sustainability

Article
Effects of Surge Tank Geometry on the Water Hammer
Phenomenon: Numerical Investigation
Mohammad Mahmoudi-Rad 1, * and Mohammad Najafzadeh 2

1 Department of Civil Engineering, Higher Education Complex of Bam, Bam P.O. Box 76615314, Iran
2 Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Surveying Engineering, Graduate University of
Advanced Technology, Kerman P.O. Box 76315116, Iran
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: A surge tank, as one of the most common control facilities, is applied to control head
pressure levels in long pressurized pipelines during the water hammer occurrence. The cost-effective
operation of surge tanks is highly affected by their characteristics (i.e., surge tank diameter and
inlet diameter of surge tanks) and can effectively reduce the repercussion of water hammers. This
investigation utilized the method of characteristics (MOC) in order to simulate the behavior of
transient flow at the surge tank upstream and the head pressure fluctuations regime for the hydraulic
system of a hydropower dam. Firstly, the MOC model was validated by experimental observations.
The various types of boundary conditions (i.e., sure tank, reservoir, branch connection of three pipes,
series pipes, and downstream valve) were applied to investigate the simultaneous effects of the surge
tank properties. In this way, all the simulations of water hammer equations were conducted for nine
various combinations of surge tank diameter (D) and inlet diameter of surge tank (d). The results
of this study indicated that for the surge tank design with D = 6 m and d = 3.4 m, head pressure
fluctuations reached the minimum level in the large section of the pipeline which is the surge tank
upstream. Additionally, the occurrence of the water hammer phenomenon was probable in the initial
section of the pipeline.

Keywords: water hammer; transient flow fluctuations; method of characteristics; surge tank

Citation: Mahmoudi-Rad, M.;

Najafzadeh, M. Effects of Surge Tank
Geometry on the Water Hammer 1. Introduction
Phenomenon: Numerical Water hammer occurrence is one of the most destructive hydraulic phenomena in
Investigation. Sustainability 2023, 15, water distribution systems. This issue takes place in the event that flow velocity and
2312. https://doi.org/10.3390/ pressure values vary suddenly in some cases such as sudden opening and closing valves,
su15032312 accidents of the pump, and unexpectedly depressurized hydraulic systems. Overall, water
Academic Editor: Miklas Scholz hammer takes place in various hydraulic systems such as pump stations [1–4], hydro-power
systems [5–7], water-transferring systems [8–12], and oil-transferring systems [13,14].
Received: 24 November 2022 Water hammer causes damages in different ways (i) severe fluctuations in pressure
Revised: 20 January 2023
and noise, (ii) cavitation occurrence in the hydraulic systems. Specifically, instant positive
Accepted: 24 January 2023
and negative pressure occurred during the water hammer phenomenon stands at a higher
Published: 27 January 2023
level than operation pressure. Positive pressure causes damage to the valves and pipe burst
whereas negative pressure crushes the pipe systems.
Applying preventative methods to eradicate the repercussions of the water hammer
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
phenomena has become the cornerstone of experts in the hydraulic fields. Through this
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. issue, the maximum reduction of maximum pressure values and a maximum increase of
This article is an open access article minimum pressure values have drawn significant attention to the control of water hammer
distributed under the terms and occurrences in recent decades. In this way, these methods generally include the installation
conditions of the Creative Commons of control facilities of water hammer and optimization of facilities performance [15,16].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Improvement of policy for the closing valve and coordinated performance of the hydraulic
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ systems is one of the most common optimization methods to control the water hammer
4.0/). phenomenon [17–19].

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032312 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 2 of 19

Moreover, optimizing the performance of the hydraulic systems is not essentially

capable of controlling the water hammer and there is an occasional need for protective
pieces of a device for this aim. Generally, surge tanks, relief valves, and pressure tanks
are the most well-known pieces of equipment to control the water hammer [16]. However,
surge tanks are one of the most widely used protection devices to reduce the water hammer.
These tanks are very popular in water transmission systems, pumping systems, and power
plant systems. Although a large number of attempts were made on surge tanks, they are
still being developed to investigate responses of the surge tank to the variations of surge
tank geometry. It should be noted that severe fluctuations in water level may cause frequent
emptying and filling of the tank in the water hammer occurrence. Therefore, having a
sufficient cross section and vertical height is essential. As a result, the lack of space and
necessary height occasionally limit the coordinated operation of surge tanks. However, in
the case of the above-mentioned problems, surge tanks are not well capable of controlling
the severe fluctuations caused by the water hammer.
Laboratory and numerical investigations have been conducted to simulate transient
hydraulic flows occurring in the water hammer. However, in the case of laboratory simula-
tions, it is very difficult to combine various boundary conditions. In addition, performing
an experimental study is highly time-consuming time and expensive. With the develop-
ment of computers and computational methodologies, numerical techniques are being
used more widely to simulate the water hammer in various engineering applications. In
this case, numerical methods are grouped into three main categories: the Finite Difference
Method (FDM), Finite Element Method (FEM), and Finite Volume Method (FVM). Over the
past few decades, various numerical methods have been developed to simulate and control
transient hydraulic flows during the water hammer phenomenon. The most commonly
used FDMs is the Method of Characteristics (MOC) with explicit form, which has been
widely applied and improved in multi-pipe hydraulic systems [15,20–23]. In the case of
MOC applications, the recent investigations have been in relation to (i) improvement of
MOC by Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA II) for finding the response
of chamber surge tank of water hammer [24], (ii) MOC application for water hammer simu-
lation in offshore floating production unit [25], (iii) control of water hammer for additional
High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipeline systems by MOC simulation [26], and (iv)
MOC simulation of water hammer phenomenon for pressurized pipelines [27].
In recent years, the effects of the inlet cross-section and the length of the inlet junction
associated with the surge tank on the response of the surge tank have been investigated [16,23].
According to the literature [15,20–27], simultaneous influences of surge tank properties
(i.e., surge tank diameter and inlet diameter of surge tank) have not yet been studied.
The simultaneous use of surge tank properties causes finding an efficient design of water
systems and therefore this case requires more consideration in the design of water systems.
Hence, in this study, the performance of the surge tank, installed on the pipeline of the Jiroft
Dam powerhouse, is studied to reduce the repercussion of the water hammer phenomenon.
On the other hand, the optimal combinations of these factors that are effective in the proper
control of transient flow fluctuations are introduced. In this way, the MOC, introduced
as the most well-known FDMs in this research area, is used to simulate the response of
the water system along with various boundary conditions in the pipeline such as triple-
shaped junctions, series pipelines, and control valves downstream of the power plant
model. Ultimately, the effects of various elements would be evaluated.

1.1. Overview of Power Plant Model

The power plant case study was constructed for the Jiroft Hydroelectric Dam, located
in the southeast of Iran. The reservoir capacity contains approximately 410 million cubic
meters up to 1185 m above sea level. Figure 1 shows the details of the hydraulic system of
the power plant, including the upstream reservoir, the branch connection of triple pipes,
the surge tank, the connection of two series pipes, and the valve downstream.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 3 of 19

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 3 of 19

the power plant, including the upstream reservoir, the branch connection of triple pipes,
the surge tank, the connection of two series pipes, and the valve downstream.

Figure1.1. Schematic
Figure Schematic diagram
diagram of
of the
the main
main sections
sections of
ofthe
thepower
powerplant:
plant: red
red points
points describe
describe points
points of
of
grid without
grid withoutboundary
boundaryconditions;
conditions;black
blackpoints
pointsexpress
expressboundary
boundaryconditions
conditionsof ofthe
theMOC
MOCscheme.
scheme.

