UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY

Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics

Project Report No. 446

Hydraulic Transient and Steady

State Flow Analysis Using the WHAMO Model
For the Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP)
Evaluations

by

Jianming He and Charles C. S. Song

Prepared for

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

CHICAGO DISTRICT
111 N. Canal St., Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60606

October 2000
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its
programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race,religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap,
age or veteran status.

Prepared for: U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers

Last Revised: 10/26/00
Disk Locators: Report 446, PR446COV.doc
(Zip Disk #9/Song Reports
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ........... "." ... ,', ............ ,........ ,.......... ,........................................ ,... ,....... ,, .. i

List of Figu res" ,. In ,t ..... , t. tt. '" tt , ' ' ' ' It .... tII'.""" . " ", . """",,,,,,,,,,, ,.,.t" , .,.,." "It It." iii

I. INTRODUCTION ,................... ,.................. '" .............. ".. "....... ,., .... "............. "....... "., 1

II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF TIlE MODELS .................................................... 1

III. DESCRIPTION OF WHAMO ANALYSES CARRIED OUT BY CDM ............ 2

3,1 OPERATIONAL SIMULATIONS",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ........ ,,,.,,, ... ,"""""""''''" .. " ... "" .. ,''''" .. ", .... 2
3,2 TRANSIENT MAIN TUNNEL HEAD - CASES lA, 1B AND 1C ,.. """"" .. """"""""" ... """ ..... ,"",,,,,,,.,,2
3.3 MODIFIED RESERVOIR OPERATING RANGE- CASES 3A, 4A, 5A AND 6A .. """"." ........ """"""",,,,,2
3.4 MODIFIED VALVE OPERATION - CASES 5B, 5C, 1D AND 1E ,.. """ ... "" .. """""""",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3
3,5 FLOW FROM ONE MAIN TUNNEL TO ANOTHER """"""""""""".""" .. """ .. ""'''''''''"." .... " ... "",,,,,,.3
3.6 STEADY STATE OPERATIONAL SIMULATIONS "., ... " .. "" .. ,""'".,", ..... ,... """" ... "" .... "." ... ",, .. """"",,4

IV. SELECTED TESTS WITH MIXTRAN MODEL ................................................. 5

4.1 HYDRAULIC TRANSIENTS IN THE INTERCONNECTED MAINSTREAM AND DES PLAINES TUNNEL""",,5
4.2 SIMULATION OF CASE 5 " .. " .. "."." .......... " ........... " .. ,""""".""."."".".,,"" ... "" ........ "" ... " .. ,...... ,.,.".5
4,3 SIMULATION OF CASE 5B """ .. ""."'''''''"."'',,.,.,,'''''''',.,''''''''',., ... ,, .. ,,'''''''.,'''''',,,,,,,,,,, .. ,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5

V. CONCLUSIONS ..................... ,............................... ,................................................... 6

1
ATTACHMENT:
WHAMO Modeling Simulations of "A - Live" Revision,

Chicagoland Underflow Plan McCook Reservoir, Illinois

By CDM Camp Dresser & Mckee, October 2000

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Schematic of the Mainstream tumlel and Des Plaines tunnel systems for
modeling purpose

Figure 2 Water depth changes with time at the Mainstream tunnel valve chamber
and the Des Plaines chamber, and their difference

Figure 3 Instantaneous hydraulic grade lines along the Mainstream tunnel

Figure 4 Instantaneous hydraulic grade lines along the Des Plaines tunnel

Figure 5 Schematic of the Mainstream tunnel and Des Plaines tunnel systems with
the McCook Reservoir for modeling purpose

Figure 6 Water elevation variations with time at four locations (Node 1400, Node
400, Node 2050, and Node 2150 of the WHAMO model), valve closure
time = 300 seconds (Case 5 of the WHAMO simulation)

Figure 7 Flow rate change from the DSP tunnel to the McCook reservoir, valve
closure time = 300 seconds (Case 5 of the WHAMO simulation)

Figure 8 Water elevation variations with time at four locations (Node 1400, Node
400, Node 2050, and Node 2150 of the WHAMO model), Valve closure
time = 600 seconds (Case 5b of the WHAMO simulation)

Figure 9 Flow rate change from the DSP tunnel to the McCook reservoir, valve
closure time = 600 seconds ( Case 5b of the WHAMO simulations)

iii
 I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this work is to review the WHAMO transient flow model with the
independent MIXTRAN model. The MIXTRAN model also provides necessary boundary
conditions for WHAMO model. The WHAMO model was used to analyze the small
tunnel filling and dewatering system associated with final design analysis regarding the
Chicagoland Underflow Plan (CUP). The subcontractor, CDM International Inc., carried
out the WHAMO analysis and prepared a Technical Memorandum, which is attached to
this report. The WHAMO analysis results were reviewed by the primecontractor, St.
Anthony Falls Laboratory, The University of Mimlesota.

