Nonlinear Dyn (2010) 60: 677–701

DOI 10.1007/s11071-009-9624-7

O R I G I N A L PA P E R

Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water

hammer in pipelines
Kaveh Hariri Asli · Faig Bakhman Ogli Naghiyev ·
Akbar Khodaparast Haghi

Received: 1 May 2009 / Accepted: 13 November 2009 / Published online: 10 December 2009
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract In this work, a computational method was Abbreviations

used for the prediction of water transmission failure. λ Coefficient of combination
The proposed method allowed for any arbitrary com- I Moment of inertia (m4 )
bination of devices in the water pipeline system. The w Weight (kg)
method used was by a scale model and a prototype P Fluid power (pa)
(real) system for a city main water pipeline where tran- z Elevation at the centroid (m)
sient flow was caused by the failure of a transmission t Time (s)
system. λ0 Unit of length
p Pressure (N/m2 )
Keywords Transient flow · Water hammer · α Pipe cross section area (m2 )
Unaccounted for water · Method of characteristics V Velocity (m/s)
s Length (m)
f Friction factor
τ Shear stress (Pa)
H2 –H1 Pressure difference (m-H2 O)
K.H. Asli () C Surge wave velocity (m/s)
Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, National V Volume (m3 )
Academy of Science of Azerbaijan “AMEA”, Baku, F Fluid force (N)
Azerbaijan
W Frequency
e-mail: hariri_k@yahoo.com
q Flow rate (m3 /s)
K.H. Asli D Diameter of each pipe (m)
No. 1045, Alley Azerbany 2, Farhang ring, Rasht μ Fluid dynamic viscosity (kg/m s)
41886-13133, Iran
R Pipe radius (m)
F.B.O. Naghiyev γ Specific weight (N/m3 )
Azerbaijan State Oil Academy, Baku, Azerbaijan ν Fluid dynamic viscosity (kg/m s)
e-mail: faik_nagiyev@yahoo.com J Junction point (m)
y Surge tank and reservoir elevation
A.K. Haghi
University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran difference (m)
e-mail: Haghi@Guilan.ac.ir K Volumetric coefficient (GN/m2 )
A.K. Haghi T Period of motion
e-mail: Haghi@Canada.com A Pipe cross-sectional area (m2 )
678
dp Is subjected to a static pressure rise (m)
hp Head gain from a pump (m)
hL Combined head loss (m)
Eν Bulk modulus of elasticity (Pa)
α Kinetic energy correction factor
P Surge pressure (m)
ρ Density (kg/m3 )
C Velocity of surge wave (m/s)
g Acceleration of gravity (m/s2 )
K Wave number
Tp Pipe thickness (m)
Ep Pipe module of elasticity (kg/m2 )
Ew Module of elasticity of water (kg/m2 )
C1 Pipe support coefficient
Ymax Max. fluctuation
Min. Minimum
Max. Maximum
Lab. Laboratory
1 Introduction
Long-distance water transmission lines must be eco-
nomical, reliable, and expandable. The present work
tried to show safe hydraulic input to a network. This
idea provided wide optimization and water hammer
risk-reduction strategy for the Rasht city water main
pipeline in northern Iran. The important effect of wa-
ter hammer disaster is unaccounted for in the water
“UFW” phenomenon. This work had particular exper-
tise for designing safe pressurized pipeline segments.
This means that by reduction of unaccounted for wa-
ter, “UFW”, energy costs can be reduced. Water ham-
mer disaster as a fluid dynamics phenomenon is an im-
portant case study for designer engineers. Water ham-
mer is a pressure surge or wave caused by the kinetic
energy of a fluid in motion when it is forced to stop or
change direction suddenly [1]. The majority of tran-
sients in water and wastewater systems are the result
of changes at system boundaries, typically at the up-
stream and downstream ends of the system or at local
high points. Consequently, the results of the present
work can reduce the risk of system damage or failure.
The study of hydraulic transients is generally consid-
ered to have begun with the works of Joukowsky [2]
and Allievi [3]. The historical development of this sub-
ject makes for good reading. A number of pioneers
have made breakthrough contributions to the field,
including Angus and Parmakian [4] and Wood [5],
K.H. Asli et al.
who popularized and refined the graphical calculation
method. Wylie and Streeter [6] combined the method
of characteristics with computer modeling. The field
of fluid transients is still rapidly evolving worldwide
by Brunone et al. [7], Koelle and Luvizotto [8], Fil-
ion and Karney [9], Hamam and McCorquodale [10],
Savic and Walters [11], Walski and Lutes [12], Wu and
Simpson [13]. Various methods have been developed
to solve transient flow in pipes. These ranges have
been formed from approximate equations to numerical
solutions of the non-linear Navier–Stokes equations.
Hydraulic transient flow is also known as unsteady
fluid flow. During a transient analysis, the fluid and
system boundaries can be either elastic or inelastic:
(a) elastic theory describes the unsteady flow of a com-
pressible liquid in an elastic system (e.g., where pipes
can expand and contract); (b) rigid-column theory, de-
scribes unsteady flow of an incompressible liquid in
a rigid system. It is only applicable to slower tran-
sient phenomena. Both branches of transient theory
stem from the same governing equations. The conti-
nuity equation and the momentum equation are needed
to determine V (velocity) and p (surge pressure) in a
one-dimensional flow system. Solving these two equa-
tions produces a theoretical result that usually corre-
sponds quite closely to actual system measurements,
if the data and assumptions used to build the numeri-
cal model are valid. Transient analysis results that are
not comparable with actual system measurements are
generally caused by inappropriate system data (espe-
cially boundary conditions) and inappropriate assump-
tions [2, 3]. Among the approaches proposed to solve
the single-phase (pure liquid) water hammer equations
are the Method of Characteristics (MOC), Finite Dif-
ferences (FD), Wave Characteristic Method (WCM),
Finite Elements (FE), and Finite Volume (FV). One
difficulty that commonly arises relates to the selec-
tion of an appropriate level of time step to use for the
analysis. The obvious trade-off is between computa-
tional speed and accuracy. In general, the smaller the
time step, the longer the run time but the greater the
numerical accuracy. The challenge of selecting a time
step is made difficult in pipeline systems by two con-
flicting constraints. First, to calculate many boundary
conditions, such as obtaining the head and discharge at
the junction of two or more pipes, it is necessary that
the time step be common to all pipes. The second con-
straint arises from the nature of the MOC. If the adjec-
tive terms in the governing equations are neglected (as
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines
is almost always justified), the MOC requires that ratio
of the distance x to the time step t be equal to the
wave speed in each pipe. In other words, the Courant
number should ideally be equal to one and must not
exceed one by stability reasons. For most pipeline sys-
tems, having as they do a variety of different pipes
with a range of wave speeds and lengths, it is impos-
sible to satisfy exactly the Courant requirement in all
pipes with a reasonable (and common) value of t.
Faced with this challenge, researchers have sought for
ways of relaxing the numerical constraints. Two con-
trasting strategies present themselves. The method of
wave-speed adjustment changes one of the pipeline
properties (usually the wave speed, though more rarely
the pipe length is altered) so as to satisfy exactly the
Courant condition [14].
Every pipe system has a characteristic time pe-
riod, T = 2L/a, where L is the longest possible path
through the system and a is the pressure wave speed.
This period is the time it takes for a pressure wave
to travel the pipe system’s greatest length two times.
It is recommended that the run duration equals or ex-
ceeds T . Another factor to consider when determining
run duration is to allow enough time for friction to sig-
nificantly dampen the transient energy. If in doubt, run
work for a longer duration and examine the resulting
graphs and time histories. Run duration is measured
either in seconds or as a number of time steps. Time
steps typically range from a few hundredths of a sec-
ond to a few seconds, depending on the system and
the pressure wave speeds. The run duration has a di-
rect effect on the modeling computation time, along
with the time step selected for the simulation. Steady-
state models, such as Water CAD or Water GEMS,
are capable of two modes of analysis: steady state and
extended period simulation (EPS). EPS solves a se-
ries of consecutive steady states using a gradient algo-
rithm and accounting for mass in reservoirs and tanks
(e.g., net inflows and storage). Both methods assume
the system contains an incompressible fluid, so the to-
tal volumetric or mass inflows at any node must equal
the outflows, less the change in storage. In addition
to pressure head, elevation head, and velocity head,
there may also be head added to the system, for in-
stance, by a pump and head removed from the sys-
tem by friction. These changes in head are referred to
as head gains and head losses, respectively. Balancing
the energy across two points in the system yields the
energy or Bernoulli equation for steady-state flow: the
679
components of the energy equation can be combined
to express two useful quantities, the hydraulic grade
and the energy grade:
 