Theupstream
The upstreampipe pipeofofthe thesurge
surgetank
tankwith
with a length
a length ofof 2544
2544 mm andand a diameter
a diameter of of
3.43.4 m
m is
is connected
connected to atothree-way
a three-way junction
junction withwith the same
the same diameter.
diameter. The diameter
The inlet inlet diameter
of the of the
surge
tank
surge(d)tank
and(d)
theanddiameter of the surge
the diameter of thetank
surge(D)tank
are (D)
3.4 mareand3.4 6mm, respectively.
and The system
6 m, respectively. The
response to the variations in D and d variables is assessed by
system response to the variations in D and d variables is assessed by ±20% variations in ± 20% variations in these
factors. ThereThere
these factors. is only one assumption
is only one assumption in this paper.
in this paper.±20%±20%variations
variationsofoftwo twogeometric
geometric
parameters
parameters (d and D) D)caused
causedtotoquantify
quantifytransient
transient flow
flow characteristics
characteristics variations.
variations. TheTherest
rest of the
of the parameters
parameters suchsuch as boundary
as boundary conditions
conditions (i.e.,(i.e.,
seriesseries connections,
connections, surge surge
tank,tank,
up-
upstream reservoir,
stream reservoir, branch
branch connection
connection of three
of three pipes,
pipes, downstream
downstream valve)
valve) are taken
are taken into into
con-
consideration according
sideration according to theto the availability
availability of water
of water pipeline
pipeline elements.
elements. Additionally,
Additionally, twotwopa-
parameters of time and space intervals were assigned to
rameters of time and space intervals were assigned to obtain courant numbers belowobtain courant numbers below
one,
one, and they
and they are inare in relation
relation to theto the conditions
conditions of the of
MOC the solution
MOC solutionscheme.scheme.
Regarding Regarding
the rea-
the
sonreason for choosing
for choosing higherhigher
(1.2d and(1.2d and and
1.2D) 1.2D) and lower
lower (0.8d and (0.8d0.8D)
and levels
0.8D) levels
for eachforof each
the
of the geometric
geometric parameters,
parameters, it should it should be said
be said that thisthat
typethis type of selection
of selection led to the led
besttoindication
the best
indication
of the trend ofof
thethe
trend of the
results results
versus versus
smaller and smaller
larger andvalueslarger values
of the of the parameters.
parameters. Therefore,
Therefore,
this will help to choose the optimal combination of these factors in orderintoorder
this will help to choose the optimal combination of these factors reachtoa reach
more
aconfident
more confident conclusion.
conclusion. ValuesValues greatergreater than 20%,
than 20%, in addition
in addition to greatly
to greatly increasing
increasing the the
im-
implementation
plementation costs, costs, cause
cause unprincipled
unprincipled andand inappropriate
inappropriate combinations
combinations between
between the
the two
two factors
factors of the
of the inletinlet diameter
diameter of ofthethe surge
surge tankand
tank andthethediameter
diameterof ofthe
the surge
surge tank.
tank. As As anan
assumption, we can point out a 40% increase in the diameter of the
assumption, we can point out a 40% increase in the diameter of the inlet to the surge tank inlet to the surge tank
and
and the
the combination
combination of of this
this value
value with
with aa 40%
40% decrease
decrease in in the
the diameter
diameter of of the
the surge
surge tank,
tank,
which is not practical or suitable at all. With this assumption, the diameter of the inlet to the
which is not practical or suitable at all. With this assumption, the diameter of the inlet to
surge tank is 4.76 m and the diameter of the surge tank is 3.6 m, which is smaller than the
the surge tank is 4.76 m and the diameter of the surge tank is 3.6 m, which is smaller than
diameter of the inlet to the surge tank, and these values are not consistent with the design
the diameter of the inlet to the surge tank, and these values are not consistent with the
of the surge tanks. There are two series pipes with diameters of 2.4 m and 3.4 m which are
design of the surge tanks. There are two series pipes with diameters of 2.4 m and 3.4 m
placed downstream of the power plant model. The friction factor of the system pipes is
which are placed downstream of the power plant model. The friction factor of the system
0.016. In order to investigate and analyze the water hammer phenomenon in different parts
pipes is 0.016. In order to investigate and analyze the water hammer phenomenon in dif-
of the system, 12 nodes have been located. Nodes 1 to 5 on the upstream pipe, 5 to 7 for the
ferent parts of the system, 12 nodes have been located. Nodes 1 to 5 on the upstream pipe,
three-way connection, node 8 for the surge tank, nodes 9 and 10 for the series connection of
5 to 7 for the three-way connection, node 8 for the surge tank, nodes 9 and 10 for the series
the two pipes, node 11 for the end pipe, and node 12 for the control valve at the end of the
connection of the two pipes, node 11 for the end pipe, and node 12 for the control valve at
line path. Pipes are considered. In the initial conditions, the level of the head pressure in
nodes 1, 8, and 12 are 67 m, 62.28 m, and 62.06 m, respectively.
 the end of the line path. Pipes are considered. In the initial conditions, the level of the head
pressure in nodes 1, 8, and 12 are 67 m, 62.28 m, and 62.06 m, respectively.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 4 of 19
1.2. Equations Governing Transient Flows
The set of physical equations corresponding to fluid motion includes the continuity equa
tion, the motionTransient
1.2. Equations Governing size equation,
Flowsand the energy equation. For one-dimensional flow in a closed
ended pipe (as an isothermal process without energy conversion), the governing equations o
The set of physical equations corresponding to fluid motion includes the continuity
flow are the equations of continuity and momentum. Therefore, the following equations can
equation,betheconsidered
motion size equation, and the energy equation. For one-dimensional flow in
for the transient flow regime in the pipe [28]:
a closed-ended pipe (as an isothermal process without energy conversion), the governing
equations of flow are the equations of⎧continuity 𝑎 and momentum. Therefore, the following
⎪𝐿 = ℎ flow
equations can be considered for the transient
+ 𝑣 + 𝑣ℎ + 𝑣 sin 𝜃 = 0
𝑔 regime in the pipe [28]:
(1
⎨ 2 𝑣|𝑣|
(
L1 = h t + 𝐿 = 𝑣 + 𝑔ℎ + 𝑣𝑣 +
⎪ v x + vh x + v sin θ = 0 2𝐷
a 𝑓 = 0
⎩ g (1)
v|v|
L 2 = v t + gh x + vv x + f
where h is the head pressure, v is the flow velocity,
2D = 0
P a is the wave speed of the water hammer

g is the gravity acceleration, θ is the pipe slope, Dp is the pipeline diameter, t subscript is the
where h is the head pressure, v is the flow velocity, a is the wave speed of the water hammer,
derivative of a variable respect to time, and x is derivative of a variable respect to space.
g is the gravity acceleration, θ is the pipe slope, Dp is the pipeline diameter, t subscript is
the derivative of a variable respect to time, and x is derivative of a variable respect to space.
1.3. Overview of MOC
1.3. Overview ofThe
MOCMethod Of Characteristics (MOC) has been widely applied to simulate the tran
The Method Offor
sient flow various situations:
Characteristics (MOC) water
has pipeline
been widely [11,12], power
applied toplant [5,6],the
simulate andtran-
water pump
sient flowstation [2,3]. situations: water pipeline [11,12], power plant [5,6], and water pump
for various
station [2,3]. For this purpose, Equation (1) is converted to the linear combination of L1 and L2 a
L1 +purpose,
For this λL2 = 0, in which λ(1)= is
Equation ±g/a and dx/dt
converted to =the v ±linear
a. In combination
this way, Equation(1)
of L1 andisL2re-expressed
as
as
L1 + λL2 = 0, in which λ = ±g/a and dx/dt = v ± a. In this way, Equation (1) is re-
expressed as
⎧ 𝐶 : 𝑔 ℎ + 𝑣 + 𝑔 𝑣 sin 𝜃 + 𝑓 𝑣|𝑣| = 0 , 𝑑𝑥⁄𝑑𝑡 = 𝑣 + 𝑎
( g
⎪ 𝑎 g 𝑎 v|v| 2𝐷
C + : a ht + vt + a v sin θ + f 2DP = 0 , dx/dt = v + a (2
g ⎨𝐶 : − ℎ
𝑔g 𝑔 𝑣|𝑣| (2)
C : − a⎪
− ht + vt −𝑎 a v +
sin𝑣 θ −
+ 𝑎f 𝑣2Dsin
v | v | 𝜃+ 0 ,𝑓dx/dt ⁄
= 0 , 𝑑𝑥 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑣 − 𝑎
⎩ P
= 2𝐷 = v − a
The schematic
The schematic diagram
diagram of MOC wasof MOC was conceptually
conceptually illustrated
illustrated in Figurein
2. Figure
As seen2.inAs seen in
Figure 2, Figure 2, flow and
flow velocity velocity
headand head pressure
pressure values
values which arewhich are associated
associated with nodeswith
2, nodes
3, 4, 2, 3, 4
and
and 11 (see 11 (see
Figure 1),Figure 1), are obtained
are obtained as as
g 𝑔 g 𝑔 L |v L |
𝑣 |𝑣 |
C + : (v P⎧−𝐶v L: )(𝑣+ − + f−v2D

a (𝑣
h P)−+h L )(ℎ+ −
𝑎 a vℎ ) +θ (t𝑣P −
L sin
𝑎
sint L𝜃) (𝑡 𝑡 P) +(t𝑓P − t L ) =
2𝐷
(𝑡0 − 𝑡 ) = 0

