Chengdu, China, 8-13 Sep.
Chan, S.N., Lee, K.W.Y. and Lee, J.H.W. (2014).
Numerical modelling of horizontal sediment-laden
jets. Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 14, 173200.
8
Clift, R., Grace, J.R. & Weber, M.E., (1978) Bubbles, Drops
and Particles, Dover Publications.
Cuthbertson A.J.S. and Davies P.A., (2008). Deposition
from particle-laden, round, turbulent, horizontal,
buoyant jets in stationary and coflowing receiving
fluids. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ASCE, 134(4),
390-402.
Dissanayake, A.L., Yapa, P.D. and Nakata, K. (2014).
Modelling of hydrothermal vent plumes to assess the
mineral particle distribution. Journal of Hydraulic
Research, 52(1), pp. 4966.
Ernst, G.G.J., Sparks, R.S.J., Carey, S.N. and Bursik, M.I.,
(1996). Sedimentation from turbulent jets and plumes.
Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth, 101(3),
5575-5589.
Fox, D.G., (1970). Forced plume in a stratified fluid.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 75, 6818-6835.
Hallermeier, R.J., (1981). Terminal settling velocity of
commonly occurring sand grains. Sedimentology, 28(6),
859865.
Lai, A.C.H., (2009). Mixing of a Rosette Buoyant Jet Group.
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Hong Kong.
Lai, A.C.H. and Lee, J.H.W., (2012a). Dynamic interaction
of multiple buoyant jets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
708, 539-575.
Lai, C.C.K. and Lee, J.H.W. (2012b). Mixing of inclined
dense jets in stationary ambient. Journal of Hydro-
environment Research, 6(1), 9-28.
Lamb, H. (1932). Hydrodynamics. Cambridge University
Press.
Lee, J.H.W. and Cheung, V., (1990). Generalized
lagrangian model for buoyant jets in current. Journal
of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 116(6), 1085-1106.
Lee, J.H.W. and Chu V.H., (2003). Turbulent Jets and
Plumes: A Lagrangian Approach. Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lee, J. H. W. and Jirka, G.H. (1981). Vertical round
buoyant jet in Shallow Water. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, ASCE, 107(HY12), 16511675.
Neves, M.J. and Fernando, H.J.S. (1995). Sedimentation of
particles from jets discharged by ocean outfalls: a
theoretical and laboratory study. Water Science and
Technology, 32(2), 133-139.
Nielsen, P., (1992). Coastal Bottom Boundary Layers and
Sediment Transport. Advanced Series on Ocean
Engineering - Vol.4, World Scientific.
Papanicolaou, P.N. and List, E.J., (1988). Investigations of
round vertical turbulent buoyant jets. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 195, 341391.
Shih, T.H., Liou, W.W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z. and Zhu, J.,
(1995). A new k- eddy viscosity model for high
Reynolds number turbulent flows. Computers and
Fluids, 24(3), 227-238.
Sparks, R. S. J., Carey, S. N., and Sigurdsson, H. (1991).
Sedimentation from gravity currents generated by
turbulent plumes. Sedimentology, 38(5), 839856.
Veitch, G. and Woods, A.W., (2000). Particle recycling
and oscillations of volcanic eruption columns. Journal
of Geophysical Research, 105(B2), 2829-2842.
Wang, H. and Law, A.W.K., (2002). Second-order integral
model for a round turbulent buoyant jet. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 459, 397428.
Zarrebini, M. and Cardoso, S.S.S., (2000). Patterns of
sedimentation from surface currents generated by
turbulent plumes. AIChE Journal, 46(10), 1947-1956.