Against Water Hummer PDF

Security Level 2
-T E G
1-1134-013
ISSUED May.17,13
ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT
FEASIBILITY & PROCESS / UTILITY DESIGN
DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER HAMMER
Unless stamped CONTROLLED, any hard copy is handled as Non-controlled.Users should confirm any time that the
copy is the latest version.
G-TEG1-1134-013h.docx
Security Level 2
DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

HAMMER
ISSUED
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
-T E G
OF
CONTENTS
1.
GENERAL
1.1
Purpose
1.2
Scope
1.3
Related Standards and Manuals
2.
WORK SEQUENCE
3.
IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS
3.1
Typical Systems Subject to Water Hammer Analysis
3.2
Typical Sources of Water Hammer and Related Concerns
3.3
Water Hammer in Others Systems
4.
EXECUTION OF WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS
4.1
Selection of Analysis Method
4.2
Simplified Analysis
4.3
Detailed Analysis
5.
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM DESIGN
5.1
Maximum Pressure
5.2
Fluid Dynamic Load
11
5.3
Design Evaluations for Specific Systems or Components
13
COUNTER-MEASURES AGAINST WATER HAMMER
13
6.
6.1
Generally Applicable Counter-Measures
13
6.2
Cause-Specific or Phenomenon-Specific Counter-Measures
14
Appendix-1 Work Sequence of Water Hammer Analysis
(P.1/1)
Appendix-2 Typical Source of Water Hammer and Counter-measures
(P.1/4-4/4)
Appendix-3 Basics of Water Hammer in Valve Closure Event
(P.1/3-3/3)
Appendix-4 User Manual for Simplified Water Hammer Analysis Program SWHAP
(P.1/6-6/6)
History (P.1/1)
G-TEG1-1134-013.docx
34
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
1.
1.1
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
OF
34
GENERAL
Purpose
Water hammer is the transient phenomena to be taken care of mostly for liquid conveying piping systems, and is
caused by sudden change of the flowing conditions or by quick operations of the associated devices in the piping
system. Strong water hammer could result in;
(1) Excessive overpressure or vacuum in the piping system,
(2) Vibrations, dislocations or deformation of the pipe sections and,
(3) Unintended process or mechanical shut-down due to the severe instability of liquid flow.
To prevent such adversities, it is essential to properly evaluate the water hammer effects and to correctly reflect
the evaluation results in the system design. For this purpose, hydraulic transient analysis (generally referred to as
water hammer analysis or surge analysis) is often required.
This Engineering Guide outlines the extent and methodology of the water hammer analysis for the liquid
conveying piping systems, including how to identify the systems which require such water hammer analysis (i.e.,
potential systems which may cause water hammer problems) and the practical counter-measures to mitigate the
risks of the water hammer related problems.
1.2
Scope
This Engineering Guide is applicable to the design and operation planning of piping systems in process plants
(including utility systems) and of long distance pipelines, which convey single-phase liquids.
1.3
Related Standards and Manuals

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
2.
ASME B31.1
ASME B31.3
ASME B31.4
G-TEG1-1313-008
Power Piping
Process Piping
Pipeline Transportation System for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids
Piping Design for Vibration
WORK SEQUENCE
Engineering design against water hammer shall basically be implemented in accordance with the following
sequences;
(Step 1) Identification (screening) of the systems subject to the water hammer analysis [Section 3]
(Step 2) Execution of water hammer analysis [Section 4]
(Step 3) Evaluation of analysis result [Section 5]
(Step 4) Consideration and execution of counter-measure(s) against water hammer [Section 6]
The responsible discipline and typical timing for the implementation of each task shall be as per Appendix-1.
Details of each task are described in Sections 3 to 6.
3.
IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS

The first step of the engineering design against water hammer is to identify the lines or systems which require the
water hammer analysis. This section describes a guideline for this system identification (screening).
The department in charge of process engineering shall be responsible for this screening. The other departments
shall give the most positive assistance for this task.
As the first step of this screening, such systems that are designed similarly to the ones empirically proven as no
concern of water hammer problems in terms of process conditions and piping configurations may be excluded
from the candidates for the water hammer analysis.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
OF
34
Otherwise, the water hammer analysis will be required for the candidate system if it is classified into one of the
typical systems which are usually subject to the water hammer analysis (Par. 3.1), or if any water hammer related
concern is potentially expected in the system (Par. 3.2 and 3.3).
The necessity of water hammer analysis for the candidate system shall be determined referring to the guidelines in
the following paragraphs.
3.1
Typical Systems Subject to Water Hammer Analysis

The following systems shall basically be subject to the water hammer analysis.
3.1.1 Long Liquid Conveying Lines

Long liquid conveying lines of about 100 [m] or longer often suffer from the water hammer problems caused by
rapid valve closure or pump shut-down in the lines. Such water hammer problems are typically encountered in
the below lines;
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Loading lines and unloading lines

Liquid conveying long pipelines (on-shore and off-shore pipelines)
Inter-connection lines between process units (or between plants)
Product transfer lines between storage tanks
For these lines, valve stroke speeds (see Par. 3.2.1 (A)) shall be optimized based on water hammer analysis.
In case the line length upstream of a closing valve is about 5 [km] or longer, so-called line packing effect
often becomes a problem. This is a phenomenon that, even after the valve closure, the confined liquid in the line
upstream of the closed valve creeps toward the valve (i.e., being packed) by the remaining pressure gradient
along the line, and the valve upstream pressure keeps gradually increasing. Therefore, for such lines, the effect
of line packing shall be evaluated by water hammer analysis.
In the pipelines involving an intermediate pump station, shut-down of the intermediate pump station may cause
pressure increase in its upstream due to the rapid flow reduction at the failed pump station (see Par. 3.2.1(E)). In
such case, a relief system may be required at the inlet of the intermediate pump station.
The possibility of vaporization due to pressure reduction down to the vapor pressure of the liquid shall also be
evaluated for the system because it may cause much severer water hammer associated with liquid column
separation and rejoinment (Refer to 3.2.2 (F)). The typical locations where such a problem is concerned are the
downstream of intermediate pump stations, downstream of emergency shut-down (ESD) valves and failure-close
control valves, especially in case the downstream line length of such equipment is longer than hundreds meters.
3.1.2 Cooling Water System
For cooling water systems (of either freshwater or seawater), the following potential problems are usually
investigated by water hammer analysis;
(1) Shut-down (or unintentional stop) of a cooling water pump is usually followed by sudden closure of its
discharge check valve. Sudden closure of check valve is likely to generate severe water hammer especially
when one of the parallelly operated pumps shuts-down, or when a stand-by pump is started immediately
after the singly operated pump shuts-down. In order to suppress such water hammer due to check valve
closure, the check valve type shall be determined by the water hammer analysis (See Par. 3.2.1 (B)).
(2) Cooling water systems often involve highly elevated cooling water users (such as heat exchangers). In such
systems, cooling water pump(s) shut-down and its subsequent re-start (or auto-start of the stand-by pump)
may cause excessive water hammer due to liquid column separation and rejoinment, especially at the
downstream of the highly elevated cooling water users (See Par.3.2.2 (F)). In such cases, the necessity of
vacuum breakers and their optimum locations and capacities have to be determined by the water hammer
analysis (See Par. 3.2.1 (D)).
(3) The system pressure may fall below the atmospheric pressure by pumps shut-down or upset in process
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
-T E G
OF
34
operation. Note that such vacuum condition will happen even at the low elevation points during the
transients. If the cooling water system has non-metallic (e.g. GRE, FRP) pipe or thin-walled metallic pipe,
such pipe may not be able to withstand the negative pressure (see Par. 3.2.3 (G)). In such cases, the
minimum pressure as well as the maximum pressure in the system shall be evaluated and, if required,
installation of the vacuum breakers (See Par. 3.2.1 (D)) shall be considered based on water hammer
analysis.
3.1.3
Fire Water System

For fire water systems, the following potential problems are usually investigated by water hammer analysis;
(1) Closures of the discharge check valves of fire water pumps. Refer to Par. 3.1.2 (1) above.
(2) In some particular fire scenarios, unexpected severe water hammer may occur due to the interaction of
multiple upset events such as deluge valves or hydrants activation, jockey pump shut-down, and main fire
water pump(s) start-up. Evaluation of system soundness against such complicated fire scenarios is usually
difficult and therefore should be based on water hammer analysis.
Quick opening of a deluge valve may generate impulsive fluid dynamic loads onto the bends and orifices in the
downstream piping because the discharged liquid rushes into the downstream empty pipes and bumps on these
parts. The pipe supports and orifices should be designed to withstand such loads. The magnitude of the liquid
bumping loads can be estimated by the following equation, without performing water hammer analysis;
F = V 2 A
where,
V
A
: Bumping Load [N]

: Liquid Density [kg/m3]
: Bumping Liquid Velocity [m/s]
: Pipe Cross-sectional Area [m2]
In the above calculation, the bumping liquid velocity (V) should be the maximum liquid flow velocity based on
the pressure drop at deluge valve and the pump performance curve.
3.2
Typical Sources of Water Hammer and Related Concerns

The typical systems addressed in Par.3.1 are not exhaustive, and there are other systems for which water hammer
phenomena need to be considered. In order to identify such a system, it is essential to investigate if the
concerned system has any potential source(s) that may cause severe water hammer. In this aspect, water hammer
analysis may also be necessary in the following cases;
(1) When the system contains such equipment or devices that may generate severe water hammer, e.g. quick
close control valves, check valves, pumps, or vacuum breakers (Par.3.2.1).
(2) When the system has the risk of being exposed to the phenomena which may lead to severe water hammer,
e.g., liquid column separation and rejoinment (Par.3.2.2)
(3) When the system has the particular weakness against certain transient conditions which may happen as the
result of water hammer, e.g., excessive negative pressure (Par.3.2.3)
3.2.1 Equipment or Devices Likely to Cause Water Hammer

