See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286902410

Water hammer and other pipe transient flow problems

Article  in  Appita Journal · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,274

2 authors, including:

Geoff Covey
Covey Consulting
71 PUBLICATIONS   287 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

chemicals from biomass View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Geoff Covey on 26 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WATER HAMMER AND OTHER
PIPE TRANSIENT FLOW
PROBLEMS
ROSS PATTERSON1 AND GEOFF
COVEY1
1
Director, Covey Consulting Pty Ltd, 832 High
Street, Kew East, Vic 3102
KEYWORDS: Fluid Flow, Water Hammer, Mass
Oscillation.
ABSTRACT: Various types of transient flow can
cause minor or major damage to pipework and
associated equipment. Water hammer, caused by too
rapid closing of a downstream valve is the most
commonly encountered problem, but is not eh only
cause. In the present case empty pipelines acting as
surge chambers were able to cause massive
oscillation of the fluid column. The problem could be
resolved by comparatively simple measures
INTRODUCTION
Hammering and unsteady flow in piping systems is a
common occurrence and often results in minor or
major damage. Normal piping design techniques will
often fail to predict situation which will lead to the
problem, and its proper diagnosis and cure in an
operating plant can sometimes be difficult.
Although in common usage any form of ‘banging’ or
‘jumping’ in pipework during transient conditions is
referred to as ‘water hammer’ this term should
strictly only be applied to problems related to the too
rapid closing of a valve downstream of a flowing
column of liquid, or pump starting or stopping
upstream. There are at least five phenomena that can
give rise to the problems:
 Water hammer
 Flashing.
 Mass Oscillation.
 Column separation
 Bore flow into an empty pipe.
Appita 2014 124
Water Hammer
Water hammer is caused by shockwaves moving
through the liquid at the local speed of sound (also
referred to as ‘celerity’). It can occur with
incompressible fluids (i.e. liquids) when flow is
suddenly stopped downstream (or started upstream)
and a shock wave is created as flow velocity is
suddenly altered.
It is generally considered that water hammer will not
occur if the time to close the valve is less than:
Tmin = 2L/C (1)
Where:
L is the length of pipe
C is the celerity (note this speed depends on
liquid compressibility, the elasticity of the pipe
wall and the presence of gas bubbles in the
liquid)
Tmin corresponds to the time for the shock wave to be
reflected and to travel the full length of the pipe in
both directions.
In a pipe with elastic walls, the celerity is given by 1
C = √𝐾⁄𝜌 / √(1 + ψ𝐾𝐷⁄
𝐸𝑒 (2)
Ψ = 1-ν2 (3)
Where:
D is the pipe diameter
E is the Young’s modulus of the pipe material
e is the thickness of the pipe wall
ν is the Poison ratio of the pipe material
ρ is the liquid density
This means an closing time greater than.0.1 sec is
required for 100m of pipe, or 1.3 secs for 1000m.
The problem obviously gets more significant for long
pipe runs.
Water hammer is most likely to occur when the flow
is stopped (i.e. valve closing) because then there is
the momentum of the moving column of liquid to be
arrested. Hammer on opening of a valve into a full
pipe is less likely as there is no equivalent sudden
change in momentum.
For simple piping systems, the likelihood of water
hammer can be predicted simple calculations, and for
more complex systems by use of numerical
programs.
In this paper, water hammer will be used only for
this phenomenon, simply to distinguish it from the
other possible causes.
Flashing
If liquid is vented to a line or vessel in which at some
point the system pressure is lower than the vapour
pressure of the liquid, flashing is likely to occur. In
some systems the formation and subsequent collapse
of vapour bubbles can result in banging in the low
pressure part of the system (commonly observed in
tanks heated with direct steam but without adequate
mixing, also downstream of restricting valves
handling hot liquid).
Pumped condensate piping can be a real problem. In
fact any flow of a liquid which is near saturation
needs care. It is always a good idea to ensure that
throughout the pipe run, and under transient
scenarios, the liquid remains a liquid. Obviously
always place the control valve at the end of the pipe
run.
Gravitational effects can be a real problem. A classic
problem (which we don’t see a lot of in Australia) is
rattling pipes in a pumped hot water radiator system.
In the upper floors it is quite easy to generate
cavitating flow conditions.
Mass oscillation
If there is some form of surge tank in the system (or
some element that can act as a surge tank) then mass
oscillation may occur. This is because as the surge
device empties and refills it can induce (or prolong)
pressure swings in the system.
Compared with water hammer, the pressure swings
associated with mass oscillation are generally much
less extreme and of a longer period. The oscillations
are gradually damped out as a result of fluid friction,
Mass Oscillation can be predicted from the mass and
effective spring rate, just as with any oscillating
mechanical system.
Column Separation
Appita 2014 125
If a pressure wave travels down a pipe, then the
negative part of the wave can cause problems, even
if the positive swings are not of concern. If the local
pressure falls below the vapour pressure of the water
then cavitation will occur and a slug of vapour and/or
previously dissolved gas will form. As flow
stabilises (or direction reverses again) the pressure
will rise to above the vapour pressure, the slug will
collapse and the two halves of the column will
accelerate towards each other. When the columns
moving in opposite directions meet, there will be a
sudden loss of momentum and a pressure shock
wave will be generated in a similar to that seen in
classical water hammer.
As with water hammer this is most commonly
associated with the stopping of flow, but in this case
usually by closure of an upstream valve. However,
