Abstract
Water hammer in pipelines is a difficult problem in fluid transmission field. Especially, there exists some friction items of pipeline transient model such that the simulation model is not consistent to the experimental results. By using the friction model proposed by Kagawa and the model of impulse response function, the pressure transients are calculated with and without cavitation. The corresponding simulation results involving pressure, velocity, steady and dynamic frictions, cavitation volume are analyzed to reveal the effect of friction item on pressure transients. Moreover, the features of steady and dynamic frictions are captured in pipelines with upstream and downstream valves. The comparative simulation results of two friction models have verified that the friction model using an impulse response function has higher consistency between simulation and experimental results of pipeline transients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Water hammer phenomenon usually appears in pipelines due to instant decelerated flow by rapid valve closure, and even leads to hydraulic pipeline crack. However, during pipeline transients, it has not standard model of friction items in previous studies.
For laminar flow, Zielke1 derived an additional friction item related to the dynamic friction equation during transients, where involves both fluid accelerations and weighting functions. However, the numerical algorithm requires a large amount of computer memory and computation time. To improve the computation efficiency, many researchers2,3,4 investigated the friction model in transient laminar flow. Trikha presented three estimated weighting functions to construct the dynamic friction. Then Kagawa et al.5 and Taylor et al.6 respectively proposed ten and four estimated weighting functions to improve the calculation accuracy of the friction model. Moreover, Vardy and Brown7,8 developed the friction model into turbulent smooth and fully rough pipeline flows. Brunone et al.9,10,11 proposed the instantaneous acceleration-based (IAB) model and investigated the effect of initial Reynolds number on dynamic friction model. Szymkiewicz and Mitosek12 presented alternative convolution approach to address the friction item in unsteady pipelines. An analytical expression of weighting functions13,14,15,16 during water hammer was proposed. However, the effectiveness of friction models needs to be further verified in cavitation conditions.
In low pressure hydraulic pipelines, the pressure variation induces cavities growth and collapse, which is also called vaporous cavitation. Generally, the discrete gas cavity model (DVCM)17,18 and the discrete vapour cavity model (DGCM)19,20,21 are two classic cavitation models. Then Zhou et al.22 used a 2-order finite volume method to capture the growth and collapse of vaporous cavitation.
In order to accurately predict pressure transients in pipelines, a reasonable friction model should be constructed to guarantee the simulation consistent to the experimental results under both with and without cavitation. By using the impulse response function to construct the dynamic friction model, the corresponding simulation results involving pressure, velocity, steady and dynamic friction, cavitation volume are analyzed. The comparison results with Kagawa5 model have been verified to the effectiveness of the friction model using an impulse response function.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The water hammer model in hydraulic pipelines is constructed in Sect. "Mathematical model of water hammer". The comparative results verification between simulation and experiment are given in Sect. "Simulation results". Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Sect. "Conclusions".
Mathematical model of water hammer
Basic equations of transient flow
With valve sudden closure, water hammer is the transmission of pressure wave because of rapid change of instantaneous velocity. The tank-pipeline-valve system following a sudden shut-off valve is illustrated in Fig. 1, including pipeline with upstream valve and pipeline with downstream valve.
In pipeline with upstream valve, with valve rapid closure, the velocity at the valve decreases suddenly to zero. There is the trend of flow away from the valve, so the pressure also drops rapidly. While in pipeline with downstream valve, with valve rapid closure, the velocity reduces instantly to zero. There is the trend of flow continuing to approach the valve, so the pressure rapidly rises to the maximum valve.
This phenomenon is commonly described by the continuity equation and the momentum equation23. The continuity equations of gas and liquid phase are
where \(\rho _g\) is the density of the gas phase(kg/m\(^3\)), \(\rho _l\) is the density of the liquid phase(kg/m\(^3\)), \(\alpha \) is the ratio of the volume of the gas phase to the volume of the fluid, \(A_p\) is piping cross-sectional area(m\(^2\)),and \(\Gamma \) is the flow function, which is the mass exchange rate between liquid and gas phases.
Assuming \(A_p\) is constant, add the Eqs. (1) and (2) to get:
Meanwhile, the momentum equation is
where p is the pressure in the pipeline(Pa), q is the flow rate (m\(^3\)/s), F(q) is the friction term.
