Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Hydraulic Transients are sudden changes in velocity and pressure of a fluid in a piping system
which may exceed the design limitations causing a pipe rupture. These sudden changes are
normally caused by operation of a fluid control device such as a valve. Sudden valve closure or
opening downstream of a pressurized pipeline is a typical operation that may cause pressure
oscillations i.e. hydraulic transients in the fluid.
This phenomenon can also be explained using energy transfers. Considering a sudden valve
closure, the moving fluid with high kinetic energy when suddenly stopped gains potential
energy. In a fluid system, this potential energy is a pressure wave that travels along the system. If
this pressure wave exceeds the design limits, system failure will occur.
To demonstrate the application of hydraulic transient analysis, the paper models the Emergency
Water System (EWS) at Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Pickering Nuclear. The EWS is a
safety system at the Pickering CANDU Nuclear Station which consists of three parallel with
peak horse power of 400 capable of supplying 140 meter pressure head at the best efficiency
point.
ii
Acknowledgments
I am in debt to Professor Bryan Karney for the tremendous support he gave me throughout my
thesis. Without his guidance I would not have known my potential. Working with him brought
me closer to physics and science of the world we live in. His ambitious personality always
pushed me to achieve the greatest. In my first meeting with him, he said make something you
are proud of. This statement will always push me towards ambition, in preparing this thesis and
life in general. He continued to give me advice and encouragement from the moment I met him
to discuss my topic.
Also, I am grateful to the members of Ontario Power Generation who motivated me to pursue
my thesis on hydraulic transients. During my internship at OPG in year 2011, I gained
tremendous knowledge and interest in the nuclear industry. I would specifically like to thank
Carlos Lorencez, Elizabeth Mistele, Evan Davidge and Arvind Misra for being available to me
during the busiest times of their work. Without their help this thesis would not have been
possible.
Last but not the least; I would like to thank my family of non-engineers for listening to me
patiently when I talked about hydraulic transients at the dinner table.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Defining hydraulic transients ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Historical development of hydraulic transients .................................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Organization.......................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 Fundamental Water-hammer Theory ............................................................................. 3
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Rigid water column theory ................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Joukowsky water hammer equation ...................................................................................... 5
2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 3 Transient Flow Differential Equations ........................................................................... 8
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Equation of motion ............................................................................................................... 8
3.3 Equation of continuity ........................................................................................................ 10
3.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 4 Solution of Transient Flow Differential Equations ...................................................... 13
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Analytical solution using dAlemberts method ................................................................. 13
4.3 Numerical solution using method of characteristics ........................................................... 14
4.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 15
Chapter 5 Method of Characteristics ............................................................................................ 16
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 16
5.2 Characteristic curve equation.............................................................................................. 16
5.3 Compatibility equations ...................................................................................................... 17
5.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 18
Chapter 6 Solution of Characteristic Equations ............................................................................ 19
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 19
6.2 Finite difference solution .................................................................................................... 19
6.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 7 Boundary Conditions.................................................................................................... 22
7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 22
7.2 Boundary conditions ........................................................................................................... 23
iv
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Defining hydraulic transients
Historically, the term water-hammer has been associated to the hammering sound followed by
a sudden closure of valve in water pipeline. This phenomenon is technically a hydraulic transient
when steady-state conditions are changed into transient-state conditions. This state change
induces large disturbances in a fluid system due to a transfer from kinetic energy to internal
energy. Commonly, transient-state conditions are caused by changing valve positions, pump
start-up or shutdown, turbine load acceptance or rejection, air-pocket compression and leakage.
During design phase of a fluid transport system, hydraulic transient analysis must be done to
observe maximum and minimum pressure points and take proper corrective actions to mitigate or
minimize the pressure peaks. The goal is to maintain maximum and minimum pressure points
well below the design limits of a system. Failure to do so can lead to devastating accidents
similar to the collapse of Oigawa Power Station penstock.
With advanced computing capabilities, hydraulic transients are analyzed using numerical
methods for both simple and complex piping systems. Over the past 50 years several methods
have been introduced selection of which depend on the desired degree of accuracy and system
flow characteristics.
1.2 Historical development of hydraulic transients
Throughout the history humans have relied on water for useful energy. With increasing demands,
generally speaking, water flow and pressure requirements have increased. However, as the
saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility; high pressure pipe lines experiencing
transients can have devastating pipe failures if not controlled and mitigated. It is clear from
history that scientists and engineers have put in tremendous effort in developing ways to control
water hammer in pipelines and canals. Classical hydraulic transient text book by Chaudhry
(1979) shows the progress made by the technical society towards the field of hydraulic
transients.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this thesis is to introduce hydraulic transient theory and the mathematical
technique called the Method of Characteristics to solve the fundamental transient equations. This
paper does not aim to innovate but rather introduce the topic of hydraulic transients to the reader.
Emphasis is put on the fundamental physics behind the theory to allow the reader look through
the point of view of water as it experiences changes. The thesis concludes with a hydraulic
transient analysis of OPG Emergency Water System as a case study.
1.4 Organization
This paper is presented in ten chapters. Chapter 1 ends with this section and chapter 2 discusses
the fundamental physics of hydraulic transients. In chapter 2 Newtons second law is related to
two fundamental water hammer theories: Rigid Water Column Theory and the Joukowsky Water
Hammer equation. Chapter 3 moves on from the fundamental water hammer theories to a
broader concept of hydraulic transients. Newtons second law and conservation of mass are used
to develop transient equations of motion and continuity which are both the fundamental
equations of hydraulic transients. Chapter 4 discusses both analytical and numerical solution of
the fundamental hydraulic transient equations developed in chapter 3. Although the focus of
paper shifts to the numerical solution, analytical solution is presented to better explain the
assumptions and mathematical reasoning behind the numerical solution. Chapter 5 emphasizes
on the numerical solution of transient equations and introduces the Method of Characteristics.
