Article

Scour near Offshore Monopiles, Jacket-Type and

Caisson-Type Structures
Leo C. van Rijn 1, *, Nathanael Geleynse 2 , Luitze Perk 2 and Doke Schoonhoven 2

1 LVRS-Consultancy, Domineeswal 6, 8356 DS Blokzijl, The Netherlands

2 WaterProof-Consultancy, IJsselmeerdijk 2, 8221 RC Lelystad, The Netherlands;
[email protected] (N.G.); [email protected] (L.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Scour near various offshore structures (monopile, caisson foundation and jacket
structure) was studied by performing laboratory flume tests and numerical solutions with
a semi-empirical model (SEDSCOUR) and a sophisticated 2DV model (SUSTIM2DV). The
laboratory test results show that the maximum free scour depth around a monopile without
bed protection is slightly higher than the pile diameter. The maximum scour consisting of
pile scour and global scour around an open jacket structure standing on four piles is much
lower than the scour near the other structures (monopile and caisson). The maximum scour
depth along a circular caisson foundation is found to be related to the base diameter of
the structure. The main cause of the scour near these types of structures is the increase
in the velocity along the flanks of the structure. Six cases have been used for validation:
two laboratory cases (A and B) and four field cases (C, D, E and F). The measured scour
values of the new physical model tests with the monopile and the open jacket structure
presented in this paper are in reasonably good agreement with other laboratory and field
scour data from the literature. The semi-empirical SEDSCOUR model proposed in this
paper can be used for the reliable prediction of free scour and global scour near monopiles
and jacket structures in a sandy bed (even with a small percentage of mud, up to 30%).
The maximum scour depth along a large-scale caisson structure is more difficult to predict
because the scour depth depends on the precise geometry and dimensions of the structure
and the prevailing flow and sediment conditions. A detailed 2DV model with a fine
horizontal grid (2 m) along a stream tube following the contour of the caisson is explored
Academic Editor: Fuping Gao for scour predictions. The 2DV model simulates the flow and sediment transport at 50 to
Received: 15 December 2024
100 points over the depth along the stream tube and can be run on a time-scale of 1 year.
Revised: 27 January 2025
Accepted: 27 January 2025 Keywords: scour near offshore structures; prediction models for scour
Published: 30 January 2025

Citation: van Rijn, L.C.; Geleynse, N.;

Perk, L.; Schoonhoven, D. Scour near
Offshore Monopiles, Jacket-Type and 1. Introduction
Caisson-Type Structures. J. Mar. Sci.
1.1. General
Eng. 2025, 13, 266. https://doi.org/
10.3390/jmse13020266 Many countries in coastal regions plan to utilize their offshore wind potential by
developing offshore wind farms in water depths of 20 to 50 m. On a global level, Europe is
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors.
still a market leader in offshore wind project construction (about 50%), followed by Asia
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article (about 45%) and the US (5%). Various types of foundation structures of offshore wind
distributed under the terms and turbines are used: monopiles, gravity-based structures and jacket/tripod structures.
conditions of the Creative Commons The monopile is the most applied foundation type in shallow waters with a sandy
Attribution (CC BY) license soil covered with migrating sand waves. Gravity-based structures (GBSs; caisson-type
(https://creativecommons.org/
foundation structures) are suitable for wind turbines in shallow waters (up to 30 m) with
licenses/by/4.0/).

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13020266

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 2 of 26

sandy and rocky type soils. These types of structures generally have skirts with lengths of
2 to 3 m under the foundation structure to prevent undermining. Jacket-type structures can
be used in deeper waters with depths up to 50 m. The scour near various types of structures
is discussed in Sections 1.2–1.4. Experimental and numerical methods are presented in
Section 2. The new experimental results are analyzed in Sections 3 and 4. Scour models and
prediction results are given in Section 5. Summary and conclusions are given in Section 6.

1.2. Scour Around Monopiles

Many data sets of free scour around monopiles in laboratory and field conditions are
available. Early work on this by Breusers et al. [1], Melville [2], Melville-Sutherland [3],
Kothyari et al. [4], Melville [5], Lim [6], Melville and Coleman [7] goes back to current-
related scour near circular bridge piers. They and others have found maximum scour
depth values (ds,max ) in the range of 0.5 to 2 of the pile’s diameter (Dpile ), expressed as
ds,max = 0.5 to 2 Dpile , depending on water depth, flow conditions, sediment size and
other factors. Cefas [8] measured a maximum scour depth of up to 5 m around the
monopiles (Dpile = 4.2 m; ds,max = 1.1 Dpile ) of an offshore wind farm within coastal waters,
in Scroby Sands, off Great Yarmouth (east coast of England). Similar values are reported by
Rudolph et al. [9] for the Q7 wind farm at 20 km offshore of Holland’s coast and
Raaijmakers et al. [10] for the wind farm Luchterduinen, offshore near Holland’s coast.

1.3. Scour Around Gravity-Based Structures

Assessments on scour depth around circular gravity-based structures in laboratory
conditions were performed by [11–16]. Whitehouse [11] measured maximum scour depth
values of 0.2 to 0.5 times the base foundation diameter (ds,max /Dbase = 0.2–0.5) along circular
caisson structures with long skirts (9.5 m) for high-current velocities (uo /ucr = 4 to 6), where
uo = the free-stream velocity upstream of the structure and ucr = the critical current velocity
of motion of the sand seabed. Tavouktsoglu [15] measured values of ds,max /Dbase = 0.3–0.65
for low-current velocities (uo /ucr ∼= 1.2). Sarmiento et al. [16] measured a maximum scour
depth along a caisson structure of about ds,max = 0.125 Dbase after 5 h in a movable bed
scale model (d50 = 0.15 mm), with a water depth of 1 m and a current velocity of 0.42 m/s
(uo /ucr ∼
= 2). Whitehouse et al. [12] have summarized scour data for two field cases with
gravity-based structures (GBSs). The values of ds,max /Dbase are in the range of 0.05 to 0.12
for uo,max /ucr = 4 to 5. Overall, the measured range is ds,max /Dbase = 0.05 to 0.65, which is a
rather large range, indicating that the scour near GBS is sensitive to the structure’s precise
dimensions, flow and sediment conditions.

1.4. Scour Around Jacket-Type Structures

Scour data near jacket-type structures are relatively scarce. Rudolph et al. [17] studied
the scour near a jacket structure (open structure of multiple piles/legs) at block L9 of the
Dutch North Sea sector, which was installed in the summer of 1997. The piles resting in
the seabed (d50 = 0.2 mm) have a diameter of Dpile in the range of 1.2 to 1.5 m. Typical
depth-averaged peak flow velocities are 0.5 m/s during spring tide. Maximum far-field
scour depths were measured in the range of 1.5 to 5.0 m, and the near-field scour near
the legs/piles (Dpile ) was in the range of 2.0 to 3.5 m (about 1.5 to 2.5 Dpile ). The far-field
scour hole (extent of bathymetrical changes relative to the undisturbed situation) had a
radius of roughly 2.5 to 3 times the pile spacing. Bolle et al. [18] and Baelus et al. [19]
analyzed scour depth around the jacket structure at Thorton Bank offshore wind park in
the southern North Sea. The maximum scour depth was in the range of ds,max = 0.3 to
0.9 Dpile . Welzel et al. [20,21] studied near-field and far-field scour around a jacket structure
in a wave-current basin with a water depth of 0.67 m (scale 1 to 30) and a sand d50 of
0.19 mm. The structure has four legs with pile diameter of 1.2 m. Current velocities varied
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 3 of 26

between 0.1 and 0.4 m/s. The maximum far-field scour depth around the structure was
about 1 m or ds,max = 0.8 Dpile for current-only conditions. The maximum near-field scour
depths around the least- and the most-exposed piles was ds,max = 1.3 to 1.75 Dpile for current-
only conditions. Other types of jacket structures were also studied by Welzel et al. 2020,
2024 [22,23]. Zhang et al., 2025 [24] used a 3D flow model to compute the near-bed flow
and turbulence characteristics around a jacket structure. An overview of the most relevant
and recent scour-related research of various types regarding offshore structures are given
by Chambel et al. [25] and Sarmiento et al. [16].

2. Experimental and Numerical Methods

The prediction of the scour depth around these types of foundation structures in
offshore conditions requires the application of numerical simulation models in combination
with experiments in physical scale models. Both types of modelling tools are discussed in
this paper.
New exploring experiments in a wide recirculating flume with steady flow conditions
were performed to determine the scour hole dimensions around a monopile, a jacket
structure with 4 legs and a gravity structure (caisson-type structure with a monopile on
top). The experiments were performed in a small basin (length = 10 m; width = 1.3 m) at
the WaterProof laboratory. The hydrodynamic data (flow field) were measured above a
fixed model bottom (non-mobile) to acquire steady initial conditions during all velocity
measurements (detailed mapping of the initial flow field). The bed roughness of the non-
mobile bed is about 0.5 mm (cemented sand bed; ks ∼ = 3 d90 ; d90 = 0.18 mm, see below). The
water depth was about 0.35 m. The depth-averaged approach current velocity was about
0.26 m/s. The velocity profile at various locations around each structure was measured
using a 3D NORTEK Vectrino instrument (Nortek, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands). Measured
velocity profiles above the non-mobile bed upstream of the structures are very similar to the
measured velocity profiles above the mobile sand bed upstream of the structures (measured
during scour tests). In addition, streamlines were visualized using surface floats consisting
of a small piece of wood with an aluminum body (cross) attached to a short vertical line of
5 cm so that the float represents the velocity at 5 cm under the watersurface. All dimensions
and conditions are given in Table 1 (see also the photographs in Section 4).

Table 1. Basic data of scour experiments; d50 = 0.1 mm.

Parameter Monopile Caisson with Monopile (GBS) Jacket Structure

Dcaisson = 0.32 m; Dpile = 0.11 m
Dleg = 0.02 m
Dpile = 0.11 m hcaisson = 0.1 m; hskirt = 0.035 m
Structure dimensions Dcrossmember = 0.01 m
(pile diameter) (caisson was placed on top of
Lbase = 0.365 m (distance legs)
bed; skirt was in the bed)
Water depth 0.35 m 0.35 m 0.35 m
Upstream current 0.26 m/s 0.27 m/s 0.26 m/s

After the flow experiments with a fixed bed, scour experiments were performed in
the basin with a mobile sediment bed consisting of medium-fine sand (d50 = 0.1 mm;
d90 = 0.18 mm; critical depth-averaged velocity for initiation of motion; ucr = 0.2
m/s). The depth-averaged approach velocity was slightly above the critical velocity
(uo /ucr = 1.3). This represents live-bed scour, although the sand transport and scour
upstream of the structure was minimum. Each test was run until the maximum scour depth
remained approximately stable and reached equilibrium. The test duration was 6.5 h for
the test with a monopile; it was 6.5 h for the test with a caisson structure (test was stopped
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 4 of 26

after the tipping over of the caisson structure after 6.5 h) and 20 h for the test with a jacket
structure. The scour depth data were derived from 3D photographs after drying the model
and from mechanical pointer gages.
The flow field and the scour details of these experiments are presented and used
for the validation of the scour models. Two types of scour prediction models were used:
(1) the semi-empirical scour model SEDSCOUR and (2) the sophisticated SUSTIM2DV-
model. Both models were developed by LVRS-Consultancy and are explained in Section 5.

