Hindawi

Shock and Vibration

Volume 2022, Article ID 7529857, 13 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7529857

Research Article
Numerical Study on Pipeline Pressure Surge of the Large Aircraft
Fuel System

Yi Tu ,1 Xuanren Chen,2 Liang Yin,1 Qiuyun Zheng ,1 and Yu Zeng 3

1
Hunan University of Arts and Sciences, Hunan Key Laboratory of Distributed Electric Propulsion Vehicle Control Technology,
Changde 415000, China
2
AVIC Integrated Equipment Co., Ltd.,, Beijing 102206, China
3
Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Yi Tu; tuyi.huas@outlook.com

Received 17 March 2022; Accepted 20 April 2022; Published 4 May 2022

Academic Editor: Giuseppe Petrone

Copyright © 2022 Yi Tu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The sudden closure of the refueling valve during the refueling process will cause the water hammer phenomenon in the pipeline of
the large aircraft fuel system and produce pressure waves propagating along the pipeline. In serious cases, it will cause severe
damage to the pipeline. The pressure surge in the pipeline can be affected by many design factors. In this study, the numerical
modeling method of the large aircraft fuel system is studied using the Flowmaster program, and the accuracy of steady and
transient state analysis of the simulation method is verified by experimental data. Based on this numerical method, a complete
system-level simulation model of the large aircraft fuel system was established. Using this model, the effects of valve closure speed,
diameter of the refueling main pipe, and refueling volume flow rate on pipeline pressure surge during the refueling process are
investigated. The results indicate that all three factors have a significant impact on the pipeline pressure surge of the fuel system.
The effect of the valve closing speed and the pipe diameter on the pressure surge of the pipeline is nonlinear and gradually
weakened with the decrease of valve speed and the increase of pipe diameter, while the effect of refueling volume flow rate on the
pipeline pressure surge is approximately linear.

