TPE 417 TERM PAPER -

CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS

OF USING WATER HAMMER
PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR
FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS
By Group 1
 A TERM PAPER ON
CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS OF USING
WATER HAMMER PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR
FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS

PREPARED BY
GROUP 1
215636 – KOMOLAFE AYODEJI
215610- ABDULWASIU UBAYDAH
215651- TAIWO OUWOLE-YOUNG
215615- ADETORO FIDELIS
223244- AJAYI FREDERIC
215642- OJUKO JOSEPH
COURSE CODE: TPE 417

FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY,
DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN, NIGERIA

31ST DECEMBER, 2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….….. 4

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….. 5

MODELLING EQUATION………………………………………... 7

FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS…………………………………..….. 11

LINKING WATER HAMMER TO FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS… 17

EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS……………… 20

CASE STUDIES……………………………………………………… 23

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS………………………………. 25

ADVANCEMENTS AND FUTURE PROPECTS…………………… 29

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………….. 31

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………….. 32
 ABSTRACT

The application of water hammer pressure transient analysis has emerged as a promising
technique for diagnosing fractures in various industrial and subsurface systems, particularly in
hydrocarbon reservoirs, geothermal fields, and water distribution networks. This paper aims to
delve into the multifaceted landscape of employing water hammer pressure transients as a
diagnostic tool for identifying and characterizing fractures within these systems.

The paper first provides an overview of water hammer theory, delineating the fundamental
principles governing transient pressure waves generated by rapid changes in fluid flow
velocity. It then delves into the mechanisms underlying fracture detection through water
hammer tests, elucidating the interaction between the pressure waves and the fractures, which
manifests as distinct signatures in the pressure data.

However, despite its potential, the utilization of water hammer pressure transient analysis
encounters various challenges. These include the complexities associated with interpreting
pressure data in heterogeneous reservoirs or networks, uncertainties related to fracture
geometry and properties, limitations in sensor technology and data acquisition, as well as
computational challenges in modeling the intricate fluid-fracture interactions accurately.

Moreover, this paper explores ongoing research efforts and technological advancements aimed
at overcoming these challenges. Advanced modeling techniques, integration of machine
learning algorithms for data interpretation, advancements in sensor technology for higher
precision measurements, and innovative approaches for real-time monitoring are among the
strategies being pursued to enhance the efficacy and reliability of water hammer pressure
transient analysis for fracture diagnostics.

The prospects for the future application of water hammer pressure transient analysis in fracture
diagnostics are bright, with the continued evolution of technology and methodologies. As the
industry moves toward more sophisticated and integrated approaches, the potential for water
hammer analysis to become a mainstream tool in fracture characterization and monitoring is
promising, holding significant implications for optimizing the performance and longevity of
various subsurface and industrial systems.

In conclusion, this paper provides a comprehensive exploration of the challenges,

advancements, and future prospects associated with utilizing water hammer pressure transient
analysis as a diagnostic tool for fracture identification and characterization, highlighting its
significance in enhancing the efficiency and sustainability of diverse engineering and
subsurface applications.
INTRODUCTION TO WATER HAMMER
Water hammer
Water hammer is a transient pressure phenomenon caused by the rapid stopping of flow. The
rapid deceleration causes a pressure wave to propagate upstream, where it is reflected and
returned creating an increased pressure pulse at the slowing point. This pressure pulse causes
a loud ‘bang’ to be heard followed by others at regular intervals. The intervals are determined
by the sound velocity in seawater (5000 ft/s or 1500 m/s) and twice the upstream distance to
the point of reflection. The pressure pulse can have a value several orders of magnitude above
the normal operating pressures. Due to the widespread use of relatively low pressure rated
synthetic pipe materials in seawater systems, the transient pressures produced by water hammer
can easily rupture pipes or blow fittings apart. The magnitude of the pressure pulse depends on
the average velocity in the pipe, pipe length and rate of valve closure. High velocities and long
pipe runs are the worst combination. Pipe diameter or flow rate, by themselves, are not
important. The most common situations producing water hammer are the rapid opening of a
line resulting in a high velocity flow proceeding down an open pipe and suddenly encountering
an elbow or almost closed valve, or the closing of a valve in a flowing line too rapidly. The
quarter turn full-open to full-close ball or butterfly valves commonly found in seawater system
are particularly dangerous in this regard, since they can be fully cycled with a flick of the wrist.
If these types of valves cannot be avoided, such valves in critical places should be red flagged,
have their handles removed, or be locked.
Fig. 6.2 is a nomograph for calculating water hammer with an example to demonstrate the use
of the figure. In order to further illustrate the danger, if a typical main supply line from a pump
house had a velocity of 10 ft/s, a length of 700 ft from the pumps to the valve and the same
closure time of 1.0 s, it would produce a pressure pulse of about 500 psi above normal pressure.
Most synthetic pipes have pressure ratings of only a few 100 psi at best. It may require a closure
time in the order of 15–20 s to avoid unacceptable pressures. While this is a potential problem
with a straightforward solution, operating personnel may not have the patience to close valves
this slowly. Example 6.1 is an example of a real water hammer problem with a real system. Its
pipe velocity with one pump operating was just sufficient to preclude biofouling for decades
until pump wear significantly reduced the flow velocity. This site has a negligible tide.

Fig. 6.2. Water hammer nomograph. The pressure pulse due to water hammer can be found
by knowing the average velocity of the fluid in the pipe, the pipe length, and the valve
closing time. The fluid velocity is found on the left side of scale (A) and the pipe length on
scale (D). These two points should then be connected by a straight line. The intersection
of this line with scale (C) is noted and connected with a second line to the appropriate
value for the closure time on the right side of scale (A). The pressure pulse in psi is then
read from the intersection of the second line with scale (B). The pressure pulse must be
added to the existing line pressure to find the maximum pressure needed for selecting pipe
type and wall thickness. The example shown is for a pipe length of 200 ft, fluid velocity
of 20 ft/s and a valve closure time of 1 s. The resulting transient pressure pulse has a value
of 270 psi.
WATER HAMMER MODELING AND PRINCIPLE
Water hammer is the result of an event which is associated with a rapid velocity (or pressure) change,
the result of an accident or a normal operational matter in a pipeline system. The basic theory is wel
developed for the single fluid phase, but stil requires refinement for unsteady friction; although there
are models already for friction, it is only recently that the complexity of the velocity profiles during
transients has been demonstrated by experimental observation. One such example by Jonsson (1992),
shown in Figure 1, indicates the beginning of flow reversal close to the wall and the shift of the location
of the maximum velocity away from the centre of the pipeline following a valve closure in 1 s. The
observations were close to the downstream valve with an initial velocity of 0.312 m s', 150 mm dia.
pipe.