3. Experimental Results of Flow Around a Monopile, Jacket Structure and

Gravity-Based Structure
Figures 1–3 show the measured velocity profiles at various locations for the monopile,
GBS and jacket-type structure, respectively. The most characteristic features include
the following:
• monopile: a significant increase in the approach depth-averaged flow velocity from
0.26 m/s at P1 to about 0.35 m/s at the flanks of the pile at P2 and P3; the velocity
profile is quite uniform over depth (accelerated flow);
• caisson with monopile on top: a significant increase in the approach depth-averaged
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 26
flow velocity from 0.26 m/s at P1 to about 0.35 m/s on the flank of the caisson at P2,
decreasing for larger lateral distances (0.32 m/s at P5); the velocity profile is rather
uniform at P2, and the velocity profile at P1 is slightly distorted, most likely due to the
returned to within 5% of the free-stream velocity at about 8 to 9 Dpile of the pile centre. The
effect of the downward-directed flow at the base of the structure;
re-adjustment distance to free-stream velocities downstream of the monopile is about x/L
•  15–20
jacket structure: an increase in the approach depth-averaged flow velocity from
for the monopile of this study. A similar re-adjustment distance of x/L  15–20
0.26 m/s atforP1
seems present thetocaisson-type
about 0.30–0.33 m/sFor
structure. at the
P7 jacket-type
and P8, lateral of the
structure, thisstructure;
re-adjust- the
vertical distribution of the flow velocities is rather similar.
ment seems much shorter because the flow interference is much less.

Figure1.1.Flow
Figure Flowvelocity
velocity field aroundthe
field around themonopile
monopile(D(D = 0.11
= 0.11
pilepile m).m).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 5 of 26
Figure 1. Flow velocity field around the monopile (Dpile = 0.11 m).

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Figure 2. Flow velocity field around the caisson structure (D = 0.32 m) with a monopile6 of 26
on top
caisson
Figure 2. Flow velocity field around the caisson structure (Dcaisson = 0.32 m) with a monopile on top
(D
(Dpile = 0.11 m).
pile = 0.11 m).

Figure3.3.Flow
Figure Flowvelocity
velocityfield
fieldaround
aroundthe
thejacket
jacketstructure
structure(D leg =
(Dleg 0.02 m;
= 0.02 m; distance
distance between
between legs
legs == 0.365 m).
0.365 m).
It is noted that the increase in the velocities measured on the side of the structures is
somewhat too high (about 10%) due to the blocking effect (limited width of the flume).
Figure 4 shows flow lines based on near-surface floats. The flow lines are fairly straight
for the open jacket structure and curvier for the monopile and the caisson with a pile on top.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 26

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266

Figure 3. Flow velocity field around the jacket structure (Dleg = 0.02 m; distance between legs = 6 of 26
0.365 m).

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Flow lines for the 3 main experiments,
experiments, obtained
obtained from
from tracking
trackingthe
theposition
positionof
ofnear-surface
near-surface
floats (flow
floats (flow from top toto bottom).
bottom).

Figure 5 shows the dimensionless depth-averaged velocity along the structure

(monopile and caisson) and in the axis downstream of the jacket structure. L is the struc-
ture’s length being L = 0.11 m for the monopile, L = 0.32 m (base diameter) for the caisson
structure and L = 0.38 m (base length) for the jacket structure. The x-coordinate is the
distance along a line from the upstream structure face in the centreline around the perime-
ter of the structure that ends in the downstream structure face in the centreline and then
Figure 3. Flow
following thevelocity field around
centreline. thepoint
The first jacket is
structure (Dm
at 0.055 leg = 0.02 m; distance between legs =
from the upstream structure face for
0.365 m).
the monopile, 0.16 m for the caisson and 0.19 m for the jacket structure. The measured
values along the centreline behind the structures are the depth-averaged velocities derived
from the measurements in the centreline (no averaging over the width). The upstream
depth-averaged current velocity is 0.26–0.27 m/s for all structures. The current velocity
strongly increases in the acceleration zone (0 < x/L < 0.5) with a maximum value of about
u/uo ∼ = 1.4 for the monopile and decreases (maximum 40%) in the lee zone of the monopile.
Miles et al. 2017 [26] report a reduction of about 50%. They also report that the flow
velocity returned to within 5% of the free-stream velocity at about 8 to 9 Dpile of the pile
centre. The re-adjustment distance to free-stream velocities downstream of the monopile
is about x/L ∼ = 15–20 for the monopile of this study. A similar re-adjustment distance of
x/L ∼
= 4.15–20 seems present for the caisson-type structure. For the jacket-type structure, this
Figure Flow lines for the 3 main experiments, obtained from tracking the position of near-surface
re-adjustment
floats (flow fromseems much shorter because the flow interference is much less.
top to bottom).

Figure 5. Dimensionless depth-averaged velocity as a function of dimensionless distance along

the structure.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 7 of 26

4. Experimental Results of Scour near the Monopile, Jacket Structure and

Gravity-Based Structure
4.1. Experimental Scour Results
The scour results for the three structures are presented in Table 2 and in Figures 6–9.
The most important scour characteristics are as follows:
• monopile: the maximum scour depth is ds,max ∼ = 1.1 Dpile after 5 h with a maximum
∼
scour length of Ls,max = 3 Dpile at both sides; the maximum scour depth after 6.5 h is
almost the same;
• caisson with monopile on top: the maximum scour depth is ds,max ∼ = 1 hcaisson (height of
the caisson) after 6.5 h (just before the tipping over of the structure due to scour under-
mining, see Figure 6); the maximum scour length is Ls,max ∼ = 1 Dcaisson at both sides;
• jacket structure: the maximum scour depth near the legs is ds,max ∼ = 2.5 Dleg after 10 h;
the maximum scour depth after 20 h is almost the same; the maximum scour length
is Ls,max ∼
= 10 Dleg at both sides; scour in the centre part under the structure is lower
∼
(=50% of scour depth near legs).

Table 2. Measured data from scour experiments; d50 = 0.1 mm.

Parameter Monopile Caisson with Monopile (GBS) Jacket Structure

0.05 m near legs (∼= 2.5 Dleg )
Maximum scour 0.10 m (∼
=1.0 hcaisson )
0.12 m (∼
=1.1 Dpile ) ∼ 1.5 Dleg ) in middle
0.03 m (=
depth (0.3 Dcaisson )
structure
J. Maximum
Mar. Sci. Eng.scour
2025, 13, x FOR m (∼
0.35 PEER
=REVIEW
3 Dpile ) on both sides 8 of 26
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.3 m (1 Dcaisson ) on both sides 0.20 m (∼ 8 of
=10 Dleg ) on both sides of 26
leg
length of pile

Figure 6. Scour
Figure near
nearthe
thepile’s
pile’sfoundation
foundationstructures.
Figure 6. 6. Scour
Scour near the pile’s foundation structures.
structures.

Figure 7. Scour near the monopile.

Figure
Figure 7. 7. Scour
Scour nearthe
near themonopile.
monopile.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 8 of 26
Figure 7. Scour near the monopile.

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 26

Figure8.8. Scour
Figure near the
Scour near thecaisson
caissonwith
witha monopile
a monopile (structure
(structure tipped
tipped overover
afterafter
6.5 h,6.5 h, signifying
signifying end end
ofoftest).
test).

Figure 9. Scour near the legs of the jacket structure (2 cross-sections, see insets; green line is the
Figure
pile’s 9. Scour near the legs of the jacket structure (2 cross-sections, see insets; green line is the
centre).
pile’s centre).
4.2. Discussion
5. Scour Modelling
Monopile andmaximum
structure: The Results scour depth of the present tests with a monopile
(d5.1. = 1.1 Dpile ) is of the correct order of magnitude compared to scour data from the
s,maxGeneral
literature
Two(dscour
s,max = 0.6 to 1.2
models wereDpile ), thereby
recently confirming
developed thepresented
and are validity ofherein:
the experimental
a semi-analyt-setup.
icalCaisson
1D scour structure with monopilefor
model (SEDSCOUR) (GBS): The maximum
monopiles and jacketscour depthand
structures is das,max = 0.3 Dbase
numerical
for
2DVu /u
o model
cr = 1.3, which is in the middle of the literature data range
(SUSTIM2DV; [27, 28]) for caisson-type structures. The SEDSCOUR(d s,max = model D
0.05–0.65 isbase ).
a new model, described herein for the first time.

5.2. Scour near a Monopile and Jacket Structure: Description of the SEDSCOUR Model
5.2.1. General Schematization
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 9 of 26

Whitehouse [11] measured much larger scour depths of 0.2 to 0.5 times the base founda-
tion’s diameter (ds,max /Dbase = 0.2–0.5) for high-current velocities (uo /ucr = 4 to 6). Tavoukt-
soglu [15] also measured much higher scour values of ds,max /Dbase = 0.3–0.65 for low-current
velocities (uo /ucr ∼
= 1.2). Sarmiento et al. [16] measured a maximum scour depth along a
caisson structure of about ds,max = 0.125 Dbase after 5 h in a movable bed (d50 = 0.15 mm);
the scale model had a water depth of 1 m and a current velocity of 0.42 m/s (uo /ucr ∼ = 2).
Jacket structure: The absolute scour depth is much lower (factor 2) than that around
the other two types of structures, see Table 2. The maximum scour depth near the leg of
a jacket structure is ds,max = 2.5 Dleg while that near a monopile is about ds,max = 1.1 Dpile .
This means that the extra effect of the overall jacket structure on the scour near the legs is
of the same order of magnitude. The scour depth with ds,max = 2.5 Dleg measured during
the present test (d50 = 0.1 mm) is higher than the scour depth with ds,max = 1.3 to 1.75 Dpile ,
measured in the tests (d50 = 0.19 mm) of Welzel et al. (2019) [20], which may be related to
the somewhat coarser sand used by Wenzel et al.

5. Scour Modelling and Results

5.1. General
Two scour models were recently developed and are presented herein: a semi-analytical
1D scour model (SEDSCOUR) for monopiles and jacket structures and a numerical 2DV
model (SUSTIM2DV; [27,28]) for caisson-type structures. The SEDSCOUR model is a new
model, described herein for the first time.

5.2. Scour near a Monopile and Jacket Structure: Description of the SEDSCOUR Model
5.2.1. General Schematization
The free scour hole/pit generated around a pile-type structure (without scour pro-
tection) is schematized into two separated scour pits on the upstream and downstream
sides of the pile, as shown in Figure 10. The deepest scour pit is generated in the lee of
the pile downstream of the highest peak tidal current velocity (assuming a slight velocity
asymmetry; uflood > uebb ). Both scour holes are similar in shape. Herein, it is assumed that
the flood current is dominant with the highest peak current velocity. Only the deepest
scour hole (with scour depth ds and length Ls ) is considered (on the right in Figure 10). This
scour pit consists of a deep scour pit near the pile and a shallow scour pit further away
from the pile.
The tidal current is assumed to be perpendicular (normal) to the structure. Two tidal
periods are considered: flood period of about 6 h with one flood-averaged and depth-
averaged velocity uflood and similarly an ebb period of about 6 h with one ebb-averaged
and depth-averaged velocity uebb . Thus, each tidal phase (flood/ebb) is represented by one
representative velocity. The variation in the flow velocity over the tidal cycle is not repre-
sented. The neap–spring variation in the velocities is represented by a sinusoidal variation
based on input values. The scour pit erosion developing downstream of the pile over a
tidal cycle of 12 h is the net result of the following tide-averaged sand transport processes:
• flood: the erosion of sand (Eflood ) from the bed in the lee of the pile due to flow accel-
erations and increased turbulence levels and the deposition of sand (Dflood ) from the
incoming flood flow;
• ebb: the deposition of sand (Debb ) from the incoming ebb flow (after reversal of the
tidal current).
The SEDSCOUR model can also be used to compute the free scour downstream of a
structure (obstacle) on the seabed such as a rock protection on a pipeline or a weir/sill in a
riverbed, see Figure 11. The trapping of sand from the incoming sediment load (if present)
is taken into account.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
J. Mar. 10 of 2610 of 26

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 26

Figure
Figure 10. Plan view 10.cross-section
and Plan view andof
cross-section
a scour pitofdue
a scour pit due
to tidal to tidal flow.
flow.

