Practical 2

By
Mphilwenhle Jele
(2021)
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND THE BUILT ENVIRO.NMENT

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Lab report submitted as a partial requirement for

(B.Eng. Tech. Mechanical)

Name: M Jele
Student number: 220155593
Lecturer: Mr V Hashe.
Due date: 17 September 2021

DECLARATION

I Mphilwenhle Jele swear that this is the original work of the authors. All information obtained
directly or indirectly from other sources has been fully acknowledged. Furthermore, it represents
my own opinions and not necessarily those of the University of Johannesburg.

Signed: M jele Date: 17/09/2021

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This experiment although an individual work had a cooperation and guidance of esteemed
people. I would like to take this opportunity to realize the inner most feelings of gratitude,
which work impressed my heart.
I sincerely like to thank my educator Mr Hashe and the tutors Mr Tsotsotso and Mr Masindi
for all delivering the concept of Water hammer during online classes. I would like to also
thank the time dedicated by the tutors coming to guide us during the lab experiment.
Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
Objectives..............................................................................................................................................3
Assumptions..........................................................................................................................................3
Apparatus..............................................................................................................................................3
Functions of each part of the apparatus............................................................................................4
PROCEDURE...........................................................................................................................................4
OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................................................................5
Calculations...........................................................................................................................................6
Analysis of Results.................................................................................................................................7
Discussion..............................................................................................................................................7
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................8
Appendix...............................................................................................................................................8

Table of figures
Figure 1 Apparatus display....................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 Apparatus display (reservoir)...................................................................................................4
Figure 3Results graph............................................................................................................................7
Figure 4 Appendix 1...............................................................................................................................8
Figure 5 Appendix 2...............................................................................................................................9
Figure 6 Appendix 3.............................................................................................................................10

Table of table

Table 1 Parameters................................................................................................................................5
Table 2 Calculated parameters..............................................................................................................5
Table 3 Calculated results......................................................................................................................7
Introduction and background
Water hammer is a formation of pressure waves because of a sudden change in a liquid
velocity in a piping system. In fluid mechanics, pipeline pressure surge is a sudden increase
in the head or pressure of the fluid, caused by changes in the velocity of the fluid in the
pipeline. Rapid opening and closing of the valve will cause a sudden surge in the tubing and
the speed of the pump will suddenly change at. Depending on the nature of the liquid, its
fluidity, and the rate at which the changes occur, the range of fluctuation can be big. It may
be enough to cause damage, destroying the tubing and other parts of the fluid path. water
hammer is the name of the audible transient pressure wave or shock wave generated when the
liquid rapidly decelerates (stops suddenly) at the surface, such as the sudden closure of the
flow of water in the or valve or the tap. As the name suggests, water hammer occurs most
often in water, but it can occur in other fluids as well. Pipeline surge and water hammer are
important areas of fluid mechanics research because both will cause damage to the fluid
system. Therefore, engineers must understand why they happen and understand how enables
them in their designs.

Figure 1 water hammer illustrated picture

For the calculation performance, change in pressure and a rate of pressure fluctuation,
formulas are described below:

1
C=
√ 1
p( +
D
k E ×t
)
………………………………………………………………………………..…….Equation 1

Where: p is a density of water = 1000 Kg/m3

K is a nominal bulk modulus of water given as 2.1×10 9 N /m2

 D is a diameter of a pipe in m.
E is a …. And given as 103×10 9 N/m
t is a thickness given as 1.6 mm = 0.0016 m
C is a rate of pressure in m/s
∆ P=p × C ×Vo…………………………………………………………………………..Equation 2

Where: ∆ P is a change∈measured pressure∈bars .

P is a density of water assumed to be 1000 Kg/m3
C is a rate of pressure in m/s
Vo is a flow velocity in m/s

Objectives
The experiment aimed to compare the measured pressure amplitude with the theoretical
predictions and calculate the rate of pressure fluctuations along the pipe.

Assumptions
 It was assumed that the density of water was p = 1000Kg/m3
 The fluid was unsteady and incompressible.

