Hydraulic transients in pressurized pipe flow

(Exercises and solutions)

David Ferràs

Departament of Environmental Engineering & Water Technology,

Water Supply Engineering group

IHE-Delft

February 15, 2018

Contents

1 Steady-state equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Wave speed and Joukowsky pressure rise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Reservoir-pipe valve system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 Water-hammer code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5 Surge protection devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6 Branching junction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Pumping scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8 Micro-hydropower scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
9 Large-hydropower scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1
1 Steady-state equations 2

1 Steady-state equations

Exercise statement
Derive the steady-state equations from the water-hammer equations.

Exercise solution
Water-hammer equations:

∂Q ∂H
+ gA + RQ|Q| = 0 (1)
∂t ∂x
∂Q ∂H
a2 + gA =0 (2)
∂x ∂t
where,
f
R= (3)
2DA
By definition of steady-state
∂Q
=0 (4)
∂t
and
∂H
=0 (5)
∂t
Notice that substituting Eq. 5 in continuity equation (Eq. 2)
∂Q
=0 (6)
∂x
i.e. for a steady pipe flow the discharge value is constant throughout the pipe.
Substituting Eqs. 4 and 3 into the momentum equation (Eq. 1) the Darcy-Weisbach
equation can be obtained:

f ∆xQ2
∆H = (7)
2gDA2

2 Wave speed and Joukowsky pressure rise

Exercise statement
Wave speed: Consider a pipe with frequent expansion joints, inner diameter D = 0.02 m,
pipe-wall thickness e = 0.001 and a bulk modulus of the water K = 2.2 GP a. Plot the
wave celerity in function of Young’s modulus of elasticity E using Halliwell’s formula.
Mark in the plot the celerity corresponding to the following pipe-wall materials: High-
Density Polyethylene (E = 0.8 GP a), Polyvinyl chloride (E = 2.9GP a), Glass reinforced
polyester matrix (E = 17 GP a), copper (E = 117 GP a), steel (E = 200 GP a). Compute
the celerity and give an explanation of the obtained value when the Young’s modulus of
elasticity E → ∞
2 Wave speed and Joukowsky pressure rise 3

Joukowsky pressure rise: Joukowsky equation gives the piezometric head rise resulting
from an instantaneous closure of the valve in a frictionless system for an initial steady flow
aV0
∆H = (8)
g
Notice that using MOC positive characteristic equation and forcing QP = 0, the previous
expression is easily obtained. Derive it and compute Joukowsky pressure according to
the celerities obtained in the previous exercise and considering an initial flow velocity
V0 = 0.3 m/s.

Exercise solution
Wave speed: Figure 1 depicts the wave speed, according to Halliwell’s formula (Eq. 9),
in function of the Young’s modulus E for the pipe set-up described in Exercise-1. Addi-
tionally, wave speeds corresponding to HDPE, PVC, GFRP, copper and steel are depicted
as well as the acoustic wave speed in water.
s
K
a= (9)
ρ[1 + (K/E)ψ]

Fig. 1: Wave speed in function of the Young’s modulus E

As it can be observed in Fig. 1, for E → inf the elastic wave speed tends to the acoustic
wave speed. Notice that s
K
lim a (E) = = 1483m/s (10)
E→inf ρ
2 Wave speed and Joukowsky pressure rise 4

Joukowsky pressure rise: Considering the positive characteristic equation

QP = Cp − Ca HP (11)

being

Cp = QA + Ca HA − R∆tQA |QA | (12)

and
gA
Ca = (13)
a
if QP = 0, rearranging Eq. 11
gA
Cp QA + a HA − R∆tQA |QA |
HP = = gA
(14)
Ca
a

Neglecting friction and rearranging Eq. 14 the Joukowsky equation is obtained:

aV0
∆H = (15)
g
The same kind of plot as the one depicted for wave speeds can be drawn for the Joukowsky
pressure rise. Figure 2 depicts the different Joukowsky pressure rises corresponding to an
initial flow velocity V0 = 0.3m/s. As it can be observed, the higher the stiffness of the
material, the higher is the associated pressure rise when a valve is suddenly closed. Also
there is an upper limit corresponding to an infinite stiffness of the pipe wall.

