(Manuscript No: I12528-09) April 18, 2012 / Accepted: April 24, 2012

Numerical Modeling for Simulation Transient Flow in Distribution System with CrankNicolson Method
Mehdi Salmanzadeh* Department of Mechanical Engineering Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University Shoushtar, Iran phone: +98 916 611 2703 (Email: Mehdi2852003@yahoo.com)
Abstract - For most piping systems the maximum and minimum operating pressures occur during transient operations. Therefore it is essential to good design and operation to perform a transient analysis for normal startup and shutdown and for unplanned events such as a pump trip associated with a power outage. This author also claims that water hammer (transient) analysis is easy. Hydraulic engineers who have studied the traditional approach to transient analysis might dispute this claim but, in fact, carrying out an analysis using the concept of pressure wave action provides an accurate, intuitive, and simple method for transient pipe system analysis of simple or complex pipe systems. Not only is this approach simple, it is extremely efficient producing accurate solutions with far fewer calculations making this approach suitable for analyzing large pipe distribution systems. Keywords: Transient flow, Crank-Nicolson method, water hammer, Pipelines system, Numerical model. Introduction THE basic unsteady flow equations along pipe due to closing of the valve near the turbine are non-linear and hence analytical solutions are not possible. Allevi [1, 2] developed classical solutions by both analytical and graphical methods neglecting the. Bergeron [3, 4] also developed graphical solution. Graphical solutions mentioned above had some practical application in pipe design before the advent of computer. Streeter [5] developed a numerical model by using a constant value of turbulent friction factor. Wiggert and Sundquist [6] solved the pipeline transients using fixed grids projecting the characteristics from outside the fundamental grid size. Their analysis shows the effects of interpolation, spacing, and grid size on numerical attenuation and dispersion. Watt et al [7] have solved for rise of pressure by MOC for only 1.2 seconds and the transient friction values have not been considered. Goldberg and Wylie [8] used the interpolations in time, rather than the more widely used spatial interpolations, demonstrates several benefits in the application of the method of characteristics to wave problems in hydraulics .Shimada and Okushima[9] solved the second order equation of water hammer by a series solution method and a Newton Raphson method. They calculated only maximum water hammer pressure with constant friction factor. The solution was not carried out for sufficiently long time to demonstrate damping of pressure head with increase of time. Chudhury and Hussaini [10] solved the water hammer equations by MacCormack, Lambda, and Gabutti explicit FD schemes. I. A. Sibetheros et al. [11] investigated the method of characteristics (MOC) with spline polynomials for interpolations required in numerical water hammer analysis for a frictionless horizontal pipe Silva-Arya and Choudhury [12] solved thehyperbolic part of the governing equation by MoC in one dimensional form and the parabolic part of the equation by FD in quasi-two-dimensional form. Pezzinga [13] presented both quasi 2-D and 1-D unsteady flow analysis in pipe and pipe networks using finite difference implicit scheme. Head oscillations were solved only for 4 seconds with constant friction. Pezzinga [14] also worked to evaluate the unsteady flow resistance by MoC. He used Darcy-Weisback formula for friction and solved for head oscillations up to 4 seconds only. Damping with constant friction factor is presented but not much pronounced, as the solution time is very small. Ghidaoi and Kolyshkin [15] performed linear stability analysis of base flow velocity profiles for laminar and turbulent water-hammer flows. They found that the main parameters that govern the stability behavior of the transient flows are the Reynolds numbers and the dimensionless timescale and the results found were plotted in Reynolds number / timescale space. Ghidaoui etal [16] implemented and analyzed the two layer and the five layer eddy viscosity models of water hammer. A dimensionless parameter i.e., the ratio of the time scale of the radial diffusion of shear to the time scale of wave propagation has been developed for assessing the accuracy of 1