Similar observations were made by Sande and Hiemstra (1985) and clearly the quasi-steady
assumptions for friction fall well short of the requirement for unsteady conditions during water hammer
and pose serious problems for numerical modelling. The development of liquid column separation due
to low pressures and the existence of more than one fluid phase has been the focus of many researchers
over the years and is perhaps now being resolved for the simple clearly defined pipe system in a
laboratory environment, where it is possible to define the air content, temperature, system configuration
and the agent responsible for the water hammer with some precision. The reality of the majority of
water hammer is that it is associated with systems which can not be exactly defined if only because of
the size (length) over many kilometres of undulating profile or the lack of definition of the system
components such as valves or pumps or indeed the reasons for or the history of the event which is
responsible for the water hammer. There is therefore a need for a practical approach to the problem,
whilst research continues for better descriptions of the physics of water hammer and for useful
computational solutions including those basics. The text therefore undertakes to present a series of case
studies which, it is hoped, exposes at least once some of the many variations of water hammer in practice
and also helps to develop a classification of the subject. The classification of water hammer as presented
is a warning for those less experienced in understanding the events or uncertain when to secure expert
assistance for explanation or analysis. The presentation of various case studies has been arranged with
a common format. Some data will be provided, as necessary for distinguishing the problem, and the
results of the analysis will be in graphical form, usually a spatial plot and selected time plots of events.
Much of the analysis of water hammer is now accomplished using computer programs based on the
method of characteristics, and herein the simplicity of a constant time increment and a staggered grid
has been adopted. The computer analysis is relatively unsophisticated, since the case studies involve
matters where the precise nature of things such as air content, for example, is not known, although in
some situations the need for and the extent of any simplifying assumptions should be made clear.
Whereas much of the formal teaching of water hammer related topics uses only the computer approach
similar to that mentioned above, when there are clarifications of the basic physics required, the graphical
analysis will be used. A detailed appreciation of this method may be found in Sharp (1981), but in most
cases the technique will be relatively self-evident, requiring only to understand the convention of
propagation direction (related to sign of the fluid velocity), and the times of transmission found by
distance/celerity of water hammer waves.

A change in flow causes a change in pressure, and vice-versa, which leads to transients in hydraulic
systems. Water hammer is a surge or pressure wave that is created due to a sudden change in flow
velocity in a confined system. It is a transient phenomenon that may be triggered by abrupt opening or
closing of valves, starting or stopping of pumps, failure of mechanical devices in a flow line, etc. The
name, water hammer, originates from the hammering sound that sometimes accompanies this
phenomenon (Parmakian, 1963). The variation in pressure due to water hammer can be large, sometimes
in the order of thousands of psi. The pressure fluctuations then propagate in the system like a wave and
may cause severe damage. A conceptual schematic of water hammer in a simple system is shown in
Fig. 1.1. The system consists of a frictionless horizontal pipe of constant diameter, which is fed by a
reservoir at constant pressure, and is connected to a downstream valve that is suddenly closed.

1. At t = 0, the pressure head is steady down the length of the pipe, as shown by the constant hydraulic
grade line (shown in red), because friction was neglected, and the flow velocity is v0 .

2. As soon as the valve is shut-in, the fluid element closest to the valve comes to rest, and this rate of
change of momentum causes a rise in the pressure head by +H . As subsequent fluid elements come
to rest, the high pressure propagates upstream from the valve towards the reservoir like a pressure wave.

3. At t = L a, where L is the pipe length and a is the wave speed, the high pressure wave reaches the
reservoir as all the fluid in the pipe comes to rest. However, this causes a pressure discontinuity at the
boundary with the constant pressure reservoir.

4. In order to achieve pressure equilibrium at the reservoir, a pressure wave of magnitude −H is
reflected back towards the valve and the direction of the flow velocity reverses towards the reservoir.
This reflected wave reaches the downstream valve at t = 2L a. This time is called the reflection time, Tr
.

5. At t = 2L a, the flow velocity in the entire pipe is −v 0 . This causes another discontinuity at the
downstream valve, where the velocity must be zero.
6. The change in velocity from −v0 to zero, cause a sudden negative change in pressure of −H . This
low-pressure wave travels upward as the fluid in the pipe again comes to rest, reaching the reservoir at
t = 1.5Tr .

7. At t = 1.5Tr , the fluid in the pipe is at rest but there is a discontinuity at the constant pressure
reservoir boundary.

8. As the pressure resumes the reservoir pressure, a wave of increased pressure originating from the
reservoir travels back to the valve as the flow velocity in the pipe changes tov0 .

9. At t = 2Tr , the conditions in the system are the same as 1, and the whole process starts over again.

Some of the earliest studies and experiments in water hammer were done by Joukowsky (1900). The
Joukowsky equation states that the rise in peizometric head ( H ) due to the fast shut-in of a
downstream valve (Tc  2L a) is given by: H = aV0 g (1.1) where a is the pressure wave-speed, V0
the initial flow velocity, g the acceleration due to gravity, L the pipe length, and Tc the valve closure
time. The time period, 2L a, is the time taken by the pressure wave to propagate down the pipe length,
get reflected and travel back. It is essential to consider the peak pressures due to water hammer in the
design of any pipeline system, which makes water hammer a well-studied topic in civil engineering.
Various researchers have simulated transient flow in pipeline systems with different methods, a
discussion of which follows in the next section. Water hammer is a fast transient in the wellbore as
compared to the conventional pressure transient response of the reservoir. Water hammer, in the
upstream petroleum industry, has been a largely under-studied phenomenon. However, it has been a
known issue following emergency shut-ins of water injectors. Due to safety concerns, the number of
emergency shut downs of offshore injection wells can be high, with more than 80 emergency shut downs
per year in some cases (McCarty and Norman, 2006). In recent years, with the increasing number of
offshore water injectors, it has been observed that injection wells that undergo repeated shut-ins show
reduced injectivity, higher sand production and even failure of downhole completion (Vaziri et al.,
2007). This observation has been widely attributed to the cyclic pressure waves induced by water
hammer (Santarelli et al., 2000; Hayatdavoudi, 2006; McCarty and Norman, 2006; Vaziri et al., 2007;
Wang et al., 2008). It is believed that in weak sands, pressure fluctuations as low as tens of psi, at the
sand face, might be sufficient to cause sand failure (Santarelli et al., 2000). Modeling work by Vaziri et
al. (2007) have also shown that cyclic pressure fluctuations cause more sanding than a monotonic
increase in injection pressure.
Figure 1.1: Conceptual schematic of water hammer in a reservoir-pipe-valve system