The tidal current is assumed to be perpendicular (normal) to the structure. Two tidal
periods are considered: flood period of about 6 h with one flood-averaged and depth-
averaged velocity uflood and similarly an ebb period of about 6 h with one ebb-averaged
and depth-averaged velocity uebb. Thus, each tidal phase (flood/ebb) is represented by one
representative velocity. The variation in the flow velocity over the tidal cycle is not repre-
sented. The neap–spring variation in the velocities is represented by a sinusoidal variation
based on input values. The scour pit erosion developing downstream of the pile over a
tidal cycle of 12 h is the net result of the following tide-averaged sand transport processes:
flood: the erosion of sand (Eflood) from the bed in the lee of the pile due to flow accel-
erations and increased turbulence levels and the deposition of sand (Dflood) from the
incomingofflood
Figure 11. Scour downstream flow;
a hard structure (obstacle) on the seabed.
Figure 11. Scour downstream
 ebb: theofdeposition
a hard structure (obstacle)
of sand on the
(Debb) from seabed.
the incoming ebb flow (after reversal of the
tidal is
The scour process current).
assumed to be a two-dimensional process. Therefore, the scour
5.2.2. General Model Equations
width normal to theThe SEDSCOUR
tidal current ismodel
set tocan
bs =also
1 mbe(unit
used width).
to compute
Thethe free scour
mean scourdownstream
length in of a
The deep part of a near-field scour
thepit is represented in the SEDSCOUR model as or aa weir/sill in
the direction of structure
the tidal (obstacle)
current ison seabed
assumed such
to be Ls as
= αaLrock protection
hs with onupstream
hs = the a pipeline structure
rectangular boxawith the
riverbed, following dimensions: d = mean scour depth, b = mean scour
and αL see Figure 11.value.
The trapping of sand from the incoming sediment load (if pre-
s s
or obstacle height = the input
width and Ls = mean scour
sent) is taken length. The maximum scour depth is set to ds,max = αsds with αs
into account.
5.2.2. General Model Equations to 1.5).
= the input value (range
The from
scour 1.2
process This parameter
is assumed can be used asprocess.
to be a two-dimensional a safetyTherefore,
factor. the scour
Using αs = 1.5 will givenormal
width a conservative
to the tidal maximum
current isscour
set todepth.
bs = 1 m (unit width). The mean scour length in
The deep part of a near-field scour pit is represented in the SEDSCOUR model as a
the direction
The scour volume of the
at time t is tidal
Vs,t =current s assumed to be Ls = αL hs with hs = the upstream structure
ds,t Ls bis
rectangular boxorwith the
obstacle
following
height and of
dimensions:
= the
αL 12
ds = mean scour depth, bs = mean scour
The net volume change per tide h isinput value.
given as follows:
width and Ls = mean scour length. The maximum scour depth is set to ds,max = αs ds with
αs = the input value (rangeΔVfrom E1.2 to 1.5).
D ThisDparameter can be used as a safety
(1)factor.
Using αs = 1.5 will give a conservative maximum scour depth.
The scour volume at time t is
The scour volume at time t is Vs,t = ds,t Ls bs .
𝑉,
The net volume change ∑Δ𝑉 ∑ of
per tide 𝐸 12 h is𝐷given as
𝐷 follows: (2)

The scour depth at time t isgiven as follows:  ∆t 

tide
∆V s = E f lood − D f lood − Debb (1)
𝑑 , (1 − p ) ϱ s (3)
,

The erosion (E) and deposition (D) parameters during each time step of ttide = 12 h
are:
𝐸 𝑏 𝑞 , , 𝑞 , , 𝛼 𝑞 , , 𝑞 , , (4)
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 11 of 26

The scour volume at time t is

  ∆t
Vs,t = ∑ ∆Vs = ∑ E f lood − D f lood − Debb tide
(1 − p ) ρ s
(2)

The scour depth at time t is given as follows:

Vs,t
ds,t = (3)
bs L s

The erosion (E) and deposition (D) parameters during each time step of ∆ttide = 12 h are:
h   i
E f lood = bs qb, f lood,pit − qb, f lood,o + α p qs, f lood,pit − qs, f lood,o (4)
h i
D f lood = bs α D,b qb, f lood,o + α D,s qs, f lood,o (5)

Debb = bs [α D,b qb,ebb,o + α D,s qs,ebb,o ] (6)

with the parameters as follows:

qb,flood,o = the flood-averaged equilibrium of a bed load transport outside the pit based on
undisturbed velocity uflood,o ;
qb,flood,o = the flood-averaged equilibrium of a suspended load transport outside the pit
based on undisturbed uflood,o ;
qb,ebb,o = the ebb-averaged equilibrium of a bed load transport outside the pit based on
undisturbed velocity uebb,o ;
qs,ebb,o = the ebb-averaged equilibrium of a suspended load transport outside the pit based
on undisturbed uebb,o ;
qb,flood,pit = the flood-averaged equilibrium of a bed load transport in a scour pit area based
on uflood,pit ;
qs,flood,pit = the flood-averaged equilibrium of a suspended load transport in a scour pit area
on uflood,pit ;
αP = the pickup coefficient of equilibrium for a suspended load transport (αp < 1 for
suspended load); αp = 1 for bed load;
αD,b = the trapping coefficient of equilibrium for a bed load transport (αD = 1 for bed load
transport);
αD,s = the trapping coefficient of equilibrium for a suspended load transport (αD < 1);
tanα = the downstream slope gradient of a near-field scour pit (1 to 7);
∆ttide = αtide Ttide = the effective time step of 1 tide; Ttide = the duration of a tidal cycle
(∼
=12 h); αtide = the efficiency coefficient (velocities around slack tide are too small to cause
substantial erosion; αtide ∼ = 0.4–0.6; this coefficient only affects the short term scour depth;
it does not affect the long term scour depth).
It is noted that the pickup of sand particles in the scour pit is related to the excess sand
transport rate (difference between sand transport in the pit and upstream sand transport);
this ensures that the pickup is zero for a plane bed without a structure (αu = 1 and ro = 0).
The equilibrium sand transport values are computed by the formulations proposed by
Van Rijn [29–31], which depend on the depth-averaged velocity, the depth-averaged critical
velocity for the initiation of motion, the water depth, the wave height (Hs ), the wave period
(Tp ) and sediment parameters (d50 ). The equilibrium transport rates are reduced if mud is
present in the bed. The bed load transport equation [30] is
 1.2
d50
qb = 0.015γb (1 − pmud )ρs uhMe1.5 (7)
h
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 12 of 26

with

[ue − (1 + 0.01pmud )ucr,o ] πHs h i 4.02h

Me = 0.5
; Uw =   ; kh = Y 0.5 1 + 0.166Y + 0.031Y 2 ; Y =
2
[(s − 1) gd50 ] Tp sinh(kh) Tp
Here, qb = the bed-load transport (kg/m/s); h = the water depth; d50 = the particle
size (m); pmud = the percentage of mud/clay in the bed (0 to 30%); Me = the mobility
parameter; ue = u + γUw = the effective velocity with γ = 0.4 to 0.5 for irregular waves;
u = the depth-averaged flow velocity; s = ρs /ρw = the relative density; ρs = the sediment
density; ρw = the fluid density; Uw = the peak orbital velocity (based on linear wave theory);
Hs = the significant wave height; Tp = the peak wave period; ucr,o = the critical depth-
averaged velocity for the initiation of motion of a pure sand bed; γb = the calibration factor
(default = 1).
The suspended load transport equation [31] is
 
d50
qs = 0.012γs (1 − pmud )ϱs uhMe2.4 D∗−0.6 . (8)
h

where h
(s−1) g 0.333
i
D∗ = d50 ν 2 , qs = the suspended load transport (kg/m/s), D∗ = the dimension-
less particle size, ν = the kinematic viscosity coefficient and γs = the calibration factor
(default = 1).
The flood and ebb velocities outside (uflood,o and uebb,o ) are the input values.
The depth-averaged flow velocity inside the scour pit/hole during the flood period is
computed as " #n
h f lood,o
u f lood,pit = αu αr u f lood,o (9)
h f lood,o + ds,t

with
 0.5
αr = 1 + ro 1 − αhs do s , αu = the velocity increase factor related to the structure (range
1–1.3; input value),
n = the exponent (range 0.5–1; continuity gives n = 1; lower n-value gives higher velocity in
pit and thus more pickup),
αr = the turbulence factor related to structure, ro = the initial turbulence effect close to
structure (input), ro decreases weakly for increasing scour depth (ro = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 for
Dpile /ho or hstructure /ho = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5; ro,max = 0.3) and αs = the coefficient influencing the
turbulence factor (∼ =0.3 reduction of turbulence in the scour pit; 0 = the turbulence factor is
constant in the scour pit).
The trapping coefficient is given as follows:
!
ALe f f ds,t
α D = 1 − exp − (10)
h2pit

with
" #" # " #1.5
g0.5 u pit 12h pit
 
ws 2ws ∼ ws
A = γD1 1+ = γD2 ; u∗,pit = ; C = 18log ;
u∗,pit u∗,pit u∗,pit C ks

where γD1 = the calibration coefficient (input value 0.2 to 1; trapping αD = 0 for
γD1 = 0; trapping αD is higher for higher γD1 ) used in an earlier version of the model,
γD2 = the calibration coefficient (input value 0.1 to 0.7) used in latest model version,
Leff = the effective settling length, Leff = 0.5 Ls + Dpile for flood and ebb flow, ds,t = the
scour depth at time t; hpit = ho + ds,t +/− η max = the water depth in a pit during flood/ebb,
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 13 of 26

η max = the tidal amplitude, ho = the water depth to MSL, u*,pit = the bed-shear velocity
inside the pit, C = Chézy’s coefficient, ks = the bed roughness height and ws = the fall
velocity suspended sand.
The pickup coefficient is given as follows:

ds,t u∗,pit 0.3

  
α p = α P,1 [1 − 0.01pmud ] 1 − (11)
ho ws

with αP ,1 = calibration coefficient (0.5 to 1) and u*,pit = bed-shear velocity in pit.

