JOURNAL OF WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT

e-ISSN 2083-4535
Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN), Committee on Agronomic Sciences JOURNAL OF WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Section of Land Reclamation and Environmental Engineering in Agriculture 2020, No. 47 (X–XII): 47–60
Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP) https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2020.135031
Available (PDF): http://www.itp.edu.pl/wydawnictwo/journal; http://journals.pan.pl/jwld

Received
Reviewed
10.02.2020
10.03.2020
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection
Accepted 11.05.2020
of pipeline systems

1) 
Alaa N. El-HAZEK 2), Menna F. AHMED ,
Neveen Abdel-Mageed BADAWY 2)

1)
Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, No. 1 Gamal abd El Nasiar ST. Embaba, Giza, Egypt
2)
Benha University, Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra, Department of Civil Engineering, Cairo, Egypt

For citation: El-Hazek A.N., Ahmed M.F., Badawy N.A.-M. 2020. Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline sys-
tems. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 47 (X–XII) p. 47–60. DOI: 10.24425/jwld.2020.135031.
Abstract
This paper investigated the problems and impacts of transient flow in pipeline systems due to pump power failure. The
impact of different protection devices was presented to assure surge protection for the pipeline system. A model via Bent-
ley HAMMER V8.0 Edition was employed to analyse and simulate hydraulic transients in the pipeline system, and protec-
tion alternatives were studied.
Surge protection included using only an air vessel, using an air vessel and two surge tanks, and employing five air ves-
sels and vacuum breaker. The obtained results for pressures, heads, and cavitation along the pipeline system were graph-
ically presented for various operating conditions. Using five air vessels with vacuum breaker valve as surge protection
proved to be more effective and economical against pump power failure.
Changing the flow density did not have a significant impact on the pressures.
For protection with an air vessel; it was concluded that the value 40% of the original diameter for inlet pipe diameter of
air vessel, and the value of 2/3 of original pipe diameter were critical values for the transient pressures. Cast iron pipes
proved to be the best pipe material for all studied volumes of the air vessel.
For protection with an air vessel and two surge tanks; as the inlet pipe diameters increased the maximum pressures in-
creased and the minimum pressures decreased.
Regression analyses were performed obtaining equations to predict the pressures according to the inlet pipe diameter,
the area of surge tank, and the pipe diameter.

Key words: air vessel, Bentley HAMMER model, surge tank, unsteady flow, vacuum breaker valve, water hammer, water
turbidity

INTRODUCTION tems that transport fluids through long distances are com-
mon in modern society [CARLSSON 2016]. For the most
Irrigation consumes increasing quantities of water due pipeline systems, the extreme pressures that occur during
to increasing population all over the world. It was predict- the transient operation of the system are considered as the
ed that the demand for water in the agricultural of a studied most critical situations. It is fundamental for the design and
commune in Poland would increase by about 5.5% by operation of pipeline system to establish a transient analy-
2030 [KOPACZ et al. 2018]. A paper was presented to pro- sis for normal startup and shutdown and for unplanned
vide approach and universal solution to forecast the behav- events [WOOD 2005]. A water distribution network is
iour of urban catchment (including surface runoff or pipe- mainly a system of the dependent components valves and
line systems) for urbanization in terms of natural land- pipes, where the pipes are static elements and the valves
water cycles and its application in planning existing or new are dynamic elements [LAKEHAL, LAOUACHERIA 2017].
urban catchments that could be followed by the planners, Modelling based on a Static Bayesian Network (SBN) was
engineers, and hydrologists [SHARMA 2019]. Pipeline sys- implemented to analyse qualitatively and quantitatively the

© 2020. The Authors. Published by Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) and Institute of Technology and Life Sciences (ITP).
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
48 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

