0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Experimental Assessment of Water Hammer-Induced Column Separation in Oil-Hydraulic Pipe Flow

[+] Author and Article Information
Marcus Jansson

Department of Management and Engineering,
Linköping University,
Linköping 58183, Sweden;
Underground Rock Excavation,
Epiroc Rock Drills AB,
Örebro 70225, Sweden
e-mail: marcus.jansson@liu.se

Magnus Andersson, Matts Karlsson

Department of Management and Engineering,
Linköping University,
Linköping 58183, Sweden

Maria Pettersson

Underground Rock Excavation,
Epiroc Rock Drills AB,
Örebro 70225, Sweden

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 31, 2018; final manuscript received May 17, 2019; published online June 20, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Pierre E. Sullivan.

J. Fluids Eng 141(10), 101107 (Jun 20, 2019) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-18-1521; doi: 10.1115/1.4043854 History: Received July 31, 2018; Revised May 17, 2019

Cavitation erosion through water hammer and column separation is a major concern in hydraulic applications such as percussive rock drilling. Cavitation aspects must be considered both in early and late design stages, which require deep knowledge and tools for prediction. In this study, an oil-hydraulic test equipment for water hammer assessment was designed using state-of-the-art simulation tools. Several tests were performed, with and without column separation, showing good repeatability on measured pressures. At higher flow rates, column separation was the dominating feature and several high-pressure peaks with subsequent time delay reduction could be observed. These patterns were affected by the oil temperature, with most substantial changes at lower temperature ranges (<32 °C). Standard transmission line simulations managed to predict the water hammer, but as expected not the column separation, which is the theme of future work using this setup.

