The Accuracy of Pressure Transient Analysis of Piping

Systems
Introduction
When a transient analysis is undertaken of a piping system the customer does not
necessarily understand the limits, assumptions and inaccuracies involved in such
modelling. This paper is aimed at providing an insight into analyst’s world. The
output from any analysis provides an insight into the behaviour of the system to a
number of boundary changes. The data does NOT represent a finite pressure, time or
other event. It is an indication only of the way the system responds.

That said the tools at the disposal of the analyst are far more sophisticated now and
should be employed to avoid the risks of surge in a pipeline.

Modelling of the System

Equipment Data
It is important for the analyst to model the system as accurately as possible so that the
model represents the physical installation. In order to do this there are generally
requests of the customer the data for the equipment, piping materials and method of
supports. What is critical to the analysis is that the data represents the actual
equipment being used. Invariably the analysis is undertaken in advance of
procurement decisions and precise data may not be available.

The key information that is required is for any items of equipment that form boundary
elements. This includes pumps, automated valves, air valves, surge tanks,
accumulators, in fact anything that changes the energy state at a boundary.

Assumptions
Some of the more common assumptions made in design include but are not limited to
the following:
 Pipe surface roughness
 Pump inertia
 Pump four quadrant data
 Check valve response
 Air valve response
 Any data not provided by the customer!

Sensitivity Analysis
Where specific data of equipment or operations are not available then sensitivity
analyses are carried out to test a modelled system to see if more detailed information
is required. However in a multiple bounded system this can increase the number of
analyses dramatically.

The number of scenarios can build exponentially if the customer does not clearly
define the objectives of an analysis. Imagine one, two or three pumps failing and
starting, two temperatures of operation, tanks high to low and vice versa, valves
opening and closing or remaining in their last position. The number of permutations
and combinations soon escalates. Thus the accuracy of the modelling becomes an
issue if not all modes are considered.

Side Stream Inclusion

The modelling of minor side streams is an issue. Where information is not available it
is often convenient for the customer to ignore side streams. However such adjuncts to
a system can change the manner in which a system responds to a transient event.
Reflected waves can add to or mitigate high pressures or vacuum conditions.

Accuracy in Computation

Pipe Sectioning
When the analysis is undertaken the pipes are divided into sections to provide an
equal time step. As the wavespeed is known the smallest number of sections applies to
the Controlling Pipe. This is explained in detail below. However it is rational to
increase the lengths of pipes around pumps as these are generally far shorter than
those in the pipeline. A shorter pipe that may be doubled in length does little to affect
the accuracy of a steady state or transient model.

Modelling is generally undertaken with a limit of 10% to the adjustments to wave

speed. This automatically allows the wave speed and hence the pressure transient to
be varied by this amount.

The relationship between pipe sectioning and time step is given by

A = L /(n * Δt)

Where n is the number of sections and L is the length of each pipe section. If the
transient event occurs within some particular time step, the number of sections, n,
must be chosen such that it is consistent with the time step in the above equation.
Specifying the number of sections for multi-pipe systems is more complicated. Each
pipe has its own wavespeed and length. For each pipe the following must be satisfied:

ni= Li/( ai* Δt)

In the above as applied to each pipe in the system, the time step Δt must be the same
for all pipes. The length, L, is a given for each pipe and thus cannot be changed. The
wavespeed, a, is also a given for each pipe, although it is known with less certainty
than is the length. The free parameter is then the number of sections, n.
In any pipe system there will be one pipe that is the controlling pipe. The controlling
pipe is that pipe which has the least number of sections, sometimes only one. Once
the controlling pipe is selected, the time step is determined by solving the first
equation for Δt. Then the number of sections in the remaining pipes is obtained from
the second.

However, this presents a dilemma. Because the number of sections in remaining pipes
is derived from second equation, typically the number of sections, n, will not be a
whole number. Since partial sections in a pipe cannot be modelled, an alternative must
be found.

