CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
CORPORATE CRITERIA
CRCORENG_PRC105E
28/10/13
01
First Issue
V. Buonocore
AUS
G. Poni
PROTEC
A. Cipelli
ENG
Date
Revision
Description of Revision
Prepared
Checked
Approved
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Revision Summary
28/10/13
01
First Issue
V. Buonocore
AUS
G. Poni
PROTEC
A. Cipelli
ENG
Date
Revision
Description of Revision
Prepared
Checked
Approved
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
INDEX
1
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
2.1
2.2
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.4
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.5
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.5.3
4.6
4.6.1
4.6.2
5
5.1
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
REFERENCES
DEFINITIONS
TERMS
ACRONYMS
SYMBOLS
ACTIVITIES DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND AND FIELD OF APPLICATION
Background
Main Outcome and objectives
Consolidated fields of application
Analytic approach
HYDRAULIC FACETS AND SIMPLIFIED METHOD
Period of Resonance and Wavespeed
Bulk Modulus
Surge pressure due to Valve closure
Valve Closure time
Acceptance Criteria
Surge pressure and cavitation
GUIDELINE IN BUILDING AN ADVANCED SIMULATION
General Calculation Bases
Simulation Time Step
Fluid properties definition
Piping mechanical properties
Pumps properties
Valves
PRESSURE OUTPUT AND MITIGATIONS STRATEGIES
General
Results with no cavitation
Results with cavities generation and collapse
FORCES CALCULATIONS
Foreword
Unbalanced forces
Surge Loads: Simplified method
SURGE LOADS FROM SOFTWARE SIMULATIONS
Results with no cavitation
Results with cavitation
APPENDIX
EQUATIONS FOR TRANSIENT SIMULATIONS
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
The purpose of this Corporate Criteria is to define the guidelines for the hydraulic transient analyses for liquid
systems (Surge Analysis).
Hydraulic transient analyses can be conducted by mean of preliminary calculations or by using advanced
simulation software, according to the complexity, the criticality of the systems and the required detail level.
This Corporate Criteria aims to provide the basic principles and theoretical elements to enable the designer
to:
 Identify the field of application of surge analyses
 Understand the physical problems related to the hydraulic transients
 Conduct a simplified surge analysis
 Find the guidelines to conduct a detailed surge analysis by using a simulation software
 Assess the numerical results reliability, in particular for advanced software simulation.
This Corporate Criteria applies to the engineering and construction projects of interest of the Saipem Group.
2
2.1
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
Process Piping
2.2
REFERENCES
Crane
Douglas, Gasiorek, Swaffield
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
3
3.1
DEFINITIONS
TERMS
Surge Analysis
Hydraulic Transient
Cv
Kv
Water hammer
3.2
ACRONYMS
DLF
ESD
EPC
GRE
GRP
LNG
LPG
UNB
Unbalanced Force
PS
SG
Specific Gravity
SI
3.3
SYMBOLS
Symbol
Definition
Unit of measure
m2
m/s
Pump Torque
N*m
Mm
GPa
Hz
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Symbol
Definition
Unit of measure
Force
Gravity acceleration
m/s2
Pump Head
Pump Inertia
Kg*m2
GPa
l CALC
Pipe Length
Pump Speed
pc
Bar(a)
Pressure
Bar(g)
PSHUTOFF
Bar(g)
Volumetric flow
m3/h
RAvg
RMax
mm
t CALC
V0
m/s
VCav
Cavity Volume
m3
W*
Symbol
Definition
Unit of measure
Amplification Factor
Pressure Drop
bar
tTrip
Efficiency
fluid density
Kg/m3
TC
TC
Greek letters
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
ACTIVITIES DESCRIPTION
4.1
4.1.1
Background
Undertaking Surge analysis for the distinctive systems presented in this section, is often a contractual
requirement within the EPC contracts. Nevertheless, further than any contractual requirement, there are a
number of study cases in which surge analysis is not only, and not any longer, interpreted as a check /
verification task, but embodies a real positive contribute in the multidisciplinary design, since the Front End
engineering.
Surge analysis outcome definitely may influence the process engineering, and may impact on the piping
supports and civil structures design as well. For this reason, this activity has reached higher criticality degree
through the years, and is now considered almost as a standard practice in the engineering workflow.
A deep knowledge in this field has spread also among Customers, and it is now a key task to build a specific
know how, founded on shared and clear principles, allowing to create and offer a standard Corporate
engineering service for this discipline.
4.1.2
Generally, surge analyses are performed to assess the effects of sudden changes in hydraulic steady state,
leading to potential overpressure or water hammer consequent to cavity collapse.
In particular, simulations are typically but not exclusively conducted to determine:

Surge pressure raising in the context of safety shut down scenarios, whose simplicity or complexity
may require or not the use of advanced simulation software
Pressure trends consequent to quick depressurization scenario due to general power failure
Pressure trends consequent to operative scenario that may involve a transient (such as operating
pump switch over, or start up procedure), whose effects are deemed worth investigating, due to
considerable diameters or pump size involved.
Surge forces acting on pipe runs (input for piping flexibility analysis and stress analysis)
The purpose of the surge analysis study is therefore aimed to find mitigations and technical solutions
whenever the outcome is not acceptable in terms of surge pressure, or surge forces, or vacuum generation
in the system.
4.1.3
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.1.4
Analytic approach
Any time liquid flows into pipes, it is necessary to see if surge analysis is to be performed. The main
parameters to be considered are:

Piping length
Diameter
Devices that could generate surge (pumps, automatic valves, etc.).
In absence of specific contractual requirements, one analytical approach to determine whether a surge
analysis study should be undertaken or not, can be based on the ratio of two parameters:

the time TC (see 4.2.3) associated to the event responsible of the transient (typically the valve
closure time).
TC /
Quick Closure
TC /
Slow Closure
simplified method
TC / ,
Not critical
For ratio TC / higher than 5, the system can be considered not critical, and surge analysis can be omitted.
The ratio TC / ranging from 1 to 5 represents all those cases for which the line extension can be critical
compared to the hypothetical valve closure time or, in other words, all the cases for which the closure time is
still quick, compared to the line extension, and may generate appreciable surge pressure, whose magnitude
may be worth assessing more in detail.
For these cases, a preliminary surge analysis based on the formulas given in 4.2, can be useful to assess
whether maximum expected pressure according to Equation 8, is below the admissible, or if an advanced
simulations is required to find any mitigation.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.2
Some basic elements relevant to the theory of water hammer are summarized in this section, in order to
achieve the basis to evaluate all the physical topics, and the potential criticality of the analyzed systems. The
information given in this section should enable the designer to proceed in a preliminary surge analysis
calculation for simple systems.
4.2.1
The Period of Resonance of the basic system represented in Fig. 1 is defined as:
= 2L / c [sec]
Equation 1
Where

L [m] is the pipe extension from the source of the perturbation up to the reflection point (the check
valve at pump discharge)
c [m/s] is the speed of sound through the pipe with the considered liquid (or elastic wavespeed). Any
perturbation generating in the system, will then propagate along the pipe at speed c.
c'
Where:
k 10 9 [m/sec]
Equation 3
c'
k 109 /
k d
k d
1
1
E t
E t
[m/sec]
Where

The ratio
K d
E t
quantifies the contribute related to pipe radial deformability (squeezing effect). The stiffer the pipe walls are,
the quicker the wave travels (c increases when E and / or t increase). Furthermore, c decreases when pipe
diameter increases.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.2.2
Bulk Modulus
The Bulk Modulus is an indicator of the fluid compressibility; it is by definition the ratio of the infinitesimal
pressure increase to the resulting relative decrease of the volume. It can be practically evaluated assessing
the change of density deriving from a change in pressure for a specified fluid (Equation 4) under the following
transformations:

Equation 4
( P1 P0 ) 0
10 6
1 0
[GPa]
Where:

P0, P1, 0 and 1 are evaluated upstream (0) and downstream (1) of a pressure drop, fixed by the
user, in one of the previous mentioned conditions, with the support of a process simulator.
Fluid Bulk Modulus reference values are anyhow available from literature for the most common fluids, such
as Water (2.2 GPa).
Tab. 1  Bulk Modulus typical values
Temperature
Bulk Modulus of
Elasticity
Density
(oC)
(GPa)
(kg/m3)
Fresh Water
20
2.20
998
Salt Water
15
2.27
1,025
Mineral Oils
25
1.5 to 1.9
860 to 890
Kerosene
20
1.3
800
Methanol
20
1.0
790
162
0.8 1.4
450
Liquid
Methane (LNG)
4.2.3
A classic and well known sample available from literature for the water hammer theory is the problem of the
valve closure in the elementary system represented in Fig. 1.
Whenever a fluid column travelling in a pipe is arrested due to the closure of a valve, a surge pressure
generates upstream of the valve, consequent to the variation of the kinetic energy. This wave travels
backwards along the pipe, then reverses again, oscillating back and forth (packing effect) with a
characteristic periodic trend with crests and troughs.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
The reflection point for the elementary system is the check valve installed at the pump discharge. However,
all discontinuity point in complex networks represent sources of wave reflection (tie in points or outlet
branches, boundary or intermediate reservoirs, change in diameter, etc.). In this case, wave interference
produces complex pressure patterns.
The time it takes the wave to go forth and back in the pipe is one of key parameter to determine surge
pressure. As mentioned in 4.1.4, valve closure time TC, compared to the Period of Resonance, can be
classified as:

