Second-Order Accurate Explicit

iVi. H. Chaudhry
Department of Civil
Finite-Difference Schemes for
and Environmental Engineering,
Washington State University,
Pullman, Wash. 99164
Waterhammer Analysis
Three second-order accurate explicit finite-difference schemes—MacCormack's
method, Lambda scheme and Gabutti scheme—are introduced to solve the
M. Y. Hussaini
quasilinear, hyperbolic partial differential equations describing waterhammer
Institute for Computer Applications in phenomenon in closed conduits. The details of these schemes and the treatment of
Science and Engineering,
boundary conditions are presented. The results computed by using these schemes for
NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, Va. a simple frictionless piping system are compared with the exact solution. It is shown
that for the same accuracy, second-order schemes require fewer computational
nodes and less computer time as compared to those required by the first-order
characteristic method.

Introduction
Waterhammer phenomenon in slightly compressible liquids the boundary conditions are then given. The results computed
flowing through closed conduits having linearly elastic walls is by using these schemes for the solution of a typical frictionless
described by a set of quasi-linear, hyperbolic, partial differen- piping system are compared with the exact solution.
tial equations. The coefficients of these equations, commonly
Governing Equations. The equations describing waterham-
referred to as waterhammer equations, are constant. Because
mer in closed conduits are [1, 2]:
of the presence of the nonlinear source term representing the
losses due to friction, these equations can only be numerically
H+
integrated. Steep waves or "shocks" may be generated at dif- ' jA~Q* =0 (1)

ferent boundaries due to abrupt changes in the discharge.

Therefore, any numerical method used for the solution of
these equations should be able to properly handle these
shocks.
The method of characteristics has been widely used [1-4] for
waterhammer analysis. In this method, the governing equa-
tions are transformed into ordinary differential equations
which are then solved along the characteristic lines by using
first- or second-order finite difference approximations [1,2,
4]. For stability, it is necessary that C n < 1.0, in which C n =
Courant number = aAt/Ax; a = wave speed; At = computa-
tional time step and Ax = reach length. First-order methods
yield satisfactory results if the friction losses are small and C n
= 1.0. For large friction losses such as in the flow of highly
viscous liquids or for flow in small diameter tubes, computa-
tions may become unstable (1) even with C n < 1. In addition,
interpolations, which are necessary if C n ^ 1.0, smear the
shocks and the computed flow disturbances travel at a faster
than the correct speed [1].
In this ppaer, three new explicit-finite difference
schemes—MacCormack, Lambda, and Gabutti—are in-
troduced for waterhammer analysis. These schemes are
second-order accurate both in space and time and have been
used in Computational Fluid Dynamics for the solution of
hyperbolic systems. The governing equations are first
presented. The details of these schemes and the treatment of
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division for publication in the JOUR-
NAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received by the Fluids Engineering
Division, April 1, 1985.
Q,+gAHx + RQ\Q\=0 (2)
in which / = time; x = distance; A = cross-sectional area of
the conduit; H = piezometric head above the datum; Q =
discharge; R - f/(2DA)\f = Darcy-Weisbach friction fac-
tor; D = diameter of the conduit; and the subscripts x and t
denote partial derivatives with respect to these variables.
Equations (1) and (2) are a set of quasilinear, hyperbolic,
partial differential equations (2) having constant coefficients.
Because of the non-linear source term, RQ\Q\,& closed-form
solution is not possible. Therefore, numerical methods have
been used to integrate these equations.
MacCormack Scheme. The MacCormack scheme [5] is
second-order accurate in both space and time and is inherently
dissipative. It is comprised of two steps: predictor and correc-
tor. In each of these steps, one-sided finite-difference approx-
imations are used. Depending upon the difference approxima-
tions for the spatial derivatives, two alternatives are possible.
In the first alternative, foward finite-difference approxima-
tions are used in the predictor part and backward finite-
difference approximations in the corrector part; while in the
second alternative, backward finite-difference approximations
are used in the predictor part and forward finite-differences in
the corrector part. MacCormack recommends using these
alternatives in a sequence, i.e., the first alternative at one time
step, second alternative during the next time step, followed by
the first alternative again.
In the following discussion, an asterisk (*) denotes the
predicted values, subscript;' refers to the space node and the
superscript,/ refers to the time level (Fig. 1). A conduit having

