Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093
Experimental evaluation of ability of Relap5, Drako

, Flowmaster2
TM
and program using unsteady wall friction model to calculate
water hammer loadings on pipelines
Jerzy Marcinkiewicz
a,
, Adam Adamowski
b
, Mariusz Lewandowski
b
a
Inspecta Nuclear AB, SE-104 25 Stockholm, Sweden
b
The Szewalski Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery, Gdansk, Poland
Received 21 March 2007; received in revised form 28 October 2007; accepted 28 October 2007
Abstract
Mechanical loadings on pipe systems caused by water hammer (hydraulic transients) belong to the most important and most difcult to calculate
design loadings in nuclear power plants. The most common procedure in Sweden is to calculate the water hammer loadings on pipe segments,
according to the classical one-dimensional (1D) theory of liquid transient ow in a pipeline, and then transfer the results to strength analyses of
pipeline structure. This procedure assumes that there is quasi-steady respond of the pipeline structure to pressure surgesno dynamic interaction
between the uid and the pipeline construction. The hydraulic loadings are calculated with 1D so-called network programs. Commonly used
in Sweden are Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2all using quasi-steady wall friction model. As a third party accredited inspection body Inspecta
Nuclear AB reviews calculations of water hammer loadings. The presented work shall be seen as an attempt to illustrate ability of Relap5,
Flowmaster2 and Drako programs to calculate the water hammer loadings. A special attention was paid to using of Relap5 for calculation of water
hammer pressure surges and forces (including some aspects of inuence of Courant number on the calculation results) and also the importance
of considering the dynamic (or unsteady) friction models. The calculations are compared with experimental results. The experiments have been
conducted at a test rig designed and constructed at the Szewalski Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IMP
PAN) in Gdansk, Poland. The analyses show quite small differences between pressures and forces calculated with Relap5, Flowmaster2 and Drako
(the differences regard mainly damping of pressure waves). The comparison of calculated and measured pressures and also a force acting on
a pre-dened pipe segment shows signicant differences. It is shown that the differences can be reduced by using unsteady friction models in
calculations. Recently, such models have been subjects of works of several researches in the world.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
According to rules stated by Swedish regulatory body (SKI)
the calculated loadings must be reviewed and accepted by a
notied third party inspection body. Inspection Nuclear ABper-
forms such work. The purpose of the review is to conrm that
the loadings are not underestimated. Moreover, a number of key
technical requirements which inuence the review process are
stated in the SKIFS-series (2005) as follows:
well-tried, veried and recognized methods/codes with good
safety margins shall be used;

Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 8 5011 30 65; fax: +46 8 5011 30 01.
E-mail addresses: jerzy.marcinkiewicz@inspecta.com (J. Marcinkiewicz),
aadam@imp.gda.pl (A. Adamowski), mlew@imp.gda.pl (M. Lewandowski).
well-founded input data and prudent conservative assump-
tions shall be used, and also the latest knowledge/experience
shall be considered when calculating the loadings.
Several computer programs are used in Sweden for the cal-
culation of dynamic loadings on pipe systems caused by uid
transients. These kinds of calculations were at the beginning
dominatedbylarge companies: ASEA/ABBAtom, Westighouse
Electric, General Electric, Siemens andAreva. Today, because of
availability of software (Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2) small
consultant companies can also performsuch analyses. When the
calculation can be performed with several computer programs
an important question for the reviewer (and also for the users)
is knowledge about their ability to calculate the dynamic load-
ings and eventual differences. This situation created the idea to
perform the following analyses:
0029-5493/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.10.027
J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093 2085
Nomenclature
a speed of pressure wave (m/s)
A*, C*, coefcients in Eq. (17)
Cu Courant number
D pipe diameter (m)
e pipe-wall thickness (m)
F force (N)
g acceleration of gravity (m/s
2
)
H pressure head (mH
2
O), H=p/(g)
J head loss per pipe length unit
k
3
coefcient in Eq. (18)
K equivalent sand roughness height (m)
L pipe length (m)
m mass ow rate (kg/s)
p pressure (N/m
2
)
r pipe radius (m)
Re Reynolds number Re =VD/
S pipe cross-ow area (m
2
)
t time (s)
u variable from integral in Eq. (16) related to time
(s)
V average velocity (m/s)
W weighting function
x length co-ordinate (m)
f friction coefcient
Greek symbols
kinematic viscosity coefcient (m
2
/s)