Apparatus Surge tower

Valve
 Results displayer
(VDAS)

Hydraulic
bench

Figure 2 Apparatus display

Header tank (reservoir)

Figure 3 Apparatus display (reservoir)

Functions of each part of the apparatus

 Surge tower – It protects the conduit system from high internal pressures. It should help the
hydraulic turbine regarding its regulation characteristics. It should store the water to raise
the pressure drop conditions.
 Valve – It was used to control (stopping and starting) the flow of water.
 VDAS – It provides real time data-capture, calculation, charting and data export. It is a digital
system that is easy to use and set-up simple with USB.
 Hydraulic branch –
 Header tank (reservoir) – stores water that will be used in the water hammer experiment.
 Stopwatch - to measure a 60 second time at each reading to be taken.
Procedure
 The tools were assembled as shown in Figure 1 and 2
 The water hammer flow control valve was turned off and the surge valve.
 The reservoir was filled to its maximum height of about 610mm by fully opening the
water supply valve on the hydraulic bench and starting its pump.
 To keep the quick-closing valve open, the valve rest tool was inserted.
 The flow control valve was turned off for the water hammer.
 A few drops of water were allowed to trickle out by loosening the thumbscrew on the
quick-closing valve a few twists. This aids in the removal of any remaining air from
the valve (see figure 1). Any little air pockets will act as a pressure cushion, resulting
in lower pressures, thus they must be removed.
 The water hammer control valve was fully opened to get the most flow.
 The flow rate was measured from the water hammer pipe used the hydraulic bench.
 The start communications were selected with Device toolbar button in VDAS and
inputted the volume flow rate. The pipe details were then checked in the technical
details match those in the pipe details. the necessary adjustments in VDAS.
 The resting tool was removed while holding the quick-closing valve up.
 On the top of the quick-closing valve, quickly press down the plunger. The
hammering noise is caused by the water in the pipe. VDAS will record the trace and
display a tiny box indicating that sampling has ended. Click the OK button. The
acoustic wave will travel through each of the pressure transducers, as shown on the
trace.
 The trace was entirely different then the VDAS was restarted and pressed the quick-
closing valve up for 5 to 10 seconds before releasing it.
 The duration was measured between the rising edges of the traces of channel 1 and 2
in the VDAS to see how long it takes the pressure to pass from one transducer to the
other. In VDAS, this value was entered.
 VDAS mechanically calculated:
 The acoustic velocity using the measured time and distance between sensors
 Flow speed the usage of the water hammer pipe diameter and the volume drift
rate.
 The theoretical pressure amplitude using the theoretical acoustic velocity and
water at a density of 1000 kg/m3.
 After used, all the electrical and water suppliers were disconnected. All the
valves were opened to drain out any water from the apparatus.

Observations
Table 1 Parameters

Time Parameters
Time T (s) Distance (m) Time (Ms) Pressure 1 Pressure 2 Pipe internal
rise (bar) rise (bar) diameter mm
0 1.500 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.2
50.5 1.500 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.2
85.1 1.500 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.2
Table 2 Calculated parameters

Calculated Parameters
Acoustic velocity Volume flow rate Flow velocity V Theoretical pressure
V(m/s) Q(L/s) (m/s) rises (bar)
- 0.323 0.834 10.76
- 0.345 0.891 11.49
- 0.271 0.700 9.03

Calculations
Given that: D = 22.2 mm = 0.0222 m
E = 103 ×109 N/m
t¿ 1.6 mm=0.0016 m

k =2.1 ×109 m 2

π × d2
Area of a pipe =
4

π × 0.02222
¿
4

¿ 3.871× 10− 4 m2

1
C=
√ 1
p( +
D
k E ×t

1
)

=
√ 1000 ¿ ¿
¿

¿ 1279.43 m/s

Where: Ep ¿ 2 ×1011 N/m 2

D is a diameter of a tube.
C is a velocity of a wave sound.
∆ P=p × C ×Vo
¿ 1000 ×1279.43 ×0.834
¿ 1,067.044 KPa
¿ 10.67 bars

∆ P=p × C ×Vo
¿ 1000 ×1279.46 ×0.891
¿ 1139.972 KPa
¿ 11.4 bars

∆ P=p × C ×Vo
¿ 1000 ×1279.46 ×0.7
¿ 8.956 bars
Percentage error between pressures
Theoretical−Measured
i. %error= × 100
Theoretical
10.76−10.67
= ×100
10.76
=0.836%

