14 (2022) 100154

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Thermofluids

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/international-journal-of-thermofluids

RELAP5 application for water hammer analysis in different

thermal-hydraulic systems
Algirdas Kaliatka *, Mindaugas Vaišnoras, Mindaugas Valinčius, Tadas Kaliatka
Laboratory of Nuclear Installation Safety, Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos str. 3, LT-44403 Kaunas, Lithuania

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The water hammer phenomenon investigations employing RELAP5 code with one-dimensional two-fluid six-
Water hammer phenomenon equation models of water and steam flow were performed and the main results shared in this paper. The
Piping systems capability of RELAP5 code to simulate transients leading strong pressure pulses was investigated employing the
Modelling of thermal-hydraulic processes
measurement results of three test facilities for different water hammer types: PPP at UMSICHT, CWHTF at FZR
Dresden and PMK-2 at AEKI. Based on the benchmarking results the recommendations for the modelling of
piping systems, which could be affected by different types of water hammer were developed and tested. The
recommendations cover selection of thermal-hydraulic system conditions, parameters of modelling and RELAP5
code correlations. These recommendations have enabled to develop a detail RELAP5 models for the simulation of
water hammer effects in further research works. The applications of RELAP5 code for water hammer analysis in
different thermal-hydraulic systems (RBMK-1500 reactor main circulation loop, targets cooling/heating circuit in
Wendelstein 7-X experimental stellarator facility and pipelines in district heating system) are presented in this
paper. The performed analyses of transients demonstrated that the pressure pulsations could appear in all these
systems as results of check valve closures. However, pressure surges are not so strong due to specific of such
systems and integrity of pipelines remains not violated.

could occur if hot steam meets large accumulations of condensate in

1. Introduction
Water hammer is a very strong pressure pulses or surges, which can
occur in any system of fluid-conducting pipes. The stresses on the pipes,
valves and apparatus due to water hammer can be so high that the
equipment concerned is damaged or in extreme cases actually bursts.
The designers of fluid systems seek to avoid this extremely dangerous
phenomenon, investigating possible conditions, which initiate forma­
tion of water hammer. This is especially relevant for the nuclear reactors
cooling system, because failure of such system due to that phenomenon
could lead to the severe accidents.
In different sources could be found slightly different classification of
water hammer. Some authors are distinguishing two types: (a) hydraulic
and cavitational water hammer and (b) thermal water hammer type [1].
In case of hydraulic and cavitational water hammer, abrupt close of
valve stops the fluid flow, the kinetic energy is converted to pressure
energy and a water hammer pulse is produced upstream of the valve. At
the same time, downstream of the valve, the liquid is moving from
inertia, that leads to the drop of pressure, locally evaporation of liquid
and formation of a "cavitation bubble". The thermal water hammer
insufficiently drained pipe, or in case of sub-cooled condensate is fed
into a pipe that is partially filled with flash steam. In both cases the very
fast changes in volume could occur (in first case - sudden evaporation, in
second - the condensation of flash steam), which cause water hammer
with strong pressure surges. The other authors all water hammers clas­
sifying in three types [2]: (a) rapid valve operation events; (b)
void-induced water hammer; (c) condensation-induced water hammer.
Such classification of water hammer types is discussed in Section 2.
Extensive studies have been performed to assess the capabilities of
thermohydraulic computer codes for the simulation of water hammers
and pressure surges in piping systems. The customizing of widely-used
system thermohydraulic codes (like RELAP5, ATHLET, CATHARE,
which models one- and two-dimensional flow and heat transfer pro­
cesses) for the modelling of water hammer phenomenon looks particu­
larly enticing, because system codes are widely used for the analysis of
response of nuclear reactor and its cooling system in case of different
transients and loss of coolant accidents. Different authors performed
applications using different system thermohydraulic codes – the results
are discussed in following section of this manuscript. However, all in­
vestigations were related to the selected type of water hammer and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: algirdas.kaliatka@lei.lt (A. Kaliatka).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijft.2022.100154
Received 8 March 2022; Received in revised form 24 April 2022; Accepted 28 April 2022
Available online 30 April 2022
2666-2027/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Kaliatka et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154

Nomenclature ρ [kg/m3]Density
υ [m/s]Velocity
A [m2] Flow cross-sectional area
Bx [m/s2] Body force in x coordinate direction Subscripts
C [-] Coefficient of virtual mass 1, 2 boundaries 1 and 2
DISS [W/m3] Energy dissipation function atm ambient
Dx [m] Cell size f liquid
F [N] Reaction force g gas
FIF [s− 1] Interface drag coefficient (liquid) m mixture
FIG [s− 1] Interface drag coefficient (gas) w wall
FWF [s− 1] Wall drag coefficient (liquid) wf “wall to liquid”
FWG [s− 1] Wall drag coefficient (gas) wg “wall to gas”
g [m/s2] Gravitational constant s saturation
h’ [J/kg] Enthalpy, associated with wall interface mass Abbreviation
transfer BWP Bottom Water Pipes in RBMK cooling circuit
h* [J/kg] Enthalpy, associated with bulk interface mass CCFL Counter Current Flow Limit
transfer CWHTF Cold Water Hammer Test Facility
HIG [-] Volumetric interfacial heat transfer coefficient for gas DHS District Heating Systems
phase ECCS Emergency Core Cooling System in RBMK
HIF [-] Volumetric interfacial heat transfer coefficient for GDH Group Distribution Header in RBMK cooling circuit
liquid phase GRS Gesellschaft Fuer Reaktorsicherheit (German society on
L [m] Length of straight pipe section safety of installations and reactors)
m [kg/s] Mass flow HEM Homogeneous Equilibrium Model
P [Pa] Pressure LEI Lithuanian Energy Institute
Q [W/m3] Volumetric heat addition rate MCC Main Cooling Circuit
t [s] Time MCP Main Circulation Pump
U [J/kg] Specific internal energy PMK Paks Model Experiment
v [m/s] Phasic velocity RBMK Russian abbreviation for “Large-power channel-type
x [m] Spatial coordinate reactor”
T [oC] Temperature RELAP Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program
Δt [s] Time elapsed from the beginning of the condensation PPP Pilot Plant Pipework
implosion SUSA Software for Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analyses
Special characters UMSICHT Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and
x, α [-]Volumetric gas fraction Energy Technology
Γ [kg/m3s]Volumetric mass exchange rate

selected test facility. The scientific novelty of the work presented in this Mass conservation (for gas and liquid phase, respectively):
manuscript – developed and tested recommendations for the modelling
∂( ) 1 ∂( )
of piping systems (filled with single or two-phase coolant), which could αρ + αg ρg vg A = Γg (1)
∂t g g A ∂x
be affected by different types of water hammer.
Lithuanian Energy Institute (LEI) has been employing RELAP5 code ∂( ) 1 ∂( )
[3] for justification of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant safety since 1992. αρ + αf ρf vf A = Γf (2)
∂t f f A ∂x
RELAP5, as the other similar one-dimensional system code, is describing
Momentum conservation (for gas and liquid phase, respectively):
the flow of water and steam using six-equation system (mass, mo­
mentum and energy conservation equations for gas and liquid phase)
[3]:

