Proceedings of OMAE2010
29th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
CFD MODELING OF CORRUGATED FLEXIBLE PIPE
Rajeev K. Jaiman Owen H. Oakley, Jr.
ACUSIM Software, Inc. Chevron Energy Technology
Mountain View, CA 94043 Company
ABSTRACT
The objective of this paper is to present Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) modeling of fully developed turbulent flow
through a flexible corrugated pipe and to investigate the
pressure drop reduction potential of liners. This work also
aims to establish a framework to be used in large scale
numerical simulations of the offshore transfer of cryogenic
fluids. A 3-D CFD approach is considered more appropriate
than 2-D axisymmetric one, since the wavy corrugation
profiles lead to a great deal of internal turbulent structures for
high Reynolds number over Re > 106.
Three geometries of the bellows’ (corrugation) depth are
considered to determine the potential value of a cryogenic
liner, corrugation filler or geometric variations for the 16”
pipe. The reduction in cost and complexity of developing a
robust cryogenic liner or corrugation filler, plus eventual
certifications, would be significant and needs to be worth the
improvement (decrease) in pressure drop. We conduct a
straight pipe corrugation depth study for pressure drop (deep
corrugation, shallow corrugation and liner), and include
suitable mesh convergence and unsteady simulations. We also
attempt to validate the friction coefficient data with the
empirical formulas and recent experimental tests. Operational
cryogenic transfer flow rates ranging from Q=1000 m3/h to
Q=5000 m3/h are considered.
1
June 6- June 11, 2010, Shanghai, China
OMAE2010-20509
J. Dean Adkins
Chevron Energy Technology
Company
INTRODUCTION
The flexible metal pipe has been used in smaller diameters for
more than 30 years for all kind of cryogenic Liquid Natural
Gas (LNG) transfer applications (Refs. [1,2]). Today these
LNG loading systems have evolved towards large, complex
industrial systems, which have to respect increasingly
stringent rules and standards while continuing to maintain
high levels of safety and availability. For both design and
operational standpoint, the LNG from ship to ship loading is a
new application of this well known technology (Ref. [2]).
Such flexible LNG pipes are usually provided with corrugated
walls. The basic design of a Nexans vacuum insulated LNG
transfer hose is illustrated in Figure 1.
Relatively minor deviations in corrugation geometry can affect
the flow/pressure drop characteristics that are important from
the design and operational standpoint. The relative pressure
drop per unit length in a pipe differs according to the distance
from the inlet, normally related to a distance of some 50 x pipe
inner diameter to achieve a fully developed flow profile. After
this length the flow is normally fully turbulent and the relative
pressure drop per unit length is constant (and lowers than in
the inlet section).
Armoured metallic corrugated pipes are well known structures
which can withstand tensile and internal pressure loads, as
well as perform better from a fatigue and heat transfer
standpoints. However, series of corrugations can induce
complex and undesirable flow behavior in the pipes. The
wavy configuration of the corrugations promotes turbulence,
which is a problem because of the extra work required to
surmount the pressure drop. In a broad sense, corrugations
may lead to the following flow physics phenomenon:
ƒ Large pressure head-loss
ƒ Flow induced pulsations
ƒ Multiphase with bubbles and cavitations
ƒ Increase heat transfer
Figure 1: Nexans vacuum insulated LNG transfer hose
The purpose of the modeling exercise is to assess the pressure
drop and qualify the behavior of the flow in the various
configurations of corrugation geometry. To estimate the
variation of the pressure in the corrugations, we do not model
the phase change and the bubbles cavitations but accurately
evaluate the pressure drop along the pipe. The pressure drop
estimation can be useful to deduce the upstream pressure
which can be imposed to stay everywhere downstream above
the phase change pressure.
The pressure drop and friction factor are related by the