(From KSB Know-how series on Water Hammer)

FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS

Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation technique for enhancing hydrocarbon production

from reserves. It relies on creating high-conductivity fractures propagated from the wellbore
out into the formation . The proppant fills the created fracture so that the fracture remains open
when the fluid’s pressure is reduced. As a result, a conductive path for hydrocarbons to flow
from the reservoir into the wellbore is created. Hydraulic fracturing treatment, while appearing
to be simple, offers many complications. Uncertainties exist regarding reservoir characteristics,
fracture growth patterns, and fluid and proppant placement, which jeopardize the treatment’s
effectiveness. Fracture diagnostic techniques have proven to be effective in addressing
difficulties related to the design, execution, and monitoring of the fracture stimulation
treatments . There are several techniques for obtaining subsurface understanding into fracture
dimensions, growth behavior, and interactions with the surrounding reservoir following
treatment. The crucial economic assessment of the potential outcomes is conducted based on
the information received from these diagnostics, and optimal treatments are achieved.

Technological advances in well drilling, completion, and stimulation have resulted in record
production and considerable growth in unconventional global markets. While these
advancements are already having an impact, there is still a lack of understanding of important
subsurface information, such as the created hydraulic fracture shape near and beyond the
wellbore. Hydraulic fracture diagnostics, visualization of the created hydraulic fractures, and
identifying proppant deep in the formation, further from the wellbore, are likely to be game-
changers in releasing more hydrocarbons from unconventional reservoirs and improving well
economics.

Unconventional resources expansion has made considerable strides in recent decades, thanks
to game-changing advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. These previously
uneconomic tight, low-permeability oil, and gas reservoirs are now an essential element of the
energy mix necessary to meet the world’s energy demands. Increased contact of fracture
surface area and formation through innovative horizontal drilling and multistage fracturing
completion method is a significant contributor to the success of unconventional hydrocarbon
production. Regions rich in conventional resources are actively exploring methods to
demonstrate the potential for unconventional resources for future generations. Despite the
availability of various diagnostic tools, the problems remain, particularly with the advancement
of horizontal drilling and growing interest in the exploitation of unconventional. Hence, novel
diagnostic methodologies are required to address the emerging challenges. This research
discusses different diagnostic techniques and recent changes made to the conventional methods
for application in unconventional reservoirs.

Fracture Diagnostics Using Tracers

The application of radioactive tracers combined with spectral gamma ray logging for fracture
diagnosis is well established. Tracers that emit gamma rays are either injected into the
fracturing fluids or coated on the proppant. Following the completion of the hydraulic
fracturing treatment, logging is conducted to establish the near-wellbore fracture propped and
unpropped heights. Radioactive (R/A) proppant tracers provide an approximation of the
fracture height near the wellbore. RA tracers use embedded tracers, which can be ceramic
materials, and provide quantitative information when assessing critical characteristics around
the wellbore using gamma ray. There are different R/A tracers available that can be
distinguished from one another using the logging tools; hence, by employing different tracers
at different periods throughout the treatment, it may be possible to determine which
perforations were receiving fluid at a given point in the treatment. These instruments have been
widely used in both offshore and onshore applications to improve perforation efficiency and
optimal proppant placement. This technique has several advantages, including its relatively
low cost, low reactivity with the reservoir fluids and rocks, similar transport behavior with the
injected fluids, and ease of measuring with a high accuracy detection level. However, the use
of radioactive tracers raises environmental and safety problems for operators. Tracers are also
restricted in their ability to provide information for regions far from the wellbore and fracture
height in highly deviated wells. Radioactive tracers are being phased out in favor of chemical
tracers, which are more environmentally friendly and allow for longer-term data collection of
in-well tracer flowback and communication within reservoir wells.

Chemical tracers are compounds that are either liquid or solid and are soluble in water, oil, or
gas. The best chemical tracers must possess the following characteristics: be stable under
reservoir conditions, have minimum partitioning into the nonsoluble phases, no adsorption on
the reservoir rock, have a very low limit of detection, and have minimal to no environmental
impacts. Tracers used in multistage hydraulic fracturing are often classified as emulsion tracers,
perforation tracers, and controlled release tracers.
In unconventional reservoirs, tracer flowback analysis is frequently used to determine
hydraulic stimulation effectiveness, understand fracture communication with offset wells, and
estimate fracture volume, correlate relative fracture contribution to the overall flow, and the
connectivity of the fractured matrix created, etc. The combination of horizontal well drilling
and multistage hydraulic fracturing treatment is widely used to increase production in
unconventional and tight reservoirs. It is critical to evaluate the fracture networks developed to
accurately predict hydrocarbon production. Several advantages have been found for fracture
characterization using tracer flowback. Firstly, injecting different tracers into each fracture can
effectively distinguish individual stages. Because these tracers will not become reactive with
each other, the trace flowback analysis may be utilized to predict the fracture parameters at
each stage. Secondly, since only a limited amount of tracers are injected, the concentration of
tracers produced decreases over time, and the best tracer analysis would occur at the start of
production. As a result, the collected tracer flowback data will most likely provide the earliest
opportunity to evaluate a single-stage fracture network that contributes to the production of
hydrocarbon (production allocation per stage). Finally, the tracer flowback test is fairly cost-
effective, and its data is very multifunctional.