∂vg 1 ∂v2 g ∂P ( ) ( ) ( )
αg ρg A + αg ρg A = − αg A + αg ρg Bx A − αg ρg A FWG vg + Γg A vgl − vg −
∂t 2 ∂x ∂x
[ ( ) ] (3)
( ) ( ) ∂ vg − vf ∂vg ∂vf
− αg ρg A FIG vg − vf − Cαg αf ρm A + vf − vg
∂t ∂x ∂x

2
A. Kaliatka et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154

∂vf 1 ∂v2f ∂P ( ) ( ) ( )
αf ρf A + αf ρf A = − αf A + αf ρf Bx A − αf ρf A FWG vf + Γg A vfl − vf −
∂t 2 ∂x ∂x
[ ( ) ] (4)
( ) ( ) ∂ vf − vg ∂vf ∂vg
− αf ρf A FIF vf − vg − Cαf αg ρm A + vg − vf
∂t ∂x ∂x

Energy conservation (for gas and liquid phase, respectively):
∂( ) 1 ∂( ) ∂α P ∂ ( )
ρAU + ρ αg Ug v g A = − P g − ρ v A + Qwg + Qig
∂t g g g A ∂x g ∂t A ∂x g g
′ at the reservoir, which is connected to the piping, is constant, the water
+ Γig h∗g + Γw hg + DISSg
∂( ) 1 ∂( ) ∂α P ∂ ( )
ρAU + ρ αf Uf vf A = − P f − α v A + Qwf + Qif
∂t f f f A ∂x f ∂t A ∂x f f
− Γif h∗f − Γw h’f + DISSf
The hydrodynamic model of RELAP5 can contain non-condensable
components in the steam phase and a soluble component in the water
phase. The modelling of two-phase flow is a strong side of RELAP5,
because the two-fluid model is consistent, stable, and convergent [4].
This simulation tool allows users to model the behaviour of the nuclear
reactor coolant system and the core for various operational transients
and postulated accidents. Because RELAP5 code is widely used for a long
time, a very detailed code verification was performed for a wide area of
processes [5]. As there was wide experience in use of this program tool
in the Lithuanian Energy Institute, the RELAP5 code was used also for
the investigation of water hammer type transients. The suitability of
RELAP5 code in simulation of water hammer phenomenon was inves­
tigated employing the experimental investigations performed at
different test facilities. The data from three test facilities: PPP at
UMSICHT [6], CWHTF at FZR Dresden [7] and PMK-2 at AEKI [8] cover
a wide range of geometries and thermodynamic conditions, and take
into account different void fraction, pressures, temperatures and flow
rates as well as the mechanisms of water hammers (fast flow transient,
void or condensation induced water hammer). Based on the comparison
of experimental measurements with calculation results, the recom­
mendations for the model development and modelling of water hammer
phenomenon were developed. The developed recommendations were
supported by uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. The main findings are
presented in Section 2. The following sections 3 – 5 demonstrate the
suitability of developed recommendations based on the analysis of water
hammer in different thermal-hydraulic systems (main circulation loop of
RBMK-1500 reactor, targets cooling / heating circuit in Wendelstein 7-X
experimental stellarator facility and pipelines in district heating
system).
2. Development of recommendations for the modelling of water
hammer
The recommendations for the modelling of different types of water
hammer in different piping systems, filled by single or two-phase
coolant, were developed performing modelling of different experi­
ments and analysing influence of different RELAP5 code parameters.
The main findings were supported by uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis.
2.1. Modelling of water hammer phenomenon in experimental facilities
The most known experimental investigations of first type of water
hammer (valve-induced water hammer) are the experiments performed
at Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety and Energy Technol­
ogy, UMSICHT [6, 9]. The experimental facility consists of water tank,
pump, pipelines and fast closure valve. After very fast valve closure,
because the water moves on, the pressure downstream the valve de­
creases to saturation and big steam bubble is created. Since the pressure
flows backwards. As a consequence, the steam bubble condenses
(5) downstream at the closed valve and causes a cavitational hammer
(pressure peak) of approximately 4.5 MPa.
The second type of water hammer (void-induced water hammer) was
investigated in Forschungszentrum Rossendorf CWHTF experimental
(6) facility [7, 10]. The test section in this facility consists of “U form” pipe,
with closed end at vertical pipe section in one and water tank at other
side. The cold-water hammer occurred when movement of water is
started and sub-cooled water interacted with condensing steam in the
closed end at the top of vertical pipe. The condensation of steam in
evacuation area creates pressure difference between the tank and the
closed end, which accelerates water in the pipe. When this accelerated
water column is suddenly stopped by the closed end of the pipe, the
void-induced water hammer happens.
The experiment of condensation-induced water hammer (third type)
was performed in PMK-2 test facility [8, 11] at Hungarian Atomic En­
ergy Institute. The test section consists of horizontal pipe, where hot
steam is connected to the left and cold-water tank – to the right end
accordingly. During the experiment the cold water begins to flow into a
horizontal pipe section filled with steam. When water penetrates into
the pipe, the steam is condensed and flows over a water surface in the
opposite direction. When the velocity of counter-current flow increases,
the steam-water surface becomes wavy. Due to the appearance of Kel­
vin–Helmholtz instability, the wave becomes unstable and grows to
block the whole cross-section. When the pipe is blocked with the water
slug, steam bubble remains closed within water inlet and water slug.
Finally, the strong water hammer appears due to condensation of such
steam bubble.
Experiments performed on these three test facilities differ from each
other by the mechanisms of water hammer, by the range of pressures
and temperatures as well. Because all experimental results give very
precise data regarding thermal hydraulic aspects, they were used by LEI
scientists for the RELAP5 code validation and establishment of recom­
mendations for water hammer phenomenon modelling. The model of
UMSICHT facility was developed using RELAP5/Mod3.3 code. The
nodalization scheme is presented in Fig. 1. The water reservoir together
with pump is modelled using two time-dependant volumes (components
“500′′ for the modelling of injection and “650′′ – for the water return)
with specified constant pressures and temperatures to obtain steady
state water velocity in piping system of facility. The water supply line
after pump is modelled by pipe element “753′′ , the initiator of water
hammer – a shut-off valve is represented as component “754′′ . The
segment of actual facility piping with the Bridge 1 downstream the valve
was modelled using the pipe component “755′′ . Last segment of piping
with the new pipe Bridge 2 was modelled employing the pipe component
“758′′ . The pipe elements are connected together with single junction
components. The detailed description of the UMSICHT experimental
facility model is provided in paper [12].
Fig. 2(a) shows the measured pressure in the Pilot plant pipework
(UMSICHT) experiment (dot line) compared with the calculated
RELAP5/Mod3.3 code data (continuous line). The experiment was
performed at the initial water velocity equal to 4 m/s. Pressure was

3
A. Kaliatka et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154

Fig. 1. UMSICHT RELAP5/Mod3.3 code model nodalization scheme.

Fig. 2. Pressure history (a) and average void fraction (b) for a quick shut-off of the valve at steady state water velocity 4 m/s (UMSICHT experiment).

Fig. 3. Pressure history (a) and simulated mass transfer rate per unit volume (b) near the closed end of the pipeline (CWHTF experiment).