following relationship (Ref. [3]):
∆p  f  1 2
=
L   ρu  (1)
D
 h  2 
4A
Dh =
C In the following sections we describe the general method of
A = cross - section area, C = weighted perimeter
where
∆p denotes pressure drop per unit length L ,
L good solution economy. We then describe simulations results
hydraulic pipe diameter Dh , the density ρ of fluid, the mean
velocity u of flow; dimensionless coefficient of friction f .
In the case of a circular cross-section the hydraulic diameter is
equal to the diameter of the circle.
In this work, the challenge consists in making CFD modeling
accurately describe the turbulent behavior of liquid flow in a
corrugated hose. The macroscopic features as pressure drop
and friction factor in the corrugated pipe are directly related to
the wall shear stress.
2
To begin, it is useful to summarize briefly the essential
elements of wall turbulence, mainly to establish notation and
define some basic terms. From simple observations, the effect
of turbulence on the mean flow is to flatten the profile relative
to the parabolic profile that occurs in pipe flows. The total
shear stress is sum of the Reynolds stress − ρ uv and the
viscous stress µ ( du / dy ) and it is defined as
τ = µ ( du / dy) − ρuv (2)
where µ denotes the dynamic viscosity of the fluid.
In fully developed pipe flow in the absence of streamwise
acceleration (i.e., flow no longer changing in streamwise
direction), the mean equation of turbulent motion can be
defined as:
∂p ∂τ
0=− + (3)
∂x ∂y
Since
∂p is a function of streamwise direction x and
∂x
∂τ is a function of y alone, both of them must be
∂y
constant and the stress distribution is then linearly varying
from the value at the wall τ w to zero at the centerline. The
following addresses the problem of developing a CFD model
to obtain an insight into the wall turbulence phenomena and
obtaining values of the pressure gradient
∂p in the
∂x
corrugated pipe.
In corrugated pipe applications, flow physics (e.g.,
recirculation, separation, mean flow three-dimensionality,
streamline curvature, flow acceleration) and geometry play an
important role. In this study, we show that CFD modeling can
offer an accurate and powerful predictive tool for estimating
the macroscopic pressure drop and complex flow phenomenon
in the corrugations.
solving 3D flow equations with turbulence effects. The
problem of creating an optimal mesh is discussed in which the
objective is to combine acceptable solution accuracy with
and assessment of liner designs, and comparing the predicted
pressure drop with the empirical formula and the water test
experiments.
NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY
All of the solutions shown herein are produced using the
AcuSolveTM finite element Navier-Stokes solver based on the
Galerkin/Least-Squares formulation. Although the corrugated
pipe geometry used here has cylindrical symmetry, Cartesian
coordinates are employed; illustrating the potential of the
solver to model complex geometries with large elbows (i.e.
catenary with varying curvatures) using unstructured meshes.
The followings are the basic components of CFD modeling.
Turbulence Modeling
The turbulence level is typically high due to the corrugations
and turbulence modeling is critical to get the accurate
predictions. To model the steady effects of the turbulence on
the mean flow field, we employ the Spalart-Allmaras
Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) model. This model
is a general purpose model that provides reasonable results for
a broad array of industrial applications. This model relies on
the fact that the complete turbulence behavior has to be
enclosed within an appropriate eddy viscosity variable which
takes into account all turbulence scales (from the largest
eddies to the Kolmogorov scale). This model solves a single
transport partial differential equation (PDE) for the eddy
viscosity with the appropriate boundary conditions and solver
settings.
For unsteady simulations, we employ Delayed Detached Eddy
Simulation (DDES), a hybrid RANS model with Large Eddy
Simulation (LES). In the LES based on dynamic subgrid scale
estimation, an attempt is made to capture the large scale
unsteady motions which carry the bulk of the mass and