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1985, Vol. 107/523

Copyright © 1985 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 j+1 Unknown
Conditions

j Known
Conditions

i-2 i-1 i i+1 i+2 x

Fig. 1 Computational grid

length L is divided into n equal-length reaches. If the first

Fig. 2 Positive and negative characteristics
node (upstream boundary) is numbered 1, then the last node
(downstream boundary) will be n + 1. The values of H and Q
are assumed to be known at the y'-time level (either known in-
itial conditions or computed during the previous time step) Qi+l~[&+Qr—^-gA(H?+i-Hn-RQrw}
and their values are to be determined at they + 1 time level.
Referring to Fig. 1, equations (1) and (2) for Alternative 1 (i=l,2,....n). (6)
may be written in the finite-difference form as follows: Both alternatives are stable if aAt < Ax.
Lambda Scheme. In the Moretti's Lambda Scheme [6], the
Predictor Part governing equations are transformed into the characteristics
At _c?_ form and then one-sided finite differences are used during the
m=m- Ax gA
•(Qi+i-Q!) predictor and corrector parts of the computations.
Multiplying equation (2) by an unknown multipler JJ, adding
At it to equation (1), and rearranging the terms, we obtain:
Q? = &-—gA(Hi+l-Hii)-R\®\&i
(H, + r,gA Hx) + V ( Q , + - ^ Qx^ +v R Q\Q\ =0. (7)
(('=1,2, • ,n). (3) ygA
Let
Corrector Part
dx
1 r At a2 ") ygA=-
dt -qgA
2 Ax gA
Then
1 At
©r' = ~2 gA(Ht-HU)-RQ?m\ (8)
Ax gA nz
(» = 2 , 3 , ,n+\). (4) Thus the characteristics directions, X = dx/dt, are
In Alternative 2, the predictor and corrector parts are: dx
(9)
Predictor dt
At a2 and
Hf-- dx
Ax gA -=-«. (10)
dt
At 1
Qt = & - — gA (Hi -HU)~R Of I Of I in which the superscripts " + " and '' • indicate positive and
Ax negative characteristics (Fig. 2).
(/ = 2,3, • « + l) (5) On the basis of equations (8) and (9), equation (7) may be
written as:
Corrector
At a2
(//,+x+//;)+-^r(Q,+x+g;)+-^-eiei=o (ii)
gA gA
Ax gA (Qhi-Qn] and

Nomenclature

a = wave speed
A = cross-sectional areas of At = computational time step
compy -H^A/N x = distance
conduit ;'=1
C n = Courant number = Ax = reach length
N T) = unknown multiplier
aAt/AX
)2/N
D = conduit diameter
/ = Darcy-Weisbach friction
I>, comp,-
LI
-"exac,- X = characteristic direction
dx/dt
factor N = number of computational
g = acceleration due to gravity nodes Subscripts and Superscript
H = piezometric head Q = discharge / = node in x-direction
^comp = computed piezometric head R = f/(2DA) j = time level
H„ exact piezometric head t = time *, ~ = predictor values

5 2 4 / V o l . 107, DECEMBER 1985 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Upstream Downstream
(H! + \-H-)-~(Ql + \-Q-)-^-Q\Q\=0. (12) boundary boundary
gA gA
-//-
0\ 1 2 3 n-1 n+1 /n+2
Depending upon the characteristic direction, superscripts
'Fictitious Fictitious
" + " and " - " are marked on the partial derivative with point point
respect to x; e.g., Hx refers to derivative along the positive
Fig. 3 Boundary and fictitious grid points
characteristics (Fig. 2).
Subtracting equation (12) from equation (11) and multiply-
ing the resulting equation throughout by gA/a, we obtain
1 gA
2 a RESERVOIR