(P1 /γ ) + Z1 V12 /2g + hp
 
= (P2 /γ ) + Z2 + V22 /2g + hL , (1.1)
Pressure head: p/γ
Elevation head: z
Velocity head: V 2 /2g
where p—pressure (N/m2 ), γ —specific weight
(N/m3 ), z—elevation (m), V —velocity (m/s), g—
gravitational acceleration constant (m/s2 , ft/s2 ).
Unsteady or transient friction Compared to a steady
state, fluid friction increases during hydraulic transient
events because rapid changes in transient pressure and
flow increase turbulent shear. The MOC model can
track the effect of fluid accelerations to estimate the at-
tenuation of transient energy more closely than would
be possible with quasi-steady or steady-state friction.
Computational effort increases significantly if tran-
sient friction must be calculated for each time step.
This can result in long model-calculation times for
large systems with hundreds of pipes or more. Typ-
ically, transient friction has little or no effect on the
initial low and high pressures and these are usually the
largest ever reached in the system. This is illustrated
from the following present work simulation results
comparing steady, quasi-steady, and transient friction
methods. The steady-state friction method yields con-
servative estimates of the extreme high and low pres-
sures that usually govern the selection of pipe class
and surge-protection equipment. However, if cyclic
loading is an important design consideration, the un-
steady friction method can yield less conservative es-
timates of recurring and decaying extremes. In the
present work, this method has provided a suitable
way for detecting, analyzing, and recording transient
flow (down to 5 milliseconds). Transient flow has
been solved for the pipeline in the range of approx-
imate equations. These approximate equations have
been solved by numerical solutions of the non-linear
Navier–Stokes equations in a method of characteris-
tics “MOC”. So, experiences have been ensured for
the reliable water transmission for the Rasht city main
pipeline in northern Iran (research pilot).
680 K.H. Asli et al.

2 Materials and methods Dateline for field tests and lab. Model data collec-
tion was: at 12:00 a.m., 10/02/07, until 05/02/09. Lo-
The method of characteristics “MOC” is based on a cation of work field tests and lab. Model was at Rasht
finite difference technique where pressures are com- city in the northern part of Iran. Pilot subject was: “In-
puted along the pipe for each time step [15]. Two cases terpenetration of two fluids at parallel between plates
are considered for modeling [2, 3]: and turbulent moving in pipe”. For the data collection
(1) The combined elasticity of both the water process, the Rasht city water main pipeline has been
and the pipe walls is characterized by the pressure selected as a field test model. The pipeline was in-
wave speed (Arithmetic method—combination of the cluded in the water treatment plant pump station (in
Joukowski formula and Allievi formula): the start of water transmission line), 3.595 (km) of two
lines of 1200 (mm) diameter pre-stressed cement pipes
Joukowski formula
and one 50,000 (m3 ) water reservoir (in the end of wa-
H2 − H1 = (C/g)(v2 − v1 ) = ρC(v2 − v1 ), (2.1) ter transmission line). All of these parts have been tied
into existing water networks.
Allievi formula The curve estimation procedure was formed by es-
timating regression statistics and producing related
1
c=  (2.2) plots. The model summary and parameter estimates
2[ρ (1/k) + (dC1 /Ee))] have been provided a set of results. Also, numeri-
With the combination of the Joukowski formula and cal modeling and simulation which was defined by
Allievi formula: method of characteristics “MOC” have been provided
 a set of results. The present work has compared these
λ (∂v/∂t) + (1/ρ)(∂p/∂s) two sets of results (method of characteristics “MOC”
 numerical modeling and simulation results against the
+ g(dz/ds) + (f/2D)v|v|
(2.3) curve estimation procedure which was formed by es-
+ C 2 (∂v/∂s) + (1/p)(∂p/∂t) = 0, timating regression statistics). The method of charac-
teristics “MOC” approach transforms the water ham-
λ = +c and λ = − c
mer partial differential equations into the ordinary dif-
Hence, water hammer pressure or surge pressure ferential equations along the characteristic lines de-
(H ) is a function of independent variables (X) such fined as the continuity equation and the momentum
as equation are needed to determine V and P in a one-
dimensional flow system. Solving these two equations
H ≈ ρ, K, d, C1 , Ee, V , g, (2.4) produces a theoretical result that usually corresponds
quite closely to actual system measurements if the data
(2) The method of characteristics (MOC) based on and assumptions used to build the numerical model
a finite difference technique where pressures are com- are valid. Transient analysis results that are not com-
puted along the pipe for each time step, parable with actual system measurements are gener-
ally caused by inappropriate system data (especially
1
HP = C/g(VLe − Vri ) + (HLe + Hri ) boundary conditions) and inappropriate assumptions.
2
  Comparisons between the models and validation data
− C/g(f t/2D) VLe |VLe | − Vri |Vri | , (2.5) can be grouped into the following three categories:
1 (a) Cases for which closed-form analytical solutions
VP = VLe + Vri ) + (g/c)(HLe − Hri )
2 exist given certain assumptions if the model can
 
− (f t/2D) VLe |VLe | + Vri |Vri | , (2.6) directly reproduce the solution, is considered valid
for this case.
f —friction, C—slope (deg), V —velocity (m/s), t— (b) Laboratory experiments with flow and pressure
time (s), H —head (m). data records—The model is calibrated using one
The present work used the method of characteris- set of data and, without changing parameter val-
tics “MOC” to solve virtually any hydraulic transient ues, it is used to match a different set of results. If
problems. successful, it is considered valid for these cases.
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 681

Table 1 Rasht city

laboratory model technical Laboratory model technical specifications Notation Value Dimension
specifications
Pipe diameter d 22 mm
Surge tank cross section area A 1.521 × 10−3 m2
Pipe cross section area a 0.3204 × 10−3 m2
Pipe thickness t 0.9 mm
Fluid density ρ 1000 kg/m3
*—Laboratory test results: Volumetric coefficient K 2.05 GN/m2
If liquid density and pipe Fluid power P * *
cross section are constant,
Fluid force F * *
the instantaneous velocity is
the same in all sections. Friction loss hf * *
These rigidity assumptions Frequency W * *
result in an easy-to-solve
Fluid velocity ν * m/s
ordinary differential
equation; however, its Max fluctuation Ymax * *
application is limited to the Flow rate q * m3 /s
analysis of surge. Newton’s Pipe length L * m
second law of motion (2.7)
is sufficient to determine Period of motion T * *
the dynamic hydraulic of a Surge tank and reservoir elevation difference y * m
rigid water body during the Surge wave velocity C * m/s
mass oscillation (Fig. 1)

