Sabp Z 028

Best Practice 14 December 2020
SABP-Z-028
Guidelines for Conducting Surge Analyses for Water Utility and Fire Water
Piping Systems
Document Responsibility: Energy Systems Optimization Standards Committee
Previous Revision: None Next Revision: 14 December 2030

Contact: (ORTIZNLA) © Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 1 of 27
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

SABP-Z-028 - Guidelines for Conducting Surge Analyses for Water Utility and Fire Water Piping Systems
Contents
© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 2 of 27


Scope
The purpose of this document is to recommend practices and guidelines for conducting, reviewing
and troubleshooting surge analyses for water utility and fire water piping systems. The ultimate
goal is to guarantee a system that will perform efficiently and reliably over time by proving a
consistent approach. It is based on current industry experiences and recent projects within Saudi
Aramco. This document is meant for internal use only
The following will benefit from this Best Practice:
o Saudi Aramco operating facilities
o Saudi Aramco Departments in charge of procuring, planning or supervising installation of

water utility piping systems and dedicated firewater systems
o Saudi Aramco Departments tasked with reviewing water utility piping systems during project
engineering design phases
Conflicts and Deviations

If there is a conflict between this Best Practice and any Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering
Requirements (MSAERs), the mandatory document shall take the precedence. Other conflicts
shall be addressed in writing to the EK&RD Coordinator
References
All referenced specifications, standards, codes, drawings, and similar material are considered
part of this Best Practice to the extent specified applying latest revisions unless stated
otherwise.
Saudi Aramco References

Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards
SAES-B-017 Fire Water System Design
SAES-S-040 Saudi Aramco Water Systems
SAES-S-020 Oily Water Drainage Systems
SAES-B-070 Fire and Safety Requirements for Bulk Plants, Air Fueling Terminals and Sulfur
Loading/Unloading Facilities
SAES-J-600 Pressure Relief Devices
SAES-J-601 Emergency Shutdown and Isolation Systems
SAES-J-605 Surge Relief Protection Systems
SAES-J-700 Control Valves
SAES-L-100 Applicable Codes and Standards for Pressure Piping Systems
SAES-L-132 Material Selection of Pipelines, Piping and Process Equipment
SAES-L-133 Corrosion Protection Requirements for Pipelines, Piping and Process Equipment
SAES-L-310 Design of Plant Piping
SAES-L-620 Design of Nonmetallic Piping in Hydrocarbon and Water Injection

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-203
SAEP-27 Pipeline Surge Analysis and Flow Assurance
SAEP-363 Pipeline Simulation Model Development and Support
Industry Codes and Standards

American Water Works Association
Manual M31 Distribution System Requirements for Fire Protection
Manual M32 Computer Modeling of Water Distribution Systems
National Fire Protection Association

NFPA 13 Installation of Sprinkler Systems
NFPA 15 Water Spray Fixed Systems for Fire Protection
NFPA 20 Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection
NFPA 22 Water Tanks for Private Fire Protection
NFPA 24 Installation of Private Fire Service Mains and Their Appurtenances
NFPA 25 Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection
Systems
Terminology
Acronyms
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
AWWW American Water Works Association
FrPD Fire Protection Department
FWS Fire Water Systems
LPD Loss Prevention Department
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MASP Maximum Allowable Surge Pressure
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
P&CSD Process and Control Systems Department
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
SAPMT Saudi Aramco Project Management Team
Definitions

Best Practice: A process or method that, when correctly executed, leads to enhanced system
performance
HAZOP (Hazard and Operability): A systematic, detailed analysis technique applied to identify
hazards and operability issues which have the potential to place the process plant, environment
or personnel at risk. The HAZOP study identifies abnormal process deviations that may require
additional protective functions. The HAZOP analysis shall follow the guidelines of SAER-5437,
Saudi Aramco HAZOP Engineering Report
Hydraulic Surge: Also referred to as “water hammer or transient.” This is a phenomenon in
pipeline operations characterized by a sudden increase in internal pressure. Hydraulic surge is
often caused by the transformation of kinetic energy to potential energy as a stream of fluid is
suddenly stopped
PHA (Preliminary Hazards Analysis): An initial screening exercise that can be used to identify,
describe, and rank major hazards. This technique can also be used to identify possible
consequences and likelihood of occurrence and provide recommendations for hazard mitigation
Surge Analysis: An engineering study that is undertaken to perform a hydraulic transient analysis
of a specific system through the use of specialized simulation software which models the system,
fluid and operating conditions. The transient analysis will predict the time history of pressures and
flows throughout a system as a result of potentially applicable transient events. From the results,
an experienced engineer/specialist can determine whether additional surge protection is required,
what form of surge protection is most suitable, its capacity and where it should be located. The
surge/transient analysis referred to in this procedure is specific to pipelines/piping systems

