CAUSES OF LIQUID HAMMER IN PIPING

SYSTEMS & THE BEST CONTROL

STRATEGIES
By ARANER
Posted
In District Cooling

0
0
All pressurized piping systems inevitably experience transient effects, whether due
to normal or emergency events. Specifically, rapid flow changes during transient
events generate propagating pressure waves which have both positive and negative
phases, also referred to as water hammer, or in a generic way: liquid hammer.

Liquid hammer can have not only serious and even devastating consequences
on hydraulic systems but also risks for operators, including disruption of normal
control setting, fatigue and stretch of the pipe wall, separation at bends, and pipe
rupture. More dramatically, these pressure waves may lead to a complete
equipment failure if the cavitating flow is triggered.

Figure 1: Industrial Piping System

At ARANER, we specialize in the analysis, design, and implementation of industrial

piping systems, as well as District Cooling and Heating technologies. Our
engineers and expert design team have years of experience with Liquid Hammer
and all types of industrial systems, and thus know the best way to approach your
next project.

In this blog post, based upon ARANER’s wealth of expertise, you will discover the
main causes affecting liquid hammer, simplified liquid hammer calculations, liquid
hammer control strategies, and liquid hammer in District Cooling and Heating.
CAUSES AFFECTING LIQUID HAMMER
Envision a piping system within which the flow of liquid is suddenly stopped; the
liquid tries to continue in the same direction. In the area where the velocity change
occurs, the liquid pressure increases dramatically, due to the momentum force. As
it rebounds, it increases the pressure in the region near it and forms an acoustic
pressure wave. This pressure wave travels downstream the pipe at the speed of
sound in the liquid. The acoustic wave will be reflected when it encounters an
obstruction, such as a pump, fitting, or valve.

The closure or opening of a valve in a system is one of the most common cause of
liquid hammer. The amount of pressure difference, combined, with the initial
pressure, largely depends on the closing (opening) characteristic of the valve. In
practice, the closing characteristics of valves or check valves are optimized so
that some 80% of the cross-sectional area is closed relatively quickly, while the
remaining 20% of the area slowly reduces the mass flow by means of damping
facilities, in order to avoid excessive pressure peaks.

Liquid hammer occurs not only during valve operations but also in connection
with abnormal conditions such as pump failure or pipe rupture, with
subsequent sealing of the broken pipe by the closing of a valve. Here the piping
system is exposed to double loading:
  The first load results from the pressure waves which start at the failing pump or run into
the system from the point of rupture.
 The other one, results from the subsequent opening and closing of valves and check
valves.
It is interesting to note that liquid hammer is of greater significance in low head
pumping systems than in high head systems. For a given head rise would be a
larger proportion of the pumping head in a low head pumping system than in a
high head system.

Additional factors that either influence the severity or perhaps even cause liquid
hammer include check valve action, product wave velocity, pipe size, number of
pumps operating, and even the flywheel effect of pump impellers.

SIMPLIFIED LIQUID HAMMER

CALCULATIONS
Simplified liquid hammer calculations can be used to indicate if liquid hammer is
severe. The potential magnitude is dependent on the speed of valve closure and
the liquid velocity in the pipe prior to the start of valve closure. If the speed of
the valve closure, in seconds, is greater than the total length of pipe (L), in m,
divided by 1000, then momentum theory (Newton’s second law of motion) applies:

On the other hand, if the time to close the valve is less than L/1,000 s, then the
acoustic shock wave/elastic column theory applies, governed by the following
equation:
As an example, if we assume the liquid is water flowing in rigid steel pipe at
ambient temperature, the pipe diameter is 600 mm, the wall thickness is 5 mm, the
wave velocity is 957.4 m/s, and the liquid is traveling at the maximum
recommended discharge velocity of 4.6 m/s, the instantaneous pressure inside the
casing would jump to 4,480 kPa. Pump casings are not usually designed for this
magnitude of pressure, especially if the casing is made of a brittle material, such
as cast iron. Even if the casing is constructed of a more ductile material, the shock
wave may still cause the permanent deformation of some components and,
ultimately, fail.

LIQUID HAMMER CONTROL STRATEGIES

The best design measure is, of course, to completely avoid liquid hammer and
transient forces. This means that in a piping system the fluid must not accelerate
or decelerate suddenly. However, the operation of any industrial plant may
undergo such unavoidable conditions as a result of disturbances in the system.

In order to address liquid hammer prevention, large variety of transient control

strategies are commonly employed; such as improvements within the
distribution system (e.g.: pipe diameter or profile, wall thickness, alignment and
other hydraulic components), damping strategies, optimal operational procedures
and dedicated device installation (e.g.: automatic control valves, air chambers).

