DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SESSION 2023/2024 - SEMESTER 1

KIA3007 LABORATORY C
LABORATORY REPORT

OPEN-ENDED LABORATORY (OEL) 4

SURGE TANK

GROUP 3

Lecturer: Dr Muhammad Shazril

Lab Date: 04/12/2023
Submission Date: 18/12/2023
Name BOMING QUAN

Matric No S2113761/1

1. Introduction and objective

Job Scope
2. Materials and apparatus

Name LINGGESHWAR A/L NADARAJAN

Matric No S2120870/1

1. Data analysis
2. Experiment conduct
Job Scope
3. Discussion
4. Conclusion

Name DAVID LOH CHUN HONG

Matric No S2125575/1

1. Data analysis
Job Scope 2. Discussion
3. Conclusion

Name MUHAMMAD ARFAN SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN

Matric No U2000472

1. Data analysis
Job Scope 2. Discussion
3. Conclusion

Name MUHAMMAD ZUHAIRI BIN BADAROL HISHAM

Matric No U2000474

1. Data analysis
Job Scope 2. Discussion
3. Conclusion
Table of Contents
Table of Contents 3
Introduction 4
Objective 6
Materials and Apparatus 7
Experimental Procedure 9
Results and Data Analysis 10
Discussion 19
QUAN BOMING (S2113761/1) 19
LINGGESHWAR A/L NADARAJAN (S2120870/1) 20
DAVID LOH CHUN HONG (S2125575/1) 22
MUHAMMAD ARFAN SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN (U2000472) 23
MUHAMMAD ZUHAIRI BIN BADAROL HISHAM (U2000474) 25
Conclusion 26
QUAN BOMING (S2113761/1) 26
LINGGESHWAR A/L NADARAJAN (S2120870/1) 26
DAVID LOH CHUN HONG (S2125575/1) 27
MUHAMMAD ARFAN SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN (U2000472) 28
MUHAMMAD ZUHAIRI BIN BADAROL HISHAM (U2000474) 28
Introduction

A surge tank serves as a water storage device within hydropower water conveyance systems,
primarily functioning as a pressure neutralizer to alleviate stress on water valves during closure.
Positioned along large pipelines, its purpose is twofold: to mitigate water hammer effects caused
by pressure surges and to supply water in instances of negative pressure when valves are opened.
Despite its seemingly simple structure—a vertically positioned tank constructed typically from
concrete—it plays a pivotal role in hydraulic systems.
Surge tanks are commonly found in dams, adapting to fluctuating water levels. Positioned in
proximity to power plants, these tanks accommodate excess water flow during periods of high
volume and absorb water during low demand. Essentially, a surge tank resembles a vertical pipe
connecting the penstock to the turbine generator, designed with added height and supporting
structures. During unexpected increases in water flow, the tank collects surplus water, thus
alleviating pressure. The tank’s top remains open to the atmosphere.

Various types of surge tanks exist, such as the simple, orifice, one-way, differential, closed, and
gallery types, each tailored to specific system requirements and operational conditions.
Objective
1. To determine the oscillatory characteristics of a surge shaft.
2. To demonstrate frictional head loss between reservoir and surge shaft.
3. To determine the variation of level with time in a surge tank.
Materials and Apparatus

To prevent water from flowing out the water

tank to measure the flow rate of the water.

Stopper

To halt the water flow and create a sudden

increase of water pressure.

Flow Valve

To change the pressure so that water level

supply can be calibrated into 5” and 27”.

Ball Valve

To collect wastewater. It is connected to the

outflow to remove the water collected.

Water tank

To mark the respective amplitude of water in

the surge tank.

Marker Pen
 To allow observer to climb and take the
results, position of the amplitude of water in
the surge tank.

Ladder

To absorb sudden rises of pressure and

quickly provide extra water during a brief
drop in pressure. It also maintains the
optimum pressure in the pipe.

Surge Tower

To record the time for an increase of water

level in tank to measure flow rate. It is also
used to record the time when the water in the
surge tank reaches the respective amplitude.

