International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114 www.elsevier.

com/locate/ijpvp

A new nite element formulation based on the velocity of ow for water hammer problems
Jayaraj Kochupillai1, N. Ganesan, Chandramouli Padmanabhan*
Machine Dynamics Laboratory, Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India Received 26 July 2003; revised 21 June 2004; accepted 21 June 2004

Abstract The primary objective of this paper is to develop a simulation model for the uidstructure interactions (FSI) that occur in pipeline systems mainly due to transient events such as rapid valve closing. The mathematical formulation is based on waterhammer equations, traditionally used in the literature, coupled with a standard beam formulation for the structure. A new nite element formulation, based on ow velocity, has been developed to deal with the valve closure transient excitation problems. It is shown that depending on the relative time-scales associated with the structure, uid and excitation forces, there are situations where the structural vibration response increases with FSIs. This is in contrast to what is normally accepted in the literature, i.e. FSI reduces the structural displacements. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fluidstructure interaction; Finite element method; Waterhammer

1. Introduction Even though many researchers have used hybrid models for waterhammer problems, with the method of characteristics (MOC) modeling the waterhammer equations and the nite element method (FEM) modeling the structure, few have used the wave equation resulting from the elimination of one of the variables from the waterhammer equation in FEM. The wave equation can be formed with ow velocity as the uid variable, which is appropriate for the valve closure excitation. This equation is elliptical in nature and hence can be readily modeled using FEM. In this investigation, this feature is exploited to develop a coupled FEM formulation of both the structure and the uid. Effects such as junction coupling and Poisson coupling are included while friction coupling has been neglected due to the short time-scales associated with the excitation. Model reduction, based on the structural and uid vibration modes, has been

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C91-44-2257-8192; fax: C91-442257-0509 E-mail address: mouli@iitm.ac.in (C. Padmanabhan). 1 Currently with Government College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. 0308-0161/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpvp.2004.06.009

used to reduce the size of the problem and care has been exercised to include axial mode shapes since the interaction occurs through the axial equations of the beam. Tijsseling [1] presented a very detailed review of transient phenomena in liquid-lled pipe systems. He dealt with waterhammer, cavitation, structural dynamics and uidstructure interaction (FSI). The main focus was on the history of FSI research in the time-domain. Onedimensional FSI models were classied based on the equations used. The two-equation (one-mode) model refers to classical waterhammer theory, where the liquid pressure and velocity are the only unknowns, the four-equation (twomode) model allows for the axial motion of straight pipes; axial stress and axial pipe-wall velocity are additional variables. The six-equation model is necessary if radial inertia forces are to be taken into account; hoop stress and radial pipe-wall velocity are the additional unknowns. The state-of-the-art fourteen equation model describes axial motion (liquid and pipes), in and out-of-plane exure, and torsional motion of three-dimensional pipe systems. Wiggert et al. [2] used the MOC to study transients in pipeline systems. They identied seven wave components, coupled axial compression of liquid and pipe material, coupled transverse shear and bending of the pipe elements