Cavitation model
Cavitation can occur during water hammer. When the pressure in the pipeline drops to the vapor pressure of the liquid, vapour cavities will form, and the cavities will be collapsed as the pressure rises again.
According to the flow continuity principle, the dynamics of the cavitation volume \(V_{cav}\) can be described by DVCM. The DVCM is a relatively simple model for simulating cavitation volume in transient flow18:
where \(q_{1}\) and \(q_{2}\) are the upstream flow rate and downstream flow rate of an element in the pipe, respectively.
Friction models
In traditional mathematical model of water hammer, it is assumed that the friction with transient flow is equal to steady friction. However the traditional model of water hammer cannot effectively predict the pressure pulsation process24. So the friction in Eq. (4) is described as the sum of the steady friction item and the dynamic friction item:
where the first item \(F_0\) is the steady friction, and the second item \(F_f\) is the dynamic friction. The steady friction \(F_0\) can be expressed as
where f is the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, \(\rho _m\) is the density of mixture, r is the radius of pipeline.
Kagawa model
To improve calculation efficiency, Kagawa5 developed a more precise procedure on the basis of three weighting terms for Trikha2. The weighting function can be described as the sum of k impulse responses of first order elements:
where k is determined according to \(\Delta \tau /2>{\tau _m}_i\) (\(\Delta \tau ={\mu _m \Delta t}/ {\rho _m r^2 }\))25, and the constants \(n_i\), \(m_i\) and \({\tau _m}_i\) are listed in Table 1. The curves of \(W(\tau )\) are shown in Fig. 2.
So the dynamic friction of Kagawa model can be computed by
So each \(Y_i\) in the subsequent time step can be calculated as follows:
Model using an impulse response function
Different from Kagawa model using k terms of impulse response functions, in this paper the model is mainly used an impulse response function. This model is defined in the real time domain, which is not related to the assumed viscosity distribution over the pipe’s cross section12. It can be given as follows:
So the dynamic friction can be expressed by:
in which
with
where \(k_1\) in Eq. (13) is an empirical coefficient, \(\Delta t=r^2 \Delta \tau \rho _m/{\mu _m } \) and K is a parameter expressed in time unit. Here \(k_1\) is related to flow rate and pipeline characteristics, which determines the size of dynamic friction terms.
Here K determines the convergence of the impulse response, which is related to the pressure wave velocity and pipe length. Using a priority assumed flow memory \(M=4T\) to calculate the value of K, T is the period of pressure wave oscillation (\(T=4L/a\)). The value of K can be calculated for each different cases based on the assumed convergence tolerance \(\varepsilon \) (\(\varepsilon \) is a small positive number) and flow memory M26. In Eq. (12), when t is equal to M, \(\varepsilon \) is written as follows:
In the model using an impulse response function, K is an important parameter to determine the convergence of function, which can be calculated by Eq. (16). In the same pipeline(L=37.2 m and r=11.05 mm), the values of K are different when the pressure wave velocity is different, as listed in Table 2. The pressure wave velocity a can be calculated by:
where \(K_m\) is the bulk modulus of mixture, which ranges from 16e8 Pa to 21e8 Pa. Here \(\varepsilon =0.001\) in Eq. (16). It can be noted that K drops from 0.048 s to 0.040 s as the pressure wave velocity increases from 1265 m/s to 1476 m/s.
In order to investigate the effect of K, the plots of h(t) in Eq. (12) corresponding to the selected values of the parameter K are shown in Fig. 3. The convergence rate of impulse response function increases as K decreases.
Simulation results
The aim is to verify the prediction effect of different friction models on water hammer process in hydraulic pipelines, especially for the pressure transients accompanying vaporous cavitation. The following simulation results of pressure transients without cavitation and with cavitation are based on two different friction models (Kagawa model and the model using an impulse response function).
Pressure transients without cavitation
The experimental results of transient pressure pulsations in the pipeline with upstream valve are given by Vitkovsky et al.27 and the related parameters of tested pipeline are listed in Table 3.