/-VALVE
+—(X+e;+X-Q-)+JRQIQI=0. (13) -r
L
Adding equations (11) and (12) and rearranging: \" =5000m
1 Fig. 4 Piping system
H,+- (X + H*+\~ H-)+—--^~.
2 gA
(x + ft + -x-ft-) = o. (14)
H^'=-^[Hj+Ht-At[-^-
;+//,* -At (X+fl? + X-H-)
Equations (13) and (14) are referred to as equations in X-form.
From the viewpoint of partial differential equations, H+ = 1 a
+ (X+Qx+-X"QJ) (22)
Hx = Hx and Q+ = Q~ = Qx. By substituting these rela- 2 gA }•
tionships, it is clear that equations (13) and (14) are identical
to equations (1) and (2). However, this will not be the case if Gabutti Scheme. The Gabutti Scheme (7) is similar to the
we approximate H* and H~, and Qx and Qx by finite dif- Lambda Scheme. In this scheme, the partial derivations are
ferences in different ways. replaced by the finite-difference approximations as follows:
In the Moretti's Lambda Scheme the partial derivaties are Predictor Part. The predictor part is subdivided further into
replaced by the finite-difference approximations (Fig. 1) as two parts. Part 1:
follows: /v(_ Ji Ji—\
Predictor Part Jx (23)
Ax~
2fj-3fU+fU (15)
fi = Ax /*" = (24)
Ax
in which / is used for brevity for Q and H.
/* (16)
Ax By substituting these finite-difference approximations into
equations (13) and (14), the following equations are obtained
in which for brevity / is used for Q and H. By substituting for the predicted values of ft and H::
these finite-difference approximations into equations (13) and
(14), the following equations are obtained for the predicted ft = ft-At\4- — (x + //; -\-H- )
values ft* and H*: v 2 a

1 gA + ^-(X + ft + +X-<2-)+7?Qi'lQil] (25)

Q? = Qi-At\ (X + H+-\- H;)
2 a
and
1 + +
+ ^-(X Q x +X" Q;)+RQHQi\] (17)

and
+
H*=Hj-At[-^-(\+ HI + X - H~) -rir ( X + e * + - x - Q7)\ (26)

Part 2:
+
+^r4r^
2 gA
G;-X- on). (18)
/; =
2 y?-3/1-1+^-2 (27)

Corrector Part Ax
ft-ll-i /,-=- (28)
ft Ax
(19)
By using these finite-differenceAxapproximations, the predicted
values of time derivations Q* and H* are determined from
•2fi' + 3/?+i-f?+2 (20) equations (13) and (14).
Ax
Corrector Part
1 gA 4. Ji J i— 1
ft (29)
Ax
fi+\ ~fi
+ 4 ~ <X+Q*+ + x ~ e * ) + R Q*'2*']) (21) f~x = Ax
(30)

