Sheet E6 · Experimental validation

Column separation at the valve (Simpson and Bergant, 1994)

Source : A. R. Simpson, A. Bergant, Journal of Hydraulic Research 32(2), 1994, pp. 183-194, figure 10

1. The question

After a very fast closure, the pressure drops to vapour pressure, a cavity forms and then collapses, creating peaks higher than Joukowsky. Does CBELIER, with its cavitation model, reproduce these peaks and their timing?

2. The case

upstream reservoircopper, L = 37.2 m, D = 22 mm, slope 1/20valveoutlettransducer

A 37.2 m copper pipe slopes down to a valve closed in 10 ms, with an initial velocity of 0.76 m/s. Head is measured at the valve by a piezoelectric transducer. CBELIER uses the discrete gas cavity model (DGCM).

3. Data and status

DataValueStatus
Pipe: L, D, wall thickness37.2 m; 22 mm; 1.63 mmPUBLISHED
Measured wave speed; initial velocity1,328 m/s; 0.76 m/sPUBLISHED
Closure time; upstream reservoir head10 ms; 8.2 mPUBLISHED
Head curve at the valve (fig. 10)± 1 m; ± 1 msREAD FROM FIGURE
Initial head at the valve7.0 mREAD FROM FIGURE
Elevation drop (slope ≈ 1/20)1.86 mDERIVED
Roughness; open-valve loss; linear closure1.5 µm; 0.5 mASSUMED

4. Results

0501000.00.20.40.60.8time (s)head (m)CBELIER (DGCM)measurement (fig. 10)
Head at the valve: CBELIER, DGCM (line) and measurement digitised from figure 10 (circles, one in three).

5. Differences

IndicatorCBELIERReferenceDifference
Peak no. 1107.0 m113.1 m−5.4 %
Time of peak no. 10.029 s0.027 s2 ms
Peak no. 2106.8 m110.2 m−3.1 %
Time of peak no. 20.388 s0.402 s−14 ms
Peak no. 3110.9 m98.5 m12.6 %
Time of peak no. 30.702 s0.710 s−8 ms

The first two peaks are reproduced within 6 % and all the times within 15 ms. The third peak is overestimated by 13 %. The RMS difference is not a good indicator here: with almost vertical fronts, a 10 ms shift is enough to make it explode.

6. Limitations and assumptions