You are on page 1of 12

MATHEMATICAL

AND
COMPUTER
MODELLING
PERGAMON Mathematical and Computer Modelling 35 (2002) 801-812
www.elsevier.com/Iocate/mcm

Mathematical Modelling of Hydraulic


Transients in Simple Systems
J. IZQUIERDO AND P. L. IGLESIAS
Fluid Mechanics Group, Polytechnic University of Valencia
P.O. Box 22012, 46071 Valencia, Spain
(j izquier)(piglesia)~gm:f. upv.e s
(Received May 2001; accepted June 2001)

A b s t r a c t - - E f f i c i e n c y and economy in the design and operation of a hydraulic system, as well as


its safety, are objectives needing precise calculations of pressures and flowrates within the system.
The calculations are typically very time-consuming and, depending on the characteristics of the
system, very complicated and difficult to organize. A suitable mathematical modelling of the different
ingredients in a hydraulic system is necessary to get useful results, which help fulfill those objectives.
In this paper, the mathematical modelling used to develop a computer program to simulate hydraulic
transients in a simple system is described. The program (DYAGATS), developed by the authors,
is currently being used by organizations and consultancies to simulate and, consequently, analyze
hydraulic transients in water systems. It makes use of the so-called elastic model, also known as
waterhammer, to model the behavior of the fluid within the pipes. Also, lump models for the different
elements that introduce, damp, modify, absorb, etc., perturbations in the systems are presented in a
unified treatment. The main objective is to provide users with a powerful tool to devise the potential
risks to which an installation may be exposed and to develop suitable protection strategies, (~) 2002
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords--Hydraulic t~'ansients, Waterhammer, Hyperbolic PDE, Method of characteristics,


Boundary conditions.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
Computer and, hence, mathematical modelling of water distribution systems is a real need in
the water field. By using numerical representations of the joint behavior of the elements that
constitute a water installation, it is possible to obtain efficient and safe designs, which may be
optimized from different points of view. Also, system operation may be better defined by using
those numerical models, thus allowing higher reliability and control of the system.
Nowadays, personal computers are powerful enough to run programs devoted to the simulation
of hydraulic transients in complex systems. Nevertheless, in order to optimize the use of these
tools, some previous knowledge of the potential risks to which a given system may be exposed is
necessary. Only from this physical perspective will the user be able to design suitable protection
strategies and perform the necessary parametric analyses to optimize them.
Independently of the numerical model used, from a user perspective, an analysis program must
be reliable, efficient, and must solve his or her problem at hand. Thus, from this viewpoint, a
program must be validated with experimental results or well-known criteria. Also, it must be
able to represent a wide range of boundary conditions. And, finally, the behavior of its elements

0895-7177/02/$ - see front matter (~) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Typeset by .AA/cS-TEX
PIh S0895-7177(02)00051-1
802 J. IZQUIERDO AND P. L. IGLESIAS

must be represented by means of suitable and robust numerical models, i.e., the technique used
to obtain the numerical solution must not distort the mathematical model and avoid any spurious
solution.
On the other hand, the software must fulfill standard criteria, which are not relevant to this
paper. Basically, it must be friendly, allow some control on the data, detect data inconsistencies,
design deficiencies and unsuitable devices, and give appropriate numerical and graphical results.
In this paper, the mathematical modelling used to write the program DYAGATS, developed
by the authors [I], is described. It makes use of the so-called elastic model, also known as
waterhammer, to model the behaviour of the fluid within the pipes. It may be thought that in
order to obtain a solution close enough to the real one, the system should be represented with
absolute precision and detail. Yet, a number of reasons reject this hypothesis. To start with, it is
more than frequent that some of the necessary data are not available at the time of running the
simulation. On the other hand, certain physical magnitudes are only known with limited accuracy.
Finally, such a detailed description would be very time-consuming and need a great amount of
computer resources. Thus, even though it is possible to develop a computer model representing
the system in an exact way, the needs of time and resources would override the objective of
accuracy. Some idealizations and simplifications render the problem more manageable, without
compromising, in any case, the validity of the results, from an engineering point of view. In many
instances, see [2], it is even acceptable to neglect the elastic effects and use a more simple model,
the rigid model or mass oscillation.
The model developed has shown to be computationally efficient and, at the same time, gives
numerical results well within the precision of the used data to describe the physical properties
of the fluid and the ducts, and the characteristics of the elements, most of them modeled using
lump parameters descriptions [3].

2. ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Analyses of most hydraulic transients in pressurized systems are carried out assuming one-
dimensional flow and are based on the continuity and momentum equations describing the general
behavior of fluids in a closed duct in terms of two variables, namely, H, piezometric head, and V,
fluid velocity. Celerity or wave propagation velocity a, friction f, and pipe diameter D, are
pipe parameters that can be considered constant with time, but are spatial functions. See, for
example, [4].
The continuity and momentum equations constitute a system of partial differential equations
of first order that can be written, using matrix notation, as

= B(V),

where

and B(V) =
--

It is a quasi-linear system and it is hyperbolic in the sense that matrix A(V) has real simple
eigenvalues for each V. In effect, the characteristic equation of A(V) is (V - X)2 - a2 = 0, with
roots X = V f a, which are real and different taking into account that a is at least one order of
magnitude bigger than V in pressurized systems.
Among the numerical techniques used to solve this system, it is worth quoting the method
of characteristics [5-71, the wave plan [8], finite difference methods [9], finite elements meth-
ods [lO,ll], boundary element methods [12], spectral methods [13], and pseudo-spectral meth-
ods (141.
Hydraulic Transients 803

Among these methods, the method of characteristics has shown to work better than the others.
Its popularity comes from the fact that it is computationally efficient and allows, better than the
others, capturing abrupt front waves, thus illustrating perfectly, wave propagation, It is also
important to mention the method developed by Rogalla and Wolters [15], a combination of
the methods of characteristics with finite difference schemes, which manage to get rid of the
computational limitations that the former exhibits. Also, the wave plan [8] is a very widespread
method, especially in the U.S.A., which is the foundation of the program SURGE.
In most practical cases V < a, so that the acceleration convective terms, y and F, are
negligible when compared with the other terms. Also, the slope term can be neglected. Thus,
system (1) can be written
CZ+L!?Z=(J
9 ax
(3)
dH fVlVl
$+gz+D=O.

It is common practice in hydraulic engineering to use the set of variables H and Q instead
of H and V. The relationship between flowrate Q and fluid velocity V is obviously Q = AV,
where A is the cross section of the pipe. Temporal variation of A and p (fluid density), which
are the essence of the elastic phenomenon, are taken into account following the fact that finite
celerity is considered. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that they are negligible when compared
with head and flowrate variations. Thus, assuming constant cross section for a reach of pipe, one
has 2 = (l/A) z and E = (l/A)%, and the system of equations can be written as

8Q
zfgaxt-=.
dH f&l&l o

2DA

After examining the behavior of this system of equations on the characteristics, it can be
observed that the change of variable defined by t = x - at and q= x + at, render the system into

(5)

In terms of the original variables t and x, and using the total differential, (5) can be written

$ (,+$I+ +s =o, onx-at=constant,


(6)
$(Q-$H)+%=o, onx+at=constant.

The total differential can be integrated in an exact way between two points of the same char-
acteristic curve, in contrast with the term of losses. After integration between points X and P
for the first equation and between Y and P for the second, using the notation

c a
.2!
. R
f
:= 2DA
a
one can obtain
Q(P) - QW + G(HO) - H(X)) + R xp &I&I dt = 0,
s
(8)
Q(P) - Q(Y) - GWF) - H(Y)) + R yp &I&I dt = 0.
/
804 J. IZQUIERDO AND P. L. IGLESIAS

The integration of the term of losses along the characteristic can be performed using any
numerical technique. The rectangle rule, for instance, gives

Q(P) - Q(X) + C,(H(P) - H(X)) + RQ(X)IQ (X)i(b - kc) = 0,


(9)
Q(P) - Q(Y) - C,(H(P) - H(Y)) + RQ(Y)IQV)l (b - h) = 01

which form an algebraic system of equations allowing us to obtain H(P) and Q(P) from the
respective values on X and Y.
This integration rule, which gives satisfactory results for typical engineering applications, is
the one used by DYAGATS. For small values of friction and not too small values of diameter (see
[16,17]), this rule is adequate if points X and P and Y and P a.re relatively close.
The equations in (9) can be rewritten in more a compact way as

Q(P) + GH(P) = C,,


(10)
Q(P) -&H(P) = G,

where
C, = Q(X) + CaH(X) - RQ(X)IQ(Wl (b - tx) 1
(11)
C, = Q(Y) - C&Y) - RQ(Y)IQ(Y)I CUP 7 TV).