availability of water in the different segments of the net- mechanisms. That’s why improved operations in piping
work. Dynamic Bayesian networks (DBN) were then used systems is required [YU et al. 2015], devices such as surge
to assess the valves reliability as function of time, which tanks [VEREIDE et al. 2017], air vessels, and air valves
could allow management of water distribution based on [BERGANT et al. 2012] are strongly needed in some pro-
water availability assessment in different segments. jects to ensure the running security. The surge pressure
For transient flow, the velocity and pressure can must be incorporated with the operating pressure in the
change suddenly affecting badly the pipeline, which may design of the pipeline as the maximum pressure that can be
be relatively long with a quite large diameter. There are produced, known now as the Joukowski pressure or
various causes of water hammer. The most common events Joukowski head [ORD 2006]. The dynamics of fluids is
that can produce large changes in pressure are pump always described by the Navier Stokes equations [KUNDU
startup, pump power failure, and valve opening and clos- et al. 2011] and [LOH, TIJSSELING 2014], which are mainly
ing. Also, non-proper operation or incorporation of surge two partial differential equations that represented by the
protection devices can cause more damage than providing continuity and the momentum equations.
protection for the system. The essential objective of transi- The maximum and the minimum pressure can be ob-
ent flow analysis is to determine the values of transient tained through method of characteristics – (MOC), which
pressures that can result due to sudden changes in flow converts the two partial differential equations into four
velocity, and to establish suitable devices that provide an total differential equations that were employed by KAR-
acceptable level of protection against system failure. Vari- NEY, MCINNIS [1992] and TEZKAN et al. [1998] for analys-
ous techniques have been used to analyse water hammer ing transient events in simple and complicated pipeline
phenomena such as the arithmetic, energy, graphical, alge- systems, respectively. The obtained results of surge pres-
braic, characteristics, Euler and Lagrangian based method, sures were more accurate in the simple pipeline systems
implicit and linear analysing, and decoupled hybrid meth- [JUNG et al. 2007]. A theoretical result that usually relates
ods [ABUIZIAH et al. 2013]. The elastic effects of the fluid to actual system measurements was produced by solving
and pipeline must be considered in order to obtain an accu- the two partial differential equations for valid data and as-
rate characterization of the transient flow conditions sumptions via numerical model [SALMANZADEH 2013]. It
[LAROCK et al. 1999]. was recorded that decreasing the diameter till 1/6 times the
This excess pressure, known as water hammer pres- pipeline diameter, the max pressure decreases. More de-
sure, is caused by momentary changes in flow velocity, creasing the diameter, the max pressure increases [EL-
and is identified as shockwaves moving through the liquid HAZEK 2018]. Protecting irrigation systems from water
at the local speed of sound, celerity [PATTERSON, COVEY hammer damage can be achieved by creating conditions in
2014]. Water hammer is the significant force which causes which a water hammer will not occur as a result of closing
pounding noises and vibration in a pipeline system when the end gate valve (EGV). To verify the effectiveness of
the flow is suddenly stopped due to any unplanned event a combined end gate valve closure of a pipeline [HE-
[SALEHI 2010]. Pump startup can induce the rapid collapse RASYMOV et al. 2019] investigated processes occurring in
of a void space existed downstream the pump generating the pipeline during a linear closure of the EGV, during
high magnitudes of pressures. The power failure of the a closure with one break point and during an intermittent
pump can produce a flow disturbance, which causes a sud- closure. Based on experimental data and calculations,
den increase in pressure on the suction side and a sudden a linear closure of the EGV with one break point was rec-
decrease in pressure on the destination. The surge pressure ommended.
on the discharge side is usually the main problem, where it
might reach high values of negative pressure that probably MATERIAL AND METHODS
reach vapour pressure resulting in vapour column separa-
tion. A valve closure at the downstream of a pipeline sys- A typical pipeline system is studied. The pump station
tem in a time less than it takes causes a pressure wave that is located at elevation (85.00 m) + msl, which consist of
moves toward the reservoir, where velocity changes rapid- six parallel pumps (five pumps are in operation simultane-
ly and producing a surge pressure. Improper operation or ously and one is considered as a standby pump of similar
inappropriate surge protection devices can dramatically do type) to provide 6.00 m3∙s–1 into the system from elevation
more harm than good. For example, the oversizing of the (79.81 m) + msl at suction level to elevation (111.41 m) +
surge relief valve, the vacuum breaker or air relief valve, msl at delivery side. The pumping station is followed by an
which might cause column separation [LAHLOU 2009]. 1800 mm main header diameter with 30 m length that is
There are other factors that can cause water hammer in branched into two Glass fibre reinforced plastics (GRE)
pipeline system such as: changes in water levels, changes pipelines each of 1200 mm diameter with 1600 m length to
in the flow transmission conditions, and pipeline filling or deliver water to open channel at the end of the pipeline.
draining or sudden release of air [BERGANT et al. 2012]. The main header steel pipe extends from the pump station
Disturbances due to surge pressures may result in system at elevation (85.00 m) + msl to (88.65 m) + msl for
fatigue, backflow of dirty water for wastewater pipeline, a length of 30.00 m. It then branches to two pipelines each
pipe collapse, vibration, excessive pipe displacements, of 1200 mm diameter sloping upward for a length of 1600
pipe-fitting, support deformation and/or failure, water col- m to elevation (111.41 m) + msl, as shown in Figure 1.
umn separation, and vapour cavity formation, valve fail-
ures, overstress pressure gauges, and bend internal system
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline systems 49