Quick
Slow
4.2.3.1
Equation 5
c V0
105
[Bar]
Where:
 V0 [m/s] is the fluid velocity at steady state.
 [kg/m3] is the fluid density
Fig. 2 Sudden (instantaneous) closure
=2L/c
P = c Vo
P0
P = c Vo
t0
This is only a theoretical case, and can be considered as if the whole liquid column would be instantaneously
stopped. The typical pressure pattern is represented in Fig. 2. It can be noticed that deviation from steady
state given by Equation 5 are to be intended as both positive (pressure increase) and negative (pressure
reduction).
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.2.3.2
In case of quick closure time, TC is less than the Period of Resonance (T C / ). The maximum surge
pressure value is the same as the instantaneous arrest, but the qualitative wave pattern is different (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Quick Closure
=2L/c
P = c Vo
P0
P = c Vo
TC
=2L/c
4.2.3.3
Slow Closure
In case of slow closure, TC is more than the Period of Resonance (T C / ). Maximum surge pressure is:
Equation 6
c V0
V0 2 L
5
10
10 5 TC
TC
[Bar]
The ratio ( / TC) evaluates how much the actual surge pressure is mitigated, compared to the quick closure
case. Valve closure time relaxation means lower P.
Typical qualitative pressure pattern is represented in Figure 4.
Fig. 4 Slow Closure
P = c Vo
P = c Vo ( / Tc )
P0
t
=2L/c
2T
3T
4T
Tc
It is worth noting that in slow closure, P does not depend any more on the fluid Bulk Modulus and on pipe
Young Modulus (elastic properties of fluid and pipe); P is only affected by fluid density, closure time, and
pipe geometry (including pipe thickness, that influences V 0).
Finally, it should be noted that above figures are referred to the upstream valve side. A rarefaction wave
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
generates downstream of the closing valve as well; the resulting depressurization could potentially lead to
cavity volumes generation, whose effect should be assessed (see 4.2.6).
4.2.4
The correct evaluation of the input parameters and the correct use of the equations shown in 4.2.3 are the
basis of a correct preliminary surge analysis.
It has to be highlighted that Equation 5 gives very conservative figures, and is generally not used to
determine the design pressure of a pipeline. On the other hand, Equation 6 must be used in a careful way. In
fact, the surge pressure accuracy depends on the correct evaluation of valve closure time.
In real practice, during valve closure, only a portion of the stroke is effective in stopping the fluid; basically,
the valve may close through most of its stroke without significantly reducing the fluid flow, and concentrating
almost the whole kinetic energy variation in the last run.
Hence, surge pressure should be assessed considering not the overall closure time, but rather the effective
closure time TC*.
It is common practice to consider:
0.2 TC TC* 0.5 TC
Equations 6 becomes:
Equation 7
4.2.5
c V0
V0 2 L
*
5
10
10 5 TC*
TC
[Bar]
Acceptance Criteria
Surge evaluated by Equation 7 represents how much pressure deviates from steady state. Maximum
pressure reached during the transient shall be:
Equation 8
PMAX PSHUTOFF P
[Bar(g)]
Where PSHUTOFF is the system shutoff pressure (maximum pressure at no flow condition).
Acceptance criteria shall be according to the applicable standard, as described herein.
4.2.5.1
Maximum pressure should be compared to the Design Pressure of the piping system, whenever the ASME
B31.3 standard is applicable.
Subject to the Clients approval, it is permissible to exceed the pressure rating or the allowable stress for
pressure design at the temperature of the increased condition by not more than:
(a) 33% for no more than 10 hr at any one time and no more than 100 hr/yr; or
(b) 20% for no more than 50 hr at any one time and no more than 500 hr/yr.
The effects of such variations shall be determined by the designer to be safe over the service life of the
piping system by methods acceptable to the Client.
When the variation is selflimiting (e.g., due to a pressure relieving event), and lasts no more than 50 hr at
any one time and not more than 500 hr/year, it is permissible to exceed the pressure rating or the allowable
stress for pressure design at the temperature of the increased condition by not more than 20%.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.2.5.2
EN 13480:3 standard
Whenever EN 13480:3 Code is applicable, no mention is made about possibility to exceed the Maximum
Allowable Pressure PS. Hence acceptance condition shall be:
PMAX PS
According to EN 13480:3 Sect 12.3.3, in the context of the piping flexibility analysis, some allowance is
made on the stress values due to sustained and occasional or exceptional loads intended as the sum of:
 primary stresses due to calculation pressure, pc
 stress due to the resultant moment from weight and other sustained mechanical loads (piping dead
weight, fluid weight);
 stress due to the resultant moment from occasional loads (among which dynamic loadings due to
safety valve operations and dynamic shock forces due to water hammer are mentioned) or
exceptional loads.
However, flexibility analysis and stress calculation are not within the scope of this standard, this task being
performed by piping stress function. Surge analysis aim is rather to find:
the PMAX (reasonably calculation pressure pc can be taken equal to PMAX) that should be one input for
the primary stress calculation.
 The surge forces on pipe runs, that concur to determine the occasional loads
4.2.6
4.2.6.1
The term surge pressure can be misleading, because it can be implicitly associated to the overpressure only,
consequent for instance to valve closure.
As anticipated at the end of 4.2.3, a rarefaction wave generates downstream of the closing valve,
propagating downstream of valve with the sound speed, and periodic trend; the resulting depressurization
effect could potentially lead to have the fluid vapour pressure reached at the actual temperature condition,
causing vapour pocket generation (or vacuum pocket, according to the liquid handled).
Fig. 5 Cavity Volumes downstream of closing valves
This cavity volume generation is responsible of the so called liquid column separation. This condition is by
nature instable: cavity volumes will tend to collapse in a relative short time, with impulsive pressure spikes
consequent to the liquid columns hammering each other.
It has to be noted that the same risk potentially exist at the upstream of the valve (though the threat in this
case is much less likely). As it appears from Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 4 in 4.2.3, pressure contributes are to
be evaluated as both positive and negative deviation from steady state pressure.
Therefore, if positive surge pressure can lead to exceed the design, or the allowable limits, negative surge
pressure can be dangerous as well. Effects should be taken into account since the early hydraulic design,
and during the surge analysis itself, especially in advanced software simulations.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Downstream of closing valves (or any device with a restriction of area) whose pressure drop leads
pressure to interfere with vapour fluid pressure.
At the network highest points, in a depressurization scenario.
Physical interpretation of cavity volumes generation and collapse can be perceived from Fig. 6. In particular,
three phases can be distinguished:

Generation / Expansion
Contraction
Cavity Volume
Collapse (hammering)
Cavity Volume
Overpressure
Quantitative approach of hammering effects is not simple. The theoretical basis to evaluate surge pressure is
analog to Equation 5 of 4.2.3.1, Instantaneous arrest:
Equation 9
c VIm pact
105
[Bar]
Where VImpact is the relative velocity of the fluid columns at impact time. Software for hydraulic transient are
usually able to evaluate this component, and generally results are conservative as far as pressure is
involved.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.3
GUIDELINE IN BUILDING AN
4.3.1
ADVANCED SIMULATION
The following is a list of the most important mathematical, thermodynamic and mechanical assumptions, on
which surge analyses are commonly based, that will be deemed implicitly valid for the dissertations included
in the following sections.
1. Models are based on Newtonian fluids. A Newtonian fluid is a fluid whose shear stress arising from
its flow are proportional to the local strain rate (the rate of change of its deformation over time). The
constant of proportionality is the viscosity.
2. Simulated systems are Monophase (only liquid). Contribution of vapourized liquid is not within the
surge analysis inclusion. At the time this document is written, multiphase models are deemed not
appropriate to develop surge analyses, in particular for complex networks.
3. In the advanced simulation models, Momentum and Continuity equations (se 5.1, Equations For
Transient Simulations) are solved numerically for pressure and flowrate within the defined domain. In
principle, for an infinitesimal fluid control volume:
a. balance along longitudinal axis gives the momentum equation
b. The rate of increase of mass of a control volume of fluid is equal to the net mass flowrate
entering the volume (continuity equation).
4. Simulations for liquid systems are usually carried out in isothermal and adiabatic conditions. No
heat exchange is allowed with the external environment as surge time scale is maximum few
seconds while heat transfer time scale is often minutes. Notwithstanding some software are able to
offer thermal models, capable to study temperature dynamics of pump units and valves, or to
determine temperature trend with distance in a pipeline. Suggestion is to start with isothermal mode
and add a more complex thermal mode after model is running well, only if strictly needed.
5. OneDimensional Domain Models are used to perform surge analyses; pipe singular points are
described in x, y and z coordinates, giving the network geometry; calculated pressure and flowrate
are to be referred to the pipeline longitudinal axis only; no pressure variation is computed along the
pipe cross section.
6. Surge analysis determines fluid internal pressure trends, not the pipe radial or longitudinal stress,
nor the pipe deformation / elongation. Nevertheless, surge analysis outcome can be used as an
input for the piping stress analysis.
7. The linear elastic model is assumed for the pipe material (steel or plastic pipes); any dissipative
contribute associated to the radial and longitudinal deformation of pipe is excluded, as well as any
nonlinear or nonelastic contribute; pipe walls friction is the only (minor) contribute to the
phenomenon reduction with time.
Despite the above assumption can be perceived as considerable restrictions, they are commonly accepted
as necessary approximations to enable for the simulation of hydraulic transients in systems getting more and
more complex.
The sensibility, experience and awareness grown through the experience, together with the strategies given
in this criteria, will enable the designer to recognize, with competent eye, which limitation are associated to
those approximations, and hence applicability range of results.
4.3.2
Of primary importance to the accuracy of results produced by the software is the calculation of the time step.
This is directly related to the discretization of the system: all pipes in the network are divided into several
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
sections of minimum length, for which pressure and flow results are calculated.
In most cases, the maximum time step is generated automatically by the software, based on the pipes
lengths defined in the system, but it can be also specified by the User. The automatic generation of the time
step is commonly influenced by some factors:
1. The minimum pipe length in the network
2. The relative length of pipes in the network (max vs. min length).
3. The time associated to valve closure or spinup / spindown time of rotating equipment.
The maximum allowed time step for a calculation is often the time taken for a pressure wave to travel the
length of the shortest pipe defined in the network, or a fraction of this value. However, the automatic
definition of the maximum time step does not prevent the software to automatically decrease this value
during the simulation, if required; for instance, to solve particular transients originated or related to fast
components, for which it is required to analyze the dynamics in a smaller time scale.
This typically occurs when fast components such as check valves, liquid surge relief valves are parts of a
network, and definitely control the dynamics of the network).
If a simulation takes a long time to converge, this can be due to a time step definition problem, often related
to the nonhomogeneous distribution of lengths. A way for the User to remove the influence of shorter lengths
of pipe from the calculation of a time step is to merge or extend some of the shorter pipes in the network. It is
sometimes useful to do this initially when obtaining preliminary results. The final runs can then be made with
the correct pipe lengths for maximum accuracy.
4.3.3
Essential parameters normally required to define fluid properties in the context of an isothermal simulation
are, at a given temperature:

Usually, the direct specification of the above parameters is the cheapest way to input fluid properties. Other
options can be offered by the software, such as defining API fluids, or even fluid composition in mass
fraction, mole percent, or ppm. However, once the composition is given, process simulator are rather useful
to determine the above listed properties, if they are not available.
If a thermal model is chosen, properties need to be defined over the entire range of operating pressures and
temperatures (in addition to the above listed, Heat capacity and Thermal conductivity are necessary), and
the definition of the equation of state is required.
Finally, some software are able to have more than one liquid, and their corresponding properties defined; this
opportunity is typically suitable for batched product in crude pipelines, but it is not the focus of the discipline
covered in this criteria.
4.3.4
Pipe elastic properties influence the fluid pressure response during transients. Stiffer pipes (thicker walls, or
higher Young Modulus related to the pipe material) generate higher surge pressure, for a given fluid. The
correct input leads to a better definition of the elastic response of the system.
In case of steel pipes, wall thickness is according to the piping classes, and Young Modulus is in the range
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Pumps properties
In this paragraph, the most important parameters for electrical centrifugal type pumps (horizontal or vertical)
are reported.
4.3.5.1
Pump Power
g H Q
3600
[W]
W*
g H Q
3600
[W]
Pump Speed
N = 60 f / p
Where:

3000
1500
1000
750
600
500
3600
1800
1200
900
720
600
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.3.5.3
Pump Torque
Equation 13
60 W *
2 n
[N*m]
Where

C is the torque at 100% pump speed (at steady state), and can be considered equal to the resistant torque
(see Fig. 7). In case of trip, the resistant torque C will apply to the impeller, causing the pump rotational
deceleration. A conservative estimation of the time required for the pump to stop is be the following:
Equation 14
t Trip
2 n
J
60 C
[s]
Where J [kg*m2] is the total moment of inertia of the pump (see 4.3.5.4).
Considering Equation 11, and Equation 13, the following is valid:
2 n
J
g H Q
2
Equation 15
tTrip
[s]
During start up, the applied torque can be higher than the one at 100% pump speed (sample in Fig. 7). For
this reason, whenever a pump start up scenario is simulated, it is good practice to consider some increment
on the driving torque. The peak in the driving torque may be responsible of potential unwished pressure
peaks.
Fig. 7 Driving and resistant torque (sample)
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.3.5.4
Pumps Inertia
The moment of inertia (impeller + motor) is the capability of the pump to keep the system pressurized after
the pump has been switched off for any reason (operations, trip, power failure). Similarly, it influences the
delay by which steady state pressure is reached after the pump has been switched on.
Equation 16
J J Pump J Motor
[kg m2]
Higher moments of inertia means slower depressurization time profile, and consequent lower risk of vapour
cavity generation. Lower moment of inertia means steeper time depressurization profile, with higher risks of
cavity generation.
Following empirical formulas assess pump inertia for impeller and electric motor, in case data are not
available from the pump vendor; estimated values are conservative (lower values for inertia than available
recorded data).
W
3
n
Equation 17
J Pump 0.03768
Equation 18
J Motor 0.0043
0.9556
1.48
In some cases, the Inertia datum in mechanical data sheet is expressed as PD 2 (or PD2). In this cases, the
moment of inertia is PD2 / 4.
In general, moments of inertia for vertical pumps are lower than horizontal centrifugal type ones. Without any
vendor data, moment of inertia for vertical pumps can be divided by 2 as a first prudential approximation.
4.3.6
4.3.6.1
Valves
Operating Valves
The change in setting of an actuated valve (mainly ESD Valves or ONOFF valves) is responsible for a
hydraulic transient (change in the hydraulic steady state). This event can be simulated by mean of the two
following steps:

Definition of the valve Cv characteristic curve (from the inbuilt library or creating a user defined one)
Definition of the time evolution of the valve status (e.g. from wide open to complete closure in a
certain time);
the Cv represent the flow through the valve under the unit pressure drop. CV is by definition in imperial units;
the equivalent in SI is the Kv:
Equation 19
Kv
Where:
Q is the volumetric flow rate [m3/h]
P is the valve pressure drop [bar]
SG is the fluid specific gravity.
Q2
SG
P
[m3/h / bar ]
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Equation 20
Kv = Cv / 1.16
The valve coefficient (Kv or Cv) input in building the model must be coherent with the units chosen in the
simulation.
Common Valve characteristic types are:

Equal percentage
Linear
Quick Opening
In general, ball and butterfly valves are roughly associated to equal percentage curves (though some
difference is present), while globe valves are linear type.
Fig. 8  Valve characteristics (typicals)
4.3.6.2
Check Valves
These tools are very effective in cutting the pressure pattern at the limit imposed by the design.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Surge relief valves are commonly installed at the end of long pipeline (kilometers), for which a closure time of
some seconds is often quick (see 4.2.3).
Surge relief valves are effective because pressure can be kept at the allowable limit with a small volumetric
liquid release concentrated in a short relief time. On the other hand, the relief flow rate can reach
considerable percentage of the steady state.
4.3.6.4
Vacuum Breakers
Vacuum breakers are typically installed in water circuits in order to prevent pressure from falling below
atmospheric pressure. They are cheap and can be engineered in size and number with some redundancy.
The typical values for inlet and outlet air flow (inbreathing and out breathing charts) according to the valve
size are available from commercial catalogues.
Vacuum breakers are very effective in contrasting cavity volumes generation and consequent collapse,
leading to water hammer. It is important to locate them at the highest points (at which pressure reaches the
minimum values due to the elevation contribute).
It is not uncommon to find them even at pump discharge; often, during a trip or power failure scenario,
pressure drop is drastic, and liquid column separation and consequent collapse is likely to occur.
4.3.6.5
Cavitation Models
As anticipated in 4.2.6, whenever pressure falls at the vapour pressure, an instability raises due to the fluid
columns separation, the buildup of cavity volumes, and the ultimate collapse.
This may occur typically:
 Downstream of a valve closing too fast
 At pump discharge, as a consequence of all pumps arrest (trip or power failure), due to the fluid
column inertia
 At network highest points, as a consequence of depressurization.
Typical calculation approach available from the software are the following two:
 Vapour cavitation in punctual definition.
 Vapour cavitation as volume fraction.
4.3.6.6
Generation
Cavity Volume
VCAVVPIPEPPVAP
Expansion
VCAVVPIPEP=PVAP
L Cav
L Pipe
L Pipe
The punctual calculation is performed for every section in which the network is divided into. Basically a virtual
flowrate is introduced giving a volumetric balance to the buildup of the cavity volume. The main limit of this
approach is that cavity volume in a generic point can potentially exceed the whole pipe inventory.
Furthermore, pressure can never fall below limit imposed by vapour pressure.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
This is a mathematical approach, whose results however are conservative, as far as pressure estimation is
involved. It can be considered flexible, because it is ensures convergence almost regardless to the network
complexity.
4.3.6.7
The volume fraction calculation is performed also for every section in which the network is divided into. But in
this case the buildup of the cavity volume is considered responsible of an open channel flow within the pipe.
Cavity Volume fraction range is from zero (no cavity) to 1 (no liquid); and cavity volume cannot exceed the
pipe inventory. Pressure, on the other hand, may go below vapour pressure limit.
Fig. 10 Cavity Volumes Generation and Collapse
Generation
VVAP 0
P PVAP
L Pipe
Expansion
VVAP VPIPE
P PVAP
L Pipe
This approach gives a more realistic interpretation to the physics of the problem. Nevertheless,
simplifications are required in the network definition, since convergence may be difficult for complex
networks.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.4
4.4.1
General
The graphical output is the first rough indicator of simulation correctness. Flow and pressure results will have
to Confirm expectations in trend in terms of:

negative pressure surge occurring downstream of closing valve or in case of pump shut down
smooth and regular pressure patterns indicate absence of cavity generation and collapse; no
hammering is present. If the detected maximum pressure is within the allowable limit, pressure surge
can be borne by the system during the transient, without any recommendation or concerns. Also,
surge loads transferred to the piping are of minor entities, and can be usually handled with standard
supports.
In case extreme pressure exceeds the allowable limits, then some action are to be taken for
mitigation, such as:
(a) Increase the valve closure time according to Equation 7. Also the maximum CV and the
relevant profile effect on results, but this input often cannot be changed if the surge analysis
is conducted during advanced engineering activities. A sample of pressure pattern can be
perceived from Fig. 11, in which some alternatives in valve size (different CV) and closure
time are compared
Fig. 11 Results no cavitation
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
(b) Installation of a pressure relief system (relief valve and surge vessel of adequate capacity),
located as much as possible next to the surge pressure generation point, to limit pressure at
the allowable limit;
(c) Reduce the delivery flowrate as necessary to meet that limit (this option may be not
practical, or even not acceptable for Clients, for obvious reason);
(d) Switch off the pumps, e.g. inducing a pump trip in case of valve closure; this can be based:
4.4.3
On a loop activated by the loss of the valveopen position, possibly integrated with a
High differential pressure signal across valve. This option need to be further
investigated, in terms of safety requirements and reliability.
In case cavitation is detected, a first smooth portion pattern is followed, from the cavitation collapse, by an
irregular trend, with very steep spikes at high frequency and highest gradients in time, and general absence
of attenuation even after appreciable time. This may occur:
 downstream of closing valves
 as a consequence of the pressure source fall
Fig. 12 Cavitation sample
4.4.3.1
Excessive Pressure drop downstream of closing valves generates negative surge pressure. Negative effects
increase with the distance L DOWNSTREAM of the valve.
Fig. 13 Negative pressure surge downstream of a closing valve
L DOWNSTREAM
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
The most important risk is associated to the cavity volumes generating as vapour pressure is reached, with
subsequent collapse with liquid hammering: Fig. 14 indicates alternation of cavity volumes and pressure
spikes.
Fig. 14 Hammering downstream of a closing valve
relaxation of closure time is the most effective way to mitigate pressure drop across the valve (see
Fig. 15): probably, the effective closure time is too narrow. This may be the cheapest solution if surge
analysis is being conducted in check/verification phase, during advanced phases of engineering.
If surge analysis is conducted during design phase (early stage), a chance can be in specifying the
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
proper Kv and/or the relevant profile (and hence, touch up the size). As it can be seen from Equation
21, big values of Kv will let fluid pass through with minor pressure drop. It is equivalent to say that if
the valve is too big, the effective fluid arrest may take place during the last percentage of the stroke.
Equation 21
4.4.3.2
Q2
SG
Kv 2
Pressure drop due to the fall of the pressure source (depressurization due to pump trip, or power failure)
generates cavity at network highest point, due to the elevation contribute associated to pressure.
Here following cases are to be distinguished:

Cooling Water networks: in once through water network cavity volumes can reach considerable
values. The main risk is associated to the potential pipe crush, especially for plastic material pipes.
For this reason, minimum vacuum pressure should be declared by pipes manufacturers. Full vacuum
requirement is usually deemed not convenient, because some internal reinforcement is required at
the internal. The practical and cheapest way to mitigate the problem is the installation of vacuum
breakers. Air is let free to enter the system, keeping pressure above the vapour pressure limit (cfr
4.3.6.4). Vacuum breakers are usually cheap and easy maintenance, and gives best results in terms
of vacuum prevention, as illustrated in Fig. 16 and Fig. 17.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
In case of water injection systems, no air can be introduced into the network and mitigation solution
should be the same as for oils and refined products.
Oils and refined products: since no air can be usually introduced into the system, nonstandard
solution should be researched, among which:
(a) Have the pumps fed by different power sources (electrical driver plus diesel driver): this is
efficient during power failure scenarios, but may not help in process shut down scenarios
(b) Have pump trip cascaded: this is efficient for operating pumps trip scenarios, but does not
relieve to consider effects of power failure scenarios
(c) Foresee an accumulator (pressurized vessel able to compensate positive and negative
pressure surge with level fluctuation).
(d) Increase as necessary the pump moment of inertia by adding inertia wheels (this option
does not find practice up to date, since it negatively impacts on the power consumption at
start up and on motor size)
However, cavitation in terms of pressure surge is often not critical, because extreme values are in
most cases below the allowable limits. The main issue is related to the pressure gradient, that give
birth to impulsive forces that may threaten supports stability. This topic is covered in 4.6.2.
Cryogenic products: these are particular cases, because cryogenic liquids vaporize when vapour
pressure is reached, and a gas fraction is generated. Hydraulic simulators are typically monophase
(suitable for stiff liquids, as water), and cannot simulate this liquid to gas transformation. However, if
only the pressure results are under investigation, the approach is conservative and can be generally
accepted (the gas fraction generating acts as a dumper against cavity collapse, and pressure spikes
are consequently milder). Nevertheless, if the axial surge loads are under investigation, and a
reduction of cavitation is needed, the same nonstandard solution described in the case of refined
products are valid.
It should be noted that maximum pressure in case of cavitation can be within the allowable limits, and there
would be no issue for the piping integrity; nevertheless, axial loads transferred to the structures may be
critical, and some shock phenomena could lead to damage the pipe support. For this reason, whenever
possible, it is recommendable to take action in order to reduce cavity collapse to the minimum acceptable.
4.4.3.3
If the simulation is based on the punctual cavity volume calculation, it is possible to estimate the cavity
volume gap. With reference to Fig. 9 in 4.3.6.6, known the cavity volume VCav(it is a simulation outcome),
the gap between liquid columns will be:
Equation 22
L Cav =VCav/A
[m]
It should be noted that liquid columns are separated by sharp vertical liquid surfaces. Small cavity volumes
occurring in big size diameter may have very short LCav(even fraction of the pipe diameter); this condition
may be not realistic under a physical point of view, however it leads to overestimate pressure surge.
This may frequently occur in power failure scenarios. Consequently, recommendation is made always to
check cavity volumes and cavity gap magnitude.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.5
FORCES CALCULATIONS
4.5.1
Foreword
In this section, facets are provided to understand principles and theoretical approaches available from
literature, to calculate forces generated by fluids contained in a opportunely defined bounded section (the
Control Volume).
Actually, this approach is traditionally referred to the hydraulic steady state condition: the original purpose
was actually to find out static loads generated by the movement of fluid on a containment surface; for
instance, the reaction offered by an elbow as a consequence of the flow deviation, or the effect of splashing
on a walls.
This approach, can be extended anyhow to the transients, to determine fluctuation of such loads or, in other
words, their deviation from steady state in portions of pipeline: the so called Surge Loads.
Software are currently able to offer this kind of calculation. However, results interpretation is not always
immediate and easy, and endorsement must be done carefully.
At this purpose, detailed simulations should always be accompanied by the calculations done with
preliminary methods described in this section, to check magnitude, and definitely to have results validated.
4.5.2
Unbalanced forces
During a transient, pressure wave generated in the fluid travels through the pipe. In the context of this
dynamic response, Surge Loads are caused by the differential pressures detected in the system, creating
unbalanced forces in the piping.
The frequent task is to determine surge loads acting on the piping and transferred to the structure through
pipe supports.
In first approximation, the surge load on a fixed point can be seen as the unbalanced pressure component
acting on the associated straight pipe run, as represented in Fig. 18. In this case, the Control Volume is the
pipe section from A to B. During steady state, this unbalanced component is negligible, but during transients
it can reach considerable values.
Broadly speaking, pressure pattern at the two ends of a straight pipe will be almost the same, timeshifted in
function of the distance between the two points. In a time plot, the gap between the two pressure curves is
the time it takes the wave to cover the distance AB, as represented in Fig. 18. Therefore, in general surge
loads are proportional to the span considered for the calculation.
In particular, surge loads are often requested as forces acting on fixed points, given by the product of the
unbalanced pressure component and the pipe internal area. Equation 23 is general physical interpretation of
the UNBs.
Equation 23
F P UNB A 10 5
[N]
Where:
PUNB is the unbalanced pressure component [Bar]
A is the pipe internal area. [m2]
The main issue, on the other hand, is the correct and realistic evaluation of the pressure pattern and,
definitely, of the PUNB.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Loop
PUNB
Loop
PA
PB
Fixed Point
l Calc
PA
PB
PUNB
t
If a software simulation has been conducted, time pressure patterns are available for all the network, and
determination of surge load is the algebraic and punctual expression of Equation 23, whose interpretation is
discussed in 4.6.
4.5.3
Simplified methods proposed herein allow for surge loads estimation as a consequence of valve closure or
trip / failure of all the operating pumps.
In both cases, impulsive effects of cavity volumes collapse are not considered. Hence, the designer should
be aware that deeper analyses, or at least adequate safety margins are needed, whenever cavity generation
and collapse cannot be prevented.
4.5.3.1
The simplified method discussed in this paragraph is in compliance with Annex A of EN 134803:2012
(Dynamic analysis).
In the case of valve closure, the maximum unbalanced load F, in a length of pipe section l
calculated as follows:

Equation 24

F 2
RMax
l
Vo Calc
A
RAvg
TC*
[N]
Calc
, may be
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
F 4
Equation 25
RMax
l
Vo Calc
A
RAvg
TC*
[N]
Where:

RAvg is the average rate of closure determined by the total closure time (see afterwards).
No clear indication is given in the EN 134803 about what can be considered stiff or flexible.
A preliminary criteria can be based on the following:
 steel pipes with diameter higher or equal to 10 can be considered stiff;
 plastic material pipes, or steel pipes with diameter lower than 10 can be considered flexible.
However, this approach needs to be shared with piping function and, in case, submitted to Client.
Equation 24 and Equation 25 can be interpreted as the maximum surge pressure, calculated by Equation 7,
scaled on the calculation length lCalc and extended to the pipe internal area; the unit surge load is the
maximum P spread on the total length (P / L).
F factors Vo
2lCalc
l
A factors P Calc A
*
TC
L
In calculating the UNBs, factors RMax and RAvg are applied to make allowance for the variation in closure rate
throughout the valve stroke and the dynamic nature of the surge load. Interpretation of these factor, and
meaning of their ratio, can be seen in Fig. 19. It can be realized that this ratio can be even greater than 1.
Reasonable values, under the hypothesis that stroke is linear with time, are the following, though these
values are to be assessed case by case:
1.3
1.4
RMax / RAvg
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Gate Valves
100%
50%
RMax
t
TC
A
TC
Ball Valves
100%
50%
Ball Valves
RAvg
RMax
TC
A
Butterfly Valves
RMax
100%
50%
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.5.3.2
In case of trip of all operating pumps, a negative surge Ptrip is generated at the pump discharge and
transferred into the system. For this specific case, UNBs may be assessed by calculating the pressure
differential pertinent to the considered straight run of pipe, as represented in Fig. 20.
Fig. 20  Surge Loads: simplified method
Loop
PUNB
Loop
PA
PB
Fixed Point
l Calc
PUNB
PB
Ptrip
PA
t Calc = l Calc / c
TTrip
The differential pressure is a proportion of the surge pressure developed over the piping length under
consideration. Considering the pipe branch AB, pressure surge travels from A to B in a time proportional to
the span of extension.
The unbalanced pressure can be evaluated, by geometric similitude:
Equation 26
P UNB
PTrip
TTrip
t Calc
PTrip lCalc
TTrip c
Where:

is an Amplification Factor
10 5 PTrip l CALC
A
t Trip
c
[N]
[Bar]
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
The main topic is how to determine the PTrip and the tCalc . In principle, the former is the pump differential
pressure; the latter can be determined by Equation 15 given in 4.3.5.3.
Equation 27 can then be seen as:
gH
2 n
Equation 28
Q l CALC
A
c J
[N]
Similarly to what was discussed in 4.5.3.1 for the ratio RMax / RAvg, an amplification factor is introduced, to
consider deviation of the actual pressure profile from the average pressure profile, as illustrated in Fig. 21.
Fig. 21 Amplification factor
Amplification
Average (calculated)
Real profile
Ptrip
t
tTrip
Suggested values for the amplification factor are:
= 1.3 1.5
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.6
Surge Loads achieved from advanced software simulations are basically achieved by the same approach
observed in Fig. 18, and expressed in Equation 23. Software generally allow for definition of the control
volume in which UNB are to be calculated.
The main discrimination is related to the effects of cavity volume collapse, because surge pressure is almost
instantaneous, as well as the associated surge load.
4.6.1
As far as no cavitation is detected, pressure pattern is regular and smooth, even in presence of a pressure
surge. In this case surge load pattern is regular as well, and is typically composed of a first pulse, followed by
minor peaks in gradual attenuation.
Fig. 22 Sample of UNB (no cavitation)
This case is normally not critical: generated forces are realistic and reliable, under the approximation of the
calculation approach, and can be used as an input for the stress analysis and support design, with no
additional mitigations. Simulation outcome is in general quite aligned to preliminary UNBs values estimated
with equations shown in 4.5.3.
Fig. 23 UNBs vs. Span (sample)
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
Surge loads magnitude is proportional to the pipe internal area and to the considered span. The above
should find confirmation in preliminary results achieved from Equation 24, Equation 25 and Equation 27,
reported in 4.5.3.
4.6.2
4.6.2.1
UNBs output in case of simulation with cavitation (punctual calculation) is similar to the pressure trends
described in 4.4.3: in Fig. 24, the first smooth portion pattern (with no cavitation) is related to the stable
solution. At the start of cavitation, forces trend becomes irregular, with very steep spikes at high frequency,
and substantial absence of attenuation even after appreciable time (field with cavitation).
Fig. 24 Sample of UNB with cavitation
Stable Solution
Instable Solution
UNB application time in the stable solution field, though depending on the span, is appreciable, and
UNB is distinctively directional
Load time application in the instable solution field is in the magnitude of fractions of a second
(decimals or centesimal of a seconds, according to the accuracy of the software solution), and UNBs
are random distributed
UNBs generated in the stable solution fields generally reflects pressure trends associated to
physical event originator of the transient (pump trip or pressure raise due to valve closure), and are
linear with the calculation span
UNBs generated in the instable solution fields are no longer proportional to the span, and tend rather
to the same value regardless to the calculation length. UNBs can be several times (up to 3  4 times)
the ones achieved in the stable solution field.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
4.6.2.2
Mitigations
Ascertained that main criticality related to the UNBs magnitude is the piping support verification, due to the
impulsive nature of the UNBs, finding a mitigation to the above may be not an easy task. Following are
common sense proposals:

Whenever possible, any process mitigation effective in contrasting cavity volume growth, among the
several listed in 4.4.3, would be likewise effective in reducing UNBs
The increase of pipe supports capacity (or specification of special shock absorber), despite not a
cheap solution, is sometimes deemed the most reliable solution: the pipe supports can be designed,
or adequately enhanced, to cope with impulsive loads. To make allowance for the dynamic effects
associated to the forces generated during the transient, a Dynamic Load Factor may be applied also.
DLF is assigned by Piping stress function, basing on the load application time and the system
natural frequency.
4.6.2.3
A critical approach
However, a separated discussion should be dedicated to soft fluids. As anticipated, cavity calculation is the
mathematical approach used by the software to simulate liquids at, or below, vapour pressure. UNBs are
then the consequence of this mathematical response.
Hence, if the mathematical outcome comes from a realistic interpretation of the transient, UNBs shall be
considered faithful as well. If the outcome is based on a partial or incomplete representation of the fluid
behavior, this could lead to a critical evaluation of results instead.
Evaluation of Cavity volume magnitude may a good clue. Reminding the topics discussed in 4.3.6.6 for the
Punctual Calculation, the outcome of 4.4.3.3 may constitute a good basis for this kind of discussion.
Minor VCav and very limited L Cav suggest, in particular for soft fluids, that collapse calculation with punctual
cavitation model may be misleading, if used to determine UNBs. Cavity volumes will rather accumulate in
pockets at the top of the pipe, and the hammering of two sharp vertical liquid surfaces is an unlikely event
thereby.
Fig. 25 Sample of UNB with cavitation
Furthermore, hydraulic monophase simulators do not consider the vacuum cavity as an actual gas pocket,
and consequently omit the dumping effects of vapour phase during cavity volume contraction.
The approach of traditional simulators can be considered conservative on one side, but further analyses may
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
be engaged to assess cavity volume effect during transients, particularly on surge loads, if results are
deemed not realistic.
Though it is not the scope of this standard to give a sharp and definite answer on this topic, a semi
quantitative approach could be as represented in Fig. 25, where an adequate amplification coefficient is
applied to the UNB coming from stable solution. This would cover most of (but not all) UNB in the instable
field.
The bases on which this method can be developed under a quantitative point of view cannot be in the scope
of this standard, due to objective limits. However, dedicated evaluation should be dedicated in particular to:
 determine the critical scenario in each specific project
 understand UNBs sensibility to the input, or to the several software calculation settings
4.6.2.4
An alternative approach
One alternative approach is to find a software able to reproduce multiphase status better than traditional
hydraulic simulators (that are more suitable for stiff fluids). Despite there is no wide experimental evidence
demonstrating accuracy of UNBs prediction up to date, this could be a chance to achieve more realistic
pressure patterns, and hence, more reasonable UNBs values.
Doc. n. CRCORENG_PRC105E
CORPORATE CRITERIA
Rev. 01
Date 15/11/13
APPENDIX
5.1
u2A
pA
(2f L /D)uuA
(frictional pressure
drop)
u2A
G
where:
p is the pressure
u is fluid velocity
D is the internal diameter
A is the internal Area of the pipe
G is the weight of the fluid
F is a friction coefficient (Fanning)
is the fluid density
L is the length of the considered volume (short)
Balance along longitudinal axis gives:
G sin
uu 0
(1)
x t
D
The Fanning friction factor f is a function of the Reynolds number and the relative pipe roughness r:
1
f
0.27 r
1.252
D
Re f
1.7681ln
The rate of increase of mass of a control volume of fluid is equal to the net mass flowrate into the volume. i.e,
the continuity equation:
(2)
1
A
1 A u
u
0
A x
A t
x