This mathematical technique solves the transient equations on a finite element grid which is
explained in chapter 6. In chapter 7, relevant boundary conditions are discussed that represent
equipment typical in industry applications. With established knowledge of the Method of
Characteristics and boundary conditions, chapter 8 uses MATLAB code to model simple system
configurations and discuss results from analysis. Chapter 9 models the EWS at OPG Pickering
Nuclear Stations as a case study. Finally, chapter 10 discusses a guideline to protect systems
from transients.
. 2.2
Equation 2.1 takes into account the change in velocity and change in mass i.e. compressibility of
a material in a control volume (CV); whereas, equation 2.2 is concerned only about the change in
velocity of the material and assumes constant mass i.e. incompressible material. In the next two
sections it is shown that equation 2.1 and equation 2.2 are the governing equations for the
Joukowsky Water Hammer Equation and Rigid Water Column theory respectively.
Figure 1. Increase in head due to gradual gate closure in closed conduit (Parmakian, 1958)
To determine the unbalanced forces on the mass of water, three assumptions are made: 1) water
is incompressible, 2) pipe is rigid and 3) friction losses are negligible.
By Newtons Second Law and equation 2.2,
; where
is mass and
is acceleration
; where
sectional area,
is density,
is gravity,
is cross
is pipe length,
is
datum.
Since
...
2.3
Equation 2.3 is the basic rigid column water hammer equation. As shown in the derivation, rigid
column theory assumes negligible compressibility and non elastic conduit. The theory is suitable
to determine uniform valve closure water hammer effects. But if a valve is instantly closed, there
will be fluid compression and change in conduit shape due to elasticity. Next section will discuss
Joukowsky equation that considers these variables.
4
, and density
wave of speed
. At time
to travel in the upstream direction flowing out of the control volume shown in
the wave is now seen as stationary and the problem is converted from transient to steady state. In
Figure 2b at
Figure 2. Pressure rise due to sudden reduction in downstream velocity due to valve closure
According to Newtons second law i.e. equation 2.1 the net force on the x-axis of the control
volume (CV) in Figure 2 is equal to the rate of change in momentum:
rate of change in momentum
2.4
, and by
2.5
Assuming
Since
.
2.6
Equation 2.6 is the famous Joukowsky equation that dictates the basic water hammer theory due
to sudden reduction in velocity. To determine the wave speed
Assuming
, by which:
2.7
The Joukowsky equation is suitable for determining instant valve closure situations where fluid
compressibility effects are no longer valid. Fluid compressibility is accounted for in the wave
speed equation by the fluid bulk modulus that dictates quantity of compression under certain
pressure.
2.4 Summary
This chapter discusses two fundamental water hammer theories: Rigid Water Column theory and
Joukowsky equation. Due to the absence of bulk modulus and assumptions of negligible
compressibility effects Rigid Water Column theory is suitable only for uniform valve closure
operations. Whereas the Joukowsky equation accommodates for the compressibility effect in
instant valve closures using the wave speed which is influenced by the bulk modulus of the fluid
and
friction in the pipe. Since the piezometric hear H dictates the pressure on the CV:
8
....
3.2
3.3
Where
which gives:
3.4
Substituting 3.3, 3.4 and 3.4 into 3.1 yields:
...
3.5
Since the control volume will accelerate during a transient caused by a change in operating
conditions such as valve closure:
..
Substituting equation 3.6 into equation 3.5 and dividing by
3.6
results in:
3.7
3.8
. By neglecting
3.9
and
3.11
..
3.12
. This change in
volume is due to the pressure rise and drop during the transient wave motion through the pipe.
By this volume change, the conservation of mass dictates:
Fluid Volume in transient+ Volume inflow= Volume of conduit . 3.13
Subtracting equation 3.11 and equation 3.12 yields:
Fluid Volume in transient,
....
3.14
during duration
causes the pipe to elastically deform in the radial direction as seen in Figure 4. To determine the
change in volume due to the radial expansion or contraction, change in hoop stress
of the
10
...
Change in strain due to
3.15
... 3.16
By using the youngs modulus relationship
3.18
3.20
3.21
3.22
So far equations for change in volume due to compression or expansion of the fluid and radial
dimension of the conduit are derived. Therefore, by combination of mass conservation equations
:
..
3.23
..
3.24
...
3.25
=
=
11
in an elastic pipe:
.
Rearranging terms and substituting equation 3.16 and
3.26
... 3.27
Equation 3.27 is the fundamental water hammer continuity equation.
3.4 Summary
In this chapter Newtons second law and conservation of mass are used to develop transient
equations of motion and continuity. Motivation to derive these equations is to demonstrate how
affects of fluid compressibility and conduit elasticity are accounted for during hydraulic
transients. These two equations dictate the behavior of fluid when it is in a transient state caused
by a change in upstream or downstream flow conditions. During a specific time period, solution
of the equations indicates at a particular point in a pipeline what flow and head conditions the
pipeline experiences. Solution to the fundamental equations is discussed in the following chapter.
12
4.1
.......
4.2
4.3
4.4
Taking partial derivative of equation 4.2 with respect to x and y:
...
4.5
4.6
Subtracting equation 4.3 from equation 4.6 and equation 4.4 from equation 4.5 yields two partial
derivative equations in the form of classic one-dimensional wave equation:
. 4.7
4.8
Using dAlemberts method, general solution of the one-dimensional wave equation is:
...