momentum in a flow, but the near wall turbulence behavior is
treated with a wall function. In the DDES model (Refs. [6,9]),
we resolve the large eddies that have the biggest effect on the
wall shear stress and use the RANS equations to describe the
flow near the wall. This was done not only to economize on
mesh size, but also because most pipes have relatively rough
walls. Wall functions reduce mesh size by providing an
integrated relationship between the wall and the logarithmic
region of the boundary layer.
Material Model
In all simulations, the working fluid LNG is viscous and in
liquid phase with constant density, that is to say
incompressible flow. The flow is assumed to be isothermal,
i.e., the energy equation is not solved. The flow rate and
Reynolds number based on the averaged velocity are the input
for the models. Table 1 summarizes the material properties of
LNG.
Table 1: Summary of the properties of LNG
Property Value
Density 450 kg m -3
Dynamic viscosity 1.4 x 10-4 Pa sec
Kinematic viscosity 3.11x 10-7 kg m-1 s-1
Solver Settings
The standard solver settings were specified in AcuSolve for
steady RANS calculations. When performing a steady
3
simulation, the time integration is automatically set to 1st
order accuracy. In this configuration, the timestep size taken
by AcuSolve is set to infinity (1.0x1010 s) to convect the errors
through the domain and arrive at the steady solution. The mass
continuity and momentum differential equations are then
converged to 4 decades of the solution accuracy. This residual
reduction ensured iterative convergence in all cases.
For unsteady cases, we try to minimize the additional effects
of finite element stabilization in both space and time
integration so that numerics do not suppress the small scales
of turbulent eddy motions. For the spatial integration, we
switch off the discontinuity capturing operator for the DES
model and we set the lumped mass fraction to zero. In time
domain, we utilize an optimal high frequency damping factor
to be 0.5 for the generalized second-order time integration
scheme. A global time step of 1 x 10-2 sec is used to capture
the unsteady turbulent motions.
Initial Conditions
For steady state simulations, the flow solution for the velocity
vector is initialized by the entrance averaged flow speed and
pressure field is set to be zero. For unsteady calculations, the
flow solution field is initialized by the steady state solution of
the corresponding flow rate. The flow solution is then
advanced in time to obtain the unsteady turbulent motions
with fixed and small time-increment to resolve the unsteady
local motions.
Boundary Conditions
In various industrial applications, the flow physics and
geometry can be modeled as repetitive in nature by applying
periodicity. Thereby, a representative building block can be
considered for computational efficiency and simplicity, while
maintaining the desired accuracy of flow physics
corresponding to the experiments. In this purpose, the flow
profiles at exit are iteratively reported to the entrance (Ref.
[7]). In AcuSolve, to simulate the large length of corrugated
hose with fully developed flow, periodic conditions are
applied between the outlet (exit) and inlet (entrance) of the
domain.
The quantity imposed at the entrance is the flow rate Q or
equivalently the averaged velocity as the surface integrated
boundary conditions (bulk BC). This is the only user input to
define the fully developed flow and Reynolds number based
on the averaged velocity. Instead of outlet condition at the exit
plane, the classical periodicity on the mean velocity and the
eddy viscosity are used to couple the entrance and the exit
boundaries. By this way, we attempt to achieve the similar
stabilized profiles of mean velocity and eddy viscosity at the
entrance and the exit. For the pressure, the condition based on
the constant offset is imposed to obtain the fully developed
like condition. In other words, the pressure can change along
the stream-wise direction and the pressure can be decomposed
into a variable term and a linear varying term in the resolve turbulent boundary layer and to find the optimized
streamwise direction as volumetric mesh distribution.