(c) Field tests on actual systems with flow and pres-
sure data records—These comparisons require
threshold and span calibration of all sensor groups,
multiple simultaneous datum, and time base
checks and careful test planning and interpreta-
tion. Sound calibrations match multiple sensor
records and reproduce both peak timing and sec-
ondary signals—all measured every second or
fraction of a second.
2.1 Laboratory models
A scale model shows transient flow in a prototype
(real) system. It was designed by Kaveh Hariri Asli.
Its patent was recorded in the inventions organization
of Iran (record No.: 44242—date of record: 11/24/07).
It was used for PhD research laboratory tests.
2.2 Laboratory model technical specifications
ing down to one sample. Sensor input analogue sup-
plied with quick fit connector, 0–35 (bar), accuracy
±0.25% recording up to 8,000,000 readings. Logging
memory was programmed to read continuously (cyclic
mode) or for a features specific period of time (block).
Frequency 1, 5, 10, 20, and 25 samples were per sec-
ond. Logger ID had up to 8 alphanumeric characters.
Communications programmed with Serial RS232 by
MIL connector for connection to laptop or desktop PC
115,200. Portable ultrasonic flow meter “UFM” with
pressure transient data logger pressure transient was a
specialized data logger for monitoring rapid pressure
changes in water pipe systems (e.g., water hammer). It
was supplied in portable mode only. Pressure transient
loggers were completely waterproof, submersible, and
battery powered for at least 5 years.
Newton second law for laboratory model

The model has been calibrated by a water hammer lab- dv

ρal = ρgaH1 − ρga(H2 + y)
oratory instrument on 05/02/09. The calibration instru- dt
ment belonged to Iran science and Technology Univer- + ρgaL sin θ − ρgahf . (2.7)
sity. The model specifications are as the flowing Ta-
ble 1 and Figs. 1, 7(a). For steady-state flows condition, if dV /dt = 0, then
Specialist “Transient View” analysis software for this equation simplifies to the Darcy–Weisbach for-
Rasht city laboratory model was capable of window- mula for computation of head loss over the length of
682 K.H. Asli et al.

Fig. 1 Laboratory experiments for Rasht city with flow and pressure data records

the pipeline. However, if a steady-state flow condition approximate equations to numerical solutions of the
is not established because of flow control operations, non-linear Navier–Stokes equations. Hydraulic tran-
then three unknowns need to be determined: H1 (t) sient flow is also known as unsteady fluid flow. For
(the left-hand head), H2 (t) (the right-hand head), V (t) laboratory models of the work, the maximum transient
(the instantaneous flow velocity in the conduit) to de- head envelope calculated (2.8)–(2.15) by rigid water
termine these unknowns, the boundary conditions at column theory (RWCT) is a straight line, as shown
both ends of the pipeline must be known. Using the in the following figure (Fig. 7a). The rigid model has
fundamental rigid-model equation, the hydraulic grade limited applications in hydraulic transient analysis be-
line can be established for each instant. The slope cause the resulting equations do not accurately model
of this line indicates the head loss between the two pressure waves caused by rapid flow control opera-
ends of the pipeline, which is also the head neces- tions. The rigid model applies to slower surge or mass
sary to overcome frictional losses and inertial forces oscillation transients, as defined in “wave propagation
in the pipeline. For the case of flow reduction caused and characteristic time”.
by a valve closure (dQ/dt < 0), the slope is re- L dv dy
duced. If a valve is opened, the slope increases, po- × + y + hf = 0, av = A + Q,
g dt dt
tentially allowing vacuum conditions to occur. The
H2 = H1 + k, L sin θ = k,
change in slope is directly proportional to the flow  
change. At fast transients, down to 1 second, surge L d A dy Q
× + + y + hf = 0,
pressure, and velocity of surge wave are found by g dt a dt a
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 683

d2 y ga d2 y of the residuals. In the presence of auto-correlated

+ y = 0, + W 2 y = 0, (2.8)
dt 2 LA dt 2 residuals, the linear regression procedure gives inac-
  curate estimates of how much of the series variabil-
L d A dy Q
× + + y + hf = 0, ity is accounted for by the chosen predictors. This can
g dt a dt a
adversely affect the choice of predictors, and hence
d2 y ga the validity of the model. The auto-regression pro-
2
+ y = 0,
dt LA cedure accounts for first-order auto-correlated resid-
d2 y ga uals. It provides reliable estimates of both goodness-
+ W 2 y = 0, W2 = , of-fit measures and significant levels of chosen predic-
dt 2 LA
tor variables. The auto-regression procedure by regres-
if: f and Q, equal to zero
sion software “SPSS 10.0.5” has been selected for the
t
y = ymax sin 2π , (2.9) curve estimation procedure in the present work. The
T regression model (3.1)–(3.8) has been built based on

2π LA field test data and in the final procedure it has been
T= = 2π , (2.10) compared (Figs. 5, 6) with the method of character-
W ga
 istics “MOC” numerical modeling and simulation re-
u LA sults.
ymax = =u ,
W ga (2.11)
2.4 Regression model compared with “MOC” model
ymax = y − 0.6hf ,
Fluid power = δQh, (2.12) High pressure approaches

Fluid power = δ(H − h)V A (2.13)
L V2
Head friction = f ⇒ (2.14)
D 2g
 
Fluid power = δV A H − KV h . (2.15)
2.3 Regression
The curve estimation procedure allows quick estimat-
ing regression statistics, and producing related plots
for different models (Tables 2–7). Curve estimation is
the most appropriate when the relationship between
the dependent variable(s) and the independent variable
is not necessarily linear. Linear regression is used to
model the value of a dependent scale variable based
on its linear relationship to one or more predictors.
Non-linear regression is appropriate when the relation-
ship between the dependent and independent variables
is not intrinsically linear. Binary logistic regression is
most useful in modeling of the event probability for
a categorical response variable with two outcomes.
The auto-regression procedure is an extension of ordi-
nary least-squares regression analysis specifically de-
signed for time series. One of the assumptions under-
lying ordinary least-squares regression is the absence
of auto-correlation in the model residuals. Time se-
ries, however, often exhibit first-order auto-correlation
The regression model and “MOC” model showed
water-column separation and the entrance of air (e.g.,
Fig. 3) into the pipeline. Field tests focused on the
actual system’s model. But in the second case, water-
column separation was not what happened. This was
the effect of the air release from the leakage point lo-
cation. Also, work results showed Max. transient pres-
sure line was completely over the steady flow pressure
line Max. The pressure value was 156.181 (m). This
pressure was too high for old piping and it must be
considered as a hazard for piping (for transmission
line with surge tank and in leakage condition).
2.5 Field test and regression equations definition
The main approach of this work was the definition
of a model by regression of the relationship be-
tween the dependent and independent data or vari-
ables. (Numerical modeling and simulation of water
hammer disaster). The variables are as follows: P —
surge pressure (as a dependent variable with nomen-
clature “Y ”), several factors (as independent variables
with nomenclature “X”) such as: ρ—density (kg/m3 ),
C—velocity of surge wave (m/s), g—acceleration
of gravity (m/s2 ), V —changes in velocity of wa-
ter (m/s), d—pipe diameter (m), Ep —pipe module
of elasticity (kg/m2 ), Ew —module of elasticity of
684
Fig. 2 Laboratory experiments for Rasht city with flow and pressure data records
water (kg/m2 ), C1 —pipe support coefficient, T —
time (s), Tp —pipe thickness (m). For the data collec-
tion process, advanced flow and pressure sensors have
been selected as field test data collection. They were
equipped with high-speed data loggers and “PLC” in
this work. So, by this ability, they recorded fast tran-
sients data, down to 5 milliseconds. Methods such
as inverse transient calibration and leak detection in
calculation of unaccounted for water “UFW” used
such data. For district and zone monitoring, Multi-
Log GPRSTM were used for monitoring flow, pres-
sure, and/or water quality parameters were assessed
for demand, leakage, and conformance. MultiLog
GPRSTM were used to perform dynamic flow and
pressure analysis of water pipeline modeling, particu-
larly where hourly data were updated for near real time
K.H. Asli et al.
monitoring. Digital uni- or bi-directional pulses were
used as instrument powered or non-powered sensors,
e.g. PD100 (Up to 128 pulses per second) for internal
pressure transducer Sensor (0–20 bar/0–200 meters
head/0–300 (psig), repeatability ±0.1%). Input ana-
logue external pressure transducer (volt) or transmit-
ter (mA) 0–20 (bar)/0–200 meters head/0–300 (psig),
accuracy ±0.1% 4–20 (mA) from isolated sensor
0–1 (V), 1–5 (V), or 0–100 (mV) Primary recording
48,720 readings (memory expandable to 245,280 read-
ings) were used. Memory were programmed to read
continuously (cyclic mode) or for a specific period of
time (block). Secondary recording used 6,144 read-
ings, frequency 15 minute sample rate (for hourly data
download). Optional alarms sent by SMS. Minimum
or maximum threshold alarm equipped with persis-
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 685

