Scientific Bulletin of the Politehnica University of Timisoara Transactions on Mechanics Special issue

The 6th International Conference on Hydraulic Machinery and Hydrodynamics Timisoara, Romania, October 21 - 22, 2004

CAVITATION IN WATER-HAMMER CALCULATION

Gabriel TATU, Prof., Ph.D.* Hydraulics and Environmental Protection Department, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest

*Corresponding author: Bd. Lacul Tei No.124, Sector 2, Bucuresti, Romania Tel.: (+40) 21 2433660, Fax: (+40) 21 2433660, Email: tatu@mail.utcb.ro ABSTRACT The usual model for hater-hammer calculation in the presence of the cavitation is presented first. In this model, the cavitation bubbles are considered as big cushions concentrated in the calculation nodes of the finite differential scheme. The study aims to analyze the behavior of the model as a function of the number of elements chosen to obtain the finite differential scheme (the number of the calculation nodes). The main remark is that, for a too small number of finite elements, the computing results are not real, i.e. the pressure oscillations have extremely high amplitudes, which are not real at all. Finally, a recommendation is made: when applying this model, a great attention must be paid to take practical conclusions. 1. INTRODUCTION The present paper was inspired by the paper [7] where the cavitation is calculated within a waterhammer program when analysing the behaviour of a hydraulic system and giving a diagnosis verdict. The author is risking (in my opinion) to emit a verdict on that system, based on the results of running that program. In my opinion, it is a wrong position and I will try bellow to demonstrate it. When pressure drops under the cavitation limit, as in the boiling phenomenon, the water turns suddenly into vapour. Cavitation bubbles (filled with vapour and other gases, formerly dissolved in the water) appear in the whole volume of water while the pressure remains constant at the value of the cavitation limit. When after, the pressure skips above this limit, the cavitation bubbles are disappearing (suddenly also) in the mass of water and the continuity of the fluid is re-established. Since the water-hammer phenomenon is calculated using the finite elements method and all the variables (pressures, flow rates etc.) are calculated in the computing nodes, the only solution to calculate the cavitation phenomenon is to consider the whole cavitation volume as big vapour cushions concentrated in such computation nodes. This way, a great simplification of the real situation is made: in the real phenomenon that (vapour) volume is spread along a long distance nearby the computation node and not as a big cushion but as very numerous and very small (even microscopic) bubbles. On another side, the volume of such a vapour cushion will depend on the number of the calculation nodes. The bigger is the number of the calculation nodes, the smaller is the volume of the vapour cushions (concentrated in the computing nodes). So, it is expected that the calculation results will depend on the number of the calculation nodes and this paper aims to demonstrate this hypothesis. A very simple case was considered (see figure 1). A pipe of 1000 m length, having an ascendingdescending profile was considered between two constant level reservoirs. This way, for the normal steady state regime, in the highest point of the profile the pressure is close to zero (the hydraulic line touches the profile). Starting from this initial situation, a water-hammer phenomenon was provoked by suddenly closing the downstream valve V, placed just before the corresponding reservoir. The propagation of the over-pressures and then of the under-pressures created by reflection at the upstream reservoir allows to draw, as a result, a maximum enveloping line and, respectively, a minimum enveloping one, giving the maximum-maximorum and the minimum-minimorum pressures along the pipe. 549

50 m Hydraulic line 30 m Cavitation line Pipe axis 10 m 0m 10 m

V
500 m 500 m

Figure 1 The shape of the longitudinal profile was specially conceived to facilitate the apparition of the low pressures and, consequently, of the cavitation. Considering the cavitation limit at a vacuum of 10 m.w.c., the cavitation line will be a parallel to and under the longitudinal profile (pipe axis), at a distance of 10 m. In the points where cavitation appears, the enveloping line for the minimum-minimorum pressures is super-posing over the cavitation line.

