| KNOWLEDGE BASE | HOW TO BUY | MY PROFILE

US & Canada 1-800-786-8545 / International 1-360-292-4050

COMPANY PRODUCTS & TRAINING SUPPORT RESOURCES OUR CLIENTS DEMO CONTACT US

Browse by Category Search the Knowledgebase

-- Select Category -- [Advanced Search]

Knowledgebase Home > Modeling Systems & Components > Other Devices

How to Model a Vacuum Breaker Using PIPE-FLO

In a uid transmission pipeline with changes in elevation there could be conditions in which the pressure in the piping system goes
below the vapor pressure of the uid. When this occurs, the liquid in the pipeline turns to vapor and the ow in the pipeline
becomes erratic, resulting in pressure surges, ow reversals, and water hammer. This low pressure condition can collapse the piping
and also cause physical damage to the pipeline by rupturing welds or seams. To prevent this from happening, vacuum breakers are
installed in pipelines to allow air to enter the pipe to prevent a vacuum from forming. In this situation, the pipe will no longer be fully
charged, which is an assumption that PIPE-FLO uses to perform its calculations using the Bernoulli equation.

There is no native vacuum breaker component in the PIPE-FLO program. Instead, various PIPE-FLO devices can be used to simulate a
vacuum breaker.

We will look at an example to see how to simulate a vacuum breaker in a system with elevation changes that can result in vacuum
forming in the pipelines. In the system shown below in Figure 1, a supply sump is locate at Elevation 100 ft and a pump supplies the
uid to the system. The pipeline rises to the 200 ft elevation and then proceeds downhill to Elevation 120. At Elevation 120 the uid
ows on to the outlet tank located at 180 ft. In addition, the system is designed to isolate the Outlet tank and allow ow to the
Alternate tank at Elevation 120. There is a vacuum breaker installed at the 200 foot elevation set to open just below atmospheric
pressure (0 psig), which is modeled as a pressure boundary called "Vacuum bkr" and a ow boundary called "Vent". Both are closed
in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Design Case Vacuum Breaker Model

The calculated results for the Design Case is shown in Figure 2 with a ow rate of 1010 gpm. Note that the pressure at Elevation 200
is 0.288 psig which is above the set pressure of the Vacuum breaker. Also, the pressures at all the junctions are above 0 psig.
Figure 2. Calculated Design Case Vacuum Breaker Model

Figure 3 shows the condition in which the Outlet tank at 180 ft is isolated and the path to the Alternate tank at 120 ft is opened. The
ow rate through the system will increase due to the change in elevation head which creates a siphon eect. Notice that PIPE-FLO
calculates a ow rate of 1675 gpm and the calculated pressure at Elevation 200 is a -24.6 psig, which is less than absolute zero, or 0
psia. This condition cannot occur in real life because an absolute vacuum cannot be achieved (-14.7 psig). When the pressure at
Elevation 200 drops below the vapor pressure of the liquid, vapor bubbles would form and ows and pressures would become
erratic, potentially damaging the pipeline.

Figure 3. Alternate Flow Lineup

The Real World

A properly designed system would include a vacuum breaker at Elevation 200 ft to minimize or prevent a vacuum from forming in
the pipeline. When the pipeline to the Alternate outlet tank is opened and the pipeline to the Outlet tank closed, the pressure at
Elevation 200 begins to drop as the ow rate in the downward owing pipe P-{006} begins to increase. Once the pressure at
Elevation 200 goes below the set pressure of the vacuum breaker, the vacuum breaker opens to break the siphon in the pipeline.
The ow rate will be determined by the amount of dynamic head loss and static head (elevation and pressure dierences) that the
pump must overcome.

With the vacuum breaker open, air would be admitted into the pipeline so the pipe would no longer be fully charged, and the uid
can then free fall down Pipe P-{006} from Elevation 200 into the Alternate outlet tank. The elevation at which the P-{006} becomes
fully charged again will depend on the amount of head loss from the fully charged elevation to the Alternate Tank, and the pressure
(vacuum) that is obtained at the vacuum breaker and is felt on the surface of the liquid at the point at which the pipeline is fully
charged.

How much ow the pump will deliver and at what elevation pipe P-{006} becomes fully charged again depends on the capacity of the
vacuum breaker and what pressure (or vacuum) is obtained at the high point of the system. PIPE-FLO can be used to answer these
two questions
Modeling the System with PIPE-FLO

CASE #1: INFINITE CAPACITY VACUUM BREAKER

Figure 4 below shows the system assuming a very large capacity vacuum breaker that can admit enough air to keep the pressure at
the high point at atmospheric pressure with the vacuum breaker open. Notice the pipeline between the Elevation 200 node and the
Inlet node is closed, and the pipelines to the Vacuum bkr pressure source and the Vent ow demand are opened. This is the same as
breaking the siphon.