4
A. Kaliatka et al.
measured downstream the shut-off valve. The calculations showed that
after the valve has been closed, the pressure downstream the closed
valve decreases to the saturation pressure. Within the first 3 s the void
(steam) fraction in this pipe section increases and reaches a value of over
0.95, i. e. the pipe is almost completely empty (Fig. 2(b)). Due to created
vacuum, the water flow changes direction, then the very fast conden­
sation of steam starts, as a result, the steam fraction decreases rapidly.
The collapse of the steam downstream the closed valve causes the
pressure peak. The generated pressure wave travels through the pipe­
line, is reflected at the entrance into the water storage tank and returns
back. Comparing to the first pressure peak, the pressure of reflected
wave is smaller. A new cavitation bubble is generated, when the sec­
ondary wave reaches the closed valve. This process is repeating for
several times and each time a new water hammer with decreasing
amplitude is observed.
The RELAP5 code models of Forschungszentrum Rossendorf CWHTF
test facility in details are shown in paper [2]. The comparison of
calculated and measured pressures near the closed end of the pipe in
case of void-induced water hammer analysis is presented in Fig. 3(a).
The first pressure peak appears at time moment t= 0.15 s after the water
movement starts. This first calculated pressure peak match very well the
measured first pressure peak as well as in UMSICHT facility test case
simulation (see Fig. 3(a)). Unfortunately, the following pressure peaks
are stronger in calculation results and appear with higher frequency.
However, correct prediction of the first (and the highest) pressure peak
is the most important analysing the safe operation of the hydraulic
systems. The calculated total mass transfer rate per unit volume at the
vapour/liquid interface in the bulk fluid for vapour (steam) gen­
eration/condensation is presented in Fig. 3(b). The negative steam
generation rate means condensation and the positive – evaporation. The
figure shows, that the pressure peaks appear at the very end of
condensation process, when it changes into the evaporation.
One of the major difficulties in modelling two-phase flow is the fact
that the geometry of the interface between the two phases (i.e. steam
and water) is not known a priori, since the way in which the phases are
going to be distributed with respect to each other (i.e. the flow pattern)
is also part of the solution. Investigations [13] have shown that for
subcooled boiling the closure relations are mostly empirical and
flow-pattern dependant. The complexity of this type of models makes it
difficult if not impossible to determine cause-effect relationships in the
results of the simulations. The carried-out investigations using RELAP5
code [3] have shown that for the modelling of water hammer phe­
nomenon related to subcooled boiling, the Homogeneous Equilibrium
Model (HEM) could reproduce the pressure peaks reasonably well. The
HEM option in RELAP5 solution means instantaneous relaxation of heat,
mass and momentum transfer, while the simulation of the experiment
without HEM options missed the measured pressure time-history (see
Fig. 4. RELAP5 code simulation of CWHTF experiment employing HEM op­
tions and without HEM options.
5
International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154
Fig. 4).
The results of UMSICHT test facility experiment calculation per­
formed in LEI employing RELAP5 code were compared to MONA and
FLOWMASTER codes calculation results, received by other authors. The
MONA code is a general flow simulator for steam-water/inert gas sys­
tems and has been developed with the objective of updating the hy­
draulic modelling. MONA contains a set of 7 conservation equations,
based on the modelling of three flow fields: the bulk water or the water
film at the wall, the water droplet field and the gas or steam phase. Thus,
3 mass conservation equations, 2 momentum and 2 energy equations are
solved [14]. The main difference of the cavitation model used in the
software code FLOWMASTER in comparison to the 3-phase-model used
in MONA, is that using the Discrete-vapour-Cavity model, sudden
changes of gas content in the liquid (e. g. in case of pressure decrease)
cannot be calculated using FLOWMASTER code. The comparison of
MONA, FLOWMASTER and RELAP5 results with experimental data is
presented in Fig. 5. The pressure was monitored / calculated at the
position downstream the closed valve. As seen in Fig. 5(a), the first
cavitation hammer matches the measured value of pressure very well in
RELAP5 calculation and reasonably well in FLOWMASTER calculation.
Concerning the following condensation hammers, the pressures calcu­
lated with FLOWMASTER code are too high and the peaks appear with
an accumulating time delay. Simulating with MONA code, the first
cavitational hammer is too low in comparison with measured data and
RELAP5 calculation, but the frequency agrees quite well in comparison
with the experimental data (see Fig. 5(b)).
The comparison of CWHTF experiment measurements with calcula­
tions performed in LEI employing RELAP5 code and WAHA code
calculation results [15] is presented in Fig. 6. The mathematical model
of the WAHA code is a one-dimensional, six-equation, two-fluid model,
similar to the models of RELAP, CATHARE or TRAC computer codes. In
WAHA code, as basic equations, the mass, momentum and energy bal­
ances for vapour and liquid, without terms for wall-to-fluid heat transfer
[16] are used. The graphs in Fig. 6 shows pressure time-history all
calculated and experimental in a point just near the closed end of the
pipe. As seen in Fig. 6, the WAHA code calculated pressure peaks
over-predict the measured pressure peaks and under-predict the damp­
ing of the system. Probable reason for discrepancy is the presence of the
dissolved air in the water and in the steam bubble under the closed end
of the pipe. Even a very small fraction of the non-condensable air
significantly reduces the sharpness and the height of the pressure peak.
As WAHA does not contain the option for the simultaneous presence of
the non-condensable gas and steam, the CWHTF experiment cannot be
reliably simulated with WAHA code.
Regarding the third type - condensation-induced water hammer – it
is necessary to note, that this type of water hammer transients is still not
very well understood and so far, there are no one-dimensional system
codes, which could simulate this type of pressure pulses accurately.
Successful simulation of the condensation-induced water hammer re­
quires description of the horizontally stratified and dispersed flow re­
gimes and criteria for transition between both flow regimes. In RELAP5
code simulation the steam condensation process occurs slowly, conse­
quently the flow regimes change from the horizontally stratified to the
bubbly, without formation of the steam slug. Moreover, the transition
between the flow regimes is smoothed inside the code, in order to avoid
numerical disturbances and fluctuations. This explains why results of
LEI investigations showed that the RELAP5 code couldn’t capture
condensation-induced water hammer phenomenon; i.e., calculation
performed with this code did not predict any pressure peak observed in
test facility experiment.
On the other hand, LEI is performing experimental and theoretical
investigation of condensation implosion events. The special experi­
mental facility named “Pulser” [17], which was intended to induce a
controlled rapid condensation even, was developed. The experiments
showed that there is a range of specific conditions that are necessary to
obtain a rapid condensation pulse, which is driven by a
A. Kaliatka et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of UMSICHT experimental results at steady state water velocity 3 m/s and FLOWMASTER (a) MONA (b) and RELAP5 codes calculation results.
Fig. 6. First pressure peak near closed end in RELAP5 code calculation,
compared with CWHTF experimental results and WAHA code calculation.
Fig. 7. Modelling of pressure transient in the “Pulser” experimental facility
with the original and modified RELAP5 code versions.
positive-feedback effect, in an initially stratified two-phase system. Then
LEI performed a study [18] to replicate the experimental results in a
simulation of the same experimental facility, using a system code
RELAP5. As it was mentioned above, the simulation of the rapid
condensation event appears to be too complicated for the system code:
the process is extremely dynamic, both the phasic interface and the
phasic temperatures change continuously. The investigations showed,
that the generation and disruption of waves in fluid (above which is
steam) is very important. Since in this case the surface area A is
6
International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154
unknown and thermal equilibrium is not reached, thus the traditional
heat transfer coefficient definition is of limited use. A possible way to
