Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Air Vessel Design For Raising Mains PDF

    Cargado por

    Suresh C
    14 vistas10 páginas

    Título original

    Air vessel design for raising mains.pdf

    Derechos de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    14 vistas10 páginas

    Air Vessel Design For Raising Mains PDF

    Cargado por

    Suresh C

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 10
    International Conference on the PAPER 7 Hydraulics of Pumping Stations ‘Manchester, England: 17-19 September, 1985 AIR VESSEL DESTGN FOR RISING NAINS A.R.D. Thorley and P.Lastowiecki Thermo-Fluids Engineering Research Centre ‘The City University, London suMMaRy Air vessels are one of the most common devices in use to prot ct pumping mains from the adverse effects of inadvertent tripping of pumps and similar fault | conditions. Their design has previously been on a trial and error basis, aided sometimes by design charts, to provide initial guesses which may be used for commuter studies where their reliability may be tested | This paper deseribes an algorithm which is used as the basis for a commuter program, arranged as an "Expert System", to remove the guesswork. After analysing a given pipeline and checking its transient response against user-specified criteria the program will, if necessary, evaluate the capacity of air vessel required and provide data on suitable dimensions, throttle loss coefficients, etc. It is hoped that this example will help inspire the develooment of other ‘exnert systems’ to aid fluids engineers remove guesswork from other areas of design. Held at The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST). Organised and sponsored by BHRA, The Fluid Engineering Centre, Cranfield, Bedford, MKA3.0AJ © BHAA, The Fluid Engine 1085, ing Cen [NOMENCLATURE pipe dfaneter @) acceleration due to gravity (n/s”) friction head less (a) non-dimensional minor loss coefficient inflow/outflow loss coefficient volumetric flowrate (n°/s) static lift (see Pigure 1) @) flow velocity (w/s) initial volune of air in the air vessel (a?) elevation of the air vessel Base above datum (mn) initial elevation of the water level in the vessel (n) -_ INTRODUCTION One of the most common devices used to protect pumping mains against the adverse effects of both normal and inadvertent tripping of pump sets, including loss of power, is the air vessel. Following the initial steady state design of a pipeline to meet specified conditions a fluid transient or water hammer analysis is undertaken to investigate the risks due to transient pressure waves and there are few systems that do not require some form of protection. If air vessels are being considered it is essential that they should be of adequate capacity to contain sufficient air, when compressed, to help maintain a forward flow in the pipeline long enough after a pump trip to avoid unacceotably low pressures. The air vessel should also contain sufficient water that during this phase of its operation it does not drain down. Similarly, during the ‘upsurge! phase the vessel should be capable of limiting the magoitude of the neak pressures experienced by the system to within accevtable limits. In practice, vessels range in size from fndividual units of lesoythan 1 a? capacity to banks of 4 or 6 in parallel and totalling some 80 ~ 100 m in volume. ‘They are normally situated immediately downstream of the check values protecting the punps against reverse flow. As they have to sustain both the normal system pressure and the additional transient pressures they are classed as pressure vessels, have to meet rigorous specifications and are therefore expensive. Ideally therefore, they should be large enough to meet their intended needs erring on the conservative side in the ioterests of safety, i.e. slightly larger to Allow for the various approximations in design data, and yet not be so large that they are unnecessarily expensive. CURRENT PRACTICE ‘The normal procedure for determining a suitable vessel is to guess the required capacities and proportions, perform an analysis to see if the guess was cuitable and then refine the design as appropriate. The initial guesses may be based on rule of thumb experience, approximate equations [1] or design charts [2, 3, 4]+ ‘The design charts help to reduce the guesswork but it must never be forgotten that they were devised for very sinnle systems, often having a uniform pipeline slone. ‘They can therefore be seriously misleading as shown by the three example systems illustrated schematically in Figures la, b, and c. ‘the only difference between these three systems with regard to the relevant data is the pipeline profile. In all other resnects the pipeline dimensions, static lift and liquid flows are identical and are listed in Table 1. Pipe length 7000 Diameter 600 sm Material buctile Tron Wave propagation speed 1165 nfs static Lift 508 Initial steady flow 0.226 wis velocity 0.8 als ‘TABLE T. Data comton to the three systems shown schematically in Figures 1a, b and c. a FHON DESTON CHARTS FROM COMPUTER ANALYSIS Total Air Tnitial Air Total Air, Volume (0! Volume (a) Volume (2°) 2.25 5.33 0.8 an 25.0 38.0 Comparison of air vessel capacitice obtained with the aid of desi Compariend by commuter analysis for the three systems of Figures la, b and ce gable Ti provides a comparison of ait vessel capacitiessboth the total volunes and the initial air volumes, required. «re Gubcatmospheric pressures in the Sipelines. There are clearly Sone a egerences, perhaps the most worrying cory beit the uaderestimat cathy oom charts for Systens 1 end 2. | THe oe of equatio the vasethe one proposed in Ref[ilis to $e or gcouraged as they normally apply $0, rene profile only. tupton's lay, fet re diac ovrefere to pipelines which Tesch gingitream reservoir elevation by the aE Gercoertex point + Fig.to 1s ,tbe neaesed Gpproximation here ~ for which by ents equation gives 15-15 and 22 ‘nd respectively approriminitial air volume and total volume ce in predicted ait ‘yurthermore, in including interacti ave greater confidens ‘3 highly desirable. mn computers that in order to h If follows, therefore, ded analysis i vessel capacities a computer 2: Wetec the increased paver and flexibility of moder! Yoellicies, it was felt that progral ‘should be develone: faci Nitial guesses to be dispensed with: 5,._FORMULATION OF THE EXPERT SYS7EH Ge gust be capable of taking decisions his requires an adequate supply of the on vant data and carefully constructed Thigences of logic, particularly where they replace the application of ‘engineering Sodgement on the part of che designer For a program to be an “Expert Syeter’ quite straightforward, In the present example sone of the gecision making is either subvavmospheric pressures occur Of cirige not. Oa the other hand dela cher eer the alr veseel (proportionss Som"=s rater ttt ore subject te engineering JuieemsrT Wijte processes can be requested bY, "0 eomputer 1eeie T back on if the user feels these *P satisfactory. These prob’ SSiostrated by outlining the stratesy. are ed for this aysten. A brief reswme given in Toble TIT witl Qrond in the Flowchart, in Figure 2 which can al fh greater details being wie bata ~ describing te system and ‘components « Eater B conditions. Evaluate initial steady state Enter design criteria ~ max/min heads, ete alysis wi ch design criteria. Jato the next steD- perform transient flow on thout an air vessel- Monitor max/ain Reads; compare

    También podría gustarte