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

in two principal directions and torsion of the pipe wall. The fourteen characteristic hyperbolic partial differential equations were converted to ordinary differential equations by the MOC transformation. The formulation was applied to two systems of three mutually perpendicular pipes. Heinsbroek [3] reported an application of FSI in the nuclear industry. His analysis was based on a combination of MOC and FEM. His conclusion was that while the MOC technique was superior for axial dynamics, FEM was more robust for transverse/lateral dynamics. The investigation also highlighted the fact that FSIs do take place and a model based only on the uid gives erroneous results. This is corroborated by data from experiments. Lee and Kim [4] used a nite element formulation for the fully coupled dynamic equations of motion and applied it to several pipeline systems. Wang and Tan [5] combined MOC and FEM to study the vibration and pressure uctuation in a exible hydraulic power system on an aircraft. Casadei et al. [6] presented a method for the numerical simulation of FSI in fast transient dynamic applications. They had used both nite element and nite volume discretization of the uid domain and the peculiarities of each with respect to the interaction process were highlighted. An earlier study carried out by Kellner et al. [7] showed that FSI reduced displacements and the corresponding loads on the snubber below the elbow by a factor of almost four. In this investigation junction coupling was considered whereas Poisson coupling was neglected. Lavooij and Tijsseling [8] suggested a provisional guideline to judge when the FSI is important. This guideline is based on the characteristic time-scales of the system under consideration. One of the objectives of this study is to re-examine those proposed guidelines using the new nite element formulation based on ow velocity. 2. Finite element formulation 2.1. Waterhammer problem For studying the FSIs in pipelines, the model proposed by Wiggert et al. [2] has been used. The rst four equations are related to the structure while Eqs. (5) and (6) are the waterhammer equations. This model accounts for the Poisson coupling, which appears in the axial structural equation (Eq. (1)) and the inuence of the structural response on the pressure (Eq. (6)). The set of pipe dynamic equations suggested by Wiggert et al. (1987) is shown below: EAp u K m C 2nAp Z 0 u EIp w 0000 C mw Z 0 EIp v 0000 C m Z 0 v GJt 00 K rp J t Z 0
00 0

_ rw V C p 0 Z 0 _ _ p C rw a V 0 K 2rw a nu 0 Z 0 where a Z
2 2 2

(5) (6)

Kf =rw E ; E Z ; 1 C Kf D=E t 1 K n2

Kf is the uid bulk modulus, mp, E, G, n, Ip, Ap, D, rw, t, u, v, w, p and V, are the mass per unit length of pipe, Youngs modulus of elasticity, Poissons ratio, the second moment of area, the cross-sectional area, the inner diameter, density of uid, the thickness of the pipeline, displacement of pipe in x-direction, displacement of pipe in y-direction, displacement in z-direction, pressure and velocity of ow, respectively. If the derivative of Eq. (5) with respect to the axial direction and Eq. (6) with respect to time respectively is taken, one of the variables can be eliminated. Two wave equations can then be obtained, either in terms of pressure or in terms of velocity. The wave equations obtained are elliptical in nature and suitable for solution by the FEM. Since the boundary condition for the valve closure event is in terms of ow velocity it is easier to use the wave equation in terms of velocity and is given by: v2 V 1 v2 V v3 u K 2 2 K 2n 2 Z 0 vx2 vx vt a vt (7)

The 3D beam element with six degrees-of-freedom per node is used to model the pipe Eqs. (1)(4) resulting in the equation below Mf g C Kfug K S2 fpg Z ff tg u (8)

where [M] and [K] are the mass matrix and stiffness matrix of the pipe and the interaction of pressure with the structure due l 0   to the Poisson coupling S2 Z 2n 0 N s T Np dxHere N s represents the shape function matrix for the axial displacement of the structure and [Np] the shape function matrix for uid pressure. The matrix [N 0 p] represents the gradient of the shape function in the x-direction. The junction coupling is modeled as a force term {f(t)} at the nodes on the junctions given by the area of cross-section multiplied by the pressure at the respective node. The nite element form of the wave Eq. (7) is formulated using the Galerkin technique and is _ GfV g C HfVg K Sfug Z f0g where G Z 1
2

(9)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

a 0 l 0T  0 S Z 2n Nv N s dv
0

T Nv Nv dv; H Z

l
0

0T 0 Nv Nv dv;

The relation between pressure and velocity given by Eq. (6) is used to obtain the pressure from velocity. Eq. (6) is converted to the nite element form using the Galerkin procedure. This leads to the following equation:

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

_ _ Afpg C BfVg K S1 fug Z f0g with Np T Np dx; B Z rw a2 0 2 l  S1 Z 2nrw a Np T N 0 s dx: A Z

