2015 International Conference on Fluid Power and Mechatronics
Characteristics of Water Hammer Induced by Valve-
Valve Systems
Yajun Liu, Ziyang Huang and Changcheng Jiang
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering
South China University of Technology
Guangzhou, China
yajun@scut.edu.cn
Abstract—Characteristics of water hammer induced by valve-
valve systems are studied numerically. Instead of the
conventional reservoir-valve systems, valve-valve systems
considered include two valves which close simultaneously and
which close respectively with specific time delays. Under these
settings, the pressure head and the fluid field of the flow are
simulated and observed. The characteristics of wave front are
discussed and analyzed with the fluid field. Finally, the pressure
head history and average velocity history are given to indicate the
effects of time delay of the closure of the entrance valve.
Keywords—water hammer; valve-valve systems; time delay;
ZDYH front
I. INTRODUCTION
Water hammer is a topic with both technological and
scientific values. It is usually caused by sudden closure of
valve, pump start up or shut down or any other rapid change of
flow conditions and it propagates rapidly at the acoustic speed
of fluid, which as a result usually induces large pressure
gradient and invalidates the pipeline system. Traditionally,
water hammer considers Newtonian fluid without any
momentum sources except gravitation in reservoir-pipe-valve
system. Various researches on water hammer have been done.
Quasi-one-dimensional model [1] is a historical and popular
model to describe water hammer. Lots of numerical methods
designed for it are kept proposing [2-4] and some recent water
hammer researches are still based on it [5-7]. The quasi-one-
dimensional model is capable of predicting the first pressure
jump while it is unable to predict the attenuation because the
steady state friction law is inappropriate. Zielke [8] put forward
a corrective friction law which is greatly effective. More
detailed improvements of friction laws for quasi-one-
dimensional model are introduced in review paper [9]. Another
weakness of quasi-one-dimensional model is that it provides
limited information of fluid field. So quasi-two-dimensional
models and related numerical schemes are proposed [10-13],
which have achieved great successes in both laminar and
turbulent regimes. More information such as velocity profile
and shear stress profile are able to be indicated. Instead of
using algebraic turbulent model, k-İ and k-¹ turbulent models
are coupled with quasi-two-dimensional model to investigate
more details about turbulent water hammer [14-16]. E. M.
978-1-4799-8770-2/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE
Wahba proposes an accessible numerical scheme for quasi-
two-dimensional model [17] and conducts a series investigation
about fluid hammer including attenuation, comparison of
turbulent model, viscous dissipation and Non-Newtonian fluid
hammer [18-21].
Instead of considering the traditional reservoir-pipe-valve
system, a valve-pipe-valve system is considered. Two valves,
which are installed at the inlet and outlet of the pipe, suddenly
shut down simultaneously. Two wave fronts appear and begin
to move with the same velocity (acoustic velocity) but with
opposite directions so that the effects of wave fronts cross each
other on water hammer are able to be observed. Finally,
asynchronous closure of the valves is also discussed.
II. EQUATIONS AND NUMERICAL SCHEME
A. Problem Statement
A long straight horizontal pipe with length L and diameter
D is considered. The pipe wall is assumed tough enough and
well-fixed so that the variances of the cross section and length
are negligible. In order to generate wave fronts, two valves,
which are installed at the inlet and outlet of the pipe, suddenly
shut down simultaneously. Two wave fronts appear and begin
to move with the same velocity (acoustic velocity) but with
opposite directions. The cylindrical coordinate system is set up
at the entrance of the pipe. The flow considered is