4.9
13
In equation 4.9
and
in the
is a wave
Similarly
characteristic lines along which the wave propagates.. Hence the wave equation solution implies
that at time
at a point in the pipe with coordinate x, the head rise is equal to the sum of
and
that
, which implies
and
is
Then
Usually in a pipe the ratio of fluid velocity and wave speed V/a is of the order 1/100. Thus the
term
Wylie (1978) demonstrates the Method of Characteristics to numerically solve the water hammer
differential equations. Chou (2009) describes Method of Characteristics as a mathematical
technique used to solve first order Partial Differential Equations. For instance, the function
of two independent variables
plane. Numerical solution of such a function is possible through the Methods of Characteristics
where a relationship between
the function
and
plane. By finding
on the
is a propogation or a trajectory
When applying Methods of Characteristics to the water hammer equations, the characteristic
curve is similar to the function
is on the
plane.
4.4 Summary
This chapter discusses the analytical and numerical solution to transient fluid equations of
continuity and motion. The purpose of discussing the analytical solution was not to encourage its
use but rather to show that term
assumption. Numerical method and the analytical solution share the same fundamental idea that
a characteristic pressure wave travels along a defined path at a known speed. This defined path is
called the characteristic curve and along this curve the transient equations have solutions that are
numerically calculated. The Method of Characteristics is further explored in the next chapter.
15
the function
and
plane. By finding
on the
is a
following section derives the equation for characteristic curve and develops equations that are
solved numerically along the characteristic curve
5.2 Characteristic curve equation
Method of Characteristics solves equations on a characteristic curve and to derive its equation
lets start by stating the dynamic and continuity equation as L1 and L2 respectively which as per
Wiley and Streeter (1978) are a pair of quasilinear PDEs:
(Dynamic Equation)..
5.1
and
and
and
5.5
Comparing equation 5.5 and equation 5.4 with equation 5.3, it is noted that if
..
5.6
Then equation 5.3 becomes an ordinary differential equation (Wiley and Streeter, 1978)
16
..
Also, equation 5.6 has two solutions
5.7
5.8
Wiley and Street (1978) explain that equation 5.8 shows that the position of a wave is related to
the wave propagation velocity . Therefore, it is established that equation 5.7 is an ODE only if
, the characteristic curve along which the ODE has solutions.
5.3 Compatibility equations
Since there are two solutions of
, there are two cases of ODEs: one positive and the other
negative. The two pairs are identified as Characteristic Equations and are grouped into positive
and negative compatibility equations C+ and C- (Wiley and Streeter, 1978)
.. 5.9
C
C-
..
5.10
.. 5.11
.. 5.12
By applying the Method of Characteristics a relationship exists such that equation 5.11 and 5.9
are only valid when equation 5.12 and 5.10 are satisfied, respectively. This relationship
simplifies the dynamic and continuity equations into ordinary differential equations in the
independent time variable
that equation 5.10 and equation 5.12 are two straight lines with slopes
on the
plane
as shown in Figure 6:
17
The two characteristic lines AP and PB in Figure 6 physically represent the pressure waves that
travel from point A to point P in time
5.4 Summary
This chapter derives the equation for characteristic curve and shows that the position of a wave is
related to the wave propagation velocity
i.e.
two solutions that are known as the compatibility equations 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, and 5.12. These
equations are imagined as two pressure waves coming from opposite directions that meet along
the characteristic curve.
18
.. 6.1
C+
..
C-
.. 6.3
.. 6.4
6.2
Equations 6.2 and 6.4 are straight lines, one with a positive and other with a negative slope of .
These slopes are the characteristic lines along which equations 6.1 and 6.3 have solutions (Wiley
and Streeter, 1978). The following section discusses finite difference solutions of the
compatibility equations C+ and C- .
6.2 Finite difference solution
Superimposing the
lines on an
Figure 7.
and
at point P. To determine
unknown velocity and head, boundary conditions must be known at points A and B. For the
purpose of derivation, lets assume the boundary conditions (discussed in the next chapter) at
time
become the initial conditions for the next time step. Going back to Figure 7, flow and head
values conditions at point P i.e. at
characteristic lines
and
6.8
6.9
....
6.10
C +:
...
6.11
C-:
...
6.12
Solving for
Where
and
Equations 6.11 and 6.12 are algebraic relations that govern the head and flow in a pipeline during
a transient. Referring to Figure 7, numerical solution of a transient problem starts by first
determining flow and head values at time
and
values are known or determined. Once steady-state conditions are found compatibility
equations 6.11 and 6.12 are simultaneously solved to determine interior points (P on Figure 7) in
20
the same time step. Equations 6.11 and 6.12 are simplified for aid in programming (Wiley and
Streeter, 1978):
C +:
..
C-:
.. 6.14
Where
and
6.13
are constants in each time step and have the following equations:
By elimination of
...
6.15
..
6.16
6.17
Once
is any
the known conditions in a time step that are used to determine the next incremental conditions
subscripted by P within the same time step. However, in Figure 7, it is observed that to solve a
time step on the grid, conditions on the left and right extremes of the graph at
are
required. A clear explanation is shown in Figure 8 where point P on the extreme left and right of
the grid are required to complete the grid solution. Theses extremes can represent pump and
valve conditions in a pipeline.
, finite difference
solution of the compatibility equations is developed. In this chapter it is mentioned that boundary
conditions are required to complete the grid solution in a time step. These boundary conditions
can be pumps and valves in a typical industry application. Several boundary conditions along
with their equations are discussed in the next chapter.