Comprehensive Pressure Surge Control

The flow chart shown in Appendix A is intended to provide and to summarize a consistent
approach for providing surge protection. The procedure begins at the top of the diagram with an
approved preliminary specification of the systems attributes and configuration (steady state
analysis and Exhibit, SAEP-27). A preliminary compute simulation can be performed with these
attributes to stablish the base line characteristics of the system response. Initially, the key
transient scenarios included in Exhibit-I should be sequentially analyzed and compared with a
certain performance criterion, normally the surge pressures along the systems should be lower
than the maximum allowable surge pressure (MASP) and all the equipment should be operated
within acceptable operating ranges
If the system response is not acceptable to any of the proposed scenarios, a modification of the
system is necessary. The considerations to be considered are stablished as the follow:
o Operational strategies (i.e., increase valve closure, implement operating procedures, etc.)
o System layout modification (i.e., change pipe material, increase piping rating, change layout
configuration, etc.)
o Install surge pressure control devices
The process graphically described in Appendix A is repeated until all scenarios are analyzed and
the surge control is identified and confirmed
Commentary Note:
The built model shall not be limited by project scope of work. The whole piping system needs to be
analyzed and the model shall include all the possible causes for surges from within or beyond project
scope boundaries and interfaces with other related facilities
Typical Single Surge Event Parameters

Below Figure 1 presents a graphical illustration of a ‘typical’ surge event, including important event
properties and parameters. Table 1 shows corresponding parameters definition

MASP
MinASP
Figure 1. Single Surge Event Properties & Parameters
Table 1: Single Surge Event Parameter Definitions
Notation Parameter Definition
P0 Initial (pre-event) steady Constant (or relatively constant) average background

state pressure pressure before a single transient/surge event
PMIN Minimum transient event The absolute minimum pressure (crest) during a single
pressure magnitude transient/surge event
PMAX Maximum transient event The absolute maximum pressure (crest) during a single
pressure magnitude transient/surge event
PV Full vacuum pressure Full vacuum pressure limitation (i.e., for water of -10.4 m H20
gauge or -14.7 psig)
PF Final (post-event) steady Constant (or relatively constant) average background

state pressure pressure after a single surge/transient event
ΔPMIN Transient/surge low pressure Maximum low transient/surge pressure range (i.e., down
range surge amplitude)
ΔPMAX Transient/surge high Maximum high transient/surge pressure range (i.e., upsurge
pressure range amplitude) during a single transient event
ΔPSS Steady state pressure Difference between the initial and final steady state pressure
change magnitudes

Notation Parameter Definition
TEVENT Transient event duration Duration of transient event, from initial to final steady state
pressure equilibriums
TPERIOD Pressure wave period Average pressure wave period or cycle (i.e., duration
between wave crests or wave troughs)
TNEGATIVE Negative pressure duration Summation of negative pressure (i.e., below atmospheric
pressure or 0 gauge) durations for a single transient event
With the above single event parameters and definitions, several additional, useful, and often
obvious relationships can be derived. These include the following:
1) ΔPMIN = P0 - PMIN
2) ΔPMAX = PMAX – P0
3) ΔPSS = P0 – PF
4) TPERIOD = 4L/a where L is a characteristic length and, a wave propagation speed
5) TEVENT = nTPERIOD = n4L/a where n is the number of cycles during the event
These definitions should be used to evaluate the required pressure transient/surge evaluation
criteria
Data Requirements
Note that before the surge analysis commences, a technical specification for the surge analysis
study as detailed in SAEP-27, Exhibit-I shall be shared/approved by key stakeholders to
acknowledge the required input data for further assessment, scope development, scenarios
definitions, and to define possible surge protection solution/mitigation. Although SAEP-27 is
originally applicable to cross country pipelines, here it is considered that the same regulatory
framework can be also applicable to water utility and fire water piping systems, this is to ensure
a consistent approach for all design packages and components in projects. Note that specific
emphasis on surge analysis preparation and on documentation requirements are included in
SAEP-27 sections 5.2 and 5.3. In addition, refer to Appendix B for applicable check list for input
data requirements
Model Setup
Surge model uses much of the same model setup required for steady-state modeling. In
fact, a steady-state analysis of the initial conditions for each specific scenario is the initial
model condition for surge. The following considerations for developing a comprehensive
surge model should be followed
Model Schematic
Mark-up (simulation) P&IDs for the entire extension of the system should be produced
and use to create a comprehensive model schematic. The simplest way to produce the
model (schematic) is to mark-up existing plant P&IDs. The main purpose of the schematic
is to illustrate modeling scope and to identify model boundary conditions, critical
components including, but not limited to: pressure surge control devices, isolation valves,
air/vacuum valves, check valves, sensor, controllers, etc., which can influence the overall

