Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Fluids

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c o m p fl u i d

Energy dissipation in unsteady turbulent pipe ows caused

by water hammer
A. Riasi a,, A. Nourbakhsh b, M. Raisee b
a
b

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, P.O. Box 11365-4563, Tehran, Iran
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 3 August 2009
Received in revised form 24 October 2012
Accepted 14 December 2012
Available online 8 January 2013
Keywords:
kx Turbulence model
Water hammer
Energy dissipation
Dimensional analysis
Turbulent production

a b s t r a c t
Energy dissipation and turbulent kinetic energy production and its dissipation in unsteady turbulent pipe
ows due to water hammer phenomena are numerically studied. For this purpose, the two-dimensional
governing equations of water hammer are solved using the method of characteristics. A kx turbulence
model which is accurate for two-dimensional boundary layers under adverse and favorable pressure gradients is applied. The numerical results are in good agreement with the experimental data. Through an
order of magnitude analysis, two dimensionless parameters have been identied which can be used
for the evaluation of viscous and turbulent shear stress terms. The inuence of these non-dimensional
parameters on pressure oscillations, wall-shear-stress, dissipation rate as well as proles of velocity, turbulent production and dissipation are investigated. The non-dimensional parameter P, which represents
time scale ratio of turbulence diffusion in the radial direction to the pressure wave speed, is used to study
the structure and strength of turbulence. It is found that for the case of P  1, for which the values of the
non-dimensional groups are larger, the peaks of turbulence energy production and dissipation move rapidly away from the wall and turbulence structure is signicantly changed. For the case of P  1, for which
the values of non-dimensional parameters are smaller, these variations are found to be small.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In pressurized pipes and channels, perturbation in the uid ow
is produced due to several operations such as starting or failure in
pump and turbine and also fast opening or closing of the valve in
order to regulate the ow rate. These actions result in a series of
positive and negative pressure waves which move along the passage with wave speed. Regarding these positive and negative pressure waves, several problems such as pipe rupture, hydraulic
equipment damage and cavitations might occur. Water hammer
problems are usually simulated using one-dimensional water
hammer equations based on the quasi-steady friction model. The
main assumption of this method is that the head loss during water
hammer phenomenon is equal to the head loss obtained from the
steady ow. However, this assumption is not valid for most of the
water hammer problems due to existence of strong gradients and
reverse ows near the pipe wall.
The main focus of the present paper is energy dissipation in
water hammer ows. Energy dissipation in transient pipe ow
was studied by Silva-Araya and Choudhry [1]. They dened the
energy dissipation factor as a ratio between the energy dissipation
at any instant and the energy dissipation obtained by assuming
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ariasi@ut.ac.ir (A. Riasi).
0045-7930/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compuid.2012.12.015

quasi-steady conditions. They used this factor to improve the accuracy of one-dimensional equations of water hammer. The attenuation in laminar water hammer problems was numerically studied
by Wahba [2]. He introduced a non-dimensional parameter which
controls the viscous shear stress term. Moreover, he investigated
the inuence of this parameter on pressure damping, instantaneous wall-shear-stress and Richardson annular effect.
To gain deeper insight of energy dissipation and structural variation of turbulence in turbulent water hammer problems, it is necessary to employ two-dimensional equations for water hammer
simulation using accurate turbulence modeling. For this purpose,
Vardy and Hwang [3], Silva-Araya and Choudhry [1,4], Pezzinga
[5], Zhao and Ghidaoui [6] and Wahba [7] used several algebraic
turbulence models. Recently, Zhao and Ghidaoui [8] used lowReynolds number k-e model of Fan et al. [9] for unsteady turbulent
pipe ows. More recently, Riasi et al. [10] used low-Reynolds
kx turbulence model to simulate unsteady turbulent pipe ows
emerging from water hammer problems.
The main objectives of the present work are: (i) to introduce the
non-dimensional groups for controlling viscous and turbulent
shear stress terms, (ii) to investigate the inuence of these nondimensional groups on pressure oscillations, wall-shear-stress,
dissipation rate and velocity proles and (iii) to study the radial
distribution of turbulent kinetic energy production and its dissipation in one wave cycle of water hammer.

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

125

Notations
a
Cl
D
e
E
f
Ftur
Fvis
Fw
g
gz
GCI
h
H
H0
k
L
M
MV
Nr
Nx
p
P
Q
r
Re
t
Td
TW

acoustic wave velocity

constant in eddy-viscosity
pipe diameter
error in non-dimension form
validation comparison error
DarcyWeisbach friction factor
turbulent force
viscous force
water hammer force
gravity acceleration
geopotential energy per unit mass
grid convergence index
specic enthalpy
piezometric head
initial piezometric head at valve
kinetic energy of turbulence uctuation per unit mass
pipe length
Mach number
Mach number based on the radial velocity
number of computational grids in radial direction
number of computational grids in longitudinal direction
observed order of method
turbulence production in Eq. (27), non-dimensional
parameter in Eq. (28)
energy transfer by heat
radial coordinate measured from the pipe center line
Reynolds number
Time
diffusion time scale
water hammer wave time scale