1. Introduction
Large aircraft typically use multiple engines, and the design
of the fuel system must ensure that the system can reliably
provide fuel to the engines under various possible working
conditions. To make full use of the aircraft structural space,
the fuel feed system of large aircraft is equipped with
multiple fuel tanks, which are distributed in different lo-
cations of the aircraft wing. The fuel tanks are connected to
engines, refueling ports, and other tanks through intricate
piping system components to ensure the independent fuel
feeding capacity of each fuel tank for all engines. The
composition and regulation of the fuel system are becoming
increasingly complex. As a complex fluid pipeline system,
the operation of the fuel system of large aircraft is accom-
panied by rapid valve closure, pump failure, or unexpected
pipeline damage, which will lead to a dramatic change of the
fluid velocity inside the pipeline and cause a pressure wave to
propagate along the pipeline. This water hammer will affect
the pipe wall and cause vibration and noise in the pipeline. In
serious cases, it can damage pipelines and valves and affect
aircraft safety. The rapid reduction of pressure will also cause
cavitation in the system and affect the service life of fuel
system pipes and valves. The instantaneous surge in pipeline
pressure caused by the rapid shutdown of the refueling valve
in the pressure refueling process is the most serious. For the
design of the fuel system, these influencing factors should be
analyzed and evaluated according to the requirements of the
operating conditions of the system.
The fuel system of commercial aircraft is a complex pipe
network system involving numerous components such as
pipes, pumps, valves, fuel tanks, and control devices. Various
operating cases need to be analyzed and evaluated in the
process of system design, including pressure refueling,
2 Shock and Vibration
engine feeding, emergency fuel jettison, fault state analysis,
and so on. Most of the operating conditions of the aircraft
fuel system have long duration times and involve a relatively
large number of operating components, which put forward
high requirements for the efficiency of the numerical
analysis platform. Commonly used fuel system software
simulation platforms include Flowmaster [1, 2], EASY5 [3],
AMESim [4,5], and MATLAB/Simulink [6, 7]. Flowmaster
possesses superior convergence properties in complex sys-
tem simulation analysis because of its linearization nu-
merical solution method [8]. Li et al. established the
simulation model of aircraft fuel system based on Flow-
master and conducted transient and steady-state analysis of
the aircraft fuel system [9]. Kang et al. investigated the
temperature rise of the engine feeding system in constant
and variable fuel pump speed using the Flowmaster pro-
gram. Their results demonstrated that the accuracy of the
simulation model was primarily affected by the performance
curve of the pump component [10]. Yi et al. conducted the
steady state and transient analysis of the scramjet fuel supply
system using Flowmaster software and analyzed the tran-
sient response caused by the sudden closing of the control
valve [11]. Su Qian simulated and analyzed the aircraft
integrated fuel heat management system with Flowmaster
platform [12]. Jiang et al. established a simulation platform
to analyze the intermittent fault in the aircraft fuel system
based on Flowmaster program [13]. Ng and Tan analyzed the
fuel system dynamical behavior during aircraft in-flight
refueling using Flowmaster software [14].
Flowmaster is also widely used in the analysis and re-
search of pressure shock waves in pipeline systems. Zuo et al.
conducted a comparative study of the single-phase water
hammer phenomenon in the pump pipeline system between
Flowmaster and their developed program. Their results
demonstrate that these two methods have good consistency
in the analysis of water hammer effect [15]. Liu et al. sim-
ulated the water hammer phenomenon occurring in the air
conditioning chilled water system of high-rise buildings
using Flowmaster program and used the simulation plat-
form to optimize the design and weaken the water hammer
effect of the system [16]. Feng et al. investigated the flow
fluctuation and water hammer effect of the auxiliary feed-
water system of Daya Bay Second-generation Nuclear Power
Station using Flowmaster software for the valve closure
operation process [17]. Zhou et al. developed a multiscale
modeling method of shock wave propagation caused by coal
and gas outbursts using numerical simulations in 1D and
3D. Their research results show the suitability and fidelity of
Flowmaster one-dimensional simulation in system-level
pressure shock wave transient analysis [18, 19].
It can be seen from the previous literature review that the
Flowmaster program has been used in the analysis of the
aircraft fuel system and water hammer phenomenon sim-
ulation of the fluid system. However, most of the existing
modeling and simulation methods for aircraft fuel systems
are based on the simplification of the system. The efficiency
and convergence are achieved by reducing the number of
system components. It is not consummate enough for en-
gineers to carry out comprehensive system design and
optimization. This study mainly studies the efficient and
accurate numerical analysis method of the large aircraft fuel
system and investigates the influence factors such as closure
speed of the refueling valve, diameter of the refueling
pipeline, and refueling speed on the pipeline surge pressure
using the established system simulation model. The method
and research conclusion of this study can provide a reference
of large aircraft fuel system design, which can shorten the
product development time and test times, and reduce the
production cost [20].
2. System Introduction
Figure 1 shows a schedule of the A320 fuel system. There are
five tanks in the aircraft, including one center tank, two
inner tanks, and two outer tanks. The fuel system provides
functions that supply fuel in the correct quantities to the fuel
tanks during refueling and supplying fuel to the engines and
the auxiliary power unit (APU). The maximum fuel storage
capacity of all tanks is 18728 kg, including 6427 kg of the
center tank, 5435 kg of each inner tank, and 691 kg of each
outer tank. There are two fuel pumps in the center tank and
each inner tank, respectively, to supply fuel to the engines
from the tanks. There are sequence valves at the outlet of the
inner wing tank pumps, which ensure that when all pumps
are running, the center pumps will deliver the fuel prefer-
ence. A cross feed valve is used for the fuel feeding pipeline
to allow both engines to be fed from one side tank or one
engine to be fed from both side tanks. The outer tanks do not
supply fuel directly to the engine. There are two transfer
valves mounted in each wing to permit fuel transfer from the
outer to the inner tank when the fuel consumption of the
inner tank is down to 750 kg. Low pressure shut-off valves
are used to disconnect the engine from the fuel pipeline,
which is controlled by the engine master switch or engine
fire pushbutton.
3. System Modeling
The software Flowmaster V2019 was used to establish the
components and system model. The fuel system simulation
model requires not only the realization of the pressure and
flow distribution calculation of the whole pipe network
system but also the transient analysis of system pressure
surges. Accordingly, the mathematical models of the com-
ponents need to consider the relationship between the
pressure drop and the flow rate and capture the main
contributing factors influencing the pipeline system pressure
surge.
3.1. Tank Modeling. The fuel tank has multiple output ports,
each of which serves as a pressure boundary for the system
pipeline to which it is connected. The interface layout of the
tank model is illustrated in Figure 2. The port pressure value
is affected by the atmospheric pressure of the fuel surface of
the tank, the total fuel mass, the height of the port, and the
port flow resistance.
Shock and Vibration 3

1 2
Engine L Engine R

Inner Center Inner

tank Cross feed valve
tank tank
Low pressure Low pressure
valve valve
Outer Outer
tank Defuel/ tank
Tank
cross
Tank Tank pump Tank Tank Transfer
Transfer valve
valve pump pump Tank pump pump valve
pump
1 2
1 2 1 2

Refuel
valve Sequence
Sequence
valve valve Refuel
Refuel Refuel/
valve Defuel pipeline valve

Refuel Refuel
coupling APU pump coupling

Low pressure valve

APU

Figure 1: Schedule of the fuel system of A320 aircraft.

d1 Port 1

Port 3 d3
A h
h1
h3
d2 L
Port 2
h2

Datum plane
Figure 2: Interface layout of the fuel tank.

Taking port 1 as an example, when the height of the liquid tank port; A1 is the cross-sectional area of port 1;
level L ≥ h1, the outlet pressure of port 1 is calculated by (1): K1 m21 /2ρ1 A21 represents the pressure drop that occurs at the
port 1. The boundary pressure of other ports is calculated
K1 m_ 21 similarly to that of port 1.
P1 � Pg + ρ1 g(L + Z) − . (1)
2ρ1 A21 The fuel storage of the tank of three branches is cal-
culated according to the continuity equation (3):
As L < h1, the liquid can only flow into the tank, and the
mass flow rate m_ 1 � 0 in the case of outflow. The outlet ρdV
m_ 1 + m_ 2 + m_ 3 � − . (3)
pressure of port 1 is calculated by (2): dt
K1 m_ 21
P1 � Pg + ρ1 g h1 + Z􏼁 − , (2)
2ρ1 A21
3.2. Pipe Model. The pipe model not only needs to calculate
where Pg is the liquid surface pressure; ρ1 is the liquid the pressure loss as the fluid flows through the pipeline but
density; L is the level of liquid above the tank base; K1 is the also needs to analyze the pressure surge caused by the water
flow loss coefficient used to calculate the pressure loss at the hammer effect in the pipeline.
4 Shock and Vibration

