0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Experimental Validation of Existing Numerical Models for the Interaction of Fluid Transients With In-Line Air Pockets

[+] Author and Article Information
Jane Alexander

Department of Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering,
University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch 8020, New Zealand
e-mail: jane.alexander@pg.canterbury.ac.nz

Pedro J. Lee, Mark Davidson

Professor
Department of Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering,
University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch 8020, New Zealand

Huan-Feng Duan

Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hung Hom,
Kowloon 999077, Hong Kong

Zhao Li

Department of Civil and Natural
Resources Engineering,
University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch 8020, New Zealand

Ross Murch

Professor
Department of Electronic and
Computer Engineering,
Hong Kong University of Science
and Technology,
Clear Water Bay,
Kowloon 999077, Hong Kong

Silvia Meniconi

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Ambientale,
Universitá degli Studi di Perugia,
Perugia 06123, Italy

Bruno Brunone

Professor
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile Ambientale,
Universitá degli Studi di Perugia,
Perugia 06123, Italy

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received October 17, 2018; final manuscript received May 9, 2019; published online June 7, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Pierre E. Sullivan.

J. Fluids Eng 141(12), 121101 (Jun 07, 2019) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-18-1695; doi: 10.1115/1.4043776 History: Received October 17, 2018; Revised May 09, 2019

Entrapped air in pipeline systems can compromise the operation of the system by blocking flow and raising pumping costs. Fluid transients are a potential tool for characterizing entrapped air pockets, and a numerical model which is able to accurately predict transient pressures for a given air volume represents an asset to the diagnostic process. This paper presents a detailed study on our current capability for modeling and predicting the dynamics of an inline air pocket, and is one of a series of articles within a broader context on air pocket dynamics. This paper presents an assessment of the accuracy of the variable wave speed and accumulator models for modeling air pockets. The variable wave speed model was found to be unstable for the given conditions, while the accumulator model is affected by amplitude and time-delay errors. The time-delay error could be partially overcome by combining the two models.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Young, F. R. , 1999, Cavitation, World Scientific, Singapore.
Lauchlan, C. , Escarameia, M. , May, R. , Burrows, R. , and Gahan, C. , 2005, “ Air in Pipelines,” HR Wallingford, Oxford, UK, Report No. SR649.
Wylie, E. B. , Streeter, V. L. , and Suo, L. , 1993, Fluid Transients in Systems, Vol. 1, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pearsall, I. , 1965, “ Paper 2: The Velocity of Water Hammer Waves,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 180(5), pp. 12–20.
Falconer, R. , Banks, W. , and Ellis, J. , 1983, “ Surge Pressures at Riding Mill Pumping Station: Actual Values and Theoretical Predictions,” Fourth International Conference on Pressure Surges, Bath, UK, Sept. 21, pp. 21–23.
Fox, J. , 1972, “ Pressure Transients in Pipe Networks—A Computer Solution,” First International Conference on Pressure Surges, Bedford, UK, Sept. 6--8, pp. 68–75.
Wylie, E. , 1980, “ Free Air in Liquid Transient Flow,” Third International Conference on Pressure Surges, Canterbury, UK, Mar. 25--27, pp. 27–42.
Lee, T. , 1991, “ Numerical Computation of Fluid Pressure Transients in Pumping Installations With Air Entrainment,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, 12(8), pp. 747–763. [CrossRef]
Provoost, G. , 1976, “ Investigation Into Cavitation in a Prototype Pipeline Caused by Water Hammer,” Second International Conference on Pressure Surges, London, Sept. 22--24, pp. 13--29.
Lee, N. , and Martin, C. , 1999, “ Experimental and Analytical Investigation of Entrapped Air in a Horizontal Pipe,” Third ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San Francisco, CA, July 18--23, pp. 18–23.
Lee, N. H. , 2005, “ Effect of Pressurization and Expulsion of Entrapped Air in Pipelines,” Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
Zhou, L. , Liu, D. , Karney, B. , and Zhang, Q. , 2011, “ Influence of Entrapped Air Pockets on Hydraulic Transients in Water Pipelines,” J. Hydraul. Eng., 137(12), pp. 1686–1692. [CrossRef]
Kim, S. H. , 2008, “ Impulse Response Method for Pipeline Systems Equipped With Water Hammer Protection Devices,” J. Hydraul. Eng., 134(7), pp. 961–969. [CrossRef]
Bergant, A. , Tijsseling, A. , Kim, Y.-I. , Karadžić, U. , Zhou, L. , Lambert, M. F. , and Simpson, A. R. , 2018, “ Unsteady Pressures Influenced by Trapped Air Pockets in Water-Filled Pipelines,” Strojniski Vestnik/J. Mech. Eng., 64(9), pp. 501–502.
Alexander, J. , Lee, P. J. , Davidson, M. , Li, Z. , Murch, R. , Duan, H.-F. , Meniconi, S. , and Brunone, B. , 2019, “ Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Interaction of Fluid Transients With an In-Line Air Blockage,” under review).
Burrows, R. , and Qiu, D. , 1995, “ Effect of Air Pockets on Pipeline Surge Pressure,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Marit. Energy, 112(4), pp. 349–361. [CrossRef]
Chaiko, M. , and Brinckman, K. , 2002, “ Models for Analysis of Water Hammer in Piping With Entrapped Air,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124(1), pp. 194–204. [CrossRef]
Zielke, W. , 1968, “ Frequency-Dependent Friction in Transient Pipe Flow,” ASME J. Basic Eng., 90(1), pp. 109–115. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Diagram of experimental setup

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Approximate air pocket dimensions within the pipe

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental and modeled transient pressure traces measured upstream ofthe air pocket at PT2 at 3.0 bar for (a) Vair*=0.007%, (b) Vair*=0.031%, and (c) Vair*=0.067%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Experimental and modeled transient pressure traces measured downstream of the air pocket at PT3 at 3.0 bar for (a) Vair*=0.007%, (b) Vair*=0.031%, and (c) Vair*=0.067%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Experimental and modeled transient pressure traces measured upstream of the air pocket at PT2 at 3.0 bar for (a) Vair*=0.007%, (b) Vair*=0.031%, and (c) Vair*=0.067%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Experimental and modeled transient pressure traces measured downstream of the air pocket at PT3 at 3.0 bar for (a) Vair*=0.007%, (b) Vair*=0.031%, and (c) Vair*=0.067%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure traces and pressure comparisons at the transient generation point, PT1, for three common half period cases: (a) model overestimates amplitude and pulses coincide, (b) model overestimates amplitude and pulses partially overlap, and (c) model overestimates amplitude and pulses do not overlap

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Calculated amplitude errors for the first three half periods of each modeling approach at 1.0 bar system pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Calculated amplitude errors for the first three half periods of each modeling approach at 2.0 bar system pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Calculated time-delay errors for the first three half periods of each modeling approach at 2.0 bar system pressure

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In