system response during the simulation. Holistic system wide approach over the simplistic flow
path approach is advised
Model Considerations
o Selection of the appropriate Equation of Estate (EOS) for the working fluid (i.e.,
uncompressible liquid, slightly compressible liquid, Benedict-Webb-Rubin-Starling, etc.,). This
will provide an accurate calculation of the pressure wave speed, density, bulk modulus, vapor
pressure and other fluid properties based on the fluid composition or definition for the
expected operating conditions
o If cavitation or column separations is suspected, transient/surge calculations should be
carrying out and analyzed at all local high and low points because extreme surge/transient
pressures often occur at these locations
o Conduction steady-state simulations prior to the surge/transient simulations are required to
ensure that the predictions are within the expected margin. In addition, steady-state
simulations should be used to tune, refine and validate the model prior conduction the
surge/transient simulation (in alignment with SAEP-363)
o At least 75% of the overall total length (of volume) of the system should be included
o Include any dead-end pipes
Valve Dynamic Characteristics
The proper evaluation of the impact of valve movement (opening/closure) on the pressures in a
system depends strongly on the valve dynamic characteristics (i.e., valve coefficient
(dimensionless) vs dimensionless closing time). Every effort should be made to obtain data on
the valve dynamic characteristics of all valves to ensure that realistic models are developed.
Should this not prove possible, which is usually the case during early stages of design, recourse
‘typical’ values have to be made. The chart and table given in Appendix C are included as a guide,
for use when nothing more definitive is available. Note that, in Appendix C, curves above the
globe valve type generate higher initial surge pressure compared to curve under the glove valve
type
Dynamic/Control Elements
The precise location of dynamic/control elements which are based on certain specified criteria
such as pumps, control valves, check valves, regulating valves, etc., required to be explicitly
included in the model. In addition, the hydraulic model should consider the following:
o All storage facilities with controls or settings applied to govern the open/closed status of the
facility that reflect standard operations
o All active pump stations with realistic controls or settings applied to govern their on/off status
that reflect standards operations
o All active control valves or other system features that could significantly affect the flow and/or
pressure through the system (e.g., interconnections with other systems, valving between
process areas (users) and pressure zones
Accuracy/Model discretization
Surge analysis may require some minor adjustments in pipe lengths, wave speeds or calculating
time step (or a combination of these three). The accuracy of the model (maximum difference
between actual and model pipe lengths or wave speeds) must be sufficient to generate and
accurate solution. Both time step and the knot spacing (calculation length) should be selected
based on the following set of criteria

o Selection of the correct time step (ΔT) to ensure that enough resolution is obtained. A time
step sensitivity analysis to confirm that the results do have enough details or resolution is
advised. Below are suggestions on how to select the correct time step
a) Splitting the shortest pipe element into two (2) segments and then dividing by the
highest wave speed in the system (using consistent units)
b) Dividing the shortest opening/closing time of actuators or valves by five (5)
c) Dividing the shortest spin-up/spin-down time of rotating equipment by five (5)
o Knot spacing or calculation length (Δx). The lowest of splitting the shortest pipe into ten (10)
segments or multiplying the time spacing (Δt) by the highest wave speed in the system (using
consistent units). In compliance with Courant-Friedrichs-Levy criteria for numerical stability
Cavitation/Column Separation/Slack Line Flow
Cavitation (vapor pressure formation and collapse) effects must be modeled. If cavitation occurs
at any location in the piping system, it can greatly affect the surge analysis results. If the drop in
pressure is severe enough to cause the local pressure to reach the vapor pressure of the liquid,
then the liquid boils (cavitates, vaporizes), forming large pockets of undissolved gases and vapor
Column separations and slack line occur on a pipeline network when the pressure in the line falls
below the vapor pressure of the fluid, leading to a vapor cavity formation. Column separations
and slack line flow are known to cause adverse effects on carrying capacity (during steady state)
and adverse effects in system response during surge/transient conditions
Model resolution (Skeletonization)
Model requirements for surge analysis is different from those for steady-state analysis. For
example, if a pipe system contains a dead-end or closed valve will have a significant effect on
surge analysis and have not effect on steady state analysis. A pipe connected to a dead-end or
closed valve, a pressure wave reflects back with the same magnitude and sign and, therefore,
pressure wave amplification occurs at that extremity. For example, if a surge scenario causes a
negative pressure wave that reaches a closed valve, the wave's reflection causes a further
reduction in pressure. This transient flow condition can cause liquid column separation (vapor
pressure formation and collapse) and, potential highly localized spike of pressure. Note that at a
dead-end or closed valve, the pressure wave is reflected back to the system with double the
magnitude of the incident pressure wave, thereby creating additional reflection points
Piping at the vicinity of pumps for pressure/flow control should be included in the model along
with all associated control devices and settings. Pumping station configuration shall be verified
against the most updated PFD/P&IDs. All connecting piping, check valves, pump, pump’s
suction/discharge, pump recirculation piping within and the vicinity of the pumping station should
be explicitly modeled. Minor losses (such as bends, tees, elbows and station piping) can all be
considered negligible; or, if there is a large number of them they can all be combined as a single
pressure loss element (header or valve) on the suction or discharge side of the station. A
recommended model quality checklist is presented in Appendix D