Stopwatch
Experimental Procedure
 Results and Data Analysis

Calibration Water height, Volume, V Time, t (s) Discharge, Q Maximum

h (m) (x 10-3 m3) (x 10-3 m3/s) amplitude,
1 2 3 Average zmax (mm)

5’’ 0.02 14.38 4.63 4.30 4.29 4.41 3.26 552

27’’ 0.02 14.38 6.02 5.47 5.57 5.67 2.54 430

Table 1: Discharge, Q and maximum amplitude, zmax for 5” & 27” calibration

Step 1: Calculation of rate of discharge, Q

Width of water tank = 597 mm

Length of water tank = 1206 mm
Water height = 20 mm
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ × 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ × ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
−9
= (596 × 1206 × 20) × 10
−3 3
= 14. 38 × 10 𝑚

𝑡1 + 𝑡2 + 𝑡3
𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑏𝑦 20 𝑚𝑚, 𝑡 = 3

4.63 + 4.30 + 4.29

= 3

= 4. 41𝑠
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒
𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒, 𝑄 = 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛
−3
14.38 × 10
= 4.41

−3 3
= 3. 26 × 10 𝑚 /𝑠

Step 2: Calculation of pipe cross section, A1 & surge tank cross section, A2

Diameter of pipe, D1 = 50 mm
Diameter of surge tank, D2 = 92 mm
Length of pipe = 3.675 m
 2
π𝑑
𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝐴1 = 4
−3 2
π × (50 × 10 )
= 4

−3 2
= 1. 963 × 10 𝑚
2
π𝑑
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝐴2 = 4
−3 2
π × (92 × 10 )
= 4

−3 2
= 6. 648 × 10 𝑚

Step 3: Calculation of maximum amplitude, zmax

𝑄0 𝐿 𝐴1
𝑧𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ± 𝐴1 𝑔
• 𝐴2

−3 −3
3.26×10 3.675 1.963 × 10
= ± −3 9.81
• −3
1.963 × 10 6.648 × 10

= ± 0. 552𝑚
= ± 552𝑚𝑚

Step 4: Calculation of periodic time, T

𝐿 𝐴1
𝑇 = 2π 𝑔
• 𝐴2

−3
3.675 1.963 × 10
= 2π 9.81
• −3
6.648 × 10

= 7. 078𝑠

Steps 1 to 4 are repeated for 27’’ calibration.

5'' Calibration 27'' Calibration

Time, t (s) Amplitude, z (mm) Time, t (s) Amplitude, z (mm)

 0.00 0 0.00 0

5.44 150 4.50 44

9.73 -213 8.57 -200

14.57 100 14.40 93

20.85 -189 19.35 -105

25.59 76 24.28 67

30.24 -100 29.18 -65

35.60 41 34.76 55

39.87 -55 39.67 -41

45.27 37 45.28 53

50.75 -50 50.64 -35

56.23 33 56.09 50

60.98 -49 60.82 -30

66.48 28 66.49 47

71.62 -40 71.44 -25

76.87 25 77.66 35

81.78 -39 83.56 -18

88.38 24 87.78 33

93.47 -35 89.50 -10

99.27 23 92.90 25

108.95 -30 97.28 -5

114.84 22 102.87 20

118.74 -18 110.02 0

129.20 15 114.01 25
135.51 -9 119.19 10
Table 2: Data for frictional 5'' and 27’’ calibration

5'' Calibration

Time, t (s) Amplitude, z (mm)

0.00 0

1.77 552

5.31 -552

8.84 552

12.39 -552

15.93 552

19.47 -552

23.00 552

26.55 -552

30.09 552

33.63 -552

37.17 552

40.71 -552

44.25 552

47.79 -552

51.33 552

54.87 -552

58.41 552

61.95 -552
 65.49 552

69.03 -552

72.57 552

76.10 -552

79.64 552

83.18 -552

86.72 552

90.26 -552

93.80 552

97.34 -552

100.88 552

104.42 -552

107.96 552

111.49 -552

115.03 552

118.57 -552

122.11 552

125.65 -552

129.19 552

132.73 0
Table 3: Data for non-frictional 5’’ calibration

27'' Calibration
Time, t (s) Amplitude, z (mm)