Here, the weighting function of Kagawa model is approximated by sum of nine impulse responses of first order elements (\(k=9\) in Eq. (8)). The pressure wave period of oscillation T is equal to 0.108 s (\(T=4L/a\)). So the flow memory can be calculated \(M=0.431\) s. The parameter K in Eq. (16) is calculated as 0.043 when the convergence tolerance \(\varepsilon =0.001\). Another element number \(k_1\) in Eq. (13) is provided by comparing the numerical results and the experimental data, which refers to the trial and error method in Szymkiewicz and Mitosek12. Finally the value of parameter \(k_1\) is approximately equal to 2.1, which determines the magnitude of dynamic friction force.
The corresponding experimental results of transient pressure pulsations close to the valve are shown as the solid line in Fig. 4. It is clear that the pressure wave gradually decays due to the friction force. And the simulation results of two different friction models are also compared (Fig. 4a from Kagawa model and Fig. 4b from the model using an impulse response function), and points 1 to 5 remarked in two figures represent a period of pressure pulsations. Here the point 1 is the valve closing time spot.
It can be observed in Fig. 4 the simulation results of the model using an impulse response function is more consistent than the simulation results of Kagawa model with the experimental pressure results. The discrepancies between the results from two models are magnified about from 0.4 to 1 s. Results from Kagawa model show evident difference compared with the experimental data (Fig. 4a), and the magnitude of discrepancies in phase shift is larger than the magnitude of discrepancies in attenuation of the pressure wave. However, the simulation results from the model using an impulse response function (Fig. 4b) are still keep the best fit, and there is no evident phenomenon of pressure pulsation leading or lagging.
In addition, Fig. 5 shows other information from two different friction models, including flow velocity (v), steady friction (\(F_0\)), the time derivative of the steady friction (\({\partial F_0}/{\partial t}\)) and dynamic friction (\(F_f\)). And the process from point 1 to 5 is a cycle, which corresponds to Fig. 4.
In pipeline with upstream valve, the flow process can suddenly be blocked when the valve is rapidly closed, which causes the flow velocity decreases rapidly to zero (point 1 to 2 in Fig. 5). At the moment, the shock pressure (\(-\Delta p\)) is generated because the kinetic energy is converted to the pressure energy, so the pressure drops to \(p_0-\Delta p\). Afterwards, the shock pressure is equal to \(\Delta p\) because the pressure energy is converted to the kinetic energy at the downstream tank, and the pressure rise to \(p_0\) (point 2 to 3). In the period of point 3 to 4, the flow velocity suddenly becomes zero because the valve is fully closed, which causes pressure rise to \(p_0+\Delta p\). Then the pressure wave travels downstream again and the flow velocity goes up to \(v_0\) and pressure energy is converted to the kinetic energy, so the pressure back to \(p_0\) (point 4 to 5). This process may be repeated several times before the fluid energy is dissipated.
And the steady friction force oscillates in phase with the flow velocity. As the flow velocity tends to zero, \(F_0\) tends to zero as well. However, the dynamic friction is gradually decreases as shown in Fig. 5, which is determined by the time derivative of the steady friction, i.e., \({\partial F_0}/{\partial t}\). The extreme value of the dynamic friction is generated at the moment when the extreme value of the derivative occurs (as shown in Fig. 5a and b ). Obviously, the magnitudes of dynamic friction according to Kagawa model and the model using an impulse response function are different. Compared between Fig. 5a and b, the dynamic friction force from Kagawa model decays faster than the model using an impulse response function, which causes the pressure wave from Kagawa model slightly ahead with the experimental results.
In Fig. 4, it also can be found that the simulated pressure value are always greater than the saturated vapour pressure.Thus, there is no cavitation occurred in pipelines.
Pressure transients with cavitation in pipeline with upstream valve
Several cycles of cavity formation and collapse occur before the minimum pressure in the upstream pipeline remain permanently above the vapour pressure. In order to test the efficiency of the model using an impulse response function for transient pressure pulsations with cavitation, the upstream pressure transient pulsations in the low pressure horizontal pipeline was also investigated. Some experimental parameters from Sanada et al.28 are listed in Table 4.
In this case, the weighting function of Kagawa model is approximated by sum of six impulse responses of first order elements (\(k=6\) in Eq. (8)). The pressure wave period of oscillation \(T=1.125\) s, so the flow memory \(M=4.501\) s. When the convergence tolerance \(\varepsilon \) is assumed as 0.001, the corresponding parameters in the model using an impulse response function can be calculated as follows: \(K=0.611\) s and \(k_1=1.91\).