⎪

⎪

( x P − x L ) = (v L + a)(t P − t L )

(𝑥 − 𝑥 ) = (𝑣 + 𝑎)(𝑡 − 𝑡 ) (3)
C − : ( v − v ) − g ( h − h ) − g v sin θ ( t − t ) + f v R |v R | ( t − t ) = 0 (3
P R P 𝑔R R 𝑔 P R P 𝑣 |𝑣R |
⎨

 a a 2D P
𝐶 : (𝑣 − 𝑣 ( x) P−− x(ℎ − ℎ ) − 𝑣 sin 𝜃 (𝑡 − 𝑡 ) + 𝑓 (𝑡 − 𝑡 ) = 0

𝑎 R ) = (v R − 𝑎a)(t P − t R )

⎪
⎪ 2𝐷
⎩ (𝑥 − 𝑥 ) = (𝑣 − 𝑎)(𝑡 − 𝑡 )

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Schematic
Figure 2. Schematic illustrationillustration
of MOC: (a)of Characteristic
MOC: (a) Characteristic
lines in thelines in theand
x-t plane x-t plane and (b)
(b) general general grid
grid
points of MOC.
points of MOC.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 5 of 19

In the above-mentioned equation, vL , vR , hL , and hR are initially computed by interpo-

lation as,
v L = vC − a(vC − v A )∆t/∆x


v R = vC − a(vC − v B )∆t/∆x


(4)

 h L = hC − a ( hC − h A ) ∆t/∆x
h R = hC − a(hC − h B )∆t/∆x


Equation (4) is substituted into Equation (1) and then hP and vP are computed as,

v P = 0.5 v L + v R + g (h L − h R ) − g ∆t sin θ (v L − v R ) − f ∆t (v L |v L | + v R |v R |)
 h i
a a 2DP
(5)
h P = 0.5 h L + h R + a (v L − v R ) − ∆t sin θ (v L + v R ) − a f ∆t (v L |v L | − v R |v R |)
h i
g g 2DP

To compute hP and vP for other nodes, boundary conditions need to be investigated.

In this study, the wave speed of transient flow (a) for the pipeline at the surge tank
upstream (d = 3.4 m) is 1150 m/s whereas, for the pipeline at the surge tank downstream
(d = 2.4 m), is 1300 m/s. To implement MOC for the simulation of head pressure and flow
velocity variations in the present hydraulic systems, ∆t and ∆x are fixed as 0.3 s and 390 m,
respectively. Furthermore, the MOC programming code was provided in MATLAB.

1.4. Boundary Conditions

Compared to the literature [20–27], this study would apply five boundary conditions
(i.e., series connections, surge tank, upstream reservoir, branch connection of three pipes,
downstream valve) to evaluate pressure heads along water pipelines. In this way, the
scheme of the MOC solution would be more complicated than that of previous studies.
Applying the complexity of boundary conditions depends on the availability of elements
of water distribution systems such as valves, variation of pipeline cross-section, junction,
reservoir, and pump.

1.5. Upstream Reservoir

Figure 3 illustrates the boundary condition of the reservoir upstream. According to
this, equation governed by the reservoir upstream is expressed as [28],


 h p j,1 = Hres
− v p j,1 = C1 j + C2 j h p j,1
C : (6)
f ∆t
C1 = v R − C2 h R + C2 v R sin θ ∆t − v R |v R | , C2 = a


2DP g
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 6 of 19

in which j is the number of the pipe and Hres is the head pressure of the reservoir upstream.

Figure 3. Schematic
Figure diagram
3. Schematic of boundary
diagram condition
of boundary of reservoir
condition upstream.
of reservoir upstream.

1.6. Branch Connection of Three Pipes

According to Figure 1, hP and vP are associated with nodes 5, 6, and 7. In fact, the
boundary condition of the branch connection of three pipes was studied by these nodes
 Figure 3. Schematic diagram of boundary condition of reservoir upstream.

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 6 of 19

1.6. Branch Connection of Three Pipes
According to Figure 1, hP and vP are associated with nodes 5, 6, and 7. In fact, the
boundary condition of the branch connection of three pipes was studied by these nodes
1.6. Branch
(5–7). Connection
Figure 4 depictedof this
Three Pipes boundary condition for nodes 5 to 7 and then the fol-
typical
lowingAccording to Figure
formulation 1, hP and
is expressed to findvP are
theassociated with nodes
flow characteristics for5,these
6, and 7. In(5fact,
nodes to 7)the
as
boundary condition of the branch connection of three pipes was studied by these nodes
[28],
(5–7). Figure 4 depicted this typical boundary condition for nodes 5 to 7 and then the
𝐶3 𝐴 − 𝐶1 𝐴 − 𝐶1 𝐴
following formulation ⎧ is expressed
ℎ , = to find the flow characteristics for these nodes (5 to 7)
𝐶2 𝐴 + 𝐶2 𝐴 + 𝐶2 𝐴
as [28], ⎪
⎪ ℎ C3 j=
,
Aj − ℎC1j+1, A=
j +1 −ℎC1,j+2 A j+2
⎪
 h Pj,n+1 = C2
j A j +C2 j+1 A j+1 +C2 j+2 A j+2

 𝑣 , = 𝐶3 − 𝐶2 ℎ
h Pj+1,1 = h Pj+2,1 = h Pj,n+, 1

(7)


𝑣v , ==𝐶1 +C2𝐶2 h ℎ

⎨

p j,n+1 C3 j − j p j,n+1 ,
⎪ 𝑣p , ==C1 𝐶1 + +C2𝐶2 hℎp , (7)

 ⎪ v j + 1,1 j + 1 j +1 j+1,1
𝑓∆𝑡

⎪𝐶3 = 𝑣 v+p j+𝐶2 = C1 j+2 + C2 j+2 h p j+2,1

2,1 ℎ − 𝐶2 𝑣 sin 𝜃 ∆𝑡 − ∆t 𝑣 |𝑣 |



⎩C3 = v + C2 h − C2 v sin θ ∆t − f2𝐷

v L |v L |

L L L 2DP
Where the subscript
where the subscript of
of nn denotes
denotes the
the number
numberof
ofthe
thenode.
node.

Figure 4. Illustration
Illustration of
of boundary condition for branch connection of three pipes.

1.7. Surge Tank

According to Figure 5, hP and vP values for node 5 are computed as [28],


 h p j+2,n+1 = L j+2 + ZP
ZP = z + v p j+2,n+1 A j+2 ∆t/As (8)
p j+2,n+1 = (C3 j+2 − C2 j+2 h p j+2,n+1 ) / (1 + C2 j+2 A j+2 ∆t/As )
v


where As is the cross-section of the surge tank, ZP is the height of the water surface in the
surge tank at the end of the time interval, and z denotes is the height of the water surface at
the beginning of the time interval.
 ℎ ,
=𝐿 + 𝑍𝑃
𝑍𝑃 = 𝑧 + 𝑣 ,
𝐴 ∆𝑡⁄𝐴 (8)
𝑣 ,
= (𝐶3 − 𝐶2 ℎ ,
)/(1 + 𝐶2 𝐴 ∆𝑡⁄𝐴 )

where As is the cross-section of the surge tank, ZP is the height of the water surface in the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 7 of 19
surge tank at the end of the time interval, and z denotes is the height of the water surface
at the beginning of the time interval.

Figure 5. 5.
Figure Illustration of of
Illustration boundary condition
boundary forfor
condition thethe
surge tank.
surge tank.

1.8.Series
1.8. Series Connection
Connection
The schematic diagramof
The schematic diagram of the
the series
series connection
connectionboundary boundarycondition
conditionused
used in in
thisthis
study
was illustrated
study in Figure
was illustrated 6. The6.boundary
in Figure The boundary conditions
conditions for nodes 9 and910
for nodes (as10
and seen
(asin Figure
seen in 1)
are grouped
Figure into typical
1) are grouped series series
into typical connections;
connections;therefore, hP and
therefore, vP values
hp and vp valuesareare
computed
com-
as [28],
puted as [28], 


h p j,n+1 = C3 j A j − C1 j+1 A j+1 / C2 j A j + C2 j+1 A j+1

ℎ , = (𝐶3 𝐴 − 𝐶1 h p j+1,1𝐴 = )h⁄p j,n𝐶2 𝐴 + 𝐶2 𝐴

⎧ +1
(9)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 ⎪ C + : vℎp j,n+1, = = C3
ℎ j, − C2 j h p
j,n+1
8 of 19

− :: 𝑣 (9)
⎨ C𝐶 v p j,+1,1 =
= 𝐶3 −1 𝐶2 ℎ j+

 C1 j+ + C2 h
, 1 p j+1,1
⎪
⎩ 𝐶 : 𝑣 , = 𝐶1 + 𝐶2 ℎ ,

Figure6.6.Conceptual
Figure Conceptual depiction of boundary
boundary condition
conditionfor
forseries
seriesconnection
connectionstate.
state.