The general procedure for performing tracer flowback in a multistage hydraulically fractured
well mainly consists of four steps, as shown in Figure 1 .(1)Tracer is injected with the
fracturing fluid down into the reservoir(2)Tracer-free fracturing fluid is injected into the
reservoir to drive the tracer slug into the fractures and matrix further (also known as the chase
period).(3)During flow shut down, a downhole packer is introduced into the well to prop the
next fracture(4)Opening the well (injector is being changed into a producer), the tracer can now
be flown back with the fracturing fluid
Figure 1

Schematic of the general process for performing tracer flowback in a multistage hydraulically fractured well
modified after.

Salman et al. discussed the analysis of chemical tracers in flowback samples from
unconventional reservoirs to determine the effectiveness of the treatment. They presented the
flowback results for a multistage completion and concluded that tracer analysis can be used to
assess the fractured system in the stimulated reservoir volume (highly fractured vs. sparsely
fracture). provided an analytical approach for quantifying fractures in a tight oil reservoir by
using an early-time tracer poststimulation flowback profile. The authors determined that tracer
dispersion, adsorption, and the difference between the injection and flowback rates affect tracer
flowback profiles (TFPs). Tian et al. used synthetic numerical simulation to examine the
chemical tracer selection criteria for fracture volume diagnosis in a shale gas reservoir. The
authors found that the tracer partitioning coefficient had a considerably greater influence on
fracture volume calculation than the tracer adsorption rate. As a result, the tracer adsorption
effect on fracture volume calculations is dismissed, and the partitioning coefficient is the most
important factor for tracer selection in fracture volume diagnosis. Based on the tracer data, the
increase of the tracer partitioning coefficient will improve the accuracy of the estimated swept
volume. proposed a new numerical simulation method for analyzing chemical tracer data to
help in estimating connectivity between the wellbore and the open connected fractures. As the
fracture pressure falls during flowback, the induced unpropped (IU) fracture will close over
time, causing the tracer to remain in the reservoir and the fractures. Based on the tracer response
curve (TRC), it is clear that the IU fracture closure has a significant impact on the recovery of
the tracer. The multiple peaks in the TRC can be explained by the closure of IU fractures during
flowback. Early peaks in the production profile can be attributed to fracture closure near the
wellbore, while late time peaks are due to the flowback of tracers from fractures connected to
the wellbore through IU fractures. The area under the early time peak is directly related to the
sections of fractures that are well hydraulically connected to the wellbore, while the area under
the later peaks is related to the part of the fracture connected to the wellbore through IU
fractures.

Fracture Diagnostics Using Fiber Optics

The use of fiber optics in well stimulation treatments has increased recently. The optical cable
is deployed downhole, allowing for continuous monitoring of the treatment. Depending on the
application, the cable installation can be temporary (coiled tubing or wireline conveyed) or
permanent (installed behind the casing), and multiple sensors can be distributed along with the
cable Figure 2. DTS and DAS are the two most common measuring techniques used with fiber
optics. Monitoring the acoustic and temperature-related activity from an offset well-
instrumented with a fiber optic cable in a multiwell hydraulic fracture stimulation can provide
valuable insight into fracture diagnostics for stimulated wells. Due to the reservoir complexity,
determining the optimal completion and stimulation design to enhance fracturing efficiency
and production performance in unconventional reservoirs remains difficult. Unconventional
fiber optic applications have focused on fiber-based pressure gauges and cluster efficiency
calculations using near-wellbore DAS and DTS obtained via permanent casing installations or
DTS wireline logs run after treatment. Fiber optics technology has been recognized as a
potential option for establishing consistent production profiles in unconventional wells. Fiber
optics have brought new insights through real-time monitoring and integrated diagnostics in
this aspect.
Figure 2