It must be emphasized that the first equation in (10) is only valid along the positive charac-
teristics, while the second is valid only along the negative ones. The values of the constants C,
and C, are obtained from the conditions at points X and Y, respectively, and the temporal
increments between X and P and Y and P, respectively.
The simple algebraic system (10) is used to obtain the values of H and Q at point P. For Q,
one can obtain
Q(P) = ;?

Now, H(P) can be obtained from any of the equations in (10).


The need for both allowing the start of the different boundary conditions at precise instants
and systematizing and ordering calculations in order to obtain a set of shots of the system state at
specific times and at interesting points of the installation suggest the use of a fixed discretization
of the domain.
The discretization used consists of a rectangular grid covering the domain, with norm Ax in
the z-direction and At in the temporal axis. In other words, the aim is to obtain the solution at
points (x, t) for which x is a multiple of Ax and t a multiple of At.
Thus, the duct is divided into a set of reaches of length Ax. The end points of those reaches are
called calculation points. The initial point of the first reach and the end point of the last reach
are called boundary points. All the others are called inner points. When the convective terms of
the acceleration are neglected and the celerity can be considered constant, the characteristics are
straight and coincide with the diagonals of the rectangles determined by the grid. The scheme
just described allows us to start from an initial condition and evolve through the time making the
characteristics propagate the information from one instant t to the next t + At. Equations (10)
allow this progress by considering tp - tx = tp - tx = At in the expressions for C, and C,.
The stability of this calculation scheme is guaranteed by the so-called Courant-Friedrics-Lewy
condition, see [18]. In the case of linear systems, the stability is studied through the Fourier
expansion of the error. The CFL condition is given by

At& (12)
a

In the considered scheme, At is taken exactly equal to Ax/a, thus, it is clearly stable. When
considering the losses, the system is not linear and the stability condition cannot be established
Hydraulic Transients 805

analytically. Nevertheless, the stability condition can be shown to be valid for small values of
losses (see [16,17]), which is usual in pressurized water systems.
The behavior of the end points, as points belonging to the system, is defined in terms of rela-
tions, constitutive equations, involving piezometric head, flowrate, and perhaps other magnitudes
on them. Together with one positive characteristic for the downstream end and a positive one
for the upstream end, these relationships allow obtaining values of H and Q along the time at
these ends. Those relations are the boundary conditions.

3. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
So far, the case of a simple pipeline has been considered. When the system contains more than
one pipe with possibly different characteristics, the interior points are treated as explained above.
But the joints between them must be considered in a specific way. This has several implications.
For one thing, each joint must be precisely described; a joint may be as simple as a connection
of two or more pipes or as complex as a roundabout of several pipes with devices mounted at
the same point (valves, air valves, . . ). When several devices coincide at
one-way surge tanks,.
a joint, a number of alternatives allow the joint modelling. For example, procedures for every
device can be written. Afterwards, the devices are considered connected by short reaches or pipe.
This involves special problems since the presence of short reaches conditions in a dramatic way
the election of the At, since it is necessary to guarantee the stability through the CFL condition.
An alternative consists of writing joint models for every combination of devices. This would make
it necessary to write great amounts of code, which must be repeated in several places. These
inconveniences can be mitigated by means of what we call generalized boundary condition, which
is described below.
From a computational point of view, boundary conditions may be classified, depending on how
many nodal values are needed to describe its hydraulic behavior, as follows.
l Boundary elements depending upon the hydraulic condition in only one point, that is to
say, elements in which the flow through them is related to the piezometric head in only
one internal point of the system. We will call them parallel elements (PE). A valve or
orifice discharging to the atmosphere, a reservoir or a surge tank connected to one point
of the pipe, are examples of PEs. In a simplified way, its constitutive equation can be
described by a function of Qe,

HP) = JYQe), (13)

where Qe is the flow through the element and H denotes the piezometric head at the
insertion point P.
l Elements whose hydraulic behavior is defined by conditions in two points Pi and Ps.
In these elements, the flow depends upon the pressure gradient, AH,, between the two
points. We will note these elements as series elements (SE). Examples of SEs are booster
pumps and, in general, in-line elements, such as valves of several types. Their constitutive
equation can be given in a simplified way by