t
eddy viscosity coefcient (m
2
/s)
uid density (kg/m
3
)
dimensionless time
Subscripts
app approximation
c-s/c-u critical value under steady/unsteady conditions
f friction
l/t laminar/turbulent ow
0 initial conditions
q quasi-steady hypothesis
r radial co-ordinate direction
u unsteady ow conditions
x axial co-ordinate direction
1. For a quite elementary case (one phase water hammer in a
long pipeline caused by rapid valve closure) perform calcu-
lations with three programs Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2
(quasi-steady friction model) and compare the results (pres-
sures) from these three programs with experimental data
(Adamkowski and Lewandowski, 2006). Calculate also
dynamic force acting on a pre-dened pipe segment and
compare results fromthe three programs. Also drawup some
recommendations (based on reviewers experience) regarding
use of Relap5 for calculation of water hammer loadings.
2. Perform additional calculations of pressures and dynamic
loadings using a program with dynamic friction capabilities
and compare to Relap5, Drako, Flowmaster2 and experi-
mental resultsmainly to illustrate the impact of dynamic
friction on the pressures and loadings.
2. Experiments
Experiments were executed at a test stand specially erected
at the laboratory of IMP PAN in Gdansk (Poland)Fig. 1. Its
main component is the long copper pipe with internal diameter
D=0.016 m and wall thickness e =0.001 m. The pipe is spi-
rally coiled on a steel cylinder with diameter of about 1.7 m
and is rigidly mounted to the cylinder coating in order to min-
imize its vibrations. The inclination angle of the pipe is not
larger than 0.5

. A quick-closing ball valve is installed at one

end of the pipe. The special spring drive of this valve results
in an almost stepwise complete ow cut-off. The valve closure
duration does not exceed 0.003 s, which is only about 1% of
the period of pressure wave propagation along the pipe (4L/a
where L is the measuring segment of the pipeline between the
quick-closing valve and the outlet from the high-pressure reser-
voir).
Four absolute pressure semi-conductor transducers are
mounted at equidistant (every L/4) sections along the pipeline.
The measuring range of these transducers is 04 MPa with trans-
mitted frequency band 02 kHz and precision class 0.2%. The
transmitted frequency band of the transducers indicates that
these transducers, within the measuring range (up to 4 MPa),
respond to stepwise pressure changes quicker than 0.0005 s
(1/2000 Hz). This time is shorter than about 0.17% of the pres-
sure wave period (4L/a =0.3 s) or, in other words, transmitted
frequency band for each transducer is at least 600 times wider
then pressure wave frequency equal to 3.3 Hz (a/(4L)). A tur-
bine owmeter with the range of 1.5 m
3
/h (4.2 10
4
m
3
/s)
and precision class of 1% is used for indirect measurement of
ow velocity in the pipeline. The owmeter was checked using
volumetric method before and after the measurements.
In order to reduce the inuence of undissolved air bubbles on
the analysed phenomenon, before starting the experiments, the
hydraulic system of the test rig was lled with water and left for
a few days to remove undissolved air from the liquid as much
as possible.
The experimental test consisted in several runs of unsteady
ow after sudden closing of the valve from different initial ow
conditionsvelocity V
0
(Re
0
). During the test a constant head
water level was kept in the high-pressure reservoir (H
0