21
plane contains the flow and head values at each interior point
P of the pipeline. However to determine the behavior of fluid within the pipeline information on
each end i.e. boundary must be known. A typical example of pipeline boundary condition is an
upstream pump and a downstream valve. In this chapter, boundary equations for pump and valve
are developed along with other typical boundary conditions. Each boundary equation is solved
independent of interior points and other boundary equations (Wiley and Streeter, 1978).
As seen in Figure 9 the boundary conditions have influence on the interior sections. For this
reason boundary head and flow conditions are calculated before the interior points. The
following section discusses several typical boundary condition equations.
22
7.1
. 7.2
Here the subscript
indicates that the head value is on the first interval of pipeline i.e. left
equation 6.13:
.
Because
7.4
Subscript
7.5
represents flow
Equation 7.5 represents flow through a valve at its initial position; equation 7.6 represents flow
conditions across the valve for its new position:
Here
7.6
represents the instantaneous change in hydraulic grade line across the valve after its
position is changed i.e. change in opening size. To represent the valve opening with a
comparative ratio of initial and final position define :
.
7.7
To incorporate this ratio into the boundary condition, divide equation 7.6 by equation 7.5
. 7.8
With proper subscripts representing end of pipe boundary conditions:
.. 7.9
Because represents the valve opening ratio, a fully closed valve has
condition whereas
representing no flow
simultaneously yields:
..
where
. With
calculated,
7.10
24
With data points from pump curve, head and discharge rates are related to each other for use in
boundary conditions. Wiley and Street (1978) use an analytical equation to describe pump
characteristic curve.
Where
and
7.11
These constants are calculated using two points from a known pump running head and discharge
values. As in any other boundary condition, equation 7.11 and the upstream compatibility
equation 6.14 are simultaneously solved to get,
......
is determined by substituting the calculated
7.12
is
defined as the ratio between the time increment and time for the pump to reach its rated speed.
....
Where
7.13
pump to reach its rate speed or rpm. Wiley and Streeter (1978) state equation 7.14 for pump
curve related to the speed ratio:
It should be noted that if
. 7.14
(constant pump speed) then equation 7.14 becomes 7.11 which
describes a constant speed pump head-discharge curve. Simultaneously solving equations 7.14
and 6.14, pump discharge boundary equation 7.15 is developed:
.
is determined by substituting calculated
7.15
25
... 7.16
is the absolute head ,
is the gas volume,
is the polytropic exponent of the
In equation 7.16
in analysis.
value of 1 is assumed.
, barometric
To determine
. 7.18
Wiley and Streeter (1978) suggest using the Newtons method which uses the
expression
generates:
.. 7.19
Equation 7.19 calculates
7.20
At each time step,
7.21
26
Pipe Junction
In complex fluid systems, the fluid travels through pipes which eventually connect and divert
into other pipes from a junction. To model a junction, additional boundary conditions are not
required. Instead, equations of continuity are used to relate downstream and upstream flows of
different pipes. To develop the continuity equation, minor losses in the junction are neglected
and a common head is assumed i.e. the downstream head at pipe 1 and 2 is equal to upstream
head at pipe 3 and 4.
Figure 10. Pipe Junction (taken from Wiley and Streeter (1978))
Writing the upstream compatibility equations for pipe 1 and 2, and writing the upstream
compatibility equations for pipe 3 and 4 with the flow
7.22
7.23
..
7.24
..
7.25
:
7.27
27
7.3 Summary
This chapter discusses the boundary conditions that are used in a case study that is analyzed in
chapter 9. The idea of developing a boundary condition is to setup the characteristic grid that
communicates the head and velocity information across the pipeline. The boundary conditions
dictate how the pressure and discharge behave during the time of simulation. In the next chapter,
typical system configurations are modeled and their results are discussed.
28
29
.
Figure 13. Gate valve opening at 25% per second
30
The second mode of operation for a valve is closure. Transients in a rapid closure are more
severe than in the case of valve opening. Comparing Figure 14and Figure 15, it is observed that a
rapid closure of valve can induce pressure peaks double the head supplied by the reservoir.
Whereas a slow valve closure induces pressure peaks 10% higher than the supply head.
31
32
Figure 18 shows the pump behavior when the gate valve is started to open at 30 seconds into the
simulation. The pressure fluctuations are not severe but still exist due a change in resistance in
pipeline.
33
34
Figure 20. Pump startup with downstream air pocket of 10m height
35
36
37
38
8.5 Summary
This chapter presents the results of MATLAB simulations of simple system configurations of
upstream pump and head reservoir combined with downstream valve and air pocket. From
results of transient simulations, it was observed that valve opening causes non-significant
transients compared to a rapid valve closure. However, when opening a valve at 20% per second
the transient pressure oscillations were twice as much as opening a valve at 2.5% per second.
Also, results from the air pocket simulation show that transients are less sever for a larger
volume air pocket.
39
Pipe 7
40
41
9.4 Results
Figure 25. Transients at the Pump 1 and Throttle Valve 1 opening in 5 seconds
42
Figure 28. Transients at the test nozzle (relief valve) and between junction 1 and junction 2
43
Figure 30. Transients at junction 1 and 2 of the simplified EWS with throttle valves opening in 15
seconds
44
9.5 Discussion
Observing Figure 27, junction 1 and 2 of the simplified EWS experience significant pressure
oscillations of an average
100 kPa. Though not severe, these oscillations showcase the danger
of having air trapped in system. To understand the affect of air in a system, the downstream air
pocket in EWS is replaced by a dead end and modeled in MATLAB.
Figure 31. Transients in Junction 1 and Junction 2 of EWS (without an air pocket in dead-end)
Comparing Figure 31 and Figure 25 in the last 20 seconds of simulation, the transients in EWS
without air pocket are smooth unlike the sever oscillations in the EWS with air pocket. Air
pocket causes severe oscillations due to high sudden accelerations the fluid experiences as it
encounters the air pocket. Decreasing the air pocket volume has shown to worsen the transients
due to the loss of dampening effect air has on the fluid. Effect of decreasing air pocket volume is
observed through Figure 20 and Figure 23.