Water hammer problems are often reported in the systems which contain the equipment or devices addressed in
the below (A) to (E). Therefore, for such systems, necessity of the water hammer analysis shall be evaluated.
(A) Control Valves and Emergency Shut-off Valves
Valve closure is one of potential sources of water hammer. Quick closure of control valve or shut-off valve often
causes excessive pressure increase in the upstream of the valve. In order to suppress such pressure increase
within an acceptable level, longer valve closing time (i.e., slower valve stroke speed) is required for longer
upstream line length of the valve. Typically, for such lines that have the line length of 100[m] or longer at
upstream of the valve, appropriateness of the valve closing time shall be confirmed by water hammer analysis to
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
OF
34
prevent the line from excessive overpressure due to the valve closure.
(B) Check Valves
Ideally, check valve should immediately close at the moment when the flow through it turns from forward to
reverse direction (i.e. when the flow velocity is exactly 0 [m/s]). However, real check valves actually close with
some delay when the reverse flow has developed to a certain magnitude (i.e. when the magnitude of reverse
velocity > 0 [m/s]). Since the check valve closure almost instantaneously stops the developed reverse flow, it
generates water hammer with sharp pressure increase at the outlet side (upstream side in reverse flow condition)
of the closed check valve and pressure decrease at the inlet side (downstream side in reverse flow condition) of
the same. It should also be noted that such sharp pressure increase and decrease across the check valve tends to
generate excessive fluid dynamic load onto the check valve.
The magnitudes of the pressure increase/decrease by the check valve closure are proportional to the maximum
reverse flow velocity just before the closure. Since the maximum reverse flow velocity depends on the dynamic
performance of the check valve, selection of the check valve with good dynamic performance is of utmost
importance to mitigate the water hammer problems. The dynamic performance of a check valve is usually
provided by the vendor upon request as a graphical plot of the maximum reverse velocity with respect to socalled system deceleration that means deceleration of the flow velocity through the check valve before its
closure. A check valve of superior dynamic performance (such as dual plate check valve and nozzle check
valve) closes at lower reverse velocity and better reduces the water hammer due to its closure. However, check
valves of superior dynamic performance tend to be more expensive and to generate higher pressure loss.
Therefore, it is essential to choose optimum check valves considering the severities of the water hammer effects
based on water hammer analysis.
A typical application of check valves which needs such consideration is for the pump discharges. Especially
when the system comes under either of the following cases, water hammer analysis shall be carried out in order
to decide whether the check valve with superior dynamic performance is required or not;
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Two or more pumps are operated in parallel,

Stand-by pump is automatically started just after the shut-down of the operating pump,
Pump head is high (typically more than 100 [m]),
Inertia moment of Pump rotor system is small (see Par. 3.2.1(E)),
Check valve size is 14 [inch] or bigger.
(C) Pump Discharge MOVs

Motor operated valves (MOVs) are sometimes used at the pump discharge without check valves. In general,
such MOVs are automatically closed upon shut-down of their upstream pumps in order to prevent the reverse
flow through the shut-down pumps. However, the closing speed of such MOVs needs to be slow not to cause
severe water hammer due to the MOVs closure. The closing speed of MOVs shall be determined by the water
hammer analysis taking into account of such reverse flow conditions.
It should be noted that the shut-down pump will be exposed to the reverse flow and come to reverse rotation. If
the pump or its driver has any limitation on the allowable reverse rotation speed, the MOV need to be closed so
quickly as to keep the reverse rotation within the acceptable limit. However, too quick MOV closure will cause
the above mentioned water hammer. Therefore, in order to find out the optimum MOV closing speed to mitigate
both the problems, transients of the pump rotation speed after the pump shut-down shall be studied by water
hammer analysis in such case.
(D) Vacuum Breakers
Vacuum breakers are sometimes used to prevent excessive negative pressure in a system by introducing ambient
air into the system. Two-way vacuum breakers have the additional function to vent the entrapped air upon
pressure recovery in the system. However, vacuum breakers are not applicable to the piping systems conveying
flammable and toxic liquids.
Air intake and venting capacities of a vacuum breaker and its installation location may be determined without
much considerations on the water hammer effects provided that the vacuum breaker is expected to function only
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
OF
34
in mild system transients of the system, e.g., controlled draining-out in which atmospheric air is just introduced
from the elevated locations or controlled filling-up in which residual air is slowly vented from the elevated
locations.
However, if the vacuum breaker is expected to function during severe system transients typically encountered in
the events of pump shut-down and subsequent auto-start, the intake and venting capacities and location of the
vacuum breaker shall be determined based on the water hammer analysis. Otherwise, the vacuum breaker may
not properly function, or may even become another source of water hammer (e.g., unnecessarily big venting
capacity may cause water hammer upon the completion of air venting due to slam shut of the venting port. See
also Par.3.2.2 (F)).
(E) Pumps
Start-up and shut-down of a pump are also typical sources of water hammer. The rotation speed of a pump
which has small moment of inertia (generally termed as GD2 or WR2) as a whole rotating system (i.e. total
GD2 including pump rotor + coupling + driver rotor + other associated rotating parts such as gear, if any)
quickly accelerates upon its start-up and rapidly decelerates upon its shut-down. Hence, start-up and shut-down
of such pump are likely to generate rapid pressure transients in the system and may cause water hammer
problems.
Especially upon the shut-down of such a small GD2 (or WR2) pump, it is likely that the reverse flow through
the pump rapidly develops and the closure of its discharge check valve may cause severe water hammer problem
as addressed in Par. 3.2.1 (B). In other words, pumps with smaller total GD2 result in bigger system deceleration,
which causes the check valve closure at higher reverse velocity, which tends to result in severer water hammer.
Likewise, if the pump has rather high pumping head, such reverse flow development is more rapid because of
the bigger pressure difference across the pump. Also in such case, the water hammer due to check valve closure
is therefore more likely to be severer.
Such a pump that is driven by a two-pole electric motor, a steam / hydraulic turbine, or a gasoline / diesel engine
tends to have small moment of inertia in its whole rotating system. Therefore, especially when the system has
such a pump, water hammer effects during pump start-up and shut-down shall be investigated by water hammer
analysis.
In addition to the above, rapid flow reduction at a pump due to its shut-down sometimes causes remarkable
pressure increase in its upstream line (i.e., pump suction line) when the upstream line length is several hundred
meters or longer. Therefore, also for such lines or systems, water hammer effects during pump shut-down shall
be investigated by the water hammer analysis. Such configurations are typically found in the long pipelines
involving intermediate pump stations (also refer to Par.3.1.1).
3.2.2
Particular Phenomena to Cause Severe Water Hammer

Liquid column separation can cause severe water hammer especially when the separated liquid columns rejoin
with their collision. For the systems which may suffer from the liquid column separation, the water hammer
analysis shall be carried out based on the following guideline.
(F) Liquid Column Separation and Rejoinment

During pressure transients, localized liquid vaporization occurs when the static pressure at the location drops to
the vapor pressure of the fluid. This causes formation of a void space (vapor zone) and breaking of the liquid
column in the line. The separated liquid columns may be rejoined by the subsequent system pressure recovery,
involving collapse of the void space in between. These phenomena are generally referred to as liquid column
separation and liquid column rejoinment. The latter may cause large and almost instantaneous pressure rise
leading to severe water hammer problems.
The liquid column separation is likely to occur at highly elevated piping sections especially at the downstream
of pressure reducing devices and equipment such as valves and heat exchangers, being associated with system
depressurization due typically to pump shut-down. Rapid restart of the failed pump or auto-start of the stand-by
pump after the liquid column separation may cause or enhance violent liquid column rejoinment. Therefore, if
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
OF
34
the system has highly elevated control valves or equipment (empirically, in cooling water systems, more than
about 20 [m] above the pump elevation), the possibility and effects of the liquid column separation and
rejoinment shall be investigated by water hammer analysis.
In addition to the above, in case the pressure margin between the minimum static pressure in the system and the
vapor pressure of the flowing liquid during normal operation is less than about 10 [m] in potential head, such
system is considered to have a risk of water hammer problems due to the liquid column separation and
rejoinment in a transient condition, and shall therefore be subject to water hammer analysis.
Similar situations to such liquid column separation and rejoinment are brought about by the introduction of
vapor or non-condensable gas into liquid filled lines, and by the accumulation of vapors at high pockets due to
heat input or depressurization of the system. A typical event of non-condensable gas introduction is activation of
a vacuum breaker. If a two way vacuum breaker is used, the entrapped air in a pipe is vented upon system
pressure recovery being pushed by the adjacent liquid columns moving toward the vacuum breaker. Upon
completion of the air venting, the vent port closes almost instantaneously, and this closure abruptly stops the
liquid motion. At this moment, severe water hammer may be generated in the pipe if the air venting capacity is
unnecessarily large because the liquid velocity to push the air volume out of the pipe becomes high in such case.
Vapor injection into the saturated or sub-cooled liquid is often applied in condensate lines. Formation of big
vapor cavities in such liquid tends to cause severe water hammer due to collapse of the vapor cavities. This type
of water hammer is generally referred to as condensation induced water hammer or steam hammer.
However, it is currently difficult to simulate the water hammer involving forced vapor injection. The practical
measures to mitigate such condensation hammer is to use injection nozzles to create small vapor bubbles
(instead of creating big vapor bubbles), or to add a little amount of non-condensable gas (< 0.5 vol%) into the
vapor.
Vapor accumulation at high pockets may develop even during the system downtime. Rapid pressurization or
liquid introduction under such situation may cause violent collapse of the vapor zones at the high pockets.
However, evaluation of such events is also difficult by water hammer analysis. As a practical mitigation
measure, ensure proper thermal insulations to prevent vapor generation. Gentle operation of shut-off valves is
also essential to prevent violent collapse of the vapor zones. It is recommendable to provide small fill-up line(s)
dedicated for re-starting the system.
3.2.3 Limitations Arising from System Components or Process Requirements
For the systems which do not permit certain conditions (e.g., negative pressure, minimum flow rate, or motor
over current as detailed below), water hammer analysis may be necessary even if the above conditions in
Par.3.2.1 and Par.3.2.2 do not apply.
(G) Negative Pressure
Some non-metallic pipes, thin-walled metallic pipes, and particular equipment such as thin-walled tanks have
the limitations in the allowable negative pressure. Therefore, in a system involving such components, negative
peak pressure becomes one of dominant factors for their applications.
In such cases, the magnitude of negative pressure during the probable transient events such as pump shut-down
or valve closure shall be carefully investigated by water hammer analysis.
(H) Minimum Flow Rate
In some cases, liquid flow rates in particular lines or equipment have to be kept above certain limits even during
the transient conditions in order to satisfy the process requirements. A typical example of such requirement is
the minimum cooing water flow rate for a critical heat exchanger.
If the system contains such lines or equipment, not only the pressure transients in the system but also the
minimum flow rates in the lines or equipment during the expected upset events shall be confirmed by water
hammer analysis.
In order to satisfy the minimum flow requirement, implementation of a mitigation measure such as immediate
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
OF
34
start-up of a stand-by pump, quick valve operation action, etc., may be required during the upset event. However,
the effectiveness of the measure shall be confirmed by water hammer analysis because it may bring new water
hammer problems in the system.
(I) Over-Current in Electric Motors
When a part of parallelly operated pumps shut-down, the discharge header pressure rapidly decreases, and the
flow rate through each remaining pump still in operation rapidly increases according to the reduction of
pumping head. In most cases, such pump flow increase reaches its peak just before the closure of the check
valve (or the MOV) for the shut-down pump(s). Such pump flow increase raises pumping load and may result in
electric over-current in its driver motor.
Therefore, in case the electric power for the pump motors is critical (i.e. in case the motor output power does not
cover the end of the pump performance curve), transients of the pump operating point during partial pump shutdown shall be confirmed by the water hammer analysis.
3.3
Water Hammer in Others Systems
3.3.1 Vendor Package Facility