Demand Nodes
Nodes such as hydrants, fire monitors, deluge valves, etc., that discharge the flow rate thorough
a nozzle or orifice to the atmosphere, should be modeled as pressure sensitive demand.
Traditional firewater models solve the network numerical scheme by considering instantaneous
demand lumped as nodal outflow. Such demand-driven analysis assumes that demands are
independent of pressures and can be met under all operating conditions. Under surge conditions,
however, the resulting positive/negative pressure surges can drastically alter the local pressure
and affect the flow magnitude that can be provided. A pressure sensitive demand node
representation (i.e., flow as a function of pressure: Q=Q(P)) is needed to provide more accurate
and reliable results than that of a constant demand model for surge analysis
Model Validation
For existing systems, SAPMT engineering contractor should obtain operating data, the steady
state model shall be tuned against a reliable set of operating data within the known constraints
of, 1) accuracy of plant measurements, 2) tolerance and convergence limitations within the
simulator, and 3) the errors associated with simplifying assumptions made during model
development. Model shall be validated during project proposal and/or detailed design by SAPMT
engineering contractor. Model validation should comply with SAEP-27
System Specific Darcy-Weisbach Friction Factor
Since dynamic pressure-drop calculations and pressure wave attenuation during surge analyses
are more accurately calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach equation therefore it uses is advised
over the Hazen-Williams equation. The Darcy-Weisbach friction factor is a dimensionless number
which depends on the Reynolds number of the flow, and on the mechanical structure of the
internal piping surfaces, usually expressed through an absolute roughness which is a direct
measure of the microscopic irregularities in the surface of the internal pipe wall
For existing systems and in alignment the model validation required by SAEP-363, the system
specific Darcy-Weisbach friction factor (or equivalent hydraulic roughness) for the Darcy-
Weisbach should be estimated or back calculated based on reliable field measurements as
depicted in Appendix E
Local High/Low points
Surge model calculations at all high and low elevation areas (e.g., stand pipes, vertical piping,
elevated pipe racks, etc.,) should be performed and confirmed this is because often certain the
pressure extremes occur at these locations. Pressure surges are usually most severe at the
vicinity of pump stations, in high in remote locations that are at a /low elevation areas, in locations
with low available piping rating (low operating pressure), and in remote locations that are at
distance from overhead storage or tanks
Initial/Subsequent Steady State
Surge model should be allowed to operate at steady state for a short period of time before the
transient is initiated. Then, surge model should run long enough to clearly identify the next
subsequent steady state condition. This provides additional assurance that the surge model is
operating correctly and allows to identify of any potential occurrence of line packing (an additional
increase in in system pressure as the pressure wave travels upstream and pump operating point
approaching to pump shut-off conditions) and to notice potential pressure wave amplifications
due to undesirable pressure wave reflections and refractions with the system boundary conditions

Joukowsky Equation, Pressure Wave Speed and Reflections

Joukowsky’ s equation estimates the potential magnitude of the initial generated surge (spike of
pressure) it is directly proportional to the velocity of the pressure wave speed. Pressure wave
propagation speed is function of multiple parameters such us liquid properties (bulk modulus and
density); pipe properties (Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, diameter, wall thickness and pipe
support); and, in some cases, on and air/gas content. In some cases, firewater systems have a
combination of different pipe materials (i.e., carbon steel, RTR/GRP/GRE, etc.).
Typical values for wave propagation speed for different pipe materials containing water are:
o Carbon steel: 1,365 m/s (4,478 ft/s)
o RTR/GRP/GRE: 990 m/s (3,248 ft/s)
o PVC: 400 m/s (1,312 ft/s)
o HDPE: 390 m/s (1,280 ft/s)
Pressure wave speed should be calculated/verified for each pipe material using specific design
conditions to ensure consistency, model fidelity and accuracy when using different pipe materials.
Note that under certain circumstances, such initial generated surge pressure can potentially be
amplified by the below four (4) conditions associated to excessive pressure waves reflections:
o Parts of the system not in service due to dead ends or temporarily isolated due to maintenance
activities
o Piping systems that contain significant changes in pressure wave speed due to changes in
pipe diameter, pipe material (Young’s modulus), pipe wall thickness, etc.,
o Pumping systems where potential pump shutoff head exceeding system’s MASP. Line
packing may be an issue (i.e., long distance pipelines and/or with high viscosity fluids)
o Piping systems where instantaneous internal pressure reaching the vapor liquid. Vapor
pressure formation a collapse can induce instantaneous spike of pressure exceeding system’s
MASP
Also note that the Joukowsky equation alone cannot provide accurate results in complex systems
used in practice, as the transient responses of the system depend on many other factors other
than velocity change during the course of surge/transient event (i.e., pressure wave
reflection/transmission/refraction due to the presence of all kind of different system components
such as pump, valves, pipes sizes/material, pipe connectors (tees, crosses, etc.,)
Simulation Software
In order to eliminate the risk of excluding locations where overpressure events could theoretically
occur, all pipeline sections in the network shall be analyzed. However, the order of priority can be
determined based on the criticality of each pipeline section. Critical locations are those ranked
with a higher risk of overpressure based on the following:
o Their pressure profile (i.e. telescopic MAOP/MASP profile and/or section with flow test)
o Elevation profile and sudden change in pipe slope (i.e. downhill, underground crossings, pipe
rack, etc.,)
o System design (i.e. no alternative flow path through the station and/or no mainline relief at
delivery locations)

o Challenges and historical overpressure incidents
Possible Scenarios of Surge Analysis