Fig. 2: Joukowsky pressure rise in function of the Young’s modulus E

3 Reservoir-pipe valve system 5

3 Reservoir-pipe valve system

Exercise statement
Consider a reservoir-pipe-valve system like the one in Fig. 3, composed by a thin-walled
conduit of length of L = 100 m and with frequent expansion joints, inner diameter D =
0.02 m, pipe-wall thickness e = 0.001 and a bulk modulus of the water K = 2.2 GP a.

Fig. 3: Reservoir-pipe-valve system

Assuming copper is the material of the reservoir-pipe-valve system, use the excel
spreadsheet from the lecture material and run three different simulations for a linear
closure of the valve considering the following closing times: Tf = 0, Tf = 2L/a and
Tf = 4L/a. The initial flow conditions before closing the valve are: piezometric head
in the reservoir Hres = 40 m, piezometric head in the valve Hv = 39 m and initial flow
velocity V0 = 0.3 m/s. Simulation parameters: time-step dt = 5 ms, simulation period
T = 5 s and the valve starts closing at the time 1s. Determine the piezometric head
variation next to the valve (downstream section) for the three simulations.

Exercise solution
Applying Halliwell’s formula for the wave speed, assumming the pipe has frequent expan-
sion joints, s
K
a= = 1264m/s (16)
ρ[1 + (K/E)ψ]
Hence, the period of the wave is
4L
T = = 0.316s (17)
a
The different assessed manoeuvres, therefore, correspond to an instantaneous, a half
period and a period valve closures. Consequently, in the first and the second simulations
fast manoeuvres (vm ≤ 2L/a) excite the transient so the pressure history next to the valve
will reach the maximum pressure rise (Joukowsky pressure rise). While in the third a slow
manoeuvre excites the transient state and, consequently, the maximum pressure will be
below Joukowsky pressure rise. Figure 4 depicts the simulations output.
4 Water-hammer code 6

Fig. 4: Output at the valve for closing times 0, 2L/a and 4L/a.

4 Water-hammer code

Exercise statement
Based on the VBA code from the Excel spreadsheet provided, implement a second order
scheme for head losses computation.

Exercise solution
Compatibility equations can be solved considering a second-order approximation of pres-
sure head losses as follows.
Z P
gA P
Z Z P
dQ + dH + R Q|Q|dt = 0 (18)
A a A A

gA
QP − QA + (HP − HA ) + R∆t|QA |QP = 0 (19)
a
Eq. 19 is linear and can be directly solved. Hence, rearranging terms and combining the
known variables together

QA + gA
a HA gA 1
QP = − HP (20)
R∆t|QA | a R∆t|QA |
5 Surge protection devices 7

defining Cp and Ca constants as the intercept and slope coefficients

QP = Cp − Ca HP (21)
where
QA + gA
a HA
Cp = (22)
R∆t|QA |
gA 1
Cap = (23)
a R∆t|QA |
The same can be done for the negative characteristic line giving
QP = Cn + Ca HP (24)
where
QB − gA
a HB
Cn = (25)
R∆t|QB |
gA 1
Can = (26)
a R∆t|QB |
Notice that the Ca coefficient from the classic first-order scheme now doesn’t depend
only on the pipe properties but also on the discharge from the previous time-step. With
the values of Cp , Cap ,Cn and Can the VBA code can be updated and transformed to a
second-order numerical scheme.

5 Surge protection devices

Exercise statement
Consider the following reservoir-pipe-valve-pipe-reservoir system (v.i. Fig. 5) and carry
out the following simulations based on the input data presented in Tables 1 and 2. Assume
the pipe-wall is made of steel, its absolute roughness is 0.002 mm and the valve manoeuvre
is linear and takes 2 s.
1. Compare the performance upstream the valve (N8) with: no protection devices, a
surge tank (D = 0.5m) and a hydropneumatic vessel (V = 0.785m3 ).
2. Do the same at the section downstream the valve (N5).
Discuss the different results obtained, what are the advantages of hydropneumatic vessels
vs. surge tanks?