axisymmetric. The radial velocity component is negligible so
the pressure as well as the pressure head is invariant on the
cross section.
B. Governing Equations
In the case of laminar pipe flow, a quasi-two-dimensional
model which is provided in [12] is appropriate to describe the
fluid transient motion in the pipe. Some common
approximations have been made, which is a) that the fluid flow
is axisymmetric, b) that the lateral or radial velocity component
is negligible and c) that boundary layer approximation is
applied on, resulting in zero gradient of pressure head in radial
direction. The lateral velocity component has been calculated
by Vardy et al [11] and the results indicate that lateral velocity
component is approximately four orders of magnitude smaller
than axial velocity component. The validation of this quasi-two
1 August 5-7, 2015
Harbin, China
dimensional model has been done in [20].The partial H i 1/ 2 (Wi 1  Wi )  H i 1/2 (Wi  Wi 1 )
differential equations are used with no-dimensional form for Av (W ) (10)
convenient calculation and discussion. The axial direction is 't
scaled by the pipe length while the radius direction is scaled by 1
the diameter of the pipe. In addition, the continuity equation is H i 1/2 max(D i  2 , D i 1 , D i , D i 1 ) (11)
integrated on cross section since the pressure head is only a 2
function of axial direction and time. where Av represent the artificial term and W is H or u
based on which equations the artificial term is added.
wH wH wV Subscript i is the index of axial direction. D is a total variation
 Ma (V ) 0 (1)
wt wx wx diminishing (TVD) switch of the artificial term so that the
wu wu wH [ Ma w wu artificial terms are effective in the high-gradient region while
 Ma (u )   (r ) (2) they are switched off in smooth flow regions. The definition of
wt wx wx Re r wr wr D is given in (6)-(8).
0.5
V 8³ (u u r )dr (3) Wi 1  2Wi  Wi 1
0 Di (12)
where H is the non-dimensional pressure head, V is the non- (1  Z ) < TVD  Z<
dimensional average velocity on cross section and u is the
non-dimensional axial component of velocity. Four non-
< TVD Wi 1  Wi  Wi  Wi 1 (13)
dimensional parameters are defined as L/D ratio ( [ L / D ), < Wi 1  2Wi  Wi 1 (14)
Mach number ( Ma V0 / a ) and Reynolds number
Detailed descriptions of the numerical scheme are in [17].
( Re = UV0 D / P ).
Appropriate boundary conditions and initial conditions are III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
prerequisite to fully solve the equations. Two valves located at In this section, the numerical results of the water hammer
the inlet and outlet of the pipe shut down the flow. The sudden model in the valve-pipe-valve system are provided. The
closure of the outlet valve stops the fluid motion numerical settings are firstly given. And then, the
instantaneously resulting in zero velocity at this valve position. characteristics of wave front are discussed and analyzed with
The inlet valve actuates after a given time delay. The velocity the fluid field. Finally, the pressure head history at the exit
on the pipe wall is zero according to the no-slip condition while valve is given to indicate the effects of time delay of the
the radial gradient of velocity at the center line of the pipe is closure of the entrance valve.
zero based on the axisymmetric assumption. Fully-developed
flow (Hagen-Poiseuille flow) is chosen as the initial conditions, A. Numerical Settings
which is usually done in previous literatures. The mathematical The water hammer model is governed by three non-
expressions of boundary conditions and initial conditions are dimensional parameters, which are L/D ratio, Mach number
given below. and Reynolds number. Individually, L/D ratio is 1440, Mach
number is 0.0002 and Reynolds number is 164. The grid
u (0, r , t ) u (0, r , 0) t  t0 number of the axial direction is 200 while the grid number of
(4)
u (0, r , t ) 0 t t t0 radial direction is 60. The CFL number is unity to make sure
the numerical stability for the explicit time-marching scheme.
where t0 is the amount of time delay.
B. Discussion
u (1, r , t ) 0 (5)