2. Mathematical modeling and numerical procedure

As shown by Vardy and Hwang [3], the continuity and momentum equations for transient ow in pipes are written as

@H
@H a2 @u a2 1 @r t
u

0
@t
@x
g @x g r @r

 

@u
@u
@u
@H 1 @
@u
u
t
g

r qm
 qu0 t0
@t
@x
@r
@x rq @r
@r

where t = time; x = distance along the pipe; H(x, t) = piezometric

head; u(x, r, t) = axial velocity; t(x, r, t) = radial velocity; u0 = stream
wise velocity uctuation; t0 = cross stream velocity uctuation;
a = acoustic wave velocity; g = gravity acceleration; q = density
and m = kinematic viscosity.
Here the piezometric head is dened as H(x, t) = p(x, t)/c + z, in
which the p(x, t) = the average of pressure in pipe, c = qg = specic
weight of uid and z = pipe level.
The main assumptions of Vardy and Hwang [3] in the derivation
of these equations are: (a) the pipe wall is approximately inextensible, and thus there is no radial velocity at the pipe wall and (b)
the pressure at any cross-section is uniform. Moreover, the nonlinear convective term in Eq. (2) is neglected due to small Mach
number. This point will be clearly explained in Section 3.
According to the Boussinesq approximation, the turbulent shear
stress is approximated as

qu0 t0 qmt

@u
@r

where mt = eddy viscosity.

u
u0
us
unum
U

t
t0
V
V0
Vol
W
x
y
z

longitudinal velocity in Eq. (1), internal energy in

Eq. (19)
uctuation velocity in longitudinal direction
friction velocity
standard uncertainty in the simulation solution
longitudinal velocity scale
radial velocity
uctuation velocity in radial direction
velocity, radial velocity scale
initial bulk velocity
volume
energy transfer by work
longitudinal coordinate
distance measured from the pipe wall (Rr)
pipe level

Greek symbols
ax, bx, bk, rx, rk closure coefcients for k-x model
a, b
non-dimensional groups
e
dissipation per unit mass
U
dissipation function
c
specic weight of the uid
m
kinematics viscosity
mt
eddy viscosity
q
density
s
shear stress
sW
wall shear stress
sWss
steady state wall shear stress
X
specic dissipation rate
x1, x2 weighting coefcients
n
real positive parameter

Eqs. (1) and (2) form a system of hyperbolicparabolic partial

differential equations. Vardy and Hwang [3] employed a hybrid
solution scheme in which the hyperbolic part and the parabolic
part of the governing equations are respectively solved using the
method of characteristics and nite difference. With linear combination of Eqs. (1) and (2) the following characteristic equations,
describing perturbations movement at speeds +a and a relative
to the uid and along the positive and negative characteristics
(see Fig. 1), are formed [3]:

C :

dH a du
a2 1 @rt a 1 @r s
dx

along
a
dt g dt
g r q @r
dt
g r @r

3
Fig. 1. Positive and negative characteristics for water hammer problem.

4a

126

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

C :

dH a du
a2 1 @r t a 1 @r s
dx



along
a
dt g dt
g r q @r
dt
g r @r

where total shear stress express as

4b

s qm @u
 qu0 t0 .
@r

In unsteady turbulent pipe ows, the use of a high resolution

grid is essential for accurate calculation of important variables
such as velocity, turbulent kinetic energy and specic dissipation
rate. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 2, a non-uniform mesh consisting
ne enough nodes in the near-wall region is used. To this end the
clustering factor is considered to be 1.05. The number of grid nodes
in the radial and longitudinal directions is Nr and Nx, respectively
(see Fig. 2). Regarding the characteristics method (Fig. 1), the Courant number, denes as C = aDt/Dx, is 1.0 and thus the time step is
obtained from Dt = Dx/a.
According to Fig. 1, the characteristic equations are integrated
along the positive and the negative characteristics. The terms in
the right hand side of Eq. (4) are approximated as weighted average of the relevant values at successive times n and n + 1 along
the characteristic lines and thus, the following equations are obtained [6]
n1
C : Hn1
 x1 C t1 jr tn1
 x2 C u1 jun1
i;j1 x1 C t2 jr ti;j
i
i;j1