Fig. 5: Schematic of reservoir-pipe-valve-pipe-reservoir system

5 Surge protection devices 8

Tab. 1: Input table for pipes

Element Ni Zi (m) Nf Zf (m) Dint (mm) L(m) e(mm)
T1 N1 0 N8 0 100 100 10
T2 N8 0 N3 0 100 100 10
T3 N4 0 N5 0 100 100 10
T5 N4 0 N6 0 100 100 10

Tab. 2: Input table for reservoirs

Element Zb (m) ZSW (m)
D1 0 20
D2 0 18

Exercise solution
Upstream the valve: An upsurge pressure wave will be produced upstream the valve
when this is closed. The closure of 2s is a slow manoeuvre (≤ T /2) as the period, consid-
ering a wave celerity a = 1200m/s, is T = 0.666s. Hence, the associated pressure rise will
be below Joukowsky’s.
Figure 6 compares the pressure histories next to the valve, upstream section, for the
simulations without surge protection devices and with a surge tank of D = 0.5m. The surge
tank clearly reduces the wave amplitude, reducing the maximum pressure from around 63
m to 45 m and increasing the minimum pressure above vapour pressure, preventing the
system from cavitation.

Fig. 6: Pipe system performance upstream the valve without protection devices (blue line)
and protected by a surge tank (red line)
5 Surge protection devices 9

As depicted in Fig. 7 a hydropneumatic vessel of V = 0.785m3 located at the same

section produces a very similar effect.

Fig. 7: Pipe system performance upstream the valve without protection devices (blue line)
and protected by a hydropneumatic vessel (red line)

Downstream the valve: A downsurge will be produced downstream the valve after its
closure. As the pipe length, diameter and materials are the same upstream and down-
stream, the wave period is the same at the downstream side, hence a slow manoeuvre
excites also the transient at this side of the pipe system.
The performances of the surge tank and hydropneumatic vessel are shown, respectively,
in Figures 8 and 9, showing both a similar behaviour, i.e. reducing the wave amplitude
and preventing the system again cavitation.
5 Surge protection devices 10

Fig. 8: Pipe system performance downstream the valve without protection devices (blue
line) and protected by a surge tank (red line)

Fig. 9: Pipe system performance downstream the valve without protection devices (blue
line) and protected by a hydropneumatic vessel (red line)

The surge tank and hydropneumatic vessel assessed hereby perform similarly, either
when they are located upstream or downstream the valve. The main advantage of a
hydropneumatic vessel vs. a surge tank is that contains pressurized air allowing a more
contained size. However, for larger pipe systems large vessels would be required and this
would become difficult to accommodate and economically unfeasible.
6 Branching junction 11

6 Branching junction

Exercise statement
When a numerical model is implemented, an important stage is testing the model by
means of benchmark problems that will show if the model performs as expected from
theory. The following problem is useful to test branching junctions. The piping system
to be modelled consists of two reservoirs located upstream and connected by two conduits
that merge in a Y junction which is followed by another conduit with a valve in the other
pipe-end (v.i. Fig. 10). Downstream the valve there is a fourth conduit that leads to a
lower reservoir. The upstream reservoirs have a constant water level at 10 m, while the
downstream reservoir at 0 m. Pipe-4 has a length L = 100 m, a diameter D = 0.1 m,
pipe-wall thickness e = 0.001 m. Assume the pipe-wall is made of steel and its absolute
roughness is 0.002 mm.
Tasks:

1. Simulation-1: design Subsystem-1 in order to make it hydraulically equivalent to

Subsystem-2. Build up the numerical model and test if they are equivalent, for both
steady and transient conditions. For the pipe design consider: pipe-cross section
(D), Darcy-Weisbach friction coefficient (f), and pipe-wall thickness (e).
2. Simulation-2: change the diameter of pipe-1 to D = 0.1m.
3. Simulation-3: change the pipe-wall thickness of pipe-1 to e = 0.001m.
4. Simulation-4: change the water surface elevation of one of the upstream reservoirs
to Hres = 3m.

Compare and discuss the pressure output from the four tests at the downstream section
of pipe-3.