Theoretical−Measured
ii. %error= × 100
Theore tical
11.49−11.4
= ×100
11.49
= 0.783%

Theoretical−Measured
iii. %e rror= × 100
Theoretical
9.03−8.956
= ×100
9.03
= 0.819%
Analysis of Results
Table 3 Calculated results

Flow velocity Measured Theoretical Speed of the % Error

pressure pressure (bar) pressure surge
amplitude (bar) (C) in m/s
0.834 10.670 10.760 1249.46 0.836%
0.891 11.400 11.490 1249.46 0.783%
0.700 8.956 9.030 1249.46 0.819%

Measured and theoretical pressures vs flow velocity

14

12

10
Pressure (bar)

0
0.83 0.89 0.7
Flow velocity (m/s)

Measured Pressure amplitude (bar) Theoretical pressure (bar)

Figure 4Results graph

Discussion
The speed of sound was calculated to be 1279.43 m/s, this value remains constant through the
entire experiment since the pipe diameter also remains constant. From the results observed on
a graph above, when comparing pressures, the measured pressure amplitude was found to be
almost equal to theoretical pressure at every point. When the theoretical pressures were
10.76; 11.49; 9.03 in bars, the measured pressure amplitude was calculated to be 10.67; 11.40
and 8.956 respectively in bars. When looking at the percentage error between measured
pressure amplitude and theoretical pressure, it was found to very low (less than 1%). This is
another evidence that there was no significant change was observed in both calculations and
in a graph after the comparison of both. This means that the experiment was done safely with
all conditions being carefully taken into consideration. This can include the fact that:
 Atmospheric pressure and temperature remained constant which did not interrupt any
observations.
 The valve was opened to release the bubbles off the water then closed before taking
the readings for accuracy reasons.
  The readings were taken at a constant interval of time.

Conclusion
In consideration of the results analysed, as it was determined that there was no significant
difference between theoretical and experimental pressures. Hence the experiment can be
considered as successful. However, the very small change observed in pressure might be due
to human error, for example not recording time as accurately and the effects of friction will
need to be taken into consideration. Therefore, if the experiment is repeated to get better
accuracy for the result, it can be more reliable to use.

References
[1] Covas, D., Stoianov, I., Ramos, H., Graham, N., Maksimović, Č. and Butler, D., 2004. Water
hammer in pressurized polyethylene pipes: conceptual model and experimental analysis. Urban
Water Journal, 1(2), pp.177-197.

[2] Triki, A., 2017. Water-hammer control in pressurized-pipe flow using a branched polymeric
penstock. Journal of Pipeline Systems Engineering and Practice, 8(4), p.04017024.

[3] Roberts, A., Thomas, B., Sewell, P. and Hoare, E., 2019. Generating renewable power from water
hammer pressure surges. Renewable Energy, 134, pp.1392-1399.

[4] Keramat, A., Tijsseling, A.S., Hou, Q. and Ahmadi, A., 2012. Fluid–structure interaction with pipe-
wall viscoelasticity during water hammer. Journal of Fluids and Structures, 28, pp.434-455.

[5] Ghidaoui, M.S., Zhao, M., McInnis, D.A. and Axworthy, D.H., 2005. A review of water hammer
theory and practice. Appl. Mech. Rev., 58(1), pp.49-76.

[6] Bergant, A., Simpson, A.R. and Tijsseling, A.S., 2006. Water hammer with column separation: A
historical review. Journal of fluids and structures, 22(2), pp.135-171.

[7] Streeter, V.L., 1969. Water hammer analysis. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 95(6), pp.1959-
1972.

[8] TSIGE, M.G., 2015. DEVELOPMENT OF HYDRA OPMENT OF HYDRAULIC WATER PUMPING
DEVICE.

[9] Mambretti, S., 2013. Water hammer simulations. Wit Press.

[10] Ghidaoui, M. S., Zhao, M., McInnis, D. A., and Axworthy, D. H. (March 8, 2005). "A
Review of Water Hammer Theory and Practice ." ASME. Appl. Mech. Rev. January 2005;
58(1): 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1828050
Appendix

Figure 5 Appendix 1
Figure 6 Appendix 2
Figure 7 Appendix 3