Effect of Valve‐Closure Schedule on Water Hammer
Publication: Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Volume 112, Issue 10
Abstract
The computerized method of chacteristics was used to analyze, for a single pipeline discharging into free air, the effect of valve‐closure schedule on water hammer under turbulent friction conditions. The inherent valve schedule was assumed to be a simple continuous power function of the fraction of the closing time, this function yielding a variety of standard valve configurations. A chart is presented to determine the valve schedule that should be used to yield minimum water hammer pressure. With the exception of the minimum pressure case, the same water hammer strength can be obtained with two different schedules. This follows from the type of schedule function used and from the compatibility equations of unsteady flow through closed conduits. Also, it was found that cavitation is less serious for an inherent valve schedule in which the bulk of the pressure surge occurs during the second part rather than during the first part of valve‐closure.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Allievi, L. (1913). The theory of water hammer, trans, by E. E. Halmos, Riccardi Gatroni, Rome, Italy.
2.
Cabelka, J., and Franc, I. (1959). “Closure characteristics of a valve with respect to water hammer.” Eighth Congress of the International Association for Hydraulic Research, Montreal, Canada, pp. 6‐A‐1 to 6‐A‐23.
3.
Chaudhry, M. H. (1979). Applied hydraulic transients. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y.
4.
Driels, M. (1974). “Valve stroking in separated pipe flow.” J. of Hydr. Div., ASCE, 100(HY11), 1549–1563.
5.
Ikeo, S., and Kobori, T. (1975). “Waterhammer caused by valve stroking in a pipeline with two valves.” Bulletin of the Japan Society of Mech. Engrs., 18(124), 1151–1157.
6.
Lovett, O. P. (1964). “Valve flow characteristics.” J. of Instrument Society of America, 11, 65–67.
7.
Quick, R. S. (1927). “Comparison and limitation of various waterhammer theories.” Transactions of ASME, 49(5a), 524–530.
8.
Ruus, E. (1957). “Bestimmung von Schliessfunctionen welche den Kleinsten Wert des maximalen Druckstosses ergeben.” thesis presented to the University of Karslruhe, Germany, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Engineering.
9.
Ruus, E. (1966). “Optimum rate of closure of hydraulic turbine gates.” Presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers—Engineering Institute of Canada Conference, Denver, Colo.
10.
Sharp, B. B. (1974). Discussion of “Water hammer charts for various types of valves” by D. J. Wood and S. E. Jones. J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 100(HY2), 323–326.
11.
Streeter, V. L. (1963). “Valve stroking to control water hammer.” J. of Hydr. Div., ASCE, 89(HY2), 39–66.
12.
Streeter, V. L. (1967). “Valve stroking for complex piping systems.” J. of Hydr. Div., ASCE, 93(HY3), 81–98.
13.
Watters, G. Z. (1979). Modern Analysis and Control of Unsteady Flow in Pipelines. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc./The Butterworth Group, Ann Arbor, Mich.
14.
Wood, D. J., and Jones, S. E. (1973). “Water‐hammer charts for various types of valves.” J. of Hydr. Div., ASCE, 99(HY1), 167–178.
15.
Wylie, E. B., and Streeter, V. L. (1978). Fluid Transients. McGraw‐Hill Book Co., New York, N.Y.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
Volume 112 • Issue 10 • October 1986
Pages: 890 - 903
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 ASCE.
History
Published online: Oct 1, 1986
Published in print: Oct 1986
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.