Fig. 10: Schematic of the pipe system with branching junction

6 Branching junction 12

Exercise solution
Simulation-1: In adopting this theoretical setup we are seeking to show the same hy-
draulic performance between the systems upstream and downstream of the valve for both
steady and transient conditions. To achieve this, pipes 1, 2 and 3 must also be in equilib-
rium so that the hydraulic performance of pipe-1 and pipe-2 is equivalent to that of pipe-3.
For this purpose, three main features are considered: pipe cross-section, skin friction and
water-hammer wave celerity. With respect to the pipe cross-section Eq. 27 determines the
condition to be fulfilled.
D3
D1,2 = √ (27)
2
where the sub-indices correspond to the pipe-ID. Also skin friction must be in consistency
with the hydraulic section following Eq. 28. This relation can be computed at each time-
step during the transient simulation assuming quasi-steady state.
D2
f1,2 = f3 (28)
D1
If Eqs. 27 and 28 are fulfilled then pipes 1 and 2 are hydraulically equivalent to pipe 3
for steady conditions. For transient conditions the water-hammer wave celerity must also
be equal to keep the system balanced. The propagation of water-hammer waves depends
not only on the fluid compressibility but also on the pipe-wall distensibility. Hence pipe-
wall thickness can be as well adjusted in order to match wave celerity values. Using the
Halliwell formula for water-hammer wave celerity, the following expression Eq. 29 can be
found:
D2
e1,2 = e3 (29)
D1
Therefore, the problem depicted in Fig. 10 has been designed according to Eqs. 27, 28
and 29. A summary of the input data for the definition of the conduits is presented in
Table 3.

Tab. 3: Summary table of input data for pipes

L (m) D (m) e (m) E (GPa)
Pipe-1 50 0.0707 0.0007 210
Pipe-2 50 0.0707 0.0007 210
Pipe-3 50 0.1000 0.0010 210
Pipe-4 100 0.1000 0.0010 210

Figure 11 depicts pressure output next to the valve, upstream and downstream, for
an instantaneous closure manoeuvre. The symmetric response of the two pressure traces
indicates both pipe systems, downstream and upstream, have an equivalent hydraulic
behaviour for both steady and unsteady conditions.
6 Branching junction 13

Fig. 11: Pipe system performance upstream and downstream the valve

Simulations 2,3,4: The output of the tests varying pipe diameter, thickness and reser-
voir level is depicted in Fig. 12. All the tests are compared to the system in hydraulic
equilibrium as a reference.

Fig. 12: Pipe system performance upstream the valve for the different scenarios considered:
simulation-1 (red line); simulation-2 (blue line); (c) simulation-3 (green line); and
simulation-4 (orange line).

As it can be observed in Fig. 11 small changes of the pipe parameters result in large
differences in the pressure output. For instance, in simulation-2 one can notice a consid-
erable drop in the middle of the first pressure peak. This is caused by a reflection of the
water-hammer wave at the Y junction, where there is a pressure drop caused by the greater
7 Pumping scheme 14

hydraulic section upstream of the junction. In simulation-2 wave celerity is the same at
the three conduits (pipe-wall thickness was adjusted accordingly), hence this discontinu-
ity of the pressure history occurs always with the same phase shift. When modifying
pipe-wall thickness (simulation-3), wave celerity is also affected and consequently wave
periods in pipe-1 and pipe-2 are different causing an erratic transient response. Finally,
in simulation-4 a lower hydraulic head in one of the upstream reservoirs produces a clear
wave amplitude reduction. The reason is the lower initial velocity in pipe-3 before the
valve closure. Also a discontinuity in the pressure history is observed due to a reflection
at the Y junction.
The simplicity of the proposed problem and the high sensitivity to an unbalanced set-
up depicts a fragile equilibrium, i.e. an unstable behaviour during hydraulic transient
conditions. This instability is a reflection of the complexity of the dynamic response of
piping systems. Additionally, it is worth pointing out that, depending on the topology
of the network upstream of the valve, Joukowsky pressures may be exceeded, hence com-
mon transient analyses based on classic approaches might be underestimating maximum
pressures.

7 Pumping scheme

Exercise statement
Protect against undesired hydraulic transients the pumping scheme depicted below (v.i.
Fig. 13). Input parameters are presented in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7.

