The Prevention of Water Hammer and Cavitational Hammer in

Pipeline Systems

Andreas Dudlik, Sri Budi Handajani Schönfeld, Stefan Schlüter, Hans Fahlenkamp*, Horst-

Michael Prasser**

1. Abstract

Damages in pipeline systems are often ascribed to water hammer and cavitational hammer. The

resulting leakage can cause considerable damages to mankind and environment. To control

these pressure surges, Fraunhofer UMSICHT and Forschungszentrum Rossendorf have conduc-

ted experiments whose results are used to develop new methods for the prevention of water

hammer and cavitational hammer. The fast acting valve is equipped with an innovative hydraulic

braking system (“ABS-Armatur”) and is combined with a check valve to suppress the water

hammer. Since the described system does not need any additional energy source and adapts

automatically to changes of the pipe system parameters, it is also regarded as particularly

suitable for already existing plants.

2. Water Hammer and Cavitational Hammer in Pipelines

Pressure surges occurring in pipeline systems may be caused by fast control interference , start

up and shut down processes and operation failure, as well as flow rate fluctuation. They lead to

water hammer upstream the closing valve and cavitational hammer downstream the valve,

which may cause considerable damages to the pipeline and the support structures.

*Dr.-Ing. A. Dudlik, Dipl.-Ing. S.B.H. Schönfeld, Dr.-Ing. S. Schlüter, Prof. Dr.-Ing. H. Fahlenkamp
Fraunhofer Institut UMSICHT
Osterfelder Straße 3
46047 Oberhausen
** Dr. H.-M. Prasser
Forschungszentrum Rossendorf
Bautzner Landstr. 128
01328 Dresden
The typical scenarios for the origin of water hammer are fast closing valves triggered by

breakdown of auxiliary power and fast control interference. The fast deceleration of the liquid

results in high pressure surges upstream the valve, thus kinetic energy is transformed into

potential energy which leads to temporary pressure increases [1]. This effect is called water

hammer. This can be made clear with an example. In a horizontally laid pipeline of the size DN

200 and of the length 500 m which transports water by stream velocity 3 m/s at ambient

temperature, the pressure can increase by a fast closing process from the stationary pressure of

6 bar to 40 bar. At the same time the force which one fixed point must take in stationary with

e.g. 1-5 kN as weight and friction force will increase temporarily to 125 kN.

Due to liquid inertia the transported liquid continues to flow downstream the valve with initial

speed, the pressure decreases and large expanding vapour bubbles are formed near the valve.

The pressure falls up to saturation pressure of the liquid and is thus lower than the pressure in

the system. Thereby the liquid stream is decelerated and finally accelerated towards the closing

valve (back flow). As a result of fast recondensation of vapour bubbles, the liquid being

transported is stopped rapidly at the closed valve. The resulting pressure surge is referred to as

cavitational hammer. The amplitude of the first cavitational hammer downstream the valve is

nearly as high as the amplitude of the first water hammer upstream the valve.

3. State of the Art

The well-known methods for the prevention of water hammer in pipeline systems are e.g. the

application of air vessels, surge shafts, bladder accumulators, as well as the prolongation of

closing and opening time [2]. The latter is the easiest and the most favorable method. Due to

technical and legal requirements for pipeline operation within the chemical industries and power

plants is not always possible to decelerate the closing process undefined.

Air vessels, surge shafts or bladder accumulators are used if the pipeline system is not designed

on the same level. These applications are installed upstream the closing valve in its immediate

proximity. When shutting off the medium flows in to the loft and is braked by this.
Another possibility is the expansion of valve gears with facilities which decelerate the closure as

soon as the last third of the flow cross section is nearly reached. These can be dampers (often

used with swing check valves) or programmable positioners. There are also some patented

inventions which are based on measurement and control system supported control of valves [3]

or on deflection mechanisms. The industrial application is yet unknown to the authors.