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1985, Vol. 107/525

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 By using these finite-difference approximations and using Q
for Q in equations (13) and (14), H, and Q, are computed.
Then,
G , + i = = G / + _L A /(e,*+e / )
+1
Hj =H>j+ At(H* + Ht)
. Boundary Conditions. The above equations are for the in-
terior nodes only. They cannot be used at the boundaries since
the grid points are on only one side of the boundary (Fig. 3).
In addition, specified conditions imposed by the boundary
have to be taken into consideration. Thus, proper care has to
be taken so that the boundary conditions are neither under-
specified nor over-specified.
MacCormack has shown by heuristic argument that even if
the accuracy of the boundary condition is an order less than
that of the scheme used at the interior nodes, the overall ac-
curacy of the solution is not adversely affected. Hyman [8]
recommends that the boundary conditions be handled with ut-
most care since errors introduced at the boundaries will be car-
ried unabated throughout the system independent of the ac-
curacy of the scheme used at the interior grid points and of the
size of the computational mesh.
Boundary conditions may be included in the analysis by
using the characteristic equations or by extrapolating fluxes
beyond the boundaries and then using the extrapolated values
in the difference scheme being used at the interior points. Both
of these procedures are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Characteristics Equations. The characteristic equations,
equations (11) and (12), may be used at the boundaries in con-
junction with the conditions imposed by the boundary. Let us
illustrate the procedure by discussing the boundary condition
for a constant-level reservoir at the upstream end, i.e., at x =
0 or / = 1.
Since//] = constant, H, = 0 at Section 1. Hence, it follows
from equation (12) that:
Q,=-^-\-H--\-Q--RQ\Q\.
The partial derivatives H* and Q~ may be determined using
the same finite-difference aproximations as for the interior
points. Now, Q\+i may be determined from this equation by
using a forward finite-difference approximation.
Similarly, if the variation of flows were specified at the
lower end, then the downstream boundary conditions may be
(31) written using equation (11).
Extrapolation Procedures. Let us illustrate the extrapola-
tion procedure by considering the following scaler equation.
(32)
U,+fx = Q. (34)
In alternative 1 of the MacCormack method, we cannot
write forward finite-difference at the downstream boundary (/
= n + 1) during the predictor part since there is no computa-
tional node downstream of the boundary. Similarly, we can-
not write the backward finite-difference approximation at the
upstream boundary (i = 1) during the corrector part.
However, we may assume fictitious grid points (Fig. 3)
beyond the boundaries, i.e., i = n + 2 downstream of the
downstream boundary and / = 0 upstream of the upstream
boundary. The flux/at these fictitious points (/ = 0 and / = n
+ 2) may be extrapolated by using the following equations:
/n+2 = 2 ^ 1 + 1 - ^ , (35)
f0 = 2fi-J{. (36)
Now we may use forward differences at n + 1 during the
predictor part and the backward finite difference at i = 1 dur-
ing the corrector part of the calculations.
General Remarks. For each time step, higher-order methods
require more computational effort than that required for a
first-order method. However, the same accuracy is obtained
by a higher-order method using fewer computational nodes
than that required by a first-order method. This advantage
becomes especially attractive in the analysis of multi-
dimensional flows due to reduced computer time as well as
storage requirements.
The derivatives of the flux function/, in a hyperbolic system
determines the phase velocities. Phase or dispersion errors,
and damping or dissipative erros are introduced due to errors
in approximating/and its derivatives. Hyman [8] has shown
that when the initial conditions consist of a single frequency,
(33) then the phase error introduced by the finite-difference ap-
proximation will be the same using second, fourth and sixth-
order differences if the number of computational nodes, N,
satisfy

EXACT SOLUTION . ° ° 0 NUMERICAL SOLUTION

CN= 1.00 CN=0.80 CN=0.50
6 0 0 r T=I.25S r T=I.25S r T= 1.25 S

5 500 9-0-0-0-0 ,-0.0.-0-0- .-0-0-0-0

Q 400 ^ o - o - o - o - o - o - o - o - o - o - o ^0-0-000-0-0-0-0-0-• ^-o-oo-o-oo-o-<>£>--•

<
UJ
1
300

200

600 T=2.50 S T= 2.50 S T = 2.50 S

s p-O-O-O--O-O-O-O-O a-o-o-o-o-o-o- 1 - D -0-"0-0'-0*-0"0-

1
Q 4 0 0 > -0--0-0 - o -0 -o- -o-- iv o - o - o -o -o- Q j-o-o-o-o-y-
<
UJ
1
300

200

600 T= 5.00 S

J 500 ^-0-0- o - o -o- -o- - o o -o- o* o - o - o - o - -o-o JY-O- o- o- o- o- o- o. O-O- o- a o. JX _ _ 0 - 0 . 0 - Q -Q.-Q.Q SL Q-Q.D_Q_