1. Assess first the required valve manoeuvre to avoid cavitation.

2. Propose a solution to enable 10 s valve closures with no cavitation.

Fig. 13: Schematic of the pumping system

7 Pumping scheme 15

Tab. 4: Input table for pipes

Element Ni Zi (m) Nf Zf (m) Dint (mm) L(m) e(mm)
T1 N1 0 N4 0 1000 100 10
T3 N6 100 N7 100 500 10000 10
T4 N9 0 N6 100 500 500 10
T5 N5 0 N8 0 500 10 10

Tab. 5: Input table for reservoirs

Element Zb (m) ZSW (m)
D1 0 10
D2 100 110

Tab. 6: Input table for pumps

Element Ni Nf Q(l/s)
B1 N4 N5 1000

Tab. 7: Input table for reservoirs

Element Ni Nf DN(mm)
Rg1 N8 N9 500

Exercise solution
Several valve manoeuvres have been tested and pressure time histories checked at the
most vulnerable section for cavitation, i.e. node N6. As shown in Fig. 14, only for a very
slow valve manoeuvre (≈ 800s) cavitation pressures are avoided. Hence, the use of surge
protection mechanisms is strongly recommended.
7 Pumping scheme 16

Fig. 14: Pipe system performance at node N6 for the different valve manoeuvres consid-
ered: instantaneous closure (blue line); 200 s closure (red line); and 800 s closure
(green line).

A one-way surge tank has been included in the model at the section N6. This surge
tank has a diameter of 2 m and a maximum water level of 15 m. Pressure output and
water level at the surge tank section (N6) are depicted in Fig. 15. As it can be observed,
the device allows a good control of the downsurge transient pressure by feeding the main
pipeline when pressures are lower than the water level at the surge tank.

Fig. 15: Pipe system performance at node N6 for a valve closure of 10 s and with a one-way
surge tank at the node N6.
8 Micro-hydropower scheme 17

8 Micro-hydropower scheme

Exercise statement
The aim of this exercise is to assess an accident that occurred in a real micro-hydropower
scheme (Göksenli & Eryürek, 2015). The scheme is composed of two in-line waterfalls
(v.i. Fig. 16). The downstream one is where the accident occurred and is the one assessed
hereby. The system is not protected to pressure surges. With an initial flow rate of 11
m3 /s, a fast closure generated a water-hammer event, that combined with a deficient
welding of the flanges caused circumferential cracks on the penstock joints. Based on the
in-put data provided in Table 8 and Fig. 17, design the best surge protection to avoid
pressures above 30 bars.
→ Hint: simplify the scheme to a reservoir-pipe-valve system.

Fig. 16: Schematic of the micro-hydropower system

Tab. 8: Input table for pipes

Element Zi (mm) Zf (m) Dint (mm) L(m) e(mm) a(m/s)
Tunnel 500 450 2000 6500 84 1000
Penstock 450 300 2000 400 – 1200
8 Micro-hydropower scheme 18

Fig. 17: Valve manoeuvre

Exercise solution
As suggested in the exercise statement, a model consisting of a reservoir-pipe-valve system
has been built as simplification of the hydropower scheme. First a simulation has been
carried out in order to assess the accident described. Figure 18 depicts the transient
pressures at the downstream section during such events. As it can be observed, maximum
pressures are much higher than the recommended from design. Moreover, during the
water-hammer event vapour pressures are also reached. Hence, an anti-surge measure is
required.

Fig. 18: Pressure head at the downstream section for the simulated transient event.
8 Micro-hydropower scheme 19

To improve the performance of the pipe system a surge tank has been designed at the
junction between the tunnel and the penstock. With a diameter of D = 5m the tank
dampens the water-hammer wave by deriving an important mass of water out of the main
pipe. As it can be observed in Fig. 19, there is a first spike of pressure, when the wave
reaches the surge tank then an oscillation of a longer period starts. Pressures now remain
below the maximum recommended (≤ 30bar).

Fig. 19: Pressure head at the downstream section for the simulated transient event after
protecting the system by means of a surge tank.

To better analyse the performance of the surge tank, Fig. 20 depicts the water level at
the tank during the transient event. The mass oscillation between the tank and the main
reservoir becomes evident.
9 Large-hydropower scheme 20

Fig. 20: Water level at the surge tank for the water-hammer event assessed.

The period of mass oscillation can be computed by the following equation:

s
LAs
T = 2π (30)
gAp

where L is the pipe length between surge tank and the reservoir (L = 6500m), As is the
cross-sectional area of the surge tank (As = 19.6m2 ) and Ap of the pipe (Ap = 3.14m2 ).
Hence substituting values the period of the mass oscillation is T = 404s, which is consistent
with the water level history depicted in Fig. 20.