0

(10) l
0

2.2. Pressure transient problems In problems where pressure alone is prescribed at certain nodes, it is preferable to use the wave equation in terms of pressure, which is obtained by eliminating the velocity of ow from Eqs. (5) and (6) as shown below: v2 p 1 v2 p v3 u K 2 2 K 2rw n 2 Z0 vx2 a vt vt vx (17)

0 Np T Nv dx;

In the above equation [Nv] represents the shape function matrix for ow velocity. The Runge-Kutta fourth order integration scheme is used to evaluate the transient response for the valve closure event. The fully coupled equation in state space form is given by: 8 9 2 0 _ >u> > > 6 > > > > > u > 6 KMK1 K > > 6 > > < = 6 _ 0 V Z6 > > 6 > > 6 > > 6 >V > 0 > > 4 > > > > : ; _ p 0 I 0 0 0

The structural equation remains the same as given by Eq. (8), while the uid nite element equation in terms of pressure as the variable is given by:

38 9 8 9 0 > >u> > > > > > 7> > > > K1 > > _> > 7> u > > MK1 ff tg > 0 0 0 M S2 7> > > > > > > > = 7< = < 7 V C 0 0 I 0 0 7> > > > > 7> > > > > > _> > 7> V > > 0 GK1 S KGK1 H 0 0 > > > > > 5> > > > > > > ; : ; : K1 K1 p 0 A S1 KA B 0 0

(11)

Since the size of the problem is large due to the nite element discretization, overow errors tend to occur if one uses the above form. In order to overcome this difculty, the modal reduction technique is used to reduce the size of both structural and uid matrices. The rst few mode shapes of the structure [4s] as well as the uid [4f] are used for transforming the respective variables by substituting: fug Z 4S fxg fVg Z 4f fVm g (12) (13)

Gf g C Hfpg K rw ST f g Z f0g p 2 u

(18)

If the frequencies of the uid are much higher than those of the fundamental frequency of the structure, one has still to include a few mode shapes of the structure having frequencies in the range of uid frequencies, as it can resonate. After substitution and multiplying throughout by [4s]T and [4f]T respectively, one gets: 4s T M4s fxg C 4s T K4s fxg K 4s T S2 fpg Z 4s T fftg 4f G4f fV m g C 4f H4f fVm g _ K 4f T S4S fxg Z f0g _ _ Afpg C fBg4f fVg K S1 4S fxg 15 (16)
T T

where [G] and [H] are the same as in Eq. (9) but ST is 2 multiplied by rw. In the nite element model if a nodal variable is specied, that multiplied by the corresponding columns is brought to the right side of the equation. In this case also to alleviate the large dimensionality problem the modal reduction technique as explained earlier can be made use of. In this case the coupled equation can be integrated using the well-known Newmark-Beta method. The coupled equation is shown below: " #( ) " ) #( ) ( M fpb t K Af S2 u u C Z p fp t p H rw ST G 2 19 where S2 Z 2 n l
0

14

 T l  s N T Nf0 dx Z 2 n NfT N 0 s dx ;
0

{fpb(t)} is the junction coupling and {fp(t)} is the pressure excitation.

The respective reduced matrices are used in the fourth order Runge-Kutta integration scheme. The values of the structural variables as well as that of the uid ow velocity available in the modal coordinates are transformed to the nodal coordinates by multiplying with [4s] and [4f], respectively. The pressure values can be used directly as no transformation is carried out.

