Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/271445948
NUMERICAL METHODS FOR MODELING THE ROCK CUTTING PROCESS IN DEEP SEA
MINING
CITATION READS
1 363
3 authors:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sape A. Miedema on 13 July 2015.
DRAFT OMAE2014-23094
𝜕𝜀𝑣𝑜𝑙
= 𝛻⃗ ∙ ⃗⃗ (4)
𝜕𝑡
So bring Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 into Eq. 2, it is obtained
𝜕𝑝
𝛻⃗ ∙ [( − 𝑛) ⃗⃗ ] + 𝛻⃗ ∙ (𝑛 ) + 𝑛𝛽 = (5)
𝜕𝑡
Figure 5. Left: Channel-Domain model; Right: Fluid flow in a According to Verruijt and Broere (2011),
channel. (Shimizu et al. 2011)
𝜕𝑛
Since the permeability of the seabed rock is low, the fluid 𝛻⃗ ∙ [( − 𝑛) ⃗⃗ ] = (6)
flow through the pores could be treated as Darcy flow. Besides, 𝜕𝑡
the cutting speed in deep sea mining is high and the hydrostatic
pressure is very big, then the fluid cannot be treated to be So the fluid mass conservation can be written as:
incompressible any more. From the consolidation theory of
Verruijt and Broere (2011), a storage equation based on mass 𝜕𝑛 𝜕𝑝
+ 𝛻⃗ ∙ (𝑛 ) + 𝑛𝛽 = (7)
conservation of both the solid and fluid phases is given. 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑝 𝜕𝜀𝑣𝑜𝑙 It should be noticed that Eq. 5 doesn’t have the time
−𝑛𝛽 − = 𝛻⃗ ∙ 𝑞 (2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 derivative term of porosity as Eq. 7, instead it uses the solid
particle velocity. From the perspective of mathematics and
Where 𝜀𝑣𝑜𝑙 is the volumetric strain of the solid skeleton, t physics, these two equations are saying exactly the same thing.
is the time [s], n is the porosity, β is the compressibility of the But in application, it is possible that they can generate slightly
fluid [m2/N], p is the fluid pressure [pa] and 𝑞 is the specific difference. For the current stage, Eq. 7 is recommended
discharge [m/s] which is calculated by because it is easier to implement.
As mentioned before, the fluid flow through the pores is
𝑞 = 𝑛( − ⃗⃗ ) (3) treated as Darcy flow. But after a big chip is lifted up by the
blade, the crack area is fully opened, and then the Darcy flow
Where is the fluid velocity [m/s] and ⃗⃗ is the solid assumption doesn’t hold anymore. Since the biggest cutting
velocity [m/s]. From Eq. 2 it is clearly seen that the local fluid force may not appear during the excavation of the first chip, it
flow is induced by: 1) the compressibility of the fluid 2) the is still needed to continue the calculation for generating the
volumetric strain rate. These two characteristics match the second, the third or more chips until the maximum cutting force
It has been pointed out by Abdeli (2010) that in underwater (b) Shear force on the blade
soil cutting, due to the confining effect of hydrostatic pressure, Figure 14: Cutting force records on the blade
the shape of the shear layer built in front of the blade will be
much different from that of dry cutting, as shown in Figure 13. The final cutting forces in the steady state in both
Such difference has been well described in Figure 12. In the dry conditions are more or less the same, no matter it is in the
clay cutting (red), the shear layer in front of the blade is wider normal or shear direction. However, in underwater clay cutting
and its profile is more like a smooth curve. On the contrary, in process (red line), a big “jump” in both the normal and shear
the underwater clay cutting (yellow), the shear layer in front of direction is witnessed in the beginning stage of the test. This is
the blade is much thinner and its slope is much steeper, which induced by the dilatancy stress (Rowe, 1962). In the beginning
makes it more rectangular. Besides, in the underwater condition, of the cutting process, the clay sample is densely compacted.
the build-up layer above the top of the blade can reach a larger Due to the push of the blade, the solid skeleton will become
height. These behaviors well illustrated the confining effect of loose, so inside the pores the pressure will drop, then a pressure
the fluid. difference between in and outside the pores will build up which
In addition, the tail in the underwater cutting (yellow) can makes the clay bed much harder to excavate. Later, since the
reach further behind the blade than in the dry cutting (red). The cutting speed is low (0.2m/s), so the surrounding water can fill
reason for that is the dropping velocity of the particles in into the pores in the clay. Then the pressure difference is gone,
vertical direction is significantly damped by the fluid, e.g. the the cutting force will correspondingly decrease. After that,
viscous force, so horizontally these particles have more time to since the clay sample is already much looser than the initial
move further behind the blade before they reach the bed. And situation, so further dilatancy hardening effect has not been
of course as mentioned before, the tail in the underwater cutting observed.
starts from a higher position.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A numerical method including a set of equations is
established in order to describe the underwater rock cutting
process, especially to calculate the fluid pressure distribution
and the cutting force. These equations and functionalities need
to be implemented into “CFDEM+LIGGGHTS+OpenFOAM”
software packages, which is a coupling system between DEM
and FVM.
Although further validation and calibration are needed, it is
Figure 13: The shape difference between the dry soil cutting convinced that the “CFDEM + LIGGGHTS + OpenFOAM”
and water saturated soil cutting (Abdeli, 2010) coupling system is able to make the cooperation between fluid
(FVM) and solid (DEM) based on the momentum exchange
The cutting forces on the blade are calculated in both concept which is currently used in the software system.
conditions. Figure 14 are the force registrations from both the Mechanical characteristics are captured well in the preliminary
dry cutting and underwater cutting simulations, in which the tests of the clay cutting simulations in both dry and underwater
red line indicates the underwater condition while the blue line environments.