proceed is to use the measured condensation rate, assume a constant
heat transfer area (e.g. the RELAP code uses V/L, where V is the volume
of the node and L is its length) and to backout an effective heat transfer
coefficient. For implementation in RELAP this parameter must be recast
in terms of the volumetric phasic coefficients (HIF and HIG) used in the
RELAP energy balance:
( )
Qif = HIF T s − Tf (7)
( )
Qig = HIG T s − Tg (8)
where, Qif and Qig are the volumetric heat addition rate from interphase
surface to liquid and gas, used in energy conservation Eqs. (5 and 6).
Energy transfer rates are evaluated explicitly, as it becomes very small in
a dynamic environment, it lags behind the actual temperature
difference.
To simulate the experiments, performed in “Pulser” facility, RELAP5
code has been modified to introduce a time-based function of heat
transfer coefficient during the condensation pulse, and manually trig­
gering the initiation of the condensation pulse according to the experi­
mental results. A trend for the heat transfer coefficient was found using
iterations, so that experimental data matches the modelling results [17]:
HIG = 1000(Δt)2 + 5e2.5Δt + 2000 (9)
where Δt is time elapsed from the beginning of the condensation
implosion. The modelling results show that with these modifications, the
whole system response to the condensation pulse fits quite well with the
experimental data (Fig. 7).
The same technique could be used to model the condensation
induced water hammer inside pipes and predict the magnitude of the
resulting pressure peak, or any other system response (e.g. as in [17]).
2.2. Main findings regarding modelling of water hammer phenomenon
The benchmarking calculations presented above demonstrated the
excellent suitability of RELAP5 code for the modelling of water hammer
due to rapid valve operation events and acceptable suitability for the
void-induced water hammer modelling. The text below discusses the
parameters influencing calculation results and presents the recommen­
dations for model development.
The influence of parameters of thermal-hydraulic system conditions
(initial liquid flow velocity, pressure, water temperature and flow en­
ergy loss coefficient in the piping) also the RELAP5 modelling parame­
ters (valve closure time, calculation time step and scheme nodalization)
for the water hammer due to rapid valve operation events and void-
induced water hammer were investigated in papers [12, 2]. What
about the influence of liquid flow velocity – the analysis of experiments,
A. Kaliatka et al.
Fig. 8. RELAP5 calculations using different cell sizes in the pipeline
(UMSICHT experiment).
performed at UMSICHT showed that higher initial fluid velocity corre­
sponds to stronger pressure peaks downstream the closed valve. From
another hand, the fluid velocity is dependant on several factors, the most
important of which is flow energy loss coefficient. The lowest value of
energy loss coefficient defines higher pressure peaks resulting from
water hammer. Thus, it is necessary to select initial thermal-hydraulic
system conditions and flow energy loss coefficients in pipelines very
properly, to obtain correct initial fluid velocity in system.
The performed analyses showed that another important factor,
which determines water hammer due to rapid valve operation events, is
valve closing time. The shorter the valve closing time – the greater
pressure peaks occurred. For greater closing time, the reflected pressure
wave returns to the valve, which is still partially opened, and this re­
duces the maximum pressure in the pipe. Thus, it is very important to
correctly simulate the valve, to describe properly the nature of valve’s
flapper movement.
Performing water hammer analysis using RELAP5 code, the close
attention must be paid to the calculation time step. In RELAP5 code the
Courant limit of acoustic wave is the time required for a wave to travel at
the sonic velocity through any given model cell. In case of rapid fluid
transients an explicit integration scheme leads to sometimes large nu­
merical errors, unless a time step is selected much smaller than the
maximum allowed by the Courant condition. The performed bench­
marking showed, that the ratio of current time step and current Courant
time step should not exceed 0.1 at modelling of water hammer transients
using RELAP5 code. The next parameter, which has significant impact –
the cell size of developed nodalization. In the case of water hammer the
pressure wave is generating fast and propagates in the pipe at the speed
of sound. The sonic velocity is usually quite high and (as it was
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured pressure peak with the calculations using
SUSA generated runs (UMSICHT experiment).
7
International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154
mentioned above) the time step usually has to be reduced to a rather
small number. Thus, the cell nodalization scheme must be implemented
to give a small length dimension. According the investigations, pre­
sented in [2] the length of one computational cell should not exceed 0.5
m in the modelled pipelines where water hammer is expected. Graphs in
Fig. 8 show the performed analysis to evaluate the influence of cell sizes
in the pipe components. As it is seen from figure, the values of pressure
peaks and the frequencies of cavitational pressure peaks are different in
these investigated cases. The model cell length was decreased to Dx =
0.5 m to obtain the best agreement with measured value. However, finer
nodalization does not affect the value of first pressure peak.
The uncertainty and sensitivity analysis with employing the GRS
methodology [19] together with the statistical package SUSA [20] has
been used in LEI for many years. Such analysis allows not only to
evaluate safety margins, but also could be used for the model
improvement. The uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of water hammer
experiment, performed at UMSICHT test facility, has allowed to assess
the influence of initial and boundary conditions and RELAP5 code
models, assumptions and correlations to the calculation results.
Regarding RELAP5 code correlations, were analysed the influence of
different possibilities for physical description of specific phenomena:
• Water packing: it specifies whether the volume filling with water
packing scheme is to be used or not to be used.
• Vertical stratification: it specifies whether the model of two-phase
media vertical stratification is enabled or disabled.
• Modified PV term in the equations: it specifies whether the modified
potential pressure energy model is applied or not applied.
• Counter current flow limit (CCFL): it specifies whether the model is
applied or not applied.
However, the performed sensitivity analysis has shown that most
contributing uncertain parameters with respect to the maximum pres­
sure values are valve closing rate, the flow energy loss coefficient in the
piping, the pressure at the pump header and the water temperature. The
influence of RELAP5 code models, assumptions and correlations to the
calculation results was negligible. Based on the modelling experience it
is recommended to apply the options, where all models (water packing,
vertical stratification, modified PV and CCFL) are actuated.
Fig. 9 presents 100 achieved results for the first pressure peak, which
occurs approximately after 3.3 s from the fast valve closure. Results of
the uncertainty analysis, presented in Fig. 9 have shown that after
assessment within the selected range of variation of input parameters
the peak pressure value of all performed calculations could differ on
approximately 4% (range of values within 3.99 MPa and 4.15 MPa). A
more detailed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of UMSICHT water
hammer test is presented in the paper [12].
The research analysis of different water hammer transients, sup­
ported by uncertainty and sensitivity analysis, enabled to draw the
following conclusions and to give recommendations on modelling of this
phenomenon using best estimate system analysis code RELAP5:
• Comparison of results of the experimental investigations and
modelling the ranges of RELAP5 code application to simulate water
hammer type transients justified the suitability of code for modelling
of rapid valve operation events and void-induced water hammer.
• As RELAP5 is one-dimensional, therefore this system analysis code
cannot model the three-dimensional phenomenon of condensation-
induced water hammer.
The carried-out investigations both benchmarking and uncertainty
and sensitivity analysis have shown that parameters of thermal-
hydraulic system conditions (valve closure time, flow energy loss coef­
ficient in the piping, pressure, water temperature, initial fluid velocity)
and the parameters of modelling (calculation time step, scheme nodal­
ization) may impact calculation results in case of water hammer
A. Kaliatka et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154