Also, comparing Figure 27 and Figure 30, it is observed that transient pressure peaks are lower
when the valves are opened slowly (in 15 seconds). This is consistent with the earlier results
from a simple pump and valve configuration model shown in Figure 16.
45
9.6 Recommendations
The downstream air pocket causes minor oscillations in junctions 1 and 2 of the simplified EWS.
The affect of air pocket is not so significant due to its large volume. While performing flow test
on EWS the downstream air pocket line must be checked for any opened or leaking valves.
Research has shown that transients are severe when the trapped air is allowed to release through
a nozzle (Martino. G. D et al, 2008).
Also, the effect of valve opening rate is not the dominating factor in the transients. Only at an
opening rate of 5 seconds the transients start to get worse. In EWS the throttle valves are 18 inch
gate valves which take approximately 200 turns to fully open. Leaving the valves fully open will
affect the steady state performance of the pumps during startup. With initial throttling the pumps
will remain at the best efficiency point and as the system is filled valves can be opened
gradually. However, throttling of gate valves for extended periods is not recommended since the
transient waves passing through will causing cavitation and pitting of valve. Overtime, valves
may degrade and must be inspected for internal damage.
Overall, by comparing the two EWS models with dead end and air pocket in the downstream, it
is observed that the large volume of air amplifies the transients by
the end of simulation when the system is filled with water. Therefore it is safe to perform the
system flow test with the downstream valve V-3 left open, provided test nozzles are open to
allow relief flow to the lake.
46
Chapter 10 Overview
10.1 Introduction
This paper does not aim to provide expert opinion on hydraulic transients; however, through the
results of previous chapters, the goal is that the technical reader will gain a different point of
view on water systems. Often systems are designed without putting thought into how water
feels as it goes through it. Questions a design engineer must ask can vary depending on the
system. But using the example of sudden valve closure, an engineer should realize that flowing
water when suddenly stopped experiences forces much greater than what human experiences in a
high speed car crash. This chapter will discuss some design implementations that can mitigate
transient affects by essentially understanding water behavior. In essence a system should achieve
a balance in how it wants the water to behave and how water wants to behave by itself.
10.2 Common transient system failures
In previous chapters, specific system configurations with a combination pump startup, valve
operation, dead end and air pocket were modeled. These specific configurations were considered
to build an understanding of the OPG EWS system configuration and simplify its model.
However, to develop a broader understanding of transients in water systems, consider the
following system failures or consequences of transients (Pejovic et al, 1987):
1. Maximum pressure: Results from chapter 8 and 9 show that pressure oscillations can be
10 times that of the operating conditions. These pressure oscillations can damage the pipe
and yield the material to the point of rupture.
2. Vacuum: Oscillating pressure waves can cause vacuum conditions similar to the ones
following drainage of pipeline. Air inlet valves must be located at the high points of
pipeline. Vacuum conditions can be sufficient to collapse a thin walled pipeline.
3. Cavitation: As the local pressure drops below water vapor pressure during a transient,
vapor bubbles or voids start to form. Eventually these voids are collapsed due to adjacent
water molecules. The sudden collapse of voids causes a pressure surge that causes
vacuum and high peak pressures.
4. Hydraulic vibrations: Transients in a system at different locations can influence each
other leading to vibrations approaching the natural frequency of the network i.e.
47
Figure 32. Flowchart for surge control in water distribution systems (Boulos. P.; et al, 2005)
48
10.4 Conclusion
Transient flow is an intermediate condition between two steady-state conditions. Transients are a
form of communication for one end to tell the other end that a change has been made. This
communication takes place in a form of a pressure wave. Often this pressure wave is too high for
the pipe and it may be capable of causing failure.
The most important aspect of hydraulic transient modeling is to gain a point of view of flowing
water in a network of pipes. A hydrologic engineer is a water psychologist who makes water
behave by his will while also respecting its own, (Karney. B, 2011). Expanding on this
statement, transient analysis is a tool for the water psychologist.
The intent was to explore the fundamentals of transient analysis and apply them to an industry
case. Though the analysis is complex it provides meaningful insight into the system as it goes
through changes. A comprehensive transient analysis in the design phase of water network can
improve system behavior, operation and capital cost. In modern industry with flow capacities
increasing and piping networks getting more complex a comprehensive transient analysis
become more important. Besides, we have power to bend [water] but it is a responsibility,
Karney. B. W (2011).