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the pipeline system; source: own elaboration

Fig. 2. The pipeline hydraulic system; GPV = an indication for check valve J = indication for the junction, and it is an item to represent
the pipeline profile as shown in Figure 3, P = an indication for the pipes in the system; source: own elaboration

Fig. 3. The pipeline system profile; source: own elaboration

Bentley HAMMER model is used to perform the simu- From previous it can be clearly seen that, transient per-
lation and analysis of hydraulic transients in the pipeline formance of a piping system may be improved, in general,
system due to power failure of the pump. The employed by changing the geometrical design (the system bounda-
software is Bentley HAMMER V8i (SELECTseries4). The ries). This design modification may be particularly effec-
pipeline system is represented via Bentley HAMMER tive in suction lines, since it greatly decreases the possibil-
Software, as illustrated in Figures 2 and 3. ity of cavitation. Thus various scenarios will be studied
such as the effect of inlet-pipe diameter of air Vessel (us-
50 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

ing only air vessel) where different values of inlet pipe The previous scenarios will be tested to reach the op-
diameter of air vessel are studied with various air vessel timum case with the best protection and most economical
volumes to find the optimum case that provides economi- scenario.
cal protection against water hammer. Three cases are tested
for air vessel volumes, which are case 1 of an air vessel of RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
400 m3volume, case 2 of an air vessel of 375 m3volume,
and case 3 of an air vessel of 350 m3volume for 300–1800 ANALYSES OF DATA
mm inlet pipe diameters. As well as studying the effect of
inlet-pipe diameter of air vessel (using air Vessel + two The pipeline system is simulated under different cir-
Surge Tanks) while different values of inlet pipe diameter cumstances for non-protected and protected conditions. For
of air vessel are studied with various areas of surge tanks non-protected pipeline, when a power failure occurs sud-
to find the optimum case that provides economical protec- denly, the check valves close upon that failure. Meanwhile,
tion against water hammer. Four areas of surge tanks are the flow velocity rapidly reaches zero and then reverses,
investigated, which are 10, 12, 14, and 16 m2 for 700–1200 negative pressure waves are prevailed downstream from
mm inlet pipe diameters. While the studied air vessel in the pump, and positive pressure waves are prevailed up-
this scenario is 200 m3volume. An important scenario such stream through the suction pipe. Also, vapour pressure and
as testing the effect of changing pipe diameter will be pre- column separation may occur in the discharge pipelines.
sented as different pipeline diameters have been studied for The maximum positive and the minimum negative
three different volumes of air vessel to investigate the op- pressures in the pipeline system after the power failure are
timum and economical case of protection against water presented in Figure 4. The maximum pressure is 952.5kPa
hammer. The total volumes of air vessel are 400 m3 as case at start of the pipeline and the negative pressure reached
1, 375 m3 as case 2, and 350 m3 as case 3 while changing 100 kPa. These values of pressures are more than the al-
the pipeline diameters from 800 mm to 1800 mm. Finally, lowable working pressures.
the effect of changing pipe material will be tested. Various As shown in Figure 5, the maximum head and mini-
pipeline materials have been studied for three different mum head in each pipeline reached to 185.97 and 78.43 m
volumes of air vessel to investigate the optimum and eco- at begin of the pipeline, respectively. Cavitation occurred
nomical case of protection against water hammer. The total at the location 825 m of the pipeline, and the initial head
volumes of air vessel are 400 m3 for case 1, 375 m3 for under steady state conditions is illustrated. It is obvious
case 2, and 350 m3 for case 3. The studied pipeline materi- that the minimum head is lower than the pipeline elevation
als are glass reinforced plastics (GRP), steel, cast iron and as a result of the negative pressure along the pipeline.
concrete. The inlet pipe diameter and pipeline diameter are
1500 mm and 1200 mm, respectively.

Fig. 4. Pressure (max and min.) along the pipeline system; source: own study
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline systems 51

Fig. 5. Hydraulic grade (max, min. and initial), elevation and vapour volume along the pipeline system;
J with numbers, it is an indication for the junction’s number along the pipeline; source own study

PROTECTION CASE (1) VIA AN AIR VESSEL the working pressure (600 kPa), and the minimum negative
pressure in pipeline reached 7.3 kPa, which is less than the
An air vessel is installed as a common solution to pro- allowable pressure (–10 kPa). These values are safe for the
tect the pipeline system, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. The pipeline system. The maximum and minimum heads in
purpose of this device is to limit the pressure drop and to each pipeline changed and reached to 129.43 m and 96.58
avoid the possible occurrence of column separation or air m at beginning of the pipeline, which provide safety
bubbles formation due to vapour pressure in the pump. The against collapsing, as presented in Figure 9. Also, the va-
total volume and the liquid volume of the air vessel are 400 pour volume is 0.00 at all locations which confirm the
and 200 m3, respectively. safety of the pipeline system.
As shown in Figure 8, the maximum pressure in each
pipeline changed and reached 401 kPa, which is less than