The corresponding experimental results are shown as the solid line in Fig. 6. The simulation results obtained from the two different friction models (Kagawa model and the model using an impulse response function) are also reported in Fig. 6. At the beginning of pressure transients, there is a good agreement between the experimental pressure data and simulation results from Kagawa model (Figure 6a) and the model using an impulse response function (Fig. 6b). However, there are phase differences in the subsequent peaks from Kagawa model, which is that the simulated pressure lags behind the experimental results. Comparison of the results of two models demonstrates that the model using an impulse response function is also reasonable for predicting the pressure transients with cavitation in upstream pipeline, and clearly the simulation results of the model using an impulse response function provides the better accuracy.
In Fig. 7a and b, the flow velocity does not immediately drop to zero due to cavitation (point 1 to 2). But it is same as the case of no cavitation that the steady friction gradually decreases with flow velocity tends to zero. And its extreme value occurs before it is transient, when the flow is steady and flow velocity has the greatest value as shown in Fig. 7. The dynamic friction varies with the time derivative of the steady friction. The difference between the dynamic friction analysis with cavitation and without cavitation is that the dynamic friction has a high numerical oscillation in the period of cavitation occurring.
The cavitation volume in the element close to the valve are also predicted by Kagawa model and the model using an impulse response function. The vaporous cavitation processes obtained from the experimental pressure pulsation in Fig. 6 are listed in Table 5. The trends of cavitation change simulated by the two models are also listed, which includes the start time, the end time and the duration. It can be seen that the first cavitation collapses at 3.903 s (Kagawa model) and 3.885 s(the model using an impulse response function) from Table 5.
The corresponding cavitation volumes are shown in Fig. 8. The maximum size of the first vaporous cavity from Kagawa model is almost the same as the model using an impulse response function. When the pressure falls again, cavitation is generated again, but it is much smaller than the first cavity. Once again the cavity collapse arrival of the third pressure peak in Fig. 8. At last, the cavities experience three times of growth and collapse. And the volumes of the last two cavities from the model using an impulse response function are slightly smaller than Kagawa model.
Pressure transients with cavitation in pipeline with downstream valve
As same as upstream pipeline, cavitation also occurs in the downstream pipeline when the pressure at the vicinity of the valve is lower than the vapour pressure. So the case of pressure transient pulsations with cavitation in the downstream pipeline are analyzed to further verify the validity of the model using an impulse response function. Some experimental parameters of the downstream pipeline are listed in Table 629. The test pipeline is composed by a copper pipeline and a transparent tube. The pressure transients are triggered by a steel ball of diameter 15 mm.
The number of impulse response of first order elements in Kagawa model is determined as ten for this case (k in Eq. (8) is equal to 10). For the model using an impulse response function, the series of simulation coefficients in the model using an impulse response function are calculated: \(M=0.055\), \(K=0.004\), and \(k_1=1.98\). The all related parameters in different cases(without cavitation and with cavitation) are listed in Table 7. The best conclusion is found from Table 7 that the value of the parameter K is smaller than previously considered pipe length L=37.2 m and L=200 m, so K is proportional to the length of pipeline.
The solid line in Fig. 9 represents the experimental results. When the valve is rapidly closed, the pressure rapidly rises to its maximum value. Then it continuously drops to the vapour pressure as the pressure wave transfers to the upstream tank, and holds this transient value until approximately \(t = 0.053\) s. The pressure still rises again then drops to the vapor pressure for about 0.035 s. For the third time, the pressure falls and stays at vapor pressure for about 0.026 s. At last, pressure pulsation gradually decays until it returns to the initial pressure \(p_0\). The cavitation appears when the vapour pressure of the liquid is reached.
And the pressure results obtained from Kagawa model and the model using an impulse response function are shown in Fig. 9a and b. The shock pressure is a positive value at the valve closing time, which makes the pressure goes up to \(p+\Delta p\) when the liquid velocity drops to zero (see point 2 in Figs. 9 to 1029). And many differences exist between the two models. The Kagawa model’s simulation results (Fig. 9a) are consistent with the experimental data when the first wave peak appears, but the difference with the experimental results is evident from the second peak to the end. However, the simulation results of the model using an impulse response function are in good agreement with the experimental curve in Fig. 9b. It can be seen that the model using an impulse response function causes a very good damping of the pressure wave amplitude. Meanwhile, the steady friction and dynamic friction from two models are reported in Fig. 10a and b, respectively.