The primecontractor also analyzed two cases, case 5 and case 5B of CDM report, using
the MIXTRAN model and compared the results with that of the WHAMO model.
Agreement between the results of WHAMO model and MIXTRAN model for these two
cases is good.

II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS

WHAMO (water hammer and mass oscillation) model is a hydraulic transient flow model
based on an implicit finite difference method. It applies to steady and unsteady fully
pressurized closed conduit flows of various complexities and boundary conditions. In
comparison, MIXTRAN model applies to more general steady and unsteady flows
including, pressurized flows, free-surface flows and mixed flows in which two types of
the flows coexist. MIXTRAN model is based on an explicit characteristic method. The
shock surface, or the interface between pressurized flow and free-surface flow, is
computed with the shock fitting method. The two methods should be expected to yield
the same results when used to simulate a pressurized flow.

1
 III. DESCRIPTION OF WHAMO ANALYSES CARRIED
OUT BY CDM

CDM analyzed the pumping station system, the piping system downstream of the
Mainstream Tunnel and the Des Plaines Tunnel but upstream of the sewage treatment
plant and the Stage 1 McCook Reservoir, as shown in Figure 1 of the CDM report. They
classified their analysis into groups as described below.

3.1 Operational Simulations

Six worst case scenarios, Case 1 to Case 6 were simulated. First four cases deal with the
water hammer due to power failure occurring under four different steady flow conditions.
Immediately after the power failure, the discharge valves at the pump houses were
assumed to be closed in 15 seconds while the water levels at both ends of the system
were kept unchanged. The computed pressure head and discharge at some key locations
were shown graphically. The simulated results appear reasonable.

Case 5 is about the transient flow due to valve closure (in 5 minutes) when water in Des
Plaines Tunnel is flowing to McCook Reservoir by gravity. This case is also simulated
with MIXTRAN model and the results are compared as described later. Case 6 is about
the transient flow due to valve closure when water in Des Plaines Tunnel is being
pumped to McCook Reservoir.

3.2 Transient Main Tunnel Head - Cases lA, IB and Ie

These are the'same as Case 1 except that the water depth at Des Plaines Tunnel was
assumed to vary with time. The variable water depth used as a boundary condition by
WHAMO model was the water depth at the downstream end of Des Plaines Tunnel
simulated by the MIXTRAN model under a design storm condition, The WHAMO model
indicated that the changing water depth at Des Plaines Tunnel affects the pressure every
where by the same amount. In other words, there is no dynamic effect. This result is
reasonable because the events in the tunnels are slow events as compared with water
hammer events in the pump station system.

3.3 Modified Reservoir Operating Range - Cases 3A, 4A, SA and 6A

These cases test the effect of different boundary water levels on water hammer pressure
for the Cases 3,4,5 and 6. For Cases 3A, 4A and 6A, the water level of the reservoir was
increased by 30 feet. For Cases 4A and 6A, the water level at Des Plaines Tunnel was
also increased by 30 feet. For Case 5A the discharge was also increased from that of

2
Case 5. Here again the increased water level only served to increase the hydro static
pressure without changing the hydrodynamic pressure due to water hammer. This result
also agrees with our experience and should be correct. The water hammer pressure for
Case 5A is higher than that of Case 5 because the initial flow rate was higher. This result
is also reasonable.

3.4 Modified Valve Operation - Cases 5B, 5C, ID and IE

Case 5B is the same as Case 5 except that the valve closure time was increased from 5
minuets to 10 minuets. This case is also simulated with MIXTRAN model and the results
are essentially the same as that ofWHAMO. An interesting conclusion is that maximum
pressure for Case 5B is about the same as that of Case 5. This can be explained by the
fact that the natural periods (water hammer as well as surge) of the system are shorter
than the valve closure time so that the dynamic effect of valve closure is small. For case
5C the valve closure time is staggered such that only one valve was closed over the first 5
minuets, followed by closure of the other valve over the next 5 minutes. The results were
not much different from that of Case 5B as should be expected.

Cases ID and IE are the same as Case I except that the closing time for the pump
discharge valves is varied to 10 seconds and 20 seconds, respectively. It is somewhat
surprising to see that the results are about the same as those of Case 1. Normally one
would expect substantial differences in the water hammer pressure when a valve closure
time is changed from 10 seconds to 20 seconds.