International Journal Of Structronics & Mechatronics

the assumption of flow axisymmetry in both the models of water hammer. Zhao and Ghidaoui [17] have solved a quasi-two dimensional model for turbulent flow in water hammer. They have considered turbulent shear stress as resistance instead of friction factor. Bergant [18] et al incorporated two unsteady friction models proposed by Zielke [19] and Brunone [20] et al. into MOC water hammer analysis. The numerical results obtained for pressure heads, at valve section and in the mid-section up to 1 sec, from the quasi-steady friction model, Zielke model and Brunone model have been compared with the results ofmeasurements of fast valve closure in a laboratory apparatus with laminar flow and low Reynolds numbers turbulent flow condition. Zhao and Ghidaoui [21] formulated, applied and analyzed first and second order explicit finite volume (FV) Godunov-type schemes for water hammer problems. They have compared both the FV schemes with MOC considering space line interpolation for three test cases with and without friction for Courant numbers 1, 0.5.0.1.They modeled the wall friction using the formula of Brunone [20] et al. It has been found that the First order FV Gadunov scheme produces identical results with MOC considering space line interpolation. Hence the study of the previous works denotes that there are various numerical models, which include Method of characteristics (MOC), Finite Difference (FD) and Finite Volume (FV), presented by different investigators to obtain the transient pressure and discharges in water hammer situations. Among these methods MOC proved to be the most popular one as out of 14 commercially available water hammer software found on the World Wide Web, 11 are based on MOC and 2 are based on FD. Again the fixed grid MOC is most widely accepted being simple to code, accurate, efficient. Zhao and Ghidaoui21 advocated that although different approaches such as FV, MOC, FD and finite element (FE) provide an entirely different framework for conceptualizing and representing the physics of the flow, the schemes that result from different approaches can be similar and even identical. A numerical model UNSTD_FRIC_ BRR_WH using MOC and Barrs explicit friction factor has been presented here for solution of the transient flow situations of water hammer where there is a provision of computation of the transient frictions along with the pressure and discharges at a particular pipe section. Assessment of friction at any section in this unsteady transient flow condition also clearly indicates the effectiveness of using variable friction factor in contrast to the steady state friction as in the available numerical models. Damping of pressure and discharge with time after valve closure due to friction of the pipe are clearly illustrated by UNSTD_FRIC_WH model. It is well applicable for all flow conditions ranging from laminar to turbulent. GOVERNING EQUATIONS FOR STEADY-STATE FLOW In addition to pressure head, elevation head, and velocity head, there may also be head added to the system, for instance, by a pump, and head removed from the system by friction. These changes in head are referred to as head gains and head losses, respectively balancing the energy across two points in the system yields the energy or Bernoulli equation for steady-state flow: 1. CONTINUITY EQUATION FOR UNSTEADY FLOW The continuity equation for a fluid is based on the principle of conservation of mass. The general form of the continuity equation for unsteady fluid flow is as follows: 2. The second term on the left-hand side of the preceding equation is small relative to other terms and is typically neglected, yielding the following simplified continuity equation, as used in the majority of unsteady models: 3. MOMENTUM EQUATION FOR UNSTEADY FLOW The equations of motion for a fluid can be derived from the consideration of the forces acting on a small element, or control volume, including the shear stresses generated by the fluid motion and viscosity. The threedimensional momentum equations of a real fluid system are known as the Navier- Stokes equations. Since flow perpendicular to pipe walls is approximately zero, flow in a pipe can be considered one-dimensional, for which the continuity equation reduces to: 2

Mehdi Salmanzadeh

4.

| |

The last term on the left-hand side represents friction losses in the direction of flow: | | CRANKNICOLSON METHOD(C-N method) In numerical analysis, the CrankNicolson method is a finite difference method used for numerically solving the heat equation and similar partial differential equations. It is a second-order method in time, implicit in time, and is numerically stable. The method was developed by John Crank and Phyllis Nicolson in the mid-20th century. For diffusion equations (and many other equations), it can be shown the CrankNicolson method is unconditionally stable. However, the approximate solutions can still contain (decaying) spurious oscillations if the ratio of time step to the square of space step is large (typically larger than 1 / 2). For this reason, whenever large time steps or high spatial resolution is necessary, the less accurate backward Euler method is often used, which is both stable and immune to oscillations. The CrankNicolson method is based on central difference in space and the trapezoidal rule in time, giving second-order convergence in time. Equivalently, it is the average of forward Euler and backward Euler in time. For example, in one dimension, if the partial differential equation is