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of pipeline system with protection via an air vessel; source: own study

Fig. 7. The pipeline hydraulic system with protection via an air vessel; source: own study
52 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

Fig. 8. Pressure (max and min.) along the pipeline system with protection via an air vessel; source won study

Fig. 9. Hydraulic grade (max, min. and initial), elevation and vapour volume along the pipeline system with protection via an air vessel;
J with numbers, it is an indication for the junction’s number along the pipeline; source: own study

PROTECTION CASE (2) VIA AN AIR VESSEL AND TWO SURGE ditional amount of fluid will be supplied by the surge tank.
TANKS The total volume of the air vessel is 200 m3, and the area
of each surge tank is 16.00 m2 with variable initial height
Another protection system against the transient events of water surface, as shown in Figures 10 and 11.
is employed, which is composed of an air vessel on the From the obtained results, as shown in Figure 12, the
main header, and two surge tanks at the middle of the GRE maximum pressure in each pipeline changed and reached
pipes. The purpose of the surge tank is to mitigate pressure 382.66 kPa ,which is less than the working pressure (600
variations due to rapid changes in velocity in the pipeline kPa), and the negative pressures through the pipeline sys-
system. When the load on the system decreases, the fluid tem is 6.2 kPa near the end of the pipeline, which is less
direction is reversed and gets stored in the surge tank. On than the allowable pressure (–10 kPa). These values are
the other hand, when the load on the system increases, ad- safe for the pipeline system.
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline systems 53

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of pipeline system with protection via an air vessel and two surge tanks; source: own study

Fig. 11. The pipeline hydraulic system with protection via an air vessel and two surge tanks; source: own study

Fig. 12. Pressure (max and min.) along the pipeline system with protection via an air vessel
and two surge tanks; source: own study
54 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

Fig. 13. Hydraulic grade (max, min. and initial), elevation and vapour volume along the pipeline system
with protection via an air vessel and two surge tanks; source: own study

The maximum and minimum heads in each pipeline kPa), and the negative pressures through the pipeline sys-
changed and reached to 124.10 m and 91.17 m at begin- tem is 7.98 kPa at a distance 845 m of the pipeline, which
ning of the pipeline, which provide safety against collaps- is less than the allowable pressure (–10 kPa). These values
ing, as presented in Figure 13. Also, the vapour volume is are safe for the pipeline system.
0.00 at all locations that confirms the safety of the pipeline As illustrated in Figure 17, the air sucked into the vac-
system. uum breaker valve, which prevents the pipeline from col-
umn separation, is 1 m3 at the valve location that assures
PROTECTION CASE (3) VIA FIVE AIR VESSELS AND VACUUM safety of the system.
BREAKER VALVE The figure also represents the initial head under steady
state conditions, and the maximum and minimum heads
To avoid a large air vessel size, five smaller air vessels due to unsteady state case, which proved to be safe under
are used for protection, which reduces the required area of the system protection as the minimum head is higher than
land. The total volume of each air vessel is 40 m3. To pre- the pipeline elevation.
vent serious negative pressure damage due to power failure From the obtained results, as shown in Table 1, it can
of the pumps, a vacuum breaker valve is usually installed be concluded that using one air vessel and two surge tanks
at the highest point of pipeline system, as shown in Figures provide the best protection against the pump power failure.
14 and 15. On the other hand, using five air vessels and vacuum
From the obtained results, as shown in Figure 16, the breaker valve will provide easier executing for the protec-
maximum pressure in each pipeline changed and reached tion devices in the site, where this case of protection re-
558.2 kPa, which is less than the working pressure (600 duces the land area required for construction.

Fig. 14. Schematic diagram of pipeline system with protection via five air vessels and vacuum breaker valve; source: own study
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline systems 55

Fig. 15. The pipeline hydraulic system with protection via five air vessels and vacuum breaker valve; source: own study

Fig. 16. Pressure (max and min.) along the pipeline system with protection via five air vessels
and vacuum breaker valve; source: own study

Fig. 17. Hydraulic grade (max, min. and initial), elevation and vapour volume along the pipeline
system with protection via five air vessels and vacuum breaker valve; source: own study
56 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

Table 1. Obtained results of the pipeline system

Cases of protection with
Case of steady Case of transient
Studied cases
state with no protection an air vessel an air vessel (200 m3) five air vessels (5×50 m3)
(400 m3) and two surge tanks (2×16 m2) and vacuum breaker valve
Pressure (kPa) max 272.7 952.5 401 382.66 558.2
min. 0.1 –100 –7.3 –6.2 –7.98
Vapour volume (m3) 0.000 0.730 0.000 0.000 0.000
Source: own study.