When assessing the liquid hammer occurring in piping there are design and
operating measures to reduce the slope of pressure ramp and mitigate the
resulting loads. As regards valve operations, the closing (and opening)
characteristics can be optimized so that the liquid hammer occurring is kept within
tolerable limits while the setting times remain short enough to warrant safe
operation.

After initial rapid closing the damping mechanism of the valves is activated and
then causes slow closing up to complete shut off. The pressure wave periodically
moves to and fro between pipe and the valve, with decreasing pressure amplitude.

In case of pump failures, the loads on the piping system can be reduced by
increasing the flywheel effects of the pumps. The longer it takes the pump to slow
down, the slower pump slows down and liquid decelerates, then the smaller the
amplitudes of pressure waves will be.

In special cases, such as heavy fluids, specific procedures are recommended to

provide sufficient flow cross section in a pump, even if the pump fails.

In the ease of pumps which are arranged in parallel it is usual to install a non-return
check valve in order to avoid return flows. This automatic closing element can also
be the starting point of marked pressure waves. Such check valves are normally
equipped with adjustable damping mechanisms which are set so that they neither
close too abruptly nor run the risk of opening and closing several times.

From a design perspective, typical practices make use of a combination of various

design strategies to soften liquid hammer waves at sensitive locations of the
hydraulic system; however, these practices may actually worsen a system transient
response due to substantial inconsistency between the embedded multiple devices.
One of the most successful measures for liquid hammer control with low
wave speed is the inline strategy, which consists in replacing a short section of
the sensitive zone of the existing steel piping system by another made of high or
low density polyethylene pipe wall material (i.e., HDPE or LDPE). Such a design
strategy could successfully be employed to mitigate excessive piezometric head rise
and drop.

Furthermore, the liquid hammer can also determine the materials to be selected
and in addition it may need the use of certain types of supports, without
mentioning the sizing of the piping so that it is sufficient for the liquid hammer.

In summary, liquid hammer can be controlled through proper valve closure rates
(with slow closing valves), the addition of diaphragm tanks or similar accumulators
to absorb the pressure wave, relief valves to release the pressure, and an inline
strategy.

LIQUID HAMMER IN DISTRICT COOLING AND

HEATING SYSTEMS
Generally liquid hammer can occur in any thermal–hydraulic systems such
as District Cooling and Heating plants, and it is extremely dangerous for its
performance since, if the high pressure peaks exceeds the pressure range of a pipe
or equipment given by the manufacturer, it can affect the pipeline integrity.

The high-pressure peaks in District Cooling or District Heating depend on:

 Initial liquid velocity before closing the check valve.

 Steam appearing due to cavitation, and steam collapsing.
The high-pressure peaks could generate 3 types of severe liquid hammer
occurring at piping systems that can result in significant system damage:

 Valve induced liquid hammer.

 Void induced liquid hammer.
 Condensation induced liquid hammer.
 Figure 2: Piping systems in a District Cooling Plant

The cases, when the liquid hammers occurred in the pipeline systems as the
consequences of standard actions such as start up or shut down of systems and
components, opening or closure of valves, switch over from one component (e.g.
pump, heat exchanger) to another, belong to the first type of liquid hammer.

The most severe liquid hammers in District Cooling and Heating plants may be
caused due to rapid closure of isolation valve.

Pressure pulses in the presence of liquid and vapor (for example when there is a
two-phase flow) can lead to rapid condensation of the vapor, leading to the
commonly known as condensation induced liquid hammer. There are several
reasons for the formation of large cavities or steam bubbles in pipelines. For liquid
flow the pressure at some sections of the pipes may be reduced below the
saturation pressure when a rarefaction wave occurs or the liquid column is
separated. Liquid may vaporize and dissolved gas may separate from the liquid at
the lowered pressure to form a cavity. These conditions may occur when an
upstream pump suddenly stops or a valve suddenly closes.

In case of blackout accident in a pump station, the pressure peak due to liquid
hammer is predicted to be lower than the hydraulic test pressure limit. Even when
the conditions were set to the most unfavorable scenario (check valve closes at
highest liquid velocity through the valve), it took to assume different physical
system configuration to reach the hydraulic test pressure limit.
CONCLUSION
All piping systems are exposed to suffer liquid hammer due to fast open or closure
of the valves, or even during pump failure or sealing operations after equipment
rupture.

Additional factors that either influence the severity or perhaps even cause liquid
hammer include check valve action, product wave velocity, pipe size, number of
pumps operating, and even the flywheel effect of pump impellers.

To address the liquid hammer prevention, a large variety of transient control

strategies are commonly employed:

 Valves opening and closing optimized characteristics

 Check valves with damping mechanism
 Flywheels in pumps
 Material and/or size of pipes
 For low pressure systems a short pipe of plastic material
 Relief valves
 Expansion tanks.