Installation of the optical cable (a) along the flow path (b) and behind the casing modified after.
LINKING WATER HAMMER PRESSURE TRANSIENT TO
FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS
Pressure Transient
A pressure transient happens when there is a sudden shift in injection rate caused by a valve
closure or injector shutdown. A water hammer is a pressure transient that goes down the
wellbore, is reflected back, and causes a sequence of pressure pulses on the sand face. A semi-
analytical model is presented in this paper to simulate the magnitude, frequency, and duration
of water hammer in wellbores. An impedance model that can represent the interaction between
the wellbore and the formation has been proposed. To validate the model, pressure transients
collected in five wells in an offshore field are history matched. . When compared to surface
observations, the amplitude of the pressure waves at the sand face can be up to an order of
magnitude less. Finally, a model for estimating fracture dimensions from water hammer data
has been proposed.
Water Hammer Pressure Transient Analysis
Water hammer, also known as hydraulic ram or fluid hammer, is a phenomenon that occurs
in liquid-filled pipelines when there's a sudden change in flow velocity. This rapid
deceleration or acceleration generates pressure waves that can travel through the pipe at the
speed of sound of the liquid, potentially causing significant damage to equipment and
compromising system integrity.
Pressure transient analysis (PTA) is the critical tool used to understand and mitigate the
effects of water hammer. Pressure Transient Ananlysis aims to:
• Predict the magnitude and propagation of pressure waves: This involves
modeling the pipeline system considering its physical properties (pipe
diameter, material, etc.), liquid characteristics (density, viscosity), and
operational conditions (flow rate, valve closure times).
• Identify high-risk locations: By analyzing the pressure distribution
throughout the pipeline, PTA can pinpoint locations where pressure spikes
are most likely to occur, allowing for targeted mitigation measures.
• Design and implement mitigation strategies: Once critical locations are
identified, PTA can guide the selection and design of appropriate mitigation
devices, such as surge tanks, air chambers, or slow-closing valves, to
dampen pressure surges and protect the pipeline.
Methods for PTA:
 • Analytical methods: For simple pipeline systems with constant properties
and uniform flow, analytical solutions can be derived to predict pressure
changes. However, these methods are often limited and cannot handle
complex scenarios.
• Numerical methods: More sophisticated software packages utilize
numerical methods like the method of characteristics or finite element
analysis to solve the governing equations describing fluid flow and pressure
dynamics. These methods offer greater flexibility and accuracy for complex
systems with varying properties and transient events.
Types of water hammer and their analysis:
• Valve closure water hammer: This occurs when a valve is rapidly closed,
causing the moving fluid to come to an abrupt halt. The kinetic energy of
the fluid is converted into pressure, resulting in a sharp pressure spike
upstream of the valve.
• Pump shutdown water hammer: When a pump is suddenly shut down, the
inertia of the moving fluid continues to drive it forward, leading to a
pressure rise upstream of the pump.
• Air pocket collapse: If air pockets are present in the pipeline, a sudden
change in pressure can cause them to implode, generating localized pressure
increases and potential damage.
Factors influencing water hammer intensity:
• Flow velocity: Higher flow velocities lead to greater kinetic energy and
consequently, more intense pressure surges.
• Pipe material: The stiffness and wave propagation speed of the pipe material
determine the speed and amplitude of pressure waves.
• Valve closure time: Slower valve closures reduce the rate of flow
deceleration and therefore, mitigate the severity of water hammer.
• Presence of air pockets: Air pockets exacerbate pressure fluctuations and
increase the risk of damage.
Applications of PTA:
• Water supply and distribution systems: Protecting pipelines from water
hammer damage caused by valve operations, pump start-stops, or sudden
changes in demand.
 • Hydropower plants: Optimizing penstock design and surge tank operation
to minimize transient pressures during start-up and shutdown of turbines.
• Oil and gas pipelines: Mitigating water hammer risks associated with
pipeline shutdowns, pump shutdowns, and valve closures.
• Nuclear power plants: Ensuring the integrity of cooling water systems and
preventing potential equipment damage due to water hammer.
The field of PTA is continually evolving, with ongoing research focused on:
• Developing more accurate and efficient numerical methods for complex
systems.
• Integrating PTA with other engineering disciplines, such as control systems
and structural analysis.
• Developing advanced tools for real-time monitoring and mitigation of water
hammer events.
Understanding and implementing PTA is crucial for engineers and operators designing,
operating, and maintaining liquid-filled pipeline systems. By mitigating water hammer
risks, PTA ensures the safe, reliable, and efficient operation of these critical infrastructure
systems.
EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
Hydraulic transient or water hammer occur whenever there is a sudden alteration in the flow
velocity resulting in variation of pressure and discharge in a water conductor system for
hydropower and water supply plants . It is necessary to analyze and to keep hydraulic transient
with in safe limits in a water conductor system of a hydropower system safety and effective
operation and to increase its life span. Uncontrolled transient events can cause serious accidents
which may be destructive for both civil and mechanical infrastructure of the plants. A pressure
increase can rupture the penstock or pressurized water conductor system. It is difficult for
power and water utilities to reduce water hammer formation in water conductor system due to
the variation in demand. The fluctuating load can cause severe water hammer events in the
pipeline.

The analysis of hydraulic transient is essential for the selection of penstock material, its
pressure class and the specifications of surge protection devices. Formation of hydraulic
transient in penstock is greatly influenced by its material . More rigid material means higher
transient formation and elastic materials forms lower transients waves produced in the
penstock. For conventional metallic pipe sections facing burst, there is an option for using
recently developed viscoelastic pipes such as Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GRP) and High
or Low Density Polyethylene (HDPE-LDPE) instead of metallic pipes such as Mild Steel (MS).
The viscoelastic pipes suppress water hammer pressure effectively because of its low
characteristics impedance and fast damping compared with metallic pipes. Viscoelastic pipes
such as GRP have been started in use to replace metallic pipes in water conductor systems in
hydro power and water supply plants. It has found that lot of studies have been carried on water
hammer analyses in pipelines.

Some studies are available in literature where the short sections of existing steel pipe network
was replaced by another plastic material to analyze the water hammer effect. In addition, some
branching strategy was used to analyze the water hammer phenomena by adding a branched
plastic short section on the sensitive regions of existing steel pipe network. These techniques
may be useful in replacing the aging pipe sections in existing steel pipe network in water
conductor system in hydro power or water utilities. However, there are very few studies
available where the response of metallic-viscoelastic pipeline under transient conditions
observed and analyzed by both experimentally and numerically.
Researchers across the globe have studied the water hammer impact on penstock material
experimentally or analytically. A summary of research work on the impact of different
materials and their combination configuration on the water hammer is presented and discussed
here. Mitosek et al. conducted experiments for water hammer analysis in two different material
pipelines and proposed some modification in governing equation of the water hammer for
smooth damping of pressure waves. Adamkowski et al. designed and fabricated an
experimental setup to study the damping effect of the pressure waves in the pipeline and
observed that the classical water hammer theory cannot predict the damping effect properly.

Triki analyzed water hammer pressure in metallic-polymeric material pipeline and proposed a
compound technique that was useful for upgrading existing steel piping system in both positive
and negative water hammer events. In this study the water hammer behavior in existing steel
piping system was analyzed by using an inline design strategy. This strategy was based on by
replacing a short section of the existing steel pipeline with another plastic pipe wall material
like HDPE or LDPE. Chaker et al. implemented a branching strategy to analyze the water
hammer effect by replacing the short section of a steel piping system with a branched plastic
pipeline and observed that the proposed branching strategy can upgrade existing steel piping
network without any major modifications. Gong et al. investigated the water hammer pressure
behavior in metallic-plastic-metallic pipe configuration through numerical investigation and
proposed a surge suppression technique in water distribution systems.

Fadi conducted water hammer experiments in steel pipe and two other material combinations
of Steel + PVC, and Steel + Aluminium and analyze the further development of novel
monitoring methods for the assessment of structural state of the wall of steel lined pressure
shafts. Larson et al. studied transient effect in water and sewage pipes by measuring pressure
and strain in pipes made by different materials and concluded that the response of pipes during
transient events can be analyzed by using linear elastic theory with related modulus of the
elasticity. Soares et al. studied and proposed a model to analyze transient behavior in plastic
pipes like Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) by conducting various experiments. The proposed model
showed a better agreement between experimental and numerical results.