(wu / wr )( x ,0, t ) 0 (6)

u ( x , 0.5, t ) 0 (7)

u ( x , r , 0) 2(1  4r 2 ) (8)

32[ Ma
H ( x , 0) (1  x ) (9)
Re
Fig. 1. Spatial Variance of denpendet variables at 0.25at/L
C. Numerical Scheme
According to [17], the equations are discretized with central
difference for spatial derivatives and integrated with 4th order
Runge–Kutta in time. Artificial viscosities are added in (1) and
(2) respectively to avoid fictitious oscillation.

2

Fig. 2. Spatial Variance of Dependent Variables at 0.75at/L
Fig. 3. Spatial Variance of Dependent Variables at 1.25at/L
Fig. 4. Spatial Variance of Dependent Variables at 1.75at/L
Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 indicates the spatial variances of dependent
variables at different moment. The blue lines represent the
velocity profiles. The red dash lines represent the wall shear
stress. The green dash lines indicate the average velocity while
the pink dash lines give the information about press head. The
gray vertical line indicates the position of the wave front
induced by the entrance valve while the yellow vertical line
gives the position of the wave front induced by the exit valve.
Velocity reversal or Richardson effect [22] is observed. The
effects of wave front on velocity profiles are invariant with the
wave front direction. These can be explained by the following
two reasons. 1) The acoustic velocity of water is much larger
than fluid motion so no matter the direction of the wave front,
the fluid seems to be stationary relative to the wave front. 2)
More importantly, the same pressure gradient, which is actually
effective on fluid motion, appears no matter the direction of the
wave front so the fluid is in the same force environment. As the
direction of wave front has little influence on velocity profiles,
the shear stress as well as average velocity, reasonably, is
spatial symmetric with the middle of the pipe. When two wave
3
fronts, which have opposite directions, meet, these wave fronts
can penetrate each other. The yellow wave front keeps
increasing the pressure head while the gray wave front keeps
decreasing the pressure head. It is obvious that the existent of
viscosity of the fluid smears the strong discontinuity. The
kinetic energy is transferred in to pressure, which induces
pressure jump. The viscosity impairs the pressure as well as
kinetic energy, which caused attenuations.
Fig. 5-Fig. 8 illustrate the pressure head history at the exit
valve, the entrance valve and the middle of the pipe as well as
the average velocity history at the middle of the pipe with
different delay of the entrance valve. The exit valve shut down
at the beginning. When t is less than t0, the flow keep moving
into the pipe while t is larger than t0, the entrance valve shut
down instantly. Line packing [23] is observed because water
keeps moving into the pipe before the entrance valve shut
down. t0 has great effects on the frequency and amplitude of
the pressure and the velocity oscillations. As the delay time
increase, the pressure heads at the exit valve, entrance valve
and the middle of the pipe increase as well. The steady pressure
heads are in the same tendency. This is because that the more
fluid flows into the pipe, the more kinetic energy transfers into
pressure energy although viscous attenuation exists. A special
case is when t0 is L/a. at this moment, the wave front induced
by the exit valve travels to the entrance and at the same time
another wave front induced by the entrance valve appears.
These wave fronts have opposite effects on pressure head so
their influences are counteracted mostly but not totally. This is
because that the wave front induced by the exit valve has
experienced viscous attenuation while the other wave front
induced by the entrance valve has the initial strength of that
induced by exit valve. By the viscous effect of the fluid, the
pressure as well as the velocity oscillations attenuates rapidly.
Fig. 5. Pressure Head History at Exit Valve with Different Delay
Fig. 6. Pressure Head History at Entrance Valve with Different Delay
 R radius of the channel
[ length/diameter ratio
Ma Mach number
Re Reynolds number

Greek symbols

U mass density
P dynamic viscosity
Fig. 7. Pressure Head History at the middle of the pipe with Different Delay