Fig. 18. Maximum and minimum pressures for different values of water density; source: own study

EFFECT OF WATER DENSITY ON THE PIPELINE SYSTEM both case 1 and case 2 are safe against minimum pressure
when using 1200 mm or more as inlet pipe diameter. Thus,
The surge pressure increases as the density increases it is recommended to use an air vessel of 375 m3 volume in
according to Joukowsky equation. The effect of mixed wa- case of using only one air vessel as a protection against the
ter passing through the pipeline system, such as the case of pump power failure.
using reused or treated water, is studied to make sure that A regression analysis is performed, and equations are
the protection system provides the required safety for the obtained to predict the maximum and minimum pressures
pipeline system. The protection case 1 (using an air vessel according to the inlet pipe diameter for case 1 of an air
only) will be used to study the effect of water density and vessel of 400 m3 volume, as shown in Figure 19.
to check the efficiency of the protection system against
water hammer. Table 2. Maximum and minimum pressures for different inlet
The values 1000–1090 kg∙m–3 are investigated for the pipe diameters and air vessel volumes
water density. The resulted maximum and minimum pres-
Case 1, air vessel Case 2, air vessel Case 3, air vessel
sures that affect the pipeline system are shown in Figure Inlet pipe of 400 m3 total of 375 m3 total of 350 m3 total
18. It is obvious that changing the flow density does not diameter volume volume volume
have a significant impact on the pressures, where the val- (mm) pressure (kPa)
ues of surge pressures are so close for the studied range of max min. max min. max min.
water densities. 300 724 –100 724 –100 723 –100
400 662 –100 660 –100 640 –100
EFFECT OF INLET PIPE DIAMETER OF AIR VESSEL ON THE 500 551 –100 510 –100 501 –100
PIPELINE SYSTEM (USING AN AIR VESSEL) 600 460 –100 461 –100 498 –100
700 323 –100 325 –100 335 –100
The obtained results of maximum and minimum pres- 800 333 –100 337 –100 351 –100
sures for 300–1800 mm inlet pipe diameters of air vessel 900 346 –66 353 –66 373 –67
are presented in Table 2. 1000 357 –37 366 –37 393 –38
For all three different volumes of air vessel, it is obvi- 1100 364 –20 375 –20 408 –20
1200 376 –8 381 –9 420 –14
ous that the 700 mm inlet pipe diameter of air vessel is
1300 387 –8 387 –9 429 –14
a critical value. The pressures decrease as the diameter
1400 395 –7 395 –9 436 –14
increases till the value 700 mm (40% of the original di-
1500 401 –7 401 –9 441 –14
ameter), and then the pressures increase as the diameter 1600 405 –7 405 –9 445 –14
increases. 1700 408 –7 408 –9 448 –14
It is concluded that case 3 is not safe against the mini- 1800 410 –7 410 –8 450 –14
mum pressures for all studied inlet pipe diameters, while Source: own study.
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline systems 57

y = -0.0009x2 - 0.0754x + 832.43

800 R² = 0.9974
700
600 y = -5E-05x2 + 0.2084x + 199.39
500 R² = 0.9962
Pressure (kPa)

400
300
200
100 y = -0.0002x2 + 0.4946x - 374.59
R² = 0.9541
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-100
-200
Inlet Pipe Diameter (mm)

Max ≤ 700 mm Min ≤ 700 mm Max ≥ 700 mm Min ≥ 700 mm

Wielob. (Max ≤ 700 mm) Wielob. (Max ≥ 700 mm) Wielob. (Min ≥ 700 mm)

Fig. 19. Minimum and maximum pressure for different inlet pipe diameters (using an air vessel); source: own study