it can also be induced by oscillating flow. It is also
more likely if there are local high points in the
system.
Column separation is difficult to analyse
quantitatively, and expensive software is required to
predict the pressure transients that it can create.
Other software is available that does not perform the
full calculations, but it does predict when such
separation might occur.
As noted above, column separation will occur when
the local pressure falls below the vapour pressure.
Therefore it is more likely in liquids that are hot or
contain dissolved gasses.
Rapidly filling pipe (bore flow, rushing flow)
This occurs when a valve opens (or a pump starts)
into an initially empty pipe – particularly if there is a
constriction at the discharge of the pipe, but not a
fully closed discharge end.
Initially the liquid enters the pipe at high speed and
so a substantial momentum is established. Then
when the liquid approaches the constriction there is a
sudden deceleration, similar to that in classical water
hammer as it is retarded by a closing valve. This
gives rise to shock waves and rapid pressure
fluctuations in the pipe.
If the discharge end of the pipe is sealed (or nearly
so) then air trapped in the pipe will cushion the
deceleration and the shock will be attenuated.
Conversely, if there is only a minor constriction at
the discharge end, the flow will not be significantly
retarded and again there will not be large shocks.
The open end of the pipe can also act as a point of
reflection.
This behaviour cannot be modelled in a predictive
manner at present. Part of the difficulty is that there
will be mixing of gas and liquid in the pipe so that
the leading part of the flow is bubbly. However, it is
rarely possible to predict the degree of entrainment
of gas. The velocity of sound and effective
compressibility of the liquid is a very strong function
of the fraction of bubbles in it, and this in turn affects
the time and severity of the shock waves.
Another problem that can arise from bore flow is
when the fast moving column hits a sudden change
of direction (e.g. an elbow or short-radius bend). In
this case there is a sudden change of momentum and
the shock can cause local damage to the piping, or
the pipe to jump off its supports.
Of course there is always a net reaction at any pipe
bend which needs appropriate bracing caused by the
direction change. But this is exacerbated when there
is a traveling slug of fluid.
As already noted, this behaviour cannot be modelled
accurately, but slowing the opening of the side relief
valves and the use of large-radius bends should
reduce the severity of the problem.
A SIMPLE CASE STUDY
A long 350 dia stainless pipe was installed passing
effluent over pipe racks for about one kilometre. The
effluent pumps had variable speed drives and were
run up to speed quite slowly, but ongoing transient
flow problems occurred. The pipe shook itself clear
of brackets, and moved around on the bridge in a
manner that was quite un-nerving.
The pipe discharged into a tank at the far end with no
end restriction.
The very simple solution was suggested by a local
EWS engineer. This consisted of a 50NS non return
valve fitted to the top of the pipe near the far end.
The idea was to allow a reverse flow of air back into
the pipe to kill the negative pressure pulses. This was
an instantaneous and totally successful solution, for
almost nil cost. If only all engineering fixes were that
easy.
Appita 2014 126
DIGESTER PIPING - ANOTHER CASE STUDY
A pulp mill had three batch digesters with side relief
lines connected to a common pipe discharging into
an atmospheric pressure tank. The nature of the
operation was that only one digester could relieve at
a time, and so for most of the time there was no flow
from the digesters to the receiving tank. The liquid
relieved was hot, but well below its boiling point.
After some years’ operation it was found that
hammering was developing at the start of the side
relief process – particularly when relieving from the
digester with the longest pipe run to the receiving
tank. At times there would just be loud noise, at
other times pipes would be displaced from their
supports and on some occasion more severe damage
resulted. Although the problem was initially loosely
described as ‘water hammer’, the fact that it was
induced by the opening of a valve at the upstream
end of the line indicated that it was not water
hammer as defined above but some other transient
flow behaviour.
The design of the pipe work and the comparatively
long periods between uses meant that the lines could
drain off liquid between relief periods. This would
mean that the falling legs from the digesters not
relieving would be full of air and sealed at the top by
closed valves. Therefore, they could act as surge
tanks. In stopping flow (i.e. valve 2 closing) the
addition of surge tanks would tend to dampen
pressure waves. However, in this scenario they could
promote oscillating flow which could present
problems itself, and also lead to column separation.
Modelling
WHAMO is a MS-DOS program written by US
Army Corps of Engineers in the 1990’s 2 3. It used to
be available as a free download, but is no longer
supported. It was primarily intended for use on
reservoirs and especially for hydro-electric systems.
Therefore the examples given are primarily for long
runs of large diameter pipes. However, the
algorithms work satisfactorily for smaller pipes and
the program has even been used successfully to
analyse domestic water piping4.
The manual for the program includes the use of a
Windows graphical interface, but on the website it is
noted that this is not available (for public use at
least). The package also includes a graphical output
module, but difficulty was experienced in using this
and instead the calculated results were exported to an
Excel spreadsheet for graphical modelling. There are Despite these constraints, the program worked well
also a number of constraints on the program that are for the required purpose.
not documented in the manual and which are not
tracked by the built-in error reporting system.