O 400
<
UJ
X
300

200
4 7 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19 1 4 7 10 13 16 |9
SECTION SECTION SECTION

Fig. 5 Characteristic method: comparison of exact and numerical

solution

526/Vol. 107, DECEMBER 1985 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 EXACT SOLUTION , o o o NUMERICAL SOLUTION
CN-1.00 CN>0.80 CN»0.50
go- T-I.25S , T-1.25S P T« 1.25 S

S5O0 0--0-0--0-0

a 400 > " 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 " ° " < > " 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 " 0 " J b-o-cro-o-oooo-o-^

uJ
* 300

200
600r T=2.50 S T»2.50 S

p-o-o-o-o-o o-o--o r ^y. Q sx. o. o-o- o-o- _Q-° O..0.0-0-41

i
Ji
O 400*"" o " o "" o "" o " o " o "" o " HK>ftOO
i
:
300-

600r T>5.00S T'5.00 S T-5.00 S

„ 500 o-o-o-oo-o-o-o-o-o-o-oo-o-o _o-0-Q.o-o-o-°-o-o-o-o-o-o.-o.

• 300

200
I 4 7 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19
SECTION SECTION SECTION

Fig. 6 MacCormack method: comparison of exact and numerical

solution

— -EXACT SOLUTION , o o o NUMERICAL SOLUTION

CN-1.00 CN'0.80 CN-0.50
SOOr T-I.25S r T-I.25S r T-I.25S

p-O-O-O-O --o-o-o-o

Q 4 0 0 J-O-0-0--0-0-O-0-O-0--0-0--' )-o-o-a-o.4i-o-o-Q-0. t k w ^ ^ , ^
<

600 T» 2.50 S T" 2.50S T - 2.50 S

? 500 o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o -.-o-oo-o-a-o-a-o. y O-O-O-O-O-41-O

O 4 0 0 J-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-'

<
200
600r T=5.00S T= 5.00 S T= 5.00 S

500 ~-o-<K>-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o--o--o--o-o o-°-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o •OJ2 -O-o-o -o-o-o- o-o-o-o-o

2

a 400F
<
UJ
x
300

200
4 7 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19
SECTION SECTION SECTION

Fig. 7 Gabutti scheme: comparison of exact and numerical solution

N,=0.36Nl-- • 0A2NI (37)(i.e., / = 0), then this wave propagates to the reservoir, is
in which the subscripts refer to the order of the method. For reflected as a 100-m high negative wave and travels to the
example, if a second-order method gives an accuracy with N valve where it is reflected again.
= 32, then the same accuracy could be obtained by having N In order to compare the computed results with the exact
= 10 in a fourth-order method and N = 7 in a sixth-order solution, the system was assumed frictionless. Computations
method. Another advantage of the higher-order methods is were done using Courant number equal to 0.5, 0.8 and 1.0.
that they reproduce better and sharper discontinuities in the Boundary conditions, developed by solving the characteristic
solution. equations simultaneously with the conditions imposed by the
boundary and using first-order finite-difference approxima-
tions were used. At the nodes adjacent to the boundary, first-
Results order, one-sided finite differences were used whenever three
The piping system shown in Fig. 4 was analyzed using the points were not available in the Lambda and Gabutti schemes.
above numerical schemes. In this system, pipe length, L = Figures 5-8 show the computed results using each of the
5000 m, wave speed, a = 1000 m/s, pipe cross-sectional area, above schemes and the first-order characteristic method. With
2 3
A = 1 m , initial steady-state flow = 0.981 m /s and H0 = Cn = 1.0 the Lambda scheme produced unacceptable post-
400 m. The transient conditions were produced by instan- shock oscillations and became unstable; while the Gabutti,
taneously closing the downstream valve at t = 0. This instan- MacCormack, and first-order characteristic methods
taneous closure produces a 100-m high wave which travels in produced exact results. There was some smearing of the shock
the upstream direction. If the system is assumed frictionless in the MacCormack Method after the shock was reflected at