3. Validation studies 3.1. Benchmark 1 Heinsbroek [3] used the water hammer theory for the uid coupled with beam theory for the pipe to model FSI problems in non-rigid pipelines systems. He compared two

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

Fig. 1. The Heinsbroek [3] pipeline system and pressure comparison at valve.

different beam theories and two different solution methods in the time domain. First he used a hybrid method, i.e. the uid equations are solved by the MOC and the pipe equations are solved by the FEM in combination with a direct time integration scheme. In the second method, he used only the MOC for the pipe as well as for the uid equations. The system analyzed consists of two pipes with lengths of 310 and 20 m. The diameter of the pipe is 0.2064 m and its wall thickness is 6.35 mm. The material properties are rsZ7900 kg/m3, EZ210 GPa, nZ0.3, k2Z0.53, rfZ880 kg/m3, KZ1.55 GPa. The structural boundary conditions for the pipeline system are no displacements at the ball valve as well as at the upstream reservoir end. Further the vertical motion at every 10 m along the pipe is arrested by supports such that only horizontal motion is allowed. Hydraulic transients are generated by closing the valve in 0.5 s. It is assumed that the ow velocity decreases linearly. Fig. 1 shows the pressure history at the valve due to valve closure; a comparison of the results from the present formulation with those of Heinsbroek [3] shows good agreement. Some higher frequency ripples are seen in the results of the present formulation. It can be noted that while the magnitudes agree very well, there seems to be a phase difference of 1808 in the pressure response predicted, as can be seen from Fig. 1. Fig. 2 shows the pressure time histories at the valve with and without FSI. The effect of the vibration of the structure on the uid is to increase the peak values of pressure, when interaction is included in the model. The displacement history of the pipe at the bend is shown in Fig. 3 and the maximum magnitude matches well with

the result of Heinsbroek [3]. Once again higher frequencies are present in the results of the present formulation, which is due to the possible smaller time steps taken during simulation. Fig. 4 shows the displacement histories of the z-direction at the bend, of which the z displacement becomes unstable without FSI but with FSI it is much smaller and stable. This is similar to the example shown in Kellner et al. [7]. The natural frequencies of the structure and that of the uid are found out separately and are given in Table 1. These were obtained using LAPACK [9] eigenvalue solver routines. The added mass effect of the uid is included while evaluating the structural frequencies. The uid frequencies are evaluated from the nite element form of Eq. (9) without

Fig. 2. Pressure at the valve with and without FSI.

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

Fig. 3. Displacement at the bend in z-direction.

including the FSI term, i.e. the last term. From the table it can be seen that the structural frequencies are much below the uid frequencies. Hence, very good FSI can be expected, as seen from the pressure and displacement plots in Figs. 2 and 4, respectively. At the same time, in the y-direction, there is not much interaction as seen in Fig. 5. 3.2. Benchmarks 2 and 3 Wiggert et al. [2] analyzed the liquid and structural transients in piping by the MOC. The pipe and uid dynamic equations presented in Ref. [2] are made use of in the present study also. The formulation was demonstrated for two cases of a system with three pipes directed orthogonally and connected in series as shown in Fig. 6. For the rst case (benchmark 2), the piping is made of

Table 1 Structural and uid frequencies, in Hz, for Heinsbroek [3] geometry Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Structural frequency 178.1 178.1 191.5 202.7 308.5 308.5 377.0 409.2 436.7 437.1 553.4 619.8 620.9 716.9 736.0 Fluid frequency 55.3 166.1 277.3 389.2 502.3 616.7 732.8 850.9 971.3 1094.3 1220.3 1349.5 1482.3 1618.7 1759.1

Fig. 4. Displacement in the z-direction, at the bend, with and without FSI.

Fig. 5. Displacement in the y-direction, at the bend, with and without FSI.

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

Fig. 6. Layout of piping used for benchmarks 2 and 3.

copper with mitred bends and an inside diameter of 26 mm with a wall thickness of 1.27 mm; each reach is 2 m long. The conveyed liquid is water and damping is neglected for both structure and liquid. The boundary conditions are obtained by completely restraining the motion of points A, B and D. The system is excited by closing the valve in 2.2 ms linearly from a velocity of ow of 1 m/s. It is assumed that the static pressure is of sufcient magnitude that dynamic pressure will not reach vapour pressure. The pressure history result of Wiggert et al. [2] is compared with the present formulation in Fig. 7; it is clear that those results agree very well with that of the present formulation. A comparison of pressure histories with and without FSI can be seen in Fig. 8. In this case also the peak values of

Fig. 7. Pressure history comparison between (a) Wiggert et al. [2] and (b) present formulation.