The surge flow conditions that are expected to occur shall be defined. The analysis shall look at
various possible causes, identify the critical cases, specify and design the necessary surge
protection system as identified during the PHA, HAZOP and Exhibit-I, SAEP-27 specifications.
Appendix F can be used as a checklist to select/review potential causes of transient pressure.
Contractor has to perform the detail analysis and find out if any other additional applicable
scenarios other than listed in Appendix F are feasible
Analysis of Results
In order to eliminate the risk of excluding locations where overpressure events could theoretically
occur, all pipeline sections in the network shall be analyzed. However, the order of priority can be
determined based on the criticality of each pipeline section. Critical locations are those ranked
with a higher risk of overpressure based on:
o Their pressure profile (i.e. telescopic MAOP/MASP profile and de-rated systems
o Elevation profile and sudden change in pipe slope (i.e. downhill, underground crossings, pipe
rack, etc.,)
o System design (i.e. no alternative flow path through the station and/or no mainline relief at
delivery locations)
o Challenges and historical overpressure incidents
Documentation Requirements
At the completion of the analysis, documentation shall be developed containing, as a minimum
requirement, the following sections:
a) An executive summary that shall include a brief description of the problem under investigation,
background, objective, proposed solution, tool used and concluding remarks
b) A system description of the pipeline and study objectives
c) A description of the model including a detailed description of the simulation software
components being used
d) A description of each scenario adopted for the study
e) Operation Control Philosophy/Logic implemented in the simulation
f) The methodology used to extract, reconcile, and filter the operating data
g) Model drawings using color coding, labels, contours, etc., to better represent relevant results
and input data
It is also advised to present graphical results representing time (trend) plots and profile plots of
critical variables to support conclusions established for each scenario. See Appendix G with
pictorial examples of how to present results

Functions
For the complete and current assignment of roles and responsibilities for this and all deliverables,
please refer to the CMS RAPID matrix in CPED web site:
https://sharek.aramco.com.sa/Orgs/30026862/Documents/RAPID.pdf
With specific regard to the surge analysis for water utility and fire water piping systems, the
following describe the expected functions of key Saudi Aramco Integrated Project Team (IPT)
Members:
Integrated Project Team (IPT) Members Functions

o ‘Review’ and ‘Approve’ surge analysis calculations
P&CSD/ESD/USG o ‘Agree’ and ‘Review’ concerning input data included in
Exhibit-I (SAEP-27)
o ‘Perform’ compliance with mandatory requirements
governing the design and installation of fire water
systems in industrial and related support facilities
LPD/FrP/PSD
(SAES-B-017)
o ‘Agree’ and/or ‘Review’ concerning input data included
in Exhibit-I (SAEP-27)
o ‘Review’ and ‘Approve’ steady-state hydraulic
FrPD/E&TSD/FrPEU
calculations
o ‘Agree’ and/or ‘Review’ concerning input data included
Saudi Aramco Proponent (Operating in Exhibit-I (SAEP-27)
Organization) o When necessary or needed ‘Review’ and ‘Approve’
concerning input data
Pressure Transient Evaluation Criteria
Maximum Allowable Surge Pressure

The Maximum Allowable Surge Pressure (MASP) is directly related to the pressure rating of the
components. Thin-walled steel and non-metallic pipes are susceptible to buckling at a
combination of external pressure and minimum internal pressure. The design pressure for
continuous operation is normally equal to the pressure rating of the system. During transient
events or emergency operation, the system pressure may exceed the Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure (MAOP) up to a certain factor of the design pressure. Note that MAOP if often
based on the weakest link (i.e., pipe, component, fittings, maximum safe pressure determined by
the operator and/or de-rated by class location factor, etc.,). Below Table 2 provides an overview
of MASP in different national and international codes and standards
Table 2 MASP/MAOP ratio in MSAER’s and international standards (Metallic pipes)
Ratio
Code/Standard
MASP/MAOP1
SAES-J-605 - Surge Relief Protection Systems
SAES-L-410 -Design of Pipelines 1.10
SAES-L-410 -Design of Plant Piping

ASME B31.4 –Pipeline Transportation System for Liquids and Slurries 1.102
ASME B31.3 -Process Piping 1.333
CSA-Z662-03 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems 1.10
Notes:
1) Non-metallic piping systems are excluded
2) A design factor of 0.72 is applied to wall thickness design
3) A design factor of 0.60 is applied to wall thickness design
For system using non-metallic pipes the SAPMT and Engineering Contractor should consult and
use the manufacturer’s published design information to the extent available but should also
determine any unique circumstances for the project, such as: highly cyclic pressures (fatigue),
temperature variations, scraping and vacuum conditions. Engineering Contractor must exercise
due diligence and provide Saudi Aramco (SAPMT) with a robust design. In some cases, additional
design factors are required and should be applied on a project-by-project basis. All applicable
design factors should be applied to determine the MAOP. Review and endorsement by Consulting
Services Department/Nonmetallic Engineering Division is recommended for non-metallic pipe.
The surge pressure conditions should also be determined and included within the specified
MASP/MAOP ratio
Minimum Allowable Surge Pressure

The Minimum Allowable Surge Pressure (MinASP) is rarely explicitly addressed in existing
standards. The commonly accepted MinASP is atmospheric pressure. Note that down surge
pressures can generate full vacuum condition followed by vapor cavity formation and collapse
(cavitation) which upon re-pressurization may collapse (implode) and generate localized spike of
pressure with potential to exceed the system MASP
Surge Induced Operational Upsets

Surge analysis should identify and mitigate any undesirable exceedance on equipment allowable
operating ranges (allowable operating window). Example of surge induced operational upsets are
listed below:
o Exceedance of pump’s suction and discharge pressure trip set points
o Secondary undesirable surge events upon operation of surge protection devices
o Check valve chattering
o Undesirable opening of thermal/pressure relief valve, combination air-vacuum valves
o Temporary vibration and instabilities induced by cavitation in a centrifugal pump
o Momentary formation of slack line flow (i.e., when the hydraulic grade line and the elevation
intersect)
o Control philosophy instabilities (i.e., Proportional (P), Proportional Integral (PI), and
Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controllers)