3.2.1. Pipe Flow Resistance Model. Darcy formula is used to where the friction factor f uses the Colebrook–White model
calculate the steady flow resistance of the pipeline as (4) and is calculated in sections according to the Re (Reynolds
shown: number) range of the flow as shown in (5) below.
L ρV2 (4)
ΔP � f ,
d 2

⎪
⎧ 64
⎪
⎪ , Re ≤ 2000,
⎪
⎪ Re
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.25
⎪
⎨ , Re ≥ 4000,
f � ⎪ 􏽨lg(k/3.7 d) + 5.74/Re0.9 􏽩2 (5)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Re 64 (0.5 − 0.25Re/2000)
⎪
⎪ 􏼒 − 1􏼓. + , 4000 > Re > 2000.
⎪
⎩ 2000 Re 􏽨lg(k/3.7 d) + 5.74/Re0.9 􏽩2

3.2.2. Pressure Surge Analysis Model in the Transient 3.3. Pump Model. The pump is the moving part of the fuel
Simulation. In this simulation model of the fuel system, system, generating a pressure head in the circulation pipeline
the constant cross-section area for each pipe is assumed. to provide the driving force for the fuel distribution system.
Since the velocity of the fluid in the pipe is a small value This component is based on the pressure head and flow rate
relative to the velocity of the pressure wave propagation, curve of the design state and scaled according to different
the momentum equation (6) and the continuity (7) can working speeds. The relationship between the pressure head,
be established. Using the method of characteristics, the volume, flow rate, and rotational speed of the pump satisfies
pipe is divided into a number of internal reaches with a the similarity law, as shown in (10) and (11):
length δx equal to the distance traveled by a pressure Q N
wave during one time step δt as shown in Figure 3. � , (10)
Q0 N0
Therefore, δx � a · δt and the internal node number N can
be calculated by (8):
H N2
δp δm_ _ m_
|m| � , (11)
A + ρgAsinθ � − − f , (6) H0 N20
δx δt 2ρdA
where Q is the volume flow rate, N is the rotational speed,
δP ρa2 δm_ and H is the head of the pump defined by (12):
� , (7)
δt ρAδx H � P2 − P1 􏼁ρg + z2 − z1 􏼁, (12)
L where P1 and P2 are the inlet and outlet static pressures,
N� − 1, (8)
a.δt respectively, z1 and z2 are the heights of the centerline of the
inlet and outlet pipe connected to the pump relative to the
where A is the cross-section area of the pipe, θ is the inclined
reference plane.
angle of the pipeline, d is the hydraulic diameter of the pipe,
and a is the propagation velocity [10] of the wave calculated
by (9):
3.4. Valve Model. Ball valves are widely used as shut-off
􏽰���� valves and regulating valves in fuel systems. The valve model
K/ρ
a � 􏽰��������������, (9) can directly use the manufacturer performance curve pro-
ρ(1/K + D/EδΨ) vided by the valve supplier to calculate the loss coefficient K
in different valve positions. With the loss coefficient data, the
where K is the bulk modulus of the liquid, which charac-
total pressure loss of the valve can be calculated by (13):
terizes the compressibility of the liquid; ρ is the liquid
density; E is the elastic modulus of the pipe material; D is the ρQ2
hydraulic diameter of the pipe; δ is the pipe wall thickness; μ ΔP � K , (13)
2A2
is the Poisson’s ratio of the pipe material; and Ψ is the fixed
coefficient of the pipe. Ψ � 1 − 0.5μ as one end of the pipe is where ΔP is the total pressure loss through the valve, A is the
fixed. Ψ � 1 − μ2 as both ends of the pipe are fixed. Ψ � 1 when flow area of the valve, ρ is the fluid density, and Q is the fluid
the pipe is freely retractable. volume flow rate.
Shock and Vibration
δx
Q1
P1
1 2
Figure 3: Internal node distribution of the pipe model.
4. Numerical Method Validation
The experimental data in Yafei Chen’ research [21] was used
to verify the simulation method. The schematic of the ex-
perimental system is illustrated in Figure 4, and the simu-
lation model adopts the same component parameters as the
test system. The pipe material is stainless steel, with a density
of 7900 kg/m3 and an elastic modulus is 194 GPa. The fluid
medium of the test system is water at 20°C, and its bulk
modulus is 2.18 GPa. The water hammer velocity a is cal-
culated by (9), and the result is 1433 m/s. The absolute
pressure at the outlet of the test system is 101.325 kPa, and
the absolute pressure of the water source is 131.723 kPa. The
valve opening curve of the experimental data is added to the
simulation model by the component signal generator as
shown in Figure 4.
The corresponding simulation model is built using the
Flowmaster program as shown in Figure 5. The inlet and
outlet of the water tank were modeled as a constant pressure
inlet and a constant pressure outlet. Since the experimental
test time is very short (8 s) and the volume of the water
source tank in the test system is big enough, the pressure
boundary at the inlet and outlet of the system can be
considered almost unchanged. Figure 5 shows the mass flow
rate analysis result of this pipeline with value 1.124 kg/s in
the steady state under experimental test conditions and the
error of which is 2.18% compared to the experimental test
data 1.1 kg/s.
Figure 6 shows a comparison between the experimental
data and the simulation results. It can be seen from the
comparison results that the peak value of the prevalve node
pressure is moderately smaller than the experimental data,
and the appearance time of the peak value lags behind the
experimental data by about 0.3 s. As for the outlet pressure of
the control valve, the simulation results have a peak value
slightly larger than the experimental data. Various reasons
lead to the difference between the experimental data and the
simulation results, among which the flow resistance char-
acteristics when the valve approximates wholly close have a
greater impact on the pressure wave. Furthermore, the
experimental measurement errors (the accuracy of the in-
struments) are also the possible causes of simulation and
calculation errors. Nevertheless, the overall trend and the
magnitude of the peak error indicate that the prediction of
the water hammer effect of the liquid piping system using the
Flowmaster transient analysis is feasible and reliable.
5
Q2
P2
3 N-2 N-1 N-2
5. Simulation Results and Discussion
The system-level simulation model of the A320 aircraft fuel
system is built as shown in Figure 7. The system model
consists of fuel tanks, fuel tank pumps, refueling and feeding
pipes, transfer valves, low-pressure shut-off valves, check
valves, fuel filters, flow and pressure boundaries, and control
modules for valves and pumps. Using the system simulation
model, the transient simulation of the pressure refueling and
engine feeding process can be carried out to understand the
pressure and flow distribution during the system operation.
The simulation model can also be used to evaluate the
pressure surges of the pipeline system during the system
control process, such as the sudden closure of regulating
valves and speed up or fault shutdown of the fuel pumps.
5.1. Simulation of Fuel System Refueling and Feeding Process
5.1.1. Refueling Process. The transient simulation was con-
ducted for the refueling process of the fuel system using the
established model in Figure 7. Fuel is supplied to the fuel
tanks through the refueling port on the right side. In this
analysis case, the flow source boundaries of the left engine,
the right engine, and APU were set to 0 m3/s. The refuel shut-
off valve of the left refuel port was set to complete close. The
constant pressure refueling method was used for this case
and the refueling pressure was set to 2.4 bar. The initial fuel
mass for all 5 tanks is 0 kg.
The simulation results of the fuel mass changes of each
fuel tank during the refueling process are shown in Figure 8.
As can be seen from the results, the refueling speed of the
right inner and outer tanks is slightly higher than that of the
left tanks. This is because the tanks of the right wing are
closer to the refueling port, and the corresponding pipe flow
resistance is lower. The refueling sequence of the whole
system is to refuel the outer wing fuel tanks first, then refuel
the inner wing fuel tanks through the transfer valve between
the inner and outer fuel tanks after full fuel, and finally refuel
the central fuel tank. It takes 1197 s to fill all tanks at a
constant refueling pressure of 2.4 bar. It can be seen from the
curves that the refueling speed is slightly slowed down, but
not significant with the increase in the fuel storage capacity
of the tanks. This is because the height of the fuel liquid level
of the tank increases and the output pressure of the fuel tank
branch increases due to the fuel gravity.
6 Shock and Vibration