0.00 0

1.77 430

5.31 -430

8.84 430

12.39 -430

15.93 430

19.47 -430

23.00 430

26.55 -430

30.09 430

33.63 -430

37.17 430

40.71 -430

44.25 430

47.79 -430

51.33 430

54.87 -430
 58.41 430

61.95 -430

65.49 430

69.03 -430

72.57 430

76.10 -430

79.64 430

83.18 -430

86.72 430

90.26 -430

93.80 430

97.34 -430

100.88 430

104.42 -430

107.96 430

111.49 -430

115.03 430

118.57 0

Table 4: Data for non-frictional 27’’ calibration

Figure 1: Graph of z against t with and without friction at 5” calibration
Figure 2: Graph of z against t with and without friction at 27” calibration

Figure 3: Graph of z against t with friction at 5” and 27” calibration

Discussion

QUAN BOMING (S2113761/1)

Based on our experimental results, sinusoidal graphs were constructed to illustrate the maximum
and minimum amplitudes for both friction and non-friction surge tanks across varying water
levels. At a calibrated water level of 5’’, the initial experimental amplitude measured 150mm,
notably below the theoretical maximum amplitude of 552mm. Similarly, for the 27’’ water level,
the initial experimental amplitude for the friction case was 44mm, while the theoretical value for
the non-friction surge tank stood at 430mm. Across both calibration levels, the non-friction surge
tank consistently showcased larger maximum amplitudes compared to its friction counterpart.
This disparity owes itself to the friction losses coefficient impeding flow dynamics, leading to
reduced water velocity due to increased shear stresses between the pipe wall and the fluid. We
determined percentage errors between theoretical and experimental values based on the initial
maximum amplitude, prioritizing its lower error and minimal energy dissipation in the surge tank
compared to subsequent amplitudes.

Moreover, the non-friction graph displayed consistent maximum and minimum amplitudes over
time, unlike the experimental graphs for both 5’’ and 27’’ water levels, which exhibited
diminishing amplitudes. Particularly noteworthy was the 5’’ water level with friction, indicating
higher maximum amplitudes (213 mm) than the 27’’ calibration (200 mm), aligning with the
theoretical prediction of higher magnitudes for the 5’’ water level. Furthermore, the duration for
one cycle differed between the friction and non-friction conditions, with the non-friction scenario
completing cycles in less time. This phenomenon stemmed from reduced water wave velocity as
energy dissipated due to friction, elongating cycle duration in the friction condition.

Throughout the experiment, several errors were identified, prompting suggestions for enhanced
accuracy. Minimizing parallax error in water level measurement involves ensuring the observer’s
eye level aligns perpendicularly with the meniscus level and the ruler scale. Regular checks and
maintenance to address apparatus-related errors, such as outlets that don’t close tightly, are
recommended. To mitigate random errors due to time lag, maintaining consistency by assigning
the same individual to mark and time processes remains crucial.

Improving the experiment could involve exploring a wider range of surge tank and pipe
diameters to gather more comprehensive data across various discharge rates. Additionally,
experimenting with diverse surge tank models, including gallery type surge tanks, inclined surge
tanks, or those incorporating restricted orifices, could offer valuable insights into surge tank
dynamics and efficiency in managing fluid flow within hydraulic systems.

LINGGESHWAR A/L NADARAJAN (S2120870/1)

Surge tanks are utilised to gauge the flow rate of the water. In addition, it can maintain a
constant back pressure and serve as a second stage separator by using a pressure control valve. In
this experiment, the results with frictional and non-frictional oscillation period and amplitude for
5” and 27” water supply calibration were analysed and compared. The relationship between
discharge and time with varying water levels in the surge tank were also investigated.

The average time for the water level to reach the 2cm height for 5” and 27” are 4.41s and
5.67s respectively. When the stopper is closed, the water level of 5” calibration can reach 5cm
height faster than the 27”. It is because the discharge of 5” calibration of 3.26 x 10-3 m3/s is
higher than 27” calibration with a discharge of 2.54 x 10-3 m3/s. The maximum and minimum
amplitudes for both friction and non-friction surge tanks under various water levels were clearly
displayed on the sinusoidal graph.