a
n
n1
n1
x2 C u2 j ui;j  x2 C u3 jui;j1 Hi1
g

ni1;j1

1  x1 C t1 jr t

 1  x1 C t2 jrt


a
1  x2 C u1 juni1;j1  1  x2 C u2 j uni1;j
g
5a

n1
 x1 C t1 jr tn1
C  : Hn1
i
i;j1 x1 C t2 jr ti;j


a
x2 C u2 j un1
x2 C u1 jun1
x2 C u3 jun1
i;j1 
i;j
i;j1
g

Hni1 1  x1 C t1 jrtni1;j1  1  x1 C t2 jr tni1;j



a
 1  x2 C u2 j uni1;j
 1  x2 C u1 juni1;j1 
g
 1  x2 C u3 juni1;j1

C u2 j C u1 j C u3 j
rj

j
X

Dr m

m1

r j r j1 rj =2
where Drm = rmrm1.
At a given time t and a location x along the pipe, Eqs. (5a) and
(5b) are valid for each rj and consequently, 2Nr linear simultaneous
n1
characteristics provided for 2Nr unknowns Hn1
; un1
i
i;1 ; ui;2 ; . . . ;
n1
n1
n1
n1
ui;Nr ; ti;1 ; ti;2 ; . . . ; ti;Nr 1 . A linear system of equations AX = B is
formed, where A2Nr2Nr = coefcient matrix, X2Nr1 = unknowns
vector and B2Nr1 = right hand side vector. Since the method of Vardy and Hwang [3] is very time consuming, Zhao and Ghidaoui [6]
converted the linear system of equations AX = B into the two sub
linear systems of equations with tridiagonal coefcient matrix.
2.1. Boundary conditions

ni1;j

1  x2 C u3 juni1;j1

a2 Dt 1
g r j Drj
aDtm mtj1 1
rj1
C u1 j
r j Drj rj  rj1
g
aDtm mtj 1
rj
C u3 j
rj Dr j r j1  rj
g
C t1 j C t2 j

5b

where x1 and x2 are the weighting coefcients, superscript n is the

temporal location and subscript i and j are indexes for spatial
location.
Coefcients Ct1, Ct2, Cu1, Cu2 and Cu3 are dened as follows

At the inlet, the head is predetermined and the radial velocity

component is set to zero. For axial velocity components, Nr negative characteristics (Eq. (5b)) are valid and must be simultaneously
solved.
At the closed valve, all axial velocity components are zero and
Nr positive characteristics (Eq. (5a)) are solved simultaneously to
n1
n1
n1
yield Hn1
N ; tN;1 ; tN;2 ; . . . ; tN;Nr 1 . In the case of the valve is not suddenly closed, the linear reduction in time, has been considered for
the axial velocity components. This reduction starts from the steady state velocity to the zero velocity. It is worth mentioning that in
this case, the valve is closed very fast but not suddenly.
To illustrate the implementation of the wall boundary condition, the no-slip boundary condition is imposed at the solid surface
aligned along rNr = R. Thus,

ti;Nr 0:0
ui;Nr 1 ui;Nr

At the pipe axis, zero gradient boundary condition is employed for

the axial velocity component and the radial velocity component is
set to be zero.

Fig. 2. Introduction of variables in a part of pipe for implicit characteristics method.

127

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

Turbulent dissipation is the rate at which turbulence kinetic energy

is converted into thermal internal energy.

2.2. Stability condition

Using Von Neumann analysis [11], the following condition
should be satised for the stability of numerical scheme [6]

0:5 6 x2 6 1; 0:5 6 x1 6 1

or

0:0 6 x2 6 0:5; Dt 6

1
Dr 2
2  4x2 m mt

2.3. Turbulence modeling

The Wilcoxs kx model [12] is employed for modeling of turbulence. It is well known that this turbulence model is fairly accurate for 2D boundary layer under pressure-gradient [12].
Furthermore, the kx model can be integrated through the viscous
sublayer without using any viscous damping. The k and x equations and eddy-viscosity formulation in Wilcoxs kx model are
written as



 2
@k 1 @
@k
@u
mt

rm rk mt
 bk kx
@t r @r
@r
@r
 


@x 1 @
@x
x @u 2
 bx x2
rm rx mt

ax mt
r @r
@t
@r
k @r
k
mt

10

where k = kinetic energy of turbulence uctuation per unit mass

and x = specic dissipation rate.
The following closure coefcients are provided by Wilcox [12]

5
9

ax ; bx

3
9
1
1
;b
; rx ; rk
40 k 100
2
2

11

3. Non-dimensional groups
To obtain the non-dimensional form of turbulent water hammer equations, the following normalized variables are considered

u  t  x 
r
t
q
; t ; x ; r ; t
; q
;
q0
U
L
D
nL=a
V
H
u0
t0
; u0 ; t0
H
aU=ng
us
us

u

13

where the superscript  is used to denote dimensionless quantities,

n = a real positive parameter equal to 4 for a full wave cycle (i.e.,
T = 4L/a) and for rapid transient ow set to one or lower value,
q0 = density of the uid in undisturbed state, U = axial velocity scale
and V = radial velocity scale.
Since us = (fU2/8)1/2, the order magnitude of friction velocity is
(0.1U). Note that here the Joukowsky head (aU/ng) is used for the
normalization of pressure head, whereas the pressure in high Reynold number ows are normalized by qU2/2 and in low Reynold
number ows (creeping ows) by qmU/D.
Different time scales can be identied for water hammer phenomenon as follows: TW = L/a = water hammer wave time scale
and Td = D2/m = diffusion time scale. Here, the water hammer time
scale is used for time normalization.
Applying the above scales to the momentum equation (Eq. (2)),
yields
 