=125 m).
Based on the water temperatures (22.6

C), the kinematic vis-

cosity coefcients were specied ( =9.432 10
7
m
2
/s).
Every test run was started with cutting-off the ow in the test
pipeline. The measurements were preceded by adjustment of
required stable initial conditions (initial velocity V
0
and steady
head water level H
0
). After adjusting the initial conditions and
some delay needed for stabilization of the ow conditions (not
less then 180 s), the ow rate measurement was conducted. A
fewseconds before fast cutting-off the ow(water hammer phe-
nomenon), recording of the pressure variations and the valve
closure course was started. Flowcut-off was executed by releas-
ing the spring in the driving mechanism of the quick-closing
2086 J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093
Fig. 1. Layout of the test rig.
valve. After nishing each record, the test rig was prepared to
conduct the next experimental run.
Two chosen examples of measured pressure variations
obtained for different initial Reynolds number Re
0
(5700 and
15,800) are presented in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Pressure changes measured at the valve and in a cross-section located at
a middle of the pipecases of sudden owcut-off with initial Reynolds number
Re
0
=5700 and 15,800.
3. Calculations with Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2
and comparison with experimental data
Relap5 code (1999) has been developed for best-estimate
transient simulations in light water reactors coolant systems
during postulated accidents but is also used for thermal
hydraulic analyses in nuclear power plants for processes which
have time scale of magnitude about 1 s. Code uses include
analyses required to support rulemaking, licensing audit calcu-
lations, evaluation of accident mitigation strategies, evaluation
of operator guidelines and experiment planning analysis. The
Relap5Mod3 code is based on a non-homogeneous and non-
equilibrium model for two-phase system that is solved by a fast,
partially implicit numerical scheme. Relap5Mod3.2.2g is used
in the presented analyses.
A special attention regarding choice of time step is recom-
mended by Relap5 developing group when very rapid processes
like steam and water hammer are to be calculated (see chap-
ter 2.1.2.2 in NUREG/CR-5535, 1998). Correct use of Relap5
for analysing very rapid processes need application of proper
cell size to resolve the wave front and time step small enough
to meet the Courant limit (based on sonic speed) and to min-
imize numerical diffusion. It should be observed that using
too small time step can bring numerical oscillations and in
some cases lead to failure of the simulation (Tiselj and Cerne,
2000).
It is also important to point out that Relap5 is not the most
appropriate or user-friendly code for solving water hammer
problems but it is well documented, easy to access and able
to produce reliable results, and therefore is commonly used for
such purposes in Sweden.
Drako code (Kollman, 1999, www.kae-gmbh.de) has been
specially developed for calculating unsteady ow processes in
J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093 2087
complex pipe systems and is commonly used for calculating of
water and steam hammer loadings in nuclear power plants.
Three procedures can be used by Drako to solve the differ-
ential equation describing the propagation of pressure waves:
the method of characteristics,
the differential procedure based on McCormackthis pro-
cedure is a nite differential method of the second order
(non-centered difference scheme for nonlinear hyperbolic
equations),
Taylor rst order gives quite large numerical diffusion and is
not recommended for analyses with steep gradients.
In addition to three conservation equations for mass, momen-
tum and energy Drako uses a material law to describe the
thermodynamic state variables in formof density as a function of
pressure and entropy and enthalpy as a function of pressure and
entropy. The material model for water and steam is based on the
IAPWS Industrial Formulation 1997 for the Thermodynamic
Properties of Water and Steam (IAPWS-IF97). Drako is based
on homogeneous equilibrium model for two-phase systems.
Flowmaster2 (www.owmaster.com) is a general code for
solving of uid ow problems in complex pipe systems by the
method of characteristics. An important disadvantage is that the
program cannot consider phase changes which strongly reduce
its availability in nuclear applications.
3.1. About calculating dynamic forces
The dynamic force F(t) as a function of time t acting during
a uid transient on a pipe segment of length L between two 90

bends A and B can be calculated using one of the following

equations (Lee et al., 1982):
F(t) =

L
0
m(t)dx (1)
F(t) = [p
B
(t) p
A
(t)]S +[m
B
(t)V
B
(t) m
A
(t)V
A
(t)] +F
f
(t)
(2)
where m(t) is mass ow rate, p is the pressure, V(t) the average
velocity, m(t) the mass ow rate in respective point (index A or
B), S is the constant cross-section area of the pipe and F
f
is the
wall friction force.
Apipe segment with length 11.56 m starting at high-pressure
tank has been chosen for calculations of dynamic force called
from now F. This force will be used for comparisons between
different calculations.
Eq. (1) has been implemented in Relap5 input le in order to
calculate force F(t).
Calculation of dynamic forces is a standard option in Drako.
Forces in Flowmaster2 cannot be calculated automatically.
Therefore a calculation outside the program has been made
using Eq. (2). In order to simplify the equations the friction
term F
f
and momentum terms m(t)V(t) are not considered (are
small).
3.2. Conditions and assumptions valid for Relap5, Drako
and Flowmaster2 models
The calculation models are similar to the test stand. The case
corresponding to Re
0
=15,800 is analysed, i.e. initial velocity
is 0.94 m/s and water temperature 22.6

