Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
not properly recognized and addressed by analysis and operational and design modifications
(mostly involving the placement of surge-protection devices). Therefore it is necessary to
determine the likelihood of water column separation, evaluate its severity, and estimate its
potential effect on the system. This article describes a rigorous Lagrangian method that
implements the numerical discrete vapor cavity model for use in simulating transient water
column separation in water distribution systems. As the numerical examples considered here
demonstrate, results of the proposed method compared closely with the traditional Eulerianbased implementation approach. The method described is both robust and straightforward and
will greatly improve the reliability and efficacy of Lagrangian-based network transient analysis
models and the ability of engineers to more accurately predict system transients and properly
select and design surge-protection devices for maximum system protection and safeguarding
of public health.
H
BY BONG SEOG JUNG,
PAUL F. BOULOS,
DON J. WOOD,
AND CHRISTOPHER M. BROS
64
Low-pressure transients typically result from the uncontrolled trip-out of one or more pumps because of power
failure. This in turn can result in unwanted water column separation when the pressure falls below atmospheric and reaches vapor pressure. At that time, a vapor
cavity (cavitation) will form and fill the vacuum (onephase flow becomes two-phase flow), and the rapid and
severe pressure rise following the collapse of this cavity
may lead to a severe and often destructive surge. Therefore a rigorous transient analysis is required to
determine the severity of transient pressures
under normal and emergency operations and
to develop reliable control strategiesmostly
involving the design and installation of one or
more surge-protection devicesto avoid column separation. Such rigorous analysis is also
needed to ensure that the system is sufficiently
protected and objectionable transient pressures
are contained within acceptable levels. However, the results of a transient analysis will be
accurate and reliable only if the water column
separation phenomenon is explicitly addressed
and properly simulated.
Several approaches have been taken to numerically
model pressure transients in water distribution systems
(Boulos et al, 2006). The two most widely used and
accepted methods are the Lagrangian wave characteristic method (WCM) and the Eulerian fixed-grid method
of characteristics (MOC). The primary difference
between the two numerical methods lies in the way pressure waves are tracked between the pipe boundaries
(e.g., reservoirs, tanks, dead ends, partially opened
valves, pumps, junctions, surge-control devices, and
vapor cavities). The MOC tracks a disturbance in the
timespace grid using a numerical method based on
characteristics, whereas the WCM tracks the disturbance based on wave propagation mechanics. Both methods have been well documented in the literature (Ramalingam et al, 2009; Jung et al, 2007; Boulos et al, 2006,
2005; Wood et al, 2005a, 2005b; Wylie & Streeter,
1993; Streeter & Wylie, 1967; Wood et al, 1966) and
have been implemented in various computer programs
for pipe system transient analysis. However, some transient models do not simulate the nonlinear effects of
water column separation but instead set the pressure at
the cavity location at vapor pressure. This can lead to
inaccurate results and prevent sound assessment of the
consequences of column separation (Martin, 2000).
Only when transient water column separation phenomenon is considered can accurate predictions be
obtained. Protection of public health requires that water
column separation be prevented and eliminated by the
installation of properly designed surge-protection devices
in order to maintain the highest level of water quality.
This in turn dictates the necessity for adequate modeling of water column separation to predict the antici-
65
Minimum HGL
Cavitation
H
Hchange in head, HGLhydraulic grade line
66
cV
H
g
(1)
67
(4)
H4 = H2 + H2 + H4
(5)
(6)
H4 = Hv H2 H2
(7)
H3 = H1 + F1(Q3 Q1)
(2)
Q3 = Q1 + (H3 H1)/F1
(8)
H4 = H2 + F2(Q4 Q2)
(3)
Q4 = Q2 + (H4 H2)/F2
(9)
The volume of the vapor cavity, Vc, depends on the transient time step, t, until the next action takes place and
is given by
Vc = (Q3 + Q4)t
(10)
H2
COMPUTATIONAL RESULTS
Q1
Q2
H1
H2
H3
H4
Q3
H3
Vc
Hv
Q4
H4
68
Pressurem
Pressurem
69
TABLE 1
Strategies
None
Maximum
Pressurem (ft)
245.7 (806.1)
Modifications of transient
Operational speed = 5 s
157.5 (516.8)
Operational speed = 10 s
136.6 (448.2)
Operational speed = 15 s
91.7 (300.9)
Modifications of system
Pipe diameter = 2 m (6.6 ft)
32.9 (107.9)
49.3 (161.8)
220 (721.8)
Pressure-relief valve
132 (433.1)
NAnot applicable
70
1s
5s
10 s
15 s
Pressurem
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Times
500
Pressurem
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
90
100
Times
cwave speed, Dpipe diameter
500
400
Pressurem
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Times
71
the vapor pressure. The cavitation at the node deteriorated the transient response and increased the maximum pressure by 59.9 m (196.5 ft). As can be seen in
Figure 12, the two numerical methods produced virtually identical results.