3.5 Flow From One Main Tunnel to Another

This section describes an attempt to simulate the accident during the storm event of June
1999, when the Des Plaines Tunnel dewatering valve chamber sustained structural
damage. Eleven different scenarios were considered and the results tabulated, Table 7 of
the CDM report. For all cases analyzed, the effect of air content was not considered. The
boundary conditions used in the WHAMO model was provided by the MIXTRAN model
by simulating the interconnected Mainstream and Des Plaines tunnel sy::;tem. The valve
closure operation in the WHAMO model was based on a normal valve closure procedure.

Earlier study using MIXTRAN model considered the effect of air content, which is
known to affect the pressure wave speed. It assumed that one of the valve in the Des
Plaines valve chamber was closed in such a way that the valve opening area decreased
linearly with time. The maximum pressure generated in the system predicted by
WHAMO model is substantially smaller than that predicted by the MIXTRAN model.
One of the reasons of the apparent differences due to the fact that different valve closing
procedure assumed. Linear closure procedure is known to produce larger pressure than an
optimized closing procedure. Apparently, the June 1999 event involved valve
malfunctioning causing the valve to close almost instantaneously.

3
3.6 Steady State Operational Simulations

Steady state WHAMO simulations were conducted to estimate pumping capacity for a
range of tunnel and reservoir stages. The results appear reasonable. .

4
 IV. SELECTED TESTS WITH MIXTRAN MODEL

4.1 Hydraulic Transients in the Interconnected Mainstream and

Des Plaines Tunnel

The purpose of this run is to provide the information on the boundary conditions to be
used by WHAMO model to analyze the effect of Tunnel Transients on the transients of
pump station system. The filling process of the interconnected tunnels during a design
storm condition was simulated. In the design storm, the peak inflow rate at each dropshaft
is given using the design data for the tunnel systems, which are provided by the
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Their distribution pattern is
chosen based on the storm event of Oct. 18, 1985, in the same area. Fig. 1 shows the
schematic of the Mainstream tunnel and Des Plaines tunnel for modeling purposes. Fig. 2
shows the changing water level at the ends of the two tunnels during the storm. Some
instantaneous hydraulic grade lines in the tunnels are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 to indicate
the filling process. The results were given to CDM to be used for the WHAMO analysis.

4.2 Simulation of Case 5

This is a case when the flow is going from Des Plaines Tunnel to McCook Reservoir by
gravity and all valves associated with pumps are closed. Therefore, only the system
directly connecting the reservoir to the Des Plaines Tunnel is isolated from the rest of the
system and modeled. This simplified system is shown in Fig. 5. The boundary conditions
are set the same as that ofWHAMO model Case 5 and the valves V9 and VI0 are closed
in 5 minuets. The simulated water elevations at Nodes 1400(Des Plaines Tunnel),
400(Mainstream Tunnel), 2050(the junction between DSP and MS tunnels) and 2150(the
bifurcation before the reservoir dewatering valves V9&VI 0) are shown in Fig. 6. The
corresponding discharge at Node 1400 is shown in Fig. 7. When these figures are
compared with the figures in the CDM report, it is clear that the results of the two models
are quite similar.

4.3 Simulation of Case 5B

This case is the same as Case 5 except that the valve closure time is increased to 10
minuets. The results are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. These results are also seen to be
essentially the same as the results ofWHAMO model.

5
 v. CONCLUSIONS.

Following list of conclusions are offered based on the analysis described above.

1) WHAMO model, being based on one-dimensional dynamic equations of hydraulic

transient flows, appears to be capable of simulating steady and unsteady pressurized
flows accurately. Since the pump station system normally operates at pressurized
condition, WHAMO model is suitable to the system. However, WHAMO model
cannot be used for free-surface flows or mixed flows conditions.

2) For two cases selected for comparison, Cases 5 and 5B, the results of WHAMO
model agree with the results of MIXTRAN model.

3) For most simulation purposes, the tunnel model and the pump station model need not
be coupled. This is because the characteristic time of one system is much different
from that of the other.

4) The impact force generated by the valve closure in the Des Plaines valve chamber
during the failure event in June 1, 1999 is dependent on the valve closure time, and
the wave speed, which is related to the air content in the storm sewer water. For a
normal condition, it is assumed that the air content in water is about 0.5% to 2%
(wave speed: a= 400 to 1000 ftis) for a large storm event. If the first valve was
slammed shut, the potential impact force,

F=aV/g=1.66a

Wave speed (fils) 400 1000 2000 3000 4000

Impact Force (ft) 664 1660 3320 4980 6640

In a nonnal valve closure operation, the valve operation procedure is also a very
important factor to affect the impact force. WHAMO model was based on the standard
valve closure procedure, while the earlier study using the MIXTRAN model used a linear
valve opening (area) change with time. As a result, the impact forces based on WHAMO
model are smaller than those using the MIXTRAN model when the first valve was not
slammed shut.