Duan et al. highlights the effect of unsteady friction in viscoelastic pipes by implementing quasi
2D numerical method and concluded that the water hammer equations was not capable to
exhibits the damping behavior during water hammer events. Keramat et al. proposed a new
mathematical model for water hammer modeling in viscoelastic pipes. The poisson's ratio in
viscoelastic material was taken into consideration for development of the model. Covas et al.
studied and developed a MOC based mathematical model to analyze the effect of
viscoelasticity in polymer pipelines by comparing experimental and theoretical results.

Pezzinga et al. studied 2D features of water hammer in pressurized viscoelastic pipes by

implementing micro genetic algorithm. The analysis showed that the viscoelastic models
generally have smooth velocity profiles with respect to the elastic model. Kawaguchi et al.
studied resistance of the water hammer effect on three different types of glass fibre-reinforced
thermoplastics by using fracture analysis technique and found a pattern of tensile fracture in
transients conditions. Sun et al. studied the water hammer wave speed in composite pipelines
and analyze the material behavior in water hammer events.

Apollonio et al. studied creep function test for analysis of transient conditions in HDPE pipes
by numerical transient solver and observed that viscoelastic model precisely predicts transient
pressure. Choon et al. studied water hammer effect by taking two materials MS and PVC by
conducting laboratory tests and concluded that lower strength pipe material deals with higher
water hammer effects. Kodura et al. experimentally studied the gate closure phenomena during
water hammer events in two different pipelines materials MS and Polyethylene (PE) pipes.

Laiq carried out the transient analysis with cost-effectiveness in water transmission line by
considering different pipeline materials namely HDPE, GRP and Ductile Iron (DI) and found
that GRP pipeline was more effective in controlling the water hammer and economical than
HDPE and DI. Gustafson et al. also investigated the fatigue formation caused by water hammer
in glass-fibre reinforced epoxy (GRE) pipes. Henclik proposed a new numerical approach for
water hammer analysis in viscoelastic pipelines with both experimental and numerical
simulation. The test method was developed by using a test rig to know the process of fatigue
formation on GRE pipes. Sharif et al. studied the impact of water hammer on pipelines with
different diameters and various materials and concluded that the transient pressure may be
reduced with proper material and diameter selection of the pipeline. Kandil et al. studied the
effect of pipe material on water hammer and showed that increase in the pipe material elastic
modulus can increase the amplitude of water hammer pressure.
CASE STUDY

Introduction:
Water hammer gradient, a pressure surge generated by abrupt flow changes in pipelines, holds
promise as a cost-effective diagnostic tool in hydraulic fracturing. While its potential is
significant, practical application presents both successes and challenges. This paper explores
real-world examples, analyzing their outcomes and drawing valuable lessons for future
applications.
Case Studies:
Success:
1. Niobrara Formation (Sharma et al., 2015): High-frequency pressure data from
over 100 wells revealed correlations between water hammer characteristics and
fracture dimensions and connectivity. Analysis of gradient features like peak
amplitude and oscillation period facilitated fracture growth and reservoir
communication assessment.
• Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301406041_Analysis_of_Water
_Hammer_Signatures_for_Fracture_Diagnostics
2. Horizontal Multi-stage Completions (Carey et al., 2017): Frequency spectrum
analysis of water hammer events identified resonant frequencies in the wellbore,
enabling confirmation of bridge plug placement and fracture isolation depth. This
enhanced treatment optimization and well integrity assurance.
• Link: https://library.seg.org/doi/full/10.1190/INT-2020-0153.1
Challenges:
1. Wellbore Effects Dominance (Weng et al., 2018): In some cases, wellbore
characteristics like fluid viscosity and completion design can mask the fracture
signal, making interpretation of water hammer gradient complex. This highlights
the need for improved data acquisition and processing techniques.
• Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301406041_Analysis_of_Water
_Hammer_Signatures_for_Fracture_Diagnostics
2. Limited Fracture Complexity Characterization: While providing valuable
insights into fracture size and connectivity, water hammer gradient may not fully
capture complex fracture geometries or proppant distribution. Integrating with
other diagnostic methods becomes crucial for comprehensive fracture evaluation.
Insights and Lessons Learned:
 • Water hammer gradient offers a promising, low-cost approach for fracture
diagnostics, but requires careful interpretation considering wellbore effects and
limitations in characterizing complex fractures.
• High-frequency data acquisition and advanced signal processing techniques are
essential for accurate analysis.
• Integrating water hammer with other diagnostic methods like microseismic and
tracer tests can provide a more holistic understanding of fracture development
and reservoir communication.
• Further research is needed to improve the sensitivity of water hammer gradient
to complex fracture geometries and proppant distribution.
Conclusion:
Water hammer gradient, despite its challenges, holds significant potential as a valuable tool in
fracture diagnostics. By understanding its limitations and implementing advanced data
acquisition and analysis techniques, this method can contribute to optimizing fracture
treatments and enhancing reservoir performance. Future research should focus on overcoming
existing challenges and expanding the capabilities of water hammer gradient for
comprehensive fracture characterization.
CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH USING WATER HAMMER
PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS

Water hammer is a pressure surge wave that is created when there is a sudden change in the
velocity of flow in a confined system. It is a transient phenomenon that is triggered by abrupt
opening or closing of valves, starting or stopping of pumps, failure of mechanical devices in a
flow line. Analyses of water hammer dataset is subject to limitations including signal
interference caused by pumping rate variations, fracturing fluid compositions and low sampling
frequency. Large frictional pressures developed in the system during pumping (between the
wellbore and the formation) and signal attenuation in long wellbores should also be considered.
It can also be challenging to find patterns for refining input ranges without converging to
widely different fracture geometries. In some cases, the simulated pressure losses associated
with the fracture geometry prediction might not be consistent with engineering understanding.

Water hammer is a fast transient in the well bore as compared to the conventional pressure
transient response of the reservoir. It is a common issue observed in the oil industry during the
emergency shutdown of water injection wells. The number of emergency shutdowns of
offshore injection wells can be high due to safety concerns. It has also been observed that
injection wells that undergo repeated shut-ins show reduced injectivity, higher sand production
and even failure of downhole completion which is attributed to the cyclic pressure waves
induced by water hammer. It is believed that in weak sands, pressure fluctuations as low as tens
of psi at the sand face is sufficient to cause sand failure.