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

References

Chaudhry, M. H. , 1979, Applied Hydraulic Transients. Report, Springer, New York.
Wylie, E. B. , and Streeter, V. L. , 1978, Fluid Transients, McGraw-Hill International Book, New York, p. 401.
Knapp, R. T. , Daily, J. W. , and Hammitt, F. G. , 1970, Cavitation, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Arndt, R. E. , 1981, “ Cavitation in Fluid Machinery and Hydraulic Structures,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 13(1), pp. 273–326. [CrossRef]
Li, S. , 2000, Cavitation of Hydraulic Machinery, Vol. 1, World Scientific, Imperial College Press, London.
Koivula, T. , 2000, “ On Cavitation in Fluid Power,” First FPNI-Ph.D. Symposium, Hamburg, Germany, Sept. 20–22, pp. 371–382.
Bonin, C. , 1960, “ Water-Hammer Damage to Oigawa Power Station,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 82(2), pp. 111–119. [CrossRef]
List, E. , Burnam, J. , Solbrig, R. , and Hogatt, J. , 1999, “ Vapor Cavity Formation and Collapse: Field Evidence for Major Pipeline Damage,” Third ASME/JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, San Francisco, CA, July 18–23, pp. 1–10.
Bergant, A. , Simpson, A. R. , and Tijsseling, A. S. , 2006, “ Water Hammer With Column Separation: A Historical Review,” J. Fluids Struct., 22(2), pp. 135–171. [CrossRef]
Brennen, C. E. , 2011, “ An Introduction to Cavitation Fundamentals,” WIMRC FORUM 2011—Cavitation: Turbomachinery Medical Applications, Coventry, UK, July 4–6.
Brennen, C. E. , 2013, Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Adamkowski, A. , and Lewandowski, M. , 2009, “ A New Method for Numerical Prediction of Liquid Column Separation Accompanying Hydraulic Transients in Pipelines,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 131(7), p. 071302. [CrossRef]
Adamkowski, A. , and Lewandowski, M. , 2012, “ Investigation of Hydraulic Transients in a Pipeline With Column Separation,” J. Hydraul. Eng., 138(11), pp. 935–944. [CrossRef]
Kim, K.-H. , Chahine, G. , Franc, J.-P. , and Karimi, A. , 2014, Advanced Experimental and Numerical Techniques for Cavitation Erosion Prediction, Vol. 106, Springer, New York.
Joukowsky, N. , 1900, ÜBer den Hydraulischen Stoss in Wasserleitungsrohren, Acadmie Impriale Des Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia.
Soares, A. K. , Covas, D. I. C. , and Carriço, N. J. G. , 2012, “ Transient Vaporous Cavitation in Viscoelastic Pipes,” J. Hydraul. Res., 50(2), pp. 228–235. [CrossRef]
Nikpour, M. , Nazemi, A. , Dalir, A. H. , Shoja, F. , and Varjavand, P. , 2014, “ Experimental and Numerical Simulation of Water Hammer,” Arabian J. Sci. Eng., 39(4), pp. 2669–2675. [CrossRef]
Larsson, J. , 2002, “User's Guide to Hopsan: An Integrated Simulation Environment,” Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Eriksson, B. , Nordin, P. , and Krus, P. , 2010, “ Hopsan NG, A C++ Implementation Using the TLM Simulation Technique,” Conference on Simulation and Modelling (SIMS), Oulu, Finland Oct. 14–15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230688277_Hopsan_NG_A_C_Implementation_using_the_TLM_Simulation_Technique
Krus, P. , 2011, “ Robust Modelling Using Bi-Lateral Delay Lines for High Speed Simulation of Complex Systems,” International Symposium on Dynamic Problems of Mechanics, São Paulo, Brazil, Mar. 13–18.
Andersson, J. , Krus, P. , Nilsson, K. , and Storck, K. , 1999, “ Modelling and Simulation of Heat Generation in Electro-Hydrostatic Actuation Systems,” Forth JHPS International Symposium on Fluid Power, Tokyo, Japan, Nov. 15–17, pp. 537–542.
Bær, K. , Ericson, L. , and Krus, P. , 2013, “ Modeling of a Series Hybrid Hydraulic Drivetrain for a Light-Duty Vehicle in Hopsan,” 13th Scandinavian International Conference on Fluid Power (SICFP), Linköping, Sweden, June 3–5, pp. 107–112. http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/092/011/ecp13092011.pdf
Fatjo, G. G.-A. , 2016, “ New Dimensionless Number to Predict Cavitation in Accelerated Fluid,” Int. J. Comput. Methods Exp. Meas., 4(4), pp. 484–492.
Shell, 1967, “Technical Data on Shell Tellus Oils,” Vol. 1, Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., The Hague, The Netherlands.
Shell, 2015, “ Shell Tellus S2 V 46 Safety Data Sheet,” Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., The Hague, The Netherlands.
Willingham, C. B. , Taylor, W. , Pignocco, J. M. , and Rossini, F. , 1945, “ Vapor Pressures and Boiling Points of Some Paraffin, Alkylcyclopentane, Alkylcyclohexane, and Alkylbenzene Hydrocarbons,” J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand., 35(3), pp. 219–244. [CrossRef]
Kojima, E. , Shinada, M. , and Shindo, K. , 1984, “ Fluid Transient Phenomena Accompanied With Column Separation in Fluid Power Pipeline: 1st Report, on the Horizontal Pipeline Downstream of a Valve Instantaneously Closed,” Bull. JSME, 27(233), pp. 2421–2429. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Cavitation in hydraulic rock drills: (a) Section of hydraulic percussive rock drill. The piston (red) movement is controlled by the valve (blue) and vice versa. The hydraulic force accelerates the piston that hits the shank, the valve shifts, and the piston movement is reversed. At the time the piston is back to its initial position, the valve has shifted again, and the piston is accelerated towards the shank. The kinetic energy in the piston is transferred to the shank and the drill string as elastic energy. The elastic wave propagates through the drill string and bit (not shown) where the energy is used to crush the rock. Both piston and valve will be exposed to alternating high- and low pressures; transients that may cause cavitation and damage material. (b)–(d) Typical sites of cavitation induced erosion in hydraulic percussive rock drill. Green arrows indicate areas of severe material damage. (b) Axisymmetrical erosion in the vicinity of the piston land. The piston is polished, and the grainy areas have been exposed to cavitation. (c) Deep pits of erosive damage in the piston guide. (d) Localized erosion in the low-pressure regions of the valve housing.