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114 Table 2 Frequencies of structure and uid, in Hz, for benchmark 2 geometry [2] Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Structural frequency 6.3 11.9 12.6 19.1 25.8 26.4 32.7 39.5 46.0 45.7 51.8 55.7 69.6 61.8 70.4 Fluid frequency 6.9 20.8 34.8 49.0 63.3 78.2 93.1 109.0 124.5 141.6 157.8 175.8 192.3 211.0 228.2

Fig. 8. Pressure at the valve, for Benchmark 2 case, with and without FSI.

pressure with FSI are higher than that without FSI resulting from the ow of energy from the structure to the uid. Consequently, the structural displacement reduces. In the present nite element formulation, it is observed that higher

Fig. 10. FFT of the structural response without the effect of structure on uid.

Fig. 9. Velocity of the pipe at the bend C in x and z-directions, (a) Ref. [2] and (b) present formulation.

Fig. 11. FFT of uid response without effect of structure on uid.

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

Fig. 12. FFT of the structural response in z-direction at the bend with full FSI.

frequency content is always present for all benchmark cases. This may be due to the fact that the time step used in the present case is very small (10 ms for benchmark 2). Other investigators have not reported the time step used, but it is believed that they have used larger time steps and hence are

unable to capture the high frequency dynamics. In this case, the peak values reached a pressure of 3.2 MPa from 2 MPa as in the case without FSI. The structural velocity of the bend C in the x and z-directions is compared in Fig. 9. It is found that the peak values match very well, but there is a qualitative difference in the shape due to the presence of higher frequencies in the present formulation. The natural frequencies of the structure and uid are found separately without coupling the structure and uid for this case. In the structure the added mass effect is included. The rst fteen of them are given in Table 2. In this case, the uid frequency is lower than that of the structure as the pipe is short and the bends A, B and D are fully constrained. Even though the fundamental structural frequency is higher than the lowest uid frequency, second frequency of the uid onwards, there are a number of frequencies in the uid and the structure in the same range, so one must expect good FSI in this case and that is seen in Fig. 8. Some of the peak values reduce to 50% of the value without FSI. In order to verify the major frequency components of excitation, a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the pressure

Fig. 13. Pressure history comparison for benchmark 3 between (a) Wiggert et al. [2] and (b) present formulation.

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

Fig. 14. Benchmark 3 pressure variation with and without FSI.

pulse as well as the structural response without the structural effects on the uid is carried out and plotted in Figs. 10 and 11. It is seen from these gures, that most of the frequencies of the structure and the uid are present in

the FFT of the structural response. The FFT of the structural response including the effect of vibration of the structure on the uid is shown in Fig. 12. Modal damping is added for both structure and uid with a damping factor of 0.0016. In this case, some of the frequencies are suppressed and some are slightly deviated from the original values. The dominant frequency of excitation of the system is 277 Hz. Wiggert et al. [2] presented a second case (benchmark 3) with mutually perpendicular sections as in the previous case but with lengths 28, 7.35 and 12.3 m. The diameter, thickness and the material properties are same as in the previous case. The pressure history at the valve D of this case, when the valve is closed linearly in 2.2 ms having an initial ow velocity of 1 m/s is shown in Fig. 13(a). The results of the present formulation using nite elements and MOC are given in Fig. 13(b). The magnitude as well as the shape of the curve matches well with the results of Ref. [2]. Fig. 14 shows the comparison of the pressure response with and without FSI. The peak magnitude of the pressure response is higher when full FSI is considered. This is shown up to 80 ms. Fig. 15 shows a comparison of the velocity of the pipe at bend C in the x-direction. There is

Fig. 15. Structural velocity at C in x-direction, (a) from Ref. [2] and (b) present formulation.