Because the wavespeed for each pipe is the least certain parameter, an uncertainty in
wavespeed up to 15% is possible. Therefore, the wavespeed in each pipe is allowed to
depart slightly from its original calculated value in order to cause n to be a whole
number.

Therefore, the second equation becomes

ni= Li/(1± ψ) * ( ai* Δt)

where ψ is the accepted uncertainty in wavespeed up to ±0.15 (Wylie, et al., 1993,

pp. 54).

Two other things should be noted about pipe sectioning. Because each pipe section is
explicitly solved along the characteristic lines, breaking pipes into continuously
smaller sections offers no improvement in accuracy. That is, using twice the number
of sections in a pipe will not yield a more accurate prediction This is in contrast to
other kinds of finite difference methods where more increments offers improved
accuracy.

The other item of note is the effect of breaking the model into additional increments.
According to the first equation, when the number of sections is doubled, the time step
must cut in half. This results in increasing runtime by a factor of 4 for each doubling
of the number of sections. The program Section Pipes window automates the process
of obtaining acceptable round off error when assigning sections.

The transient run time for a simulation is related directly to the total number of
computations required. The number of computations depends on the total number of
time steps (shown on the Transient Control window ) and the total number of sections
(which can be determined from the display table in the Section Pipes window).
Run times also depend to a lesser degree on how frequently data is written to disk,
because of the time required for disk access.

To satisfy the Method of Characteristics (MOC) requirement, the time step and
number of pipe sections are related. If more sections are desired, then shorter time
steps are required. For example, to use ten sections in a pipe rather than five requires
twice as many computations because there are twice as many sections. However, the
time step must be reduced by half , thus to model the pipe for the same time duration
(say 1 second) requires twice as many time steps. Therefore, using double the number
of sections results in four times the number of computations.

The Controlling Pipe

A related issue is that of the Controlling Pipe. If the Controlling Pipe is very short,
this requires more sections in all other pipes in the model. Hence it may be prudent to
either neglect the shortest pipe or identify a way to combine it into a longer pipe,
which will lead to a different controlling pipe.
For example, consider a case where the controlling pipe is 1 foot long and the next
shortest pipe is 10 feet long. If the controlling pipe can be neglected or combined,
then the 10 foot pipe becomes the controlling pipe. This will result in a factor of 10
fewer pipe sections and factor of 10 fewer time steps, or a run time reduction by a
factor of 100!

Transient Cavitation
Transient cavitation is a highly complex phenomenon. AFT Impulse uses the Discrete
Vapour Cavity (DVC) Model, which is a fairly simple representation of the
phenomenon (Wylie, et al., 1993, pp. 67-69). When vapour pockets form in a system,
the fluid is no longer continuous and thus the wave speed decreases. Neglecting the
wave speed change compromises the results to some degree.

In addition, the DVC Model assumes that the vapour cavities form at the computing
stations, rather than being distributed along a pipe. This also is an approximation. The
DVC Model implicitly assumes that the cavities are small compared to the volume of
the pipe section and that they do not move during the simulation. If the cavities grow
as much as 10% of the computing volume, the results are further compromised. If the
pipe is at an angle or vertical, the vapour bubbles can move due to buoyancy. The
importance of this can be checked by comparing the predicted bubble lifetime to the
time it would take bubbles to move between computing stations (assuming a typical
bubble velocity).

A result of the DVC Model is that when cavities form and collapse, numerous non-
physical pressure spikes occur which complicates data interpretation. The
interpretation thus requires considerable engineering judgment.
Here are some general guidelines analysts can follow:

1. The first one or two pressure spikes after cavity collapse tend to be the most
reliable. Fortunately, these spikes are usually the worst and therefore sufficient
engineering data is available to draw a conclusion.

2. After the first one or two spikes, the non-physical pressure spikes frequently
begin. Sharp spikes that appear to occur for only a single time step can usually be
ignored. Rather, attention should be focused on the major trends of the pressure
results. These tend to be where more pressure solutions are grouped together, rather
than isolated spikes.