1.9.
1.9.Downstream
Downstream ValveValve
The
The boundary condition
boundary condition of of node
node 12,
12, as
asillustrated
illustratedininFigure
Figure7,7,includes
includestwo
two states.
states.
The
The first stage is the time when the valve is closed. This situation is expressed by as by
first stage is the time when the valve is closed. This situation is expressed 𝜏 =as
τ(1=−(1𝑡⁄−𝑡 t/t c )
) which which t is the time duration for valve complete closure
𝑡 isc the time duration for valve complete closure [28], [28],
𝑐

c𝑐v =
= v𝑣0j 2 /C2
𝐶2j 𝐻

H0j,n

 ⎧ , +1
2
⎪ 𝐶4
C4 =
= 𝜏 𝑐
c

 τ v
⎪
  
q
1 C3 j (10)
v p j,n+1 = 21C4 − 1 + 1 + 4 𝐶3
C4 (10)
⎨𝑣 = 𝐶4(−1 + 1  +4


 ⎪h , 2 𝐶4


⎪ p j,n+1 = C3 j − v p j,n+1 /C2 j


⎩ ℎ , = (𝐶3 − 𝑣 , )⁄𝐶2

where H0 is the initial head pressure at the valve.

 (1 − 𝑡 𝑡𝑐 ) which 𝑡 is the time duration for valve complete closure [28],
𝑐 =𝑣 𝐶2 𝐻
⎧ ,

⎪
⎪ 𝐶4 = 𝜏 𝑐
1 𝐶3 (10)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 ⎨𝑣 , = 𝐶4(−1 + 1 + 4 8 of 19
⎪ 2 𝐶4
⎪
⎩ ℎ ,
= (𝐶3 − 𝑣 ,
)⁄𝐶2
whereHH0 0isisthe
where theinitial
initialhead
headpressure
pressureatatthe
thevalve.
valve.

Conceptualdepiction
Figure7.7.Conceptual
Figure depictionofofboundary
boundarycondition
conditionfor
fordownstream
downstreamvalve
valvestate.
state.

The second state of the boundary condition is associated with the time when the valve
The second state of the boundary condition is associated with the time when the
is completely closed. In this way, the boundary condition for node 12 is expressed as [28],
valve is completely closed. In this way, the boundary condition for node 12 is expressed
as [28], (
v p j,n+1 = 0
(11)
h p j,n𝑣+1 , = C3 = j0/C2 j
(11)
ℎ , = 𝐶3 ⁄𝐶2
1.10. Model Validation
In the case of the proposed model, the results of the numerical validation are compared
with the experimental observations conducted by literature Bergant et al. [29]. The proposed
numerical scheme is conveniently applied to verify the numerical simulation by the MOC
technique. The laboratory facilities include a copper-made pipe with 37.2 m long, 22 mm
internal diameter, and wall thickness of 1.63 mm, and a pair of pressurized tanks. In the
case of steady-state flow condition, the velocity value, upstream pressurized, valve closure
time, wave speed, and the quasi-steady friction coefficient are 0.3 m/s, 32.0 m, 0.09 s,
1319 m/s, and 0.034, respectively. The validation of the MOC scheme needs to investigate
the stability limit of the water hammer equations and an acceptable level of stability limit
for the solution to the water hammer equations. In this way, the stability limit is identified
by the courant condition (a∆t/∆x) which should be less than unity, as fully addressed
in the literature review by Pal et al. [30]. This study used the courant condition for the
classical MOC solution. In the current research, there are two courant numbers related to
the pipelines at the surge tank upstream (Cr = 0.88) and the pipelines at the surge tank
downstream (Cr = 1). These courant numbers have been obtained after a large number
of trial and error processes between space and time intervals in order to minimize the
accuracy level between the results of the MOC scheme and experimental observations.
The details of experimental observations can be found in the research of Bergant et al. [29].
Figure 8 illustrates the fluctuation of the transient head pressure values at the endpoint
near the valve. As depicted in Figure 8, the classical MOC scheme precisely simulates the
maximum values of head pressure.
 number of trial and error processes between space and time intervals in order to minimize
the accuracy level between the results of the MOC scheme and experimental observations.
The details of experimental observations can be found in the research of Bergant et al. [29].
Figure 8 illustrates the fluctuation of the transient head pressure values at the endpoint
near the valve. As depicted in Figure 8, the classical MOC scheme precisely simulates the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 9 of 19
maximum values of head pressure.

80
70
60
50
h (m) 40
30
20
10
0
-10
Experimental Observations MOC
-20
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
t (s)
Figure 8. Comparison of the transient head pressure fluctuations by the numerical model at the
Figure 8. Comparison of the transient head pressure fluctuations by the numerical model at the
endpoint with experimental observations.
endpoint with experimental observations.
2. Results and Discussion
2. Results
2.1. and
Response of Discussion.
Surge Tank
2.1. Response of Surge Tank
In this section, the variation of transient flow characteristics (pressure and velocity)
In thiswith
associated section, the variation
the surge of transient flow
tank is investigated. characteristics
Figure 9a illustrates(pressure
variations and velocity)
in transient
associated
head withversus
pressure the surgetimetank
for isthe
investigated.
surge tank.Figure 9a illustrates
As seen in Figure variations
9a, 9.10 mindifference
transient
between the peak
head pressure pressure
versus head
time for the(Hsurge
max ) and trough
tank. As seenpressure head
in Figure (H9.10
9a, min )mwas depictedbe-
difference in
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 10 of 19
the initially developed transient flow during the fast-closing valve. The
tween the peak pressure head (Hmax) and trough pressure head (Hmin) was depicted in the difference between
H max and
initially Hmin decreased
developed transientto 1.08
flowmduring
in the the
middle of the time
fast-closing period.
valve. The head pressure
The difference between
of theand
Hmax surge
Hmintank remained
decreased constant
to 1.08 m in the(66.56 m) in
middle ofthe
thelast
timeofperiod.
the timeTheperiod. Moreover,
head pressure of
the surge tank
variations remained
of transient flowconstant
velocity(66.56
againstm)time
in the last
(for of the
node 8 intime period.
Figure Moreover,
1) were vari-
illustrated in
ations
Figure of
9b.transient
Maximum flow velocity against
fluctuations timeflow
of transient (forvelocity
node 8 were
in Figure
13.761)m/s
were illustrated
at the beginningin
Figure 9b. Maximum
of transient fluctuations
flow formation and then of transient
this valueflow velocity
decreased to were 13.76inm/s
1.37 m/s the at the begin-
middle time
ning of transient
period. flow variations
Additionally, formation of and then thisand
minimum value decreased
maximum to 1.37
head m/s ininthe
pressure themiddle
surge
time period.
tank were Additionally,
shown in Figure 10.variations of minimum and maximum head pressure in the
surge tank were shown in Figure 10.
72 8
6
70
4
68
2
V (m/s)
h (m)

66 0
-2 1.37 m/s
64 1.08 m
-4
62 9.10 m 13.76 m/s
-6
60 -8
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
t (s) t (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Variations of transient flow properties in the surge tank versus time: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity
Figure 9. Variations of transient flow properties in the surge tank versus time: (a) head pressure and
72
(b) flow velocity.
hmin
hmax
70

68
)
 -4
62 9.10 m 13.76 m/s
-6
60 -8
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
t (s) t (s)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 10 of 19
(a) (b)
Figure 9. Variations of transient flow properties in the surge tank versus time: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity

72
hmin
hmax
70

h (m) 68

66

64

62
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
t (s)
Figure
Figure 10. Variations
10. Variations of minimum
of minimum andand maximum
maximum peaks
peaks associatedwith
associated withhead
headpressure
pressure in
in the
the surge
surgetank.
tank.
2.2. Response of Surge Tank Due to Inlet Diameter Variation
Figure
2.2. Response 11 indicates
of Surge Tank Due variations of surge Variation
to Inlet Diameter tank response versus inlet diameter (d). In this
study, variations of d were considered as d ± 0.2d. Figure 11a illustrates variations in head
Figure 11 indicates variations of surge tank response versus inlet diameter (d). In this
pressure for various surge tank inlet diameters. Maximum variation in the head pressure of
study, variations of d were considered as d ± 0.2d. Figure 11a illustrates variations in head
the surge tank decreased from 9.10 m to 8.95 m as the d value increased from 3.4 m to 4.08 m.
pressure for various surge tank inlet diameters. Maximum variation in the head pressure
In the case of a 20% decrease in d value, maximum head pressure remained constant at
of the surge tank decreased from 9.10 m to 8.95 m as the d value increased from 3.4 m to
9.1 m. As illustrated in Figure 11a, with passing time, fluctuations of head pressure for
4.08 dm.= In themcase
2.72 of aat20%
stood the decrease
lower levelin d
ofvalue,
d = 3.4maximum
m and 4.08head
m. pressure remained
Variations con-flow
of transient
stantvelocity
at 9.1 m.versus
As illustrated in Figure 11a, with passing time, fluctuations of head
various d values were shown in Figure 11b. Results indicated that thepressure
for dmaximum
= 2.72 m stood at the lower
fluctuation level offlow
of transient d = 3.4 m and decreased
velocity 4.08 m. Variations of transient
from 13.76 m/s in dflow
= 3.4 m
velocity
to 9.23 m/s in d = 4.08 m. In contrast, as the d value decreases from 3.4 m tothat
versus various d values were shown in Figure 11b. Results indicated 2.72the
m, the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 maximum
maximum fluctuation of transient
fluctuation flow velocity
of flow velocity in thedecreased from augments
transient state 13.76 m/s in d = 13.76
from 3.4 m11
toof 19
m/s to
9.23 20.63
m/s inm/s.
d = 4.08 m. In contrast, as the d value decreases from 3.4 m to 2.72 m, the maxi-
mum fluctuation of flow velocity in the transient state augments from 13.76 m/s to 20.63
72 m/s. 15

70 10

68 5
V (m/s)
h (m)

66 0

d = 3.40 m d = 3.40 m
64 -5
d = 2.72 m d = 2.72 m
d = 4.08 m d = 4.08 m
62 -10
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
t (s) t (s)
(a) (b)
Figure 11. Variations of surge tank response versus inlet diameter: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity.
Figure 11. Variations of surge tank response versus inlet diameter: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity.

With
With reference
reference to
to Figure
Figure 12,
12, the
the pressure
pressure head
head of
of the
the surge
surge tank
tank was
was on
on the
the rise
risewhen
when
flow velocity had a positive value. On the contrary, negative values of flow velocity,
flow velocity had a positive value. On the contrary, negative values of flow velocity, in-
troduced as flow direction from the surge tank to the pipeline, cause an increase
introduced as flow direction from the surge tank to the pipeline, cause an increase in the in the
head pressure in the surge tank. On the other hand, as the pressure head increased, the
surge tank absorbed water from the pipeline to prevent the increase in pressure fluctua-
tion.
 (a) (b)
Figure 11. Variations of surge tank response versus inlet diameter: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity.

With reference to Figure 12, the pressure head of the surge tank was on the rise when
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 flow velocity had a positive value. On the contrary, negative values of flow velocity, 11 in-
of 19
troduced as flow direction from the surge tank to the pipeline, cause an increase in the
head pressure in the surge tank. On the other hand, as the pressure head increased, the
surge
headtank absorbed
pressure in thewater
surgefrom
tank.the
Onpipeline to prevent
the other hand, asthe
theincrease
pressureinhead
pressure fluctua-
increased, the
tion.
surge tank absorbed water from the pipeline to prevent the increase in pressure fluctuation.

Figure
Figure12.
12.Response
Responseofofthe
thesurge
surgetank.
tank.

2.3.Response
2.3. ResponseofofSurge
SurgeTank
TankDueDuetotoVariations
VariationsofofTank
TankCross-Sections
Cross-Sections
InInthis
thisresearch,
research,thethe diameter
diameter of of surge
surge tank tank
(D)(D) varies
varies ±20%D
±20%D to investigate
to investigate the
the re-
response of the surge tank. Results showed that variations of the maximum
sponse of the surge tank. Results showed that variations of the maximum values of head values of head
pressurefluctuation
pressure fluctuationininthethesurge
surgetank
tankversus
versusdiameter
diametervalues
valueshave
havea areverse
reversetrend
trendinina a
way that the values decreased with an increase in D values. As illustrated
way that the values decreased with an increase in D values. As illustrated in Figure in Figure 13,13,
the
maximum value of head pressure fluctuation increased from 9.10 m in D
the maximum value of head pressure fluctuation increased from 9.10 m in D = 6 m to 9.54in = 6 m to 9.54 m
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 D = 4.08 m. On the other hand, with an increase of D value from 6.0 m to 7.2 m, maximum 12 of 19
m in D = 4.08 m. On the other hand, with an increase of D value from 6.0 m to 7.2 m,
values of head pressure fluctuation decreased from 9.10 m to 8.77 m.
maximum values of head pressure fluctuation decreased from 9.10 m to 8.77 m.

72

70

68
h (m)

66

64
D = 6.0 m
62 D = 4.8 m
D = 7.2 m
60
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
t (s)
Figure13.
Figure 13. Variations
Variationsof
ofhead
headpressure
pressurefluctuations
fluctuationsfor
forvarious
variousvalues
valuesofofsurge
surgetank
tankdiameter.
diameter.

Furthermore,
Furthermore,variations
variationsin inflow
flowvelocity
velocityininthe
thetransient
transientstate
state versus
versus different
differentvalues
values
of surge tank diameter were illustrated in Figure 14. Qualitatively, the results indicated
of surge tank diameter were illustrated in Figure 14. Qualitatively, the results indicated that
the
thatmaximum
the maximumdifference of flowof
difference velocity values invalues
flow velocity the node (justnode
in the under the under
(just surge tank) rose
the surge
from
tank)13.76
rose m/s
fromto13.76
16.75m/s 16.75Dm/s
m/stowhen values
when increased
D values from 6.0 m tofrom
increased 7.2 m.
6.0Inmcontrast,
to 7.2 m.the
In
maximum difference
contrast, the maximum in flow velocity
difference indeclined from declined
flow velocity 13.76 m/sfromin D13.76
= 6.0 m/s
m toin10.66 m/s
D = 6.0 min to
D = 4.08
10.66 m/sm.in D = 4.08 m.
 Furthermore, variations in flow velocity in the transient state versus different values
of surge tank diameter were illustrated in Figure 14. Qualitatively, the results indicated
that the maximum difference of flow velocity values in the node (just under the surge
tank) rose from 13.76 m/s to 16.75 m/s when D values increased from 6.0 m to 7.2 m. In
contrast, the maximum difference in flow velocity declined from 13.76 m/s in D = 6.0 m to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 12 of 19
10.66 m/s in D = 4.08 m.

Figure 14. Variations

Figure of flow
14. Variations velocity
of flow fluctuations
velocity for various
fluctuations values
for various of surge
values tanktank
of surge diameter.
diameter.

2.4. Transient
2.4. Transient FlowFlow Upstream
Upstream of theofSurge
the Surge
TankTank
Due Due
to theto existing
the existing majority
majority of pipe
of pipe length
length between
between nodenode 1 and
1 and nodenode 5, Figure
5, Figure 15 15
demonstrated variations in head pressure and flow velocity between
demonstrated variations in head pressure and flow velocity between nodes 1 and 5 which nodes 1 and 5 which
are placed in the middle and last sections of the pipeline. The results demonstrated that the
are placed in the middle and last sections of the pipeline. The results demonstrated that
maximumvalue
the maximum valueofofthe
thedifference
differenceininthe
thehead
headpressure
pressurehas
hasa downward
a downward trend,
trend, decreasing
decreas-
ing from 8.62 m in node 5 to zero in node 1. In contrast, the maximum difference inthe
from 8.62 m in node 5 to zero in node 1. In contrast, the maximum difference in theflow
flow velocity increased from 16.25 m/s in node 5 to 18.52 m/s in node 1. The minimum and and
velocity increased from 16.25 m/s in node 5 to 18.52 m/s in node 1. The minimum
maximum head pressure values are presented in Figure 16. According to Figure 16, the
maximum head pressure values are presented in Figure 16. According to Figure 16, the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 maximum head pressure values were 6.62 m, 4.81 m, and 3.12 m for nodes 4, 3,13and 2,
of 19
maximum head pressure values were 6.62 m, 4.81 m, and 3.12 m for nodes 4, 3, and 2,
respectively.
respectively.