9 Large-hydropower scheme

The schematic shown in Fig.21 is based on a real hydropower scheme (Purcell, 2015)
which experienced an incident caused by a transient event due to a fast manoeuvre of the
upstream gate. Build up the hydraulic model according to the data provided in Tables 9,
10, 11 and 12, and carry out the following simulations:

1. Downstream water-hammer: simulate an instantaneous closure of the down-

stream valve. Is the system well designed to resist such transient loads?

2. Incident: simulate a valve trip of the upstream gate for a closing time of 20 s
and the downstream closing after 244 s. This is actually the incident described in
(Purcell, 2015). Why did the hydropower scheme failed?

3. Solution: design a solution to avoid the problems observed at the previous simula-
tion.
9 Large-hydropower scheme 21

Fig. 21: Schematic of the hydropower system

Tab. 9: Input table for pipes

Element Ni Zi (m) Nf Zf (m) Dint (mm) L(m) e(mm)
T6 N4 167.3 N5 0 2500 200 75
T7 N6 0 N9 0 2500 20 75
T8 N10 0 N2 0 3500 200 100
T9 N13 167.3 N17 167.3 4880 20 150
T10 N1 167.3 N12 167.3 4880 20 150
T13 N17 167.3 N20 167.3 4880 200 150
T14 N20 167.3 N21 167.3 4880 200 150
T15 N21 167.3 N4 167.3 2500 20 75

Tab. 10: Input table for reservoirs

Element Zb (m) ZSW (m)
D1 167.3 186.3
D2 0 5

Tab. 11: Input table for turbines

Element Ni Nf Q(l/s) H(m)
Tb1 N9 N10 39000 130

Tab. 12: Input table for reservoirs

Element Ni Nf DN(mm)
Rg1 N5 N6 1500
Rg2 N12 N13 4880
9 Large-hydropower scheme 22

Exercise solution
Downstream water-hammer: First a water-hammer event generated by an instantaneous
closure of the downstream valve is assessed. Figure 22 depicts such transient event by
presenting the pressure history output at the node N5 (next to the upstream valve), which
is the one where higher pressures are expected for the upsurge event. The maximum
pressure registered is 420 m; the steel penstock is supposed to resist such load.

Fig. 22: Water-hammer generated by an instantaneous closure of the downstream valve.

Incident: In a second simulation the incident described in Purcell (2015) is reproduced.

The upstream gate was rapidly closed (20 s) while a slow and safe closure was carried out
at the downstream valve (244 s). Figure 23 shows the simulated valve manoeuvres.

Fig. 23: Valve manoeuvres carried out to simulate the incident at the hydropower scheme.
9 Large-hydropower scheme 23

The corresponding transient event is shown in Fig. 24, where pressure histories are
depicted for the node next to the upstream valve (N17) and next to the downstream valve
(N5). The pressure output indicates that cavitation clearly occurs close to the upstream
valve, while the transient event doesn’t produce any trouble downstream. This fact is
consistent with the incident described in Purcell (2015).

Fig. 24: Simulated transient event, pressure histories at nodes N5 and N17.

Solution: Finally, a solution is suggested, and simulated, to avoid the risk of cavitation
upstream the penstock. A one-way surge tank located next to the upstream valve will
feed the main pipe for pressures below the head in the surge tank. The simulated surge
tank, sizing D = 10m and maximum water level H = 20m, is capable enough to keep
transient pressures in the desired range. As it can be observed in Fig. 25, pressures
are hold above the atmospheric. After feeding the pipeline, the pressure inside the pipe
increases according to the surge tank located downstream the tunnel.
9 Large-hydropower scheme 24

Fig. 25: Pressure histories and water level at the one-way surge tank located at N17.

Observing Fig. 26, a similar pressure drop occurs at the downstream surge tank, where
the water level smoothly decreases as consequence of feeding the main pipe. Afterwards,
the transient event conditions are back to a steady-state (static) and there is no mass
oscillation between the surge tanks and/or the reservoir, because of both the upstream
surge tank is one-way and the upstream gate is closed.

Fig. 26: SPressure histories and water level at the surge tank located at N21.
9 Large-hydropower scheme 25

References

Göksenli, A. & Eryürek, B. (2015). Failure analysis of pipe system at a hydroelectric

power plant. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International
Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Manufacturing Engi-
neering 9(9), 1643–1646.

Purcell, P. J. (2015). Modelling a transient event at an hydroelectric scheme. In:

International Conference on Pressure Surges (Dublin, Ireland).