For the frictional case of 5” calibration, the maximum positive amplitude is 150mm at
5.44s and the maximum negative amplitude is -213mm at 9.73s. Moreover, for the theoretical
non-frictional case, the maximum amplitude is 522mm and maximum negative amplitude is
-522mm. From the graph obtained in Figure 1, it shows that for the frictional case, water level
will oscillate and decrease gradually over time until while for the non-frictional case, the
amplitude of water level remains constant overtime at 552mm and -552mm. Furthermore, the
amplitude of the non-frictional case is higher than the frictional case. This is due to some energy
losses that have occurred causing the frictional case’s value to be lower than the non-frictional
case.
 Apart from that, for the frictional case of 27” calibration, the maximum positive
amplitude is 93mm at 14.40s and the maximum negative amplitude is -200mm at 8.57s.
Meanwhile, for the theoretical non-frictional case, the maximum amplitude is 430mm and
maximum negative amplitude is -430mm. Based on the graph drawn in Figure 2, it is observed
that the amplitude for the frictional case begins to decrease gradually as time increases. On the
other hand, for the non-frictional case as time increases, the magnitude of the amplitude remains
unchanged throughout the oscillation as no energy is lost as friction in the system and it is the
ideal system.

Therefore, we can see for both 5” and 27” calibration the frictional case is much lower
than the non-frictional case and there are also differences in magnitude of amplitude oscillation
over time. This is mainly due to the friction losses coefficient that will resist the flow motion and
reduce its travelling velocity because of high shear stresses which are induced between the pipe
wall and the water.

Besides that, based on the graph of amplitude against cumulative time for frictional case
of 5” and 27” calibrations, the positive and negative maximum amplitude of water level for the
5" calibrated (150mm and -213mm) is greater than the positive and negative maximum
amplitude of water level for 27" calibrated (93mm and -200mm). Based on the theoretical value
(non-frictional case), the maximum amplitude for 5” calibration (552mm and -552mm) is greater
than 27” calibration (430mm and -430mm). Therefore, this matches the experimental results.

There were several sources of errors present during the experiment which may have
caused inaccuracy of data obtained. Firstly, human error such as parallax error when taking surge
amplitude readings. To address this, the observer’s eye must be perpendicular to the scale
reading of the measuring instrument which is ruler. Secondly, there might be errors when taking
time lapse timing of the surge amplitudes and for the discharge timing due to late reaction time.
Therefore, multiple time readings must be taken and the average value can be calculated for the
discharge time. More than one timekeeper can be assigned as well for taking the time lapse
timing for the amplitude of surge. Lastly, instrumental error where the equipment available and
used for this experiment was not functioning efficiently. For example, the flow valve is unable to
stop the water flow perfectly upon closing, causing the minor leakage at the pipe outlet and the
water level reading equipment used to take the discharge reading has leakage also. Thus, to
overcome this frequent maintenance of equipment must be done to ensure its in good functioning
conditions or new functioning equipment and apparatus can be purchased and used for this
experiment. These precautionary steps will help improve the accuracy of data obtained.

DAVID LOH CHUN HONG (S2125575/1)

This experiment used a 5" and a 27" calibration to examine the rate of discharge and amplitude
of the water level in the surge tank, respectively. The change in maximum amplitude, with and
without friction, was examined in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the surge tank's
operation. Referring to Table 1, the rate of discharge, Q is x and x for 5” and 27” calibration
respectively. Furthermore, the maximum amplitude, zmax, was calculated to be x for 5” calibration
and x for 27” calibration. It is evident that the 5" calibration has a larger magnitude of maximum
amplitude and a higher rate of discharge, Q than the 27" calibration. For additional illustration,
the rate of discharge is directly proportional to the velocity of flow, pressure head, and elevation
based on the continuity equation 𝑄 = 𝐴 × 𝑉, where Q is the rate of flow, A is the area of the
pipe's cross-section, and V is the flow velocity. This theory is also supported by Bernoulli’s
2
ρ 𝑣
theorem of γ
+ 𝑧+ 2𝑔
. Hence, this explains that a higher discharge rate increases velocity as

well as why it takes less time to raise the water level in the tank by 20 mm. Furthermore, a high
velocity raises the water's total energy (pressure head and elevation), effectively increasing the
maximum amplitude because energy is preserved in the mechanism.