10

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114 Table 4 Structural and uid frequencies, in Hz, for modied Heinsbroek [3] geometry (with each segment 165 m long) Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Structural frequency 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.33 0.34 0.42 0.51 0.62 0.73 0.85 0.92 Fluid frequency 0.9 2.6 4.4 6.1 7.9 9.6 11.4 13.1 14.9 16.6 18.4 20.1 21.9 23.7 25.4

Table 3 Structural and uid frequencies, in Hz, for Wiggert et al. [2] benchmark 3 case Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Structural frequency 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.17 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.45 0.50 0.64 0.69 0.86 0.92 1.12 Fluid frequency 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.1 11.1 13.1 15.1 17.1 19.1 21.1 23.2 25.2 27.2 29.3

a phase shift of 1808 in the present formulation results and higher frequencies show up due to smaller time steps used for integration. Nevertheless, the magnitudes match very well. The x-direction velocity with and without FSI is almost the same. The fundamental natural frequencies given in Table 3, for the structure and the uid show that they are very close. In spite of this feature, the interaction is small. This is due to the fact that the excitation time-scale is also important for FSI. The valve closing time in the case of benchmark 3 changed from 2.2 ms to 0.15 s and the result is shown in Fig. 16. It is clear that now the displacement time histories are not the same, although there is no signicant change in the amplitude of the response. This would indicate that the valve closing time, i.e. the pressure rise time is important in FSI.

Fig. 17. Pressure at the bend with and without FSI for modied Heinsbroek [3] geometry with each section being 165 m.

Fig. 16. Z-direction velocities when the valve is closed in 0.15 s.

Fig. 18. Velocity of the structure without FSI at the bend in x and z-direction for modied Heinsbroek [3] geometry with each section being 165 m.

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

11

Fig. 19. Velocity of the structure with and without FSI at the bend in the (a) z-direction and (b) x-direction.

3.3. Parameter study In order to understand the role of structural and uid time scales as well as the excitation time scales, in the presence or absence of FSI, a parametric study has been carried out by varying section lengths while keeping the total length constant. This is done so that the uid time-scales are constant while the structural time-scales are varied due to the change in the geometric conguration. The Heinsbroek [3] piping system is considered where the total length is 330 m, with two sections of 310 and 20 m, respectively (see Fig. 1). Now, this is divided into two sections of equal length keeping all other properties the same. The rst fteen frequencies of the structure as well as the uid are given in

Table 4 where the uid frequencies are same as in the original Heinsbroek [3] case (see Table 1). The fundamental structural frequency is increased in this case as the maximum length of a section is reduced.
Table 5 Structural and uid frequencies, in Hz, corresponding to Fig. 20 Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Structural frequency 178.1 178.1 191.5 202.7 308.5 308.5 376.9 409.3 436.7 437.4 553.0 619.9 622.7 637.8 716.9 Fluid frequency 23.7 71.1 118.6 166.1 213.6 261.3 309.2 357.2 405.3 453.7 502.3 551.1 600.3 649.7 699.6

Fig. 20. Addition of another length of piping with a bend to the original Heinsbroek [3] geometry.

12

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

Fig. 21. Displacement with and without FSI at the bend C.

Fig. 22. Modication of benchmark 2 case of Wiggert et al. [2].

