CHAPTER IV

CHAPTER FOUR

BASIC EQUATIONS AND SOLUTIONS

4.1 INTODUCTION:

The basic equation o f continuity and momentum due to closing o f

penstock valve are approached for solution from classical approach. This requires a

general review of different existing solution o f the equations. These solutions cover

the classical solution, Thoma’s solution, Approximate solution, Graphical solution

and modem numerical solution.

4.2 BASIC MATHEMATICAL FORMATION:

The basic equations o f continuity and momentum o f unsteady flow

situation in a conduit due to sudden closure becomes

(4.1)
4 dt 4

and

(4.2)

If the valve is closed completely, continuity equation becomes

4. # (4.3)
4, dt

Substituting v from (4.3 ) in (4.2), the resulting equation becomes

46
 + g4 y =o
d 2y [ fL g A_ d y -
(4.4)
dl ^gD At, dt_ LA,

The resulting equation is nonlinear; therefore, it cannot be solved analytically.

Some classical solutions are available for equation (4.4).

I f friction is neglected, it becomes

d 2y | g A
y=o (4.5)
dt2 la,

Equation (4.5) is now an ordinary second degree differential equation

which can be solved analytically. Putting boundary conditions at t=0, V=Vo (steady

velocity), classical solutions o f the equation (4.4) gives,

y = Vo
LA
——^-sm
. sA t (4.6)
8*, LA,

V = V0 cos
gA (4.7)
LA

V, = ~~-F0 cos 1 (4.8)

LA,

This classical solution indicates that surge height fluctuation y is a sine

function whereas unsteady velocity V in the tunnel and Ys in the surge tank are cosine

function. This classical solution is o f no practical importance due to zero friction.

47
However it gives an idea o f the type o f actual solution which may be handled

numerically with the help o f modem computing techniques.

4.3 MAXIMUM VALUES OF PARAMETERS IN CLASSICAL SOLUTION:

In equation (4.6), Y is maximum when sin maximum i.e is.

. IgA . it
sm = sin —
VIA. 2

• \S*t t _ *
"V IA . 2

7t LA
: . t = — — - , ie., Y is maximum at this value o f t, Equation (4.6) may be written as
2M

n \l a , m
t= aSyam=v0J- (4.9)
2 V gA, Is*,
Similarly, it may be shown that V is maximum at t=0 i.e., F ^ = F0 (4.10)

At
a nd ,F _ =-^ -F 0 (4.10a)
A.

4.4 THOMA’S SOLUTION :

Making one assumption, Thomas solved the above nonlinear equation

for the design o f surge tank area only to obtain stability. He assumed that velocity V

varies linearly with head H not with square root o f head. This assumption o f linear

variation o f velocity head deviates from well known Torricelli’s formula Le

F = ^ 2 gH (4.11)

Therefore, in the design o f surge tank area, although Thomas formula is popular, a

higher factor o f safety is essential which may make the design uneconomic.

48
Consider any instant after partial valve closure. Take Vp as the velocity in the

penstock, H as the net head on turbine and Y as the negative head built up in the surge

tank. Then ratio of velocity in penstock and steady velocity in tunnel may be written

according Thoma’s assumption as:

Vp h,- y
v0 Hs
H ,~ Y
(4.12)
Hs

Putting this simplified velocity Vp in continuity equation

Hs -Y
Ai V = A,VsA1V0
H.

A
V = ^lK+Vq (4.13)
H.

A H. 4 H. **. A
Squaring, V 2 = (— 4 ) 2 + V 2 + ( - ^ Z ) 2 + 2 ^ -V ,V 0 - 2 V 0( ^ I - ) - 2 ( ^ L ) ^ - V s

Thomas assumed Vs and y / H s to be sm all Therefore, V 2 in first

term, Y 2 1 H 2 in second term and Vs .(Y /H t ) in third term of R.H.S. almost tend to

zero. Hence neglecting those term, V 2 reduces to:

2A,VSV0 2 V 2Y
V 2 = (V 02 +
A H,
(4.14)

Putting V and V2 from (4.13) and (4.14) in the dynamic equation (4.2)