49
50
51
H(1,ti) = H_reservoir;
reynolds = abs(V(2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
friction = 0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R = friction*R_multiplier;
CM = H(2,ti-1)-B*Q(2,ti-1)+R*Q(2,ti-1)*(abs(Q(2,ti-1)));
Q(1,ti) = (H(1,ti)-CM)/B;
end
%%%Calculate downstream boundary conditions on the grid at x=lenght
if downstream == 2
C_1=(H(ps+2,ti)+10.3-D);
C_2=(Vol-delta_t*(Q(ps+2, ti)+Q(ps+2,ti-1))/2)^1;
C=C_1*C_2;
CP=H(ps+1,ti-1)+B*Q(ps+1,ti-1)-(R*Q(ps+1,ti-1)*(abs(Q(ps+1,ti-1))));
for newton=1:50
Vol_p=Vol-delta_t*0.5*(Q(ps+2, ti)+Q(ps+2,ti-1));
if Vol_p < 0.0004
Vol_p=0.0004;
end
Zp=Zp+0.5*(Q(ps+2,ti))*delta_t/pipe_area;
F1=((CP-B*Q(ps+2, ti)-Zp+10.3)*(Vol_p)^pc) - C;
dFdQ=(-pc*delta_t*C*0.5/Vol_p)-B*(Vol_p^pc);
dQ=-F1/dFdQ;
Q(ps+2, ti)=Q(ps+2, ti)+dQ;
end
Vol=Vol-delta_t*0.5*(Q(ps+2, ti)+Q(ps+2, ti-1));
if Vol <= 0.0
Vol = 0.0;
end
H(ps+2,ti)=CP-(B*Q(ps+2,ti));
elseif downstream == 1
if valve_open == 1
if t(ti)>=valve_open_time
valve_taw = valve_open_rate*t(ti)/0.1;
if valve_taw >=10
valve_taw = 10;
end
end
else
if t(ti)>=valve_closure_time
valve_taw = 0.0;
else
valve_taw = -(t(ti)-valve_closure_time)/valve_closure_time;
end
end
reynolds = abs(V(ps+1,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
friction = 0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R = friction*R_multiplier;
CP = H(ps+1,ti-1)+B*Q(ps+1,ti-1)-R*Q(ps+1,ti-1)*(abs(Q(ps+1,ti-1)));
CV = ((Q(ps+1,ti-1)*valve_taw)^2)/(2*H(ps+1,ti-1));
alpha = ((B*CV)^2)+2.0*CV*CP;
Q(ps+2,ti) = -B*CV+sqrt(alpha);
H(ps+2,ti) = CP-B*Q(ps+2,ti);
end
52
53
%% Data for pipe 1 and pipe 2 with upstream pump and downstream valve
H1_initial=0.01;
H2_initial=0.01;
SS_Q1=0.0;
SS_Q2=0.0;
pump_1_switch = 1.0;
pump_2_switch = 1.0;
pump_1_timer = 0;
pump_2_timer = 30;
pump_1_time=60;
pump_2_time=60;
speed_ratio_2=0.0;
speed_ratio=0.0;
aone=-77.26; %pump curve constant
atwo=-136.9; %pump curve constant
%% Data for pipe 3 and 4 with upstream valve and downstream junction
H3_initial=0.01;
H4_initial=0.01;
valve_taw_1=0.0;
valve_taw_2=0.0;
valve_1_max=1;
valve_2_max=1;
valve_1_time=40;
%time valve takes to open
valve_2_time=40;
valve_1_timer=5;
% time when valve open
54
valve_2_timer=5;
SS_Q3=0.0;
SS_Q4=0.0;
%% Data for pipe 5 with junction on either end
H5_initial=0.01;
SS_Q5=0.0;
%%Data for pipe 6 with open valve in downstream
pipe_6_area=(pi/4.0)*(D6^2);
H6_initial=0.01;
relief_valve_taw=0.9;
SS_Q6=0.0;
%% Data for pipe 7 with air pocket or dead end in downstream
H7_initial = 0.01;
SS_Q7=0.0;
pc=1.2;
Zp=D;
Vol=(3.142*0.25*D^2)*(10);
%%Characteristic Grid data
delta_x=lenght/(ps+2);
delta_t=courant_number*delta_x/wave_speed;
ts=total_time/delta_t +1.0;
%ts = time_steps
pipe_area=(pi/4.0)*(D^2);
55
reynolds=SS_V1*D/viscosity;
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
H1(1,1)=H1_initial;
H2(1,1)=H2_initial;
H3(1,1)=H3_initial;
H4(1,1)=H4_initial;
H5(1,1)=H5_initial;
56
H6(1,1)=H6_initial;
H7(1,1)=H7_initial;
H1_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V1^2/(2.0*gravity));%Darcy - Weisback Equation
H2_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V2^2/(2.0*gravity));
H3_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V3^2/(2.0*gravity));
H4_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V4^2/(2.0*gravity));
H5_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V5^2/(2.0*gravity));
H6_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V6^2/(2.0*gravity));
H7_loss=f*(delta_x/D)*(SS_V7^2/(2.0*gravity));
for i=2:ps+2, %calculate steady state H values from x=2 till end of pipe
x(i)=i*delta_x;
H1(i,1)=H1(i-1,1)-H1_loss;
H2(i,1)=H2(i-1,1)-H2_loss;
H3(i,1)=H3(i-1,1)-H3_loss;
H4(i,1)=H4(i-1,1)-H4_loss;