Water hammer mitigation is sometimes overlooked in the vendor package facilities. However, the possibility of
severe water hammer occurrence shall be checked according to the guidelines in Par.3.2 for the vendor package
facility as well. In case severe water hammer is expected, request the vendor to verify their design against water
hammer as a part of the ordering conditions.
3.3.2 System outside of Project Scope
Severe water hammer originated from the system outside the project scope may influence the system inside the
project scope. A typical system for which such problem is often highlighted is the cooling water network in a
petrochemical complex with a common utility facility. In this case, for example, the cooling water sub-system in
a particular process plant under Contractor-As scope in the complex may suffer from the severe water hammer
generated in the utility plant under Contractor-Bs scope (e.g., by cooling water pump shut-down, etc.) because
it propagates over the complex through the network. Obviously, the water hammer assessment for the process
plant in such case requires the information on the other related systems outside of Contractor-As project scope,
such as details of the main cooling water system in the utility plant under Contractor-Bs scope.
As above, detailed information on the system outside the project scope is sometimes indispensable for the proper
water hammer analysis for the system inside the project scope. In such cases, water hammer analysis will have
to cover majority of the system in the complex. Hence, the following matters at least should be agreed among
the related parties before commencement of the project;
(1) which party shall carry out the water hammer analysis,
(2) how the result shall be reflected into each contractors sub-system design,
(3) which party shall be responsible for the overall coordination for the above (1) and (2)
Note that it is generally not proper approach to ignore the interaction with the system outside the project scope
by just assuming the constant pressure or flow rate at the battery limit.
4.
4.1
EXECUTION OF WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS

Selection of Analysis Method
Water hammer analysis can be carried out by either simplified analysis or detailed analysis. The simplified
analysis requires much less input data and computation time than those for the detailed analysis. However, the
simplified analysis is applicable only to the estimation of the minimum required valve closing time in a long line
that satisfies all of the following conditions.
(1) Line configuration
(2) Line length upstream of the closing valve
: Single line without branch

: 100 to 5000 [m]
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Line length downstream of the closing valve

Liquid velocity prior to the valve closure
Pipe diameter
Diameter change in the line upstream of the closing valve
Pressure drop excluding the pipe friction loss
Pipe class
Valve closing speed
Upstream end condition (boundary condition)
Downstream end condition (boundary condition)
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
OF
34
: Shorter than 100 [m]

: Less than 4 [m/s]
: 2 to 12 [inches]
: Only one location is allowed
: Less than 15 [bar]
: 150 [lb]
: Constant
: Constant pressure
: Constant pressure
If any of the above conditions is not satisfied, the detailed analysis shall be considered. The detailed analysis is
capable of handling a great variety of water hammer problems.
4.2
Simplified Analysis
The simplified analysis to estimate the minimum required valve closing time in a long single line shall be
implemented by the department in charge of process engineering. For this simplified analysis, the in-house
software named SWHAP can be used. SWHAP estimates the minimum required valve closing time to avoid
excessive overpressure in the line. Refer to Appendix-4 for the details on its use.
For the lines longer than 5 [km] and for loading or unloading lines regardless of its length, estimation of the
minimum required valve closing time shall be based on the detailed analysis.
Even if the minimum required valve closing time estimated by SWHAP is unacceptably long from the process or
safety requirement perspective, reduction of the valve closing time may be possible by applying multiple closing
speeds (see Section 6(A)). However, the multiple closing speeds need to be examined based on the detailed
analysis because SWHAP accepts a single (constant) closing speed only.
4.3
Detailed Analysis
The detailed analysis shall be implemented by the department in charge of applied analysis. For this detailed
analysis, the in-house software named WATHAM-II can be used. WATHAM-II is capable of computing
various liquid flow transients including liquid column separation and rejoinment in a complicated piping
network involving many equipment and instruments such as pumps, valves, orifices, vacuum breakers, PID
controllers and so on. Refer to WATHAM-II input manual for the details on its use.
In order to evaluate the water hammer event, it is important to properly identify the critical upset scenarios and
relevant operating conditions in the system, so that the severest water hammer phenomena can be reproduced
and evaluated by the analysis. Typical critical scenarios and conditions which are often considered in the detailed
water hammer analysis are summarized in Appendix-2 for reference. However, the actual scenarios and
conditions shall be determined on a case-by-case basis, based on the detailed discussion with the process
engineer in charge, taking into account of the control logic and the operation procedure of the system.
5.
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM DESIGN

In order to prevent the water hammer problems, soundness of the system design shall be correctly evaluated
based on the results of the water hammer analysis. This section describes the evaluation points as well as the
acceptance criteria.
In case any unacceptable problem is identified in the considering system, necessary mitigation measure(s) shall
be implemented, which are described in Section 6.
5.1
Maximum Pressure
Overpressure prevention is essential in the system design against water hammer. The maximum pressure at any
points in the system during the most critical upset event, which has been expected by the water hammer analysis,
shall be within the criteria specified in ASME B31 code series for pressure piping unless otherwise specified.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
10
OF
34
Classification of ASME B31 code series is summarized in Table 1. As the first step of the evaluation process,
the applicable code shall be determined.
Table 1
ASME B31 Pressure Piping
Codes
B31.1
Power Piping
B31.3
Process Piping
B31.4
Pipeline Transportation System for

Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids
B31.5
Refrigeration Piping and Heat Transfer

Components
Gas Transmission and Distribution
Piping Systems
B31.8
B31.9
Building Services Piping
B31.11
B31.12
Slurry Transportation Piping Systems

Hydrogen Piping and Pipelines
General applications
Piping systems in electric power plants, industrial
institutional plants, geothermal heating systems, and
central / district heating and cooling systems
Piping systems in petroleum refineries; chemical,
pharmaceutical, textile, paper, semiconductor, and
cryogenic plants; and related processing plants and
terminals.
Piping systems for transporting liquids between
production facilities, tank farms, natural gas
processing plants, refineries, pump stations, ammonia
plants, terminals, and other delivery and receiving
points.
Refrigerant, heat transfer components, and secondary
coolant piping for temperatures as low as -196C.
Gas transmission and distribution piping systems,
including gas pipelines, gas compressor stations, gas
metering and regulation stations, etc.
Piping in industrial, institutional, commercial and
public buildings, and multi-unit residences, which does
not require the range of sizes, pressures, and
temperatures covered in the B31.1
Piping systems for slurry transportation
Piping systems for hydrogen transportation
Among the B31 code series above, B31.1, B31.3 or B31.4 was applied to the design of liquid service piping in
the majorities of the past projects. Note that the acceptable allowances for the occasional pressure variations or
transient overpressure are different in each code, which are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
Note that the design pressure often differs from one section to another in a system. Special attention shall
therefore be paid in such system, because the section of lower allowable pressure may result in overpressure
even when the pressure variation is acceptable for the section of higher allowable pressure.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
Table 2
Pipe materials
15% of design pressure

20% of design pressure
Non-metallic pipes
(Para.III-2.1.2)
Metallic pipes with
nonmetals
(Para.III-2.1.2)
OF
34
Allowances for Pressure Variations in ASME B31.1 (2010)
Acceptable allowances*
Metallic pipes
(Para.102.2.4)
11
None
The above allowances for
metallic pipes are permitted
Specific Prerequisites**
For no more than 8 hours at any one time and not more
than 800 hours per year.
For not more than 1 hour at any one time and not more
Allowances for variations of pressure, temperature, or
both, above design conditions are not permitted.
Only if the suitability of the lining material for the
increased conditions is established through prior
successful experience or tests under comparable
conditions.
*NOTE: When applying these criteria, refer to the original statements in B31.1.
**NOTE: Refer also to the specific precautions against water hammer given in Para.V-11.1.
Table 3
Pipe materials
Metallic pipes
(Para.302.2.4)
33% of the pressure rating
Non-metallic pipes
(Para.A302.2.4))
Metallic pipes with
non-metallic
linings
(Para.A302.2.4)
None
The above allowances for
the metallic pipes are
permitted
Specific Prerequisites
Subject to the owners approval.
For no more than 10 hours at any one time and no more
Subject to the owners approval.
For no more than 50 hours at any one time and no more
When the variation is self-limiting (e.g. due to a pressure
relieving event), and lasts no more than 50 hours at any
one time and not more than 500 hours per year.
Allowances for variations of pressure or temperature, or
both, above design conditions are not permitted.
Only if the suitability of the lining material for the
increased conditions is established through prior
successful service experience or tests under comparable
conditions.
*NOTE: When applying these criteria, refer to the original statements and the other criteria in B31.3.
Table 4
Pipe materials
Specific Prerequisites
Metallic pipes with 10% of the internal design Surge calculations should be made and adequate controls
or without nonpressure of the piping
and protective equipment shall be provided.
metallic linings
system and equipment
(Para.403.3.4)
(Para.404.1.5)
*NOTE: When applying these criteria, refer to the original statements in B31.4.
5.2
Fluid Dynamic Load