AH, = H(Pr) - H(Ps) = F(Q,). (14)

The equations describing the hydraulic behavior of any of these elements depend on its char-
acteristics and range from simple relations to systems of algebraic and/or differential equations.
Compressible flow models generally treat boundary conditions as isolated or localized cases of
incompressible flow and use lumped parameters to describe their behavior. These equations,
when considered together with the characteristics equations, allow a step-by-step solution of the
problem.
806 J. IZQUIERDOAND P. L. IGLESIAS

Figure 1. General boundary condition.

Analyzing, from practical grounds, the combinations of elements within a boundary condition,
one can see that a configuration made out of one or several SEs associated with possibly one
upstream PEs and another downstream PEs seems general enough.
Let us, then, consider a generic configuration of this type, as in Figure 1. Let A denote the
association (perhaps fictitious) of the SEs in the boundary condition and PEl and PE2 the
possible parallel elements linked, respectively, upstream and downstream to A.
We will use the following notation: Q = flowrate through A; if a rated value QT is available,
q = Q/Qr = re 1ative flowrate; Qer = flowrate in or out PEl; Qez = flowrate in or out PE2; Qr =
flowrate upstream the boundary; Qs = flowrate downstream the boundary; H, = piezometric
head upstream the boundary; Hd = piezometric head downstream the boundary. The following
equations are relevant to the boundary.
The characteristics equations (10 ), here written as

(15)

where
B1 := al B2 := 2, (16)
gA1
because ai = wave celerity; Ai = pipe cross-sectional area; g = acceleration due to gravity and C,
and C, are the terms conveying the information from nearby points from the previous time step,
according to the MOC. For the purpose of this paper, they are constant and are calculated every
time step. From (15), one can obtain

Hd - H, = BzQz + BrQl - (BY% + BIG',). (17)

The energy equation requires that the difference between the discharge head and the suction
head equals the difference between the dynamic head of the pump AH, and the total head loss
AH,, at the resistive components (check valve, delivery valves,. . . ) of A:

Hd-HU=AHp-AHe. (18)

The dynamic head of the pump can be represented using standard methods (see [4,6,7]) by

AH, = H,h = H, (a + q2) f(O), (19)

where H,. = rated pump head, a = relative pump speed, defined by Q! = w/w,., w = pump rota-
tional speed, and w,. = rated pump rotational speed, 8 = atan2(o/q) and f(G) the dimensionless
Suter curve for dimensionless head h [19].
The head loss across the SE A can be characterized by

AH, = K&I&I, (20)


Hydraulic Transients 807

where K, = joint head loss coefficient of the resistive components of A. After equating (17)
and (18) and substituting (19) and (20), we get

II, (a2 + q2) f(e) - B2Q2 - &QI - KQIQI + u = 0, (21)

where
U := B2C, + BIG,. (22)

The torque equation, ,6 = -Xg, where p = relative torque, ratio between torque J4 and rated
torque I&., and
2Iw,.
x := - (23)
i&At
because pc = relative torque at the beginning of the time step; cxo = relative rotational speed
at the beginning of the time step; I = inertia of the impeller, entrained fluid, and rotating
parts of the pump, and At = time step used in the MOC, after integration using a second-order
trapezoidal approximation, gives

p + PO= --A (a - ao) . (24)

The dimensionless Suter curve for the torque cp(B) allows us to write p as

P= (a2+ q2)cp(f3. (25)

Combining (23)-(25), one can obtain

xc2 + (a2+ q2)p(B) + v = 0,

where
v := po - )tao. (27)

The presence of the PEs forces us to consider additional equations. For instance, for the PEl,
we have the following.
The continuity equation
&I + Qel = Q. (28)
The constitutive equation of the PEl, of type (13), expressed as

Hr = w,(O) + a(Qel), (29)

where W,(O) is a constant depending on the values that certain magnitudes inherent to the PEl
take at the beginning of the time step and gr(Qer) represents the head loss at the junction of
the PEl and the pipeline. By combining the first equation in (15), representing the positive
characteristic, with (29), one can obtain

b&l + gl(Qel) + W, = 0, (30)

where
W, = W,(O) - BICp, (31)
and, taking into account the expression for the losses at the intake,

gl(Qcl) = K~QellQell, (32)

and equation (28), one has

BIQI + KI (Q- QI)IQ- QII + w, = o. (33)


808 J. IZQUIERDO AND P. L. IGLESIAS

An analogous treatment for the PE2 gives

B2Q2+K2(Q-Q2)IQ-Q2l+W2=0, (34)

where Bz and W2 are defined similarly.