dp
p = p − x (4)
dx

where the fluctuating terms, p identically repeat in the

periodic direction. The fully developed velocity profile
typically converges to a turbulent parabolic-type profile along
the iterations as it is known, except at the vicinity of the
corrugation. By applying these BCs, the SA turbulence model
is tied up with the fully developed Navier-Stokes flow solution
and the coupled mass, momentum and eddy equations are
well-posed and complete.

NUMERICAL MODELING

Model Description

The first step in generating the mesh for the corrugations is to

Figure 2: Three model geometries for corrugated hoses:
define the domain of interest. The actual corrugated hoses
Base model with A*=0.06 (top), Liner #1 model with
have a length of several tenths of meters, i.e., L/D ~ O (100)
A*=0.01583 (middle), Liner #2 with A*=0.00798 (bottom)
and consequently, it is not needed to model their full length in
this validation exercise. It is desirable to model the shorter
Figure 3 shows the typical mesh distribution at a cross-
relevant length to save the calculations and capture the fully
sectional plane for the base model. The model has a fine mesh
developed turbulent flow. Table 2 summarizes the relevant
resolution near the wall and a gradual coarsening of the mesh
dimensions of the corrugation profiles. The assumption of 2D
away from the wall (larger elements in the core region of the
axi-symmetric may not be sufficient for the accurate modeling
pipe).
of three dimensional turbulence effects at high Reynolds
number. Therefore, we consider a 3D geometry with a (a)
circular shape of corrugation profile (i.e., without any
helical/spiral effects) as shown in Fig. 2.

Table 2: Dimensions of corrugation profiles

ID Pitch, P Amplitude, A*=
Geometry (m) (m) A (m) A/(ID+A)
Base 0.404 0.041 0.02600 0.06047 (b)
Line #1 0.404 0.041 0.00650 0.01583
Liner #2 0.404 0.041 0.00325 0.00798

Mesh Generation

Obtaining an economical solution is then simply finding the

minimum number of degrees of freedom in the flow solution
that captures the salient fluid flow effects and predicts the
pressure drop and wall shear stress accurately. We consider
the length of 3D flow domain with L = 6D matching earlier
work on the direct numerical simulations of fully developed
pipe flow (Ref. [4]). We consider the fully developed turbulent Figure 3: Typical mesh distributions (a) full domain cross-
flow in the corrugated hose with the three configurations with
varying depths A*. With the CAD models shown, we sectional mesh (b) close-up mesh
discretize the geometry to form a grid that is reasonable to
capture the dominant flow features. In particular, we need to An important quality control practice while performing
pay attention in the meshing near the wall of corrugations to numerical analysis is to determine the influence of the

4
discretization parameters and to perform sensitivity analyses. Table 4: Mesh statistics for the liner #1 design model,
For CFD, this typically entails a mesh refinement study as A*=0.01583
well as a near wall modeling sensitivity analysis. A reasonable
mesh sensitivity analysis was performed for this work. Mesh Fine mesh (Ref.) Medium mesh
(wall function)
An important issue in the accurate prediction of industrial Total no of elements 35,368,685 19,882,402
turbulent flows is the formulation and the numerical treatment
of equations in regions close to solid walls. The near-wall Number of nodes 6,113,454 3,429,323
formulation determines the accuracy of the wall shear stress
(friction factor) and has an important influence on the
development of boundary layers and near wall turbulence Table 5: Mesh statistics for the liner #2 design model,
structures. Typically the two following approaches are used to A*=0.00798
model the flow in the near-wall region: (a) the wall function
method (b) the wall integration (low Reynolds number) Mesh Fine mesh (Ref.) Medium mesh
method. (wall function)

Because of the linear variation of total stress, the wall shear Total no of elements 33,107,421 18,780,090
stress and the Reynolds (turbulent) stresses are related, Number of nodes 5,728,804 3,240,773
justifying the introduction of the friction velocity

uτ =
τw SIMULATION RESULTS AND VISUALIZATIONS
ρ as a scale representative of the turbulent
fluctuations. The viscous length scale alluded to the viscous We present full-scale 3D simulations using the steady RANS
boundary layer thickness is given by δv = ν u and the
and transient DDES models for the three configurations for the
τ range of flow rates.
distance above the wall scaled in wall units is denoted by
y Base Corrugated Model
y+ = (5)
δv We first perform 3D RANS simulations using the wall-
ν =µρ
function approach with the fine mesh. As mentioned earlier,
where y is the distance from the wall and is the length of modeled domain is 6D as shown Fig. 3.
kinematic viscosity.