1.0 Valve opening

Water source
0.8

Valve opening
0.6
Pressure gauge in Pressure gauge
0.4
front of valve behind valve
0.2
Switch valve
0.0
0 2 4 6 8
Time (s)

Control valve

Water tank

Figure 4: Schematic of the experimental system.

Water source
Controller

Pressure gauge Pressure gauge

Switch valve Pipe Pipe

Control valve

Component:1 Water tank

Result Arm Description Value
1 2 Mass Flow 1.1241 kg/s
Rate
Figure 5: The simulation model of experimental system based on flowmaster.

100

80

60
Pressure (kPa)

40

20

–20

–40
0 2 4 6 8
Time (s)
Simu result of valve inlet pressure
Simu result of valve outlet pressure
Test result of valve inlet pressure
Test result of valve outlet pressure

Figure 6: Comparison between simulation results and experimental data.

Shock and Vibration 7

Engine L Engine R
Low pressure Low pressure
valve valve
Cross feed valve
Main feeding pipe

Tank Defuel/
pump cross Tank
Transfer Tank Tank valve pump Transfer
valves Tank Tank valves
pump pump pump pump
Outer tank Outer tank
Main refueling pipe
Refuel
valve
Refuel Refuel
valve valve
Center tank
Inner tank Inner tank

Low pressure valve

Refuel Refuel
port APU port

Figure 7: Simulation model of fuel system based on flowmaster.