tence logging alarms factor per channel (7 Alarms per
logger). Each alarm had out comment field of 16 char-
acters. Features were programmed to auto dial up to 4
telephone numbers on alarm. Logger ID had up to 8
alphanumeric characters that were programmed with
geography Information System (GIS) number. Clock
on board 24-hour real time showed clock with date
facility. It was programmed to record either fast data,
average minimum, average maximum, or channel time
interval between pulses (for data smoothing). Logging
modes counted with Serial RS232 by MIL connector
for connection to Rad Link hand held programming
and data collection unit, laptop PC, or desktop PC.
It was programmed up to 19,200 Baud. Communica-
tions GPRS (email) typically 1 × email per day to
transmitted 1 or 2 channels of communications com-
pressed data at a 15-minute sample rate. SMS (Text)
with SMS message transmitted on Alarm. GSM (Data)
with SIM card was enabled for GSM service, office PC
could establish communications real time, communi-
cations with Logger for reconfiguration, etc. Pressure
transient logger was supplied with one input for an
external pressure transducer.
3 Results and discussion
built based on field test data. The curve estimation pro-
cedure (Figs. 3, 4) was formed by estimating regres-
sion statistics (Tables 2–7) and producing related plots
for the field test model with two assumptions:
Assumption (1): p = f (V ).
Assumption (2): p = f (V , T , L).
Assumption 1 p = f (V ), V —velocity (flow para-
meter) is the most important variable. Dependent vari-
able: P —pressure (bar), for starting point of water
hammer condition (Table 2). The independent variable
is Velocity (m/s). Regression software “SPSS 10.0.5”
performs multi-dimensional scaling of proximity data
to find least-squares representation of the objects in a
low-dimensional space
Linear function ∴ pressure
= 6.062 + 0.571 Flow, (3.1)
Quadratic function ∴ pressure
= 6.216 − 0.365Flow4 + 0.468Flow3 , (3.2)
Cubic function ∴ pressure
= 6.239 − 0.057Flow2 + 0.174Flow, (3.3)
Compound function ∴ pressure

Water hammer software version 07.00.049.00 results = 1.089(1 + Flow)n ,

have been compared with regression software “SPSS n = compounding period, (3.4)
10.0.5”. Regression software “SPSS” has fitted the
function curve and provided regression analysis. So, Growth function ∴ pressure
the regression model has been found in the final proce- = 1.804(0.085)Flow/0.05 , (3.5)
dure. By this model, field test results have been com-
pared by lab. model results. This was the main prac- Exponential function ∴ pressure
tical aim of the present work. In the final procedure, = 6.076eFlowLn 0.085 , (3.6)
a condition base maintenance (CM) method has been
found for all water transmission systems. The results Logitic function ∴ pressure
are as follows: At fast transients, down to 1 second, = 1/(1 + e−Flow ) or
surge pressure and velocity of surge wave have been
recorded. Curve estimation procedure has used these pressure = 0.165 + 0.918Flow. (3.7)
data which have been detected (Fig. 6) on actual sys-
tems (field tests). Also, flow and pressure were col- Assumption 2 p = f (V , T , L), V —velocity (flow)
lected by lab. test model. Those data have been com- and T —time and L—distance, are the most important
pared by flow and pressure data which have been col- variables.
lected from actual systems (field tests). The model is Input data are in relation with water hammer con-
calibrated using one set of data, without changing pa- dition. Regression software “SPSS 10.0.5” fitted the
rameter values. It is used to match a different set of re- function curve (Figs. 3–4) with regression analysis for
sults [16]. The regression model (3.1)–(3.8) has been water hammer condition (Tables 3, 4a).
686 K.H. Asli et al.

Table 2 Rasht city model summary and parameter estimates (start of water hammer condition)

Equation Model summary Parameter estimates

R Square F df1 df2 Sig. a0 a1 a2 a3

Linear y = a0 + a1 x 0.418 15.831 1 22 0.001 6.062 0.571

Logarithmica . . . . . . .
Inverseb . . . . . . .
Quadratic 0.487 9.955 2 21 0.001 6.216 −0.365 0.468
y = a0 + a1 x + a2 x2
Cubic 0.493 10.193 2 21 0.001 6.239 0 −0.057 0.174
y = a0 + a1 x + a2 x 2 + a3 x 3
Compound A = Cekt 0.424 16.207 1 22 0.001 6.076 1.089
Powera . . . . . . .
Sb . . . . . . .
Growth (dA/dT ) = KA 0.424 16.207 1 22 0.001 1.804 0.085
Exponential y = abx + g 0.424 16.207 1 22 0.001 6.076 0.085
Logistic y = ax b +g 0.424 16.207 1 22 0.001 0.165 0.918

a The independent variable contains non-positive values. The minimum value is 0.00. The logarithmic and Power models cannot be

calculated.
b The independent variable contains values of zero. The Inverse and S models cannot be calculated. Regression equation defined in

stages (2–3–7–8) is meaningless. Stages (1–4–5–6–9–10–11) are accepted, because their coefficients are meaningful.

Fig. 3 Scatter diagram for Rasht city water transmission lines (start of water hammer condition)
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 687

Table 3 Rasht city model

summary and parameter Model Un-standardized Standardized Beta T sign
estimates (water hammer coefficients coefficients
condition) std. error

1 (Constant) 28.762 29.73 – 0.967 0.346

Flow 0.031 0.01 0.399 2.944 0.009
Distance −0.005 0.001 −0.588 −4.356 0
Time 0.731 0.464 0.117 1.574 0.133
2 (Constant) 14.265 29.344 – 0.486 0.632
Flow 0.036 0.01 0.469 3.533 0.002
Distance −0.004 0.001 −0.52 −3.918 0.001
3 (Constant) 97.523 1.519 – 64.189 0
4 (Constant) 117.759 2.114 – 55.697 0
Distance −0.008 0.001 −0.913 −10 0.033
5 (Constant) 14.265 29.344 – 0.486 0.632
Flow 0.036 0.01 0.469 3.533 0.002
Distance −0.004 0.001 −0.52 −3.918 0.001

Fig. 4 Scatter diagram for

lab. tests (Rasht city
research Field Test Model)

Regression equation defined in stage (1) is ac-
cepted, because its coefficients are meaningful:
pressure = 28.762 + 0.031Flow − 0.005Distance
+ 0.731Time.
3.1 Field tests
Numerical modeling and simulation included three
cases: The first case was the water pipeline with water
leakage and equipped with a surge tank. The second
case was the water pipeline without a surge tank, but
it had water leakage. Field test results showed water-
column separation and the entrance of air into the
pipeline. Results showed that at point P25:J28 of the
Rasht city water pipeline, air was interred to the sys-
(3.8) tem. Max. volume of penetrated air was 198.483 (m3 )
and current flow was 2.666 (m3 /s).
But in the second case, water-column separation
did not happen. This was the effect of air release from
the leakage location (Figs. 10, 11). Work results have
shown Max. Transient Pressure line was completely
over the steady flow pressure line. Max. Pressure was
156.181 (m). This was pressure was too high for old
688 K.H. Asli et al.