C. The small increase

in wall friction caused by curvature of the pipeline is generally
not considered. In order to make possible direct comparisons of
calculated pressures, the following small modications of input
data for Relap5 and Drako have been made:
Relap 5. Because modifying of pressure wave speed is not
possible in the program the pipe length and initial velocities
have been changed (multiplied respectively divided by factor
1500/1297, where 1500 m/s is the velocity of pressure wave
in the water at 23

C and 1297 m/s is the velocity of pressure

wave measured in the test rig). The change of Reynolds num-
ber caused by this modication is judged be negligible for the
results.
Drako calculates the wave speed automatically considering
the elasticity of pipe wall. The measured wave speed could
not be exactly reached in the calculations because of sim-
plied formula used by Drako (not considering Poissons
coefcient). To reach the wave speed of 1297 m/s the Youngs
modulus of pipe-wall material has been slightly changed.
No special measures were needed regarding modelling in
Flowmaster2. The wave speed of 1297 m/s was implemented
as an input data.
3.3. Pressures and forces calculated with Relap5
A special attention has been paid to Relap5 calculations
because of sensitivityof the programtonumerical damping. Sev-
eral test calculations have been performed with different Courant
numbers Cu (see the following equation):
Cu =
(a +V)dt
dx
(3)
where a (m/s) is the wave speed, V (m/s) is the average velocity,
dt (s) is the time step and dx (m) is the element length.
Representative calculation results are shown below: pres-
sures in Figs. 3 and 4 and force F (as dened in Section 3.1)
Fig. 3. Pressures at the valve (at x =L) calculated with Relap5 and different
Courant numbers.
2088 J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093
Fig. 4. Last two pressure peaks from Fig. 3.
Fig. 5. Force F calculated with Relap5 and different Courant numbers.
in Figs. 5 and 6. The experience fromRelap5 calculations is that
to avoid a strong numerical damping of force amplitudes the
calculations should be performed with Courant numbers approx-
imately between 0.02 and 0.005. Performing calculations with
Courant numbers lower than 0.005 results not only in increased
calculation time and larger amount of data but also in genera-
tion of high frequency pressure pulsations of purely numerical
nature (Tiselj and Cerne, 2000).
3.4. Comparison of calculated and measured pressures
Fig. 7 shows normalized pressures at the valve (at x =L) mea-
sured and calculated with Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2 for
Fig. 6. Last four peaks of F from Fig. 5.
Re
0
=15,800. The differences between the pressures calculated
with different programs are negligible for an engineer. The dif-
ferences between the calculated and measured pressures are
caused by the fact that the dynamic friction is not considered
in the calculations.
3.5. Force F calculated with Relap5, Drako and
Flowmaster2
Figs. 8 and 9 show force F calculated with the three pro-
grams. Relap5 and Drako calculate forces according to Eq. (1).
The Flowmaster2 force is calculated using Eq. (2) without fric-
tion and momentum terms. This is the reason for slightly larger
damping of this force.
Fig. 9 shows the last four peaks from Fig. 8. Again the dif-
ferences between the calculated values are small. Some force
uctuations given by Drako are difcult to avoid when using
McCormack solver (as in this case). As a result the forces will
be slightly overestimated.
4. Calculation of pressures and forces considering
dynamic friction
4.1. Main assumptions
The following equations are used for mathematical descrip-
tion of unsteady liquid ows in closed conduits (Wylie and
Streeter, 1993):
Fig. 7. (a) Measured and calculated normalized pressures at the valve (x =L) and (b) rst, second and third peaks from gure (a).
J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093 2089
Fig. 8. Force F calculated with Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2.
Continuity equation:
H
t
+