EFFECT OF INLET PIPE DIAMETER OF AIR VESSEL ON THE pipe diameters increase. Increasing the area of the surge
PIPELINE SYSTEM (USING AIR VESSEL AND TWO SURGE tank provides more safety against the system failure as it
TANKS)
provides the system with a reasonable amount of water to
prevent column separation to occur at the highest point of
The obtained results of maximum and minimum pres-
the system.
sures for 700–1200 mm inlet pipe diameter of air vessel
It is concluded that using an air vessel with 800 mm
are presented in Table 3.
inlet pipe diameter and two surge tanks with area of 14 m2
For all four different areas of surge tanks, it is obvious
for each tank will be the most economical solution.
that the maximum pressures increase as the diameters in-
A regression analysis is performed, and equations are
crease, and the minimum pressures decrease as the inlet
obtained to predict the maximum and minimum pressures
Table 3. Maximum and minimum pressures for different inlet according to the area of surge tank, as shown in Figure 20.
pipe diameters and surge tank areas
THE EFFECT OF PIPELINE DIAMETER
Area of Inlet pipe diameter (mm)
Pressure
surge
(kPa)
tank (m2) 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 The results of maximum and minimum pressures for
10 313 486 520 679 639 863 800–1800 mm pipeline diameters are illustrated in Table 4.
12 303 306 337 494 522 753 The inlet pipe diameter is 1500 mm. The maximum and
Max minimum pressures for different pipe diameters are pre-
14 295 294 337 383 408 428
16 288 283 337 383 408 428 sented in Figure 21 for case 1 only because the values of
10 –48 –100 –100 –100 –100 –100 pressure for the three cases are close to each other. In the
12 –48 –9 –9 –100 –100 –100 figure, the pressures associated with diameter 800 through
Min
14 –48 –9 –9 –7 –6 –6 1200 mm are called case 1a, while the pressures associated
16 –48 –9 –9 –6 –6 –6 with diameter 1200 through 1800 mm are called case 1b.
Source: own study.

1000

800
y = 11.25x3 - 431.88x2 + 5351.3x - 20712
Pressure (kPa)

600 R² = 1
y = -0.0208x3 + 1x2 - 19.417x + 428
400 R² = 1

200
y = -3.9167x3 + 152.75x2 - 1934.8x + 7890
0 R² = 1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
-200
Area of surge tank (m2)

1200 mm "max pressure" 1200 mm "min pressure" 700 mm "max pressure"

700 mm "min pressure" Wielob. (1200 mm "max pressure") Wielob. (1200 mm "min pressure")
Wielob. (700 mm "max pressure")

Fig. 20. Maximum and minimum pressure for different inlet pipe diameters and different areas of surge tank; source: own study
58 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

Table 4. Maximum and minimum pressure for different pipe Regression analyses are employed, and equations are
diameters and air vessels obtained on the figure to predict the pressure at any pipe
Case 1, air vessel Case 2, air vessel Case 3, air vessel diameter.
Pipe of 400 m3 total of 375 m3 total of 350 m3 total However, it is found that using the 1200 mm pipe di-
diameter volume volume volume ameter is optimum for both cases 1 and 2 of air vessel,
(mm) pressure (kPa) where the allowable maximum and minimum pressures are
max min max min max min achieved.
800 588 –3 588 –3 587 –3
900 497 –3 497 –3 495 –3 THE EFFECT OF CHANGING PIPELINE MATERIAL
1000 480 –3 480 –3 479 –3
1100 435 –6 434 –8 431 –13
The maximum and minimum pressures for different
1200 401 –7 401 –9 441 –14
pipe materials are graphically presented in Figures 22 and
1300 454 –7 463 –9 481 –13
1400 453 –4 458 –6 474 –11
23, respectively.
1500 444 –4 450 –4 465 –9
It is found that the great values of maximum pressure
1600 434 –4 438 –4 453 –5 occurred for concrete pipes for the three studied cases. Al-
1700 428 –3 432 –3 445 –3 so, the smaller values of maximum pressure were associat-
1800 432 –3 437 –3 450 –7 ed with GRP pipes except for case 3.
Source: own study. The obtained results show that the small values of
minimum pressure occurred for concrete pipes for the three
Increasing the diameter of the pipeline reduces the studied cases. Also, the greater values of minimum pres-
surge pressures till the value of 1200 mm that represent 2/3 sure were associated with GRP pipes except for case 1.
of original diameter (1800 mm), after which a sudden in- However, cast iron pipes proved to be the best pipe
crease occurs in pressure followed by both increase of min- material for all studied cases for both maximum and mini-
imum pressure and varied changes of maximum pressure. mum pressures.