Then, letting, the CrankNicolson method is the average of the forward Euler method at n and the backward Euler method at n + 1:

Figure 1 : The Crank-Nicolson stencial for a 1D problem

Crank-Nicolson * ( ) ( )+

The function F must be discretized spatially with a central difference. Note that this is an implicit method: to get the "next" value of u in time, a system of algebraic equations must be solved. If the partial differential equation is nonlinear, the discretization will also be nonlinear so that advancing in time will involve the solution of a 3

International Journal Of Structronics & Mechatronics

system of nonlinear algebraic equations, though linearizations are possible. In many problems, especially linear diffusion, the algebraic problem is tridiagonal and may be efficiently solved with the tridiagonal matrix algorithm, avoiding a costly full matrix inversion. In the C-N method the partial differential equations transforms into ordinary differential equations along characteristics line. Equations 3 and 4 are presented as the following finite difference equations for pressure head H and velocity V:

Equations 3 and 4 are presented as the following finite difference equation. P = gh 5. 6. ( ( ) ) ( ( ) ) | |

Solve equation 5 and 6 for head H and velocity V: 7. 8. | |

The friction factor f in the above equations 3 to 8 is replaced by the following Churchill explicit approximations which covers full range of flow conditions, from laminar to turbulent. f = 8[( ) ]

A=*

, B=(

PERFORMANCES FOR A SAMPLE PIPELINE IN COMPARISON WITH C-N METHOD OUTPUTS AND HAMMER 7.0 he proposed model was examined for rapid valve closing in downstream of a long conduit with a infinite reservoir upstream The stability and accuracy of the solutions are tested by comparing them with the solutions obtained by an another numerical method C-N method and solutions already available in literature for that pipe system by water hammer program. The numerical values taken to start the solution of the physical problem are: l = 3657m D = 0.609m f = 0.02 = 0.0022mm Time = 4 sec x = 914.25m pipe length diameter of the pipe steady state friction factor roughness size of the pipe valve closure time pipe is divided into=4 sections 4

Mehdi Salmanzadeh

182.80 m

infinite reservoir with steady

Q = 0.3398 volume flow rate s m a = 914 m/s velocity of pressure wave after valve closure h1 = 182.8 m, h2 = 179.7 m, h3 = 176.6 m, h4 = 173.6 m, h5= 170.6 m v = 0.000005 m2/s viscosity of water

Figure 2- Schematic of hydraulic system considered for the case study.

To investigate the accuracy of the proposed methods in the previous section and select the top several methods which have the problem mended analytical solutions were considered. For solving these problems by numerical method a computer program in Pascal language was written that the results of numerical methods are the output of the mentioned program. Then the analytical solutions are compared with numerical methods. It's obvious that a method enjoys superiority that to some extent its results are closer to the results of analytical methods.

Figure 3- Pressure head at junction 5 wait C-N method and hammer 7.0

International Journal Of Structronics & Mechatronics

Figure 4- Volume flow rate at junction 5 wait C-N method and hammer 7.0

Figure 5- Pressure head at junction 3 wait C-N method and hammer 7.0

Mehdi Salmanzadeh

Figure 6- Volume flow rate at junction 5 wait C-N method and hammer 7.0

Figure 7- Volume flow rate at near the tank wait C-N method and hammer 7.0

Conclusion Transient (waterhammer) analysis is essential to good design and operation of piping systems. This important analysis can be done using the mathematically based C-N method based on the action of pressure waves. The CN methods are both capable of accurately solving for transient pressures and flows in water distribution networks including the effects of pipe friction. Therefore, for the same modeling accuracy the C-N method will normally require fewer calculations and faster execution times.