Fig. 8. Average Velocity History at the middle of the pipe with Different
Delay
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The effects of wave front on velocity profiles are invariant
with the wave front direction. These can be explained by the
following two reasons. 1) The acoustic velocity of water is
much larger than fluid motion 2) More importantly, the same
pressure gradient, which is actually effective on fluid motion,
appears no matter the direction of the wave front. When two
wave fronts, which have opposite directions, meet, these wave
fronts can penetrate each other.
In the cases of closure delay of the entrance valve, Line
packing is observed because water keeps moving into the pipe
before the entrance valve shut down. As the delay time increase,
the pressure head at the exit valve increases as well. A special
case is when t0 is at/L. Two wave fronts are counteracted
mostly at entrance. By the viscous effect of the fluid, the
pressure oscillation attenuates rapidly.
Nomenclature
Scales
H non-dimensional pressure head
u non-dimensional axial velocity
V0 initial average velocity on cross section
V non-dimensional average velocity on cross section
a acoustic velocity
L length of the pipe
D diameter of the pipe
REFERENCES
[1] Wylie E. B. and Streeter V. L.. Fluid Transients. FEB Press, Ann Arbor,
1984.
[2] M.H. Afshar, M. Rohani. Water hammer simulation by implicit method
of characteristic. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping 85
(2008) 851–859.
[3] Arash Niroomandi, Seyed Mahmood Borghei, Asghar Bohluly.
Implementation of Time Splitting Projection Method in water hammer
modeling in deformable pipes. International Journal of Pressure Vessels
and Piping 98 (2012) 30-42.
[4] Hongyu Chen, Hongjun Liu, Jianhua Chen et al. Chebyshev super
spectral viscosity method for water hammer analysis. Propulsion
andPowerResearch2013;2(3):201–207.
[5] A. Ismaier, E. Schlücker. Fluid dynamic interaction between water
hammer and centrifugal pumps. Nuclear Engineering and Design 239
(2009) 3151–3154.
[6] S. Meniconi, B.Brunone, M.Ferrante. Water-hammer pressure waves
interaction at cross-section changes in series in viscoelastic pipes.
Journal ofFluidsandStructures33(2012)44–58.
[7] Qiaolin Zuo, Suizheng Qiu, Wei Lu. Water hammer characteristics of
integral pressurized water reactor primary loop. Nuclear Engineering
and Design 261 (2013) 165– 173.
[8] Zielke W. Frequency-dependent friction in transient pipe flow. Journal
of Basic Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, 90(1968):109 –115.
[9] Mohamed S. Ghidaoui, Ming Zhao, Duncan A. McInnis et al. A Review
of Water Hammer Theory and Practice. Applied Mechanics Reviews,
Transactions of the ASME, 58(2005): 49-76.
[10] G. K. Nathan, J. K. Tan and K. C. NG. Two-dimensional analysis of
pressure transients in pipelines. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Fluids, 8(1988): 339-349.
[11] Alan E. Vardy and Kuo-Lun Hwang. A characteristics model of transient
friction in pipes. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 29(1991):669–684.
[12] Giuseppe Pezzinga. Quasi-2D Model for Unsteady Flow in Pipe
Networks. Journal of Hyraulic Engineering, 125(1999):676-685.
[13] M. C. P. Brunelli. Two-Dimensional Pipe Model for Laminar Flow.
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Transactions of the ASME,
127(2005):431-437.
[14] Zhao M, Ghidaoui MS. Investigation of turbulent behavior in pipe
transient using a k–İ model. J. Hydraul. Res., 44(2006):682–92.
[15] Riasi A, Nourbakhsh A, Raisee M. Unsteady turbulent pipe flow due to
water hammer using k–Ȧ turbulence model. J. Hydraul.
Res.,47(2009):429–37.
[16] A. Riasi, A. Nourbakhsh, M. Raisee. Energy dissipation in unsteady
turbulent pipe flows caused by water hammer. Computers & Fluids 73
(2013) 124–133.
[17] E. M. Wahba. Runge–Kutta time-stepping schemes with TVD central
differencing for the water hammer equations. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids,
52(2006):571–590.
[18] E.M. Wahba. Modelling the attenuation of laminar fluid transients in
piping systems. Applied Mathematical Modelling 32 (2008) 2863–2871.

4
[19] E.M. Wahba. Turbulence modeling for two-dimensional water hammer
simulations in the low Reynolds number range. Computers & Fluids 38
(2009) 1763–1770.
[20] E. M. Wahba. A computational study of viscous dissipation and entropy
generation in unsteady pipe flow. Acta. Mech. 216 (2011): 75–86 DOI
10.1007/s00707-010-0358-x.
[21] E.M. Wahba. Non-Newtonian fluid hammer in elastic circular pipes:
Shear-thinning and shear-thickening effects. Journal of Non-Newtonian
Fluid Mechanics 198 (2013) 24–30.
[22] E.G. Richardson, E. Tyler. The transverse velocity gradient near the
mouths of pipes in which an alternating or continuous flow of air is
established. Proc. Phys. Soc. 42 (1929): 1–15.
[23] M. Kaplan, V.L. Streeter, E.B. Wylie. Computation of oil pipeline
transients. J. Pipeline Div. ASCE, 93(1967): 59–72.