pressure is high and evenly distributed in the main refueling

7000 pipe and gradually decreases with the pressure at the inner
tank port along the flow path.
6000
Figure 9(b) shows the mass flow rate and pressure
5000
distribution of the whole system at t � 1000 s. As can be seen
Fuel mass of the tank (kg)

from the tank fuel mass curve, all inner and outer tanks have
4000 been filled up at this time, and the center tanks are in the
process of refueling. The flow rate of the refueling port at
3000 t � 1000 s is larger than that at t � 500 s as the mass flow rate
result is shown, and this result is also supported by Figure 8,
2000 in which the gradient of the tank fuel mass curve of the
center tank is clearly larger than that of the inner tank. This is
1000
because the flow resistance of the flow path from the
0 refueling port to the left and right inner fuel tanks is larger
than that to the center tank.
–1000
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (s)
5.1.2. Engine Feeding Process. All fuel tanks are fully loaded
Right outer tank at the beginning of the engine feeding process. The left and
Left outer tank right refueling ports are disconnected by setting the refu-
Center tank
eling valve fully closed. The fuel consumption for each
Left inner tank
Right inner tank engine was set to 0.55 kg/s, the cross-feed valve was set full
closed, and all tank pumps were set to operate at normal
Figure 8: The fuel mass result of the tanks during the refueling speed.
process.
Figure 10 shows the fuel mass result of the tanks during
the feeding process. As can be seen from this figure, the
It can be seen from the tank mass curve in Figure 8 that feeding sequence of the fuel tanks is as follows: the fuel in the
when t � 500 s, the left and right outer fuel tanks have been central tank is used first, and then the fuel in the inner wing
filled up, and the left and right inner tanks are still in the tank is consumed. When the fuel of each inner tank is
process of refueling. At this time, the transfer valves between consumed to less than 750 kg, the transfer valve between the
the outer tanks and the inner tanks have been opened, and inner and outer fuel tank will open, and the fuel in the outer
the fuel is transferred into the inner tanks through the outer tank is allowed to be transferred into the inner tank. As can
tanks. Figure 9(a) shows the mass flow rate and pressure be seen from the fuel mass curve, this process starts at
distribution of the whole system at t � 500 s. It can be seen t � 14400 s. During this process, the fuel mass of the outer
that the mass flow rate exists only in the flow path from the tanks decreases rapidly, while the fuel mass of the inner tank
refueling port to the inner tanks in this moment. The fuel increases. This process ends when all fuel in the outer tank is
8 Shock and Vibration

22

Mass Flow rate result <kg/s>

19.8
17.6
15.4
13.2
11
8.8
6.6
4.4

2.4
2.16
1.92

Pressure <bar>
1.68
1.44
1.2
0.96
0.72
0.48

(a)

22

Mass Flow rate result <kg/s>

19.8
17.6
15.4
13.2
11
8.8
6.6
4.4

2.4
2.16
1.92
Pressure <bar>

1.68
1.44
1.2
0.96
0.72
0.48

(b)

Figure 9: Flow and pressure distribution of the system in refueling cases. (a) t � 500 s, (b) t � 1000 s.