Fig. 11. Nodalization scheme of group distribution headers connection in

Fig. 10. Schematic representation of one loop of the RBMK-1500 circulation RBMK-1500 model for RELAP5/Mod3.3 code.
circuit. 1 - steam separator, 2 - downcomers, 3 - suction header, 4 - suction
piping of the MCP, 5 - MCP, 6 - pressure piping of the MCP, 7 - pressure header, water passing through the core is boiled in the fuel channels (12) and
8 - bypass between headers, 9 – ECCS, 10 - GDH with flow limiter, check valve
partially evaporated. The steam-water mixture through the steam-water
and mixer, 11 - BWP, 12 - fuel channel, 13 - steam-water pipes, 14 - steam lines,
pipes (13) then enters large steam separators (1). These steam separators
15 - steam high pressure ring with one steam discharge and six main
safety valves.
are elevated greater than that of the reactor. The water settles there,
while the steam through steam lines (14) proceeds to the turbines. In
parallel to the turbines the high-pressure steam rings with main safety
analysis. Main factors, which should be considered at modelling of water
valves (15) are equipped. Beyond the turbines, low pressure steam is
hammer phenomenon:
condensed in the condenser and supplied into the deaerator. The water,
settled in steam separators (1), is mixed with the deaerated condensate
The ratio of current time step to the current Courant time step should
and trough the downcomers (2) reaches suction header (3). The Main
be selected not higher as 0.1 to obtain the adequate amplitude of
Circulation Pumps (5) supply water into Group Distribution Headers
pressure oscillations;
(10) There are 20 GDHs in each loop of reactor cooling circuit. Each
• The cell nodalization scheme should be implemented to give a small
GDH is equipped with flow limiter, check valve and mixer and distrib­
length dimension size (Dx not exceed 0.5 m) in the pipelines where
utes the coolant into around 40 fuel channels. The mixer is used for the
the pressure wave is expected to have a very fast rate of increase;
connection of cold water from Emergency Core Cooling System (9).
• Initial liquid flow velocity in the system (to this concerns initial
ECCS supplies water to cool the reactor in case of loss of water in main
system pressure and the flow energy loss coefficient in the piping);
circulation loops. The check valve in GDH (10) prevents the flow
• Valve closure time (selection of the proper valve model);
reversal and loss of coolant in the case of break of downcomers (2),
• At modelling of the coolant flow at pressure close to atmospheric for
suction (3) or pressure (7) headers, or suction (4) or pressure (6) pipe­
subcooled boiling conditions water hammer simulation should be
lines of MCP (see Fig. 10). It is necessary to note, that breaks of pipelines
performed using RELAP5 code HEM option.
upstream of check valve may cause very fast closing of the check valves
in GDH. That may generate the pressure pulses. Therefore, investigating
One of the features not covered by RELAP5 code is elasticity of the
occurrence of water hammer in the RBMK-1500 reactor circulation
pipe wall, which affects the propagation of the pressure waves in the
pipe. It is known that pipe elasticity reduces the propagation velocity of
the shock and other pressure waves in the piping systems (it can increase
a pressure pulse in RELAP5 simulation). The simulation results showed
that dumping of the pressure peaks in RELAP5 calculation is stronger
than in experiment. Thus, it gives a more conservative result, which is
important in safety analysis, e.g. for safety justification of facilities.
Achieved value of the first pressure peak is the most dangerous and can
lead to damages of facility’s equipment (valves, pumps and pipe bends)
up to leakage of the pipe system.

3. The application of RELAP5 for water hammer analysis in

RBMK-1500 reactor main circulation loop

The RBMK-1500 reactor in Ignalina NPP from other types of nuclear

reactors distinguishes by complex hydraulic system (with long pipelines
of different diameter having a plenty of the valves). A simplified RBMK
reactor cooling circuit, which consists of two main circulation loops is
provided in Fig. 10. The circulation loops have no connection in water
region (only one loop is presented in this Fig. 10). The reactor cooling
Fig. 12. Diagram of inertial valve.

