PRASHANTH R HANMAI AHGARI

PROF. SI LVA ARAYA WALTER

MOHAMMED ELKHOLY
PROF. M HANI F CHAUDHRY

Instantaneous Acceleration based
model coefficients using genetic
algorithms
Steady State Friction Formula

Darcy Weisbach Equation



f = Darcy friction factor. f is calculated using formula
depends on flow is

laminar,
transition between laminar and turbulent flow,
fully turbulent flow in smooth pipes,
fully turbulent flow in rough pipes
g
V
D
L
f h
f
2
. .
2
=
Steady state friction formula
Haaland equation (1983) is used to determine
friction factor f for full flowing circular pipe.




The basic governing equations for one dimensional
unsteady pipe liquid flow are

(
(
(

+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
Re
9 . 6
7 . 3
log 8 . 1
1
11 . 1
10
D
f
c
g
V
D
f J J
t
V
g x
H
x
V
g
a
t
H
2
.
1
. ; 0
1
; 0
2 2
= = +
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
+
c
c
Steady state friction formula
MOC implementation of water hammer equations
PCE:

NCE:


p a p p
H C C Q =
p a n p
H C C Q + =
DA
f
R
a
gA
C
Q tQ R H
a
gA
Q C
Q tQ R H
a
gA
Q C
a
B B B B n
A A A A p
2
; = =
A =
A + =
Limitations of Steady state friction formula
Traditionally steady friction terms are incorporated
in water hammer equations. This assumption is
satisfactory only for slow transients

Experimental validation of steady friction models for
rapid transients shown significant discrepancies in
dissipation and phase shift of the computed
pressures as compared to the measurements
Limitations of Steady state friction formula
Figure from Dr Silva thesis
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Time (s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
m
)


computed
experimental

Other unsteady friction models


1. Convolution based models (Zilke, 1968, Vardy
and Hwang, 1991, Vardy and Brown 2004, 2007)
2. Two dimensional models (Silva-Araya and
Chaudhry (1997), Pezzinga, 1999)

However these methods are computationally
intensive and not been extended beyond simple
pipe systems.

Instantaneous acceleration based models
Looking for simplicity and computational efficiency,
much effort has been put into a third category,
named Instantaneous Acceleration Based models

IAB models ( Brunone et al. 1991, Ramos et al. 2003)

MIAB models (Vitkovsky et al. 2006)

Instantaneous acceleration based models

Head losses per unit length due to steady state and
unsteady state friction can be written as



Limitations
Above eq. does not produce acceptable results when the
transient is caused by a sudden closure of an upstream
valve.
Vtkovsk et al. (2006) showed that Brunones IAB model
included in the exact MOC produces no attenuation and
decreases the wave speed by a factor of (1+k).
|
.
|

\
|
c
c

c
c
=
+ =
x
V
a
t
V
g
k
J
J J J
U
U S
MIAB model (Vitkovsky 2006)




Limitations
Authors demonstrated that, when the exact MOC
solution is used, the model fails to reproduce
damping during valve opening events.
Interpolation must be used in any case due to
changes in the wave speed introduced by the
additional terms.
|
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
x
V
a
x
V
V sign
t
V
g
k
J
U
IAB model using two coefficients
The IAB model was given more flexibility to
reproduce damping during transient events by adding
a second coefficient to the unsteady friction term
(Vtkovsky et al., 2001).

Laurerio and Ramos (2003) selected this model for
testing dissipative effects in polyethylene (HDPE)
pipes.
IAB model using two coefficients
The two coefficient model is



where K
ut
and K
ux
are two decay coefficients; related to
the local and convective accelerations respectively.

It has been verified numerically that the term K
ut
V/t
affects the phase shift of transient pressure waves and
K
ux
V/x the damping. (Ramos et al. 2003).

( )
|
.
|

\
|
c
c
+
c
c
=
x
V
a V K
t
V
K
g
k
J
ux ut U
sin
Objectives of the present research
The number of parameters could be one or two
depending on the chosen model.
The empirical coefficients must be supplied for
application of the IAB unsteady friction models.
Three formulas have been proposed to estimate the
coefficient for one-parameter formulations;
the first was proposed by Vardy and Hwang (1995,
1996), the second by Ghidaoui et al., 2001; and, the
third by Bouazza and Brunelle (2004).
Presently the only way to obtain the parameters for
two-coefficient models is by trial and error.


Objectives of the present research
This paper presents a new methodology for
estimation of the decay coefficients for IAB models
using Genetic Algorithms.

The adjustment requires a time history of pressure
oscillations which could be obtained experimentally
or by using more advanced unsteady friction models.

The results are compared with the available
formulas.

Two decay coefficient model
Final MOC equations
PCE:



NCE:

( )( ) ( )
u
u u
ux
p
p
j i j i j i ut j i j i ux j i ux p p
j i j i j i a j i p
j i a p j i
K
C
C
Q Q Q sign K Q Q K Q K C C
Q RQ H C Q C
H C C Q
+
=
+ =
+ =
=


1
1
'
"
1 , 1 1 , 1 , 1 2 , 1 1 , 1 1 , 1
'
1 , 1 1 , 1 1 , 1 1 , 1
,
' "
,
( )( ) ( )
a
gA
C
K
C
C
K
C
C
Q Q Q sign K Q Q K Q K C C
Q RQ H C Q C
H C C Q
a
ux
a
a
ux
n
n
j i j i j i ut j i j i ux j i ux n n
j i j i j i a j i n
j i a n j i
=
+
=
+
=
+ =
=
+ =
+ + + +
+ + + +
;
1
;
1
1
'
'
"
1 , 1 1 , 1 , 1 2 , 1 1 , 1 1 ,
'
1 , 1 1 , 1 1 , 1 1 , 1
,
' "
,
u u
u u
Genetic algorithms
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search technique used in
computing to find exact or approximate solutions to
optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms are
categorized as global search heuristics.

The GA is a random search algorithm based on the
concept of natural selection inherent in natural genetics,
presents a robust method for search for the optimum
solution to the complex problems.

The artificial survival of better solution in GA search
technique is achieved with genetic operators: inheritance,
mutation, selection and crossover based on evolutionary
biology.
NRMSD (Normalized root mean square deviation)
The objective of the GA is usually formulated to minimize
the fitness function, which may be achieved by the
following equation.



NRMSD is the RMSD divided by the range of measured
values.

RMSD is a frequently-used measure of the differences
between values predicted by a model and the values
actually measured from the thing being modeled.
( )
*
min
*
max
1
2
*
H H
H H
NRSMD
N i
i
i i

=

=
=
Results
Lab experiment
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Time (s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
m
)


computed
experimental
Results
Experimental data obtained from Pezzinga
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Time (s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
m
)


computed
experimental
Results
Slow closure (Dr. Silva thesis)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
at Valve
Time (s)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
m
)


computed
experimental
Conclusions
1. In Ramos method K
ut
effects phase and shape of the
oscillation and K
ux
effects only damping.

2. Ramos two coefficient method gives better comparison
than the Vitkovsky single coefficient method except for
PVC pipelines.

3. In most of the cases K
ux
> K
ut
but in few cases K
ut
> K
ux
.

4. In majority of cases K
ux
5 K
ut



References
H. Prashanth Reddy, SilvaAraya, W. F., and
Chaudhry, M. H., (2012) Estimation of Decay
Coefficients for Unsteady Friction for Instantaneous
Acceleration Based Models, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, ASCE, 138(3), 260271.