600
y = -5E-06x3 + 0.0164x2 - 17.236x + 6589.7 y = 2E-06x3 - 0.0098x2 + 15.082x - 7195.6
R² = 0.986 R² = 0.9393
500

400
Pressure (kPa)

300

200

100 y = 3E-21x3 - 1E-05x2 + 0.0429x - 41.595

y = 2E-07x3 - 0.0005x2 + 0.5548x - 189.4
R² = 0.9398 R² = 0.8737
0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
-100

Pipeline diameter (mm)

Max, Case 1-a Max, Case 1-b Min, Case 1-a Min, Case 1-b
Wielob. (Max, Case 1-a) Wielob. (Max, Case 1-b) Wielob. (Min, Case 1-a) Wielob. (Min, Case 1-b)

Fig. 21. Pressure for different pipe diameters for case 1 (air vessel of 400 m3 volume); source: own study

460 GRP steel cast iron concrete

Max pressure (kPa)

440 Min - Case 1 Min - Case 2 Min - Case 3

Min pressure (kPa)

-1
420 -3
-5
400 -7
-9
380 -11
Max - Case 1 Max - Case 2 Max - Case 3
-13
GRP steel cast iron concrete -15

Fig. 22. Maximum pressure for different pipe materials Fig. 23. Minimum pressure for different pipe materials
and different total volumes of air vessels: case 1 = 400 m3, and different total volumes of air vessels: cases 1, 2 and 3;
case 2 = 375 m3, case 3 = 350 m3; GRP = glass reinforced GRP = glass reinforced plastics; source: own study
plastics; source: own study
Transient flow simulation, analysis and protection of pipeline systems 59

CONCLUSIONS BERGANT A., SIMPSON A.R., SIJAMHODZIC E. 2012. Water ham-

mer analysis of pumping system for control of water in un-
From the obtained results, it is concluded that using derground mines [online]. 4th International Mine Water As-
one air vessel (200 m3) and two surge tanks (each of 16 m2) sociation. Ljubliana, Slovenia. [Access 20.12.2019]. Availa-
ble at:
provide the best protection against the pump power failure.
http://mwen.info/docs/imwa_1991/IMWA1991_Bergant_009
On the other hand, using five air vessels (each of 40 m3) .pdf
and vacuum breaker valve will be easier and economical. BERGANT A., KRUISBRINK A., ARREGUI F. 2012. Dynamic behav-
It is found that changing the flow density does not ior of air valves in a large-scale pipeline apparatus. Strojniški
have a significant impact on the pressures, where the val- vestnik – Journal of Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 58(4)
ues of surge pressures are so close for the studied range of p. 225–237. DOI 10.5545/sv-jme.2011.032.
water densities. CARLSSON J. 2016. Water hammer phenomenon analysis using
It is concluded that the value 700 mm for inlet pipe di- the method of characteristics and direct measurements using
ameter (40 % of the original diameter) of air vessel is a “stripped” electromagnetic flow meter [online]. M.Sc. The-
sis. Stockholm, Sweden. Royal Institute of Technology, SE-
a critical value. The pressures decrease as the diameter
106 91 pp. 52. ISSN 0280-316X [Access 10.10.2019]. Avail-
increases till this value, and then the pressures increase as able at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Water-
the diameter increases. Hammer-Phenomenon-Analysis-using-the-Method-a-
To assure safety against the minimum pressures for all Carlsson/85a8886aa 362f70b286a47aee51c7409d4f3450f
studied inlet pipe diameters, it is recommended to use an EL-HAZEK A.N. 2018. Hydro pneumatic tank design for surge
air vessel of 375 m3 volume in case of using only one air protection of irrigation pipeline systems. Journal of Scientific
vessel as a protection against the pump power failure. Research & Reports. Vol. 18(6) p. 1–15. DOI 10.9734/JSRR/
A regression analysis is performed, and equations are 2018/40253.
obtained to predict the maximum and minimum pressures HERASYMOV H.H., GERASIMOV I.G., IVANOV S.Y., PINCHUK O.L.
2019. Experimental study of the effectiveness of a combined
according to the inlet pipe diameter for using only one air
closure of the end gate pipeline valve. Archives of Hydro-
vessel of 400 m3 volume. Engineering and Environmental Mechanics. Vol. 66. No. 1–2
In case of using an air vessel and two surge tanks for p. 3–13. DOI 10.1515/heem-2019-0001.
protection against the pump power failure, it is found that JUNG B.S., KARNEY B.W., BOULOS P.F., WOOD D.J. 2007. The
the maximum pressures increase, and the minimum pres- need for comprehensive transient analysis of distribution sys-
sures decrease as the inlet pipe diameters increase. tems. Journal – American Water Works Association. Vol.
It is concluded that using an air vessel 200 m3 volume 99(1) p. 112–123. DOI 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2007.tb07851.x.
with 800 mm inlet pipe diameter and two surge tanks with KARNEY B.W., MCINNIS D. 1992. Efficient calculation of transi-
area of 14 m2 for each tank will be the most economical ent flow in simple pipe networks. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering. Vol. 118(7) p. 1014–1030. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)
solution for using an air vessel and two surge tanks.
0733-9429(1992)118:7(1014).
A regression analysis is performed, and equations are KOPACZ M., KOWALCZYK A., SMOROŃ S., OSTRACH Z. 2018.
obtained to predict the maximum and minimum pressures Sustainable management of water resources in terms of the
according to the area of surge tank. water needs for agricultural purposes in small rural com-
Increasing the diameter of the pipeline reduces the munes based on the example of the Grybów commune, Po-
surge pressures till the value of 2/3 of original diameter, land. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 39 p. 67–
after which a sudden increase occurs in pressure followed 76. DOI 10.2478/jwld-2018-0060.
by both increase of minimum pressure and varied changes KUNDU P.K., COHEN I.M, DOWLING D.R. 2011. Fluid mechanics.
of maximum pressure. 5th ed. Cambridge. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0123821003
pp. 920.
It is found that using the 1200 mm pipe diameter (2/3
LAHLOU Z.M. 2009. Tech brief – water hammer [online]. Nation-
of original diameter) is optimum for both 400 and 375 m3 al Drinking Water Clearinghouse at West Virginia University.
volumes of air vessel, when using only one air vessel for [Access 20.04.2019]. Available at:
protection. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/30237717/water-
Regression analyses are employed, and equations are hammer-national-environmental-services-center-west-
obtained to predict the pressure according to the pipe LAKEHAL A., LAOUACHERIA F. 2017. Reliability based rehabilita-
diameter. tion of water distribution networks by means of Bayesian
When using only one air vessel for protection, it is networks. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 34
found that the great values of maximum pressure and the p. 163–172. DOI 10.1515/jwld-2017-0051.
LAROCK B.E., JEPPSON R.W., WATTERS G.Z. 1999. Introduction
least values of minimum pressure occurred for concrete
to transient flow, hydraulics of pipeline. 1st ed. Boca Raton.
pipes for three different volumes of air vessel. CRC Press. ISBN 9780849318061 pp. 552.
Cast iron pipes proved to be the best pipe material for LOH K., TIJSSELING A.S. 2014. Water hammer (with FSI): Exact
all studied cases for both maximum and minimum pres- solution - parallelization and application. Pressure Vessels &
sures. Piping Conference. July 20–24, 2014, Anaheim, California,
USA. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Pressure
REFERENCES Vessels and Piping Division (Publication) PVP 2014-28489.
DOI 10.1115/PVP2014-28489.
ORD S.C. 2006. Water hammer – do we need to protect against it?
ABUIZIAH I., OULHAJ A., SEBARI K., OUAZAR D. 2013. Sizing the
How to predict it and prevent it damaging pipelines and
protection devices to control water hammer damage. Interna-
equipment. ACS Symposium Series. No. 151 p. 1–20.
tional Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construc-
tion and Architectural Engineering. Vol. 7(11) p. 894–899.
60 A.N. EL-HAZEK, M.F. AHMED, N.A.-M. BADAWY