4. New Methods

4.1. Water Hammer Prevention with »ABS-Armatur«

In a cooperation with Forschungszentrum Rossendorf FZR, Fraunhofer UMSICHT in Oberhausen

has developed a new method to prevent water hammer in pipeline systems [4]. Therefore

Fraunhofer UMSICHT has been conducting both experimental (at UMSICHT’s own test rig) and

theoretical tests to clarify the extent of damage due to water hammer and cavitational hammer

in the practice as well as to their prevention. The measurands pressure, force, velocity and phase

dispersion are recorded in high time resolution (1-4 kHz), the measurement results are then

compared with the predictions of commercial calculation software. The results of these tests are

used for the development of new methods for the prevention of water hammer and cavitational

hammer.

A new method was developed by building an adaptable control on the valves already existing in

the pipeline. For this purpose the shut-off valve is provided with a hydraulic brake system (»ABS-

Armatur«), [4] which works onto the rotation axis of the valve (fig.1) .
Fig. 1: left: Scheme of an ABS-Armatur with the additional valve (check valve) ; right: »ABS-Armatur«

prototype

The hydraulic brake system consists of brake line, brake shoes and brake disk which are

connected to the shut-off valve. The brake cylinder of the hydraulic disc brake is connected to

the pipeline upstream the valve so that the liquid’s pressure in the line activates the brake. If the

liquid’s pressure increases the closing process is decelerated. The pressure peak is restricted to a

maximum pressure given by the user. In figure 2 the advantage of an application of an »ABS

Armatur« is made clear. Figure 2 illustrates that the »ABS-Armatur« does not depend on steady

state flow stream and the pressure surges is restricted to the allowed maximum pressure. The

maximum pressure can be adjusted mechanically in advance (in this example to 10-15 bar). Thus

the closing pressure is optimized.

Fig. 2: Pressure-Time history for fast closing of a water pipeline without / with ABS.

Fig. 3: Force-Time history by fast closing process of a water pipeline without / with ABS.

The valve closes as fast as possible without exceeding the maximum load of the pipeline system.

As represented in figure 3 this is not only applied to the pipeline‘s inner pressure but also to the

load entry into pipeline support (here: fixed point 100 m upstream the shut-off valve).

The described system does not need any additional energy source. Furthermore it automatically

adapts to changes of the pipeline system parameters such as variable pipe length, flow speed or

physical properties of the liquid. Compared with the conventional damping system which delay

the valve closure, this new method is also regarded as a particularly advantageous for plants

already existing.
 4.2. Prevention of Cavitational Hammer

To prevent cavitational hammer a check valve is arranged downstream the shut-down valve. The

cavitational bubble is being isolated between the two valves when the main valve closes.

Through the small holes in the check valve or by slow re-opening of the main valve the

cavitational bubble can be refilled without pressure peaks.

By combining both methods the pressure surges upstream and downstream the fast closing

valve are prevented. Thus water hammer is minimized while cavitational hammer due to bubble

collapse is totally avoided.

The pressure and valve position history is represented in figure 4. For the better representation

the pressure measurements records of P02 (upstream) and P03 (downstream) represented in this

illustration are staggered by 3 bar. The measurement time of the tests with and without brake is

also staggered from by 0.5 s on the time scale. It can clearly be seen that during tests with brake

and additional valve upstream the main valve a maximum pressure of 10 bar is reached while

the cavitational bubble downstream the valve does not collapsed and the pressure remains on

saturation pressure until the main valve is opened again slowly or until the steam bubble is

slowly refilled by bores in the plate of check valve again.

Fig. 4: Pressure and valve position time history upstream (P02) and downstream (P03) the closing valve

without / with ABS and swing check valve

The valve closing is always performed with the maximum speed which still allows to exclude the

risk of pipeline damages. Both methods in combination as well as each for itself are passive

safety systems for every pipeline system.

References

[1] Wylie, E. B.; Streeter, V. L.; Suo, L., Fluid Transients in Systems, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1993,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

[2] Kottmann, Albrecht, Druckstoßermittlung in der Wasserversorgung, Vulkan-Verlag

Essen, Herausgeber: Heinz Moser; Schriftenreihe Wasserversorgungs- und

Abwassertechnik, 1992.

[3] DDR Wirtschaftspatent Nr.: DD-PS 201041/4, K.-P. Froehlich.

[4] European Patent: EP 1 079 161 A2 (2001) Forschungszentrum Rossendorf e.V.,

Fraunhofer Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Inv.: H.-M.

Prasser, S. Schlüter, A. Dudlik).