@u
@H
L M
1 @
 @u
 @u

 @u

nM

n
r
q
V
 nMu
D Re r  q @r 
@t
@x
@r 
@x
@r
|{z}
Viscousshearstressterm



L
1 @ 
0:01n M    q u0 t0
14
D
r q @r
|{z}
Turbulentshearstressterm

In typical water hammer problems, as will be shown in the subsequence section, the Mach number is very small and thus convective
terms can be neglected in the k and x equations. To solve k and x
equations, the diffusion and the source terms are discretized using
the implicit central difference expression and the time derivative is
discretized using the rst order forward differencing scheme. Finally, two tridiagonal matrix systems are solved for the k and x in each
time step.
At the pipe axis, symmetric boundary conditions for k and x are
assumed: ok/or = 0, ox/or = 0, and for wall boundary condition, the
kinetic energy of turbulence, k, is set to zero. In order to facilitate
integration of the kx turbulence model through the viscous sublayer, one can show that the specic dissipation rate, x, must satisfy the following asymptotic solution close to the wall: x ? 6m/
by2.
In all computation, in order to resolve the variation of important
variables within the viscous sublayer; the y+ = usy/m value of the
rst grid node adjacent to the wall is less than 1.0.

where M = U/a = Mach number, MV = V/a = modied Mach number

based on the radial velocity, Re = UD/m = Reynolds number.
Vardy and Hwang [3] showed that the radial velocity is of order
[104  103] time the axial velocity. For most industrial applications, the orders of magnitude of the above non-dimensional
groups are

L
O102  104 ; M O104  102 ;
D
MV O108  105 ; Re O102  106

The change in density in unsteady compressible ows is of the order

of the Mach number [13]. Since the Mach number is much smaller
than unity for water hammer problems, it can be concluded that
q  1. According to Eq. (15), the order of magnitude for the terms
of Eq. (14) can be written as
@u

@t

nM
|{z}

O104 102

2.4. Turbulent production and dissipation

To study the structure and behavior of turbulence, the production and dissipation of the turbulent kinetic energy are dened as
[12]

 2
@u
P mt
@r

12

e bk kx
The turbulent production represents the rate at which kinetic
energy is transferred from the mean eld to the uctuation eld.

15

u



 



@u
L
@u
@H
L M
1 @
@u
n M V t    n
r  q 
@x
@r
@x
@r
D
D Re r  q @r 
|{z}
|{z}
O106 101

O108 1



L
1 @
0:01n M    q u0 t0
D
r q @r
|{z}

16

O104 1

From Eq. (16), it can be concluded that: (1) the convective terms can
be neglected because of small Mach number, (2) the viscous and the
turbulent shear stress terms are controlled by the non-dimensional
groups nLM/DRe and 0.01nLM/D, respectively, (3) these terms are
much stronger in longer pipe of smaller diameter and also in
unsteady pipe ows with higher Mach number and (4) the viscous
and turbulent shear stresses are more signicant for larger values of
n (i.e., n > 4).

128

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

Note that higher Mach numbers occur in pipes with low elasticity modules like polyethylene pipes where the pressure wave
speed is less than the metallic pipes. Hereafter, these non-dimensional groups are dened as

c:v :

17

Different interpretations can be presented for the non-dimensional

groups a. For example, it can be interpreted as ratio of the different
time scales:

an

Lm
aD2

TW
Td

18

Eq. (18) shows that the viscous non-dimensional group, a, is dened

as ratio of the water hammer wave time scale to the diffusion time
scale. Accordingly, a and b can be represented as ratio of different
forces as:

qmU=DpLD F v is

qaU=npD2 F W
LU
qu0 v 0 pLD
F tur

b 0:01n

Da qaU=npD2 F W
an

Lm

aD2

19

where Fvis = viscous force, Fw = water hammer force and Ftur = turbulent force. The reference surface for the viscous and the turbulent
forces is the internal surface of the pipe while the reference surface
for the water hammer force is the cross section area of the pipe.
Note that in the above equation, it is assumed that u0  0.1U and
t0  0.1U.
These non-dimensional groups are consistent with those already reported by Wahba [2] for the non-dimensional parameter
of laminar water hammer problems.

4. Energy dissipation
To study the energy dissipation in water hammer problems, the
energy balance should be considered for the standard test rig of
water hammer including reservoir, pipe and valve. For this purpose, a control volume is applied to the pipe (Fig. 3).
Accordingly, the balance of energy for this control volume is
d
dt

Z
c:v :

!
Z
V2
_ 
u
gz qdVol Q_  W
2
c:s:

V2
h
gz
2

q~
V  d~
A

20

where u = internal energy, gz = geopotential energy per unit mass,

_ account for the net rate of energy
h = the specic enthalpy and Q_ ; W
transfer by heat and work across the boundary of control volume.
Since the pipe wall is almost adiabatic, the heat loss is zero and this
_ represents the
term can be neglected from the energy equation. W
work done on or by the control volume due to boundary displacement. The displacement happens because of pipe expansion and
contraction during traveling of high and low pressure waves along
the pipe. By integrating the energy equation during the simulation
time and neglecting the gravity term, one obtains


Z

Z
c:v :

tT

Wjt0  WjtT 

Lm

L M
an 2n
D Re
aD
LU
L
b 0:01n
0:01n M
Da
D

!