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1985, Vol. 107 / 527

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 -—EXACT SOLUTION , ° ° ° NUMERICAL SOLUTION
CN=0.50 CN = 0.60 CN = 0.80
600r T = I.25S , T-I.I3S r T=I.25S

: 500

Q 400 i-oo-o-^-o.o- 0 J 0

UJ
1
300-

20O
T=2.44S T = 2.50 S
600
--^-o-o-o-o-o-o r- — XT 0--0- O O- O- O jOO-O-OO-O
J 500
>-CT7.-r-„-° ' " m *
Q 400

<
UJ
x
300
200
600 T=5.00 S T=4.88 S T=5.00S

--^.Q^-^Q-Q-o-o-o-oo-o-o- - o - ° - - - J?-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o _ JJ-O-0-O-Q-2._

O 400'
<
UJ
X
300

200
I 4 ? 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19 I 4 7 10 13 16 19
SECTION SECTION SECTION
Fig. 8 Lambda scheme: comparison of exact and numerical solution

160 errors at time t = 2.5 and 5 seconds were computed using Cn

CHARACTERISTIC—°- = 1.0, 0.8 and 0.5 and using several values of N. The expres-
MACCORMACK- sion for L) and L2 are:
, x
140 GABUTTI - - A - -
N
1
comp/ -'-'exac/
N i=i
120
QL
O
K 100
UJ
-NV1{H«
N
-H„
,r
CJ where N = number of computational nodes, Hcom corn-
80 puted piezometric head at node / and // exac . exact
piezometric head at node /. To conserve space only the results
at t = 2.5 seconds for C n = 0.8 are presented in Fig. 9. With
60 Cn = 1.0, L, and L2 were both zero for the first-order method
as well as for the MacCormack and Gabutti schemes presented
above. However, for C n < 1.0, L2 error in the second-order
40 -J I I L
methods in much smaller than that in the first-order method.
0 20 40 60 80
In other words, the number of computational nodes required
to achieve a specified accuracy is considerably reduced for the
second-order methods. For example, in order to keep L2 error
- \ < 100 and using Cn = 0.8, the number of computational
a ^ nodes will have to be at least 52 in the first-order characteristic
rr _X N
o method, 39 in the Gabutti scheme and 35 in the MacCormack
rr ^ X method (see Fig. 9). However, if C n = 0.5, then the minimum
rr \ •^q ^^v .
number of nodes required for the same L2 error will be 136 in
^. _^_ r^o the characteristic method, 60 in the Gabutti scheme, and 95 in
" i >
—a the MacCormack method.
To compare the computer time required by the above
numerical methods, the piping system of Fig. 4 was analyzed
I I i
from t = 0 to time t = 5 s using C n = 0.8. The number of
20 40 60 80 computational nodes (selected to give L2 error = 100) were as
NUMBER OF follows: characteristic method = 52; Gabutti scheme = 39;
COMPUTATIONAL NODES and MacCormack method = 35. The computer time required
Fig. 9 L 1 and L2 errors on a DEC-10 computer was the lowest for the MacCormack
method. The characteristic method, and Gabutti scheme took
180 and 168 percent of the time required by the MacCormack
the reservior. However, for C n < 1.0, the shock is smeared method.
and it propagates at a faster speed for the first-order method.
With the second-order methods, the smearing of the shock is Summary and Conclusions
reduced although there are post-shock oscillations in the With Courant number equal to unity, there is little advan-
solution. tage in using the second-order accurate methods over the first-
To compare the accuracy of the above schemes, Lt and L2 order methods for waterhammer analysis. For C n < 1.0,

