University of British Columbia CIVL 315 Lab4 2335 Engineering Road Vancouver, BC November 14th, 2017 Max Flowe NEARCreek Industries Ltd. Suite 2002-6250 Applied Science Lane Vancouver, BC Dear Mr. Flowe, RE: Project 315 - Lab4: Seeville Hospital Considerations Water Avenue Solutions Ltd. has received your request on behalf of NEARCreek Industries Ltd and has conduc ...[Show More]
2335 Engineering Road
November 14th, 2017
NEARCreek Industries Ltd.
Suite 2002-6250 Applied Science Lane
Dear Mr. Flowe,
RE: Project 315 - Lab4: Seeville Hospital Considerations
Water Avenue Solutions Ltd. has received your request on behalf of NEARCreek
Industries Ltd and has conducted a study on the water-main rupture at the Seeville
Hospital. The enclosed report addresses the procedure, results, and conclusions of the
experiment in further detail.
To reduce the likelihood of an event of water hammer in the future, Seeville Hospital
should consider the following solutions:
i) implementing a piping system that reduces the flow rate, but still meets
ii) installing a surge tank in water main system,
iii) installing higher pressure rated piping and/or
iv) using a higher pipe diameter for the water system.
Daniel Luo, Parsa Shani, Luthfi Subagio, Jared Zhang
Encl: Laboratory Report
In order to determine if NEARCreek was responsible for the water main rupture at the Seeville
Hospital, experimental data is required to relate water flow, pressure differences and valve
distances. Data was manually taken using a video recording of the pressure sensors as well as
using the DASYlab program. Since the DASYlab program recorded more data and had a higher
level of accuracy, the manually taken data was used as reference and verification.
This experiment took a series of pressure readings at high, medium, and low flow with and
without the use of a surge tank. With the distances between the pressure sensors, the effects of
water hammer and its relationship with pipe distance can be observed. The experiment
concludes that if the water flow rate was high, water hammer may have indeed been the cause
of the rupture. To prevent possible occurrences of water hammer in the future, we recommend
the implementation of a surge tank to manage pressure fluctuations. In addition, the utilization of
a larger pipe diameter, higher pressure rating pipes, or a pipe system that reduces flow rates
will also assist in reducing the likelihood of water hammer occurring in the future.
The apparatus of this experiment included: a constant head tank, a surge tank with gauge, a
measuring tank, a 300-foot copper coil pipe, 3 gauge transducers, valves, level sensors, and a
data acquisition computer. A schematic of the experiment apparatus is represented in figure 1
Figure 1: Experiment apparatus
2.2 Test Procedure
The experiment was split into two parts. In the first section, data was recorded manually; in the
second, the experiment was repeated, but data was recorded with the aid of digital readouts.
In the first part, Valves A, C and E were first opened (valve C was opened using the computer
software). Entrapped air was removed to avoid damping, which would reduce the water hammer
pressure values obtained. Valve E was set to the highest flow rate, and the flow rate was
determined by measuring the difference in height and the time it took for the measuring tank to
fill. Steady state pressures were recorded with surge tank valve closed. Then the control valves
were closed, and the pressure spikes were recorded. After the pressure stabilized, the control
valve was reopened, and the minimum pressure was recorded. The location of the 3 pressure
gauges are shown in figure 1.
In the second part, data was acquired using the DASYlab software. Trials were conducted using
high, medium and low flow, each both with and without the presence of a surge tank.