V2
u
qdVol

2

"Z

c:s:

!

V2
u
qdVol

2
t0
#
!
2
V
V  d~
A dt
h
q~
2

21

where T = computational time.

In one cycle of water hammer and during time interval [0, L/a],
the high pressure wave moves upstream, bringing the uid to rest,
compressing it and expanding the pipe. When the wave reaches
the upstream end of the pipe (t = L/a), all the uid is under additional head (DH), all the momentum has been lost and all kinetic
energy has been converted into elastic energy. In this period, the
ow direction is from reservoir to the valve and some work is done
by the uid on the boundary of the control. During time interval [L/
a, 2L/a], the ow direction is changed and directed from the valve
to the reservoir. The pressure returns to the value which was normal before closure and the pipe wall returns to its normal form. In
this period some work is done on the control volume with boundary displacement. For the perfect elasticity, the value of this work
is approximately equal to the work transferred in time interval
[0, L/a]. A similar scenario is repeated for the traveling of low pressure wave during time interval [2L/a, 3L/a] and [3L/a, 4L/a]. Therefore, the net work transfer during a cycle of water hammer is
almost zero and also the net discharge ow from reservoir to the
pipe is approximately zero. As a result, the right hand side of Eq.
(21) is almost zero when the simulation time, T, is multiple of
the wave period.
Rearranging Eq. (21), the energy equation can be expressed as

Z
c:v :

uqdVol
Z
c:v :


tT

Z
c:v :

!

V2
qdVol

2

uqdVol

t0

t0

c:v :

!

V2
qdVol

2

22

tT

Note that the simulation time, T, is multiple of wave period. From

Eq. (22), it is clearly seen that the change in the internal energy of
the pipe ow is balanced with the variation of the kinetic energy
of the pipe ow. The internal energy of the pipe ow is changed because of the viscous and turbulent dissipation. The dissipation function for two-dimensional turbulent-boundary-layer ows is
approximated as [14]



@u
@u
qm  qu0 t0
@y
@y

23

where, y = Rr, Using Boussinesq approximation, Eq. (23) can be expressed as

 2
 2
@u
@u
/ qm
qmt
@y
@y
|{z}
|{z}
Viscousdissipation

24

Turbulentdissipation

Eq. (24) represents the mean energy loss per unit volume and per
unit time. Also, in Eq. (24), the turbulence dissipation has been
approximated by the turbulence production. Integrating Eq. (24)
across the pipe area and along the pipe length gives the rate of energy dissipation

Fig. 3. Control volume applied to the pipe for a standard test rig of water hammer.

129

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

Table 1
Grid independency study.

5. Results and discussion

Mesh grid

Time step (s)

385  47
500  62
600  80

0.00007
0.000053
0.000041

For every numerical works, two important issues should be

checked: (a) numerical uncertainty (verication) and (b) comparison with experimental results (validation). These are fully described in below.
5.1. Verication

Mesh Grid:385 47, Time Step: 0.00007 S

Mesh Grid:500 62, Time Step: 0.000053 S

1.5

Mesh Grid:650 80, Time Step: 0.000041 S

1

(H-H0)/(aV0 /g)

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5

at/L
Fig. 4. Effect of grid size on pressure oscillations at the valve.

/0

/ 2prdr dx

25

The energy dissipation in transient pipe ow may be computed by

integrating Eq. (25) during a computational time interval, T, as

/00

/0 dt

The main purpose of verication (including the code and solution verication) is to check the numerical accuracy independent
of the physical modeling which is the subject of validation [15].
Regarding the solution verication of the numerical scheme, a
standard test rig data of Holmboe and Rouleau [16] has been considered. Three different meshes including a coarse grid of 385  47
points, a ne mesh with 500  62 grids nodes and a ner mesh
with 650  80 grid nodes, has been performed (Table 1). In all of
these meshes, the clustering parameter is set to 1.05 in the radial
direction.
The main characteristics of the unsteady turbulent ow including pressure, turbulent velocity prole and kinetic energy of turbulence are considered. The comparison among the results obtained
from these different meshes shown in Figs. 46. The details of
uncertainty estimation based on the grid convergence index (GCI)
are calculated and listed in Table 2 [15]. The numerical uncertainties are in the acceptable margin.
where U1, U2 and U3 are values of key variables for ner, ne
and coarse meshes, respectively; e21 = U2  U1, e32 = U3  U2, p is
observed order of method, e21 is error in non-dimension form,
GCI denotes the grid convergence index and unum is standard uncertainty in the simulation solution [15]. The following variables are
considered for the key variables: (a) the maximum deviation for
the valve pressure, (b) the maximum deviation for the steady state
turbulent velocity and the steady state kinetic energy, (c) the maximum deviation for the unsteady turbulent velocity and the unsteady kinetic energy at the middle of pipe and at t = 4.5L/a.