L£AK + VB ■) + T + JL 2AKVp 2 V 2Y q
g d t K A, 2 gD A
Simplifying fixrther, this may be written as:

49
— j - - P^~ + Oy+ o c= 0 ( 4 .1 5 )

< fy 2 H d y

W h e r e ,

4 F 0 2 C V 0g

p ~ k a s v , l h

W h e r e , h f — C V 02 l t . C = ( ^ )

6 = ( ^ L _ 2 C V ° - A '8 ) ,a n d

A , L A , L H s

^ C A ^

A , L

E q u a tio n ( 4 .1 5 ) is n o w a lin e a r o r d in a r y d if f e r e n tia l e q u a tio n w h ic h

c o u ld h e h a n d le d w ith e x a c t m a th e m a tic s . S o lv in g e q u a tio n ( 4 .1 0 a ) w ith b o u n d a r y

c o n d itio n a t t= 0 , y = 0 , it is o b ta in e d th a t:

Y = C , [ e (/? /2 )'] s i n ( 4 .1 7 )

W h ic h s h o w s Y is p e r io d ic s in e f u n c tio n w h ic h is s im ila r to t h a t o f

c la s s ic a l s o lu tio n d is c u s s e d a b o v e . F o r p r a c tic a l p u r p o s e , th e o s c illa tio n s o f th is s in e

f u n c tio n m u s t d a m p d o w n w ith in c r e a s e o f tim e a n d th is is o n ly p o s s ib le i f P in th e

h y p e r b o lic f u n c tio n is n e g a tiv e .

L e ., p < 0

AH,

50
i x 2CVQg
L A,Vt

(4.18)

Equation (4.18) is the Thoma formula for minimum surge tank area for the damping

down o f the surges produced due to water hammer pressure.

Pressel presented a numerical step integration method o f solution o f

continuity and momentum equation in which the surface level in a surge tank can be

determined for a know penstock flow rate. He used a constant value for turbulent

friction factor.

Jaeger has recommended the use o f the following approximate formula

for calculation o f upsurge in cases where friction is taken into account.

In a similar manner to obtain the value o f for lowest water level i.e.,

for maximum down charge

(4.20)

4.5 GRAPHICAL SOLUTION:

In consequence o f the non-linearity o f the equations, various graphical

methods o f solution had been developed before foe advent o f computers. Those are

51
still available in the literature. Notable works in this line axe due to Calame and

Gaden, Schoklitchs, Escande, Jaeger and others.

Graphical methods are favoured by some designers in this field. The

method advocated by Calame and Gaden is very convenient and is frequently

employed to solve surge tank problems.

The Schoklitsch method is based on the finite difference equation o f

Hudson and Hunter.

For more precise calculation, Escabde had recommended his graphical

method extending to cover complex cases o f loading. He also observed that at the

beginning o f oscillation, there is a rapid change o f y and much more gradual change

in v. On the other hand, when maximum upsurge is approached, v changes quickly

and y changes gradually. Based on this principle, he also developed a numerical

method. Jaeger had discussed in detail the application o f graphical methods to

different types o f surge system, Thus graphical solutions were developed initially with

great skill These have been popular for quick analysis.

4.6 NUMERICAL SOLUTION:

Elsden suggested an empirical rule for first down surge. He also

demonstrated a numerical approach in which maximum upsurge is been determined

by different analytical and graphical methods. The purpose was to give an idea of

relative accuracy o f different methods. In his numerical examples, the maximum

upsurge calculated by different method varies from 21.81 feet to 25.35 feet. He

concluded after this analysis that there is little choice between various methods unless

they are verified by physical model studies.

52
 4.7 JAKOBSEN’S METHOD:

Jakobsen used a finite difference method to solve the equations (4.1)

and (4.2) for complete sudden closure. He expressed these two equations in finite

difference form as:

(421)
A, At

and

L*L+y+JLyjvi = 0 (4.22)
g At * 2gD

Taking At to be very small, linear variation o f V and Y during his short interval is

assumed.