One of the major challenge faced while using water hammer for fracture diagnostics is that the
magnitude of water hammer measured at the wellhead is often in the order of hundreds of psi
but there is no bottom hole water hammer pressure data in injectors to confirm the magnitude
at the sand face.

Very low and very high-permeability reservoirs pose additional challenges for hydraulic
fracturing. in very low permeability, such as tight gas and shale gas, the well drainage area is
confined essentially to the stimulated reservoir volume created by multiple transverse hydraulic
fractures in horizontal wells.

Although it has the potential to be a budget-friendly and unobtrusive means of detecting

fractures in hydraulic fracturing, the water hammer pressure transient faces numerous
hindrances that impede its effectiveness and widespread implementation.
1. The Difficulties of Interpretation: Decoding fracture-related data from the water hammer
signal involves complex deconvolution techniques, as the signal incorporates information from
both the well and the fluid. Separating and accurately identifying fracture details amidst these
various factors poses a significant challenge.The accuracy of interpretation is greatly
influenced by numerical models and assumptions related to the wellbore-fracture system,
leading to potential discrepancies in fracture characterization. Despite its usefulness in
assessing fracture size and connectivity, water hammer lacks crucial information on proppant
distribution and fracture closure pressure, limiting our understanding of the system.

2. Challenges in Data Acquisition and Processing: In order to accurately capture the swiftly
advancing water hammer wave, it is crucial to utilize high-frequency pressure sensors.
Unfortunately, outside forces such as noise contamination and data distortion can hinder precise
analysis in real-world settings. The intricate structures of wellbores, including multiple
perforations or branches, can pose a challenge in isolating the water hammer signal from
specific fractures. Limited resources and budgetary limitations often lead to incomplete data
acquisition in real time, opening the door for possible misinterpretations.

3. Validation and Integration Issues:Ascertaining the Accuracy of Water Hammer Results, It

is vital to verify the findings from water hammer analysis by comparing them to results from
other fracture diagnostic methods, such as microseismic surveys or tracer tests. However,
variations may arise due to differences in measurement techniques. Incorporating fracture
characteristics derived from water hammer analysis into reservoir simulation models for
production forecasting presents difficulties, as these models may not encompass all the
intricacies of fractured reservoirs.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH USING WATER HAMMER

PRESSURE TRANSIENT FOR FRACTURE DIAGNOSTICS

Although it shows potential as an affordable and non-invasive approach to fracture diagnosis,

the use of water hammer pressure transients (WHPT) is hindered by various technical
obstacles, making it difficult to widely implement and accurately interpret. These difficulties
stem from the intricate interplay between the pressure pulse, the wellbore system, and the
resulting fracture..
1. Non-uniqueness of Interpretation: The interpretation of water hammer signals is not a
straightforward process due to the presence of various factors that can affect the characteristics
of the signal. These factors include the properties of the wellbore and reservoir such as length,
diameter, fluid properties, and formation permeability. Additionally, the fracture properties,
such as length, height, width, conductivity, and proppant distribution, also play a role in shaping
the signal. Moreover, the measurement system, including the sensor location, accuracy, and
sampling rate, adds another layer of complexity to the interpretation process. Distinguishing
the signature of the fracture from other contributing factors becomes a critical challenge in
accurately interpreting water hammer signals.

2. Limited Fracture Information: WHPT mainly focuses on relaying data regarding the
connection between the fracture and the wellbore, as well as its overall size. However, it does
not offer in-depth insights into the internal geometry or placement of proppant. Accurately
characterizing complex fractures with various branches or uneven proppant distribution can
prove to be a challenging task.

3. Data Quality and Processing: The water hammer signal can be easily compromised by
excessive noise from other operational sources like pumps and valves. In order to accurately
interpret the pressure transients, advanced signal processing techniques and numerical models
are often needed. The success of these methods ultimately relies on the high caliber of the
recorded data and the degree of knowledge available about the wellbore and formation.

4. Model Complexity and Uncertainty: In order to precisely replicate the intricate interplay
between the wellbore, fracture, and fluid flow, advanced numerical models must be utilized.
These models are comprised of a multitude of parameters and assumptions, which can be
challenging to accurately calibrate due to a dearth of information. This lack of certainty within
the models can result in notable discrepancies when attempting to characterize fractures.

5. Limited Field Validation: Comparing fracture parameters derived from WHPT can
sometimes be challenging when compared to other diagnostic methods such as microseismic
and tracers. In order to ensure the accuracy and dependability of WHPT interpretations, further
field studies and data correlation are necessary.

Other challenges include:

• High-pressure Environments: Operating in environments with extreme pressures can

present limitations for sensor durability and data acquisition.
• Horizontal Wells: Interpreting WHPT in horizontal wells becomes even more complex
due to the influence of gravity and potentially complex fracture geometries.
ADVANCEMENTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

The application of water hammer pressure transient analysis in fracture diagnostics has
witnessed significant advancements, largely propelled by technological innovations and a
deeper understanding of fracture behavior. This section explores the strides made in this field
and envisages the potential future trajectories.

Technological Advancements
Recent years have witnessed substantial progress in sensor technology, data acquisition
systems, and analysis methodologies within the realm of water hammer pressure transient
analysis. High-resolution sensors and advanced data acquisition systems have considerably
improved the precision and accuracy of pressure transient measurements. Moreover, the
integration of cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence and advanced signal
processing algorithms has revolutionized the interpretation of pressure transient signals. These
developments hold promise in extracting intricate details regarding fracture characteristics
from pressure transient data.

Enhanced Understanding of Fracture Behavior

One of the remarkable outcomes of employing water hammer pressure transient analysis is the
enhanced comprehension of fracture behavior. This technique has contributed significantly to
delineating fracture geometry, orientation, and propagation characteristics with greater
precision. Furthermore, breakthroughs in interpreting pressure transient signals have facilitated
the extraction of nuanced information, including fracture porosity and permeability. These
advancements have profound implications for optimizing reservoir management strategies and
resource extraction efficiency.

