ME4P03Experiment F11Discussion

Umer Javed
0942243javedu3@mcmaster.ca

March 31, 2015

Abstract
We construct a mathematical model of aerosol (i.e., droplet-nuclei) transmission of influenza within
a household containing one infected, and embed it into an epidemic households model in which infecteds
occasionally infect someone from another household; in a companion paper, we argue that the contribution
from contact transmission is trivial for influenza and the contribution from droplet transmission is likely
to be small. Our model predicts that the key infection control measure is the use of N95 respirators, and
that the combination of respirators, humidifiers and ventilation reduces the threshold parameter (which
dictates whether or not an epidemic breaks out) by 20% if 70% of households comply, and by 40% if
70% of households and workplaces comply ( 28% reduction would have been required to control the 1918
pandemic).

Contents

tems flow rate [1].

1 Pressure-wave dynamics

2 Pressure-wave measurement

3 Cavitation

4 Preventing water-hammer

Appendix A Lab data

For the pressure-wave speed, comparing using the

recorded times (normalizing with respect to the constant pipe-length), the half-cycle times (t1/2 ) remained constant for three of five, and four-of-five of
the measurements, in 300 and 200 kPa cases, respectively. The remaining variations were within 3%, except for trial #2 (see appendix-A), which was over
6%. Deviations in time were much greater for the
three-cycle times (t3 ) and dont appear to correlate
with the half-cycle times. Typically, the three-cycle
times decreased with increases in flow-rate, while
this wasnt the case in the half-cycle times. The halfcycle speed experienced more fluctuation in case-3,
with variable tank pressures. Overall, the threecycle wave speed results were much higher than the
half-cycle time wave speed derivations (frequently
by over 100 m/s).

Pressure-wave dynamics

From table-1, it is very clear how the maximum pressure rises with the flow-rate. The rate of change
of pressure, with flow-rate is also nearly identical
for both 200 and 300 kPa tank-pressures. Since,
the change in pressure is related by the equation:
1
P = (U 2 K) 2 , the experimental results follow the
theoretical expectations. The maximum pressure
remained relatively stable, with changes in tankpressure, at a constant flow-rate of 6 L/min. Theoretically, the change in pressure, due to waterhammer, is more dominantly affected by the sys-

The three-cycle pressure-wave speeds were lower

for the 200 kPa case. From case-3, three-cycle
speeds increase with pressure. It may be that as the
wave reaches the reservoir, less of it is dissipated and
it maintains more of its speed, as it completes the
1

cycles (returns to the valve). While trial #15 had

the greatest half-cycle speed, the overall case did not
exhibit a relationship between half-cycle speeds and
pressure.

closure is a simple change, with (relatively) minimum capital expense.

Alternatively, a shock-absorber (a simply helical
spring) attached near a valve, may be a candidate
for research to evaluate its strength in mitigating
the pressure-wave, as well as, its effect on regular
operating performance.
In the lab apparatus, water-hammer may be eliminated (effectively minimized) by:

Pressure-wave measurement

Analytically, the operational conditions and the apparatus dimensions do not influence the half-cycle
wave speeds. That is not true for the three-cycle
times. The three-cycle time measurement would,
technically, be a better overall average. However,
since the amplitude of the pressure wave was seen
to decrease rapidly, on the oscilloscope, it may not
be a true representation of the maximum wave-speed
achieved, after the valve is closed.

Shorter pipe-length.
Larger pipe cross-section.
Lower flow-rates.

Cavitation

Analysis of the wave speeds may be a method to

identify cavitation on the upstream side of the valve.
Cavitation would be more likely with higher flow
rates, on the downstream side of the valve, when
the valve is closed rapidly.
Cavitation may reduce the measured pressurewave speeds, as it would introduce irregular
pressure-differentials. Using that as a starting point,
cavitation may have occured in trials #2, 5, 8 and
14, as the wave-speed was decreased (looking at the
half-cycle time). The half-cycle time may be a better measure to evaluate cavitation; it is expected
that the effects of cavitation would be minimized as
the number of cycles increase. Looking at trial #5,
it is clear that while the half-cycle time is higher,
than in trial #4, the three-cycle time is lower.

Preventing water-hammer

Water-hammer is significant in higher-flow rate applications with longer-piping where the valve is
closed rapidly.
Some examples would be firehydrants, motion-controlled sinks (typically shut off
rapidly), water-jet cutting applications in CNCmachining. Generally, slowing the rate of valve2

Lab data

Pmin
(mV)

-172
-234
-391
-297
-516

Case-3: constant flow-rate at 6 L/min

11
150
0
1688
12
200
95
1688
13
250
145
1672
14
300
170
1656
15
350
185
1703

Pexit
(kPa)

Pmax
(mV)

Tank P
(kPa)

116
116
112
120
100

t1/2
(ms)

116
116
120
116
116

Case-2: constant tank-pressure at 200 kPa

6
2
150
641
-156
7
3
138
906
-188
8
4
120
1156
-188
9
5
120
1422
-203
10
6
95
1688
-234

Trial #

116
116
116
116
120

Case-1: constant tank-pressure at 300 kPa

1
2
260
656
-203
2
3
250
938
-281
3
4
245
1172
-281
4
5
210
1438
-313
5
6
170
1656
-297

600
556
516
568
516

t3
(ms)

668
684
648
600
556

656
596
596
588
568

499
499
517
482
579

Wave-speed t1/2
(m/s)

499
499
482
499
499

499
467
499
499
482

579
625
673
611
673

Wave-speed t3
(m/s)

520
508
536
579
625

529
583
583
591
611

Table 1: Experimental data from the lab. The lab had three components: the first two had respectively constant pressures and
the flow-rate was varied, in the third case, the tank-pressure was varied with constant flow-rate. All pressures (represented in
kPa) are gage-pressures. Pipe length is 57.88 m, used for wave-speed calculations.
Trial #
Q
Pexit
Pmax
Pmin
t1/2
t3
Wave-speed t1/2 Wave-speed t3
(L/min) (kPa) (mV) (mV) (ms) (ms)
(m/s)
(m/s)

References
[1] McMaster University, ME 4P03experiment F11: water hammer lab, January, 2015.