Table 3: Mesh statistics for the base design model A*=0.06

Mesh Fine mesh (Ref.) Medium mesh

(wall function)
Total no of elements 51,468,929 23,293,025
Number of nodes 8,862,821 4,025,153

The reasonable mesh sensitivity implies that we reduce the

mesh about a factor of two (instead of reducing uniformly in
all the directions which is equivalent to factor of 8). Tables 3-
5 show the mesh statistics for the three pipe models with y+ <
10. Two successive refined grids were created for the 3D
corrugated pipe model to perform a volumetric grid
refinement study using the wall function approach. The
results of the mesh generation study showed little sensitivity
(< 2%) to the density of the volume mesh for the high
Reynolds number Re=14.1 x 106. The numerical results
presented for the RANS and DES models in the following Figure 4. Streamwise variation of velocity magnitude
sections are those on the fine reference mesh, unless noted contours in the corrugated pipe at Q=3333 m3/h for the
otherwise. base model RANS (top) and DDES (bottom)

5
Figures 4 (top) shows the contours of velocity magnitude (top)
using the RANS model at the Reynolds number of Re=9.38 x
106 for the base model of corrugated pipe. The fully developed
and time averaged steady flow behavior can be observed from
the figure. As expected from the RANS model, there are no
physical unsteady motions in the velocity field. Figures 4
(bottom) shows the contours of streamwise velocity at the
cross section of the corrugated pipe with the DDES model.
The 3D turbulence structures and unsteadiness in the flow can
clearly be inferred in the image

Figure 5 shows the contours of cross-stream velocity

magnitude at the three cross section planes of the corrugated
pipe. Significant circumferential variations in the velocity
magnitude can be seen in the figure. These local variations are
coupled with vorticity, which is defined as the rotation of the
velocity field. Figure 6. Iso-surface of vorticity variable (Q-criterion)
colored by velocity magnitude

Figure 7 shows the quantification of instantaneous variation of

velocity field in the core flow. The velocity fluctuations are
normalized by the mean inlet velocity. The velocity
fluctuations suggest the maximum turbulence level up to 20 %
at the probe point in the core flow.

3.00E-01
v'/U
w'/U
2.00E-01
Normalized velocity fluctuations

u'/U

1.00E-01

Figure 5. Instantaneous velocity magnitude contours at 0.00E+00

the cross-sectional planes for flow rate Q=3333 m3/h (Re =
9.38 x 106) -1.00E-01

Figure 6 shows complex 3D turbulent structures of low-speed

streaks and in-plane streamwise vortices. These vortex -2.00E-01
topologies are identified through the Q-criterion which defines
a vortex as a spatial region where -3.00E-01
1.0E+00 1.2E+00 1.4E+00 1.6E+00 1.8E+00 2.0E+00
Normalized time
1 2
Ω − S  > 0,
2
Q= Figure 7. Instantaneous velocity fluctuations at a sample
2  
location in the domain
1 1
where : S = ∇v + ( ∇v )  , Ω = ∇v − ( ∇v ) 
T T

2  2  Liner Based Corrugated Models

The interactions between these structures are essential
ingredients of wall-bounded turbulence. These fluctuating
vorticity structures are somewhat organized, often called
vortical flow structures.
In this section, we conduct a simple straight pipe corrugation
depth study with the DES model. The meshing guidelines and
flow conditions are similar to those used for the base model.
On further flow visualizations, Figs. 8-9 show comparison of
velocity magnitude at the cross-sectional and streamwise
planes. In the images, we can see a greater degree of
turbulence structures (red color zone) in the liner 1 model as
compared to the liner 2 model.