Figure 1 the piping network analysed (numbers at junctions and bends are ‘nodes’

Sirvole 4 showed that the WHAMO program gave

very similar results to those from other transient flow
programs.
The program will identify water hammer and mass
oscillation problems, and will also identify when
column separation is likely, but it does not analyse
the consequences of column separation*. It does not
attempt to analyse bore flow.
*
WHAMO tends to list frequent possible column
separations in the first 0.1 s of operation. These are
almost certainly merely transients in the calculation
Analysis
A model of the system was programmed into
WHAMO and various scenarios analysed.
The first case considered is one which was not
actually encountered, but is included to show what
true water hammer would look like in this system. It
is the case where flow has been established and then
the downstream valve (V2 in Fig 1) was closed
algorithms and they are not included in the analysis
presented below.

Appita 2014 127

rapidly (over 0.6 sec). For this simulation the two
inactive drop legs (nodes 650 t0 900 and 1000 to 950
in Fig 1) have been treated as blanked off. The
results are shown in Figure 2.
This displays classical water hammer with the
pressure rising rapidly as the valve approaches the
fully closed position and then displaying high
frequency (ca 4Hz) oscillations that are gradually
damped. (Note – WHAMO does not include a
correction for impossible vacuums, hence pressures
much lower than -101kPa g can be displayed).
Responses of this type are known to cause damage to
piping and equipment.
The next scenario considered is the actual operation
of the system at the time of damage, with the
upstream valve opening in 0.6 sec.
Fig 3 shows the pressures at various points in the
system*. As with the previous case, there are
fluctuations in pressure at various points, but the
nature of the fluctuations are quite different from
those with true water hammer:
 There is a delay before the peaks begin.
 The pressure fluctuations are less extreme
and of much longer period.
 The peaks are at slightly different times at
different places in the system.
The program calculated that column separation
occurred at 3.2 seconds.
The separation of the peaks in Fig 3 suggests that
mass oscillation may have occurred. This was
confirmed by considering flow rates at various points
as shown in Fig 4.