26

Using Eqs. (22) and (26), one obtains

5.2. Validation

Z
Z


/00
uqdVol 
uqdVol
c:v :
c:
v
:
tT
t0


!
!
Z
Z


V2
V2

qdVol 
qdVol


2
2
c:v :
c:v :

To validate the unsteady friction model developed in this

paper, the computed data are compared with the measured data
of Holmboe and Rouleau [16] for the laminar and the turbulent
water hammer. When the downstream valve is suddenly closed,
a strong transient ow is produced in the pipe line (Fig. 3).

t0

27

tT

Mesh Grid:385 47, Time Step: 0.00007 S

Mesh Grid:500 62, Time Step: 0.000053 S

Mesh Grid:385 47, Time Step: 0.00007 S

Mesh Grid:500 62, Time Step: 0.000053 S
Mesh Grid:650 80, Time Step: 0.000041 S

Mesh Grid:650 80, Time Step: 0.000041 S

1
0.8

0.6

0.6

r/R

r/R

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

u/V0

u/V0

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5. Effect of grid size on u-velocity prole: (a) steady state and (b) t = 4.5L/a.

1.2

1.4

130

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

Mesh Grid:385 47, Time Step: 0.00007 S
Mesh Grid:500 62, Time Step: 0.000053 S
Mesh Grid:650 80, Time Step: 0.000041 S

3.5

3.5

2.5

2.5
2

k/u

k/u

2
1.5

2
1.5

0.5

0.5

-0.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.5

Mesh Grid:385 47, Time Step: 0.00007 S

Mesh Grid:500 62, Time Step: 0.000053 S
Mesh Grid:650 80, Time Step: 0.000041 S

0.2

0.4

0.6

r/R

r/R

(a)

(b)

0.8

Fig. 6. Effect of grid size on kinetic energy of turbulence prole: (a) steady state and (b) t = 4.5L/a.

Table 2
The details of uncertainty estimation [15].

U1
U2
U3

e21
e32
p
e21
GCI
unum

Table 3
The detail of test cases examined.

Valve
pressure

Steady state
turbulent
velocity

Unsteady
turbulent
velocity

Steady state
kinetic
energy

Unsteady
kinetic
energy

1.015
1.01226
1.00833
0.00274
0.00393
1.3747
0.27%
0.7769%
0.3884%

1.1795
1.1848
1.1908
0.0053
0.0059
0.4194
0.45%
4.8558%
2.4279%

0.7327
0.7443
0.7597
0.0116
0.0154
1.0636
1.58%
6.1744%
3.0872%

3.6466
3.5577
3.4338
0.0888
0.1239
1.2699
2.43%
7.6999%
3.8499%

2.0209
2.0627
2.1197
0.0418
0.0569
1.1789
2.06%
7.1355%
3.5677%

Test case number Reynolds Wave speed P

(m/s)
1
2
3

6166
6166
6166

To study the inuence of non-dimensional groups a and b on

characteristics of turbulent water hammer problems, three different test cases with various values for a and b are examined. The details of these test cases are presented in Table 3.
Note that the variations of a and b are achieved by changing the
pressure wave velocity (we consider a very wide range, far behind

Exprimental (Holmboe et al., 1967)

Computed

Computed
Input Data for Laminar water Hammer:
L=36.09 m
D=0.025 m 3
=878.4 Kg/m 2
=0.03484 N-s/m
a=1324 m/s
Re=82

1.5

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2

Input Data for Turbulent water Hammer:

L=36.09 m
D=0.025 m 3
=1000 Kg/m
=0.00086 N-s/m2
a=1350 m/s
Re=6166

(H-H0)/(aV0 /g)

(H-H0)/(aV0 /g)

4.75 4.33  103 0.269

47.5 4.37  104 0.0269
237.53 8.47  105 0.00538

135
1350
6750

5.3. Results discussion

Exprimental (Holmboe et al., 1967)

1.5

1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5

10

12

b 0:01n DL M

are 0.0535 and 0.0742 for Fig. 7a and b, respectively. Since, the
standard uncertainty in the experimental data is unknown; it is
not possible to estimate the validation standard uncertainty.
Regarding Fig. 7, the events occurs in a working cycle of water
hammer (T = 4L/a) are fully described in the Section 3.

Fig. 7 presents the comparison of the computed and measured

pressure head at the middle of the pipe and also for both a laminar
and a turbulent water hammer. The initial data for these experiments is shown in this gure as well. The time axis is normalized
by the wave travel time from the reservoir to the valve (L/a). The
pressure axis is also normalized by Joukowsky head (aV 20 =g).
The validation comparison error, E, which is dened as difference
between simulation solution value and experimental data values,

M
a n DL Re

14

-2

at/L

at/L

(a)

(b)

10

12

14

Fig. 7. Pressuretime history at the pipe midpoint: (a) laminar water hammer, Re = 82 and (b) turbulent water hammer, Re = 6166.