8
A. Kaliatka et al.
circuit, most important are the events induced due to rapid check valve
closure.
In the case of guillotine break of GDH upstream the check valve, this
valve is closing very fast, causing water hammer effect. The pressure
pulses influence not only the reactor cooling circuit (especially BWP),
but also the pipeline of safety related system (ECCS). Thus, such scenario
is the most dangerous in terms of a water hammer. Analysis of guillotine
breaks of GDH upstream the check valve was performed using RELAP5/
Mod3.3 code. The model of the main circulation circuit consists of two
loops, each of which corresponds to one loop of the actual circuit. All
fuel channels in circulation loops are represented by several equivalent
channels operating at specific power and coolant flow. The injection of
feed water into a steam separators and cold water supply into each GDH
for reactor core cooling in case of break in circuit were simulated
explicitly using the RELAP5 “pipe”, “junction”, “volume” and “pump”
elements. In Fig. 11 only part of nodalization scheme of RBMK-1500 –
modelling of GDHs in loop with break is presented. The pipe component
“546′′ represents group of 19 real pipes, which are connecting the
pressure header (branch element “545′′ ) with GDHs. Flow limiter at the
pressure header outlet is modelled as single junction “444′′ , with defined
properties of coolant (one- or two-phase flow) permeability. The 19 real
GDHs (branch element “550′′ ) are connected through check valve (valve
“547′′ ). The main group (760 units) of fuel channels (modelled by pipe
“560′′ ) and BWP (pipes “558′′ and “555′′ ), are connected to the GDH
through individual valves. For this group of pipes, the individual flow
control valves are simulated using a servo valve component “552′′ . The
broken GDH is modelled using pipe component “746′′ and three
branches “748′′ , “749′′ and “750′′ . To model the guillotine break of GDH,
three break valves “199′′ , ‘201′′ and 202′′ and two time-dependant vol­
umes “200′′ and “203′′ are used. Before the break the valve “201′′ is
open, while “199′′ and “202′′ – closed. At the break moment, the situa­
tion is changing – valve “201′′ is closed and valves “199′′ , “202′′ started
to open, to release coolant from both sides of broken GDH to the volumes
“200′′ and “203′′ with atmospheric pressure, representing compartments
around circulation circuit. The pipe components “760′′ , “758′′ and “755′′
models the group of equivalent fuel channels (40 units) connected to this
broken GDH. The supply of water from ECCS to GDHs is modelled
through pipes component “351′′ and “344′′ . For the modelling of check
valve “747′′ in connection of broken GDH with pressure header, the
special ‘‘inertial valve’’ component was used. This component models
the valve behaviour according the diagram presented in Fig. 12. This
special RELAP5 component model evaluates the motion of the valve
flapper, assuming that the area between the flapper and the valve seat
behaves as an orifice whose area changes in time as a function of the
inertial valve geometry. At the same time the abrupt area change model
is used to calculate kinetic form losses through the component. The
energy loss coefficient is assumed to increase from zero at the full
opening up to 0.5 for complete closure [3]. The motion of the flapper
about the shaft is calculated according Newton’s second law, taking into
account flapper mass, gravity vector, moment of inertia, distance from
the hinge pin to the centre of mass, flapper area, pressure difference
across the valve, etc. Also, the minimum and maximum flapper angular
positions are evaluated in such RELAP5 inertial valve model.
The recommendations regarding selection of RELAP5 code parame­
ters and models (such as water packing scheme, vertical stratification
model, counter current flow limit model, thermal front tracking model,
mixture level tracking model) were based on uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis [21]. It was assumed during the performed analysis, that
selected RELAP5 code parameters are varied in the area where mainly
two-phase flow conditions might occur. For the reactor main cooling
circuit model such areas covering: the vertical section before the heated
channels, in the heated channels, above the heated channels,
steam-water pipes modelling elements, break location, in the area of
failed check valve and in the ECCS model. Other areas (especially with
single-phase conditions) are excluded due to the fact that these param­
eters do not have impact on the results in such regions. The results of
9
International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154
Fig. 13. Dynamic forces generated by the coolant pressure pulses in
RBMK-1500.
uncertainty and sensitivity analysis showed, that influence of selected
RELAP5 code parameters and models do not exceeds 20%. Based on this
experience it is recommended to apply the options, where all models
(water packing, vertical stratification, modified PV and CCFL) are
actuated.
The loading (reaction force), affecting the pipes due to sharp change
of velocity of water flow (change of the kinetic energy of water to the
pressure pulse) is calculated according the Eq. (10)
d
∫L
F=− mdz (10)
dt
0
For a straight pipe section the normal direction of a positive velocity
and a positive fluid force is directed from first to second boundary of the
section and the fluid force is always parallel to the pipe axis. The
RELAP5 code [3] calculates the values of relevant fluid-dynamic quan­
tities (pressure, temperature, density, velocity, mass flow, gas fraction)
inside and at the boundaries of each cell for every time step. The values
for temperature, density and velocity are calculated separately for the
liquid and gas phase. The fluid forces F acting on the boundaries of a
straight pipe section with constant flow area is calculated with the
following equations:
( ) ( )
F1 = − (P1 − Patm )A − (1 − x) ρ1f Av21f − x ρ1g Av21g (11)
( ) ( )
F2 = (P2 − Patm )A − (1 − x) ρ2f Av22f − x ρ2g Av22g (12)
where F1, F2 – forces at the boundaries 1 and 2. The resulting (reaction)
force F due to coolant velocity change is calculated as the sum of forces
at the boundaries 1 and 2 (F1 and F2):
F = F1 + F2 (13)
The calculated according to Eq. (13) dynamic forces are presented in
Fig. 13. As it is presented in figure, the maximum value of the force,
generated due to the check valve closure, in connection ECCS headers –
GDH reaches 27 kN. If we assuming the activated area equal to the ECCS
pipe flow area (0.01561 m2), the force, following the fast GDH check
valve closure in case of hypothetical accidents, raises the loading equal
to 1.730 MPa. Such dynamic load is insignificant, comparing to the
hydraulic tests (~10 MPa), which are performed at the NPP. Thus, the
integrity of BWP and ECCS pipelines remains not violated. The received
low pressure surges in boiling reactor circulation loop in case of water
hammer due to valve closure could be explained by availability of steam
– water mixture, which very effectively damps the pressure waves.
A. Kaliatka et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154

Fig. 14. Scheme of the “Baking” circuit and connection of torus targets cooling / heating module.

Fig. 15. Nodalization scheme of torus module connection in W7-X model for RELAP5/Mod3.3 code.

10
A. Kaliatka et al.
4. The application of RELAP5 for pressure surge in Wendelstein
7-X experimental stellarator
Nuclear fusion is the process by which two or more atomic nuclei
merge (or "fuse") together, to form one heavier nucleus. This is usually
accompanied by the release or absorption of large amounts of energy.
The scientists of LEI in the frame of European Fusion Development
Agreement program, are cooperating with Max Planck Institute for
Plasma Physics (IPP, Germany) performing safety analysis of fusion
device W7-X [22].
The plasma vessel in W7-X is in a form of torus. The plasma zone
cooling system consists of 5 torus modules. Each torus module is
composed from 18 horizontal and 6 vertical target modules (group of
heat exchangers). The horizontal target modules consist from 9 upper
and 9 lower target modules. All these torus target modules are connected
to the two inter-connected circuits: Main Cooling Circuit (MCC) and so
called “Baking” circuit. During plasma operation the heat from target
modules is removed through MCC. The “Baking” circuit is used during
the preparation for the plasma operation. During this preparatory phase
(“baking” mode) the plasma vessel structures are heated up to 150 ◦ C in
order to release absorbed gases from the surfaces. Later these gases are
pumped out of the plasma vessel. The “Baking” circuit consists of elec­
trical heater and pump and supply water to the same torus modules as
MCC (see Fig. 14).
The analysis of the possible effect of a water hammer was performed
in the case when the plasma vessel is in the "baking" mode. Several
possible accidents have been analysed and it has been found that pres­
sure pulsations in the cooling / heating circuit pipelines of the targets
are only possible in two cases: (a) the automatic valves at the inlet of the
torus modules close very quickly and (b) fast closure of check valve in
torus module outlet. In the last (most dangerous) case the guillotine
break of pipe, connecting torus module occurs, which leads to the fast
closure of check valve (see Fig. 14). The thermal-hydraulic model of the
W7-X for the cooling / heating circuit was developed using RELAP5 /
Mod3.3 code.
In Fig. 15 only part of nodalization scheme of W7-X model for
RELAP5/Mod3.3 code (nodalization scheme of torus module connec­
tion) is presented. The pipe component “136′′ , “137′′ , “139′′ and “140′′
are used for the modelling of upper and bottom horizontal target mod­
ules. 6 vertical target modules are modelled using “138′′ pipe compo­
nent. “136′′ models one single upper horizontal module, while identical
pipe component “139′′ – bottom horizontal target module. In similar
way components “137′′ and “140′′ represents 8 upper and 8 bottom
horizontal target modules. The pipe component “146′′ , connecting inlet
of all target modules is identical to “130′′ element, which collects the
Fig. 16. Reaction force in different pipes (pipes with diameter 0.263 m, 0.0849
m and 0.0721 m) downstream check valve in guillotine break of pipe, con­
necting torus module, case.
11
International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154
outlet from target modules. The motor valve component “198′′ is con­
necting single bottom target module to time dependant volume “199′′ ,
which models plasma vessel. Such valve “198′′ is used for the modelling
of pipe guillotine break – the cross section area of this valve is 200% of
pipe cross section area. The valve (component “102′′ ) on water supply
line from MCC to the torus module is closed, while automatic valve
(component “122′′ ) on water supply line from “Baking” circuit is initially
open. The check valve (component “108′′ ), installed at the outlet of torus
module, prevents the loss of coolant in case of target pipe break. In case
of break initiation (opening of “198′′ valve), the coolant flow rate
through check valve changes it direction and valve “108′′ closes very
fast, initiating pressure pulse. In developed RELAP5/Mod3.3 model, this
check valve was modelled as the static pressure/flow-controlled check
valve model with hysteresis effect and without any leakage. Such valve
model was selected, because it proved more stable, without less noisy
and less oscillations calculation result, comparing to the static pressure-
controlled check valve and static/dynamic pressure-controlled check
valve models. From other hands, this model gives the most conservative
results – it calculates the highest rate of coolant oscillations.
The reaction forces due to changes of water flow in three different
sections of straight pipes, calculated according Eq. (13) are presented in
Fig. 16. As it is seen form figure, the highest force is in the biggest
diameter pipe, connected to check valve. The maximum value of force
reaches 15 kN. This reaction force affects the unit of check valve and the
branch. If we assuming the activated area equal to the pipe flow area
(0.054325 m2), the loading raises 0.276 MPa. Such dynamic load is
insignificant, comparing to pressure in pipelines at hydraulic test and
integrity of pipes will be not violated. For more details see paper [23].
5. The application of RELAP5 for valve induced water hammer
phenomenon in a district heating system
In District Heating Systems (DHS) the sub-cooled single-phase water
is used as a coolant, therefore only the first type – water hammer due to a
fast valve operation is possible in DHS. The mathematical model of DHS
was developed using RELAP5/MOD3.3 computer code. RELAP5 code is
designed for the analysis of accidents in nuclear reactors. However, such
complex computer code for system hydraulics, is able to calculate all the
phenomenon observed in DHS network, which uses water as a heating
agent. The RELAP5 computer code has previously been used for the
analysis of pipe break accident in a DHS [24], that demonstrated the
capability of it. In the developed RELAP5 model (see Fig. 17) both
supply and return DHS water lines were modelled using ‘‘pipe’’ ele­
ments. These pipelines were modelled separately. The heating system of
each consumer in the DHS model is modelled using valve element,
which connects the supply and return lines in the specified places. The
required amount of heat, which is supplied to consumer is determined
by flow rate of hot water through this valve element. This flow rate was
set by tuning the flow energy loss coefficient for the valve.
Because elevations of different city regions usually are different, the
special pump stations are equipped in the lower-elevated regions. The
pump station is equipped with a throttle valve in supply and a pump in
return line. This ensures water supply for the consumers of region and
keeping the pressure difference between supply and return DHS water
lines at the same acceptable level, as for remaining regions. In case of
pump trip in a station, the water is not pumped, and the pressure in the
water supply and return lines starts to increase. To prevent damage to
consumer heating systems, pressure build-up above the danger limit is
prevented by installing control valves (to reduce the pressure in the
supply line), a check valve (to prevent backflow in the return line) and
safety valves (to prevent excessive pressure in the circuit upstream the
pump in the return line) at the station. After pump trip the check valve,
which is the passive safety system in the pump station, is closing. This
prevents back flow in water return line in the section between heat plant
and pump station. Unfortunately, very fast closure of check valve could
lead to the pressure surge in pipelines.
A. Kaliatka et al. International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154