transferred to the inner tank. After that, the fuel mass in the
inner tank continues to decrease due to fuel consumption.
In this simulation, the entire engine fuel feeding process
lasts for 17,310 s. The simulation results also show that in this
normal fuel feeding process, the fuel mass curves of the left
and right fuel tanks almost coincide, and the fuel con-
sumption speed of both side tanks keeps equal, which means
that the current system design can well ensure the balance of
fuel consumption in the left and right fuel tanks and
maintain the center of gravity of the aircraft during flight.
Figure 11 shows the pressure and mass flow rate dis-
tribution of the fuel system at t � 5000 s and t � 10,000 s
during the feeding process. It can be seen from the figures
that each engine is supplied by one fuel pump in the center
Shock and Vibration
7000
6000
5000
Fuel mass of the tank (kg)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 speed is defined by the time it takes (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 s) for the
–1000
0 3000 6000 9000
Time (s)
Right outer tank
Left outer tank
Center tank
Left inner tank
Right inner tank
Figure 10: The fuel mass result of the tanks during engine feeding
process.
tank at t � 5000 s, and only fuel in the center tank is con-
sumed at this time. The mass flow rate exists only in the flow
path from the center tank to the left and right engines. The
pressure distribution result in Figure 11(a) also shows that in
the engine feeding process, the fuel feeding circuit is
completely isolated from the refueling circuit by the refuel
valves and defuel cross valves. The fuel pumps increase the
output pressure of the fuel tank, leading to the pressure of
the main feeding pipeline being significantly higher than that
of the outlet ports of the center fuel tank.
Each engine is supplied by two pumps in its own side
inner wing tank at t � 10,000 s, and the fuel in the inner tanks
is consumed at this point of time. Mass flow rate exists only
in the flow path from the inner tanks to the left and right
engines as shown in Figure 11(b). Comparing the pressure
distribution results in Figures 11(a) and 11(b), it can be seen
that through the system parameters design, the fuel feed
pressure maintains good consistency whether the fuel is
supplied by one center tank pump or by two inner tank
pumps.
5.2. Analysis of Pipeline Pressure Surge in Fuel System.
Based on the fuel system simulation model illustrated in
Figure 7, the pipeline surge pressure for refueling case was
investigated, which is the most severe condition for pipeline
surge pressure of the aircraft fuel system. In the process of
pressure refueling, the refueling valves automatically close
when the tanks contain the preselected load or when the fuel
sensors detect that the tank is fully loaded. In the case of a
sudden closing of the refueling valve, the fuel flow rate in the
pipeline will change sharply, resulting in instantaneous
pressure surges inside the pipeline. The magnitude of this
pressure surge is affected by a variety of system design
factors, including the closure speed of the refueling shut-off
9
valve, the size of the refueling pipeline, and the refueling flow
rate.
5.2.1. Effect of Valve Speed on Pipeline Pressure Surge. In this
analysis, the right-wing refueling port is used for refueling
the tanks with a constant volume flow rate of 0.025 m3/s, the
main refueling pipe diameter of the system is 0.08 m, and the
other parameter settings are the same as those in Section 4.
The left fuel tank refueling valve begins to close with a
specific speed at t � 1 s during this refueling process. In this
analysis, the valve opening changes linearly, and the valve
valve from fully open to fully close. In this section, the effect
of valve speeds on pipeline surge pressure is studied.
12000 15000 18000
Figure 12 shows the pressure surge at the inlet node of
the left refueling valve in different valve closing speed cases.
It can be seen from the figure that the sudden closing of the
refueling valve during the refueling process will induce water
hammer surge in the pipeline, and the peak value of the
pressure declines with the increase of the valve closing time.
The wave amplitude in the pipeline continues to weaken
with the advance of time and gradually tends to be steady.
After stability, this node pressure reaches the same steady-
state value. This is because the valve closing speed only
affects the transient processes. As the refueling valve is
completely closed, the steady-state parameters of the fuel
system for these four simulation cases are still the same.
Figure 13 shows the maximum surge pressure as a
function of the valve closure time. As can be seen, the valve
speed has a significant impact on the peak surge pressure of
the pipeline. When the closing time of the valve increases
from 0.25 s to 3 s, the maximum surge pressure can be re-
duced from 14.7 bar to 3.15 bar. However, this effect is
gradually weakened with the decrease of the valve speed
(increase of valve closure time), which means that as the
valve speed decreases to a certain value, the influence of its
change on the maximum pipeline impact pressure of the
system is no longer considerable.
5.2.2. Effect of Pipe Diameter on Pipeline Surge Pressure.
In this analysis, the right-wing refueling port is used to refuel
the tanks with a constant volume flow rate 0.025 m3/s, the
valve closure time is specified as 0.5 s, four different pipe
diameters (0.08, 0.1, 0.12, 0.14 m) of the refueling main pipe
are chosen for this simulation case. The remaining pa-
rameter settings are the same as Section 4. During this
refueling process, the left fuel tank refueling valve begins to
close at t � 1 s.
Figure 14 shows the pressure surge at the node of the left
refueling valve inlet under different pipe diameters. As can
be seen from the figure, increasing the pipe diameter results
in gradually declining peak values of the internal pipe
pressure wave. This is because, under the same refueling
volume flow rate, the fluid velocity inside the pipeline de-
creases as the pipe diameter increases, which leads to a
decrease of the kinetic energy carried by the same mass of
fuel. The pressure results also show that as the diameter of
10 Shock and Vibration

0.55

Mass Flow rate result <kg/s>

0.49
0.44
0.38
0.33
0.27
0.22
0.16
0.11

2.5
2.25
2

Pressure <bar>
1.75
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5

(a)

0.55

Mass Flow rate result <kg/s>

0.49
0.44
0.38
0.33
0.27
0.22
0.16
0.11

2.5
2.25
2
Pressure <bar>

1.75
1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5

(b)

Figure 11: Flow and pressure distribution of the system in engine feeding cases. (a) t � 5000 s. (b) t � 10,000 s.

the main pipe increases, the time for the pressure wave to
stabilize will become shorter.
Figure 15 shows the maximum surge pressure as a
function of the diameter of the refueling pipeline. It can be
seen from the figure that the water hammer surge pressure
inside the pipeline can be alleviated by increasing the di-
ameter of the pipeline, as the pipeline diameter increases
from 0.06 m to 0.16 m, the maximum surge pressure can be
reduced from 17.18 bar to 2.91 bar, however this mitigation
trend is gradually weakened. From the perspective of en-
gineering design for aircraft fuel system, the increase of pipe
diameter conveys many benefits, which can reduce the flow
resistance in steady state and alleviate the water hammer
surge pressure of the system. However, the increase in pipe
diameter increases the weight of the whole system, which is
an important factor to consider in aircraft system design.
Shock and Vibration 11

6 6

5 5

4 4
Refueling flow rate: 0.025 m3/s
Pressure (bar)

Pressure (bar)
Valve closing time: 0.5 s
3 3

2 2

1 1

Refueling flow rate: 0.025 m3/s

0 Pipe diameter: 0.08 m 0

1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4
Time (s) Time (s)
1s
0.08 m
1.5 s
2s 0.10 m
2.5 s 0.12 m
0.14 m
Figure 12: The valve inlet pressure in the case of different valve
closure times. Figure 14: The valve inlet pressure in the case of different pipe
diameters.