Figure 2 The program for water-hammer calculation was provided with two options: with cavitation, i.e. if cavitation appears the presence of the vapor cushions in the computing nodes is considered, together with their increasing and decreasing phases, while the pressure remains constant at the cavitation limit; without cavitation, i.e. if cavitation appears only the pressures are fixed at the cavitation limit while the presence of the vapor cushions is not considered. Figure 2 presents the results without cavitation. Cavitation appears on about a half of the pipes length (nearby the highest point of the profile) and 550 the maximum pressure is about 116 m.w.c. (just in front of the valve V). In this figure as in the next ones, DY represents the vertical dimension of the drawing and it gives the amplitude of the water-hammer phenomenon: the bigger is the value of DY, the bigger is that amplitude, i.e., the bigger is the maximum pressure. The next figures (from 3 to 7) represent the results of running the water-hammer program with cavitation but considering different numbers for the computing nodes (denoted by N). So, the first number written in these figures (before DY), represents the number of the computing nodes, from the upstream reservoir to the sudden closing valve

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6 551

Figure 7 In the last two figures (6 and 7), because of the huge amplitude of the pressure variation (maximum pressures of 1253 m and 1345 m, respectively), the pipe axis is very close to the cavitation line which is super-posed with the minimum pressure line (i.e. the cavitation is produced on the whole length of the pipe). 2. CONCLUSIONS The conclusion is very clear: without any doubt, the number of the computing nodes has a great influence on the results. In this case, if the number of the computing nodes is under 110, a huge amplification of the maximum pressures is produced because the big vapor cushions, when suddenly disappearing, avoid the water columns to clash each other, producing hydraulic shocks. The bigger is the vapor cushion volume, the bigger is the hydraulic shock. But as said before, generally this in not a real situation. In fact, in most cases, the (very small, even microscopic) cavitation bubbles are spread in the whole volume of water and on the whole length affected by cavitation. Only in very special cases, the vapor volume will have the shape of a vapor cushion and will be concentrated in a given point and only for those special cases, the model for cavitation calculation will be suitable. Surely, it is not the case analyzed in the paper [7] where the ground is flat and the longitudinal profile is horizontal. The calculated cavities, of 0,4 m3 or 1,4 m3, do not really exist. There are then, at least two very strong reasons for not applying this model: the results of the model depend strongly on the number of the computing nodes, chosen for applying the finite elements method; the basic hypothesis, i.e. the existence of the concentrated cavities is very far from the reality. Consequently, the given verdict, namely that the cause of the damages was the water-hammer, has not a correct basis. In my opinion, the pretended damaging maximum pressures of more than 15 bars do not really exist and then, the cause of the damages must be another, yet not found. Just in fact, in our department, where water-hammer has been studied for more than 40 years and a great experience has been accumulated, cavitation is not calculated but is avoided by suitable means. We have adopted that politics from the very beginning of applying the numerical methods for water-hammer calculation [6] and still consider it is the best position. REFERENCES 1. Riemann, B. ber die Fortpflanzung ebener Luftwellen von endlicher Schwingungsweite, Abb. d. Ges. d. Wiss., Gottingen, 1860. 2. Jukovski, N.E. O Gidravlieskom udare v vodoprovodnh trubah, Bul. Politehn. Obscestva, nr.5, 1899. 3. Allievi, L. Teoria generale del moto perturbato dellacqua nei tubi in pressione, Ann. Soc. Ing. Arch. Italiani, Milano, 1903. 4. Bergeron, L. Du coup de blier en hydraulique au coup de foudre en lctrici , Dunod, Paris, 1950. 5. Streeter, V.L., Wylie, E.B. Hydraulic Transients, Mc. Graw-Hill, New York, 1967. 6. Cioc, D., Tatu, G. - Un programme gnral pour le calcul du coup de blier et quelques rsultats, XII Convegno di Idraulica e Construzioni Idrauliche, Bari, 23-27 ottobre 1970. 7. Ivetic, M. The Failure of a Desalination Plant Header Pipeline Causes and Proposed Remedy, Proceedings of the International Conference on CSHS03, Belgrade, 29-30 September 2003.

552