Evaluation of the fluid dynamic loads on the piping system induced by water hammer is also essential and the
results shall be reflected into the designs of the pipe supports including the related structures and foundations.
Significant fluid dynamic load over 1000 [kN] (100 [tonf]) on a pipe support is possible in large bore pipe
systems, even if the pressure fluctuations in the system is fully within the acceptable allowance. In addition,
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
-T E G
12
OF
34
check valve closure or liquid column rejoinment are likely to cause severe water hammer involving peaky
pressure fluctuations and larger fluid dynamic loads onto the valve. Therefore, especially in such cases, the fluid
dynamic loads on the piping system shall be carefully evaluated.
As shown in Fig.1, at this particular moment, the fluid dynamic load F on the straight pipe section is induced
by the pressure difference between the two ends of the straight pipe section (Elbow 1 and Elbow 2), so that
the pipe section is pushed toward the higher pressure end Elbow 1.
Fig. 1 Fluid dynamic load induced on a pipe section
The water hammer caused by quick valve closure (e.g. check valve closure) induces the typical pressure jump as
illustrated in Fig.2. In this case, the fluid dynamic load F acts to push the valve in the flow direction (i.e.,
toward left hand side in Fig. 2). The magnitude of the fluid dynamic load F can be calculated by summation of
the loads at both the pipe sections adjacent to the valve as indicated in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Fluid dynamic load induced on a check valve
Because of the transient nature of the water hammer phenomena, the pressure in each pipe section and the
resultant fluid dynamic load rapidly change time by time during the upset event. Hence, the maximum value of
the fluid dynamic load during the upset event shall be calculated from the detailed analysis results.
Pipe supports including the related structures and foundations at any locations in the piping system shall
withstand the maximum fluid dynamic load expected at the relevant pipe sections. This evaluation can be carried
out in either static or dynamic manners. In the static evaluation, the maximum dynamic load F shall be
regarded as an impulsive load, and is converted into the equivalent static load Fs by the multiplier factor of 2
(i.e., Fs = 2 x F). Then, Fs shall be less than the maximum allowable load for the pipe support. The maximum
allowable loads for the pipe supports shall be given by the piping engineer in charge.
The static evaluation is easy to conduct but rather conservative in many cases. Hence, if the equivalent static
load exceeds the maximum acceptable load for the pipe support in the static evaluation, dynamic evaluation
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
13
OF
34
should be considered to improve the accuracy. The dynamic evaluation is based on the time history analysis by
the pipe stress analysis software (e.g., Caesar-II provided by Intergraph Corporation). In this analysis, the
reaction force on each pipe support in the modeled piping is computed in a transient manner taking account of
complex interactions between the piping geometry and the transients of the fluid dynamic load acting on each
pipe section that have been expected by the detailed water hammer analysis. In this dynamic evaluation, it shall
be confirmed that the maximum reaction force at each pipe support is less than the maximum acceptable load
throughout the computation time that is long enough to capture the piping system response to the fluid dynamic
loading.
Note that consideration of the actual (or reasonably assumed) stiffness of each pipe support associated with the
relevant structure and foundation is essential for this dynamic analysis, because higher stiffness of a pipe support
will result in greater reaction forces on it. Therefore, the pipe support stiffness shall be carefully and properly
estimated for the dynamic evaluation.
5.3
Design Evaluations for Specific Systems or Components

For some specific systems or components, evaluation of maximum pressure and fluid dynamic load as above is
not sufficient and other particular design concerns need to be resolved as addressed in Par. 3.2.3. The necessary
information for such particular design evaluations can be retrieved from the detailed analysis in most cases.
Consult the analysis engineer in charge as early as possible if any particular design evaluation is required.
6.
COUNTER-MEASURES AGAINST WATER HAMMER

Once any serious risk associated with the water hammer phenomena has been identified, counter-measure to
mitigate the risk shall be considered referring to the below guidelines. The typical counter-measures against
frequently encountered water hammer problems are detailed in Par. 6.2 and are also summarized in Appendix-2.
6.1
(A)
Generally Applicable Counter-Measures

Increase of Design Pressure
Increasing design pressure of the piping system will be one of the sound measures against the overpressure due
to water hammer. However, this approach should be chosen only when any other practical and economical
measures are not applicable or not effective for the facing overpressure problem.
(B)
Reinforcement of Pipe Support

Reinforcement of the pipe supports (including the related structures and foundations if required) is one of the
practical measures when it is difficult to prevent or relax the water hammer which will cause overload onto the
pipe supports. Refer to Par.5.2 for the evaluation of fluid dynamic loads.
(C)
Installation of Air Vessel, Surge Tank or Accumulator

Air vessel, surge tank or accumulator is sometimes applied in order to suppress the water hammer. The features
of these devices are as below;
Air vessel
: Pressurized air (or inert gas) above liquid surface in the vessel works as a cushion.
Surge tank
: Liquid surface in the tank is kept at around atmospheric pressure (i.e., open to atmosphere).
Accumulator : Similar to air vessels, except that gas and liquid are separated in the vessel by a
flexible membrane or elastic diaphragm
These devices allow the big change in liquid volume within their structure and this brings the function to act like
a shock absorber against pressure fluctuations in the piping system. The design parameters for these devices
such as required liquid volume change to be absorbed, etc., can be determined by the detailed water hammer
analysis. However, other counter-measures should firstly be sought because a rather big volume is usually
required for these devices in order to make them effective for water hammer suppression.
(D)
Installation of Surge Relief Valve
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
14
OF
34
In most cases, increase of water hammer pressure is so quick (almost instantaneous) that the ordinary pressure
relief valves cannot fully respond to it. Hence, in order to relieve such water hammer pressure, it is necessary to
apply the surge relief valves of quick response instead of ordinary pressure relief valves.
One of such quick response surge relief valves is Flexflo Surge Reliever manufactured by Dresser Inc. This
device has the advantage also in its big relief capacity.
Note that, in order to apply the surge relief valve in a system, the associated facilities such as a slop tank to
receive the relieved fluid, pumping facility for liquid return, pressure source for the surge relief valve itself, etc.,
will also be required.
6.2
Cause-Specific or Phenomenon-Specific Counter-Measures
(A)
Water Hammer Caused by Valve Closure
(1) Reduction of Valve Closing Speed

Reduction of valve closing speed is essential for relaxation of the water hammer caused by valve closure.
Increasing the valve closing time (i.e. reducing the valve closing speed) will reduce the magnitudes of pressure
increase at upstream (and pressure decrease at downstream) of the closing valve.
However, note that this effect is realizable only when the effective valve closing time Te is shorter than the
system characteristic time Tc of the line. The characteristic time Tc is defined as Tc = 2L/a, where L is
the line length upstream of the closing valve up to the reservoir or any significant flow area expansion such as
connection to a vessel, header pipe, pit, etc., and a stands for the sound speed in the conveying liquid [m/s]
(see also Appendix-3). While the effective valve closing time Te can be defined as the closing time measured
from the moment when the flow reduction by the valve closure becomes significant as shown in Fig.3(a) (but not
necessarily from 15% opening as in this figure).
The minimum valve closing time required for suppressing the pressure increase within a limit may be estimated
by either the simplified or the detailed water hammer analysis. Refer to Par. 4.1 and 4.2 for the selection of the
analysis method.
Refer also to Appendix-3.
(2) Application of Two-Step Closure
Although the reduction of valve closing speed will be effective to relax the water hammer due to its closure as
discussed above, an unrealistically long closing time may be required for the valve, which is not permissible due
to process control or safety reasons. For such cases, application of two-step closure will be a practical measure to
shorten the valve closing time keeping the effect of water hammer relaxation. The two-step closure is to close the
valve in the following manner;
(Step-1) While the valve opening is wider than a threshold, the valve is quickly closed.
(Step-2) After the valve opening is reduced below the threshold, the valve is slowly closed.
Figure 3(a) shows a typical flow change through a valve during its closure by single step manner. As shown,
valve flow reduction with its closure is not sensitive to the opening reduction while its opening is wider than the
threshold (the threshold is about 15% in Fig.3 but this depends on valve types). Hence, the valve can be rather
quickly closed in this opening range as shown in Fig.3(b), as long as the flow velocity reduction per unit time is
restricted not to cause a big pressure increase at the valve upstream. The valve closing speeds for Step-1 and
Step-2 as well as the valve opening at which the closing speed to be switched shall be determined by the detailed
water hammer analysis using the actual Cv characteristic curve obtained from the manufacturer.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
-T E G
15
OF
34
Fig. 3 Relation of valve opening and flow rate
The above mentioned two-step closure of MOVs is usually realized by use of the multi-speed gear. It should be
noted that the two-step closure can be approximated using the single speed gear by repeating on-off action as
shown in Fig.4. However, the effectiveness of such approximation shall also be confirmed by the detailed water
hammer analysis.
Fig. 4 Approximation of two-step closure by repeating ON/OFF action using a single speed actuator
(3) Change of Valve Type