Diverse Industry Applications

Beyond its traditional use in the oil and gas industry, water hammer pressure transient analysis
is finding applications in diverse sectors such as geothermal energy, mining, and environmental
monitoring. The nuanced adaptations and challenges specific to each industry underscore the
versatility of this diagnostic technique. Its potential to provide valuable insights into various
geological settings and subsurface structures holds promise for broader industrial applications.
Improved Field Deployment and Monitoring
Advancements in field deployment techniques and real-time monitoring systems have
augmented the practicality and efficiency of utilizing water hammer pressure transient analysis
for fracture diagnostics. The integration of remote monitoring capabilities and automated
systems enables continuous and real-time assessment of fractures, thereby minimizing
downtime and enhancing operational efficiency.

Environmental and Economic Impact

The utilization of water hammer pressure transient analysis in fracture diagnostics contributes
to sustainable resource extraction practices by minimizing environmental impact and
optimizing resource utilization. This technique's potential to enhance precision in fracture
characterization and reservoir management translates into substantial economic benefits,
making it an attractive alternative to conventional methods.

Addressing Challenges and Future Research

Despite the remarkable advancements, challenges persist, including signal noise, data
interpretation complexities, and limitations in certain geological formations. Future research
endeavors should focus on addressing these challenges and exploring interdisciplinary
collaborations to unlock new perspectives. Additionally, exploring the integration of water
hammer pressure transient analysis with emerging technologies could pave the way for further
innovation.

In conclusion, the advancements in water hammer pressure transient analysis have propelled
fracture diagnostics to new frontiers, offering unprecedented insights into subsurface
formations. The ongoing evolution and future research endeavors hold the promise of refining
this technique's efficacy, thereby significantly impacting various industries reliant on accurate
fracture characterization and reservoir management.
CONCLUSION
The exploration of water hammer pressure transient for fracture diagnostics unveils a landscape
ripe with both challenges and promising prospects. This investigative journey has underscored
the significance of this technique in reshaping our understanding of subsurface fractures while
illuminating pathways toward future advancements.

Throughout this examination, it becomes evident that the utilization of water hammer pressure
transient analysis is not without hurdles. Signal noise, data interpretation complexities, and
limitations within specific geological formations pose substantial challenges. These obstacles,
while formidable, are not insurmountable. Rather, they beckon for innovative solutions and
further scientific inquiry to refine the efficacy and applicability of this diagnostic tool.

The strides made in sensor technology, data acquisition systems, and analysis methodologies
stand as testament to the continuous evolution of this field. The convergence of cutting-edge
technologies, such as artificial intelligence and advanced signal processing algorithms, holds
immense promise in unraveling the complexities embedded within pressure transient signals.
These advancements open doors to a deeper understanding of fracture behavior and fracture
characterization.

The diverse applications of water hammer pressure transient analysis across industries—from
traditional oil and gas to emerging sectors like geothermal energy, mining, and environmental
monitoring—underscore its versatility and relevance. Each industry presents unique challenges
and opportunities, highlighting the adaptability of this technique to various geological settings
and subsurface structures.

Crucially, the integration of water hammer pressure transient analysis into fracture diagnostics
not only promises enhanced precision and efficiency but also aligns with sustainable resource
extraction practices. The potential to mitigate environmental impact while optimizing resource
utilization bears significance beyond scientific merit, offering substantial economic benefits to
industries reliant on accurate fracture characterization and reservoir management.
As we conclude this inquiry, it becomes imperative to acknowledge the horizon of
opportunities that lie ahead. Addressing the persisting challenges demands collaborative
efforts, interdisciplinary research initiatives, and a commitment to pushing the boundaries of
technological innovation. Exploring the uncharted territories of integrating water hammer
pressure transient analysis with emerging technologies presents a promising avenue for future
research and development.

In essence, the journey through the challenges and prospects of employing water hammer
pressure transient for fracture diagnostics unveils a narrative of relentless innovation and
transformative potential. The dynamism inherent in this field underscores its significance in
reshaping our understanding of subsurface fractures, paving the way for sustainable resource
management practices and economic viability across industries.

As we stand at the intersection of knowledge and possibility, the future of water hammer
pressure transient analysis beckons—a future that promises not just scientific advancement,
but a tangible impact on industries, the environment, and our collective pursuit of sustainable
progress.

REFERENCES
• Iriarte, J.. , Merritt, J.. , and B..Kreyche. "Using Water Hammer Characteristics as a
Fracture Treatment Diagnostic." Paper presented at the SPE Oklahoma City Oil and Gas
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA, March 2017.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2118/185087-MS
• Ma, Xiang, Zhou, Fuping, Ortega Andrade, Jose Alberto, Gosavi, Shekhar, and Damian
Burch. "Evaluation of Water Hammer Analysis as Diagnostic Tool for Hydraulic
Fracturing." Paper presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, Denver, Colorado, USA, July 2019.
doi: https://doi.org/10.15530/urtec-2019-935
• Mondal, Somnath. (2010). Pressure Transients in Wellbores: Water Hammer Effects and
Implications for Fracture Diagnostics.
• Soliman, M. Y., &Zeng, X. (2016). Water hammer pressure transient analysis for fracture
diagnostics in unconventional reservoirs: A review. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 144, 198-212
• Bourdet, D., & Horne, R. N. (1983). Analysis of pressure response of a fractured well
produced at constant pressure. SPE Formation Evaluation, 1(4), 379-388
• Economides, M. J., & Nolte, K. G. (2000). Reservoir stimulation. John Wiley & Sons
• Barati, R., &Ehlig-Economides, C. (2011). Fracture diagnostics using combined water
hammer and microseismic data in tight gas reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation &
Engineering, 14(2), 154-168
• Analysis of the pressure response of a hydraulically fractured well by numerical modeling
as a guide to improved interpretations. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11(6),
789-807
• Cheng, H., & Wu, Z. (2022). Water hammer response characteristics of wellbore-fracture
system: Multi-dimensional analysis in time, frequency and quefrency domain. Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 214, 109022.
• Alberts, C., & Boone, K. (2016). Interpreting water hammer fracture diagnostics and its
limitations. SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition.
• Bourdet, D., & Bour, D. (2014). Pressure analysis for improved stimulation design. SPE
Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition.

• Water hammer- B.B Sharp and D.B Sharp

• Sciencedirect.com
• Mondal Thesis, 2010