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Conceptual design of the ideal water hammer. A steady flow will pass through the pipe (from left to right). At a given time, the upstream valve will close the pipe and the following transient effects in the pipe will be recorded by piezoelectric pressure sensors (P1-P3). At the downstream side of the pipe, the pressure wave is reflected in a volume. After the instant closing of an upstream valve, pressure transient will manifest along the pipe, here illustrated from water hammer theory (P1-P3, pressure signals). Pressure and time are normalized with the initial pressure and the characteristic time delay of the pipe, respectively. At the first pressure sensor (P1), the pressure drop can be seen instantaneously. For the downstream sensors (P2 and P3) a time delay can be seen. The opposite is observed for the returning pressure wave, where downstream sensors are affected first. Each low-pressure wave will be followed by a high-pressure wave, and vice versa.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Test equipment section: Piezoelectric sensors (P1-P3) were positioned in the center (P2) and at each end (P1 and P3) of the investigated 755 mm steel pipe. The valve is hydraulically controlled with an external control valve. The orifice was used to regulate the flow rate through the system. Not shown are temperature sensor (in first tank), flow meter (at inlet hose), pressure sensors in first, second and third tank.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Valve closing characteristics: (a)–(c) Mean valve movement during closing for 2 to 5 mm orifice over 8 measurements (STD < 2% of stroke length). The dash-line highlights when the valve enters the pipe. (a) Time vs. position: increased flow rate reduced the closing time of the valve. The differences were more distinguishable in the later stage of valve closing. (b) Time vs. velocity: the slow-down of the valve in the 2 mm orifice configuration was distinct. Although the valve movements in the 3–5 mm configurations were similar, an increase in flow rate resulted in a higher maximum valve velocity. (c) Position vs. velocity: for faster closing valves (3–5 mm), the maximum valve speed was achieved when the valve entered the pipe. For the 2 mm orifice, the slow-down was more prominent and peaked prematurely compared to the other cases.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Pressure response at valve closing. (a)–(d) Piezoelectric pressure signals (P1-P3, Fig. 4) and corresponding results from the TLM simulations at four different flow rates (2–5 mm orifice). Data shows the mean (black) and standard deviation (shaded area) over eight measurements, together with TLM results (red). The closing valve enters the pipe at 5 ms (dashed line). (a) Low flow rate: system without cavitation and pure water hammer with extensive damping. The characteristics are well captured by the TLM. (b) Intermediate flow rate: short-duration pressure peaks suggest cavitation initiation. The TLM still captures the overall characteristics but fail to predict the short-duration pressure peaks. (c), (d) High flow rate: large pressure spikes and reduced water hammer effects indicates substantial cavitation. The simulations predict the pressure response until cavitation, whereafter no resemblance can be noticed against experiments.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Oil temperature and pipe angular position. (a) Piezoelectric pressure signals (Fig. 4, P1) at high flow rate (4mm orifice) and three different oil temperatures. Higher oil temperature tends to delay cavitation onset (time-to-collapse, 1st: T1, 2nd: T2 and 3rd: T3) and reduce the pressure amplitude at collapse (1st: A1, 2nd: A2 and 3rd: A3). The time was estimated from moment of valve closing (dashed line). (b), (c) Oil temperature versus collapse amplitude and time delay at P1 for the: 1st (x), 2nd (o) and 3rd (+) collapse, assessed according to (a). Strongest dependencies can be seen for lower temperatures (< 32 °C), resulting in higher amplitudes (b) with shorter time to collapse (c), while higher oil temperature ranges were less sensitive. Colors represent different rotation angles of the pipe (green = 0°, cyan = 60°, magenta = 120°, black = 180°). The rotation angle affects neither collapse amplitude or time, provided the same oil temperature.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Transmission Line Model. The test equipment was operated by a control valve (a), which was fed by a variable displacement pump that kept a constant operating pressure. The control valve engages with the valve (b) to stop the pipe flow. The steady flow through the pipe (c) was provided by a variable displacement pump. The system pressure was constant at 60 bar and the flow rate was regulated by the orifice diameter.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Test setup. The upstream tank with the valve is located to the left and the two downstream tanks, separated by an orifice, to the right. Piezoelectric pressure sensors are positioned along the pipe (middle).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Silicon pressure sensors and thermoelement. (a) The oil pressure was measured in the tank upstream the pipe with a silicon pressure sensor. The oil temperature was measured with a thermoelement and a multimeter. (b) The pressure was measured both upstream and downstream of the orifice with silicon pressure sensors.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Laser setup. (a) The two lasers were placed approximately 25 cm from the valve. (b) One laser measured the valve movement while another laser measured any potential movement of the valve housing.

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