Table 4 Rasht city water

hammer condition data and (a) Rasht city water hammer condition data
model summary and Pressure Flow Distance Time
parameter estimates
(m-Hd) (l/s) (m) (s)

86 2491 3390 0
86 2491 3390 1
88 2520 3291 0
90 2520 3190 1
95 2574 3110 1.4
95 2574 3110 1.4
95 2574 3110 1.5
95 2590 3110 2
95 2590 3110 2
95.7 2600 3110 2
95.7 2600 3110 3
95.7 2600 3110 4
95.7 2600 3110 5
95.7 2605 3110 0.5
100 2633 2184 1.3
100 2633 2928 1.3
101 2650 2920 1.4
106 2680 1483 1.4
107 2690 1217 1.4
109 2710 1096 1.4
109 2710 1096 1.4
110 2920 1000 1.5
(b) Model summary and parameter estimates
Model Variables Variables Method
entered removed

1 Time, distance, flowa Enter

2 Time Stepwise (Criteria:
Probability-of-F-to-enter ≤0.050,
Probability-of-F-to-remove ≥0.100)
a All requested variables a
3 Flow, distanceb Remove
entered
4 Distance Forward (Criterion:
b All
requested variables Probability-of-F-to-enter ≤0.050)
removed
5 Flow Forward (Criterion:
c Dependent variable: Probability-of-F-to-enter ≤0.050)
pressure

piping and it must be considered as a hazard for pip-
ing (Rasht city water pipeline transmission line with
surge tank and in leakage condition). Comparison be-
tween three parts (Fig. 11) for cases (Flow-Time &
Head-Time & Head-Distance transient curve) proved
the surge tank had an effective role. The flow was de-
creased from 3014 (l/s) down to Min. value 2520 (l/s)
after 0.6 (s). So, in 0.4 (s), it had grown to 3228 (l/s).
This was the effect of the water release from the leak-
age location. Hence, in one second, 494 (l/s) water
flows have been interred and exited to the surge tank
(for transmission line with surge tank and in leakage
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 689

Table 5 Rasht city

regression model summary Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
and parameter estimates
(water hammer condition) 1 Regression 972.648 3 324.216 62.223 0.000a
Residual 93.791 18 5.211
Total 1066.439 21

2 Regression 959.744 2 479.872 85.455 0.000b

Residual 106.695 19 5.616
Total 1066.439 21

3 Regression 0.000 0 0.000 . .c

Residual 1066.439 21 50.783
a Predictors:(constant), Total 1066.439 21
time, distance, flow
b Predictors: 4 Regression 889.663 1 889.663 100.655 0.000d
(constant),
distance, flow Residual 176.775 20 8.839
c Predictor: (constant) Total 1066.439 21
d Predictors: (constant), 5 Regression 959.744 2 479.872 85.455 0.000b
distance
Residual 106.695 19 5.616
e Dependent variable:
Total 1066.439 21
pressure

Table 6 Rasht city regression model summary and parameter showed that there was minus pressure in that zone of
estimates
the transmission line. So, it must be removed from the
Model R R square Adjusted Std. error of system. Max. Transient pressure line was completely
R square the estimate over the steady flow pressure line. Max. pressure in the
system was 156.181 (m). This pressure is to high for
1 0.955a 0.912 0.897 2.283
old piping and it must be considered a hazard for the
2 0.949b 0.900 0.889 2.370
piping system (Tables 8–10).
3 0.000c 0.000 0.000 7.126 The most important points that were observed in
4 0.913d 0.834 0.826 2.973 lab. and field test results:
5 0.949b 0.900 0.889 2.370
Influence of the rate of discharge from local leak to
a Predictors: (constant), time, distance, flow total discharge in the pipeline. It has an effect on the
b Predictors: (constant), distance, flow values of the oscillation’s period and wave celerity.
c Predictor: (constant)
d Predictors: (constant), distance Influence of the rate of discharge from the local leak
on the maximal value of pressure
condition). The surge pressure was 110 (m) nearby
the pump station (i.e. at the start of transmission line). The reason for the high decease in water transmission
The leakage happened near the location of the water pressure was related to the leakage condition in the
treatment plant. So, water flow was decreased from transmission of the Rasht city waterline (local leak-
3000 (l/s) to 2500 (l/s). This was unaccounted for the age effect for a high decrease in water pressure at
water “UFW” alarm. the pipeline) [17]. This was done to explain repeated
This work found the location and rate of unac- pipe breaks. Water hammer has been analyzed in three
counted for water “UFW” in the pipeline. Results have manners: (1) water leakage assumption for transmis-
shown the location and the rate of unaccounted for sion line, (2) no leakage assumption for transmission
water “UFW” in the pipeline (Fig. 11). Min. pressure line, (3) water leakage assumption for transmission
line curve was under the transmission line profile, in line which was equipped by a pressure vessel or a one-
the near of 50,000 (m3 ) water reservoir. Hence, this way surge tank (actual condition). Head-time tran-
690 K.H. Asli et al.

Fig. 5 Analysis & comparison results for calculations of modeling results and field test results Rasht city water pipeline pilot research

Table 7 Regression model

summary and parameter Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Co-linearity statistics
estimates excluded correlation tolerance
variables (Rasht city water
hammer condition) 2 Time 0.117a 1.574 0.133 0.348 0.887

3 Time 0.122b 0.552 0.587 0.122 1.000

a Predictors in the model: Flow 0.905b 9.517 0.000 0.905 1.000
(Constant), distance, flow Distance −0.913b −10.033 0.000 −0.913 1.000
b Predictor: (constant)
c Predictors
4 Time 0.189c 2.274 0.035 0.463 0.995
in the model:
(Constant), distance Flow 0.469c 3.533 0.002 0.630 0.298
d Dependent variable: 5 Time 0.117a 1.574 0.133 0.348 0.887
pressure

sient curve for transmission line without surge tank
and in leakage condition showed 1.2 (s), head value
rises from 1.2 (m) to 146 (m), and down to 131 (m) at
1.5 (s). In the end, the transient curve showed 135 (m)
at 5 (s).
3.2 Comparison of present work results with other
expert’s research
Comparison of the present work results (water ham-
mer software modeling and SPSS modeling), with
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 691