131

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

=8.4710-5, =0.00538

-5

=8.4710 , =0.00538

-4

=4.3710 , =0.0269

30

-4

=4.3710 , =0.0269

=4.3710-3, =0.269

-3

=4.3710 , =0.269

25
20

' /' ss

(H-H0)/(aV0 /g)

0.5

15
10

-0.5

5
0

-1
0

10

12

at/L
Fig. 8. Pressuretime history at the pipe midpoint for various values of a and b.

-4

-3

=4.3710 , =0.269

30
First step

Test case
number

t (s)

U00v is (J)

U00tur (J)

1
2
3

3.2
0.32
0.064

0.285
0.1185
6.61  102

1.44  102
5.335  103
1.79  103

Second step

10

W /Wss

12

Table 4
Energy dissipation in a three cycle of water hammer.

=4.3710 , =0.0269

ratio of the diffusion time scale to the wave time scale in water
hammer problems and dened as [17]

-10
-20
-30
-40

10

Fig. 11. Energy dissipation time history at the pipe midpoint for various values of a
and b.

=8.4710-5, =0.00538

20

at/L

10

12

at/L
Fig. 9. Wall-shear-stress time history at the pipe midpoint for various values of a
and b.

the limits that can be found in practice for only a parametric

study). Case (2) represents the experimental data of Holmboe
and Rouleau [16]. Also, the non-dimensional parameter P is the

p
2D=2us
L=a

28

Fig. 8 shows the head pressure at the middle of the pipe for the
cases (13). It is evident that the pressure damping is much stronger for test case (1) that the values of a and b are larger than others.
Two asymptotic limits of the momentum equation can be distinguished as:
(a) When a, b ? 0 and as a result the viscous and turbulent
terms are neglected and the pressure damping tends to be
zero. On the other hand, the condition of inviscid water
hammer is achieved.
(b) When a, b ? 1 and consequently the unsteady and pressure
terms are neglected and the period of the transient ow
tends to innity and as a result the transient nature of problem is vanished in the recent condition.

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.85

r/R

r/R

r/R

( ) Steady State, ( ) t=0.5L/a, ( ) t=1.5L/a, ( ) t=2.5L/a

0.85

0.85

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.75

0.75

0.75

0.7

0.7

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

-1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

0.7

-1.5

-0.5

u/V0

u/V0

u/V0

(a)

(b)

(c)

0.5

1.5

Fig. 10. Unsteady velocity proles for various values of a and b: (a) a = 4.37  103, b = 0.269, (b) a = 4.37  104, b = 0.0269 and (c) a = 8.47  105, b = 0.00538.

132

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

0.15

0.1

0.6

0.8

-0.1

-0.05

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.1
-0.15

-0.15

0.1

(a)

0
4

0.4

0.15

0.05

r/R
/u

0.2

r/R
/u

/u

-0.05

0.1
0.05

0.05
0

0.2
4

0.15

P/u

0.2
4

0.2

P/u

P/u

() Steady State, (--) t=0.5L/a, (--) t=1.5L/a, (--) t=2.5L/a, ( ) t=3.5L/a

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

r/R

-0.05
-0.1
-0.15

(b)

(c)

Fig. 12. Proles of turbulence production and turbulence dissipation for various values of a and b: (a) a = 4.37  103, b = 0.269, (b) a = 4.37  104, b = 0.0269 and (c)
a = 8.47  105, b = 0.00538.

The oscillations of the wall shear stress are shown in Fig. 9.

According to this gure, two different steps can be identied for
the wall shear stress oscillation. The rst step is a sudden rise of
wall shear stress which is caused directly by the passage of the
pressure wave. Kucienska [18] showed this shear stress peak is
approximately proportional to the amplitude of the pressure wave.
The second step is the relaxation of the wall-shear-stress. During
this relaxation phase, the shear stress tends exponentially from
the value caused by the pressure wave to the value corresponding
to the new steady state. This situation is achieved if the ow conditions remained unchanged after the passage of the pressure wave
which had caused the shear stress peak. The sudden pressure rises
of wall shear stress are caused by sudden pressure gradients and
they are responsible for accelerating and decelerating ows.
Fig. 10 shows the velocity proles at the rst wave cycle of
water hammer. It is clearly shown when the positive pressure
wave passes from the pipe midpoint (t = 0.5L/a), a uniform shift
in the velocity prole is induced in the whole of pipe cross-section.
In addition, because of the no-slip boundary condition at the pipe
wall, a strong gradient and a vortex ring (reverse ow) is formed
around the pipe. The same condition occurs when the negative
pressure wave coming from the valve (t = 2.5L/a).
During deceleration of ow, the velocity and the shear stress
near the wall have signs opposite to the velocity in the core ow
and reverse ow occurs near wall. This phenomenon called annular
effect and was rst introduced by Richardson and Tyler in 1929.
Regarding Figs. 9 and 10, the sudden rise of wall shear stress and
also annular effect for test case (3) is much signicant when compared to those happens in test cases (1) and (2).
Fig. 11 represents the rate of energy dissipation in three cycles
of water hammer (12L/a). As shown in this gure, the maximum
rate of energy dissipation occurs at the time t = 2L/a when the ow
in the whole of the pipe is accelerated because of traveling of reected positive pressure wave from the reservoir to the valve.
Referring to this gure, the sudden rise of energy dissipation rate
reduces as the a and b are increased.
The turbulent and viscous energy dissipation (U00v is ; U00tur ), during
the three wave cycles and for the mentioned test cases are listed in
Table 4.
Note that because of various wave speeds, the necessary time
for three wave cycles is different in the three mentioned test cases.
Fig. 12 indicates the proles of turbulent production and dissipation in the rst wave cycle of water hammer and at the middle of
the pipe. The peaks of turbulent production and dissipation occur
in the wall region where the velocity gradient is substantial and
tend to zero at the pipe axis. For test case (1) that P  1 and the values of a and b are larger, the turbulent production and dissipation