Theoretically, the period of oscillation, T, which is calculated from the equation

𝐿 𝐴1
𝑇 = 2π 𝑔
• 𝐴2
, will be the same for both 5’’ and 27’’ water level calibration, due to the fact

𝐴1
that T is only affected by 𝐿 and 𝐴2
. Therefore, the period of oscillation for these two calibrations

is 7.078s. However, based on the graph plotted, the period of oscillations for both 5’’ and 27’’
water level calibration varies from the theoretical value. Additionally, the maximum amplitude,
zmax, also varies between the theoretical and experimental value. In theory, the maximum
amplitudes for 5” and 27” calibrations are 552 mm and 430 mm respectively. Despite that, the
data obtained from the experiment shows that the maximum amplitudes (in terms of magnitude)
for 5” and 27” calibrations are 213 mm and 200 mm respectively. With that, the percentage
differences for both 5” and 27” water level calibrations are -61.41% and 53.49% respectively.

The main reason for the discrepancies between theoretical and experimental results is the
system's major and minor losses. Significant amplitude decline due to major losses such as
friction with high fluid velocity, is observed in Figures 1 and 2 when the water level is at 5" and
27" calibrations. Furthermore, considering laboratory conditions, the fluid's viscosity may be one
of the elements that contribute to the damping effect. Minor losses such as sudden gradual
enlargement from pipe to surge tank, types of elbow fittings and valve might influence the head
loss in fluid flow.

The sources of errors during the experiment are human and systematic. Systematic errors such as
internal pipe and fitting deterioration affects the fluid flow head loss. It is also challenging to
identify the peak and trough of the water level due to the yellowish colour of the surge tank. This
leads to human error in the marking of the amplitude based on the water's lower meniscus.
Additionally, the experimenter's reaction time when pressing the stopwatch affects the duration
of time needed to be recorded for the highest and lowest amplitudes. Furthermore, given the high
frequency of amplitude variation at the beginning, parallax error must be taken into consideration
when marking the amplitude level. Apart from that, leakage is observed at the valve when it is
closed, which definitely affects the flow of fluid in the pipe and surge tank. To overcome the
error when measuring the water level on the surge tank, the observer can use a ruler to make sure
the line is perpendicular to the scale and lined with the lowest meniscus of the water level. To
overcome the error due to reaction time, a video can be recorded during the movement of the
water in the surge tank, where the exact times of the maximum and minimum amplitudes can be
recorded down precisely. Also, proper apparatus should be used, such as pipe valves which can
be firmly closed, to prevent water leakage that can affect the experiment results.

MUHAMMAD ARFAN SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN (U2000472)

Based on the results, we obtained the sinusoidal graph illustrating maximum and minimum
amplitudes for both friction and non-friction surge tanks under varying water levels. For a 5''
calibrated water level, the first experimental amplitude was 150mm, whereas theoretically, the
maximum amplitude was 552mm, surpassing the experimental value. Similarly, for a 27''
calibrated water level, the experimental first amplitude in the friction case surge tank and the
theoretical value in the non-friction surge tank were 44mm and 430mm, respectively. Overall,
the non-friction surge tank exhibited a greater maximum amplitude than the friction case surge
tank in both 5'' and 27'' calibrations. This difference can be attributed to the friction losses
coefficient, resisting flow motion and reducing travelling velocity due to high shear stresses
induced between the pipe wall and the fluid. Percentage errors between theoretical and
experimental values were determined based on the first maximum amplitude, considering its
lower error and minimal energy dissipation in the surge tank compared to other amplitudes.

Moreover, the non-friction graph illustrates constant maximum and minimum amplitudes over
time. Conversely, the experimental graphs for both 5'' and 27'' water levels exhibited decreasing
maximum and minimum amplitudes over time. The graphs for 5'' calibrated water level with
friction indicated higher magnitudes of maximum amplitudes (213 mm) compared to 27''
calibrated water level (200 mm). The theoretical prediction aligns with this observation,
indicating higher magnitudes for 5'' water level. Additionally, the duration of the friction and
non-friction graphs for both 5'' and 27'' water levels differed, with the non-friction condition
requiring less time to complete one cycle. This is attributed to the decreased velocity of the water
wave as energy dissipates due to friction, resulting in an increased time for one cycle in the
friction condition.