The pressure increase due to valve closure largely depends on the Cv-Opening characteristics of the valve.
Hence, changing the valve type can be a solution for the water hammer mitigation. Such valves that show the
characteristics of comparatively big Cv change in the smaller opening range (especially near 0%) have the
shorter effective closing time Te and tend to cause quicker valve flow reduction just before their complete
closure which will results in severer water hammer generation.
Figure 8 compares the typical Cv characteristic curves of gate, ball and butterfly valves of 8 size. Just from this
comparison, it can be said that the ball valve is the best for preventing such water hammer among the three types,
while the gate valve is the worst. Note that this comparison is just for reference. Hence, actual Cv-curves shall
be compared when valve type change is considered for actual systems.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
-T E G
16
OF
34
Fig. 5 Typical Cv characteristic curves of 8 valves
(4) Installation of Additional Shut-off Valve

Reduction of valve closing time or of pressure increase itself is possible also by provision of an additional shutoff valve in the line upstream of the closing valve. In this case, it is important to locate the additional valve at
around the middle of the line length as shown in Fig.6 and to close the additional valve synchronously with the
closing action of the original valve.
Fig. 6 provision of an additional shut-off valve

A valve closure causes pressure increase at its upstream side and pressure decrease at its downstream side.
Therefore, the downstream pressure of the additional valve decreases while the upstream pressure of the original
valve increases. Due to the interaction between these increasing and decreasing pressure waves, the pressure
increase in the section between the two valves can be relaxed if the effective closing time of these valves are
longer than (L/2)/a. As to the other section (upstream of the additional valve), the effective closing time longer
than L/a reduces the maximum pressure increase in this section. Note that L/a is the half of the original
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
17
OF
34
characteristic time 2L/a. As such, characteristic time of a long pipeline and minimum valve closing time for
overpressure prevention can be reduced to about a half of the original value by such an additional valve.
It will be possible to further shorten the characteristic time of the pipeline by similarly installing two or more
additional valves.
(5) Shut-down of Pump(s)
Shut-down of the pump(s) at upstream of the closing valve is an effective measure to prevent excessive pressure
increase by the valve closure. The pressure fall at the pump discharge along with the rotating speed deceleration
rapidly propagates toward the closing valve and this will cancel the pressure increase by the valve closure.
On the other hand, reduction of the flow rate due to pump shut-down is usually very gradual comparing with the
pressure fall at the pump discharge because of the big inertia of the flowing liquid. Therefore, pressure drop at
the pressure reducing devices in the line will be almost unchanged for a while even after the pump shut-down.
Care should be taken also for such pressure drop because it may cause excessive low pressure at the downstream
of in-line pressure reducing devices.
(B)
Water Hammer Caused by Check Valve Closure

(1) Reinforcement of Check Valve Support and Installation of Bellows
Check valve closure is likely to cause severe water hammer associated with the impulsive fluid dynamic load
onto the check valve itself (see Pars. 3.2.1(B) and 5.2). The magnitude of this fluid dynamic load shall be
calculated by the detailed analysis and be reflected into the support design including related structure and
foundation.
In case a huge fluid dynamic load over 200-300 [kN] ( 20-30 [tonf]) is expected to act onto the check valve for
a pump, the check valve support and the pump shall be mounted on a common stiff foundation. In addition,
bellows should be provided between the pump and the check valve to ensure protection of the pump casing from
the fluid dynamic load.
(2) Application of Check Valve with Superior Dynamic Performance

To suppress the water hammer due to check valve closure, it is essential to apply the special check valve with
superior dynamic performance which is designed to close before the reverse flow is highly developed (i.e. the
special check valve closes early at relatively small reverse flow).
The dynamic performance of a check valve is usually expressed by the dynamic characteristic curve as shown in
Fig. 7. In this figure, system deceleration stands for the deceleration rate of the flow velocity through the
check valve when the flow velocity turns to reverse. The system deceleration is the system specific parameter
that is dependent on the flowing conditions, piping configurations, pump performance, inertia moment of pump
and driver, etc. and can be estimated by the detailed water hammer analysis. On the other hand, maximum
reverse velocity in Fig. 7 is the largest reverse flow velocity which can be developed at the check valve before
its closure. The maximum reverse velocity is the function of the system deceleration and the relationship
between the two is termed dynamic performance of the check valve. Superior dynamic performance means
that the maximum reverse velocity is small at the expected system deceleration. The dynamic performance can
be obtained from the manufacturer if available. Note that dynamic performance curves of swing check valves
are basically not available even from the famous international manufacturers. The dynamic performances of
typical check valves are compared in Table 5. Either Dual Plate or Piston / Nozzle types are often selected
as a counter-measure to prevent severe water hammer due to check valve closure.
Note that some of the spring loaded check valves require the flow velocity higher than the critical velocity to
fully open the valve body. If these check valves are used at partially opened position (i.e. at a low flow velocity
below its critical velocity), unexpectedly big pressure loss and/or valve chattering may happen. Therefore, it
shall be ensured that the flow velocity at the operating condition is higher than the critical velocity of the check
valve. The critical velocity is one of the characteristic properties of the check valve and is provided by the check
valve manufacturer.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
1-1134-013
PAGE
MAY.17,13
-T E G
18
OF
34
Other than the check valves listed in Table 5, some manufacturers may offer special check valves for water
hammer prevention equipped with counter weight and/or hydraulic damper (e.g. Model Fackert FDEK-G by
Schwietzke Armaturen GmbH and Model AZI-AGF by Adams Armaturen GmbH). Water hammer upon closure
of these valves should be prevented by the similar mechanism (multi-step closure) addressed in Par. 6.2 (A)-(2)
which is realized by the counter weight and/or hydraulic damping system. However, it is currently difficult to
quantitatively evaluate the water hammer effects associated with the dynamic characteristic of such special
valves. These valves are therefore not widely used within Toyo and the application of such check valves is
currently under examination. In case application of such a special check valve needs to be considered, specialist
advice by piping or applied analysis shall be sought.
Fig. 7
Dynamic characteristic curve of check valve
Table 5 Classification of check valves and dynamic performance

Check valve type
Dynamic performance
Representative vendors
1
Swing
Poor
Dual Plate (Split Disk)
Good
Axial Piston or Nozzle
Excellent
Crane / Stockham
Goodwin International
Mokveld Valves BV
Cameron / Entech
Crane / Stockham
Goodwin International
(3) Provision of Delay Time before Start-up of Stand-by Pump

It may be effective to provide a delay time before the start-up of the stand-by pump after the shut-down of the
operating pump in order to prevent the water hammer due to check valve closure.
If the stand-by pump is immediately started just after the shut-down of the operating pump, the pressure in the
discharge header will be highly maintained by the started pump even after the pump shut-down. Then the high
discharge header pressure enhances the development of backward flow through the shut-down pump (i.e., it
causes higher system deceleration) and may cause severe water hammer due to slam shut of the check valve at
the big reverse velocity. However, if the stand-by pump is started with a proper delay time after the shut-down
of the operating pump, the development of backward flow through the shut-down pump will be milder and,
hence, the water hammer due to the check valve closure will also be relaxed.
The optimum delay time should be determined by the detailed water hammer analysis. In case there is any
requirement in the minimum flow rate as addressed in Par. 3.2.3 (H), the delay time should be determined so
that the required minimum flow rate can be satisfied even in the period of delay time.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
(C)
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
19
OF
34
Water Hammer Caused by MOV Closure at Pump Discharge
(1) Reduction of Valve Closing Speed

As discussed in Par.6.2 (A)-(1), reduction of MOV closing speed is essential for mitigation of water hammer
due to its closure associated with the pump shut-down. However, slower closing of the MOV will result in the
development of larger reverse flow through the shut-down pump, which will lead to higher reverse rotation
speed of the pump and its driver. The two-step closure as discussed in Par.6.2 (A)-(2) may be required in such
cases. The acceptable closing speed of the MOV including application of the two-step closure shall therefore be
determined based on the detailed analysis, by considering both the water hammer effect and the pump reverse
rotation.
(E)
Water Hammer Caused by Start-up or Shut-down of Pump
(1) Installation of Additional Fly-Wheel

Rapid increase (or decrease) of pressure and flow rate associated with quick acceleration (or deceleration) of the
pump rotation speed during its start-up (or shut-down) is the nature of this type of water hammer. Therefore,
such rapid flow transients can be relaxed by reducing the acceleration or deceleration of the pump rotation speed
by increasing the inertia moment of the rotating system with an additional fly-wheel to the pump or its driver
side.
However, this approach has rarely been adopted because it usually results in significant increase in the required
motor torque and electric power. Therefore, applicability of other type of counter-measures shall be investigated
at first, such as use of a high performance check valve (Par.6.2 (B)-(2)), provision of a delay time before auto
start of stand-by pump (Par.6.2 (B)-(2)), etc.
(F)
Water Hammer Caused by Liquid Column Separation and Rejoinment

(1) Reconsideration of Piping Arrangement
Liquid vaporization leading to liquid column separation is likely to occur at the locations of low static pressure
such as highly elevated portions and downstream of valves and equipment. Therefore, such liquid column
separation may be prevented by re-routing the line so as to lower the highly elevated portions and by placing the
valves and equipment as lower as possible. Prevention of liquid column separation by such line modification
should be confirmed by the detailed water hammer analysis.
(2) Installation of Vacuum Breaker
Vacuum breaker installation will be an effective solution for the water hammer due to liquid column separation
and rejoinment. A well sized and properly located vacuum breaker will work as below;
(i) When the pipe internal pressure falls below the atmospheric pressure, sufficient air is inhaled from the
vacuum breaker. Then the internal pressure is kept above the vapor pressure not to cause vaporization of
the liquid. Although the liquid column is separated by the inhaled air, the air cavities separating the liquid
columns act as cushions against the impact of collisions among the liquid columns, unlike the vapor
cavities.
(ii) Upon the internal pressure recovery, the vacuum breaker starts to vent the inhaled air if the vacuum breaker
is two-way type. The air venting rate is fully limited not to unnecessarily accelerate the liquid flow speed
pushing out the air from the vacuum breaker. This is essential for avoiding the big pressure spike
generation upon the completion of venting (i.e., upon sudden stop of the liquid flow toward the vacuum
breaker due to the vent port closure).
It is therefore important to carefully determine the installation location and both the air intake and venting
capacities of the vacuum breaker considering the severe pressure transients by the detailed water hammer
analysis for the system.
Security Level 2