Figure 11 illustrates the growth and collapse sequence of cavitation in the tube, which are recorded by the high speed video camera29. The cavitation changes can be roughly estimated from the photograph in Fig. 11. Moreover, the trends of cavitation generate and collapse are also list in Table 8, which compared with the experimental data. When the pressure drops down to the vapor pressure, it emerges small expanded cavities(Fig. 11D), and the duration time of the first cavitation from the model using an impulse response function are closer to observed data (Table 8). Next, the drops down again to the vapor pressure. The second cavitation (Fig. 11F) occurs. At this moment, the cavities volume was smaller than the former cavities shown in Fig. 11. When the second cycle of pressure pulsations finishes, the cavities are observed again (Fig. 11H), and collapse at about 0.126 s. After about \(t=0.2\) s, the pressure pulsation becomes an attenuated sinusoidal wave and the pressure is over the saturated vapor pressure all time, there is no cavitation (Fig. 9).
Combined with the information from Table 8 and the photograph in Fig. 11, an experimental curve of the change of cavitation volume over time can be obtained, which is showed as the solid line in Fig. 12. The change curves of cavitation volume with time can also be obtained from the different friction models, which are shown as dashed line and dotted line in Fig. 12. Compared with the simulation results, the cavitation simulated by the model using an impulse function is more consistent with experimental result. So it is concluded that the model using an impulse response function can not only predict the pressure transients with cavitation.
Conclusions
In this paper, Kagawa model and the model using an impulse response function are compared for describing the dynamic friction force. And the simulation results of two models are given by comparing with the previous experimental data. Meanwhile, the steady friction (\(F_0\)) and dynamic friction (\(F_f\)) from two different models are analyzed. It is shown that the model using an impulse response function for transient pressure estimation has the following advantages:
-
1.
The model using an impulse response function is closer to the experimental curves than Kagawa’s model for the three cases mentioned in this paper, which is reflected in terms of the phase differences and magnitudes of the pressure peaks.
-
2.
Not only it accurately simulate the pressure transients without cavitation, but also availably predict the pressure transients with cavitation. And the changes in cavitation volume generated in low pressure pipelines can also be obtained.
However, the coefficient \(k_1\) in the model of an impulse response function has not been determined by an exact way. So further studies will be focused on the parameter \(k_1\), maybe it can be identified by using genetic algorithms, or other optimization methods. And it is necessary to testify the model using an impulse response function can be applied under other test conditions.
Data availibility
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Zielke, W. An efficient method for simulating frequency-dependent friction in transient liquid flow. J. Basic Eng. 91, 626 (1968).
Trikha, A. K. Efficient method for simulation frequency-dependent friction in transient liquid flow. J. Fluids Eng. 97, 97–105 (1975).
Suzuki, K., Taketomi, T. & Sato, S. Improving Zielke’s method of simulating frequency-dependent friction in laminar liquid pipe flow. J. Fluids Eng. 113, 569–573 (1991).
Schohl, G. A. Improved approximate method for simulating frequency-dependent friction in transient laminar flow. J. Fluids Eng. 115, 420–424 (1993).
Kagawa, T., Lee, I., Kitagawa, A. & Takenaka, T. High speed and accurate computing method of frequency-dependent friction in laminar pipe flow for characteristics method. Trans. JSME 49, 2638–2644 (1983).
Taylor, S. E. M., Johnston, D. N. & Longmore, D. K. Modelling of transient flow in hydraulic pipelines. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. I J. Syst. Control Eng. 211, 447–456 (1997).
Vardy, A. E. & Brown, J. M. B. Transient turbulent friction in smooth pipe flow. J. Sound Vib. 259, 1011–1036 (2003).
Vardy, A. E. & Brown, J. M. B. Transient turbulent friction in fully rough pipe flows. J. Sound Vib. 270, 233–257 (2004).