3. Pay attention to the maximum vapour volumes in relation to the computing

volume. If the vapour volume percentage grows to more than 10% then be more
cautious in the interpretation.

4. The Method of Characteristics method without cavitation is a reliable and

accurate solution method. However, after cavitation occurs the reliability of
the predictions decreases significantly. The reason for offering the DVC
Model is that, even with its deficiencies, it offers significantly better
information than would be obtained if cavitation were to be ignored. Used
with the above cautions, the DVC Model in AFT Impulse can be used
successfully to model many systems that experience cavitation.
Iterative Solvers
The analyst relies to a large extent of the software developer in respect of the iterative
solvers used in the analysis. There is some latitude in the software to set different
parameters or to allow the software to set these parameters automatically. Except for
poorly behaved models generally the default and the automatic defaults can be relied
upon. Generally when a model is poorly behaved warnings are given. When such
events occur the model is referred to the software developers for advice under a
maintenance agreement.

Items that are covered are:-

 Tolerances- Relative, Absolute or a combination of both
 Relaxation for flow and pressure
 Maximum number of iterations
 Matrix solution method

It is recognised that different software has diffferent methods of maanging and

defining boundary elements. Some more basic programs do not model the inherenet
complex behaviour of check valves, air valves or controvalves very well. Cross
checking a system using two programs is very rare as the client cannot justify the
expense. A review of themarket shows at least twenty packages available tot he
engineer with very few having the ability to share files. Most are based on the method
of characteristics to solve the simultaneous diferential equations.

Manufacturer’s Data
Manufacturers provide data for the performance of their equipment. This data may be
determined from laboratory trials. Laboratory trials do not represent field
performance. Added to this the manufacturer may have produced a family of products
and used Laws of Affinity to predict the performance eof various sizes of equipment to
save on the cost of physical testing.

The behaviour of piping materials under pressure regimes is quoted in standards and
manufacturer’s literature. The data provided has a degree of conservatism, is not
necessarily consistent and may change with manufacturing technique.

An example of his is the use of four quadrant data when modelling pump start up.
This information is obtained during steady state tests on pumps and motors. The data
is then used in a transient model? The world's experts are still deliberating as to the
validity or otherwise of employing such measures.

The most important data in respect of a pumped system transient analysis involves
accurate data on pumps, motors, control valves, air valves, relief valves and check
valves. This data is very dificult to obtain with procurement departments hell bent on
buying on low price from vendor's who know little of the engineering behind the
design who's patent has expired and they have copied. Hence an analyst is left with
little option but to undertake sensitivity analysis to determine how a component may
impact a system. Two independent analysts will use differentt information, such is the
rarity of experts and their own databases.
Calibration
For critical installations it is recommended that models be critically tested to calibrate
the model. This enables the analyst to provide accurate representation of the system.
Even then the calibrated model may change in time as surface roughness of the pipe
changes; pump impellers wear and valve operating times change. A piping system is a
living breathing entity and modelling should be used to predict problems into the
future

Conclusions
After reading this paper the customer may be wondering why an analysis should be
carried out at all. The answer is simply that an analyst is the best person to use their
skills in applying the available information to inform them of how their system
behaves. In addition they can advise on the limitations of the results and further work
that may be recommended.

Because of the vagaries of the engineering world engineers should not build
conservatism on conservatism. Hence the main reason some consider doing a surge
analysis is to satisfy some Code or QA requirement. The actual surge pressure may be
met by the system. It will certainly indicate if you need surge mitigation provisions.

A surge analysis should be part of a formal risk assessment carried out to determine
the likelihood of an event and the consequences of such an event. Such an analysis
can be as complex as the risks determine. It should involve engineers, operators and
anyone else who can bring specific information to the analysis.

Geoffrey D Stone FIMech E C.Eng; FIE Aust CP Eng