528/Vol. 107, DECEMBER 1985 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 however, the number of computational nodes required to
achieve a given accuracy is reduced with the second-order ac-
curate methods as compared to the first-order methods. This
results in savings in the computer time and computer storage
for the analysis of large piping systems. In addition, the
second-order methods are superior for the resolution of
shocks.
Acknowledgments
The studies reported herein were supported partially by the
National Science Foundation Grant No. CEE-8119614 and
partially by NASA under Contract Nos. NAS1-15810 and
NAS1-17070 while the authors were in residence at the In-
stitute for Computer Application in Science and Engineering,
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, M.
Salas provided details of the Gabutti scheme.
References
1 Wylie, E. B., and Streeter, V. L., Fluid Transients, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1978.
2 Chaudhry, M. H., Applied Hydraulic Transients, Van Nostrand, New
York, 1979.
3 Chaudhry, M. H., and Yevjevich, V. (ed.), Closed-Conduit Flow, Water
Resources Publications, Littleton, Colo., 1981, pp. 167-191.
4 Chaudhry, M. H., "Numerical Methods for Solution of Transient Flow
Equations," Proc, Specialty Conf. Hydraulics Div., Amer. Society of Civil
Engineers, Jackson, MS, Aug. 1982, pp. 633-656.
5 MacCormack, R., "Numerical Solution of the Interaction of a Shock Wave
with a Laminar Boundary Layer," Lecture Notes in Physics, M. Holt (ed.), Vol.
8, Springler-Verlag, New York, 1971, pp. 151-163.
6 Moretti, G., "The Lambda Scheme," Computers and Fluids, Vol. 7, pp.
191-205.
7 Gabutti, B., "On Two Upwind Finite-Difference Schemes for Hyperbolic
Equations in Non-Conservation Form," Computer and Fluids, Vol. 11, No. 3,
1983, pp. 207-230.
8 Hyman, J. M., "A Method of Lines Approach to the Numerical Solution
of Conservation Laws," Third IMACS Symposium on Computer Methods for
Partial Differential Equations, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, June 1979.

CALL FOR PAPERS

Symposium on Measuring and Metering of Unsteady Flows

1986 ASME Winter Annual Meeting

Anaheim, California
November 30-December 5, 1986
The Fluid Transients Committee and the Coordinating Group for Fluid Measurements of the Fluids Engineering Division of
the ASME are jointly organizing a symposium on Measuring and Metering of Unsteady Flows for the ASME Winter Annual
Meeting in Anaheim, California, on November 30 to December 5, 1986.
SCOPE
The-object of this symposium is to provide a technical forum for the presentation and discussion of the recent advances in the
area of unsteady flow measuring and metering for field applications as well as for laboratory research. Typical topics in-
clude, but are not limited to:
8
Measuring and metering of unsteady incompressible flows in closed conduits
• Measuring and metering of unsteady compressible flows in closed conduits
• Measuring and metering in unsteady free-surface flows
8
Measuring and metering of multi-component or multi-phase unsteady flows
8
Problems in field measurmeents of unsteady flows
8
Comparative studies of various unsteady flow metering techniques
8
Measurement of velocities of rapidly accelerating bodies in fluid media.
SELECTION OF PAPERS
Prospective authors must submit a 500 word abstract by December 14, 1985. Authors will be notified of acceptance by
January 14, 1986. Draft copies of the full paper must be submitted by March 3, 1986 for review. Authors of accepted papers
will be notified by May 1, 1986; the notification letter will include the mats to be used by the authors in their reproducible
copy. Completed mats must be returned by June 14, 1986. The papers will be published in a bound symposium volume.
Abstracts for consideration should be submitted to anyone of the symposium organizing committee members listed below:

Dr. M. Padmanabhan Dr. Franklin T. Dodge Dr. Theodore R. Heidrick

Alden Research Laboratory Southwest Research Institute Alberta Research Council
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 6220 Culebra Road 11315 87th Avenue
30 Shrewsbury Street San Antonio, Texas 78284 Edmonton, Alberta T6G2C2
Holden, MA 01520 (512)684-5111 Canada
(617) 829-4323 (403) 464-9212

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1985, Vol. 107/529

Downloaded From: http://fluidsengineering.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/28/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use