H5(i,1)=H5(i-1,1)-H5_loss;
H6(i,1)=H6(i-1,1)-H6_loss;
H7(i,1)=H7(i-1,1)-H7_loss;
end
%%TRANSIENT STATE CALCULATION%
for ti=2:ts
t(ti)=(ti-1)*delta_t;
%Upstream Boundary at pipe 1 %
if pump_1_switch == 1;
if t(ti)> pump_1_timer
speed_ratio=(t(ti)-pump_1_timer)/pump_1_time;
if speed_ratio >= 0.8
speed_ratio=0.8;
end
end
end
if speed_ratio ==0.0
Q1(1,ti)=0;
H1(1,ti)=H1_initial;
else
reynolds=abs(V1(1,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
R1=f*R1_multiplier;
CM1=H1(2,ti-1)-Q1(2,ti-1)*(B1-(R1*(abs(Q1(2,ti-1)))));at
theta=((B1-(aone*speed_ratio))/(2*atwo));
gamma=(1-((4*atwo*(((speed_ratio^2)*140.0)-CM1))/(B1(aone*speed_ratio))^2))^0.5;
Q1(1,ti)=theta*(1-gamma);
H1(1,ti)=CM1+(B1*Q1(1,ti));
end
%Upstream Boundary at pipe 2%
57
if pump_2_switch == 1;
if t(ti) > pump_2_timer;
speed_ratio_2=(t(ti)-pump_2_timer)/pump_2_time;
if speed_ratio_2 >= 0.8
speed_ratio_2=0.8;
end
end
end
if speed_ratio_2 ==0.0
Q2(1,ti)=0;
H2(1,ti)=H2_initial;
else
reynolds=abs(V2(2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
R2=f*R2_multiplier;
CM2=H2(2,ti-1)-Q2(2,ti-1)*(B2-(R2*(abs(Q2(2,ti-1)))));%i-1 represents t
step at i to find Hi and Qi
theta=((B2-(aone*speed_ratio_2))/(2*atwo));%see example 3-5 of wiley and
streeter
gamma=(1-((4*atwo*(((speed_ratio_2^2)*140.0)-CM2))/(B2(aone*speed_ratio_2))^2))^0.5;
Q2(1,ti)=theta*(1-gamma);
H2(1,ti)=CM2+(B2*Q2(1,ti));
end
%Downstream Boundary at pipe 2 junction with pipe 3, in-line valve%
reynolds=abs(V2(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R2=f*R2_multiplier;
reynolds=abs(V3(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R3=f*R3_multiplier;
CM3=H3(2,ti-1)-B3*Q3(2,ti-1)+R3*Q3(2,ti-1)*(abs(Q3(2,ti-1))); %here CM4
is the upstream
CP2=H2(ps+1,ti-1)+B2*Q2(ps+1,ti-1)-(R2*Q2(ps+1,ti-1)*(abs(Q2(ps+1,ti1)))); %here CP3 is the downstream
if t(ti)>valve_2_timer
valve_taw_2=(t(ti)-valve_2_timer)/valve_2_time;
if valve_taw_2>=valve_2_max
valve_taw_2=valve_2_max;
end
end
reynolds=abs(V2(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R2=f*R2_multiplier;
CV2=((Q2(ps+1,ti-1)*valve_taw_2)^2)/(2*H2(ps+1,ti-1));
alpha_n=((CV2^2)*(B2+B3)^2)-(2*CV2*(CP2-CM3));
alpha_p=((CV2^2)*(B2+B3)^2)+(2*CV2*(CP2-CM3));
if CP2-CM3 >= 0
58
Q2(ps+2,ti)=-CV2*(B2+B3)+(alpha_p)^0.5;
else
Q2(ps+2,ti)=CV2*(B2+B3)-(alpha_n)^0.5;
end
H2(ps+2,ti)=CP2-(B2*Q2(ps+2,ti));
%In-line valve between pipe 1 and pipe 4%
reynolds=abs(V4(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R4=f*R4_multiplier;
reynolds=abs(V1(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R1=f*R1_multiplier;
CM4=H4(2,ti-1)-B4*Q4(2,ti-1)+R4*Q4(2,ti-1)*(abs(Q4(2,ti-1)));
CP1=H1(ps+1,ti-1)+B1*Q1(ps+1,ti-1)-(R1*Q1(ps+1,ti-1)*(abs(Q1(ps+1,ti-1))));
if t(ti)>valve_1_timer
valve_taw_1=(t(ti)-valve_1_timer)/valve_1_time;
if valve_taw_1>=valve_1_max
valve_taw_1=valve_1_max;
end
end
CV1=((Q1(ps+1,ti-1)*valve_taw_1)^2)/(2*H1(ps+1,ti-1));
alpha_n=((CV1^2)*(B1+B4)^2)-(2*CV1*(CP1-CM4));
alpha_p=((CV1^2)*(B1+B4)^2)+(2*CV1*(CP1-CM4));
if CP1-CM4 >= 0
Q1(ps+2,ti)=-CV1*(B1+B4)+(alpha_p)^0.5;
else
Q1(ps+2,ti)=CV1*(B1+B4)-(alpha_n)^0.5;
end
H1(ps+2,ti)=CP1-(B1*Q1(ps+2,ti));
59
R1=f*R1_multiplier;
CP1=H1(ps_i-1,ti-1)+B1*Q1(ps_i-1,ti-1)-R1*Q1(ps_i-1,ti1)*(abs(Q1(ps_i-1,ti-1)));
H1(ps_i,ti)=(CP1+CM1)/2;
Q1(ps_i,ti)= (H1(ps_i,ti)-CM1)/B1;
end
end
V1(:,ti)=Q1(:,ti)/pipe_area;
60
CM4=H4(2,ti-1)-B4*Q4(2,ti-1)+R4*Q4(2,ti-1)*(abs(Q4(2,ti-1)));
H4(1,ti)=CM4+(B4*Q4(1,ti));
%Junction boundary downstream of both pipe 3 and pipe 4 , junction 1%
reynolds=abs(V3(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R3=f*R3_multiplier;
reynolds=abs(V4(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R4=f*R4_multiplier;