Therefore,

(4.23)
2 2 2

Similarly,

F = F 0 + —AF (4.24)
2
-

Putting Y and V in equation (4.21) and (4.22)

L AV 1 . . j fL r-r 1 T,_
— r r + O 'o + T A y ) + r “ <7o + - A V ) F0 + —A F = 0
g At 2 2gD 2 0 2

LAV 1 . JL „ ,
---------i- y 0 h— A>>H-------F0\Vn + - ^ - ( 2 |F 0|—AF + —A F2) = 0 (4.25)
g At 0 2 2gD 01 01 2g£> 1 0|2 ' 4 '

Since AF is very small, Jakobsen neglected the last term (1/4) and solution for AF

is :

53
 gAt
AF - -O 0 + -A y ) + - ^ - V 0|F01+ - ^ - | F 0|Av + (4.26)
0 2 ** 2gD 01 01 2gD 01

Again from equation (3.1g)

y | ^ AV
0 2 4 At

=> Ay = (F0 —A F)— At (4.27)

2 4

Putting Ay from (3.22) in (3.21) and simplifying

y 0 + — K K I +- ^A / 2 {--)
0 2gD 01 01 2 0 4
AF = -• (4.28)

g 4 4 2gZ)

Snow putting AF from (4.28) in (4.27), Ay is obtained. When AF Ay are calculated

knowing initial -values o f y 0 and F0 at t=y and V in next time step At are calculated

from equations

P „= ^,+ A k (4-29)

K = K-i + AF (4.30)

Thus the above techniques and equations are involved in lying the finite difference

method o f Jakobsen. Although Jakobsen neglected a term (1/4) A F 2, Pickford

advocated that obsen’s method seems to be more accurate than other numerical

methods such as Escande’s, Pressel’s and simple arithmetic methods.

AIT, Bangkok presented a numerical solution similar to Jakobsen. In

the case presented solution was advance for 23 sec only with an integration step o f 1

second. It gave only the first maximum upsurge and first minimum downsurge. The

54
solution was compared with laboratory data produced in a small surge tank o f 4.5
inches diameter and a small pipe o f length 28.76 ft with diameter 2 inches.

Chatterjee developed direct step by step finite difference integration of

the equations with the help o f computer. He presented his solution o f surge height
upto time o f 135 seconds. His A for integration step was 5 seconds. He did not t

compare his solution with any model data.

4.8 APPROXIMATE METHOD:

An approximate method or equation is suggested by Pearsall as:

(4.30)

Where, rr l= $ -;
rQ r 0 = r j - £

■a
l g

, / 4
(4.31)

f L V 1

Sulton has given an approximate series solution as:

+ - 1 - F 3+ — F 4 (4.32)
H 3 r 9 r 135 ' 270 r
y rl = \ - - F r + ~ F r 7

A number o f other approximate methods have been developed by

Journey, Prasil, Warren and others. Johnson, Rich, and Parmakian derived charts for
approximate solution with sudden complete closure.

55
4.9 CONCLUSIONS:

A number o f varied conclusions can be drawn from the above study.

The classical solutions have found places in various practical applications. They have

not included the effects o f friction on the flow and predicted only the type and

fluctuations o f the flow.

The Thoma’s solution is used for surge tank design with the limitation

o f maximum surge height for complete load failure. A factor o f safety o f nearly 2 to 4

is required to assume in the design where Thoma’s solution is to be utilized,

Pressel’s solution has not considered the variation o f friction factor

with increasing Reynolds’s number. Instead it has used a turbulent friction factor,

which becomes a major drawback.

Jaeger’s solution gives only the approximate values o f maximum

upsurge and down surge. Graphical methods require interpolation o f value positively

or negatively if it doesn’t lie exactly over the pre drawn curves. Some solution also

suggest charts for ready reference.

Jakobsen’s numerical method appear to be better than other methods.

The inference can be drawn in the line that a numerical solution with modem

computers will be the best solution for this situation. Physical model study will help if

the data can be inserted to train the model for better solution.

56
 The graphical method employees interpolation technique which is

mostly approximate and don’t give exact values. This method was popular before the

advent o f modem computers. The graphical methods are tedious when the friction

factor is to be taken into consideration.

Therefore, the numerical solution with the computers w ill give the best

result. The data from the experimental results may be compared with physical data o f

the phenomenon. This work includes this approach to compare the result with other

available solutions.

57