After reordering, equations (21), (26), (33), and (34) can be written

Xa + (a2+ q2) p(8) t-v =o,


HT(a2+ q2)f(e) -Kc&I&I -&QI -&Q2 +U o, =
(35)
Kl(Q - QdlQ - &II f&Q1 +w, =o,
KdQ2-Q)IQ2-Ql -&Q2 +W, = o.

Equations (35), whose coefficients have been defined above, constitute a system of nonlinear
equations with unknowns a, q, or Q, Qi and Q2, that can easily be solved by the Newton-Raphson
method. The following facts should be observed.
First, the different terms in (35) are not equally relevant in any circumstance. For instance,
the first terms in the first two equations are exclusively for pumps. If the SE has no pump,
the first equation, as well as the second term of the second equation must be ignored. Also,
if there is no upstream PEl or PE2, the corresponding term of losses must not be considered.
Moreover, according to the current state of the present devices, some terms can shift between
being relevant or irrelevant. As an example, the first equation is not compatible with a pump
working on its operating point. The theoretical generality of the present model seems to vanish
after these considerations. Nevertheless, by defining and suitably managing state variables Aliij,
mimicking the real behavior of the different devices, (35) can be written

M1oXa + Ml1 (a2 + q2) (p(8) + Ml5V = 0,

M2oq + M21Hr M&cQlQI - ~23B1Q1- WdhQ2 + M25u


(a2 + q2) f(e) - = 0,
o (36)
M~o(Q-Q~)+M~~K~(Q-Q~)IQ-Q~I+M~~B~Q~+M35% = ,
M~o(Q~-Q)+M~~K~(Q~-Q)IQ~-QI-M~~B~Q~+M45w2 zz 0.

Along the transient, depending on the real state of each device, dictated by the current situation,
the different state variables are suitably defined and redefined as 0 or 1, thus, accommodating
equations (36) to the joint current state of the boundary condition. Also, the other parameters
in (36) are suitably accommodated. As an example, let us suppose that we have a pump with
check valve, fed by a reservoir, and protected by a pressure relief valve. Let us also suppose that
the transient evolves from the regime state and is triggered by a power failure. The successive
values of the state variables can be expressed as binary numbers of 16 digits corresponding to
the 16 coefficients Mij in (36), ordered from left to right (observe that Ml0 is always 1). Some
instances are as follows.

l Pump with (Y given: 01-010011-0010-1000


a Pump running down: 11-010011-0010-1000
l Open check valve: 00-001011-0010-1000
l Closed check valve: 00-100000-0010-0011
l Passive PE: 00-000011-0010-1000
l Active PE: 00-000011-0010-0111

More simple representations can be devised. But, these state variables that exhibit several
redundancies, are shown to be computationally efficient. Moreover, these redundancies can be
intelligently used to check the correctness of certain states. The state numbers of the different
Hydraulic Transients 809