The sand transport capacity (equilibrium transport) downstream of the structure in
the flood period is much higher than the sand transport capacity upstream of the pile, and
this is caused by the velocity increase and extra turbulence generation in the lee zone of
the pile (vortex shedding). The actual sand transport in the lee zone close to the pile is
somewhat smaller than the sand transport capacity due to the space lag effect (the growing
effect of a suspended load due to upward transport processes). This effect is represented
by a pickup coefficient (αP < 1), which depends on the fall velocity (ws ) of the sand and
the strength of the turbulence in the scour pit area (u*,pit ). The pickup coefficient gradually
decreases for increasing scour depth because the pickup of sand is more difficult in a deep
scour pit. The pickup coefficient is lower if mud is present in the bed.
Free scour around the pile without bed protection: The maximum scour depth is set to
ds,max = αs ds with αs = 1.3 for laboratory cases (more triangular scour profile) and αs = 1.2
for field cases. The scour width is assumed to be bs = 3 Dpile . The mean scour length is
assumed to be Ls = αL ds with an input value of αL = 3 for laboratory scour pits and αL = 7
for field scour pits. The maximum scour length is assumed to be Ls,max = Ls + 0.5 ds /tanα.
Edge scour near the pile with bed protection: In the case of a protected monopile, the scour
processes develop at the edge of the scour protection and are similar to that of free scour,
but the effects of velocity increase and extra turbulence production are much less (further
away from the pile). A similar approach as for local scour can be used to compute the
pickup and trapping of the sand particles.
Scour near piles of a jacket structure: In the case of a jacket-type structure, the main
(tidal) flow will go through the open structure with slightly increased velocities (an overall
increase of 15% to 20% depending on the blocking effect of the structure; locally, the
increase may be higher, 20% to 30%, see Figure 3). The additional turbulence generated
by the structure can be taken into account by a turbulence coefficient (ro ). The mean scour
depth (ds ) follows from the net volume change per tide over the global scour area, where
Aglobal = 1.5 bJacket × 1.5 Ljacket . The width (bjacket ) and the length (Ljacket ) of the jacket structure
are the input parameters. The maximum scour depth (ds,max ) is set to ds,max = αs ds with
αs ∼
= 1.2.

5.3. Free Scour near the Monopile: The SEDSCOUR Model’s Results (Cases A to D)
Two laboratory data sets of free scour (without bed protection) and two field cases
are considered:
A. free scour around a monopile in flume experiments by Sheppard and Miller [32];
B. free scour around a monopile in flume experiments by Sheppard [33];
C. free scour around monopiles in the Q7 wind park (NL) in 2006–2007;
D. free scour around monopiles in the windpark Luchterduinen (NL) in 2013.
Case A: Sheppard and Miller [32] measured the scour depth around a monopile in a
laboratory flume with a sand bed (d50 = 0.27 mm, fall velocity = 0.03 m/s, ucr = 0.27 m/s,
porosity = 0.4 and sediment density = 2650 kg/m3 ). The water depth was about 0.42 m.
The pile diameter was 0.152 m. The approach current velocity was varied in the range of
0.17 to 1.64 m/s. The test with a velocity of 0.17 m/s is a clear-water scour test (no sediment
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 14 of 26

load in upstream current); the other tests are live-bed scour tests with the recirculation
of the sediment load. The basic data and model input coefficients are given in Table 3.
The velocity increase coefficient, which is a calibration coefficient, is set to αu = 1.4 for all
cases; the turbulence coefficient is in the range of ro = 0.3 to 0.4. The pickup and trapping
coefficients are the same for all cases (αP = 1 and αD = 0.5). The calibration coefficient of
the sand transport outside and inside the scour hole is set to one (column 5 of Table 3).
Test 1 is a clear-bed scour as the upstream depth-averaged flow velocity is smaller than the
critical velocity (uo /ucr < 1). The bed roughness (column 6 of Table 3) is estimated based
on personal experience, assuming small-scale ripples with ks = 0.03 m for u < 0.7 m/s and
gradually washed-out ripples to a flat mobile bed with ks = 0.003 m (3 mm) for higher
velocities. The measured and computed dimensionless scour depths (ds,max /Dpile ) are
shown on the vertical axis of Figure 12. The value αs = ds,max /ds is set to 1.3 for all tests
(maximum scour is assumed to be 1.3 times the mean scour depth). The horizontal axis
refers to the ratio of the current velocity and critical velocity for the initiation of motion
(u/ucr ). The computed values of the maximum scour depth show rather good agreement
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
(about 10% too small) with measured values for all live-bed scour test results, 15 of 26
but the
computed value is too high (20%) for the clear-water scour test result.

2.5
Ratio of scour depth and pile diameter, ds,max/D (‐)

Measured pile scour Sheppard (2006); d50=0.27 mm

Computed SEDSCOUR‐model
Measured pile scour (present test; d50=0.1 mm)
2

1.5

0.5
Clear‐water scour Live‐bed scour with bed forms LBS plane bed

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Ratio of approach velocity and critical velocity, u/ucr (‐)

Figure 12. Case A: scour depth as a function of current velocity; tests by Sheppard and Miller [28].
Figure 12. Case A: scour depth as a function of current velocity; tests by Sheppard and Miller [28].
The time scale is 200 h for the clear-water scour tests and less than 1 h for most of the
Table 3. Case A: measured and computed scour depths and model coefficients; tests by Sheppard–
live-bed scour tests.
Miller [28].
Figure 12 also shows the maximum scour depth data of the monopile test of the present
Bed and
tests (square sus- data from Table 2). Velocity
symbol; Pickup Trap Scour Time
Cur Meas- Com- Turbu- The results are in good agreement with the other data.
pended
Case B: load Bed
Sheppard [33] measured increase
the scour coeffi- a monopile
around ping length
in a scale
long, wide flume
rent ured puted lence
coefficients rough coeffi cient coeffi- coeffi-
scour with a water depth of 1.22 m
scour above a short sand bed with d50 = 0.22 mm, fall velocity
coeffi-
Test ∼ ness cient cient cient
depth depth
= 0.025 m/s, critical velocity
cient ucr ∼= 0.3 m/s, bed porosity = 0.3 and sediment
k s
3 . The current velocity was 0.31 m/s. The model’s settings are
uo ds,max ddensity
s,max = γ2650 kg/m(m)
b, γs αu αP αD αL Tscour
(m/s) (m) (m)
given in Table ro (-)
(-) 4. The settings of the αu and (-) αP coefficients
(-) which are
(-) (-) used(hours)
as calibration
1 0.17 0.13 coefficients
0.1 are =slightly
default 1 different
0.03 0.4(compared1.4 to Case 1A) to achieve
0.5 the3best agreement
200 with
2 0.62 0.22 the measured
0.21 defaultvalues.
=1 0.03 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 2
8 0.69 0.23 0.22 default = 1 0.03 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 1
3 0.88 0.24 0.23 default = 1 0.02 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
4 1.10 0.25 0.255 default = 1 0.01 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
5A 1.26 0.27 0.26 default = 1 0.005 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
5B 1.43 0.27 0.275 default = 1 0.003 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
6 1.64 0.3 0.3 default = 1 0.003 0.4 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 15 of 26

Table 3. Case A: measured and computed scour depths and model coefficients; tests by Sheppard–Miller [28].

Bed and Velocity Scour

Measured Computed Bed Turbulence Pickup Trapping
Current Suspended Load Increase Length Time Scale
Scour Depth Scour Depth Roughness Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Test Coefficients Coefficient Coefficient
uo ds,max ds,max γb , γs ks αu αP αD αL Tscour
ro (-)
(m/s) (m) (m) (-) (m) (-) (-) (-) (-) (Hours)
1 0.17 0.13 0.1 default = 1 0.03 0.4 1.4 1 0.5 3 200
2 0.62 0.22 0.21 default = 1 0.03 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 2
8 0.69 0.23 0.22 default = 1 0.03 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 1
3 0.88 0.24 0.23 default = 1 0.02 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
4 1.10 0.25 0.255 default = 1 0.01 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
5A 1.26 0.27 0.26 default = 1 0.005 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
5B 1.43 0.27 0.275 default = 1 0.003 0.3 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1
6 1.64 0.3 0.3 default = 1 0.003 0.4 1.4 1 0.5 3 <1

Table 4. Case B: measured and computed scour depths and model coefficients; test by Sheppard [29].

Bed and Velocity Scour

Measured Computed Bed Turbulence Pickup Trapping
Current Suspended Load Increase Length Time Scale
Scour Depth Scour Depth Roughness Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient
Test Coefficients Coefficient Coefficient
uo ds,max ds,max γb , γs ks ro αu αP αD αL Tscour
(m/s) (m) (m) (-) (m) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (Hours)
12 0.31 0.37 0.43 default 0.03 0.2 1.2 0.7 0.5 3 200
 Table 4. Case B: measured and computed scour depths and model coefficients; test by Sheppard
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 16 of 26
[29].

Cur Meas- Com- Bed and sus- Bed Turbu- Velocity Pickup Trap Scour Time
rent ured putedFigure 13 shows
pended load the measured
rough lenceandincrease
computed coeffi-
maximumping scour depths
length as ascalefunction
scour of time. coefficients
scour The computed ness coeffi- equilibrium
maximum cientdepth
coefficient scour coeffi- coeffi-
is about 0.43 m, which is
Test
depth the measured values of 0.37 m (∼
somewhat higher (15%) than cient
depth cient
= 1.2 Dpilecient
). The time scale of
uo ds,max ds,max
the measuredγb,equilibrium
γs ksscour
ro depth is about αP is much
αu 50 h, which αD shorter αL than that
Tscourof the
(m/s) (m) (m) (-) (m) (-) (-) (-) (-) (-) (hours)
computed value of 150 to 200 h. Most likely, the strong effect of the near-bed horseshoe-type
12 0.31 0.37 0.43 default 0.03 0.2 1.2 0.7 0.5 3 200
vortices is not sufficiently well represented in the SEDSCOUR model.

Figure
Figure 13.13.Case
CaseB;B;measured
measured and
and computed
computedscour
scourdepths as as
depths a function of time;
a function test by
of time; Sheppard
test by Sheppard
(2003), [33].
(2003), [33].