72 10
70
5
68
V (m/s)
h (m)

66 0
64
-5
62
60 -10
1 1
2 360 2
300
360
300 3
3 240 240
Node number 4 180 Node number 4 180
120 60
120
5 60 t (s) 5 0
t (s)
0
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Variations upstream pipeline of surge tank for nodes 1 to 5: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity
Figure 15. Variations upstream pipeline of surge tank for nodes 1 to 5: (a) head pressure and (b) flow
velocity.
72
hmax
hmin
70
hsteady

68
h (m)

66

64

62
1 2 3 4 5
 60 -10
1 1
2 360 2
300
360
300 3
3 240 240
Node number 4 180 Node number 4 180
120 60
120
5 60 t (s) 5 0
t (s)
0
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 (a) (b) 13 of 19

Figure 15. Variations upstream pipeline of surge tank for nodes 1 to 5: (a) head pressure and (b) flow velocity

72
hmax
hmin
70
hsteady

68
h (m)

66

64

62
1 2 3 4 5
Node number
Figure 16. Minimum and minimum values of head pressure at nodes 11 to
to 5.
5.

2.5. Effects of
2.5. Effects of Surge
Surge Tank
Tank Inlet
Inlet Diameter
Diameter on
on Transient
TransientFlow
FlowUpstream
Upstreamofofthe
theSurge
SurgeTank
Tank
As
As mentioned in the previous section, the maximum difference in the head pressure
mentioned in the previous section, the maximum difference in the head pressure
was
was on the
on decline and
the decline and additionally,
additionally, this
this trend
trend remained
remained with
with variations
variations in
in the surge tank
the surge tank
inlet Figure 17a demonstrated that, for d
inlet diameter. Figure 17a demonstrated that, for d = 2.72 m, the maximum difference in
diameter. = 2.72 m, the maximum difference in
the head pressure declined from 8.73 m in node 5 to zero in node 1. Moreover, for d = 4.08
the head pressure declined from 8.73 m in node 5 to zero in node 1. Moreover, for d = 4.08
m, the maximum difference in the head pressure decreased from 9.01 m in node 5 to zero
m, the maximum difference in the head pressure decreased from 9.01 m in node 5 to zero
in node 1 (see Figure 17b). Therefore, it can be said that variations in the surge tank inlet
in node 1 (see Figure 17b). Therefore, it can be said that variations in the surge tank inlet
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 diameter do not prevent the decrease in the fluctuation of head pressure upstream 14 ofof
19the
diameter do not prevent the decrease in the fluctuation of head pressure upstream of the
surge tank.
surge tank.

72 72
70 70
68 68
h (m)
h (m)

66 66
64 64
62 62
60 60
1 1
2 360 2 360
300 300
3 240 3 240
180 Node number 4 180
Node number 4 120
120 5 60 t (s)
60 t (s) 0
5 0
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure17.
17.Variations
Variationsofof
maximum
maximum difference
differencein in
thethe
head pressure
head forfor
pressure nodes 1 to1 5toversus
nodes various
5 versus various
values of surge tank inlet diameter: (a) d = 2.72 m and (b) d = 4.08 m.
values of surge tank inlet diameter: (a) d = 2.72 m and (b) d = 4.08 m.

Table
Table1 1presents
presentsflowflowvelocity
velocity values
values forfor
nodes
nodes1 to 5 in
1 to thethe
5 in various
variousvalues
valuesof the
of the
surge tank inlet diameter. As seen in Table 1, the maximum difference in the
surge tank inlet diameter. As seen in Table 1, the maximum difference in the flow velocity flow velocity
upstream
upstreamofofthe
thesurge
surgetank
tankhas anan
has upward
upward trend
trendwhen
when thethe
inlet diameter
inlet diameterof the surge
of the tank
surge tank
increased
increasedfrom
from2.72
2.72mmtoto4.08 m.m.
4.08 In In
fact, fluctuations
fact, fluctuationsof flow velocity
of flow upstream
velocity upstream of the surge
of the surge
tank
tankwere
wereaffected
affectedbybya adecrease
decreaseinininlet diameter
inlet diameter (d).
(d).

Table 1. Flow velocity values for various values of surge tank inlet diameter at pipeline upstream.

Node number d (m) vmax (m/s) vmin (m/s) vmax − vmin (m/s)
2.72 8.69 −8.91 17.60
1 3.40 9.64 −8.88 18.52
4.08 10.26 −8.80 19.06
2.72 8.67 −8.16 16.83
2 3.40 9.57 −8.75 18.32
4.08 10.15 −8.61 18.76
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 14 of 19

Table 1. Flow velocity values for various values of surge tank inlet diameter at pipeline upstream.

vmax − vmin
Node Number d (m) vmax (m/s) vmin (m/s)
(m/s)
2.72 8.69 −8.91 17.60
1 3.40 9.64 −8.88 18.52
4.08 10.26 −8.80 19.06
2.72 8.67 −8.16 16.83
2 3.40 9.57 −8.75 18.32
4.08 10.15 −8.61 18.76
2.72 8.50 −7.92 16.42
3 3.40 9.39 −8.04 17.43
4.08 9.88 −8.24 18.12
2.72 8.46 −7.65 16.11
4 3.40 9.02 −7.78 16.80
4.08 9.31 −8.33 17.64
2.72 8.34 −6.96 15.30
5 3.40 8.78 −7.47 16.25
4.08 8.99 −7.75 16.74

2.6. Effects of Surge Tank Diameter on the Transient Flow Upstream of the Surge Tank
Figure 18a,b depicted fluctuations of head pressure upstream of the surge tank for
different values of D. As seen in Figure 18a,b, the maximum difference in pressure head
values in the surge tank upstream decreased as the diameter of the surge tank increased.
For D = 4.8 m, the maximum difference in the pressure head decreased from 9.17 m at node
5 to zero at node 1 (see Figure 18a) and similarly, for D = 7.2 m, the maximum value of
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 the difference in the pressure head declines from 8.71 m at node 5 to zero at node
15 of 119(see
Figure 18b).

72 72
70 70
68 68
h (m)

h (m)

66 66
64 64
62 62
60 60
1 1
2 360 2 360
3 300 3 240 300
240 180
Node number 4 120 180 Node number 4 120
5 60 t (s) 5 60 t (s)
0 0
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure18.
18.Fluctuations
Fluctuationsofofhead
headpressure
pressure upstream of surge
upstream of surgetank
tankwith
withdifferent
different diameters:
diameters: (a)(a)
D= D4.8
= m
4.8 m and (b) D = 7.2 m.
and (b) D = 7.2 m.

Figures
Figure 19a andillustrate
19a,b b illustrate
the the fluctuation
fluctuation of flow
of flow velocity
velocity upstream
upstream of of
thethe surge
surge tank
tank for various values of the surge tank diameter. According to Figures
for various values of the surge tank diameter. According to Figure 19a,b, the maximum 19a and b, the
maximum
differencedifference
in the flowin the flow velocity
velocity has an has an upward
upward trend trend upstream
upstream of theofsurge
the surge
tanktank
as the
asdiameter
the diameter of the surge tank increases. For D = 4.8 m, the maximum
of the surge tank increases. For D = 4.8 m, the maximum difference difference in the
in the
flow
flowvelocity
velocityincreased
increasedfromfrom14.7
14.7m/s
m/s in in
node
node5 to 16.8
5 to m/sm/s
16.8 in node 1 (see
in node Figure
1 (see 19a).
Figure 19a).
Additionally, the maximum difference in the flow velocity rose from 17.87 m/s in node 5
to 19.37 m/s in node 1 for D = 7.2 m (see Figure 19b).

15 15
 (a) (b)
Figure 18. Fluctuations of head pressure upstream of surge tank with different diameters: (a) D =
4.8 m and (b) D = 7.2 m.

Figures 19a and b illustrate the fluctuation of flow velocity upstream of the surge
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312
tank for various values of the surge tank diameter. According to Figures 19a and b, 15 theof 19
maximum difference in the flow velocity has an upward trend upstream of the surge tank
as the diameter of the surge tank increases. For D = 4.8 m, the maximum difference in the
flow velocity increased
Additionally, fromdifference
the maximum 14.7 m/s in
in node 5 tovelocity
the flow 16.8 m/s in from
rose node 17.87
1 (seem/s
Figure 19a).5 to
in node
Additionally,
19.37 m/s in the
nodemaximum
1 for D =difference
7.2 m (seein the flow
Figure velocity rose from 17.87 m/s in node 5
19b).
to 19.37 m/s in node 1 for D = 7.2 m (see Figure 19b).