HAMMER
ISSUED
MAY.17,13
-T E G
1-1134-013
PAGE
20
OF
34
Note that vacuum breakers are not applicable for the flammable or toxic liquid service.
(3) Reinforcement of Pipe Support
Rejoinment of the liquid columns, which are separated by the vapor cavities in particular, often generates big
pressure spikes resulting in the excessive fluid dynamic loads onto the pipe sections. In addition, because of the
impulsive nature of the fluid dynamic load, twice the dynamic load needs to be considered in most cases as the
equivalent static load for the support design of the pipe section. The magnitude of such fluid dynamic loads shall
be calculated by the detailed analysis and be reflected into the pipe support design.
(G)
Excessive Negative Pressure
(1) Installation of Vacuum Breaker

The vacuum breaker installation will be the solution to maintain the system pressure above the negative pressure
limit. See Par. 6.2 (F) for the details.
(2) Use of Expansion Vessel as Air Vessel
In case the concerned system forms a closed loop and has an expansion vessel, the vessel may also be utilized as
an air vessel to prevent the system from the excessive negative pressure without unrealistic enlargement of the
vessel size. For this purpose, the followings will be the essential parameters so that the vessel can properly work
as the surge tank;
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Normal volumes of liquid and gas in the vessel

Normal pressure in the vessel
Connecting location of the vessel to the system loop
Length and diameter of the connection pipe between the vessel and system loop
The feasibility study of this approach and the optimization of these parameters can be done by the detailed water
hammer analysis.
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(1)-1/1
Appendix-1: Work Sequence of Water Hammer Analysis
Remarks ; Adjust the detail schedule considering the actual status of the project schedule & work relations with other disciplines.
Issue of Preliminary P&ID
(Proposal)
P&ID Stage
Process Data
BEDD
Pump
Inst. Valve
Special Check Valve
In-line items (valves orifice...)
Piping around pump
Civil Info. around pump
Issue of AFP P&ID

Issue of AFP Process data
Issue of AFD P&ID
In put C
In put B
In put D
Start of Planning Study

In put E
Study for High Load Support
Start of piping routing study
Issue of AFC P&ID
Confirmation of pump / driver data w ith vendor

Confirmation of valve flow Cv-Opening characteristicsw ith vendor
Confirmation of check valve dynamic characteristics and detail of vacuum breaker / relief valve w ith vendor
Confirmation of in-line equipment P w ith vendor
Finalization of Vendor Print

Issue of 1st Civil Information including pre. loading data
Division
Prepare Input F
Line size, Elevation & length (PGA or ISO dwg)
Piping Material Specification
NOTE (3)
PIPING
START
P repare Input F
Applicable piping CODE
Line size, Elevation & length
NOTE(3)
Decision of applicable piping

code (ASME B31.3, or 4 ?)
Check of pipe wall thick.
Finalization of check valve, vacuum breaker,

releif valve spec.
Prepare Input D
Dynamic characteristics of check valves
Detail of vacuum breaker / relief valve
NOTE(3)
Civil Information including

preliminary loading data
Civil Information
Confirm no change of preliminaly loading data.
No
Meet
Requirements ?
Piping Design
Data Sheet for check valve/
vacuum breaker/ relief Valve
Fluid dynamic
load evaluation
No
Is dynamic piping
analysis required?
NOTE(2)
Yes
Support Design
Yes
Evaluation of detailed
analysis results
by CAESAR
(Refer to Section 3)
P repare Input A
Process Data Sheet
Operation mode of pump
P&ID
NOTE(1), (3)
Execution of countermeasures. (Refer to

Section 6)
Quick closure
valve
Yes
Can simplified analysis
be applied?
(Refer to
Section 4)
Other than quick
No
closure valve
APPLIED
TECHNOLOGY
(APP)
Consultation for
assessment of piping
system for water
hammer
Execution of
simplified analysis
Requirements to process
data sheet such as.
1). Pump
2). MOV/CV Valve
3). Check Valve
4). Relief Valve
5). Vacuum Breaker
Evaluation of actual vendor data
Identification of
system subjected to
water hammer
analysis
Meet
Requirements ?
No
Simplif ied
analysis?
Yes
Executiion of
Simple
Analysis
Yes
No
END
Execution of
detail analysis
Executiion of
Detail Alysis
INSTRUMENT
Data Sheet
for MOV/CV
Meet
Requirements ?
No
Prepare Input B
Valve closure time
P repare Input E
Instrument data for valve & orifice
P and etc.
Yes
END
Execution of counte-rmeasures (Refer to Section 6)
END
PROCESS
(FIRE FIGHTING
for fire fighting
system)
Revision of
Process Data
Reporting to owner
with final data (if required)
Finalization of valve spec.
DCS operation sequence
ROTATING
Data Sheet
for Pump / Driver
Meet
Requirements ?
No
Prepare Input C
Pump / Driver data
( Pump Performance / Driver trque Curve,
Pump GD2 / Driver GD2))
NOTE (3)
Yes
END
Mark check box, when each action or check work is completed.

Proper applicable piping code (ASME B31.3, 4 or ?) shall be identified.
System identification and execution shcedule meeting shall be held
with PROCESS & PROJECT
All potential systems shall be properly identified.
Limitations for simplified analysis shall be confirmed.
The line length, size and elevation shall be properly estimated
based on the available design data.
The requirements for countermeasures shall be reflected into each data sheet
and piping design.
The estimated fluid dynamic loads shall be considered in civil loading data.
The supports at pump discharge check valves shall be designed
on combined foundation with pump.
Requirements on piping shall be properly reflected into the designed and
requirements on valves are properly specified on their data sheet.
The requirements on selected valves for relaxation of water hammer shall be satisfied.
Pipe shall be disigned considering pressure increase and/or negative pressure
as per the code requirement.
The selected check valves shall be evaluated again to update the water hammer analysis.
The required capacity shall be satisfied by selected vacuum breakers / releif valves.
The loading data based on analysis results for supports shall be updated and
reflected into civil design.
The supports for pump discharge check valves shall be designed considering
the fluid dynamic loads by closure of check valves in order to protect pump and pipe.
The final design data shall be reflected into the official report.
NOTE(1) Refer to Appendix-4

User Mannual for Simplified Water Hammer Analysis Program "SWHAP"
NOTE(2) If the calculated fluid dynamic load based on static analysis is not practical,
check the reaction force on pipe support to apply dynamic analysis by CAESAR II.
NOTE(3) APP shall advice other necessary data for detailed analysis.
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(2) 1/4
Appendix-2:
Typical Sources of Water Hammer and Relevant Counter-measures
(A) Valve Closure

System
Upstream line length of
the valve is longer than
100 [m]
Downstream line length

of the valve is longer
than 100 [m]
OR,
Pressure margin in the
line between the
minimum operating
pressure and vapor
pressure is less than
about 10 [m] in potential
head
Upset Scenario
Rapid closure of
emergency shut-off valve
or control valve
Critical Operating Conditions

- Maximum liquid flow
through the valve before its
closure
- Maximum upstream pressure
of the valve before its
closure
Concerns
(a) Overpressure at upstream
of the closing valve
- Maximum liquid flow

through the valve before its
closure
- Minimum downstream
pressure of the valve before
its closure
(b) Negative pressure and

liquid column separation
at the downstream of the
closing valve
(c) Overpressure caused by
the liquid column
rejoinment
(d) Excessive fluid dynamic
loads on the pipe bends
and tees
Counter-measures
For (a):
- Reduction of valve closing
speed
- Application of two-step
closure
- Change of valve type
- Installation of additional
shut-off valve
- Shut-down of pump(s)
For (b), (c) and (d):
- Reduction of valve closing
speed
- Application of two-step
closure
- Change of valve type
- Installation of additional
shut-off valve
- Installation of vacuum
breaker
- Installation of air vessel
For (d):
- Reinforcement of pipe
support
Analysis types
Simplified or
Detailed analysis
Detailed analysis
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(2) 2/4
(B) Check Valve Closure at Pump Discharge
System
Check valve size is 14
or bigger,
OR,
Pumping head is higher
than 100[m]
OR,
Pump driver is of small
inertia moment (2-pole
motor, turbine, diesel or
gasoline engine, etc.)
Upset Scenario
Shut-down of one pump
when 2 or more pumps
are operated in parallel
Start-up of the stand-by
pump just after the pump
shut-down

- Maximum pressure at the
pump discharge before the
pump shut down
- Minimum pump flow (i.e.,
maximum pump head)
before the pump shut-down
Concerns
(a) Overpressure at the outlet
side of the check valve
(b) Excessive fluid dynamic
loads on the check valve
and the pump nozzle, as
well as on the pipe bends
and tees
Counter-measures
For (a) and (b):
- Application of check valve
with superior dynamic
performance
For (b):
- Reinforcement of check
valve and pipe support and
installation of bellows

- Maximum pressure at the
pump discharge before the
pump shut down
- Minimum pump flow (i.e.,
maximum pump head)
Concerns
(a) Overpressure at the outlet
side of the MOV
(b) Reverse rotation of the
pump and its driver
Counter-measures
For (a) and (b):
- Adjustment of MOV closing
speed

- Minimum operating
pressure at the vacuum
breaker location (high point)
before the depressurization
Concerns
(a) Excessive negative
pressure and liquid
column separation at the
high point
(b) Overpressure upon
completion of venting
from 2-way vacuum
breaker
Counter-measures
For (a):
- Optimization of air intake
capacity and location of the
vacuum breaker
For (b):
- Optimization of air venting
2-way vacuum breaker
Analysis type
Detailed analysis
(C) Closure of MOV at Pump Discharge