Brunone, B., Golia, U. & Greco, M. Effects of two-dimensionality on pipe transients modeling. J. Hydraul. Eng. 121, 906–912 (1995).
Brunone, B. & Golia, U. Discussion of “systematic evaluation of one-dimensional unsteady friction models in simple pipelines” by JP Vitkovsky, A. Bergant, AR Simpson, and MF Lambert. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134, 282–284 (2008).
Meniconi, S. et al. Further developments in rapidly decelerating turbulent pipe flow modeling. J. Hydraul. Eng. 140, 04014028 (2014).
Szymkiewicz, R. & Mitosek, M. Alternative convolution approach to friction in unsteady pipe flow. J. Fluid Eng. T ASME 136, 011202 (2014).
Urbanowicz, K. & Zarzycki, Z. New efficient approximation of weighting functions for simulations of unsteady friction losses in liquid pipe flow. J. Theor. Appl. Mech.-Pol. 50, 487–508 (2012).
Urbanowicz, K. & Zarzicki, Z. Improved lumping friction model for liquid pipe flow. J. Theor. Appl. Mech.-Pol. 53, 295–305 (2015).
Urbanowicz, K. Analytical expressions for effective weighting functions used during simulations of water hammer. J. Theor. Appl. Mech.-Pol. 55, 1029–1040 (2017).
Urbanowicz, K. Fast and accurate modelling of frictional transient pipe flow. ZAMM-Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 98, 802–823 (2018).
Bergant, A., Karadzic, U., Vitkovsky, J., Vusanovic, I. & Simpson, A. R. A discrete gas-cavity model that considers the frictional effects of unsteady pipe flow. Stroj. Vestn-J. Mech. Eng. 51, 692–710 (2005).
Soares, A. K., Martins, N. M. C. & Covas, D. I. C. Transient vaporous cavitation in a horizontal copper pipe. J. Hydraul. Res. 55, 731–736 (2017).
Adamkowski, A. & Lewandowski, M. A new method for numerical prediction of liquid column separation accompanying hydraulic transients in pipelines. J. Fluid Eng. T ASME 131, 1–5 (2009).
Adamkowski, A. & Lewandowski, M. Investigation of hydraulic transients in a pipeline with column separation. J. Hydraul. Eng. 138, 935–944 (2012).
Mosharaf-Dehkordi, M. & Firoozabadi, B. D. On the steady/quasi-steady dissipation term in the classic discrete vapour cavity model for simulating column separation. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 165, 1–10 (2018).
Zhou, L. et al. A second-order finite volume method for pipe flow with water column separation. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 17, 47–55 (2017).
Wylie, E. B., Streeter, V. L. & Suo, L. Fluid Transients in Systems (Prentice Hall, 1993).
Cen, K., Changjun, L., Liao, K. X., Yan, Y. & Yuan, D. M. Calculating methods of friction losses with transient flow in pipe. J. Southwest Pet. Univ. (Sci. Technol. Ed.) 27, 76 (2005).
Shu, J. J. Modelling vaporous cavitation on fluid transients. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 80, 187–195 (2003).
Weinerowska-Bords, K. Alternative approach to convolution term of viscoelasticity in equations of unsteady pipe flow. J. Fluids Eng. 137, 054501 (2015).
Vitkovsky, J. P., Bergant, A., Simpson, A. R. & Lambert, M. F. Systematic evaluation of one-dimensional unsteady friction models in simple pipelines. J. Hydraul. Eng. 132, 696–708 (2006).
Sanada, K., Kitagawa, A. & Takenaka, T. A study on analytical methods by classification of column separations in a water pipeline. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Mech. Eng. 56, 585–593 (1990).
Jiang, D., Lu, Q., Liu, Y. & Zhao, D. Study on pressure transients in low pressure water-hydraulic pipelines. IEEE Access 7, 80561–80569 (2019).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 51205045 and 52175046) and Sichuan Science and Technology Program (Grants No. 2020YFG0137 and 2022YFG0341) for providing fund support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by D.J., C.Z., Q.L. and Q.G. The first draft of the manuscript was written by D.J. and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, D., Zeng, C., Lu, Q. et al. Water hammer in pipelines based on different friction models. Sci Rep 14, 953 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51409-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51409-9
- Springer Nature Limited