6
 This is equivalent to obtaining the turbulence statistics from
the single-point probe. The velocity fluctuations are
normalized by the mean velocity. The liner 2 model decreases
the velocity fluctuations (i.e., turbulence level) by a factor of 5
compared to the liner 1 model.

1.5E-01

Normalized velocity fluctuations

1.0E-01

5.0E-02

0.0E+00

-5.0E-02

v'/U
-1.0E-01
w'/U
u'/U
-1.5E-01
1.00E+00 1.10E+00 1.20E+00 1.30E+00 1.40E+00 1.50E+00
Normalized time

1.5E-01

Normalized velocity fluctuations

1.0E-01

5.0E-02

0.0E+00
Figure 8. Streamwise variation of velocity magnitude
contours for the liner 1 (top) and liner 2 (bottom) models -5.0E-02
at Q=3333 m3/h v'/U
-1.0E-01 w'/U
u'/U
-1.5E-01
1.00E+00 1.10E+00 1.20E+00 1.30E+00 1.40E+00 1.50E+00
Normalized time

Figure 10. Instantaneous velocity fluctuations at the same

single-point location for the liner 1 (top) and liner 2
(bottom)

ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION

In this section, we want to quantify the pressure loss and

friction factor for the three geometries. Since there are no
experimental test data for these geometries, we first attempt to
compare the CFD results with the classical roughness theory
and 10.5” (Ref. 3).

ƒ Hydraulically smooth pipe regime: From the universal

law of friction for a smooth pipe, the friction factor can be
expressed as

Figure 9. Instantaneous velocity magnitude contours to 1  uD 

= 2.0 log h f  - 0.8 (7)
show turbulence spatial structures at the cross-sectional f  υ 
planes for the two liner models for flow rate Q=3333 m3/h
(Re = 9.38 x 106) This is Prandtl’s universal law of friction for smooth
pipes and it has been verified with experiments and the
Figure 10 shows the quantification of instantaneous variation agreement is seen to be excellent up to the Reynolds
of velocity field for the two liner models as a function of the
number ReD= uDh/ν=3.2x106.
time in a single point, i.e. liner 1 on top and liner 2 below.

7
ƒ Completely rough regime: In the present configuration, 1.25E-01
the corrugations may be considered equivalent to periodic
roughness (i.e., 2k/Dh) of the diameter of pipe. A
1.00E-01
systematic investigation on the effects of Reynolds

Coefficient of Friction
number and relative roughness k on the friction factor was
performed by Nikuradse Ref. [5]). For the higher values 7.50E-02
of Reynolds number (ranging from 104 to 107), the Baseline

friction factor was found to be Reynolds number Liner 1

independent. The theoretical estimate for the friction 5.00E-02 Liner 2

Smooth
factor for the completely rough regime was estimated as
Base Rough. Theory
2.50E-02
Liner1 Rough. Theory
1
f= 2
(8) Smooth Pipe Theory

  Dh  0.00E+00
1.74 + 2 log  2k  1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
   Reynolds number, Re

Figure 11. Variation of friction coefficients with Reynolds

Base Corrugated vs. Liner Models number

Figure 11 shows the variation of coefficient of friction for the
range of Reynolds number for the three configurations and the
smooth pipe. The friction factor was determined by evaluating
the pressure gradient along the pipe from the integrated
pressure values. For the baseline case, the friction coefficient
is consistently larger than the liner 1 & liner 2 models. The
wall shear stress of the liner 2 model is converging towards
the stress values corresponding to the smooth pipe. This
implies that, by introducing liner materials, the coefficient of
friction can be reduced by 80% with respect to the deeper
metallic hose configuration. Due to complex flow behavior
and recirculation in the base & liner 1 models, the friction
factor changes significantly with the Reynolds numbers.
Figure 12 shows a cross plot of friction factor vs. the depth of
corrugation A*, which provides another view of the impact of
reducing the corrugation depth. For the range of flow rates,
the friction factor increases as we increase the depth of
corrugation. This suggests the potential value of liners for
reducing the pressure loss. The friction factor values for the
liner 1 are converging to that of the smooth pipe. The amount
decrease doesn’t appear to be simply a linear function.
0.125
0.1
Coefficient of Friction