International Journal Of Structronics & Mechatronics

References 1. L.Allevi. 1904. Theorie general du movement varie de leau dans less tuyaux de conduit. Revue de Mecanique, Paris, France. Vol. 14(Jan-Mar): 10-22 and 230-259. L.Allevi. 1932. Colpo dariete e la regolazione delle turbine. Electtrotecnica. Vol. 19, p. 146. L Bertgeron. 1935. Estude ds vvariations de regime dans conduits deau:Solution graphique general e. Revue General de lHydraulique. Vol. 1, pp. 12 and 69. L Bergeron. 1936. Estude des coups de beler dans les conduits, nouvel exose de la methodegraphique. La Technique Moderne. Vol. 28, pp. 33,75. V.L.Streeter. 1969. Water Hammer Analysis. Journal of Hy. Div. ASCE. Vol. 95, No. 6, November. D. C.Wiggert, M. J Sundquist. 1977. Fixed-Grid Characteristics for Pipeline Transients. Journal of Hy. Div. ASCE. Vol. 103(12): 1403-1416. C.S Watt., J.M. Hobbs and A.P Boldy. 1980. Hydaulic Transients Following Valve Closure. Journal Hy. Div. ASCE. Vol. 106(10): 1627-1640. D. E.Goldberg, B.Wylie. 1983. Characteristics Method Using Time-Line Interpolations. Journal Hy. Div. ASCE. Vol. 109(5): 670-683. M Shimada and S Okushima. 1984. New Numerical Model and Technique for Water Hammer.Eng. Journal Hy. Div. ASCE. Vol. 110(6): 730-748.

2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10. M.H.Chudhury,and M.Y.Hussaini. 1985. Second-order accurate explicit finitedifference schemes for water hammer analysis. Journal of fluid Eng. Vol. 107. pp. 523-529. 11. I. A Sibetheros, E. R Holley and J. M Branski. 1991. Spline Interpolations for Water Hammer Analysis. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. 117(10): 1332-1351. 12. W.F Silva-Arya, and M.H.Chaudhury. 1997. Computaion of enegu dissipation in transient flow. Journal Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Vol. l123(2): 108-115. 13. G Pezzzinga. 1999. Quasi-2D Model for Unsteady Flow in pipe networks. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 125(7): 666-685. 14. G Pezzinga. 2000. Evaluation of Unsteady Flow Resistance by quasi-2D or 1D Models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. l126(10): 778-785. 15. M.S.Ghidaoui and A.A.Kolyshkin. 2001. Stability Analysis of Velocity Profiles in Water-Hammer Flows. Vol. 127(6): 499-512. 16. M.S Ghidaoui., G.S. Mansour and M. Zhao. 2002. Applicability of Quasissteady and Axisymmetric Turbulence Models in Warter Hammer. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Vol. l128(10): 917-924. 17. M Zhao. and M.S Ghidaoui. 2003. Efficient Quasi-Two dimension Model for Water Hammer Problems. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Vol. l129(12): 1007-1013. 18. A.Bergant, AR Simpson and J Vitekovsky. 2001. Developments in unsteady pipe flow friction modeling. Journal of Hydraulic Research. Vol. 39(3): 249-257. 19. W.Zielke. 1968. Frequency -dependent Friction in Transient pipe flow. Journal of Basic Eng, ASME. Vol. l 90(9): 109-115. 20. B. Brunone, U.M Golia,.,and M.Greco. 1991. Some remarks on the momentum equation for fast transients. Proc. Int. Conf. on Hydraulic transients with water column separation, IAHR, Valencia, Spain. Pp. 201-209. 8

Mehdi Salmanzadeh

21. M.Zhao, and M.S Ghidaoui. 2004. Godnouv-Type Solutions for Water Hammer Flows. Journal of hydraulic Engineering, ASCE. Vol. l130(4): 341-348.