The pressure response with and without FSI and the velocity of the structure in the x and z-directions at the bend is given in Figs. 1719, respectively. From the gures it can be seen that the pressure peak values are altered by the structural vibration. In this case, one can observe that the effect of FSI is to increase the structural response in addition to the pressure response. This is most likely due to the matching of the uid frequency with the axial vibration of the structure and the excitation time-scale being smaller than the structural time-scale. In Fig. 20, an additional section of 50 m is added to the Heinsbroek [3] conguration with a bend. The structural and uid frequencies are shown in Table 5 of which the lowest structural frequency is 0.001 Hz, which implies that the structure is very exible. There is a transfer of energy from the uid to the structure and the structural response increases in this case while the pressure response comes down. These structural response results are shown in Fig. 21. As a last case, the uid frequency of Wiggert et al. [2], benchmark 2, is altered by extending the last pipe section to 10 m and constraining all degrees-of-freedom of the new portion of the pipe. This is shown in Fig. 22. The lowest

uid frequency is reduced to 23.7 Hz from 55.3 Hz as seen from Table 6. The pressure variations in Fig. 23 as well as structural displacements in Fig. 24 show little change due to uid frequency reduction.
Table 6 Structural and uid frequencies, in Hz, for modied benchmark 2 geometry (see Fig. 22) Serial no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Structural frequency 0.009 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.19 0.25 0.33 0.41 0.50 0.60 0.71 0.84 0.97 1.11 Fluid frequency 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.1 11.1 13.1 15.1 17.1 19.1 21.2 23.2 25.2 27.5 29.1

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114

13

Fig. 23. Pressure response at the valve and at the bend C.

Fig. 24. Displacement at the bend C with and without FSI, in the z-direction.

4. Conclusions For modeling waterhammer problems most researchers have adopted the MOC, by converting the rst-order hyperbolic partial differential waterhammer equations to total differential equations. Few of them have used the wave equation, which is elliptical in nature and more suitable for the FEM. The waterhammer phenomenon, which occurs due to sudden valve closure, has been modeled using a new velocity based nite element formulation. The above formulation can be coupled with the beam nite element formulation for the structure. Poisson coupling and Junction coupling are also included in the formulation. The comparison of the results of

the present formulation with three benchmark problems published in the literature validates the present formulation. A formulation using pressure as the primary variable is also developed so that if the excitation is in terms of pressure, this formulation can be made use of. Pressure histories, velocity histories and the displacement histories are compared with and without FSI for a variety of piping geometries to understand when FSI effects are important. It has been found that there are situations where changing the time-scales associated with the structure, increases the structural response. This behaviour is contrary to what is generally believed, i.e. FSI will cause structural displacements to reduce. However, there is a need for an in-depth

14

J. Kochupillai et al. / International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 82 (2005) 114 [5] Wang ZM, Tan S-K. Vibration and pressure uctuation in a exible hydraulic power system on an aircraft. Comput Fluids 1998; 27:19. [6] Casadei F, Halleux JP, Sala A, Chille F. Transient uidstructure interaction algorithms for large industrial applications. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 2001;190:3081110. [7] Kellner AP, Grenenboom HL, de Jong JJ. Mathematical models for steam generator accident simulation Proceedings of the IAEA, IWGFR/50, Specialist Meeting, The Hague, Netherlands 1983 pp. 115121. [8] Lavooij CSW, Tijsseling AS. Fluidstructure interaction in liquid-lled piping systems. J Fluids Struct 1991;5:57395. [9] Anderson E, Bai Z, Bischof C, Blackford S, Demmel J, Dongarra J, Du Croz J, Greenbaum A, Hammarling S, Mckenney A, Sorensen D. LAPACK users guide. Philadelphia: SIAM; 1999.

investigation of this aspect to establish guidelines, which are better than those that exist today. References
[1] Tijsseling AS. Fluidstructure interaction in liquid-lled pipe systems: a review. J Fluids Struct 1996;10:10946. [2] Wiggert DC, Hateld FJ, Struckenbruck S. Analysis of liquid and structural transients in piping by the method of characteristics. ASME J Fluids Eng 1987;109:1615. [3] Heinsbroek AGTJ. Fluidstructure interactions in non-rigid pipeline systems. Nucl Eng Des 1997;172:12335. [4] Lee U, Kim J. Dynamics of branched pipeline systems conveying internal unsteady ow. ASME J Vibration Acoustics 1999;121:11421.