Figure 4. Alternate Vacuum Breaker Lineup

Now we have two physical systems:

The rst system includes the Supply sump, the Pump, pipelines, and the pressure demand called Vacuum bkr.
The second system includes the Vent ow demand, pipelines, and the Alternate outlet tank.

The ow rate through the pump to the Vacuum bkr at Elevation 200 ft is calculated to be 1021 gpm.

To determine the elevation at which Pipe-{006} becomes fully charged again, set the ow rate into the Vent ow demand to the
value calculated leaving the Vacuum bkr. Setting the Vent demand to 1021 gpm simulates the ow down pipe P-{006} but this results
in the pressure at the vent dropping to -30.71 psig, once again a physically impossible condition. In this scenario with a large capacity
vacuum breaker open, the pressure of the liquid inside the pipe will be at atmospheric pressure until the pipe becomes fully charged
again. Converting -30.71 psig to feet of head results in -70.94 feet (= -30.67*2.31), which means the pipe will become fully charged at
129.1 feet (=200 ft -70.94 ft).

Another way to determine this level in PIPE-FLO is to iteratively change the elevation of the vent demand and Inlet node until the
calculated pressure at those two nodes equals zero, as was done in Figure 5 below. The elevation was determined to be 128.89 feet,
very close to the 129.1 feet determined by the rst method.

Figure 5. Iteratively determining the elevation at which the pipe becomes fully charged.
CASE #2: SMALL VACUUM BREAKER THAT ALLOWS A VACUUM AT THE HIGH POINT
Figure 6 below shows the system in which a smaller vacuum breaker is installed and the vacuum at the high point is -4 psig (or about
8.1 inches of mercury vacuum). In the PIPE-FLO model, the pressure boundary "Vacuum bkr" was changed to -4 psig and a ow rate
of 1170 gpm was calculated. The pressure at the Vent is calculated to be -29.57 psig. The elevation at which the pipe becomes fully
charge will have a vacuum of -4 psig felt on it, so the dierence (-29.57 - (- 4) = 25.57 psi ) can be converted to feet (25.57 psi x 2.31 =
59.07 ft) which can then be used to determine the fully charged elevation (200 - 59.07 = 140.93 ft).

Figure 6. System with -4 psig vacuum at the high point.

To perform the elevation calculation iteratively as shown in Figure 7 below, the ow at the Vent demand was set to 1170 gpm and
the elevation changed iteratively unitl the pressure at the Vent was calculated to -4 psig. An elevation of 140.82 feet was determined
iteratively. This is within reasonable engineering accuracy for the 140.93 ft elevation calculated previously.

Figure 7. Iteratively determining the elevation at which the pipe becomes fully charged with a vacuum of - 4 psig at the
vacuum breaker.

Key Points About Modeling the Vacuum Breaker

The previous analysis makes some key assumptions about what is happening in the piping system. The head loss caused by the
two-phase ow between the vacuum breaker and the elevation at which the pipe becomes fully charged is neglected in this analysis.
Depending on the nature of the two-phase ow (slug ow, bubbly ow, annular ow, etc.), this assumption will introduce a level of
error in the ow rate and elevation calculations. The methods presented above will get the engineer "in the ballpark" and if more
accurate results are needed, software that can calculate the head loss and pressure drop for two-phase ow should be used.

Additionally, the value of vacuum that will be obtained will depend on the capacity of the vacuum breaker.
Related Articles
No related articles were found.

Attachments
No attachments were found.

Article Details
Last Updated
15th of August, 2011

Version
2005, 2007, 2009

Would you like to...

Print this page

Email this page

User Opinions (2 votes)

100% 0%

How would you rate this answer?

Helpful
Not helpful
Rate It !

Visitor Comments

1
Posted by: FABIO A GIRALDO G
this article was very important for design. from now, I could use those recomendations. THANK YOU

Post a comment

To post a comment for this article, simply complete the form below. Fields marked with an asterisk are required.

Entering your email address is optional. It will not be displayed on this page, but may be used by our sta to contact you
regarding your comment.

For technical support, please do not use this form. Use our Web Support Form or email solutions@eng-software.com,
instead.

Name:
Email:
* Comment:

* Enter the code below:

Post Comment

1982-2010 Engineered Software, Inc. 4529 Intelco Loop SE, Lacey, Washington 98503
HOME | ABOUT US | SITEMAP | TERMS | PRIVACY | LEGAL