Fig. 6 Flow (l/s) and time (s) records: (a) for total length of pipeline, (b) for leakage effects observation, at water hammer field tests
of Rasht city water pipeline

other expert’s research results show similarity and ad-
vantages: Apoloniusz Kodura and Katarzyna Weine-
rowska, 2005: In the present work, water hammer has
been run in pressurized pipeline with the local leak.
The experiments in Fig. 7a and numerical analysis re-
sults in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 were presented. If the
pipeline with the local leak was considered, the water
hammer phenomenon was influenced by some addi-
tional factors [18]. Detailed conclusions were drawn
on the basis of experiments and calculations for the
pipeline with a local leak. Hence, the most impor-
tant effects that have been observed were as follows:
692
Fig. 7 Rasht city water pipeline (modeling results and field test results, comparison)
The influence of the ratio of discharge from the lo-
cal leak has been restricted. Total discharge effect in
the pipeline on the values of period wave oscillations
has been investigated. The outflow to the overpres-
sure reservoir from the leak affected the value of wave
celerity (Fig. 8b).
3.3 Experimental equipment comparison of present
work results with other expert’s research
Experiments were carried out in the laboratory of the
Warsaw University of Technology, Environmental En-
gineering Faculty, Institute of Water Supply and Water
Engineering (Fig. 8b).
The physical model is schematically shown
in Fig. 8b. The main element was the pipeline single
straight pipe of the length L, extrinsic diameter D, and
the wall thickness e, or the pipeline consisted of sec-
tions of varied parameters. The pipeline was equipped
K.H. Asli et al.
with the valve at the end of the main pipe, which was
joined with the closure time register. The water ham-
mer pressure characteristics were measured by exten-
someters, and recorded in the computer’s memory. The
supply of the water to the system was realized with the
use of the reservoir which enabled inlet pressure sta-
bilization.
The experiments were carried out for four cases:
• Simple positive water hammer for the straight
pipeline of constant diameter; the measured char-
acteristics were the basis for estimation of the influ-
ence of the diameter change and local leak on water
hammer run.
• Positive water hammer in pipeline with single
change of diameter: contraction and extension.
• Positive water hammer in pipeline with local leak in
two scenarios: with the outflow from the leak to the
overpressure reservoir and with free outflow from
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 693

Table 8 Field test model System (water pipeline of Rasht city Table 9 Field test model nodes (water pipeline of Rasht city in
in northern Iran—Software hammer version 07.00.049.00) northern Iran—Software hammer version 07.00.049.00)

Type Keyword Value Category and type Node Elevation (m) Branch pipes

1 Title Untitled Junction 2 or more J10 38.3 2

2 Units for flow cms J11 38.6 2
3 Units for head m J12 39.7 2
4 Units for volume m3 J13 41 2
5 Units for diameter mm J14 42.3 2
6 Units for length m J16 43.4 2
7 Units for mass kg J18 43 2
8 Time increment 0.0148 J19 42.3 2
9 Number of time steps 339 J2 35.5 2
10 Simulation time 5.003 J21 42.5 2
11 Wave speed 1084 J22 44.6 2
12 Vapour pressure −10 J23 69.9 2
13 File name E:\k-Hariri Asli\daraye nashti.inp J24 81.8 2
14 Date of run 10/10/2008 J27 36.5 2
15 Time of run 11:09.4 J4 37.2 2
16 Number of nodes 27 J6 36.3 2
17 Number of pipes 26 J7 36.3 2
18 Licensee name HMI J8 36.1 2
19 Licensee address Waterbury, CT Prot equip air valve J15 45.2 2
20 EHG name Haestad Methods, Inc. J17 45 2
21 EHG address Waterbury, CT J20 44.2 2
22 Units for force N J26 37.2 2
23 Force reports No J28 95.2 2
24 Volume scale factor 1 J9 38 2
25 Flow scale factor 1 Pump Shut J3 35.5 2
26 Labels Short Reservoir 1 or more J1 40.6 1
27 Units for pressure mH N1 95.9 1
28 Specific gravity 1
29 Courant number Cr = 0.997
atmospheric transient pressures that can suck contam-
inants into the water system.
the leak (to atmospheric pressure, with the possibil- The leakage has happened near the location of the
ity of sucking in air in a negative phase). This was water treatment plant. So, water flow was decreased
the reason for the sucking air in the negative phase from 3000 (l/s) to 2500 (l/s). In this case, the pipeline
(Fig. 10a) for Rasht city water pipeline. was equipped with a sure tank. So, leakage happened
on point P3:J7 (P3:45.00%) at elevation 36.2 (m) and
Local leakage rate effect on the maximal value of at a distance 140 (m) far from the water pump station
pressure (Fig. 11), Max. head at 155 (m) dropped to 135.1 (m).
Vapor pressure was equal to −10.0 (m). Initial head
The reason for the high pressure drop in water trans- and Min. head did not have any changes (Tables 1–6).
mission was related to the leakage effect (local leak-
age water pipeline). It was done to explain the effect Air entrance approaches
on high pressure deceasing in repeated pipe breaks.
This work led to improved standards for precession Modeling of air influence on hydraulic similarity with
designs and installation techniques in the field of sub- two different types of air content models have been
694 K.H. Asli et al.

Table 10 Field test model pipes (water pipeline of Rasht city the wave speed distribution along with a pipeline (with
in northern Iran—Software hammer version 07.00.049.00)
node points i = 0, 1, . . . , N ) was given by Lee (1991)
Pipe Length Diameter Velocity Hazen–Williams [19]. In this work, at first was a simulated transient
(m) (mm) (m/s) friction coef. pressure in the system due to an emergency power fail-
ure without any protective equipment in service. After
P3 311 1200 2.21 90 a careful examination of results, it was selected pro-
P4 1 1200 2.65 90 tective equipment and the system was simulated again
P5 0.5 1200 2.65 91 using modeling to assess the effectiveness of the de-
P6 108.7 1200 2.65 67 vices which selected to control transient pressures. At
P7 21.5 1200 2.21 90 present, work analysis and comparison were included
P8 15 1200 2.21 86 in first and second model results. It was shown that
P9 340.7 1200 2.21 90 at point P24:J28 of the water pipeline, air was in-
P10 207 1200 2.21 90 terred to the system. Max. vol. of penetrated air was
P11 339 1200 2.21 90 equal to 198.483 (m3 ) and current flow was equal
P12 328.6 1200 2.21 90 to 2.666 (m3 /s). Treated or modeled air entrainment
P13 47 1200 2.21 90 problems in real prototype systems and results was
P14 590 1200 2.21 90 shown in Tables 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
P15 49 1200 2.21 90 Consistency between the observed values of max-
P16 224 1200 2.21 90 imal pressure in the first amplitude and correspond-
P17 18.4 1200 2.21 90 ing values were calculated according to Joukowski’s
P18 14.6 1200 2.21 90 formula, irrespective of the rate of discharge from the
P19 12 1200 2.21 90 leak.
P20 499 1200 2.21 90 Significant influence of the rate of the discharge
P21 243.4 1200 2.21 90 from the leak on the vivid decrease of duration of the
P22 156 1200 2.21 90
water hammer phenomenon, which suggests the pos-
P23 22 1200 2.21 90
sibility of utilization of this fact to the pipeline leak
tightness assessment, especially that the duration time
P24 82 1200 2.21 90
decreased with the increase of the outflow from the
P25 35.6 1200 2.21 90
leak. This was the strong reason for the high deceas-
P0 0.5 1200 2.65 90
ing in duration time for Rasht city water pipeline.
P1 0.5 1200 2.65 90
Column separations due to the turned off pump for
Note: Results showed at point P25:J28 of Rasht city water the Rasht city water pipeline were carried out for two
pipeline air was interred to pipeline. Max. Vol. of air was cases:
198.483 (m3 ) and current flow was 2.666 (m3 /s). Data table cre-
ated by hammer—Version 07.00.049.00 compared to the equa- (a) With surge tank and local leakage condition as-
tion of regression software SPSS sumption: In this case, air was sucked into the
pipeline at a negative phase (Fig. 10a).
proposed in the literature in predicting the transient (b) Without surge tank and local leakage condition as-
pressure behavior: the concentrated vaporous cavity sumption: In this case, air was not sucked into the
model (Brown, 1968; Provoost, 1976) [19] and the dis- pipeline at a negative phase (Fig. 10b).
crete air release model (Lee, 1991–1995; Wylie, 1993)
[19]. The concentrated vaporous cavity model pro-
duces satisfactory results in slow transients, but pro- 4 Conclusion
duces unstable solutions for rapid transients, such as
the pump’s stoppage with reflux valve closure. The It is always a good idea to run research to check ex-
discrete air release model produces satisfactory re- treme transient pressures. It is necessary for the sys-
sults in pump shut down cases, but is susceptible to tem with large changes in elevation and long pipelines
long term numerical damping (Ewing, 1980; Jonsson, with large diameters (i.e., mass of water). Also, it is
1985) [19]. Typically, in the discrete air release model, necessary for the initial (e.g., steady-state) velocities
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 695