Fig. 17. Principle of DHS model developed using RELAP5 code. Apostrophe (‘) marks a return line.

followed fast closure of check valve. The main reason why the pressure
peaks in DHS are lower comparing to the measured in UMSICHT
experimental facility is that the initial velocities of water in DHS are
significantly lower.

6. Conclusion

A benchmarking analyses of three types of water hammer (valve-

induced, cold water hammer and condensation-induced) were per­
formed using one-dimensional system code RELAP5. The results showed
how the parameters of thermohydraulic system, the modelling param­
eters and code correlations may affect the results of the water hammer
analysis. The results of performed computational investigations allowed
to create the set of recommendation regarding model development and
selection of code correlations:

• Because the initial thermal-hydraulic system conditions and flow

Fig. 18. Pressure in the pipe, connected to the check valve in a DHS
pump station.
The analysis of loss of electricity in a one pump station in DHS of
Kaunas city (Lithuania) is discussed below. Kaunas DHS (total installed
thermal capacity is about 680 MW) supplies heat to 105 thousand
apartments and more than 3 thousand companies and organizations.
Loss of electricity not only leads to the pump trip, but the control valves
does not work also. The pressure increase will be the sharpest in such
case and the water from the DHS supply pipeline is discharged through
the relief valve to the environment. To have conservative assessment,
the delayed closure of check valve (when the velocity of opposite flow of
water is the highest) was assumed. Also, a very fast closure of check
valve was assumed – the valve closes in 10 ms. Two possible diameters of
safety relief valves (0.2 and 0.6 m) were analysed. The highest diameter
leads the higher velocity of opposite flow. The calculated pressures in
the pipe, connected to the check valve, for two possible diameters of
safety relief valves are presented in Fig. 18. The results show that the
maximum pressure peak in the case with a safety valve diameter in 0.2 m
is about 1.7 MPa and about 2.0 MPa in the case with the 0.6 m diameter
of a safety relief valve. These pressure peaks are quite high, but the limit
of hydraulic test pressure (2 MPa) is not exceeded. Thus, DHS pipelines
will be not damaged after loss of electricity in a one pump station and
energy loss coefficients in pipelines have significant influence on
calculation results, these uncertain parameters should be selected
very properly, to obtain correct initial fluid velocity in system. Valve
closure time has substantial influence also, thus, it is very important
to correctly simulate the valve, to describe properly the nature of
valve’s flapper movement.
• The modelling parameters (calculation time step, model cell size) are
very important during the development of RELAP5 model. The per­
formed benchmarking showed, that the ratio of current time step and
current Courant time step should not exceed 0.1. The model cell
length may not exceed Dx = 0.5 m.
• The uncertainty & sensitivity analysis allowed to evaluate influence
of uncertain parameters on calculation results. It showed, that the
influence of RELAP5 code models, assumptions and correlations is
less, comparing to influence of initial thermal-hydraulic system
conditions and modelling parameters. Based on the modelling
experience it is recommended to apply the options, where water
packing, vertical stratification, modified PV and CCFL models are
actuated. At modelling of the coolant flow at pressure close to at­
mospheric for subcooled boiling conditions water hammer simula­
tion should be performed using RELAP5 code HEM option.
• The RELAP5 code couldn’t capture condensation-induced water
hammer phenomenon; i.e., calculation performed with this code did