System
MOV is provided at
pump discharge without
a check valve in series
Upset Scenario
Shut-down of one pump
when 2 or more pumps
are operated in parallel
Start-up of the stand-by
pump just after the pump
shut-down
Analysis type
Detailed analysis
(D) Vacuum Breaker Activation

System
Vacuum breaker is
provided at elevated
location
Upset Scenario
Depressurization of the
system
(e.g. shut-down of all the
operating pump(s))
Re-pressurization after
system depressurization
(e.g., restart of the failed
pump, auto-start of the
stand-by pump after
pump shut-down)
Analysis type
Detailed analysis
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(2) 3/4
(E) Pump Operation
System
Check valve is provided
at the pump discharge
Upset Scenario
Concerns
Counter-measures
Analysis type
Refer to (B) Check Valve Closure at Pump Discharge
MOV is provided at
pump discharge without
a check valve in series
Highly elevated control
valve or equipment is
existent in the system
(empirically, in cooling
water systems, more than
about 20 [m] above the
pump elevation)
Refer to (C) MOV Closure at Pump Discharge

Simultaneous shut-down
of all the operating
pump(s) in the system
Restart of the failed

pump, or auto-start of the
stand-by pump
after pump shut-down
- Minimum operating
pressure at the outlet of the
control valve or equipment
(e.g., low supply pressure to
the valve or equipment, big
pressure-loss at the valve or
equipment)
(a) Negative pressure and

at the downstream of the
valve or equipment
For (a):
breakers
(b) Overpressure by liquid

column rejoinment
(c) Excessive fluid dynamic
loads on the pipe bends
and tees
(d) Overpressure upon air
venting completion in
case 2-way vacuum
breaker is provided at
the downstream of the
valve or equipment
For (b) and (c):

breaker(s) at downstream of
the valve or equipment so as
not to cause vaporization
For (c):
support
For (d):
- Adjustment of air venting
2-way vacuum breaker
-
Detailed analysis
Detailed analysis
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(2) 4/4
(F) Liquid Column Separation and Rejoinment
System
Pressure margin between
the minimum static
pressure and vapor
pressure of flowing
liquid during normal
operation is less than
about 10 [m] in potential
head
Upset Scenario
Simultaneous shut-down
of all the pump(s) in the
system
Restart of the failed

pump, or auto-start of the
stand-by pump after
pump shut-down
Operating Condition
- Minimum operating
pressure at high point before
the pump shut-down
Concerns
(a) Negative pressure and
at the high point
Counter-measures
For (a):
breakers at around the high
point
(b) Overpressure upon

venting completion in
case 2-way vacuum
breaker is provided at
the high point
(c) Overpressure caused by
liquid column
rejoinment
(d) Excessive fluid dynamic
loads on pipe bends and
tees
For (b), (c) and (d):

breakers at around the high
point
For (d):
support
See also (A) Valve Closure on the liquid column separation and rejoinment caused by valve closure
Analysis type
Detailed analysis
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(3) 1/3
Appendix-3: Basics of Water Hammer in Valve Closure Event

A1.
Basic equation of water hammer (Joukowski equation)

Consider a case where a valve in a liquid conveying line is quickly closed. As the valve closes, the liquid
velocity reduces and it will eventually become zero upon completion of the valve closure. The effect of such
liquid velocity change propagates toward upstream and downstream of the valve with sonic speed of the liquid
(see Fig.A-1). As this effect propagates, the liquid is compressed (i.e. pressure increases) at the valve upstream
and expands (i.e. pressure decreases) at the valve downstream, although the liquid volume changes are usually
very little.
The magnitude of such pressure change corresponds to the liquid momentum change. The relationship between
them can be expressed by the following Joukowski equation (Eq. (1)) that can be derived from Newtons second
law of motion ( Ft = mv ). See Fig.A-1 for the detail explanation.
P = av
where,
Eq. (1)
: Static pressure increase (or decrease) [Pa]
: Liquid density [kg/m3]
: Sonic speed of the liquid in the pipe [m/s]
: Liquid velocity change [m/s]
From Eq. (1), it is evident that reducing the liquid velocity change results in smaller pressure change (i.e. milder
water hammer).
Fig. A-1 Derivation of Joukowski equation
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(3) 2/3
A2.
Calculation example of pressure increase due to valve closure

Assuming that water is flowing at 1 [m/s] in a pipe and the valve is instantaneously closed. In this case, using
the following properties of water, the pressure increase at the valve upstream due to its instantaneous closure is
calculated as Eq.(2) below.
Liquid density ( )
Sonic speed of water in the pipe ( a )
Change of the liquid velocity ( v )
: 1000 [kg/m3]
: 1200 [m/s]
: 1 [m/s] (= 1 0)
P = 1000 1200 1
= 1200000 [Pa ] (= 12 [bar ])
Eq. (2)
(Note) Sonic speed (i.e., propagation speed of pressure wave) of liquid in a pipe depends not only on liquid
property but also on the pipe wall stiffness. The sonic speed of liquid in a pipe is derived from Eq.(3).
a=
K/
1 + (K / E )(D / e )
Eq. (3)
where,
: Bulk modules of liquid [Pa]

: Youngs modules of pipe wall [Pa]

: Pipe inner diameter [m]
: Pipe wall thickness [m]
D
e
A3.
System characteristic time & pressure rise of slow closing valve
Equation (2) is applicable only when the effective valve closing time is shorter than the characteristic time TC
of the system, which is defined as Eq.(4).
TC =
2L
a
Eq. (4)
where,
TC
L
: Characteristic time [sec]

: Pipe length between the valve and upstream reservoir [m]
: Sonic speed of the liquid in the pipe [m/s]
The system characteristic time TC represents the time for the pressure wave to make a round trip between the
valve and upstream reservoir. When the effective valve closing time is longer than TC the pressure increase due
to valve closure becomes lower than calculated by Eq.(2) because the depressurization wave from the reservoir
arrives at the valve before completion of the valve closure (i.e., before the valve upstream pressure reaches the
maximum value calculated by Eq.(1)).
When the effective valve closure time Te is longer than typically five times of the system characteristic time, Te
(i.e., TE > 5TC) such valve closure is often regarded as fully gradual and hence the pressure increase due to valve
closure can be considered minor. To estimate such pressure rise on slow closing valve, equation (5) can be
applied if the line packing effect (See Para.3.1.1) is negligible.
PJ
P = Max PJ ,
(Te / TC )
PJ
: Joukowskis pressure rise by Eq.(1)
TC
: Characteristic time by Eq.(4)
TE
: Effective valve closing time (see Fig.3 in Page 14)
Eq. (5)
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(3) 3/3
In general, Te ranges 5% to 30% of the valve closing time assuming single linear closing action, which strongly
depends on the valve type or individual Cv characteristic curve. For the conservative estimation, Te can be
assumed as 10% of the valve closing time except for gate valves. For gate valves, Te should be assumed around
5% of the valve closing time. However, such generalization does not always hold true. If accuracy is required in
the pressure rise estimation, detailed analysis taking account of actual Cv characteristic curve and line packing
effect should be considered.
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(4) 1/6
Appendix-4: User Manual for Simplified Water Hammer Analysis Program SWHAP
B1.
GENERAL
B1.1
Purpose
Closing a valve in a liquid service line is the typical operation that may cause water hammer in the line. In
general, quicker closing speed of the valve or longer line length raises the severity of such valve-closure
induced water hammer. In most cases, overpressure in the line upstream of the closed (or closing) valve is the
primary concern. The valve closing speed shall be slow enough to prevent the overpressure. On the other hand,
the valve closing speed shall be quick enough to secure the safety and controllability of the system. Hence, it is
essentially important to assess the optimum valve closing speed adjusting such trade-off problems.
For the above assessment, the Excel-based program SWHAP is used for estimating the minimum required
closing time of a valve in a simply-configured liquid conveying line so as to prevent the line upstream of the
valve from overpressure. This manual gives the directions for use of SWHAP.
B1.2
Limitations for Use
Closing a valve in a liquid service line is the typical operation that may cause water hammer in the line. In
general, quicker closing speed of the valve or longer line length raises the severity of such valve-closure
induced water hammer. In most cases, overpressure in the line upstream of the closed (or closing) valve is the
primary concern. The valve closing speed shall be slow enough to prevent the overpressure. On the other hand,
the valve closing speed shall be quick enough to secure the safety and controllability of the system. Hence, it is
essentially important to assess the optimum valve closing speed adjusting such trade-off problems.
For the above assessment, the Excel-based program SWHAP is used for estimating the minimum required
closing time of a valve in a simply-configured liquid conveying line so as to prevent the line upstream of the
valve from overpressure. This manual gives the directions for use of SWHAP.
The analysis model for SWHAP must be as illustrated in Figs.1, 2 or 3 (Models A, B or C) and all of the
following conditions (1) to (11) must be satisfied in the analysis model;
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Line configuration
Line length upstream of the closing valve
Line length downstream of the closing valve
Liquid velocity prior to valve closure
Pipe diameter
Diameter change in the line upstream of closing valve
Pressure drop excluding the pipe friction loss
Pipe class
Valve closing speed
Upstream boundary condition
Downstream boundary condition
: Single line without branch