Table 11 Field test model

extreme pressures and End Upsurge Max. pressure Min. pressure Max. head Min. head
heads (water pipeline of point ratio (m) (m) (m) (m)
Rasht city in northern
Iran—Software hammer P2:J7 1.25 120.5 96.7 156.8 133
version 07.00.049.00)
P3:J7 1.25 120.5 96.7 156.8 133
P3:J8 1.25 118.7 95.1 154.8 131.2
P4:J3 1.1 109.4 99.5 144.9 135
P4:J4 1.1 107.7 97.8 144.9 135
P5:J4 1.1 107.7 97.8 144.9 135
P5:J26 1.1 107.7 97.8 144.9 135
P6:J26 1.1 107.7 97.8 144.9 135
P6:J27 1.25 120.8 97 157.3 133.5
P7:J27 1.25 120.8 97 157.3 133.5
P7:J6 1.25 120.9 97 157.2 133.4
P8:J8 1.25 118.7 95.1 154.8 131.2
P8:J9 1.25 116.7 93.1 154.7 131.1
P9:J9 1.25 116.7 93.1 154.7 131.1
P9:J10 1.26 114.5 90.8 152.9 129.2
P10:J10 1.26 114.5 90.8 152.9 129.2
P10:J11 1.27 113.1 89.4 151.7 128
P11:J11 1.27 113.1 89.4 151.7 128
P11:J12 1.27 109.5 86.4 149.2 126
P12:J12 1.27 109.5 86.4 149.2 126
P12:J13 1.28 106.3 83.1 147.3 124.1
P13:J13 1.28 106.3 83.1 147.3 124.1
P13:J14 1.28 104.7 81.5 147 123.8
P14:J14 1.28 104.7 81.5 147 123.8
P14:J15 1.31 98.2 59.3 143.4 104.5
P15:J15 1.31 98.2 59.3 143.4 104.5
P15:J16 1.3 99.6 60.5 143 104
P16:J16 1.3 99.6 60.5 143 104
P16:J17 1.32 97.2 57.5 142.3 102.6
P17:J17 1.32 97.2 57.5 142.3 102.6
P17:J18 1.3 98.5 59.2 141.5 102.2
P18:J18 1.3 98.5 59.2 141.5 102.2
P18:J19 1.3 99.1 60.3 141.4 102.7
P19:J19 1.3 99.1 60.3 141.4 102.7
P19:J20 1.31 97.2 57.9 141.4 102.1
P20:J20 1.31 97.2 57.9 141.4 102.1
P20:J21 1.3 95.1 56.5 137.6 99
P21:J21 1.3 95.1 56.5 137.6 99
P21:J22 1.32 91.8 52.9 136.4 97.5
P22:J22 1.32 91.8 52.9 136.4 97.5
P22:J23 1.52 66 24.5 135.9 94.4
P23:J23 1.52 66 24.5 135.9 94.4
P23:J24 1.71 53.9 12.2 135.7 94
P24:J24 1.71 53.9 12.2 135.7 94
696 K.H. Asli et al.

Table 11 (Continued)
End Upsurge Max. pressure Min. pressure Max. head Min. head
point ratio (m) (m) (m) (m)

P24:J28 2.07 36.4 5 131.6 100.2

P25:J28 2.07 36.4 5 131.6 100.2
P25:N1 1 16.7 16.7 112.6 112.6
P0:J1 0 0 0 40.6 40.6
P0:J2 1.09 5.5 4.7 41 40.2
P1:J2 1.09 5.5 4.7 41 40.2
P1:J3 1.12 5.7 4.5 41.2 40

Table 12 Field test model pipes (water pipeline of Rasht city in northern Iran—Software hammer version 07.00.049.00)

Node Label Category Type Elev. X-cord. Y -cord. Branch Vapour Maximum Type of Code
ID pipes pressure volume volume

1 J2 Junction 2 or more 35.5 7.32 0 2 −10 0 Vapour 68

2 J4 Junction 2 or more 37.2 20.52 0.34 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
3 J1 Reservoir 1 or more 40.6 0 0.3 1 −10 0 Vapour 23
4 J3 Pump Shut 35.5 14.33 0.3 2 −10 0 Vapour 74
5 J7 Junction 2 or more 36.3 43.1 3.32 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
6 J8 Junction 2 or more 36.1 49.24 3.14 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
7 J11 Junction 2 or more 38.6 70.34 9.13 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
8 J12 Junction 2 or more 39.7 75.7 12.17 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
9 J14 Junction 2 or more 42.3 91.78 19.48 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
10 J16 Junction 2 or more 43.4 113.54 23.01 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
11 J18 Junction 2 or more 43 133.05 18.76 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
12 J19 Junction 2 or more 42.3 142.26 22.19 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
13 J21 Junction 2 or more 42.5 162.94 33.48 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
14 J22 Junction 2 or more 44.6 174.32 39.89 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
15 J23 Junction 2 or more 69.9 192.14 39.9 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
16 J27 Junction 2 or more 36.5 29.83 0.25 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
17 J26 Prot equip Air valve 37.2 25.22 0.16 2 −10 0 Air 76
18 J9 Prot equip Air valve 38 55.2 7.47 2 −10 0 Air 76
19 J10 Junction 2 or more 38.3 61.71 11.54 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
20 J15 Prot equip Air valve 45.2 104.6 30.77 2 −10 0 Air 76
21 J17 Prot equip Air valve 45 123.39 15.06 2 −10 0 Air 76
22 J20 Prot equip Air valve 44.2 150.66 25.26 2 −10 0 Air 76
23 J24 Junction 2 or more 81.8 204.22 38.36 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
24 J28 Prot equip Air valve 95.2 211.71 35.02 2 −10 0 Air 76
25 N1 Reservoir 1 or more 95.9 219.75 28.79 1 −10 0 Vapour 23
26 J6 Junction 2 or more 36.3 35.7 3.5 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
27 J13 Junction 2 or more 41 85.73 17.14 2 −10 0 Vapour 68
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines
Fig. 8 Scheme of the water hammer experimental equipment (a) Rasht city water hammer laboratory model, (b) water hammer
laboratory model with local leak (Kodura and Weinerowska)
in excess of 1 (m/s). In some cases, hydraulic tran-
sient forces can result in cracks or breaks, even with
low steady-state velocities. In this work, positive wa-
ter hammer in the pipeline was introduced with local
leaks in two scenarios; first, with the outflow from
the leak to the overpressure reservoir, and secondly,
with free outflow from the leak (to atmospheric pres-
sure, with the possibility of sucking air in the nega-
tive phase). Consistency between observed values of
maximal pressure in first amplitude and correspond-
ing values were calculated according to the explicit
method of characteristics. This was related to the rate
of discharge from the leak. The discharge rate of the
leakage point, reduced the time duration significantly.
So, the duration time was decreased due to the in-
crease of water outflow from the leak. The compar-
ison showed similarity in results between this work
discussion and other expert works. Field test results
697
showed in the leakage condition at a negative phase
that air was sucked into the Rasht city water pipeline
(Fig. 10a). There was minus pressure in the zone of the
near 50,000 (m3 ) water reservoir. This volume of air
must be removed from the system; it was shown that
at 110 M surge pressure in the near to pump station
(start of transmission line). The leakage has happened
near the location of the water treatment plant. So, wa-
ter flow was decreased from 3,000 (l/s) to 2,500 (l/s).
This was unaccounted for water “UFW” alarm. This
work found the location and rate of unaccounted for
water “UFW” in the pipeline. Results have shown lo-
cation and the rate of unaccounted for water “UFW” in
the pipeline (Fig. 11). This was the main practical aim
of the present work. In the final procedure, a condition
base maintenance (CM) method has been found for all
water transmission systems.
698 K.H. Asli et al.