16
Refueling flow rate: 0.025 m3/s 18
14 Pipe diameter: 0.08 m Refueling flow rate: 0.025 m3/s
16
Valve closing time: 0.5 s
Maximum surge pressure (bar)

Maximum surge pressure (bar)

12 14

12
10
10
8
8

6 6

4
4
2
2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16
Valve closing time (s) Pipe diameter (m)

Figure 13: Effect of valve speed on maximum pipeline pressure Figure 15: Effect of pipe diameter on maximum pipeline pressure
surge. surge.

Therefore, the determination of pipe diameter needs to be
evaluated and weighed comprehensively according to var-
ious influencing factors.
5.2.3. Effect of Refueling Flow Rate on Pipeline Surge Pressure.
To study the effect of refueling flow rate on pipeline surge
pressure, four different refueling volume flow rates (0.2,
0.025, 0.03, 0.035 m3/s) are considered for this comparative
study. The refueling port on the right wing is used to refuel
the tanks in this analysis. The diameter of the main refueling
pipe is set as 0.1 m. During this refueling process, the
refueling valve of the left fuel tank begins to close at t � 1 s
with the closure time specified as 0.5 s. The remaining pa-
rameter settings are the same as Section 4.
Figure 16 shows the analysis results of the pressure
fluctuation of the node at the valve inlet location under the
refueling volume flow rate (0.2, 0.025, 0.03, 0.035 m3/s). As
shown in the results, the amplitude of the pressure wave
increases with the increase in refueling speed. This is because
the fluid velocity inside the pipeline will increase with the
rise of the refueling volume flow rate as the pipe diameter is
kept consistent, and the kinetic energy of the fuel will in-
crease synchronously. The increasing fluid velocity will also
lead to an increase in the flow resistance of the pipeline and
the steady-state pressure at the valve inlet location.
12 Shock and Vibration

8 Therefore, the refueling speed must also be thoroughly

weighed according to the system design requirements.
7

6 6. Conclusion
5 The numerical modeling method for the transient analysis of
Pipe diameter: 0.1 m
Pressure (bar)

the large aircraft fuel system is studied using the Flowmaster

4 Valve closing time: 0.5 s
program. The accuracy of the method was verified by
comparing the analysis results of the steady and transient
3
state with experimental data. A simulation model of the
2 entire large aircraft fuel system is established using this
method, and the transient analysis of the water hammer
1 effect during the pressure refueling process for different
refueling valve closure times (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5s), main pipe
0 diameters (0.08, 0.1, 0.12, 0.14 m), and refueling volume flow
0 1 2 3 4 rates (0.2, 0.025, 0.03, 0.035 m3/s) is conducted using this
Time (s) simulation model. The following conclusions were reached:
0.035 m3/s (1) The closure speed of the refueling valve is the key
0.03 m3/s factor affecting the amplitude of the pipeline pres-
0.025 m3/s sure wave, as the valve closure time increases from
0.02 m3/s 0.25 s to 3 s, the maximum surge pressure can be
reduced from 14.7 bar to 3.15 bar. However, this
Figure 16: The valve inlet pressure in the case of different refueling effect is weakened with the decrease of the valve
flow rate.
speed.
(2) The increase in the pipe diameter of the refueling
Pipe diameter: 0.1 m
pipeline can reduce the peak value of the pipeline
8 wave pressure caused by the water hammer effect.
Valve closing time: 0.5 s
This effect is nonlinear and gradually weakens with
Maximum surge pressure (bar)

the increase in pipeline diameter.

7
6
5 modeling, and system performance evaluation of large
4 under numerous operating conditions with different com-
0.015 0.020 0.025
Volume flow rate (m3/s)
Figure 17: Effect of refueling speed on maximum pipeline pressure
surge.
Figure 17 shows the variation of the maximum pipeline
surge pressure with the refueling volume flow rate. It can be
seen from the figure that the increase in pipeline surge
pressure caused by the increase in refueling speed is almost
linear, as the refueling volume flow rate increases from
0.015 m3/s to 0.04 m3/s, the maximum surge pressure will
rise from 4.16 bar to 8.02 bar. From a time efficiency point of
view, faster refueling speed is better. However, the rising
refueling speed will increase the flow resistance of the entire
pipeline system, resulting in the requirement of higher
refueling pressure or larger pipe diameter in the system
design, which will bring weight cost to the aircraft design.
(3) The increase in refueling volume flow rate will sig-
nificantly increase the pressure surge in the pipeline,
and this effect is approximately linear.
The modeling method and analysis conclusion in this
study can provide a reference for engineering design,
aircraft fuel systems. Based on this system simulation model,
it can efficiently complete the system simulation evaluation
ponent parameters and realize the optimization of system
0.030 0.035 0.040 parameters, which is of great significance to system design.
Data Availability
The underlying data supporting the results of this study were
already included in this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to
report regarding the present study.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Natural Science Project of
Hunan Province, China, grant no. 2020JJ5393, and Edu-
cation Department of Hunan Province, China, grant no.
21B0618.
Shock and Vibration 13