15 15
10 10
5 5
V (m/s)

V (m/s)
0 0
-5 -5
-10 -10
1 1
2 360 2 360
300
3
180
240 3 240 300
Node number 4 120 Node number 4 180
60 t (s) 120
5 0 5 60 t (s)
0
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure19.
19.Maximum
Maximum difference in in
difference thethe
flow velocity
flow at at
velocity upstream of of
upstream thethe
surge tank
surge with
tank different
with different
diameters: (a) D = 4.8 m and (b) D = 7.2 m.
diameters: (a) D = 4.8 m and (b) D = 7.2 m.

2.7.
2.7.Simultaneous
SimultaneousEffectsEffectsofofSurge
SurgeTank
TankCharacteristics
Characteristics onon
thethe
Surge
SurgeTank
TankResponse
Response
Table
Table2 2presents
presents the
the maximum
maximum difference
differencein the pressure
in the headhead
pressure for the
forthree values
the three of
values
surge tank diameter (D) and three values of surge tank inlet diameter
of surge tank diameter (D) and three values of surge tank inlet diameter (d). In fact, nine (d). In fact, nine
combinations
combinationsfor ford dand
andDDvaluesvalueswere wereprovided.
provided. AsAs seen in in
seen Table
Table2, 2,
forforthetheminimum
minimum
value
value of surge tank diameter (d = 4.8 m), the fluctuation of head pressure in thetank
of surge tank diameter (d = 4.8 m), the fluctuation of head pressure in the surge surge
stood
tank at the maximum
stood at the maximumlevel when level d values
when dhad an intermediate
values level (d = 3.4
had an intermediate m). (d
level Further-
= 3.4 m).
more, values ofvalues
Furthermore, head ofpressure fluctuation
head pressure for both
fluctuation forminimum
both minimumand maximum
and maximum valuesvalues
of
surge tanktank
of surge inletinlet
diameter
diameter are are
approximately
approximately the the
same.
same.Overall, it can
Overall, be be
it can inferred
inferredfromfrom
Table
Table22that
thatfor
forall
allthe
theDDvalues,
values,the thevalue
value ofofhead
head pressure
pressure fluctuation
fluctuation in in
thethe
surge
surgetanktank
stood
stoodatatthe
theminimum
minimumlevel levelfor
forthethemaximum
maximum value
value of of
surge
surgetank diameter.
tank diameter. In In
thethe
case of of
case
DD==6 6m,m,the
theminimum
minimumvalue value ofofhead
head pressure
pressure fluctuation
fluctuation obtained
obtained was 8.95
was mm
8.95 forfor
d =d4.08
= 4.08
m, for instance.
m, for instance.

Table 2. Maximum fluctuations in the pressure head for the surge tank response.

d (m)
D (m)
2.72 3.40 4.08
4.8 9.27 9.54 9.30
6.0 9.10 9.10 8.95
7.2 8.88 8.77 8.66

In Table 3, the minimum and maximum values of flow velocity fluctuations at node 8
obtained 7.03 m/s and 24.67 m/s, respectively. In fact, the minimum level of fluctuation
(7.03) was associated with d = 4.08 m and D = 4.8 m while the maximum values of fluctuation
were due to d = 2.72 m and D = 7.2 m. According to the results, when the design of the surge
tank with a low diameter and high inlet diameter is desirable, fluctuation of head pressure
in the surge tank and fluctuation of flow velocity decreased along with the reduction
of costs.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 16 of 19

Table 3. Fluctuations in the transient flow velocity at the surge tank inlet (node 8).

d (m)
D (m)
2.72 3.40 4.08
4.8 18.12 10.66 7.03
6.0 20.63 13.76 9.23
7.2 24.67 16.75 11.15

2.8. Simultaneous Effects of Surge Tank Characteristics on the Response of Upstream

Values of head pressure fluctuations upstream of the surge tank for each combination
of d and D were given in Table 4. In the minimum value of surge tank diameter (D = 4.8 m)
for nodes 2 and 5, head pressure fluctuation decreased with an increase in d values. On
the contrary, this issue had a downward trend for nodes 3 and 4. Hence, it can be said that
values of head pressure fluctuation in the middle section of the upstream pipeline did not
stand at the minimum level with a lower diameter surge tank and higher value of surge
tank inlet diameter. In nodes 3 to 5, head pressure fluctuations in the middle section of the
diameter surge tank stood at a higher level for d = 2.72 m and 4.08 m than that of d = 3.4 m.
While, for D = 6 m the head pressure fluctuations in node 2, decreased with an increase of
d = 3.4 m.

Table 4. Head pressure fluctuations upstream of the surge tank for each combination of d and D.

D (m)
4.8 6.0 7.2
Node
d (m) d (m) d (m)
Number
2.72 3.40 4.08 2.72 3.40 4.08 2.72 3.40 4.08
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 3.21 3.13 2.95 3.13 2.99 2.87 3.06 2.89 2.69
3 4.73 4.79 5.03 5.10 4.64 4.82 4.96 4.81 4.62
4 6.86 6.81 6.96 6.74 6.62 6.96 6.90 6.80 6.66
5 9.23 9.17 9.16 8.73 8.62 9.00 8.45 8.71 8.94

Generally, design purpose of the surge tank in the middle level of d and D, the
head pressure fluctuations in the majority section of the upstream surge tank stood at the
minimum level for both middle values of surge tank properties (d = 3.4 m and D = 6 m).
Moreover, a high risk of water hammer occurrence is probable at the beginning of the
upstream surge tank. Moreover, for D = 7.2 m, head pressure fluctuations decreased at
nodes 2 and 4 with an increase of d values while, for node 5, this trend was increasing.
Hence, it can be said that the design of a surge tank with high values of D and d causes to
increase in the probability of water hammer occurrences.
Table 5 indicated flow velocity fluctuations in the surge tank upstream for each com-
bination of D and d values. For the low value of D, fluctuation of flow velocity stood at
the maximum level, as d was equal to 3.4 m. Moreover, for D = 6 m and 7.2 m, the inlet
diameter values of the surge tank were 3.4 and 4.08 m and fluctuations of flow velocity
were found to be maximum for d = 4.08 m. Furthermore, for each value of d, fluctuations of
flow velocity at the surge tank upstream increased with an increase in the diameter of the
surge tank.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 17 of 19

Table 5. Fluctuations of transient flow velocity upstream of the surge tank for each combination of d
and D.

D (m)
4.8 6.0 7.2
Node
d (m) d (m) d (m)
Number
2.72 3.40 4.08 2.72 3.40 4.08 2.72 3.40 4.08
1 15.42 16.80 16.11 17.61 18.52 19.07 17.97 19.37 20.38
2 15.23 16.46 15.65 16.83 18.32 18.75 17.58 19.11 20.25
3 14.94 16.09 15.27 16.42 17.44 18.12 17.01 18.57 20.03
4 14.55 15.58 14.69 16.11 16.81 17.64 16.71 18.00 18.62
5 14.30 14.70 13.72 15.30 16.25 16.74 16.60 17.87 18.18

3. Conclusions
In this research, a numerical simulation of the water hammer phenomenon was
conducted using MOC along with various boundary conditions. Responses of the surge
tank and upstream pipeline of the surge tank to the variations of d and D variables were
investigated. In this way, each of the d and D variables varied by ±20%, and therefore, three
levels of d (or D) were provided for each geometric factor. Thus, the following conclusions
were drawn:
- Although the maximum fluctuation of head pressure in the surge tank for d = 2.72 m
and 3.40 m remained constant values, head pressure for d of 2.72 m had lower fluctua-
tions than that of d = 3.40 m.
- Results of MOC simulations indicated that variations of the maximum values of head
pressure fluctuations in the surge tank decreased as the surge tank diameter became
larger.
- At upstream of the surge tank (nodes 5 to 1), maximum values of head pressure
and maximum values of transient flow velocity had downward and upward trends,
respectively.
- The maximum values of fluctuation in the head pressure indicated a decreasing trend
and then these variations were stable with variations of d values. Fluctuations of
flow velocity in the pipeline of the surge tank upstream had a decreasing trend as d
values decreased. Furthermore, the upward trend of head pressure fluctuations at the
surge tank upstream remained constant with variations in surge tank diameter. For all
diameters of the surge tank, minimum values of head pressure fluctuations took place
for d = 4.08 m.
- Design of the surge tank with low D and high d causes the reduction of construction
costs in a way that head pressure fluctuations in the surge tank and flow velocity in the
pipeline decreased. In this state, fluctuations of head pressure in the middle sections
of the pipeline upstream stood at the maximum level, and, additionally, negative
consequences of the water hammer need to be prevented. Furthermore, the design of
the surge tank with high values of D and d, the risk of water hammer at the vicinity of
the surge tank is higher than other sections of the pipeline upstream.
The present study was a real-world problem in which ranges of d and D were generally
limited. Although the effects of d and D values on the water hammer response of the surge
tank were fully investigated by considering reasonable variations of d and D, the limitations
of d and D values can be more focused. Moreover, one of the aims of this study was to
reach minimizing the difference between values of Hmax and Hmin for the surge tank by
the MOC. There is no denying the fact that the defined difference is in relation to the
geometrical properties of water systems (i.e., values of d and D) and properties of pipelines
such as the friction factor of the pipeline system. In this way, finding optimum values of d
and D would play a key role in managing the water hammer that occurred in the power
plant of power for Jiroft Hydroelectric Dam. Therefore, optimization techniques such
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 18 of 19

as evolutionary algorithms (e.g., Genetic Algorithm [GA], Particle Swarm Optimization