Fig. 9 Laboratory model

pressure characteristic
(observed and calculated)
for present research and
Kodura and Weinerowska
research

Table 13 Model extreme

heads for pipes (water Point Distance Elev. Init. head Max. head Min. head Vap. pr.
hammer condition)
+P3:J7 0.0 36.3 132.8 156.8 105.1 0.000 −10.0
P3:5.00% 15.6 36.3 132.7 156.6 105.3 0.000 −10.0
P3:10.00% 31.1 36.3 132.6 156.3 105.1 0.000 −10.0
P3:15.00% 46.7 36.3 132.4 156.1 105.0 0.000 −10.0
P3:20.00% 62.2 36.3 132.3 155.8 104.9 0.000 −10.0
P3:25.00% 77.8 36.3 132.2 155.6 104.7 0.000 −10.0
P3:30.00% 93.3 36.2 132.1 155.5 104.4 0.000 −10.0
P3:35.00% 108.9 36.2 131.9 155.3 104.3 0.000 −10.0
P3:40.00% 124.4 36.2 131.8 155.2 104.2 0.000 −10.0
P3:45.00% 140.0 36.2 131.7 155.0 104.0 0.000 −10.0
P3:50.00% 155.5 36.2 131.6 135.1 103.8 0.000 −10.0
P3:55.00% 171.1 36.2 131.4 134.9 103.7 0.000 −10.0
P3:60.00% 186.6 36.2 131.3 134.7 103.5 0.000 −10.0
P3:65.00% 202.2 36.2 131.2 134.4 103.4 0.000 −10.0
P3:70.00% 217.7 36.2 131.1 134.6 102.9 0.000 −10.0
P3:75.00% 233.3 36.2 130.9 134.4 102.7 0.000 −10.0
P3:80.00% 248.8 36.1 130.8 134.0 102.7 0.000 −10.0
P3:85.00% 264.4 36.1 130.7 133.9 102.4 0.000 −10.0
P3:90.00% 279.9 36.1 130.6 133.6 102.3 0.000 −10.0
P3:95.00% 295.5 36.1 130.4 133.5 102.1 0.000 −10.0
+P3:J8
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines 699

Fig. 10 Column separations due to the turned off pump—Rasht city water pipeline: (a) with surge tank—pipeline in leakage condi-
tion—pipeline sucked air in the negative phase, (b) without surge tank—pipeline in no leakage condition

Table 14 Modeling of air influence on hydraulic similarity (water pipeline of Rasht city in northern Iran—Software hammer version
07.00.049.00)

Node Label Category Type Elevation X-cord. Y -cord. Branch Vapour Max. Type of Code
ID pipes pressure volume volume

24 J28 Prot equip Air valve 95.2 211.71 35.02 2 −10 198.483 Air 76
700 K.H. Asli et al.

Fig. 11 (a) location and rate of unaccounted for water “UFW”, (b) flow variation, (c) head variation related to “UFW” in Rasht city
water pipeline

The personal contribution of the corresponding au-
thor:
All substantive provisions of the work are received
by the authors personally. All parts of the experiments
were made by the authors of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Prof. Soltan Aliev,
Prof. Mir Ahmad Lashteneshaee, Prof. Amir Hossien Mahvi,
Dr. Alireza Pendashteh, Dr. Babak Noroozi, and all specialists
for their valuable observations and advice, and to the referees for
recommendations that improved the quality of this paper. This
work was a part of the Ph.D. thesis of Kaveh Hariri Asli (corre-
sponding author) at contract No: 2, dated: 05/02/2007, with the
National Academy of Science of Azerbaijan “AMEA”, Institute
of Mathematics and Mechanics.
References
1. Asli, K.H., Nagiyev, F.B., Hagi, A.K.: Computational
methods in applied science and engineering. In: Interpen-
etration of Two Fluids at Parallel Between Plates and Tur-
bulent Moving in Pipe. pp. 115–128. Nova Science, New
Some aspects of physical and numerical modeling of water hammer in pipelines
York (2009). https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/
product_ info.php?products_id=10681. Chapter 7
2. Joukowski, N.: Paper to Polytechnic Soc. Moscow (1898)
3. Allievi, L.: General Theory of Pressure Variation in Pipes
(1902)
4. Parmakian, J.: Water Hammer Analysis. Dover, New York
(1963)
5. Wood, D.J., Jones, S.E.: Water hammer charts for vari-
ous types of valves. J. Hydraul. Div., Proc. ASCE 167–178
(January, 1973)
6. Wylie, E.B., Streeter, V.L.: Fluid Transients. FEB Press,
Ann Arbor (1993)
7. Brunone, B., Karney, B.W., Mecarelli, M., Ferrante, M.:
Velocity profiles and unsteady pipe friction in transient
flow. ASCE J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 126(4), 236–
244 (2000)
8. Koelle, E., Luvizotto, E. Jr., Andrade, J.P.G.: Complete op-
erational simulation of pumped storage schemes. In: Wa-
ter Power95—International Conference on Hydropower,
vol. 3, pp. 2403–2412 (1995)
9. Filion, Y.R., Karney, B.W.: Extended period analysis with
a transient model. ASCE J. Hydraul. Eng. 128(6), 616–624
(2002)
10. Hamam, M.A., McCorquodale, A.: Transient conditions in
the transition from gravity to surcharged sewer flow. Can.
J. Civil Eng. 189–196 (1982)
11. Savic, D.A., Walters, G.A.: Genetic algorithms techniques
for, calibrating network models. Report No. 95/12, Centre
for Systems and Control Engineering (1995)
701
12. Walski, T.M., Lutes, T.L.: Hydraulic transients cause low-
pressure problems. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 75(2), 58–
62 (1994)
13. Wu, Z.Y., Simpson, A.R.: A self-adaptive boundary search
genetic algorithm and its application to water distribution
systems. J. Hydraul. Res. 40, 191–203 (2002)
14. Arturo Leon, S.: Improved modeling of unsteady free sur-
face, pressurized and mixed flows in storm-sewer systems.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering in the
Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, pp. 57–58 (2007)
15. Joukowski, N.: Paper to Polytechnic Soc. Moscow, Spring
of 1898. English translation by Miss O. Simin. Proc.
AWWA (1904)
16. Asli, K.H., Nagiyev, F.B., Hagi, A.K.: Physical mod-
eling of fluid movement in pipelines. In: Nanomateri-
als Yearbook—2009. From Nanostructures, Nanomaterials
and Nanotechnologies to Nanoindustry, pp. 210–225. Nova
Science, New York (2009). https://www.novapublishers.
com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=11587. Chap-
ter 17
17. Wylie, E.B., Streeter, V.L.: Fluid Transients. FEB Press,
Ann Arbor (1983). Corrected copy: 166–171 (1982)
18. Kodura, A., Weinerowska, K.: Some Aspects of Physical
and Numerical Modeling of Water Hammer in Pipelines,
pp. 125–133 (2005)
19. Lee, T.S., Pejovic, S.: Air influence on similarity of hy-
draulic transients and vibrations. ASME J. Fluid Eng.
118(4), 706–709 (1996)