For the base and liner 1 geometry at Re~10M, an inflectional 0.075

behavior in the pressure drop and wall shear stress have been
observed in the RANS and DDES results. This may be
explained in the context of boundary layer separations along 0.05
Flow rate Q=5000 m^3/hr
the corrugation profile and the associated effects into the Flow rate Q=3333 m^3/hr
pressure gradients. In other words, when the imparted shear 0.025 Flow rate Q=2222 m^3/hr
stress dominates eddy dissipative scale, a large amount of
friction occurs along the wall or vice versa. The CFD results
follow an inflectional friction factor relationship rather than 0
the monotonic relationship given by the roughness theory and 0.0E+00 2.0E-02 4.0E-02 6.0E-02 8.0E-02
Ampititude/Diameter, A*
the Moody diagram. Figure 11 also presents the roughness
theory predictions given by the lines. For the smooth pipe, the
CFD results and the theory have an excellent match. However, Figure 12. Variation of friction coefficients with respect to
for the corrugated shapes the roughness theory seems to differ the depth of corrugation A*
up to 24%.
Steady RANS vs. DES Simulations

To assess the results of steady RANS with the DDES, we

further conduct a comparative study on the same grids. Figure
13 shows a summary of the friction factor computed based on
the pressure drop for the two CFD models. A reasonable
consistency in the predictions of integrated pressure drop can
be seen in the figure. By tuning the grid distributions, an

8
improved match between the RANS and DDES may be reasonable agreement between the CFD and experimental
obtained. values can be seen.
1.20E-01
For the base and liner 1 geometry at Re~10M, an inflectional Base CFD Model
behavior in the pressure drop and wall shear stress have been
Liner 1 CFD Model
observed in the RANS and DDES results. As mentioned
earlier, this dip in the frictional drag may be attributed to the 1.00E-01 Water Test (Ref. [1])

Coefficient of Friction
sudden shift in the point of separation for the base and liner 1
geometries. In this range, the laminar viscous sub-layer
portion of boundary layer becomes unstable and undergoes 8.00E-02
transition to turbulence. As seen in the flow over a cylinder,
the turbulent boundary layer, because of its greater energy, is
able to overcome a large adverse pressure gradient. The
turbulent boundary layer separates at a further downstream 6.00E-02
location along the corrugation profile, resulting in a thinner
wake and a pressure distribution more similar to that of
potential flow. For values of Re >10M, the separation point
4.00E-02
slowly moves upstream as the Reynolds number is increased,
1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
resulting in an increase of the friction factor. For the liner 2 Reynolds number, Re
and smooth pipe, the geometry is streamlined and the point of
separation and the transition of boundary layer remain Figure 14. Comparison of the CFD results for A*=0.0604
somewhat unchanged. of 16” ID pipe with the water test with A*=0.0513 in 10.5”
ID pipe
Next, we would like to establish the relevance of friction
1.25E-01
factor in actual pipe configurations as function of pipe lengths
and corrugation depths. This may be important to estimate the
1.00E-01 capacity and limitations of LNG pumps for the corrugated
pipe flow. Typical LNG pumps can develop 6.6 bar
C o e fficien t o f F rictio n

differential pressure (97.3 psi) while maintaining reasonable

7.50E-02
flow rates for LNG transfer. Figure 15 shows the comparison
of pressure drop as a function of flow rates for the geometries,
5.00E-02 where the pressure drop is computed based on the Equation
Baseline
Liner 1
(1).
Liner 2
2.50E-02 Smooth
Baseline-DES
Liner1-DES Pressure Required vs. Flow Rate for L=100 [m]
Liner2-DES
60
0.00E+00
1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Reynolds number, Re 50
Pressure Drop [bar]