PATTERSON R., COVEY G. 2014. Water hammer and other pipe TEZKAN T., GOKKUS U., SINIR G. 1998. Analysis of unsteady
transient flow problems. Appita Journal. Vol. 67(4) p. 283– flow in complex pipe system by the method of characteristics.
287. Mechanical and Computational Applications. Vol. 3(1) p. 27–
SALEHI F. 2010. Solve liquid-hammer problems [online]. Hou- 36.
ston. Hydrocarbon Processing. [Access 04.03.2019]. Availa- VEREIDE K., SVINGEN B., NIELSEN T.K., LIA L. 2017. The effect
ble at: of surge tank throttling on governor stability, power control,
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/magazine/2010/april and hydraulic transients in hydropower plants. IEEE Transac-
-2010/pipingreliability/solve-liquid-hammer-problems tions on Energy Conversion. Vol. 32(1) p. 91–98.
SALMANZADEH M. 2013. Numerical method for modeling transi- YU X.D., ZHANG J., MIAO D. 2015. Innovative closure law for
ent flow in distribution systems. IJCSNS International Jour- pump-turbines and field test verification. Journal of Hydraulic
nal of Computer Science and Network Security. Vol. 13(1) Engineering. Vol. 141(3) p. 1–9. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.
p. 72–78. 1943-7900.0000976.
SHARMA S. 2019. Correlating soil and urban planning for sustain- WOOD D.J. 2005. Water hammer analysis – essential and easy.
able water cycle. Journal of Water and Land Development. Journal of Environmental Engineering. Vol. 131(8) p. 1123–
No. 40 (I–III) p. 137–148. DOI 10.2478/jwld-2019-0015. 1131. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:8(1123).