6
 1

Mainstream Tunnel
85
186

187
233

362

362

1-_ _ _ _ 454

490 491
528
797
796
------1813 544 545
572
830
575

DSP valve chamber

MS valve chamber
839 580

844
I

Fig. 1 Schematic of the Mainstream tunnel and Des Plaines tunnel

systems for modeling purpose
 Interconnected tunnel systems, no inflow control
440

400 ~ Mainstream Side

--- Des Plaines Side
360 .---. The difference

320

280

---
-.
..-
.c:
..-
240
c..
Q)
"C 200
~
Q)
..-
ctS
$ 160

120

80

40

-40
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (min)

Fig. 2 Water depth changes with time at the Mainstream tunnel

valve chamber and the Des Plaines chamber, and their difference.
 Interconnected MS tunnel, No inflow control
90
-. Tunnel invert
60 e---e T=60 mins
~ T=90mins
30 ---- T=100 mins
4----.6. T=110 mins

.--..-.. T=120 mins

0 I>--ll> T=130 mins
....-.. -t---+ T=140 mins
0
() -30 x---l< T=280 mins
()

-
......
' -'"
c:
0
:,j::i
-60
C't3
> -90
Q)
Q)
Q)
(.)
-120
C't3
t
::J
en -150
~
Q)
Cti -180
~
-210

-240

-270

-300
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Tunnel length (1000ft)

Fig. 3 Instantaneous hydraulic grade lines along the Mainstream

tunnel.
 Interconnected Des Plaines tunnel, No inflow control
90
- Tunnel invert
60 .--. T=60 mins
?---.JIf' T=90 mins

30 --- T=100 mins

......... T=110 mins
~ T=120 mins
0 ~ T=130 mins
--. .j--t T=140 mins
Q
0 -30 )(-----,K T=150 mins
Q ~ T=160 mins

~ -60
G-E> T=280 mins

t:
0
~ -90
>
Q)
Q)
Q)
C,.)
-120
~
:::l
(J)
-150
I-
Q)
......
ct:! -180
~
-210

-240

-270

-300
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Tunnel length (1000ft)

Fig. 4 Instantaneous hydraulic grade lines along the Des Plaines

tunnel.
 1

Mainstream Tunnel
86 85
186
188
187
Des Plaines Tunnel 233
581

209 362
323
685 684
689
361
323 362
722
721
746
453 454
480
775
774
790
490 491
528
797
796
813 544 545
572
Node 1400 830
Node 400 575
:CSP valve cbamber
as valve cbamber
839 580
McCook Reservoir V9
f\ Node 2050
\...J

~~f\r-+-__~Node 2150
'-"
VIO

Fig. 5 Schematic of the Mainstream tunnel and Des Plaines tunnel

systems with the McCook Reservoir for modeling purpose
Case 5: DSP to RES Cravity FLow - Close V9N1 0

60

40

0
.-..
0
()
()
-20
-
a=~

c:
0
"oi=
ctS -40
6;
w
-60 Node 1400
Node 400
Node 2050
-80 Node 2150

--100

-120 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time (sees)

Fig. 6 Water elevation variations with time at four locations (Node

1400, Node 400, Node 2050, and Node 2150 of the WHAMO model),
valve closure time =300 seconds (Case 5 of the WHAMO simulations).
Case 5: DEP to RES Cravity Flow - Close V9N1 0

3600

I ...---e. Discharge at Node 1400 I

3200

2800

.-.. 2400
~
u
"-
Q)
C)
as 2000
~

..r:::
u
C/)
b 1600

1200

800

400

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time (sees)

Fig. 7 Flow rate change from the DSP tunnel to the McCook
reservoir, valve closure time = 300 seconds (Case 5 of the WHAMO
simulations) .
 Case 5b: DES to RES Cravity Flow - Close V9N1 0 (10 mins)

60

40

-
c()
()
0

. -20
E.
s::
0
~ -40
~
ill
-60 Node 1400
Node 400

.
Node 2050
-80 ;. Node 2150

-100

-120
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Time (secs)

Fig. 8 Water elevation variations with time at four locations

(Node 1400, Node 400, Node 2050, and Node 2150 of the WHAMO
model), valve closure time = 600 seconds (Case 5b of the WHAMO
simulations) .
 Case 5b: DES to RES Cravity Flow - CLose V9N10 (10 mins)
4000

3600

1--- ... Discharge at Node 1400 I

3200

2800

.-. 2400
~
en
(.)
"-
Q)
0)

as 2000
~

.c
(.)
.~
0 1600

1200

800

400

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Time (secs)

Fig. 9 Flow rate change from the DSP tunnel to the McCook
reservoir, valve closure time =600 seconds (Case 5b of the WHAMO
simulations) .