Base
Liner 1
Figure 13. Variation of friction coefficients for the range of 40 Liner 2
Reynolds number for the RANS and DDES models
30
We also present a comparison with the experimental test, and
perform further analysis of the results to facilitate 20
interpretation in the commercial settings. The experiment tests
were performed on a 268 mm (10.5”) ID pipe for a range of 10
flow rates with fresh water as working fluid. All the pressure
drop readings were average values taken over a period of 1 0
minute ‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Flow Rate Q [m^3/hr]
Figure 14 shows the comparison of CFD values with the
experimental test done with water in 10.5” ID pipe (Ref. [1]).
Figure 15. Pressure drop as a function of flow rates for the
The friction factors are compared with respect the non-
16” pipe with three corrugation geometries
dimensional dynamic similarity parameter, Reynolds number.
The depth and shape of the corrugation profiles are marginally
different between the 16” ID pipe and 10.5” pipe. A

9

CONCLUSIONS
Cryogenic flexible pipe based LNG transfer system seems to
be a good candidate for CFD modeling, and to qualify the pipe
system for the LNG industry requirements.
Significant 3D turbulence effects were found for the pipe
geometry with circular corrugations suggested by both
qualitative features and quantitative information. The 3D
steady RANS and DDES models provided a consistent
estimate of the pressure drop and friction factor for varying
flow rates. We hoped that we have done a reasonable job in
predicting complex internal turbulent structures with the
unsteady DDES simulations.
periodic variations of cross-sectional area”, ASME, J. Heat
Transfer, Vol. 99, pp. 180-186
[8] Piomelli U. and Balaras, E. “Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics”, Vol 34, pp 349-374, 2002
[9] Shur, M.K., Spalart, P.R., Strelets, M.K. and Travin,
A.K.,”A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and
wall-modeled LES capabilities”, International Journal of Heat
and Fluid Flow, Vol 29, pp 1638-1640, 2008.
[10] Allen, J.J, Shockling, M.A., Kunkel, G.J. and Smits,
“Turbulent flow in smooth and rough pipes”, Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 365, No. 1852, 2007

The pressure drop results were found to be quite sensitive to

the corrugation depth. By introducing the liner materials, the
coefficient of friction can be reduced by 80% with respect to
the deeper metallic hose configuration. The CFD results
appear to be sufficiently accurate that one might seriously
consider using such models to investigate relative geometric
differences and perform parametric studies of various
corrugation configurations. The modeling can reduce the
uncertainty, offer guidance on design variations, improve the
design of full scale tests and potentially eliminate some or all
of such tests. CFD can add substantially to classical roughness
theory (which relies on known pipe characteristics) as it can
address different geometries and dimensions without
additional empirical data.

REFERENCES

[1] Framo Engineering AS Report, “CFD Calculations of

Corrugated Flexible Pipe,” 4577-0313-D, 2006.

[2] Frohne, C., Harten, F., Schippl, K., Steen, K.E.,

Haakonsen, R., Jorgen, E. and Høvik, J. “Innovative Pipe
System for Offshore LNG Transfer,” OTC 19239, 2008.
[3] Schlichting, H., “Boundary Layer Theory,” 7th Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.
[4] Eggles, J. et al.,”Fully devloped turbulent pipe flow: a
comparison between direct numerical simulation and
experiment”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 268, 1994, 175-207
[5] Nikuradse., ”Laws of flow in rough pipes”, NACA TM
1292, 1933

[6] Spalart, Deck, Shur, Squires, Streletes & Travin, “A New

Version of Detached-Eddy Simulation, Resistant to
Ambiguous Grid Densities,” Journal of Theoretical &
Computational Fluid Dynamics, 20, 181-195, 2006.

[7] Patankar, S.V., Liu, C.H., and Sparrow, E.M., “Fully

developed flow and heat transfer in ducts having streamwise-

10