Possible Scenarios for Surge Analysis

The analysis shall cover all possible surges causes using both SAEP-27, Exhibit-I/II as checklist
to identify potential causes of surge/transient pressure. SAPMT and/or proponent (Operations)
shall be responsible for obtaining approval for the surge analysis technical specification (Exhibit-
I) from FrPD, LPD, CSD and Proponent (Operations). The purpose of this requirements is that
each stakeholder only endorses their corresponding input data. Additional applicable scenarios
other than listed in SAEP-27, Exhibit-II and section 5.2.3 are listed in Appendix F
In addition, surge analysis shall ensure compliance with the appropriate International Standards
Codes API STD 521, AWWA M45, NFPA 24 and NFPA 25
Document History
14 December 2020 New

Appendix A - Flowchart for surge control strategy
o Identify the most demanding/unfavorable steady state cases (operating conditions)

o Explicitly identify/include any closed valves and/or dead end
Exhibit-I (SAEP-27) issued by 30% FEL-3 (Project Proposal) and agreed/reviewed by key
stakeholders, as applicable
Perform surge simulations as per approved

Exhibit-I, SAEP-27
End
(comply with below notes 1, 2)
No
Surge analysis
No without anti-surge Yes Test more Yes
provisions scenarios?
acceptable?
Can
Can the Can the
No No surge control No
surge be system be
devices be
modified? modified?
used?
Yes Yes Yes

Can initial surge Is the system layout fixed or modifiable Pressure surge protection/control
pressure be reduced? (i.e., series, branched, lopped)? devices selection. Does initial
surge pressure rise or drop?
Are the pipe size fixed?

1. Increase valve closure time
Can velocities be
2. Change valve dynamic
reduced? 0. Emergency control system
characteristics
3. Modify valve closure
schedule (i.e., 2-stage valve 1. Pressure/Surge Relief Valve
closure/opening, valves Check pipe
closure staggering, etc.,) material/thickness
2. Non-slam Check Valve
4. Design operating procedures Can a more flexible or
stronger pipe be used?
3. Bypass device
4. Combined Air-Vacuum Valve
5. Surge Anticipation Valve
Notes: 6. Surge Tanks (i.e., open-end,

1) Steady state hydraulics and Exhibit-I to be issued by 30% PP review and one-way, etc.,)
surge report issued by 60% PP review 7. Air Chambers (i.e., vented,
2) Define required operating procedures and surge pressure control system bladder, etc.,)

Appendix B - Surge/Transient (LIQUID) Modeling Data Requirement –Checklist
Input Data M/O/C* Note

Overall layout, tie-in and take-off locations, in-field process plants (if any), receiving --
M
facilities
Schematic 1
Major valves/equipment M
(Drawings) --
Pump recirculating line and settings M
2
Ambient conditions M
--
Diameters, lengths and wall thickness M
--
elevation profile M
3
Steady state calculations M
4
Current/actual piping rating, MAOP or design pressure vs distance O
Pipes
Piping material (Young’s modulus of elasticity or circumferential hoop tensile modulus for --
M
non-metallic pipes)
--
Insulation materials, thickness, thermal conductivities or overall heat transfer coefficient O
5
Pipe Darcy-Weisbach hydraulic internal roughness M
6
Details of any control valves in the system M
--
Size, Cv and Type M
7
Valve dynamic characteristics M
Valves --
Valve closing/opening speed M
Automatic Air Vacuum Valve (i.e., size, location and elevation)
8
List all check and deluge valves M
9
Pump performance curves (head, efficiency and power) M
10
Rated or design conditions M
Pumps Run up/down times, impeller diameters and inertia’s M 11
--
Recirculation/test loop (i.e., stroke time, back pressure, length/diameter) M
12
Pump station PID control system philosophy O
13
Specify gravity or density, viscosity, vapor pressure M
Fluid Bulk modulus or elasticity M --
Properties Hydrocarbon/fluid composition O --
--
Custody transfer conditions O, C
--
Pressure and/or flow set points at sources and delivery points M
Boundary --
Connected degassers/vessels (i.e., operating pressure, control type) M
conditions --
Types or control at all supplies and delivery points M
Proposed operation of the system including any automatic pump re-start or standby pump --
M
start logic
Minimum, mean/average and maximum flow rate forecast M, C
--
Operational Normal startup and shutdown procedures O, C
--
Emergency operational procedures O, C
--
Constraints on pipeline and equipment M
--
Any risk assessment (i.e., PHA, HAZOP, etc.,). O
--
Surge Overpressure protection equipment and settings M
Protection --
Specific preferred surge control devices or schemes O, C
--
Scope and objective(s) of the model M
--
A set of mark-up simulation P&IDs, schematic, PFD M
Model --
Assumptions and proposed simplifications M
documentation --
Result comparisons between the model and the baseline data O, C
--
Documented test results and operating data O, C
Notes:
*) M – Mandatory; O – Optional; C – Case-by-Case. If in doubt or for any clarifications, FAAU/P&CSD should be approached
1) For example, ZV, MOV, CV, ESDV
2) Use SAES-A-112 and process conditions
3) Applicable to brown field development and operations support
4) MAOP as per applicable SIS
5) Any default/vendor value should be revalidated using reliable operating data
6) Suction/discharge/level control including set points
7) Cv versus percent open
8) Closing time and type damped or undamped