12
A. Kaliatka et al.
not predict any pressure peak observed in PMK-2 test facility
experiment. To represent correctly the response of piping system in
case of condensation pulse, the RELAP5 code should be modified by
introducing a time-based function of heat transfer coefficient from
interphase surface to liquid and gas.
• It is necessary to note, that RELAP5 code is not able to evaluate pipe
walls deformation phenomena. The modelling of pressure surges
without simulation of pipes walls deformation and vibration inter­
action with the pressure waves of the working fluid, is predicting
overestimated pressure results. But because the goal was to justify
the safety of different facilities, in this case the use of conservative
results is acceptable.
The developed recommendations for the modelling of water hammer
phenomenon using RELAP5 computer code were tested analysing water
hammer in different thermal-hydraulic systems (main circulation loop of
RBMK-1500 reactor, targets cooling / heating circuit in Wendelstein 7-X
experimental stellarator facility and pipelines in district heating sys­
tem). The results of analyses allowed to obtain following conclusions:
• Results of the water hammer analysis in RBMK-1500 reactor main
circulation loop showed that the maximum pressure pulse value
(1.73 MPa) generated by closing the check valve in case of some loss
of coolant accidents remains much lower than the reactor the hy­
draulic tests (10 MPa) Thus, the risk of failure of the circulation loop
pipes is negligible.
• In the case of full break of 0.263 m diameter pipe upstream check
valve (in torus module outlet) in W7-X stellarator, when the plasma
vessel is operating in the “baking” mode, the pressure surges occur in
the pipelines downstream check valve after fast closure of this valve.
The maximum dynamic loading due to this pressure pulsation is
equal to 0.276 MPa. Such dynamic load is insignificant and integrity
of pipelines remains not violated.
• In a district heating system the water hammer could occur in a loss of
electricity in a pump station case. The calculated pressure peak (1.7
MPa) remains lower than the hydraulic test pressure limit (2 MPa).
Even when the conditions were set according to the most conserva­
tive scenario (the check valve starts to close at the maximum water
velocity through the valve, the diameter of the safety valve was
considered to be the highest), the hydraulic test pressure limit is not
exceeded.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The paper “RELAP5 Application for Water Hammer Analysis in
Different Thermal-Hydraulic Systems” by A. Kaliatka, M. Vaišnoras, M.
Valinčius and T. Kaliatka was presented and published in the pro­
ceedings of the 15th International Conference on Heat Transfer, Fluid
Mechanics and Thermodynamics (HEFAT2021), Online, 26 – 28 July
2021.
13
International Journal of Thermofluids 14 (2022) 100154
References
[1] M. Giot, H.M. Prasser, A. Dudlik, G. Ezsol, M. Habip, H. Lemonnier, I. Tiselj, F.
Castrillo, W. Van Hove, R.Perezagua, S.Potapov, Two Phase Flow Water Hammer
Transients and Induced Loads On Materials and Structures of Nuclear Power Plants
(WAHALoads), FISA-2001 EU Research in Reactor Safety, Luxembourg (2001).
[2] A. Kaliatka, E. Uspuras, M. Vaisnoras, Benchmarking analysis of water hammer
effects using RELAP5 code and development of RBMK-1500 reactor main
circulation circuit model, Ann. Nucl. Energy 34 (2007) 1–12. ISSN 0306-4549.
[3] C.D. Fletcher, et al. RELAP5/MOD3 code manual user’s guidelines, Idaho National
Engineering Lab., NUREG/CR-5535, 1992.
[4] V.H. Ransom, V.A. Mousseau, Convergence and accuracy expectations for two-
phase flow simulations. Proceedings of Canadian Nuclear Society International
Conference on Simulation Methods in Nuclear Engineering, Montreal, Canada
(1990).
[5] R.L. Moore, S.M. Sloan, R.R. Schultz, G.E. Wilson, RELAP5/MOD3 code manual
volume VII: summaries and reviews of independent code assessment reports.
NUREG/CR-5535; INEL-95/0174, 1996.
[6] Fraunhofer UMSICHT. https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/, 2022 (accessed 28
January 2022).
[7] HZDR. Fluid-structure interaction experiments at the cold water hammer test
facility (CWHTF) of the FZ-Rossendorf. https://www.hzdr.de/db/!Publications?
pNid=head&pSelMenu=0&pSelTitle=4237, 2002 (accessed 28 January 2022).
[8] PMK-2 (IET facility). https://www.oecd-nea.org/tiethysweb/facility/iet/35,
(accessed 28 January 2022).
[9] WAHALoads Project: two-phase flow water hammer transients and induced loads
on materials and structures of nuclear power plants, 2004.
[10] E. Altstadt, H. Carl, R. Weis, Fluid–structure interaction experiments at the water-
hammer test facility of Forschungszentrum Rossendorf, Jahrestagung Kerntechnik
(2002) pp. 559–564.
[11] H.M. Prasser, A. Bottger, J. Zschau, G. Baranyai, Gy. E´zsol, Thermal effects during
condensation induced water hammer behind fast acting valves in pipelines,
Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Tokyo,
Japan (2003).
[12] A. Kaliatka, E. Uspuras, M. Vaisnoras, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of water
hammer phenomenon by employing the UMSICHT test facility data, Proceedings of
11th Int. Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal-Hydraulics (NURETH-11),
Avignon, France (2005) p. 1–12.
[13] A.H. Aratsu, S.M. Husaini, Computer Models For the Analysis of Severe Water
Hammer Initiating Events, ASME, 1994, pp. 39–42. FED-Vol. 198/PVP-Vol. 291.
[14] N. Hoyer, MONA, A 7-Equation transient two-phase model for LWR dynamics, Int.
Conf. on New Trends in Nuclear System Thermohydraulics, Proceedings Vol.1,
Pisa, Italia (1994).
[15] J. Gale, I. Tiselj, Modelling of cold water hammer with WAHA code, International
Conference on Nuclear Energy for New Europe; Portoroz, Slovenia (2003) pp.214.1
–214.8.
[16] I. Tiselj, G. Cerne, A. Horvat, J. Gale, I. Parzer, M. Giot, J.M. Seynhaeve, B.
Kucienska, H. Lemonnier, WAHA code manual, deliverable of the WAHALoads
project. June 2003.
[17] K. Almenas, R. Pabarcius, M. Šeporaitis, Design and tests of a device for the
generation of controlled condensation implosion events, Heat Transfer Eng. 27 (3)
(2006) 32–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/01457630500458047. ISSN 0145-7632Iss.
[18] M. Valinčius, M. Seporaitis, A. Kaliatka, R. Pabarcius, S. Gasiunas, D. Laurinavicius,
The concept and RELAP5 model of thermal-hydraulic system, employing a rapid
condensation for coolant circulation, Heat Transfer Eng. 35 (4) (2014) 327–335,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01457632.2013.810965. ISSN 0145-7632VolIss.
[19] H.G. Glaeser, Uncertainty evaluation of thermal-hydraulic code results, Int.
Meeting on “Best-Estimate” Methods in Nuclear Installation Safety Analysis (BE-
2000), Washington DC, USA (2000).
[20] M. Kloos, E. Hofer, SUSA Version 3.2. User’s Guide and Tutorial, 1999.
[21] A. Kaliatka, E. Uspuras, M. Vaisnoras, Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of
parameters affecting water hammer pressure wave behaviour, Kerntechnik. ISSN
0932-3902 2006. Vol. 71, No. 5-6, p. 270–278.
[22] Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics. Wendelstein 7-X. https://www.ipp.mpg.
de/w7x, 2018 (accessed 28 January 2022).
[23] A. Kaliatka, E. Uspuras, T. Kaliatka, Pressure surge in Wendelstein 7-X
experimental stellarator facility, Proceedings of 14th international topical meeting
on nuclear reactor thermalhydraulics (NURETH-14), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(2011) p. 1–14.
[24] A. Kaliatka, M. Valincius, Modelling of Pipe Break Accident in a District Heating
System Using RELAP5 Computer Code, Energy, ISSN 0360-5442 (2012) Vol. 44,
Iss. 1, pp. 813–819. 10.1016/j.energy.2012.05.011.