Several errors were identified during the experiment, and precautions are recommended to
enhance result accuracy. Parallax error in water level measurement can be minimized by
ensuring the observer's eye level is perpendicular to the meniscus level and the ruler scale.
Apparatus-related errors, such as an outlet that doesn't close tightly, can be addressed by
regularly checking and maintaining the condition of the apparatus. Random errors due to time
lag can be reduced by having the same person perform the marking and timing processes to
ensure consistency.

To improve the experiment, variations in surge tank and pipe diameter can be explored for a
wider range of data and different discharge rates. Additionally, experimenting with different
surge tank models, such as gallery type surge tanks, inclined surge tanks, and those with
restricted orifices, could provide valuable insights.

MUHAMMAD ZUHAIRI BIN BADAROL HISHAM (U2000474)

The experiment of the surge tank is to determine the surge tank behavior on simulating the
turbine malfunctions by swiftly halting water flow. The calibrations 5’’ and 27’’ water level were
being used to analyze oscillations in the tank. To compare both calibrations, the 5’’ has higher
discharge rates which is 4.386 x 10-3 m3/s while 27’’ calibration has discharge rate of 3.394 x
10-3 m3/s cause the result of oscillations for 5’’ is faster than 27’’. In terms of frictional and
non-fictional scenarios, we can say that the presence of the friction makes the amplitudes
become fluctuated before stabilizing while with non- frictional, consistency amplitudes persisted
throughout oscillation. Friction also will cause the energy loss and will cause the amplitude
dynamic to become sharp and impact the variations in both cases. For the frictional conditions,
the 27’’ calibration shows lower amplitudes when it faces frictional conditions compared to
non-frictional conditions. The 27" calibration showed smaller amplitudes in frictional settings
than in non-frictional ones. The decreasing amplitude trend over time, which contrasted with the
constant amplitudes observed in non-frictional situations, was indicative of the influence of
friction. Disparities between theoretically expected and observed amplitudes, however, raised the
possibility of data collecting errors. The accuracy of the results may have been impacted by
human error, such as inconsistent observations and parallax readings. Precision in water
collection and amplitude measurements may have been compromised by instrument constraints
such as incomplete water flow stoppage and valve leakage. Precise calibration, observer
alignment, time recording, and careful equipment maintenance are essential to improve accuracy.
To reduce errors and produce accurate results, it is imperative to improve observer alignment,
ensure precise calibration, unify time tracking responsibilities, and conduct complete equipment
checks prior to tests.
Conclusion

QUAN BOMING (S2113761/1)

To summarize our experiment, its primary objective of determining the maximum and minimum
amplitudes of the surge tank at calibrated water levels of 5’’ and 27’’ was successfully achieved.
The experiment not only provided clear insights into the amplitude variations of water waves
within the surge tank but also highlighted the consequential reduction in amplitudes owing to
energy dissipation induced by friction within the pipeline and surge tank interface.

Surge tanks serve as critical components in hydraulic systems, acting as reservoirs or storage
units designed to manage abrupt changes in fluid flow, pressure fluctuations, and mitigate the
potentially destructive effects of water hammer. Their significance in water distribution systems,
especially in scenarios marked by fluctuating demand or rapid changes in flow rates, cannot be
overstated. By regulating pressure oscillations, surge tanks effectively protect equipment and
pipelines, ensuring the system’s integrity.

This experiment, beyond merely validating theoretical concepts, underscores the practical
relevance of surge tanks in maintaining stable fluid dynamics within water distribution systems.
Exploring avenues to optimize surge tank performance, such as employing advanced
friction-reducing materials or innovative designs, could significantly enhance their efficiency and
further advance this crucial aspect of fluid dynamics management.