Case
Case C:C: The
The offshorewind
offshore windparkparkQ7 Q7 Princess
Princess Amalia
Amalia waswasbuilt
builtinin2006/2007
2006/2007 at at
about
about
20 20
kmkmoffoff
thethe Dutchcoast.
Dutch coast.TheThewater
water depths were were between
between20 20and
and2525m.m.The
Thebed consisted
bed consisted
of of medium-finesand
medium-fine sand(0.2
(0.2toto0.3
0.3mm).
mm). The
The monopiles
monopiles(diameter
(diameterofof4.04.0m)m)were
were exposed
exposed to to
waves and currents for several months without scour protection.
waves and currents for several months without scour protection. The tidal range was about The tidal range was
about
2 m. The2mainm. The main direction
direction of the
of the tidal tidal current
current was SSW-NNE.
was SSW-NNE. The maximum
The maximum tidal
tidal current
current during a spring tide was about 0.9 m/s (depth-averaged).
during a spring tide was about 0.9 m/s (depth-averaged). The driving hydrodynamic The driving hydrody-
namic signal is a (modulated) sine wave varying over the neap–spring cycle (14 days)
signal is a (modulated) sine wave varying over the neap–spring cycle (14 days) based on
based on the measured values. The basic data are given by [9].
the measured values. The basic data are given by [9].
The measured maximum scour depths of 29 monopiles (without scour protection)
The measured maximum scour depths of 29 monopiles (without scour protection)
were in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 m (3 ± 1.5 m), see also Figure 14. The variation is most likely
were in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 m (3 ± 1.5 m), see also Figure 14. The variation is most
related to variations in the hydrodynamic conditions, which are not exactly the same
likely related to variations in the hydrodynamic conditions, which are not exactly the same
among the piles. The scour extent (radius of longest axis) was about 20 to 30 m. The shape
among
of thethe piles.
scour hole Thewas scour
oval withextent (radius
a length ratioofoflongest axis) the
1.8 between wasmain
about axis20(averaged
to 30 m.ra-The
shape of the scour hole was oval with a length ratio of 1.8 between
dius 27 m) and the short axis (average radius 15 m). The side slopes of the scour pit the main axis (averaged
were
radius
rather mild (1 to 10), which is very different from the steep side slopes often found inpit
27 m) and the short axis (average radius 15 m). The side slopes of the scour
were rather mild
laboratory (1 to 10),
experiments (1which
to 2 or is very
1 to different from
3). Measured the steepscour
and computed side slopes
depth areoften found
shown
in in
laboratory
Figure 14.experiments
The measured(1values to 2 orare1those
to 3).of Measured andmodel
Pile 48 [9]. The computed
input scour depth
data are givenare
shown in Figure 14. The measured values are those of Pile 48 [9]. The
in Table 5. The neap–spring tidal cycle is represented by a sinusoidal function with a max- model input data
areimum
given(tide-averaged)
in Table 5. The neap–spring
velocity of 0.7 m/stidal cyclespring
during is represented
tide and 0.3bym/sa sinusoidal
during neap function
tide.
The
with wave height
a maximum is set to a value
(tide-averaged) of 1 m of
velocity (no0.7storms). The agreement
m/s during spring tidebetween
and 0.3measured
m/s during
andtide.
neap computed
The wavescourheight
depthsisissetrather
to agood
value onofaverage,
1 m (nobut the variability
storms). of the measured
The agreement between
data is rather
measured large.
and computed scour depths is rather good on average, but the variability of the
measured data is rather large.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 17 of 26

Figure
Figure 14.14. Case
Case C: measured
C: measured andand computed
computed freefree scour
scour depths
depths as function
as function of time;
of time; Q7 Q7 windpark
windpark (NL).
(NL).
Table 5. Model input data of field cases [9].
Table 5. Model input data of field cases [9].
Wind Park Q7 Luchterduinen Global and Free Scour L9
Parameter North Sea (NL)
Wind Park Q7 North Sea (NL)
Luchterduinen Jacket
Global North
and FreeSea (NL)L9
Scour
Parameter Case CNorth Sea (NL) Case
NorthDSea (NL) Case E
Jacket North Sea (NL)
Pile diameter (m) 4 Case C 5 Case D 1.2 E
Case
Pile diameter
Water depth to Mean Sea level (m) (m) 22.5 4 23 5 1.2
22.5
Water depth to Mean Sea
Maximum tidal velocity in spring (m/s)
level (m) 0.7
22.5 0.7
23 22.5
0.7
Maximum tidal velocity in spring (m/s) 0.7 0.7 0.7
Maximum tidal velocity in neap (m/s) 0.3 0.3 0.3
Maximum tidal velocity in neap (m/s) 0.3 0.3 0.3
Tidal range (m)
Tidal range (m) 2 2 2 2 22
Significant wave height
Significant waveHs height
(m) andHs (m) and
1; 7 1; 7 1; 7; 1;
3 storms
7; 3 storms 1;1;77
peak period T (s)
peakp period Tp (s)
Sand ddiameter
Sand diameter 50 (mm) d50 (mm) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.25
Percentage fines/mud
Percentage fines/mud < 63 µm (%) < 63 μm (%) 5 5 5 5 55
Fall velocity sand ws (m/s) 0.03 0.03 0.03
Fall velocity sand ws (m/s) 0.03 0.03 0.03
Critical velocity ucr (m/s) 0.4 0.4 0.4
Critical velocity ucr (m/s) 0.4 0.4 0.4
Bed roughness ks (m) 0.03 0.03 0.05
BedVelocity
roughness ks (m) coefficient αu (-)
increase 0.03 1.3 0.03 1.3 0.05
1.3
Turbulence
Velocity increase coefficient
coefficient αu (-) ro (-) 1.3 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.3
1.3
Pickup coefficient
Turbulence coefficient ro (-) αP (-) 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.2 1
0.3
Trapping coefficient suspended
Pickup coefficient αP (-) 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.7 1
0.5
sand transport αD (-)
Trapping coefficient suspended
Pit length coefficient αL (-) 0.7 10 0.7 10 10
0.5
sand transport αD (-)
Calibration factor bed and suspended load γb, γs (-) 1 1 1
Pit length coefficient αL (-) 10 10 10
Calibration factor bed and suspendedCase D: The wind park Luchterduinen (NL) consisting of 43 monopile foundation
1 1 1
load γb , γs (-) structures (Dpile = 5 m) was built in 2013 at about 23 km off Holland’s coast between the
beach villages of Noordwijk and Zandvoort, The Netherlands [34]. The local bed of me-
dium-fine
Case D: sand (0.2 to park
The wind 0.3 mm) was about 23(NL)
Luchterduinen m below MSL. The
consisting of tidal range wasfoundation
43 monopile about 2
m. The maximum
structures (Dpile = 5flood current
m) was builtto NNW
in 2013was
at about
about0.7
23tokm0.9 off
m/s;Holland’s
the maximum
coastebb cur-
between
rent to the SSW was about 0.5 to 0.6 m/s. Wave heights in the winter period
the beach villages of Noordwijk and Zandvoort, The Netherlands [34]. The local bed of were between
2 and 6 m. Two monopile foundations were installed without scour protection to monitor
medium-fine sand (0.2 to 0.3 mm) was about 23 m below MSL. The tidal range was about
the free scour development. Figure 15 shows the measured scour depth of the unprotected
2 m. The maximum flood current to NNW was about 0.7 to 0.9 m/s; the maximum ebb
current to the SSW was about 0.5 to 0.6 m/s. Wave heights in the winter period were
between 2 and 6 m. Two monopile foundations were installed without scour protection
to monitor the free scour development. Figure 15 shows the measured scour depth of the
 J. Mar.
J. Mar. Sci.Sci.
Eng.Eng. 2025,
2025, 13,13,
266x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 26 26
18 of

unprotected
monopile asmonopile
a functionas of atime.
function of time.
The scour depth The scour depth
gradually gradually
increases from aboutincreases
3 m on from
1
about 3 m on 1 October 2013 to about 4.5 m on 1 November 2014
October 2013 to about 4.5 m on 1 November 2014 (over period of about 400 days). The (over period of about
400 days). The
measured scourmeasured
depth showsscoura depth shows dip
pronounced a pronounced
around the dip around
period with the
stormperiod with
waves,
which
storm waves, likelyiscaused
is mostwhich by thecaused
most likely backfilling process
by the in the deep
backfilling processscour duedeep
in the to sand
scourcom-
due
toing from
sand upstream
coming from(outside).
upstream The(outside).
scour pit extent was of
The scour pitthe orderwas
extent of 25ofmthe
(5order
Dpile). of
Com-
25 m
(∼
=puted
5 Dpilescour depths are
). Computed alsodepths
scour shown arein Figure 15. The
also shown inmodel
Figureinput
15. Thedatamodel
are giveninputindata
Tableare
5. The
given in neap–spring
Table 5. The tidal cycle is represented
neap–spring tidal cycle isby a sinusoidal
represented by function
a sinusoidalwithfunction
a maximum with a
(tide-averaged)
maximum velocity ofvelocity
(tide-averaged) 0.7 m/s during spring
of 0.7 m/s tide and
during spring0.3 tide
m/s and
during0.3 neap
m/s tideduring(mod-
neap
ulated sine function with a period of 14 days). The wave height is set
tide (modulated sine function with a period of 14 days). The wave height is set to a value to a value of 1 m for
ofdaily
1 m conditions; three storms
for daily conditions; withstorms
three waves with
gradually
waves increasing
gradually from 1 to 6 m and
increasing fromdecreas-
1 to 6 m
ing from 6 to 1 m over a period of 3 days are included (superimposed
and decreasing from 6 to 1 m over a period of 3 days are included (superimposed on the on the tidal velocities
of the
tidal neap–spring
velocities of thecycle at the proper
neap–spring time
cycle moments
at the properbased
timeon measured
moments data).
based onThe over-
measured
all agreement between measured and computed scour depths is rather good. The model
data). The overall agreement between measured and computed scour depths is rather good.
computes small (underestimated) dips in the scour depth values. This can be improved
The model computes small (underestimated) dips in the scour depth values. This can be
by using a higher trapping coefficient (more research is required).
improved by using a higher trapping coefficient (more research is required).

Figure15.
Figure 15.Case
CaseD:
D:measured
measured and
and computed
computed free
free scour
scourdepths
depthsas
asaafunction
functionofoftime; Luchterduinen
time; Luchterduinen
windpark
wind park(NL).
(NL).

5.4.
5.4.Free
FreeScour
ScournearnearJacket
JacketStructure:
Structure: The SEDSCOURModel’s
The SEDSCOUR Model’sResults
Results(Case
(CaseE)E)
The
Thefree
freescour
scournearnearthethe legs
legs of
of aa jacket
jacket structure
structureand andthe theoverall
overallglobal
globalscour
scour can
can also
also
bebepredicted
predictedusing usingthe theSEDSCOUR
SEDSCOUR model. model. One Onefield
fieldcase
caseisisconsidered
consideredherein: herein: Case
Case E, E,
which
whichisisaajacket
jacket structure
structure withwithfour
fourlegslegsinstalled
installed without
without scour
scour protection
protection at location
at location L9
L9inin
thethe North
North Sea,Sea,
aboutabout
30 km 30 north
km northof theofisland
the island
of Texel of Texel (The Netherlands)
(The Netherlands) in the
in the sum-
summer
mer of 1997of 1997[17].[17].
The Thebed bed
levellevel was about
was about 24 m 24 m below
below LAT (about
LAT (about 27 below27 below
MSL). MSL).
The
jacket
The structure
jacket structurehas has
fourfour
legs legs
with with
diameter DJ = 1.1
diameter DJm= and 1.1 m a spacing of 20 mof
and a spacing and2017m m.and
17The
m. diameter
The diameter of the ofpiles
theinpiles
the seabed is Dpile =is1.2Dm.
in the seabed pile The
= 1.2 bed
m.consisted
The bedof fine sandof(0.2
consisted fine
to 0.3
sand mm).
(0.2 Typical
to 0.3 mm).depth-averaged peak flow velocities
Typical depth-averaged peak flowwere 0.5 m/swere
velocities during
0.5spring tide
m/s during
and 0.35
spring tidem/sand during
0.35 m/sneapduring
tides. The
neapmaximum
tides. The measured
maximum wavemeasured
height and current
wave veloc-
height and
ity since
current installation
velocity since in 1997 was in
installation = 7.8was
Hs1997 m, T Hps == 9.8
7.8 sm, andTp u= =9.81.0s and
m/s.uThe = 1.0measured
m/s. The
maximum
measured global scour
maximum globaldepths
scourwere
depthsin thewererange
in theof 1.5
range to 3ofm.1.5The
to 3extent
m. The of extent
the global
of the
scourscour
global hole washoleofwasthe of
order
the of 50 mof(40
order 50 m ∼) 40
Dpile
(= in all
Dpiledirections. The maximum
) in all directions. scour around
The maximum scour
the foundation pile B2 was found to be about 5 m consisting
around the foundation pile B2 was found to be about 5 m consisting of global scour and of global scour and local pile
scour.
local pileAssuming a globalascour
scour. Assuming globaldepth
scourofdepth
2.5 mof(50%2.5 mbased(50%on the on
based datatheofdata
Tableof 2),
Tablethe2),
maximum
the maximum local pile
local scour
pile is about
scour is about m (about
2.5 2.5 m (about 2 D2pileD). The model input data are given in
pile ). The model input data are given
Table 5. The width and length of the jacket foundation structure are 20 m (input). The
in Table 5. The width and length of the jacket foundation structure are 20 m (input). The
computed scour depths are shown in Figure 16. The neap–spring tidal cycle is represented
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 26
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 19 of 26