are considerably changed from their steady state values and the
peaks move away from the wall. This variations are small for case
of P  1, for where the values of a and b are smaller.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, the energy dissipation and turbulent production
and dissipation in unsteady turbulent pipe ows due to water
hammer problems, has been numerically investigated. For the both
steady and unsteady turbulent pipe ow, a good agreement between the numerical and the experimental results is observed.
The results show the kx turbulence model has reasonable capability in prediction of unsteady pipe ows due to water hammer
problems. Through dimensional analysis and order of magnitude,
two non-dimensional groups are identied that can be used for
modeling the viscous and turbulent shear stresses. The result
shows that when a and b decrease: (a) the pressure damping decreases, (b) the sudden rise of wall shear stress and dissipation
function increase and (c) the effect of Richardson annular ow is
more pronounced. Moreover, the non-dimensional parameter, P,
decreases as the values of a and b increase. In case of P  1 and
for a cycle of water hammer, the turbulence structure is signicantly changed and the peaks of turbulent production and dissipation move rapidly from the wall to the pipe axis. This variations are
small for case of P  1, for which the values of a and b are smaller.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to extend their utmost gratitude to the staff of
Hydraulic Machinery Research Institute (HMRI) for their cooperation and support.
References
[1] Silva-Araya WF, Chaudhry MH. Computation of energy dissipation in transient
ow. J Hydraul Eng 1997;123(2):10815.
[2] Wahba EM. Modelling the attenuation of laminar uid transients in piping
systems. Appl Math Model 2008;32:286371.
[3] Vardy AE, Hwang KL. A characteristic model of transient friction in pipes. J.
Hydraul Res 1991;29(5):66985.
[4] Silva-Araya WF, Chaudhry MH. Unsteady friction in rough pipes. J Hydraul Eng
2001;127(7):60718.
[5] Pezzinga G. Evaluation of unsteady ow resistances by quasi-2D or 1D models.
J Hydraul Eng 2000;126(10):77885.
[6] Zhao M, Ghidaoui MS. Efcient quasi two dimensional model for water
hammer problems. J Hydraul Eng 2001;129(12):100713.
[7] Wahba EM. RungeKutta time-stepping schemes with TVD central
differencing for the water hammer equations. Int J Numer Methods Fluids
2006;52(5):57190.
[8] Zhao M, Ghidaoui MS. Investigation of turbulent behavior in pipe transient
using a ke model. J Hydraul Res 2006;44(5):68292.

A. Riasi et al. / Computers & Fluids 73 (2013) 124133

[9] Fan S, Lakshminarayana B, Barnett M. Low-Reynolds number ke model for
unsteady turbulent boundary layer ows. AIAA J 1993;31(10):177784.
[10] Riasi A, Nourbakhsh A, Raisee M. Unsteady turbulent pipe ow due to water
hammer using kx turbulence model. J Hydraul Res 2009;47(4):42937.
[11] Tannehill JC, Anderson DA, Pletcher RH. Computational uid mechanics and
heat transfer. USA: Taylor and Francis; 1984.
[12] Wilcox DC. Turbulence modelling for CFD. La Canada CA: DCW Industries;
1994.
[13] Hinze JO. Turbulence. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1987.
[14] White FM. Viscous uid ow. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991.

133

[15] Standard for verication and validation in computational uid dynamics and
heat transfer. The American Society of Mechanical Engineering; 2009.
[16] Holmboe EL, Rouleau WT. The effect of viscous shear on transients in liquid
lines. Trans ASME 1967;89(1):17480.
[17] Ghidaoui MS, Mansour SGS, Zhao M. Applicability of quasisteady and
axisymmetric turbulence models in water hammer. J Hydraul Eng
2002;128(10):91724.
[18] Kucienska B. Friction relaxation model for fast transient ows. PhD thesis.
Belgume: University of Catholique de Louvain; 2004.