CONCLUSIONS
FIGURE 10 Pipe network
Hres = 300 m
500 m
0m
50
0m
60
3
90
500 m 6
600 m
2 m /s
600 m
700 m
700 m
Hreshead at reservoir
700
Pressurem
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
50
60
Times
MOCmethod of characteristics, WCMwave characteristic method
MOC
WCM
700
Pressurem
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
10
20
30
40
Times
MOCmethod of characteristics, WCMwave characteristic method
72
Jung, B.S.; Karney, B.W.; Boulos, P.F.; & Wood, D.J., 2007. The Need for
Comprehensive Transient Analysis of Distribution Systems. Jour.
AWWA, 99:1:112.
REFERENCES
Bergant, A.; Simpson, A.R.; & Tijsseling, A.S., 2006. Water Hammer
With Column Separation: A Historical Review. Jour. Fluids &
Structure, 22:135.
Kirmeyer, G.J.; Friedman, M.; Martel, K.; Howie, D.; LeChevallier, M.;
Abbaszadegan, M.; Karim, M.; Funk, J.; & Harbour, J., 2001.
Pathogen Intrusion Into the Distribution System. AwwaRF, Denver.
LeChevallier, M.W.; Gullick, R.W.; Karim, M.R.; Friedman, M.; & Funk,
J.E., 2003. The Potential for Health Risks From Intrusion of Contaminants Into the Distribution System From Pressure Transients.
Jour. Water & Health, 1:1:3.
LeChevallier, M.W.; Gullick, R.W.; & Karim, M.R., 2002. The Potential for
Health Risks From Intrusion of Contaminants Into the Distribution
System From Pressure Transients. US Environmental Protection
Agency Distribution System White Paper, Washington.
Martin, C.S., 2000. Hydraulic Transient Design in Pipeline Systems.
Water Distribution Systems Handbook (L.W. Mays, editor).
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Boyd, G.R.; Wang, H.; Britton, M.D.; Howie, D.C.; Wood, D.J.; Funk, J.E.;
& Friedman, M.J., 2004a. Intrusion Within a Simulated Water Distribution System Due to Hydraulic Transients. I: Description of
Test Rig and Chemical Tracer Method. Jour. Envir. Engrg., ASCE,
130:7:774.
Boyd, G.R.; Wang, H.; Britton, M.D.; Howie, D.C.; Wood, D.J.; Funk, J.E.;
& Friedman, M.J., 2004b. Intrusion Within a Simulated Water Distribution System Due to Hydraulic Transients. II: Volumetric
Method and Comparison of Results. Jour. Envir. Engrg., ASCE,
130:7:778.
Ramalingam, D.; Lingireddy, S.; & Wood, D.J., 2009. Using the WCM for
Transient Modeling of Water Distribution Networks. Jour. AWWA,
101:2:75.
Fleming, K.K.; Gullick, R.W.; Dugandzic, J.P.; & LeChevallier, M.W., 2006.
Susceptibility of Distribution Systems to Negative Pressure Transients. AwwaRF, Denver.
Walski, T.M.; Chase, D.V.; Savic, D.A.; Grayman, W.M.; Beckwith, S.; &
Koelle, S., 2003. Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management. Haestad Press, Waterbury, Conn.
Friedman, M.; Radder, L.; Harrison, S.; Howie, D.; Britton, M.; Boyd, G.;
Wang, H.; Gullick, R.; LeChevallier, M.; Wood, D; & Funk, J., 2004.
Verification and Control of Pressure Transients and Intrusion in
Distribution Systems. AwwaRF, Denver.
Wood, D.J.; Lingireddy, S.; & Boulos, P.F., 2005a. Pressure Wave Analysis of Transient Flow in Pipe Distribution Systems. MWH Soft Inc.
Publ., Broomfield, Colo.
Funk, J.E.; VanVuuren, S.J.; Wood, D.J.; LeChevallier, M.W.; & Friedman, M., 1999. Pathogen Intrusion Into Water Distribution Systems Due to Transients. Proc. ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engrg.
Conf., San Francisco.
Jung, B.S. & Karney, B.W., 2004. Fluid Transients and Pipeline Optimization Using GA and PSO: The Diameter Connection. Urban
Water Jour., 1:2:167.
Wood, D.J.; Lingireddy, S.; Boulos, P.F.; Karney, B.W.; & McPherson,
D.L., 2005b. Numerical Methods for Modeling Transient Flow in
Distribution Systems. Jour. AWWA, 97:7:104.
Wood, D.J.; Dorsch, R.G.; & Lightner, C., 1966. Wave Plan Analysis of
Unsteady Flow in Closed Conduits. Jour. Hydraulics Div., ASCE,
92:2:83.
Wylie, E.B. & Streeter, V.L., 1993. Fluid Transients in Systems. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
73