computed scour depths are shown in Figure 16. The neap–spring tidal cycle is represented
by a sinusoidal function with a maximum (tide-averaged) velocity of 0.7 m/s during spring
by a sinusoidal function with a maximum (tide-averaged) velocity of 0.7 m/s during
tide and 0.3 m/s during neap tide. The wave height is set to a value of 1 m (no storms).
spring tide and 0.3 m/s during neap tide. The wave height is set to a value of 1 m (no
The maximum computed global scour depth is of the order of 2 m after about 1.5 years.
storms). The maximum computed global scour depth is of the order of 2 m after about 1.5
The local maximum scour depth near the pile (Dpile = 1.2 m) of the structure is about 3 m
years. The local maximum scour depth near the pile (D pile = 1.2 m) of the structure is about
after 1.5 years. The total maximum computed scour depth is 2 + 3 = 5 m after 1.5 years. The
3 m after 1.5 years. The total maximum computed scour depth is 2 + 3=5 m after 1.5 years.
totaltotal
maximum scour observed ∼
The maximum scour observednear
nearleg
legB2
B2 is
is about
about 55 m m after
after33years
years(pile
(pile scour
scour =2.5 m
2.5
and global scour ∼ 2.5 m).
m and global scour=2.5 m).Hence,
Hence, computed and measured
computed and measured values
valuesare
areiningood
goodagree-
agreement,
see Figure 16.
ment, see Figure 16.

Figure16.
Figure CaseE:E:
16.Case computed
computed scour
scour depth
depth as aasfunction
a function of time;
of time; Jacket
Jacket structure
structure L9, North
L9, North Sea Sea (NL).
(NL).
5.5. Free Scour Along a Caisson Type Structure: The SUSTIM2DV Model’s Results (Case F)
5.5.1.
5.5. General
Free Scour Along a Caisson Type Structure: The SUSTIM2DV Model’s Results (Case F)
5.5.1. This example (Case F) considers the scour near a caisson-type structure with a diameter
General
of 40This
m and a height
example (Caseof F) 8.8 m in athe
considers water
scourdepth
near aofcaisson-type
about 35 mstructure
(to mean seaa diam-
with level). The
monopile on top of the structure has a diameter of 11 m. The prediction
eter of 40 m and a height of 8.8 m in a water depth of about 35 m (to mean sea level). The of scour around
the flanksonoftop
monopile a large-scale caisson-type
of the structure structure
has a diameter with
of 11 a monopile
m. The predictiononoftop of it
scour essentially
around
requires
the flanksthe
of ause of a 3D caisson-type
large-scale morpho-dynamic model.
structure with Given the complexity
a monopile on top of it and long run
essentially re- times
of 3Dthe
quires models, more
use of a 3D pragmatic approach
morpho-dynamic is used
model. Given theherein, based
complexity andon a combination
long run times of of a
3D models, a moreflow
depth-averaged pragmatic
modelapproach
(DELFT3D) is used
andherein, based on a combination
a two-dimensional of a depth-
vertical morpho-dynamic
averaged flow model (DELFT3D)
model (SUSTIM2DV and latter
[27,28]). This a two-dimensional vertical morpho-dynamic
model can simulate the scour processes modeland the
(SUSTIM2DV
long-term bed [27,development
28]). This latterinmodel can tube
a stream simulate thethe
along scour processesofand
perimeter thethe long-term
caisson structure.
bed
Thedevelopment
stream tubeinwidtha stream tube along
is derived the perimeter
from the 2DH of the caisson
model’s structure.
results and isThe stream to be
assumed
tube widthinistime.
constant derived from the 2DH model’s results and is assumed to be constant in time.

5.5.2.
5.5.2.Computed
ComputedFlow Field
Flow of of
Field thethe
DELFT3D Model
DELFT3D Model
The
TheDELFT3D
DELFT3Dmodelmodelwas operated
was operatedin 2DH (1 layer)
in 2DH and and
(1 layer) 3D mode (eight(eight
3D mode equidistant
equidistant
layers of 4.5 m) to compute the flow
layers of 4.5 m) to compute the flow field. A rectangular computational gridcon-
field. A rectangular computational grid was was con-
structed. The grid was nonuniform in both directions, with a gradual transition in grid
structed. The grid was nonuniform in both directions, with a gradual transition in grid
cell size, in order to obtain the highest resolution close to the structure. In total, the grid
cell size, in order to obtain the highest resolution close to the structure. In total, the grid
comprises 347 cells in the streamwise direction and 107 cells in the spanwise direction.
comprises 347 cells in the streamwise direction and 107 cells in the spanwise direction. Ac-
Accordingly, the grid spans approximately 1600 m and 800 m in either direction, respec-
cordingly, the grid spans approximately 1600 m and 800 m in either direction, respectively.
tively. Close to the structure, the cells have a resolution of 2 m in both directions.
Close to the structure, the cells have a resolution of 2 m in both directions.
To obtain a unidirectional current in the far-field part of the spatial domain, an open
To obtain
boundary a unidirectional
was defined current
at the upstream in the far-field
boundary part of the
where a constant spatial
current domain,
velocity an open
is pre-
boundary
scribed. At was defined at the
the downstream endupstream boundary
of the spatial where
domain, a constant
another current velocity
open boundary was is
prescribed. At the downstream end of the spatial domain, another open boundary was
defined where a constant water level was prescribed. At the lateral closed boundaries, a
free-slip condition was applied, implying that the tangential shear stress is zero. Basic
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 26

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 20 of 26

defined where a constant water level was prescribed. At the lateral closed boundaries, a
free-slip condition was applied, implying that the tangential shear stress is zero. Basic
inputparameters
input parametersare areasasfollows:
follows: Chézy’s
Chézy’s coefficient
coefficient C C == 60
60 m 0.5
m0.5 /s,/s,
a ak-epsilon
k-epsilon model
model forfor
verticalturbulent
vertical turbulent viscosity
viscosity and horizontal
horizontal large
large eddyeddysimulation
simulation(HLES) (HLES)for forhorizontal
horizontal
turbulentviscosity,
turbulent viscosity,time
time step
step == 0.3
0.3 s.
s. Figure
Figure 17 17 shows
showsthe thedepth-averaged
depth-averagedflow flow velocity
velocity
vectorsfor
vectors forthe
the2DH
2DHand and 3D
3D mode.
mode. The Thedepth-averaged
depth-averagedcurrent currentvelocities
velocities areare
quite similar,
quite similar,
except for the wake region. Both model results show large-scale eddy
except for the wake region. Both model results show large-scale eddy circulations, but circulations, but thethe
vortexstreets
vortex streetsininthe
the3D
3Dmodel
model are
are less
less well
well developed,
developed,which whichmay maybebecausedcaused byby thethe
limited
limited
number of layers (only eight layers). Most likely, much more vertical
number of layers (only eight layers). Most likely, much more vertical layers (resolution) layers (resolution)
arerequired
are requiredfor foraccurate
accurate results.
results. Additional
Additional research
researchisisneeded
neededtotodetermine
determine the optimum
the optimum
number of layers for accurate 3D model results. The general mean flow of the 2DH and
number of layers for accurate 3D model results. The general mean flow of the 2DH and 3D
3D runs are reasonably similar. Figure 18 shows the flow velocity vectors in the near-
runs are reasonably similar. Figure 18 shows the flow velocity vectors in the near-bottom
bottom layer of the 3D run. The approach velocity in the near-bottom layer is about 0.15
layer of the 3D run. The approach velocity in the near-bottom layer is about 0.15 m/s. The
m/s. The distribution of the relative depth-averaged current velocity vectors along the
distribution of the relative depth-averaged current velocity vectors along the flank of the
flank of the base structure based on the 2DH and 3D model runs is shown in the left side
base structure based on the 2DH and 3D model runs is shown in the left side of Figure 19.
of Figure 19. The acceleration computed using the 2DH and 3D models is very similar,
The acceleration computed using the 2DH and 3D models is very similar, based on the
based on the depth-averaged current velocity. The maximum increase in the depth-aver-
depth-averaged current velocity. The maximum increase in the depth-averaged velocity is
aged velocity is about 20% with respect to the approach current velocity. The right side of
about 20% with respect to the approach current velocity. The right side of Figure 19 shows
Figure 19 shows the computed relative velocity vector magnitude close to the bottom
the computed
along relativeofvelocity
the perimeter vector magnitude
the foundation structure basedclose toonthe
thebottom
3D model along runthe(see
perimeter
inset
ofsketch).
the foundation structure based on the 3D model run (see inset
Most apparent is that the computed acceleration at this height along the flanksketch). Most apparent
is
issignificantly
that the computed acceleration at this height along
stronger (unearbed,flank  1.8 unearbed, approach). the flank is significantly stronger
(unearbed,flank ∼= 1.8 unearbed, approach ).

Figure 17.Case
Figure17. Case F:
F: depth-averaged flow field
depth-averaged flow fieldbased
basedononthe
the2DH
2DHmode
mode(left)
(left) and
and 3D3D mode
mode (right);
(right);
depth-averaged
depth-averaged approach velocity
approach uo =u0.42
velocity m/s.
o = 0.42 m/s.
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 26
J. Mar.
J. Mar. Sci.Eng.
Sci. Eng.2025,
2025,13,
13,266
x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 26
21 of 26

Figure 18.Case
18.
Figure CaseF:F:flow
flowfield
field in
in the near-bottom
near-bottomlayer
layerofofthe
the3D
3Dmodel
model uo u
run;
run; = 0.42
= o0.42 m/s.m/s.
Figure 18. Case F: flow field in the near-bottom layer of the 3D model run; uo = 0.42 m/s.