References [16] B. Liu, H. Wang, Y. Huang, G. Tang, and C. Ye, “Research of

water hammer of air conditioning chilled water system based
[1] R. Liu, C. Ma, and H. Jiang, “Fault simulation for aircraft fuel on flowmaster,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International
system using flowmaster,” Proceedings of the First Symposium Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and In-
on Aviation Maintenance and Management-Volume I, vol. 40, dustrial Informatics (AMEII 2016), vol. 73, pp. 582–585, IEEE,
pp. 353–360, 2014. April 2016.
[2] Z. Gao and D. Song, “Research of aircraft fuel system feeding [17] L. Feng, Z. Tao, C. Wanxu, and S. Ziwei, “IEEE flowmaster in
failure based on flowmaster simulation,”vol. 296, pp. 45–52, the application of auxiliary feedwater system’s transient op-
in Proceedings of the First Symposium on Aviation Mainte- eration,” in Proceedings of the 2012 ASIA-PACIFIC POWER
nance and Management-Volume I, vol. 296, Springer-Verlag, ENERGY Eng. Conf, IEEE, Shanghai, China, 27-29 March
Xi’an, China, 2014. 2012.
[3] J. J. Vyas, G. Balamurugan, and M. Rakesh, “Simulation of [18] A. Zhou, L. Fan, K. Wang, and D. Elsworth, “Multiscale
typical civil aircraft fuel transfer process,” in Proceedings of the modeling of shock wave propagation induced by coal and gas
NUiCONE 2015 - 5th Nirma University International Con- outbursts,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection,
ference on Engineering, pp. 1–5, IEEE, Ahmedabad, India, 26- vol. 125, pp. 164–171, 2019.
28 Nov. 2015. [19] A. Zhou, M. Zhang, K. Wang, D. Elsworth, J. Wang, and
[4] N. Raphael, N. Pinheiro, L. Carlos, and S. Góes, “Modeling L. Fan, “Airflow disturbance induced by coal mine outburst
and simulation of a single engine aircraft fuel system,” in shock waves: a case study of a gas outburst disaster in China,”
Proceedings of the 15th Scandinavian International Conference International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
on Fluid Power, pp. 45–50, Linköping, Sweden, 2017. vol. 128, Article ID 104262, 2020.
[5] Q. Lan, L. Fan, Y. Bai, Y. Gu, and L. Wen, “Experimental and [20] Y. Zeng, B. Sun, and H. Sun, “Simulation calculation of flow
numerical investigation on pressure characteristics of the characteristics of air separation system based on flowmaster,”
dual-valve controlled fuel system for low-speed diesel en- IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
gines,” Fuel, vol. 294, Article ID 120501, 2021. vol. 470, Article ID 012023, 2019.
[6] S. Liu, D. Zhuang, and X. Wanyan, “Simulation of aircraft fuel [21] W. G. D. W. R. X. Yafei Chen, “Experimental study and
thermal management system based on simulink,” in Pro- numerical calculation of water hammereffect of closing valve
ceedings of the 2011 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering of ball type regulating valve,” J. Drain. Irrig. Mach. Eng.vol. 39,
Conference, 25-28 March 2011. pp. 1027–1032, 2021.
[7] J. F. Jimenez, J. M. Giron-Sierra, C. Insaurralde, and
M. Seminario, “A simulation of aircraft fuel management
system,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 15,
no. 5, pp. 544–564, 2007.
[8] Y. Tu and Y. Zeng, “One-dimensional and three-dimensional
computational thermal fluid hybrid analysis-aided air dis-
tribution pipeline system design,” Engineering Applications of
Computational Fluid Mechanics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 436–446,
2020.
[9] Y. Li, Z. Z. Feng, and Y. S. Liu, “Study on simulation analysis
for airplane fuel system,” J. Xi’an Technol. Univ.vol. 28,
pp. 401–405, 2008.
[10] S. Kang, X. Xi, B. Li, and B. Zhang, “Simulation and analysis of
temperature of aviation engine fuel system based on Flow-
master software,” Hangkong Dongli Xuebao/Journal Aerosp.
Power, vol. 35, pp. 722–731, 2020.
[11] W. S. Yi, J. Jiang, L. L. Li, and H. G. Chen, “Research on the
model of scramjet fuel supply system,” Applied Mechanics and
Materials, vol. 532, pp. 382–387, 2014.
[12] S. Qian, C. S. Nan, and Y. S. Yu, “Analysis of aircraft inte-
grated thermal management using fuel as heat sink,” in
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS), pp. 774–779, IEEE, Beijing,
China, 10-12 Oct. 2016.
[13] Y. Jiang, Y. Miao, Z. Qiu, Z. Wang, J. Pan, and C. Yang,
“Intermittent fault detection and diagnosis for aircraft fuel
system based on SVM,” Proceedings of the CSAA/IET Inter-
national Conference on Aircraft Utility Systems (AUS 2020),
vol. 2020, pp. 1255–1258, 2020.
[14] H. W. Ng and F. L. Tan, “Simulation of fuel behaviour during
aircraft in-flight refueling,” Aircraft Engineering & Aerospace
Technology, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 99–105, 2009.
[15] Q. Zuo, S. Qiu, W. Lu, W. Tian, G. Su, and Z. Xiao, “Water
hammer characteristics of integral pressurized water reactor
primary loop,” Nuclear Engineering and Design, vol. 261,
pp. 165–173, 2013.