[PSO], Gravitational Search Algorithm [GSA], and Ant Colony Optimization [ACO]) can
be employed in order to find the optimum values of d and D for minimizing the term
of Hmax − Hmin that was known as the first objective function. Furthermore, in order to
obtain minimum costs of the power plant construction, a cost function can be defined as
the second objective function. Another feasible improvement in the minimizing of Hmax −
Hmin is related to applying typical FDMs as implicit and explicit schemes in order to assess
the accuracy level of solution to the governing equations of the water hammer.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.M.-R. and M.N.; Methodology, M.M.-R. and M.N.;
Software, M.M.-R. and M.N.; Validation, M.M.-R.; Formal Analysis, M.M.-R. and M.N.; Investigation,
M.M.-R. and M.N.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.M.-R. and M.N.; Writing—Review and
Editing, M.M.-R. and M.N.; Visualization, M.M.-R. and M.N.; Supervision, M.M.-R. and M.N. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: Authors greatly appreciate reviewers’ comments in order to improve the techni-
cal contents of the research work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wan, W.; Huang, W. Investigation on complete characteristics and hydraulic transient of centrifugal pump. J. Mech. Sci. Technol.
2011, 25, 2583–2590. [CrossRef]
2. Hur, J.; Kim, S.; Kim, H. Water hammer analysis that uses the impulse response method for a reservoir-pump pipeline system. J.
Mech. Sci. Technol. 2017, 31, 4833–4840. [CrossRef]
3. Kim, S.G.; Lee, K.B.; Kim, K.Y. Water hammer in the pump-rising pipeline system with an air chamber. J. Hydrodyn. 2014, 26,
960–964. [CrossRef]
4. Rohani, M.; Afshar, M.H. Simulation of transient flow caused by pump failure: Point-Implicit Method of Characteristics. Ann.
Nucl. Energy 2010, 37, 1742–1750. [CrossRef]
5. Guo, W.; Yang, J.; Teng, Y. Surge wave characteristics for hydropower station with upstream series double surge tanks in load
rejection transient. Renew. Energy 2017, 108, 488–501. [CrossRef]
6. Liu, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, S.; Yu, X. Investigation on maximum upsurge and air pressure of air cushion surge chamber in hydropower
stations. J. Press. Vessel. Technol. 2017, 139, 031603. [CrossRef]
7. Riasi, A.; Tazraei, P. Numerical analysis of the hydraulic transient response in the presence of surge tanks and relief valves. Renew.
Energy 2017, 107, 138–146. [CrossRef]
8. Duan, H.F.; Tung, Y.K.; Ghidaoui, M.S. Probabilistic analysis of transient design for water supply systems. J. Water Resour. Plan.
Manag. 2010, 136, 678–687. [CrossRef]
9. Kim, S.H. Design of surge tank for water supply systems using the impulse response method with the GA algorithm. J. Mech. Sci.
Technol. 2010, 24, 629–636. [CrossRef]
10. Collins, R.P.; Boxall, J.B.; Karney, B.W.; Brunone, B.; Meniconi, S. How severe can transients be after a sudden depressurization? J.
-Am. Water Work. Assoc. 2012, 104, 243–251. [CrossRef]
11. Zhang, B.; Wan, W.; Shi, M. Experimental and numerical simulation of water hammer in gravitational pipe flow with continuous
air entrainment. Water 2018, 10, 928. [CrossRef]
12. Bettaieb, N.; Taieb, E.H. Assessment of Failure Modes Caused by Water Hammer and Investigation of Convenient Control
Measures. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2020, 11, 04020006. [CrossRef]
13. Behbahani-Nejad, M.; Bagheri, A. The accuracy and efficiency of a MATLAB-Simulink library for transient flow simulation of gas
pipelines and networks. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2010, 70, 256–265. [CrossRef]
14. Esmaeilzadeh, F.; Mowla, D.; Asemani, M. Mathematical modeling and simulation of pigging operation in gas and liquid
pipelines. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2009, 69, 100–106. [CrossRef]
15. Wan, W.; Zhang, B. Investigation of water hammer protection in water supply pipeline systems using an intelligent self-controlled
surge tank. Energies 2018, 11, 1450. [CrossRef]
16. Wan, W.; Zhang, B.; Chen, X.; Lian, J. Water hammer control analysis of an intelligent surge tank with spring self-adaptive
auxiliary control system. Energies 2019, 12, 2527. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2312 19 of 19

17. Bazargan-Lari, M.R.; Kerachian, R.; Afshar, H.; Bashi-Azghadi, S.N. Developing an optimal valve closing rule curve for real-time
pressure control in pipes. J. Mech. Sci. Technol. 2013, 27, 215–225. [CrossRef]
18. Zhou, J.; Xu, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Y. Optimization of guide vane closing schemes of pumped storage hydro unit using an
enhanced multi-objective gravitational search algorithm. Energies 2017, 10, 911. [CrossRef]
19. Wan, W.; Li, F. Sensitivity analysis of operational time differences for a pump–valve system on a water hammer response. J. Press.
Vessel. Technol. 2016, 138, 011303. [CrossRef]
20. Karadžić, U.; Bulatović, V.; Bergant, A. Valve-induced water hammer and column separation in a pipeline apparatus. Stroj. Vestn.
J. Mech. Eng. 2014, 60, 742–754. [CrossRef]
21. Hoeller, S.; Jaberg, H. A contribution to water hammer analysis in pumped-storage power plants. Wasserwirtsch. Hydrol. Wasserbau
Hydromechanik Gewässer Ökol. Boden 2013, 103, 78–84.
22. Vasconcelos, J.G.; Klaver, P.R.; Lautenbach, D.J. Flow regime transition simulation incorporating entrapped air pocket effects.
Urban Water J. 2015, 12, 488–501. [CrossRef]
23. Wang, C.; Yang, J.D. Water hammer simulation using explicit–implicit coupling methods. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2015, 141, 04014086.
[CrossRef]
24. Dhakal, R.; Zhou, J.; Palikhe, S.; Bhattarai, K.P. Hydraulic Optimization of Double Chamber Surge Tank Using NSGA-II. Water
2020, 12, 455. [CrossRef]
25. Guo, Q.; Zhou, J.; Li, Y.; Guan, X.; Liu, D.; Zhang, J. Fluid-Structure Interaction Response of a Water Conveyance System with a
Surge Chamber during Water Hammer. Water 2020, 12, 1025. [CrossRef]
26. Kubrak, M.; Malesińska, A.; Kodura, A.; Urbanowicz, K.; Bury, P.; Stosiak, M. Water Hammer Control Using Additional Branched
HDPE Pipe. Energies 2021, 14, 8008. [CrossRef]
27. Zhang, K.; Zeng, W.; Simpson, A.R.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C. Water Hammer Simulation Method in Pressurized Pipeline with a
Moving Isolation Device. Water 2021, 13, 1794. [CrossRef]
28. Chaudhry, M.H. Applied Hydraulic Transients, 3rd ed.Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
29. Bergant, A.; Simpson, A.R.; Vìtkovsk, J. Developments in unsteady pipe flow friction modelling. J. Hydraul. Res. 2001, 39, 249–257.
[CrossRef]
30. Pal, S.; Hanmaiahgari, P.R.; Karney, B.W. An Overview of the Numerical Approaches to Water Hammer Modelling: The Ongoing
Quest for Practical and Accurate Numerical Approaches. Water 2021, 13, 1597. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.