Steam hammer: causes and cures

By WILLIAM J. COAD

There are few phenomena in applied engineering that have defied solution for as many years as steam hammer. This undesirable characteristic of steam systems is indirectly responsible for their virtual demise in comfort heating applications. Over the years, most att e m p t s a t capacity control t o achieve comfort without excessive energy use have been penalized by excessive corrosion, steam hammer, or both. In those cases where success was achieved without either of these side effects, the complexity of the systems was unacceptable to the marketplace. Probably the most significant reason for this situation is the lack of understanding of the singular cause of steam hammer.* In the context of this column, steam hammer is that sound that is heard as a pinging, rattling, or banging in a steam system under conditions of startup, shutdown, changing loads, or even, in a very few cases, steady state full load operation. In most systems where hammer exists, the operating conditions under which the hammer will occur are totally predictable because of a consistent pattern of repetition.

*Another cause of excessive noise i n steam systems is shock resulting from sudden changes of m o m e n t u m forces ( m d u l d t ) , caused when a "slug" of water i n a steam strikes a fitting, causing a ,-hange in direction. These forces are unusual and oftendestructiueakdsoarenotconsideredas normal system "hammer."

On this page each month, the author shares his philosophy by exploring a wide variety of topics, ranging from f u n d a mentals t o new frontiers, as they relate to building environmental systems. Mr. Coad is president of Charles J. R. McClure & Associates and affiliate professor of mechanical engineering at Washington Uniuersity, S t . Louis, M;.

Many so-called causes of steam hammer have been identified or postulated over the years, but most of these have been correct identifications of individual characteristic dynamics of steam systems that are res~onsiblefor the basic causal phenomenon. Once this fundamental issue has been identified, the cure or cures evolve quite simply: Remove the system characteristic responsible for the occurrence of that singular phenomenon. Recent research has revealed that this fundamental cause of hammer is the implosion of vapor bubbles below the surface of the liquid condensate. This implosion requires, first, that free vapor exists within the liquid and, second, that the vapor is caused to change phase from vapor to liquid while still within the liquid, either by removing heat or increasing pressure. In the vast majority of cases, it is heat removal that causes implosion, such as having a saturated steam bubble within a subcooled liquid fluid. (Another common "noise and destruction" problem caused by implosion, well known in the industry, is destructive pump cavitation.) Thus, when seeking solutions to steam hammer, whether to eliminate it in an existing system or to avoid it in a new system design, one need only insure that saturated uapor will not become encapsulated in subcooled liauid. Numerous design instructions in past years have held that the presence of significant quantities of li~uidWaS be to . - The liquid alone, however, would cause no a s long a s vapor e n capsulation within the liquid could be avoided. There are three common means of introducing vapor into a liquid from the the interface surface; from beneabh the surface through an opening into a higher vapoE regibn; and through turbulent flow in a mixed phase system. The ingress of the vapor through

the interface is probably the least recognized and therefore the most troublesome. This phenomenon can best be understood through a simple experiment a t the kitchen sink. If you take two clear glasses, each half filled with water, and pour water from one into the center of the other, the energy in the falling stream will carry that stream down i n t o t h e s t a t i c volume. E n capsulated air in the form of bubbles will be driven deep into the body of liquid. The air bubbles simply rise and cause no problem in this case. If the gas above the interface were saturated steam instead of air, however, and if the receiving liquid were subcooled (ever so slightly) liquid, heat transfer bet.ween the bubble and the liquid would cause a violent implosion. Thus, if water is, or will be, present in a system, the designer must take precautions to avoid the possibility of liquid running or dripping onto the surface away from the containing wall. If, on the other hand, the entering liquid stream runs down the wall and en. ters the liquid body, the bubbles can be avoided. A common example is a liquid pool beneath horizontal heat exchanger tubes; the water "dripping" off the tubes falls on the surface, and hammer occurs. The second situation is that in which the vapor enters the liquid volume from beneath the surface. An everyday illustration of this phenomenon is an upside down water jug. After some water runs out through the neck, the sum of the pressure a t the top of the jug and the water head to the spout is below atmospheric pressure. At this point, instead of water running out, air rushes in. As violent as this is in the water jug, no harm is done because the air is noncondensable. The air bubbles rise, expanding as they do, and "pop" through the surface with a large splash, causing re-encapsulation of air from the upper reservoir. If the jug were a steam heating device (say a radiator), the
contiinred on puge 21 7

214

Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning November 1986

vapor. In visualizing this, one might spout were a steam trap, and the think of the condensate line as an entering vapor were steam from the open channel flow (such as a sewer upper section of a "dry" return, vio- or drain line, a river, or a stream). lent implosion would result; and The turbulence and resulting hamsince the entering vapor would not mer would require, first, a reasonreduce the vacuum, as in the water ably large volume of flow (deep in jug, the violent process would con- the line); second, something t o tinue! Remember, the presence of cause the turbulence, such as sudwater doesn't cause the implosion; den drop, sharp change in direction, it is simply one of the ingredients! etc.; and third, that the gas in the There are three in all: the water, the upper volume be condensable steam vapor pressure a t the top of the res- vapor rather than air. The best evervoir being below the pressure in eryday analogy is the combination the condensate line, and the pres- of elements that make bubbles or ence of condensable vapor in the top "white water" in flowing rivers. of the condensate line. In summary, steam hammer is The third situation is that of tur- caused by the implosion of enbulent flow in a mixed stream. To capsulated vapor bubbles beneath create this phenomenon requires, the surface of a subcooled liquid first, a liquid vapor interface in the pool or stream. The three basic inline and, second, an extremely tur- gredients are the liquid, the vapor bulent conditioning requiring, gen- bubbles, and the heat transfer. If erally, more than a "design limit" any one of the three is eliminated or velocity of either the liquid or the prevented, hammer cannot occur. D
contrnuedfiom puge214

Heating/Piping/AirConditioning November 1986