9) If estimated, it should be based on minimum 3 data points mentioned on data sheets or best practices
10) Conditions at the best efficiency point (BEP), impeller size, pump speed, power, etc.,
11) Including pump, driver (motor) and gearbox
12) The PID control philosophy including but limited to control elements, settings, gain, derivative time, etc.,
13) If provide as table format, corresponding values for density, viscosity and vapor pressure should be included for at least
four (4) distinct pressures per temperature value and, at least five (5) distinct temperatures covering all expected
operating range for pressure and temperature
Appendix C –Typical valve dynamic characteristics
1.0
Dimensionless valve coefficient, CV/CVO
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Dimensionless closing time, T/TC
BALL_C BUTTERFLY_C EQUAL_%_C GATE_C
GLOBE_C NEEDLE_C QUICK_C
Dimensio
nless
BALL_C BUTTERFLY_C EQUAL_%_C GATE_C GLOBE_C NEEDLE_C QUICK_C LINEAR_C
closing Dimensionless valve coefficient for various type of valves
time
Dimensionless
0.0 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0

closing time
BUTTERFLY_C
0.1 0.8924 0.8436 0.6795 0.9626 0.9000 0.9900 0.9785 0.9

EQUAL_%_C
NEEDLE_C
0.2 0.7773 0.6910 0.4560 0.8959 0.8000 0.9600 0.9569 0.8

LINEAR_C
GLOBE_C
QUICK_C
GATE_C
BALL_C
0.3 0.6578 0.5460 0.3061 0.8119 0.7000 0.9100 0.9354 0.7

0.4 0.5371 0.4122 0.2079 0.7152 0.6000 0.8400 0.9138 0.6
0.5 0.4188 0.2929 0.1436 0.6090 0.5000 0.7500 0.8750 0.5
0.6 0.3062 0.1910 0.0995 0.4954 0.4000 0.6400 0.7840 0.4
0.7 0.2031 0.1090 0.0661 0.3762 0.3000 0.5100 0.6570 0.3
0.8 0.1136 0.0489 0.0378 0.2529 0.2000 0.3600 0.4880 0.2
0.9 0.0430 0.0123 0.0132 0.1271 0.1000 0.1900 0.2710 0.1
0.0 1.0
1.0000.0000 1.000
0.0000 0.0000
1.000 0.0000
1.000 0.0000
1.000 0.0000 1.0000.0000 1.000
0.0 1.000
0.1 0.892 0.844 0.680 0.963 0.900 0.990 0.978 0.900
0.2 0.777 0.691 0.456 0.896 0.800 0.960 0.957 0.800
0.3 0.658 0.546 0.306 0.812 0.700 0.910 0.935 0.700

0.4 0.537 0.412 0.208 0.715 0.600 0.840 0.914 0.600

0.5 0.419 0.293 0.144 0.609 0.500 0.750 0.875 0.500
0.6 0.306 0.191 0.100 0.495 0.400 0.640 0.784 0.400
0.7 0.203 0.109 0.066 0.376 0.300 0.510 0.657 0.300
0.8 0.114 0.049 0.038 0.253 0.200 0.360 0.488 0.200
0.9 0.043 0.012 0.013 0.127 0.100 0.190 0.271 0.100
1.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix D – Model quality checklist
Compliance
Item
Yes No
1) Valve Cv coefficient are properly assigned to all FCVs, PCVs, Regulators, etc.,
2) Check model for data discrepancies with PIDs, PFD, Isometrics, etc.
3) Check total model demand in agreement with pumping capacity
4) Check shutoff head on pump curve against system MAOP
5) Check calculated pump operating points with pump allowable operating range (AOR)
6) Check all pipes lengths against plot plans, isometric, elevation profiles, etc.
7) Fire loops are provided to permit feeding hydrants and other components and systems
from at least 2 directions
8) Check fire water loop connectivity to identify potential formation of dead-end or closed valves.
Note that for maintenance, fire water loops may be closed totally or partially. Consider a
potential surge scenario in present of dead-end or closed valve were an incident pressure
wave can be amplified
9) Verify system controls (i.e., PLC, PID controllers, initial equipment settings)
10) Check PLC and PID control are not used with surge simulation
11) Check pump curve matches the latest pump test/assessment
12) Check pump and valve status and setting
13) Check fire flow scenario setup with maximum required demand and combination of fire
requirements i.e., single, multiple fires, etc.,)
14) Friction factor based on material, operational data and accounting for aging effects

Appendix E – Experimental calculation of friction factor (or equivalent hydraulic roughness) using field
measurements