Figure 19. Left: depth-averaged flow velocity of the 2DH and 3D model runs along the structure
Figure 19.
Figure
depth-averagedflow
19. Left: depth-averaged flowvelocity
velocityofofthe
the 2DHand and3D
3Dmodel
model runsalong
alongthe
thestructure
structure (see
(see insetLeft:
sketch); Right: flow velocity of 2DH along2DH the structure and 3Druns
in the bottom layer along
inset sketch); Right: flow velocity of 2DH along the structure and 3D in the bottom layer along the
(see
theinset sketch);
structure (uoRight: flowfor
= 0.42 m/s velocity of 2DH along
depth-averaged theuostructure
flow; = 0.15 m/sand 3D in the bottom
near-bottom layer along
for 3D model)
structure (u = 0.42 m/s for depth-averaged flow; u = 0.15 m/s near-bottom for 3D model).
the structureo (uo = 0.42 m/s for depth-averaged flow; uoo= 0.15 m/s near-bottom for 3D model)
5.5.3.Computed
5.5.3. ComputedErosion Erosion in in a Stream Tube Tube Along
Alongthe theFlank
FlankofofCaisson
Caisson
5.5.3. Computed Erosion in a Stream Tube Along the Flank of Caisson
AsAsananexample
example of of the
theSUSTIM2DV
SUSTIM2DV model,
model, the the
sandsand
transport in accelerating
transport in acceleratingand de-and
As an example
celerating flows of the
along a SUSTIM2DV
caisson structuremodel, the sand
(diameter D =transport
40 m and in accelerating
height h = 10 m; and de-
effective
decelerating flows along a caisson structure (diameter D = 40 m and height h = 10 m;
celerating
water depthflows along a caisson structure (diameter D = 40 m and height h = 10 m; effective
effective water= depth
10 m) with= 10am) monopile
with a on top of iton
monopile is considered, see Figure 20.see
top of it is considered, Thus, the 20.
Figure
water depth
caisson = 10
occupies m) with
the whole a monopile
water on
depth top of
indepth it is
the SUSTIMconsidered, see
model run. Figure
Therun. 20. Thus,
maximum the
flow
Thus,
caisson the caissonthe
occupies occupies
wholeisthe whole
water depth water
in 1.7
thetimes
SUSTIMin themodel
SUSTIM model
run.approach
The maximum The maximum
velocity along the flank assumed to be the upstream velocityflow
(uflank
flow velocity
velocity along theisflank is assumed
to be 1.7to be 1.7 thetimes the upstream approach velocity
 1.7∼ualong the flank assumed times upstream approach velocity
o), which is slightly smaller than the computed value (1.8 uo) of the 3D results, see
(uflank
(u flank =
 1.7 1.7 uo ),iswhich is slightly smaller
than thethan the computed (1.8value (1.8 u3Do ) of the 3Dsee results,
the uright
o), which slightly
side of Figure smaller
19. The minimum computed
width value
of the stream uo) of
tube at the
the flank results,
is set to 0.6
see the
theofright right side of
side ofatFigure Figure 19.
19. The(b The
minimum minimum
width of the stream tube at the flank is set to 0.6 is set
width of the stream tube at the flank
the width the entrance minimum  0.6 bo). The width along the stream tube along the
to the
of 0.6 width
of theatwidth
the entrance (bminimum (b
at the entrance 0.6 bothe
). The∼ 0.6 bo ).along
= width The the
width along the stream
the tube
centreline is derived (schematically) minimum
from computed values of stream tube
the DELFT-flow along model.
along the
centreline centreline
is derived is derived
(schematically)(schematically)
from the from
computed the computed
values of
The basic input data are as follows: water depth upstream of trench (10 m to MSL), tidal the values
DELFT-flowof the DELFT-flow
model.
model.
The The
basic basic
input input
data are data are as water
as follows: follows:depthwater depth upstream
upstream of trench (10 of trench
m to MSL), (10 mtidal
to MSL),
tidal current with semi-diurnal amplitude of 1 m and peak current of 1 and 0.7 m/s (no
phase difference between vertical and horizontal tides, constant semi-diurnal tidal sine
function and no modulation of the neap–spring cycle), sand with d50 = 0.4 mm (critical bed-
 J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 26

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 current with semi-diurnal amplitude of 1 m and peak current of 1 and 0.7 m/s (no phase 22 of 26
difference between vertical and horizontal tides, constant semi-diurnal tidal sine function
and no modulation of the neap–spring cycle), sand with d50 = 0.4 mm (critical bed-shear
shear stress
stress computed
computed from from Shields’
Shields’ curve curve
in the in the model),
model), computation
computation period =period = 90
90 days, days,
time
time step = 8 s and NZ = 25 = the number of vertical points over the
step = 8 s and NZ = 25 = the number of vertical points over the depth. depth.

Figure
Figure 20.20. Case
Case F: F: flow
flow and
and scour
scour around
around caisson
caisson (diameter
(diameter = 40
= 40 m; m; height
height = 10
= 10 m; m; seabed
seabed = 0.4
= 0.4 mm mm
sand).
sand).
The computed scour results for a peak velocity of 1 m/s are shown in Figure 20. The
maximum The computed
scour depth scour is results
about for 4.5 ampeak
aftervelocity
40 days of 1(no
m/swaves).
are shown The in maximum
Figure 20. The scour
maximum scour depth is about 4.5 m after 40 days (no
depth decreases to 4 m after 50 days due to deposition during the storm period waves). The maximum scourofdepth
10 days
(Hdecreases to 4 m after 50 days due to deposition during the storm period of 10 days (Hs =
s = 3 and 4 m between t = 40 to 50 days). The maximum scour depth increases to 5 m
after 90 daysbetween
3 and 4 m t = 40 to(no
due to current 50 days).
wavesThe maximum
between t = 50scour
and 90 depth increases
days). Often,to it 5ism after 90 to
necessary
days due to current (no waves between t = 50 and 90 days). Often, it is necessary to install
install scour protection. The structure may also be placed in a dredged pit with a depth of 2
scour protection. The structure may also be placed in a dredged pit with a depth of 2 to 3 m
to 3 m to reduce the scour depth. Steel skirts can be attached to the foundation’s structure
to reduce the scour depth. Steel skirts can be attached to the foundation’s structure to slow
to slow down the time until the undermining of the caisson structure. Additionally, bed
down the time until the undermining of the caisson structure. Additionally, bed protection
protection should be placed around the structure in conditions with strong flows.
should be placed around the structure in conditions with strong flows.
Figure 21 shows the computed scour hole over 90 days for a lower peak tidal flow
Figure 21 shows the computed scour hole over 90 days for a lower peak tidal flow
velocity
velocityofof0.7 0.7m/s (insteadofof1 m/s),
m/s (instead 1 m/s), resulting
resulting in a lower
in a lower sand transport
sand transport value duringvaluepeakduring
peak tidal flow conditions. The maximum scour depth is about
tidal flow conditions. The maximum scour depth is about 1.8 m after 40 days (tidal flow 1.8 m after 40 days (tidal
flow without
without waves),
waves), which which increases
increases to about
to about 2.6 2.6 m after
m after 50 days
50 days for for tidal
tidal flow flow
andand a storm
a storm
period of 10 days (t = 40 to 50 days) with H between 3 and 4 m.
period of 10 days (t = 40 to 50 days) with Hssbetween 3 and 4 m. The maximum scour depth The maximum scour depth
increases
increasestotoaboutabout2.8 2.8m mafter
after 9090 days
days duedue toto tidal
tidalcurrent
current(no (nowaves
waves between
between t =t50
= 50
andand
9090 days).
days).The Themaximum
maximumscour scour depth after 90
depth after 90days
daysisisslightly
slightlysmaller
smaller (2.5
(2.5 m)m) in conditions
in conditions
without
without a storm
a stormperiod.
period.The The scour
scour on thethe left
leftslope
slopeisislower,
lower,and
andthethe deposition
deposition on on
thethe
leftleft
side
side is is somewhathigher.
somewhat higher.
Figure2222shows
Figure showsthe theeffect
effect ofof aa storm period
periodof of10
10days
dayswith
withHHs between
s between 3 and3 and4 m4 onm on
thethe depositionininthe
deposition thedeep
deepscourscour hole
hole around
aroundthe thebase
basecaisson
caissonstructure
structure withwitha maximum
a maximum
depth
depth ofof5 5mminina asand
sandbed bedof ofdd50 ==0.25
0.25mm
mm(critical
(criticalbed-shear
bed-shear stress according
stress according to Shields’
to Shields’
50
curve). In this case, the initial bed represents a scour hole
curve). In this case, the initial bed represents a scour hole with a maximum depth with a maximum depth of 5ofm.5 m.
The flow velocity in the deepest part of the scour hole increases
The flow velocity in the deepest part of the scour hole increases due to flow contraction due to flow contraction
around the structure, but the flow velocity decreases due to flow expansion (larger water
around the structure, but the flow velocity decreases due to flow expansion (larger water
depth in scour hole). Overall, the flow velocity increases slightly (10% to 15%). The maxi-
depth in scour hole). Overall, the flow velocity increases slightly (10% to 15%). The
mum upstream depth-mean velocity at t = 3 h (peak tidal flow) is about 0.7 m/s, which
maximum upstream depth-mean velocity at t = 3 h (peak tidal flow) is about 0.7 m/s,
increases slightly to 0.8 m/s. The deposition of sand occurs in the storm period, mostly at
which increases slightly to 0.8 m/s. The deposition of sand occurs in the storm period,
mostly at the right slope due to higher sand transport during ebb flow when the water
depth is smallest. Erosion occurs on the left slope. Thus, deposition prevails in a scour hole
during a storm period (Figures 20 and 22). Overall, the computed maximum scour depth
near the base caisson structure is in the range of 3 to 5 m, which is of the right order of
magnitude based on the physical model study by Sarmiento et al. (2024) [16].
 the right slope due to higher sand transport during ebb flow when the water depth is
smallest. Erosion occurs on the left slope. Thus, deposition prevails in a scour hole during
a storm period (Figures 20 and 22). Overall, the computed maximum scour depth near the
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 23 of 26
base caisson structure is in the range of 3 to 5 m, which is of the right order of magnitude
based on the physical model study by Sarmiento et al. (2024) [16].

0 1.4
Initial bed (t=0)
‐1 computed bed after 40 days; no waves Water depth to MSL=10 m 1.3
computed after 50 days; incl. storm 10 days Max. tidal current= 0.7 m/s
‐2 computed after 90 days; incl. storm 10 days Sand d50=0.4 mm; 1.2

Depth‐mean velocity (m/s)

‐3 computed bed after 90 days; no waves Fall velocity=0.04 m/s
computed depth‐mean velocity at t=3 hours 1.1
Depth to MSL (m)

‐4
1
‐5
Fluid flow Ebb flow 0.9
‐6
0.8
‐7
Depth‐mean velocity 0.7
‐8
caisson 0.6
‐9
0.5
‐10
0.4
‐11

‐12 0.3
Bed level 0.2
‐13
‐14 0.1

‐15 0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Distance along streamtube (m)

Figure 21.Case
21.
Figure Case F: flow velocity
F: flow velocityand
and scour
scour along
along the the stream
stream tube;tube; maximum
maximum velocity=
velocity= 0.7 m/s;0.7
d50 m/s;
=
d500.4
= 0.4
mm.mm.