2500
n250
2000 n1350
n350
1500 n550
n500
1000
n900
Pressure kPa g

500 n920

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
-500
Time (sec)
-1000

-1500

-2000

Figure 2 Pressure response to rapid closure of down-stream valve.

Appita 2014 128

 120
100
80 n950
60 n1350
Pressure kPa g

40
n350
20
n550
0
n500
-20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
n900
-40
n920
-60
-80
Time sec

Figure 3 Pressures in line after opening upstream valve in 0.6 sec.

over 5 seconds.

50

40
Node 1350
30 Node 550
Node 920
Flow L/s

20 node 880
Node 1220
10 node 900
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-10

-20
Time sec

Figure 4 Flow rates at various points in the system after opening upstream valve in 0.6 sec

This figure clearly shows the oscillating flow in the
system. In particular, the flows to the two empty
drop legs (nodes 900 and 1220) are seen to be out of
phase and contributing to or causing the oscillations.
The behaviour illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 is quite
consistent with that which was observed in the plant.
The simplest way to avoid the problem would be to
slow down the rate at which the valve opens. Figures
5 and 6 show pressure and flow responses for a valve
opening.
These clearly show that slowing the valve opening
rate would substantially reduce the magnitude of the
pressure peaks and of the mass oscillations.
As a temporary measure the valve opening rate was
reduced, but operationally this presented some
problems, so other solutions were considered.

Appita 2014 129

 100

80

60 n950

40 n1350
Pressure kPa

n350
20
n550
0 n500
0 2 4 6 8 10
-20 n900

-40 n920

-60
Time sec

Figure 5 Pressures in line after opening upstream valve in 5 sec.

fall was after the branches from the three

The problem was recognised as being primarily due
to the empty legs acting as surge tanks which could
interact and produce oscillating flow. This could be
cured by one of two means which were hydraulically
equivalent:
 Raise the discharge header to about the
level of the discharge valves so that all the
digesters.
 Fit non-return valves in the falling lines just
ahead of where they joined the header.
Hydraulically the two solutions were equivalent, but
it was cheaper and simpler to use the approach with
non-return valves. The pressure and flow responses
with the valve opening in 0.6 seconds are shown in
Figures 7 and 8.

50

40
Node 1350

30 Node 550

Node 920
Flow L/s

20 node 880

Node 1220
10
node 900

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
-10
Time sec

Figure 6 Flow rates at various points in the system after opening upstream valve in 5 sec

Appita 2014 130

 120
n250
100
n1350
80
n350
60
n550
Pressure kPa

40
n500
20 n900
0 n920
0 2 4 6 8 10
-20

-40
Time sec
-60

Figure 7 Pressures in lines with non-return valves with valve opening in 0.6 sec.

50
45
40 Node 1350
35
Node 550
30
Flow L/s

Node 920
25
node 880
20
15 Node 1220
10 node 900
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time s

Figure 8 Flows in lines with non-return valves with valve opening in 0.6 sec.

It is apparent that the addition of the non-return radius bends with long radius bends, and if necessary
valves eliminates all of the flow instability and most by some reduction in the valve opening rate.
of the pressure fluctuations. This was confirmed in
practice by the elimination of ‘hammer’ from the
system.
1
Elimination of bore flow problems Henclik, H Mathematical model and numerical
computations of
As already discussed, WHAMO does not attempt to transient pipe flows with fluid-structure interaction
model the effect of bore flow. In the case described Transactions Of The Institute Of Fluid-Flow
above it was apparent that bore flow could Machinery No. 122, 2010, 77–94
2
WHAMO ref
potentially present problems, but in practice, with the 3
WHAMO manual
elimination of the mass oscillations due to the 4
Sirvole, K. : Transient Analysis In Pipe Networks
interacting surge tanks this was not a problem. M.Sc Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University, 2007
Had it been necessary, bore flow problems could
have been eliminated by replacing elbows and short

Appita 2014 131

View publication stats