devices within the boundary condition are logically operated in order to produce the joint state
number that fully describes the ensemble and tailors system (36) to the current scenario.
Second, functions f(e) and (p(8), that are relevant only in the presence of a pump, may be
handled under any of the existing ways of working with differentiable expressions for functions
given by points. Specifically, we claim that the use of periodic cubic splines is a good choice. Given
a digitization of these curves, a simple routine allows obtaining a straightforward differentiable
representation that can be readily used in the Newton-Raphson algorithm. Given any value of
the specific speed both the values of the function and its derivative are readily available. In
addition, information provided by manufacturers, if available, can be suitably threaded with
the digitization of the Suter curves, thus, plausibly producing more real results. In case of a
boundary condition without pump, coefficients Mii and Mzl are set to zero, making irrelevant
its corresponding terms in the first two equations.
Third, three nonexisting terms in (35) have been added in (36) and endowed with specific state
variables, namely Msc, Mso, and MAO. The purpose-observe they are linear-is clear. They
allow for direct assignment to variables q, &I, and/or Q2, depending on the current state of the
ensemble, turning into identities their corresponding equations. For example, if a check valve
is closed, the second equation will have coefficients shifted to 100000, thus, it will force q = 0,
which translates correctly the real behavior of the boundary. Similarly, if a PE is inactive or,
equivalently, there is no flow in or out of it, Qi must equal Q. This is achieved by shifting
the corresponding equation coefficients to 1000. Observe that the responsibility of making these
assignments could be left to the quadratic terms (the loss terms). Nevertheless, it would prevent
the use of Newton-Raphson method. In effect, the Jacobian would have determinant zero and, as
a consequence, it would not be locally inversible, which is a necessary condition for the Newton-
Raphson method.
Finally, all the above state variables are not a burden for the procedure. Observe that when
an equation is trivialized-with the purpose of assigning directly a value to certain variable-it
is linearized as well. It is a well-known fact that the Newton-Raphson method gives the solution
after the first iteration when applied to a linear system. It can be checked that, in any case,
no more than three iterations are needed and, frequently, the solution is obtained after the first
iteration.
The presence of certain PEs, such as air vessels, forces some extra elaboration. Let us consider
a vertical air vessel as an example of PEl. In this case, equation (29) can be obtained as follows.
First, the equation relating the flow in or out of the vessel, Qei to the elevation of the water in
its interior, zi, Si being the vessel cross-sectional area,

Qel = -S$

is integrated by means of the rectangle rule to obtain an approximated value for zi as a function
of zic and QelO, values of zi and Qei at the beginning of the time step

Then, the geometrical characteristics of the vessel allow for the calculation of the volume of
air within the vessel
Vi = si (hvi - 21) ) ) (39)
where hvl is the vessel height.
The evolution of the air within the vessel, assuming polytropic exponent 72, gives the absolute
pressure of the air

(40)
810 J. IZQUIERDO AND P. L. IGLESIAS

Suffix 1R indicates regime values.


The constitutive equation can be written

HI = z + hbl + zl + F- h; + gl(Qel), (41)

where t = elevation of the insertion point, hbl = distance from the vessel base to the axis of
the pipe, y = water specific weight, ht = absolute atmospheric pressure. The first terms in this
expression are W,(O) in (31). Solving system (35) allows one to obtain a value for Qel that is
copied into Qe10 and used to iterate in (38). When the difference between Qel and Qe10 is smaller
than certain tolerance, the final variables assignment is performed.

Diamekr = 25omm Diameter = 25Omm


Thickness = 2Omm Thickness = 201nm
Roughness = 0.05mm Roughness = 0.05mm
Inic.Elev. = Om Inic.Elev. = 5m
Final Elev. = 5m Final Elev. = 30m
Wave speed= 919m/s Wave speed= 9 19m/s

Figure 2. Test installation.

0-l
0 2 4 6 a 10 12
time (5)

Figure 3. Comparison of results.


Hydraulic Transients 811

4. MODEL VALIDATION
Since the intent of this approach is to improve the management of transient simulation models
instead of improving their capability to predict measured results from field tests, we will validate
it by comparing its performance with a universally validated code. We will choose the SURGE5
package. It is worth noting here that the interpolation techniques used in both codes are different.
As mentioned above, we use tw~dimensional periodic cubic splines to interpolate on the Suter
curves, which allow merging the manufacturer data with the nondimensional data provided by
the Suter curves.
The simple installation in Figure 2 has been used to compare the results. Superimposed graphs
of the pressure downstream from the pump, after a power failure, given by both approaches are
shown in Figure 3. The close agreement between both models can be observed. From the authors
viewpoint, it constitutes a fair validation of the model presented in this paper. Other scenarios
have also been tested and the deviations between both models have always been negligible from
an engineering point of view.

5. CONCLUSION
The mathematical modelling used to develop a computer program, DYAGATS, to simulate
hydraulic transients in a simple system has been described. For one thing, use is made of the
so-called elastic model-also known as waterhammer-to model the behavior of the fluid within
the pipes. For another, a generalized treatment of the equations describing a boundary condition
in transient analysis has been presented. It enables the simulation of many reasonable combina-
tions of elements within a pumping station and other settings as well, by using a single routine
and one set of state data suitably maintained. In addition, the two-dimensional-splines-based in-
terpolation technique it uses allows us to incorporate manufacturers data to dimensionless data
provided by Suter curves. This helps produce more realistic results.
The generalized boundary condition may be implemented in a simple and inexpensive way in
transient simulation packages, thus, avoiding the need for short reaches, which naturally make a
model highly resources-consuming.
Finally, the generalized boundary condition has been tested with the SURGE approach and
has shown to be in good agreement with this codes results.