Figure22.
Figure 22. Case
CaseF: flow velocity
F: flow and scour
velocity andalong thealong
scour streamthe
tube;stream
maximum upstream
tube; velocity=
maximum 0.7
upstream
m/s; d50
velocity ==0.7
0.25 mm.d50 = 0.25 mm.
m/s;

6. Summary and Conclusions

The scour near various offshore structures (monopile, caisson foundation and jacket
structure) were studied by performing laboratory tests in a wide flume and numerical
model runs with a semi-empirical model (SEDSCOUR) and a sophisticated 2DV model
(SUSTIM2DV). Measured and computed results were also compared to scour data from
the international literature. The laboratory test results show that the maximum free scour
depth (ds,max ) around a monopile without bed protection is slightly higher than the pile
diameter (ds,max = 1.1 Dpile ) for a mobility number of uo /ucr = 1.3 (weak to moderate flows).
The scour depth may be significantly higher for strong flow conditions.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 24 of 26

The maximum scour depth along the flank of a circular caisson foundation structure is
found to be related to the base diameter of the structure (ds,max ∼
= 0.25 Dbase ). The skirt under
the caisson structure should be relatively long; otherwise, it may easily be undermined due
to erosion causing the tip over of the total structure.
The maximum scour consisting of pile scour and global scour around an open jacket
structure standing on four piles is found to be much lower than the scour near the other
structures (monopile and caisson).
The main cause of the scour near these types of structures is the increase in the velocity
along the flanks of the structure (pile and caisson). Detailed velocity measurements showed
a significant increase in the depth-averaged velocity, up to 40%. The increase in the near-bed
velocity may be even higher (up to 70%) based on the DELFT3D model runs, resulting in a
strong increase in the pickup and transport of sediments and associated erosion.
The measured scour depth values of the physical model tests with the monopile and
the open jacket structure of this study are in reasonable agreement with other scour data
from the literature. The dimensionless scour parameters are also in reasonable agreement
with measured field scour data of monopiles and jacket structures. Hence, the many
available scour data sets are sufficiently reliable to be used for scour predictions of similar
structures. It is more difficult to evaluate the measured scour data of a circular caisson
foundation. The measured maximum scour depth along the flank of the caisson of the
present laboratory tests is much higher (factor 2) than that measured by Sarmiento et al.
(2024) [16] for a similar structure but much lower (factor 2) than some of the test results
of Whitehouse (2004) [11] and Tavouktsoglu (2017) [15]. Obviously, the maximum scour
depth along a large-scale caisson structure is strongly dependent on the precise geometry
and dimensions of the structure and the prevailing flow and sediment conditions. At the
present stage of research, scour predictions for a circular gravity-based structure (GBS)
should always be based on the results of physical scale model tests in a laboratory basin in
combination with numerical modelling.
Various empirical scour models (relationships) are available for scour predictions
around monopiles and jacket structures. However, many of these models/relationships
are based on laboratory scour data only, resulting in unreliable time-scale predictions. The
semi-empirical SEDSCOUR model proposed in this paper is based on well-known sediment
transport predictors for bed load and suspended load transport in laboratory and field
conditions, resulting in a reliable time-scale prediction, as shown by the successful scour
predictions for various laboratory and field cases with monopiles and jacket structures. It
has been shown that the SEDSCOUR model can be used for the reliable prediction of free
scour and global scour near monopiles and jacket structures in a sandy bed (even with
some mud) but not for large scale caisson-type foundation structures.
The prediction of scour along the flank of a caisson structure requires the use of a
more sophisticated morpho-dynamic model, preferably a 3D model operated on a very
fine grid. At the present stage of computer power, these models cannot be used for realistic
long-term predictions. Therefore, herein, another approach using a detailed 2DV model
with a fine grid along a stream tube following the contour of the caisson was explored. The
dimensions of the stream tube can be derived from a 3D-flow model or from laboratory
measurements. The SUSTIM2DV model [27,28] simulates the sediment transport in 50 to
100 points over the depth along the stream tube and can be run at a time scale of 1 to 5 years.
An application for a caisson with a base diameter of 40 m shows a realistic maximum scour
depth of about 5 m on a time scale of a few months. Model runs for monopile structures
with storm waves included show that the scour depth is slightly reduced due to sediment
deposition in the scour pit during storms, which has also been observed in field conditions
(Luchterduinen wind park, The Netherlands).
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 25 of 26

Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, L.C.v.R. and L.P.; Software and val-
idation, L.C.v.R. and N.G.; Laboratory measurements, D.S.; Resources, L.P.; Data curation, D.S.;
Writing—original draft preparation, L.C.v.R.; Writing—review and editing, L.C.v.R.; Supervision, L.P.
and L.C.v.R.; Project administration, L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: All experimental data are available on request.

Conflicts of Interest: L.C. van Rijn was employed by the company LVRS-Consultancy. N. Geleynse,
L. Perk and D. Schoonhoven were employed by the company WaterProof-Consultancy. All authors
declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships
that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Breusers, H.N.C.; Nicollet, G.; Shen, H.W. Local scour around cylindrical piers. J. Hydr. Res. 1977, 15, 211–252. [CrossRef]
2. Melville, B.W. Scour at Bridge Sites; Civil Engineering Practice, 2; Technomic Publishing Company: Lancaster, PA, USA, 1988;
pp. 327–362.
3. Melville, B.W.; Sutherland, A.J. Design method for local scour at bridge piers. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 1988, 114, 1210–1226.
[CrossRef]
4. Kothyari, U.C.; Ranga Raju, K.G.; Garde, R.J. Live-bed scour around cylindrical bridge piers. J. Hydr. Res. IAHR 1992, 30, 701–715.
[CrossRef]
5. Melville, B.W. Pier and abutment scour: Integrated approach. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1997, 123, 125–136. [CrossRef]
6. Lim, S.Y. Equilibrium clear-water scour around an abutment. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1997, 123, 237–243. [CrossRef]
7. Melville, B.W.; Coleman, S.E. Bridge Scour; Water Resources Publications: Littleton, CO, USA, 2000.
8. Rees, J.; Larcombe, P.; Vivian, C.; Judd, A. Scroby Sands Offshore Wind Farm—Coastal Processes Monitoring; Cefas Lowestoft
Laboratory: Lowestoft, UK, 2006.
9. Rudolph, D.; Raaijmakers, T.; Stam, C.J. Time-dependent scour development under combined current and wave conditions;
hindcast of field measurements. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Scour and Erosion, Tokyo, Japan,
5–7 November 2008.
10. Raaijmakers, T.C.; Van Velzen, G.; Riezebos, H.J. Dynamic scour prediction for offshore monopiles. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference Scour and Erosion, Perth, Australia, 2–4 December 2014.
11. Whitehouse, R.S.J. Marine scour at large foundations. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Scour and Erosion,
Singapore, 14–17 November 2004.
12. Whitehouse, R.; Harris, J.; Sutherland, J.; Rees, J. An assessment of field data for scour at offshore wind turbine foundations. In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Scour and Erosion, Tokyo, Japan, 5–7 November 2008.
13. Whitehouse, R.; Harris, J.; Sutherland, J. Evaluating scour at marine gravity structures. HR Wallingford. ICE-Marit. Eng. 2012,
164, 143–157. [CrossRef]
14. Simons, R.R.; Weller, J.; Whitehouse, R.J.S. Scour development around truncated cylindrical structures. In Coastal Structures 2007,
Proceedings of the 5th Coastal Structures International Conference, CSt07, Venice, Italy, 2–4 July 2007; Franco, L., Tomasicchio, G.R.,
Lamberti, A., Eds.; World Scientific: Singapore, 2007; pp. 1881–1891.
15. Tavouktsoglu, N.S. Scour and Scour Protection Around Offshore Gravity-Based Foundations. Ph.D. Thesis, University College,
London, UK, 2017.
16. Sarmiento, J.; Guanche, R.; Losada, I.J.; Serna, J. Experimental analysis of scour around an offshore wind gravity base foundation.
Ocean. Eng. 2024, 308, 118330. [CrossRef]
17. Rudolph, R.; Bos, K.J.; Luijendijk, A.P.; Rietema, K.; Out, J.M.M. Scour Around Offshore Structures—Analysis of Field Measurements;
Deltares: Delft, The Netherlands, 2004.
18. Bolle, A.; de Winter, J.; Goossens, W.; Haerens, P.; Dewaele, G. Scour monitoring around offshore jackets and gravity based
foundations. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Scour and Erosion, ICSE 6, Paris, France, 27–31 August 2012.
19. Baelus, L.; Bolle, A.; Szengel, V. Long term scour monitoring around offshore jacket foundations on a sandy seabed. In Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Scour and Erosion, ICSE 9, Taipei, Taiwan, 5–8 November 2018.
20. Welzel, M.; Schendel, A.; Schlurmann, T.; Hildebrandt, A. Volume-based assessment of erosion patterns around a hydrodynamic
transparent offshore structure. Energies 2019, 12, 3089. [CrossRef]
21. Welzel, M.; Schendel, A.; Hildebrandt, A.; Schlurmann, T. Scour development around a jacket structure in combined waves and
current conditions compared to monopile foundations. Coast Eng. 2019, 152, 103515. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2025, 13, 266 26 of 26

22. Welzel, M.; Schendel, A.; Goseberg, N.; Hildebrandt, A.; Schlurmann, T. Influence of structural elements on the spatial sediment
displacement around a jacket-type offshore foundation. Water 2020, 12, 1651. [CrossRef]
23. Welzel, M.; Schlendel, A.; Satari, R.; Neuweiler, I.; Schlurmann, T. Spatio-temporal analysis of scour around complex offshore
foundations under clear water and live bed conditions. Ocean. Eng. 2024, 298, 117042. [CrossRef]
24. Zhang, J.; Zhang, P.; Guo, Y.; Ji, Y.; Fu, R. Large eddy simulation of the flow field characteristics around a jacket foundation under
unidirectional flow actions. Ocenan Eng. 2025, 137, 120057. [CrossRef]
25. Chambel, J.; Fazeres-Ferradosa, T.; Miranda, F.; Bento, A.M.; Taveiro-Pinto, F.; Lomonaco, P. A Comprehensive Review on Scour
and Scour Protections for Complex Bottom-Fixed Offshore and Marine Renewable Energy Foundations. Ocean. Eng. 2024,
304, 117829. [CrossRef]
26. Miles, J.; Martin, T.; Goddard, L. Current and wave effects around windfarm monopile foundations. Coast. Eng. 2017, 121,
167–178. [CrossRef]
27. Van Rijn, L.C.; Meijer, K.; Dumont, K.; Fordeyn, J. Practical 2DV modelling of deposition and erosion of sand and mud in dredged
channels due to currents and waves. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean. Eng. 2024, 150, 04024002. [CrossRef]
28. Van Rijn, L.C.; Meijer, K.; Dumont, K.; Fordeyn, J. Simulation of sand and mud transport processes in currents and waves by
time-dependent 2DV model. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2024, 40, 1–14. [CrossRef]
29. Van Rijn, L.C. Principles of Sediment Transport in Rivers, Estuaries and Coastal Seas; Aqua Publications: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1993.
30. Van Rijn, L.C. Unified view of sediment transport by currents and waves, I: Initiation of motion, bed roughness, and bed-load
transport. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2007, 133, 649–667. [CrossRef]
31. Van Rijn, L.C. Unified view of sediment transport by currents and waves, II: Suspended transport. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2007, 133,
668–689. [CrossRef]
32. Sheppard, D.M.; Miller, W. Live-Bed local pier scour experiments. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE 2006, 132, 635–642. [CrossRef]
33. Sheppard, D.M. Large Scale and Live Bed Local Pier Scour Experiments (Phase 1); Final Report; Florida Department of Transportation
FDOT: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2003.
34. Deltares. Scour and Scour Mitigation; Hollandse Kust Zuid Wind Farm Zone: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.