LINGGESHWAR A/L NADARAJAN (S2120870/1)

In conclusion, the objective of this experiment, which is to analyse and compare results with
frictional and non-frictional oscillation periods and amplitudes, has been achieved successfully.
The oscillation period for both frictional and non-frictional conditions are more or less similar as
the difference is lower than 3s so, it does not indicate much difference. The magnitude of
amplitude of 5” calibration is generally higher than of 27” calibration in frictional condition.
Similarly, the magnitude of amplitude of 5” calibration for non-frictional cases are 552 mm and
-552mm which is higher than of 27” calibration which is 430mm and -430mm. This is due to the
higher velocity of water flow in the pipe for 5” calibration compared to that of 27” calibration.
Besides that, the effects of the pipe friction to the oscillation amplitude are determined as the
theoretical values were compared with the experimental values. The oscillation amplitude for the
frictional case decreases gradually as time increases while the amplitude of the theoretical case
(non-frictional) remains constant and stable as time increases. This is predominantly due to the
friction losses coefficient that will resist the flow motion and reduce its travelling velocity.
Lastly, the discharge for 5” calibration is higher compared to 27’’ calibration since the average
time for the water level to reach the 2cm height for 5” is shorter than 27”. Therefore, the greater
the velocity of flow, the greater the discharge rate and the average time taken to reach a certain
water level will be shorter. However, there are some sources of error present during the conduct
of this experiment which may have caused data inaccuracies. Thus, effective precautionary steps
must be taken to mitigate the errors and further improve the accuracy and precision of the results
obtained in this experiment.

DAVID LOH CHUN HONG (S2125575/1)

To conclude, the objectives to analyse and compare the results with non-frictional and frictional
oscillation period and amplitude for 5” and 27” supply calibration, to identify how pipe friction
affects the oscillation amplitude, and to investigate the relationship of discharge and time with
the variation of water level in the surge tank were all achieved. Increasing the calibration from 5”
to 27” decreases the rate of discharge from x to x which in turn decreases its maximum
amplitude from 552 mm to 430 mm respectively. Moreover, the water level will oscillate until
zero due to the friction that induces head losses (energy loss) of the fluid flow which also causes
the damping effect. This justifies why the surge tank's 27" calibration stops oscillating in the
surge tank sooner than the 5" calibration when carrying the fluid flow at low energy. Hence,
these examples demonstrate how the experimental study clearly supports the surge tank's
function. It is recommended that the amplitude of the water level can be easily marked by using a
coloured fluid to increase the precision of the data. Additionally, choosing a surge pipe tank with
a graduated scale will facilitate accurate and precise readings.
MUHAMMAD ARFAN SYAZWAN BIN ROSLAN (U2000472)

In conclusion, the experiment successfully achieved its objectives of determining the maximum
and minimum amplitudes for the surge tank with calibrated water levels of 5” and 27”. The
findings illustrated a decreasing amplitude of the water wave in the surge tank over time,
indicative of energy dissipation due to friction in the pipe and surge tank. The presence of surge
tank walls with friction was observed to reduce the maximum amplitude of fluid flow. It is
crucial for authorities to maintain water flow at an optimal rate to prevent incidents, especially in
applications like hydroelectric power plants, where surge tanks are frequently utilized,
particularly in systems with long penstocks. Surge tanks serve the purpose of absorbing pressure
waves during system shutdowns and supplying water during system restarts.

Furthermore, surge tanks are designed to mitigate surge pressure, also known as water hammer.
However, it's essential to note that while surge tanks can reduce surge pressure, they also impose
additional loads on pipe supports. Elevated pressure levels can potentially weaken pipe
components, leading to increased costs. Managing surge pressure is critical, and engineers focus
on analyzing water level fluctuations in surge tanks to design them effectively. The application of
surge tanks holds paramount importance in the field of engineering, particularly in addressing
unsteady flow in pipes and ensuring pressure surge control.

MUHAMMAD ZUHAIRI BIN BADAROL HISHAM (U2000474)

In summary, we manage to determine the objective of this experiment, which is to determine the
maximum and minimum amplitudes of the surge tank at calibrated water level of 5’’ and 27’’ has
been achieved. From this experiment, we can get the amplitude of water waves in the surge tank,
and we can see how it diminishes due to the energy that has been dissipated from the friction that
comes from pipe and surge tank. Reservoirs or storage tanks known as surge tanks are made to
regulate and handle abrupt changes in fluid flow, pressure swings, and the impacts of water
hammer in a system. The water distribution systems greatly benefit from the surge tank's
conceptual features. This is because water distribution systems, particularly those with
fluctuating demand or abrupt changes in flow rates, use surge tanks to control pressure
variations. They shield equipment and pipelines from the damaging effects of water hammer. As
a result, the experiment is successful since appropriate evidence that supports the theoretical
ideas was gathered.