reynolds=abs(V5(ps+2,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/reynolds^0.9)))^2;
R5=f*R5_multiplier;
CP3=H3(ps+1,ti-1)+Q3(ps+1,ti-1)*(B3-(R3*(abs(Q3(ps+1,ti-1)))));
CP4=H4(ps+1,ti-1)+Q4(ps+1,ti-1)*(B4-(R4*(abs(Q4(ps+1,ti-1)))));
CM5=H5(2,ti-1)-Q5(2,ti-1)*(B5-(R5*(abs(Q5(2,ti-1)))));
H3(ps+2,ti)=((CP3/B3)+(CP4/B4)+(CM5/B5))/((1/B3)+(1/B4)+(1/B5));
H4(ps+2,ti)=((CP3/B3)+(CP4/B4)+(CM5/B5))/((1/B3)+(1/B4)+(1/B5));
H5(1,ti)=((CP3/B3)+(CP4/B4)+(CM5/B5))/((1/B3)+(1/B4)+(1/B5));
Q3(ps+2,ti)= -(H3(ps+2,ti)/B3) + (CP3/B3);
Q4(ps+2,ti)= -(H4(ps+2,ti)/B4) + (CP4/B4);
Q5(1,ti)= (H5(1,ti)/B5) - (CM5/B5);
%Interior Points in pipe 3%
for j3=3:-1:2,
for ps_i=j3:2:ps+1,
reynolds=abs(V3(ps_i+1,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
if reynolds==0.0
f=0.0;
else
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
end
R3=f*R3_multiplier;
CM3=H3(ps_i+1,ti-1)-B3*Q3(ps_i+1,ti-1)+R3*Q3(ps_i+1,ti1)*(abs(Q3(ps_i+1,ti-1)));
reynolds=abs(V3(ps_i-1,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
if reynolds==0.0
f=0.0;
else
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
end
R3=f*R3_multiplier;
CP3=H3(ps_i-1,ti-1)+B3*Q3(ps_i-1,ti-1)-R3*Q3(ps_i-1,ti1)*(abs(Q3(ps_i-1,ti-1)));
H3(ps_i,ti)=(CP3+CM3)/2;
Q3(ps_i,ti)= (H3(ps_i,ti)-CM3)/B3;
end
end
V3(:,ti)=Q3(:,ti)/pipe_area;
61
62
63
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D6))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
end
R6=f*R6_multiplier;
CP6=H6(ps_i-1,ti-1)+B6*Q6(ps_i-1,ti-1)-R6*Q6(ps_i-1,ti1)*(abs(Q6(ps_i-1,ti-1)));
H6(ps_i,ti)=(CP6+CM6)/2;
Q6(ps_i,ti)= (H6(ps_i,ti)-CM6)/B6;
end
end
V6(:,ti)=Q6(:,ti)/pipe_6_area;
%Downstream Boundary at pipe 7 with dead end or air pocket%
if downstream == 1;
CP7=H7(ps+1,ti-1)+B7*Q7(ps+1,ti-1)-(R7*Q7(ps+1,ti-1)*(abs(Q7(ps+1,ti1))));
Q7(ps+2,ti)=0;
H7(ps+2,ti)=CP7-B7*Q7(ps+2,ti);
elseif downstream == 2;
C_1=(H7(ps+2,ti)+10.3-D);
C_2=(Vol-delta_t*(Q7(ps+2, ti)+Q7(ps+2,ti-1))/2)^pc;
C=C_1*C_2;
CP7=H7(ps+1,ti-1)+B7*Q7(ps+1,ti-1)-(R7*Q7(ps+1,ti1)*(abs(Q7(ps+1,ti-1))));
for newton=1:50
Vol_p=Vol-delta_t*0.5*(Q7(ps+2,ti)+Q7(ps+2,ti-1));
if Vol_p < 0.0001
Vol_p=0.0001;
end
Zp=Zp+((0.5*(Q7(ps+2,ti))+Q7(ps+2,ti-1))/pipe_area)*delta_t;
F1=(CP7-B7*Q7(ps+2,ti)-Zp+10.3)*(Vol_p)^pc - C;
dFdQ7=(-pc*delta_t*C*0.5/Vol_p)-B7*(Vol_p^pc);
dQ7=-F1/dFdQ7;
Q7(ps+2,ti)=Q7(ps+2,ti)+dQ7;
end
Vol=Vol-delta_t*0.5*(Q7(ps+2, ti)+Q7(ps+2, ti-1));
if Vol < 0.0
Vol = 0.0;
end
H7(ps+2,ti)=CP7-B7*Q7(ps+2,ti);
Vol_storage (1,ti)=Vol;
end
64
reynolds=abs(V7(ps_i-1,ti-1)*D/viscosity);
if reynolds==0.0
f=0.0;
else
f=0.25/(log10((r/(3.7*D))+(5.74/(reynolds^0.9))))^2;
end
R7=f*R7_multiplier;
CP7=H7(ps_i-1,ti-1)+B7*Q7(ps_i-1,ti-1)-R7*Q7(ps_i-1,ti1)*(abs(Q7(ps_i-1,ti-1)));
H7(ps_i,ti)=(CP7+CM7)/2;
Q7(ps_i,ti)= (H7(ps_i,ti)-CM7)/B7;
end
end
V7(:,ti)=Q7(:,ti)/pipe_area;
end
65
References
Boulos. P. F; Karney. B. W; Wood. J. D; Lingireddy. (2005) Hydraulic Transient Guidelines for
Protecting Water Distribution Systems. American Water Works Association
Chou, T (2009) The Method of Characteristics. Dept. of Biomathematics, UCLA, Los
Angeles, CA 90095-1766
Chaudhry, M. H. (1979). Applied hydraulic transients. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
New York, N.Y.
Karney. B. W, (2011). University of Toronto, CIV1303 lecture
Martino. G. D; Fontana. N; Giugni. M. (2008) Transient Flow Caused by Air Expulsion Through
an Orifice, ASCE 0733-9429; 134:9
Parmakian, J. (1958). Waterhammer Analysis. Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Pejovic, S.; Boldy, A.P. & Obradovic, D., 1987. Guidelines for Hydraulic Transient Analysis.
Gower Technical Press, Eng-land-USA.
Wylie, E. B., and Streeter, V. L. (1978). Fluid transients. FEB Press, Ann Arbor,
Mich.
66