REFERENCES

1. J. Izquierdo, P.L. Iglesias and E. Cabrera, DYAGATS-Simulacidn Mediante Ordenador Personal de Ran-
sitar&s en Sistemas Samples, VII ~nwn~ro Na~~o~a~ de Saneumiento Basico, Coimbra, Portugal, (1996).
2. J. Abreu, E. Cabrera, J. Izquierdo and J. Garcia-Serra, Fiow modeling in pressurized systems revisited,
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 125 (111, 1154-1169 (1999).
3. J. Izquierdo, P.L. Iglesias and E. Cabrera, DYAGATS-Simulacidn Mediante Ordenador Personal de ?+an-
sitorios en Sistemas Simples. Tests y Ejemplos, VII Encontro National de Saneamiento Basico, Coimbra,
Portugal, ( 1996).
4. J. Abreu, R. Guarga and J. Izquierdo, Editors, ~a~s~~a~os 31 Qscilaciones en Wistemas ~~dr~u~~~os a
Presidn, Unadad Docente Mecdnica de Fluidos, U.P.V., Valencia, Spain, (1995).
5. G. Evangelisti, Waterhammer analysis by the method ofcharasteristics, LEnergia Elettrica 10 (12), 673-692,
759-770, 839-858 (1969).
6. H.M. Chaudhry, Applied Hydraulic nunsients, VanNostrand Reinhold, New York, (1987).
7. E.B. Wylie and V.L. Streeter, Fluid ~an~~en~s in Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, (1993).
8. D.J. Wood, R.G. Dorsch and C. Lightener, Wave plan analysis of unsteady flow in closed conduits, Pruc.
ASCE J. Hyd. Div. 92 (HT2), 83-110 (1965).
9. H.M. Chaudhry, Numerical solution of transient-flow equations, In Proc. Hydraulic Specialty Conf. Amer.
Sot. Civ. Engrs., pp. 663-690, (1983).
10. A.J. Baker, Finite Element Computational Fluid mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, (1983).
11. C.S. Watt, Application of finite element method to unsteady flow problems, Ph.D. Thesis, Sunderland
Polytechnic (1975).
12. J.A. Liggett, The boundary element method-Some fluid applications, In Multidimensional Fluid Transients,
(Edited by H.M. Chaudhry and C.S. Martin), pp. 1-8, Amer. Sot. Mech. Engrs., (1984).
812 J. IZQUIERDO AND P. L. IGLESIAS

13. D. Gottlieb and S.A. Orszag, Theory of spectral methods for mixed initial-boundary value problems, Parts I
and II, ICASE, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA (1977).
14. D. Gottlieb, M.Y. Hussaini and S.A. Orzag, Theory and applications of spectral methods, In Spectral
Methods for Partial Di#erential Equations, (Edited by R.G. Voigt, D. Gottlieb and M.Y. Hussaini), SIAM,
Philadelphia, PA, (1984).
15. B.V. Rogalla and A. Wolters, Slow transients in closed conduit flow, Part I. Numerical methods, NATO
Advanced Study Institute, Washington State University, Pullman, WA (1993).
16. H.M. Chaudhry and M.B. Holloway, Stability of method of characteristics, In Proc. Amer. Sot. Civil Engrs.
Hydraulics Division Specialty Conf., pp. 216-220, (1984).
17. M.B. Holloway and H.M. Chaudhry, Stability and accuracy of waterhammer analysis, Advances in Water
Resources 8, 121-128 (1985).
18. R.K. Courant, K. Friedrichs and H. Lewy, uber die partieller differenzen-Glichungen der mathematischen
Physik, Math. Ann. 100, 32-74 (1928).
19. M. Marchal, G. Flesh and P. Suter, The calculation of waterhammer problems by means of digital computer,
In Proc. International Symposium on Waterhammer in Pumped Stomge Projects, ASME, pp. 168-188,
(1965).

You might also like