: 100 to 5000 [m]
: Shorter than 100 [m]
: Less than 4 [m/s]
: 2 to 12 [inches]
: Only one location is allowed
: Less than 15 [bar]
: 150 [lb]
: Constant
: Constant pressure
: Constant pressure
In case more complicated system configurations or analysis conditions need to be incorporated in the analysis,
use of a transient pipeline simulator instead of SWHAP should be considered. Consult the specialist in charge of
fluid dynamic analysis for the further details.
B1.3
Related Standards
ASME B31.1
ASME B31.3
ASME B31.4
B2.
: Power Piping
: Process Piping
: Pipeline Transportation System for Liquid Hydrocarbons and Other Liquids
DATA INPUT
The required input data slightly differ depending on the type of analysis model assumed. Definition of the
analysis model types and required input data are as below;
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(4) 2/6
B2.1
Definition of Analysis Model Types
The analysis models used in SWHAP consist of two constant pressure reservoirs and a single line with a valve
between the two reservoirs. Depending on the configuration of the line between upstream reservoir and the valve,
three types of analysis model are defined as below;
Model A : Constant diameter pipe only (see Fig.B1)
Model B : With a single pressure drop device (see Fig.B2)
Model C : With a single reducer (see Fig.B3)
Upstream End
Downstream End
Closing valve
Flow
Constant
pressure
reservoir
Constant
pressure
reservoir
Main Line
Fig.B1 (Model A) Constant diameter pipe only
Flow
Pressure drop
device
Closing valve
Main Line
Fig.B2 (Model B) Line with a single pressure drop device
Flow
Main Line
Reducer
Closing valve
Reduced size line
Fig.B3 (Model C) Line with a single reducer
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(4) 3/6
B2.2
Required Data
The required data for each analysis model are summarized in Table B1. The analysis model (Model A, B or C) is
automatically identified from the input data by SWHAP upon the execution of analysis. An example of inputs
for Models A, B and C is shown in Fig.B4.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Table B1 Required data for Models A, B and C

Model A
Model B
Model C
Reference name
X
X
X
Valve type
X
X
X
Allowable maximum pressure
X
X
X
Sound speed of liquid in line
X
X
X
Liquid density
X
X
X
Inner diameter of main line
X
X
X
Length of main line
X
X
X
Pressure drop of inline device [Model B]
X
Inner diameter of reduced size line [Model C]
X
Length of reduced size line [Model C]
X
Flow rate
X
X
X
Design pressure of system
X
X
X
Pressure at upstream end
X
X
X
X : Data must be given.
- : Data must not be given (Corresponding Excel cell must be blank).
Execute button
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
Model A
Model B
Model C
Results
Fig.B4 Example of inputs for Models A, B and C
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(4) 4/6
The detail of each input (1) to (13) is described as below;

(1) Reference Name
Any name or title for reference can be input as a text, e.g. tag number of the valve, line number of the line, or
project name, etc.
(2) Valve Type
Type of closing valve needs to be selected from the drop-down menu in Valve Type column. The available
valve types are as below;
gate
: Gate valve (Cv characteristic is based on JSMEs data)
ball
: Ball valve (Cv characteristic is based on Camerons data)
butterfly
: Butterfly valve (Cv characteristic is based on Tomoes data)
globe_lin
: Globe valve (Cv characteristic is liner)
globe_eq%
: Globe valve (Cv characteristic is eq%)
(3) Allowable Maximum Pressure
The allowable maximum pressure stands for the acceptable upper limit of occasional pressure variation in the
considering system. The input value for the analysis shall be as specified in the applicable piping design code
such as ANSI/ASME B31.1, B31.3, B31.4, etc. and be selected accordingly from the drop-down menu in
Allowable Maximum Pressure column. Note that the input value is the ratio of [allowable maximum pressure]
/ [design pressure] in percentage and the following five values can be selected;
100% (of design pressure)
110%
115%
120%
133%
(4) Sound Speed of Liquid in Line
Input the sound speed of conveying liquid in the line. If the sound speed is not constant along the line, the fastest
one should be applied because it will give the conservative (=higher water hammer pressure) results.
Note that the sound speed of liquid in a pipe is calculated by the following equation;
a=
a0
K/
=
1 + (K / E )(D / t )
1 + (K / E )(D / t )
where,
a
a0
K
E
D
t
: Sound speed of liquid in a pipe [m/s]

: Sound speed of liquid itself [m/s]
: Bulk modulus of liquid [Pa]
: Youngs modulus of pipe [Pa]
: Pipe diameter [mm]
: Pipe wall thickness [mm]
(5) Liquid Density

Input the density of conveying liquid in the line. If the liquid density is not constant along the line, the highest
one should be applied because it will give the conservative (=higher water hammer pressure) results.
(6) Inner Diameter of Main Line
Input the inner diameter of the main line (see Figs.B1 to B3 for the definition of main line). Alternatively, the
inner diameter can be specified from nominal size and schedule of the pipe. Another input window for the pipe
size and schedule appears by Double-clicking the input cell.
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(4) 5/6
(7) Length of Main Line

For Models A and B:
Input the line length between upstream end of the main line and closing valve (see Figs.B1 and B2).
For Model C:
Input the line length between upstream end of the main line and the reducer (see Fig.B3).
(8) Pressure Drop of Inline Device (Required only for model B)
Input the pressure drop at the inline device in Model B (see Fig.B2) at the flow rate before the valve closure.
(9) Inner Diameter of Reduced Size Line (Required only for model C)
Input the inner diameter of the reduced size line in Model C (see Fig.B3). In the same way as for the inner
diameter of main line, nominal size and schedule of the pipe can be alternatively used to specify the inner
diameter of the reduced size line.
(10) Length of Reduced Size Line (Required only for model C)
Input the line length between the reducer and the closing valve in Model C (see Fig.B3).
(11) Flow Rate
Input the flow rate of the liquid before the valve closure.
(12) Design Pressure of System
Input the design pressure of the system.
(13) Pressure at Upstream End
Input the pressure at the upstream end of the line. If the upstream end pressure of the line varies according to its
operating mode, the highest pressure should be applied because it will give the conservative (=higher water
hammer pressure) results. In addition, the special considerations are required as below when the upstream end of
the line is located at (A) pump discharge or (B) elevated position higher than the closing valve;
(A) Pump discharge at the upstream end of the line
In case the upstream end of the line is located at the pump discharge, the pump shut-off pressure should be
considered as the upstream end pressure as illustrated in Fig.B5.
(B) Elevation at the upstream end of the line
In case the upstream end of the line is elevated higher than the location of closing valve, the potential head loss
(static pressure decrease due to elevation increase) in the upstream end pressure must be ignored for the analysis.
Refer to Fig.B6.
B3.
EXECUTION OF CALCULATION
Crick EXECUTE button in the calculation sheet. When the calculations have successfully completed, the
program outputs the minimum required valve closing time for restricting the valve upstream pressure within the
allowable value specified in Para. B2.2 (3). An example image of the output is shown in Fig.B4.
B4.
SUPPLYMENTAL REMARK
The minimum required valve closing time calculated by SWHAP is conservative (i.e., longer side estimate) in
most cases but is sometimes too long for the considering system. In such cases, an acceptable solution may be
found by the transient analysis considering the further details of the system. However, such transient analysis
requires a transient pipeline simulator and the analysis itself becomes highly complicated comparing to the
calculation by SWHAP. Consult the specialist in charge of applied technology.
Security Level 2
G-TEG1-1134-013
Appendix-(4) 6/6
Pressure
Pump shut-off pressure

(To be used as the upstream end pressure of the line)
Operation Pressure before valve closure
Pressure
Profile
Closing
valve
Line
Config.
Pump
Main Line
Fig.B5 Pump discharge pressure at upstream end of considering line
Pressure
Potential head loss at Point A to be ignored (EL at
Point A to be assumed the same as the valve EL)
Pressure
Profile
Actual pressure at Point A
(Static pressure is reduced by the potential
head loss due to elevation increase)
Closing
Valve
Main Line
Fig.B6 Elevation at upstream end of considering line
Line
Config.
Security Level 2
ENGINEERING GUIDE
DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER HAMMER
G-TEG1-1134-013
HISTORY
PAGE 1 OF
REV.
0
ISSUE DATE
ISSUE GRADE
AUTHORIZATION
JUL.15,'99
MAY.17,'13
Wholly Revised
Engineering
Technology Div.
G-TEG1-1134-013r.docx
DESCRIPTION
(1)
(2)
(1) Background and Reasons for Revision

(a)Fully revised in English for compiling the latest expertise and know-hows on the
methodology of water hammer prevention.
(b)It has changed to global use as TGS from Confidential standard(issued 15JUL '99
Rev.0)
(2) Department and Author
Yusuke Goto (Engineering Technology Div.)
Katsunori Yagoh (Engineering Technology Div.)
(3) Consultants
Tatsuhiko Kiuchi (Fellow)
Masafumi Azuma (Piping and Civil Engineering Div.)
Yashushi Kobayashi (Process Engineering Div.)

Against Water Hummer PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Against Water Hummer PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Security Level 2

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

FEASIBILITY & PROCESS / UTILITY DESIGN

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER HAMMER

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Related Standards and Manuals

IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS

Typical Systems Subject to Water Hammer Analysis

Typical Sources of Water Hammer and Related Concerns

Water Hammer in Others Systems

EXECUTION OF WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS

Selection of Analysis Method

EVALUATION OF SYSTEM DESIGN

Fluid Dynamic Load

Design Evaluations for Specific Systems or Components

COUNTER-MEASURES AGAINST WATER HAMMER

Generally Applicable Counter-Measures

Cause-Specific or Phenomenon-Specific Counter-Measures

Appendix-1 Work Sequence of Water Hammer Analysis

Appendix-2 Typical Source of Water Hammer and Counter-measures

Appendix-3 Basics of Water Hammer in Valve Closure Event

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Related Standards and Manuals

IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Typical Systems Subject to Water Hammer Analysis

3.1.1 Long Liquid Conveying Lines

Loading lines and unloading lines

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Fire Water System

: Bumping Load [N]

Typical Sources of Water Hammer and Related Concerns

3.2.1 Equipment or Devices Likely to Cause Water Hammer

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Two or more pumps are operated in parallel,

(C) Pump Discharge MOVs

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Particular Phenomena to Cause Severe Water Hammer

(F) Liquid Column Separation and Rejoinment

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Water Hammer in Others Systems

3.3.1 Vendor Package Facility

EXECUTION OF WATER HAMMER ANALYSIS

: Single line without branch

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

Line length downstream of the closing valve

: Shorter than 100 [m]

EVALUATION OF SYSTEM DESIGN

ENGINEERING GUIDE FOR PROCESS PLANT

DESIGN GUIDELINE AGAINST WATER

ASME B31 Pressure Piping

Pipeline Transportation System for