Appendix F –Potential Causes of Fluid Surge/Transient in a Pipe System
Flow rate
condition
Component Description
Med
Max
Cur
Min
1) Total pump station trip (i.e., switching off the power
supply or a power failure)
2) Pump trip at operating main pump and subsequent start
of either the second or standby pump
3) Starting/stopping up one or more pumps while other
pumps are in operation (i.e., verify check valve
performance)
Pumps 4) Pump station startup and shutdown procedure
5) Pump switchover, overspeed or changeover operation
6) Pump start up in partially primed or empty/dry systems
(i.e., deluge system, stand pipe, sprinkler system, etc.,)
7) Pump start up with part of the system shut down an
‘isolated’ (i.e., pressure wave amplification at dead
leads/closed valves)
8) Sudden/rapid adjustments to pump variable speed drives
9) Manual/automatic sequence activation of Emergency
Shutdown System (ESD). Closure/Re-opening of
automatic emergency shutdown valve (i.e., deluge/spray
systems, remotely operated monitors, ZV, EIV, ESD,
PERC, OSPAS Class-1/2 valves, etc.,)
10) Rapid change in position of flow or pressure control
valves or
11) Main discharge valve (main fire water user) closure at
worst case demand (e.g., hydrant/monitor, deluge valve,
foam system control, etc.,)
Valves
12) Closure of tank/vessel/user inlet isolation valve(s)
13) Closure/Opening of a looped system (i.e., change system
lineup)
14) Closure of Pressure Relief Valves (PRVs) under flowing
conditions
15) Fail closed of available pressure control valves installed
on the recycle manifold operating at the maximum
recycle flow of the system (i.e., 2x the sum of the design
flows of one jockey pump plus the largest single fire
water pump, as per SAES-B-017 section 8.7)
16) Changes to the original design of the system (i.e.,
capacity increase/decrease, liquid service, operating
temperature, de-rated MAOP, pipe material, pump trip
suction/discharge pressure settings, surge protection
settings, change/replacement addition of new pump unit,
Changes to the system or etc.,)
its operating 17) Component malfunctions (i.e., automatic flow/pressure
conditions/procedures control valve, pressure relief valves, surge protection
system, etc.,)
18) Flow path is change (i.e., route change, change in
system lineup, etc.,)
19) Rapid changes in demand conditions (e.g., hydrant
flushing, deluge valve system test, pump test, etc.,)

Flow rate
condition
Component Description
Med
Max
Cur
Min
20) Worst fire water demand case scenario and the
consequential start-up of required fire water pumps with
proposed time delay as per fire pumps starting sequence
(operation manual). Recommended pumps shutdown
sequence from its maximum system design capacity
21) Any other potential causes that a safety review/audit
identifies (i.e., PHA, HAZOP, etc.,)
22) Proposed operation of the system both to increase and
reduce to and from its maximum design capacity (i.e.,
automatic pump re-start or standby pump start logic)
Operational 23) Normal startup and shutdown procedures
24) Emergency shut-down procedures
25) Emergency operational procedures
26) Proposed control logic for activating the main firewater
pumps (i.e., electrical and diesel) and subsequent
operation of the system at its maximum design capacity

Appendix G – Typical surge results representations
(1). Example of time plot. Make sure to capture key locations (i.e., US/DS location where pressure wave is
generated, location where MAX/MIN surge pressure, critical facilities, etc.,
(2). Example of distance plot. Make sure to capture key locations (i.e., location where pressure wave is
generated, location where MAX/MIN surge pressure, critical facilities, etc.,)

(3). Example: (a) Selected flow path; (b) distance plot displaying MAX/MIN surge pressure envelope
Example of summary report for NODES (1 per each scenario)
Example of summary report for PIPES (1 per each scenario)
Overall calculated MAX/MIN surge pressure with location
(4). MAX/MIN surge pressure envelope

Sabp Z 028

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sabp Z 028

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practice 14 December 2020

Previous Revision: None Next Revision: 14 December 2030

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 2 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 3 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

The following will benefit from this Best Practice:

o Saudi Aramco operating facilities

o Saudi Aramco Departments in charge of procuring, planning or supervising installation of

Conflicts and Deviations

Saudi Aramco References

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 4 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

Industry Codes and Standards

National Fire Protection Association

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 5 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 6 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Comprehensive Pressure Surge Control

Typical Single Surge Event Parameters

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 7 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Figure 1. Single Surge Event Properties & Parameters

Table 1: Single Surge Event Parameter Definitions

Notation Parameter Definition

P0 Initial (pre-event) steady Constant (or relatively constant) average background

PF Final (post-event) steady Constant (or relatively constant) average background

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 8 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Notation Parameter Definition

4) TPERIOD = 4L/a where L is a characteristic length and, a wave propagation speed

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 9 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 10 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 11 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 12 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Joukowsky Equation, Pressure Wave Speed and Reflections

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 13 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

o Challenges and historical overpressure incidents

Possible Scenarios of Surge Analysis

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 14 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Integrated Project Team (IPT) Members Functions

Pressure Transient Evaluation Criteria

Maximum Allowable Surge Pressure

Table 2 MASP/MAOP ratio in MSAER’s and international standards (Metallic pipes)

SAES-J-605 - Surge Relief Protection Systems

SAES-L-410 -Design of Pipelines 1.10

SAES-L-410 -Design of Plant Piping

© Saudi Arabian Oil Company, 2020 Page 15 of 27

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

ASME B31.3 -Process Piping 1.333

CSA-Z662-03 - Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems 1.10

1) Non-metallic piping systems are excluded

2) A design factor of 0.72 is applied to wall thickness design

3) A design factor of 0.60 is applied to wall thickness design