V
H
x

+
a
2
g
V
x
= 0 (4)
Momentum equation:
V
t
+

V
V
x

+g
H
x
+gJ = 0 (5)
Quantities contained in curly brackets may be neglected
due to their small inuence on the results of solution of these
equations for liquid. According to the quasi-steady hypothe-
sis, commonly accepted in the engineering practice until now,
the hydraulic losses represented in Eq. (5) as quantity J, in an
unsteady ow are calculated using formulas valid for steady
ows. Such an approach is considered the main reason of dif-
ferences between experimental and computational results that
can be observed in the form of substantially different rates of
pressure wave damping effects. The discrepancies between cal-
culated and measured pressure courses concern mainly wave
damping effect.
An alternative approach is the inclusion of unsteady fric-
tion losses in mathematical description of unsteady uid ow
in closed conduits. Different unsteady friction models can be
found in the relevant literature.
In general, the models of unsteady friction losses assume that
quantity J is a sum of the quasi-steady ow pipeline resistance
J
q
(active resistance resulting from viscous friction at the pipe
wall) and pipeline inertance J
u
(reactance accounting for liquid
Fig. 9. Last four peaks of force F from Fig. 8.
inertia):
J = J
q
+J
u
(6)
Modelling quantity J
q
is based on the quasi-steady ow
hypothesis as was said earlier. It is usually described basing
on the DarcyWeisbach equation:
J
q
=
f
q
gD
V|V|
2
(7)
Calculation of the quasi-steady friction coefcient (Darcy
friction coefcient):
for laminar ows (Re Re
c-s
where Re
c-s
=2320) depends
only on ow characteristics (Re) according to the
HagenPoiseuille law:
f
ql
=
64
Re
(8)
for turbulent ows (Re >Re
c-s
) depends on ow characteris-
tics (Re) and absolute pipe-wall roughness (K/D) according
to the ColebrookWhite formula:
1

f
qt
= 2 lg

2.51
Re

f
qt
+
K/D
3.71

(9)
The models of unsteady friction losses focus on modelling
quantity J
u
. These models can be classied into three groups
accordingly to the method of calculating friction factor in
the one-dimensional momentum equation (Vardy and Brown,
2003):
friction term is related to the instantaneous velocity deriva-
tives in the pipe cross-section (Daily et al., 1956; Cartens and
Roller, 1959; Brunone et al., 1991);
friction term is related to the past velocity changes in a
given cross-section (Zielke, 1968; Vardy and Brown, 2003;
Zarzycki, 2000; Zarzycki and Kud zma, 2005);
friction term is calculated according to the irreversible ther-
modynamic theory (Axworthy et al., 2000; Bilicki, 2002).
The rst group of models enables quite easy numerical cal-
culations of friction losses. That is why these models are more
frequently used for simulating water hammer courses. The mod-
els belonging to the second group demand much more effort
when preparing algorithms and require more computer stor-
age. The requirement of ow history knowledge in a given
pipe cross-section, essential for enabling calculations of ow
parameters in the next time step of simulation, results in the
need to store very large data sets in the computer memory. This
slows down considerably the calculations and makes the mod-
els from this group less attractive and is not so commonly used
in practice. However, it has to be stressed that these models
have been developed using strong theoretical bases. Such strong
bases are also the feature of models belonging to the third group
mentioned. However, these models are still in the preliminary
state of development and require many empirically determined
coefcients.
2090 J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093
4.2. Method of solution
A special calculation method has been developed in the
Szewalski Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery in Gdansk
(Lewandowski, 2002). It is based on the Method of Charac-
teristics whereby the system of Eqs. (4) and (5) is transformed
into the following two pairs of ordinary differential equations
(for positive and negative characteristics C
+
and C

):
for C
+
:
dx
dt
= +a dV +
g
a
dH +gJdt = 0 (10)
for C

:
dx
dt
= a dV +
g
a
dH +gJdt = 0 (11)
The rst-order nite-difference approximation is used in
order to integrate Eqs. (10) and (11) along the characteristic lines
relevant to each of them, respectively. This procedure leads to
the following form of these equations:
C
+
: (V
P
V
A
) +
g
a
(H
P
H
A
) +(gJ)
A
t = 0 (12)
C

: (V
P
V
B
)
g
a
(H
P
H
B
) +(gJ)
B
t = 0 (13)
In all selected unsteady friction models the values of V and
H in node P (Figs. 10 and 11) are calculated using term (gJ)
related to the velocity partial derivatives, which are determined
at time levels t
j1
and t
j
. Two types of numerical grids may be
used in MOCdiamond (Fig. 10) and rectangular grid of char-
acteristics (Fig. 11). From among all differences between them
a way of calculating the velocity partial derivatives necessary to
determine quantity J is the most important. It follows from the
fact that the rectangular grid is two times denser than diamond
grid. In both grids longitudinal step x is related to time step
t as follows (stability condition):
x
t
= a (14)
Increasing density of the grid (of the same structure) has
no signicant effect on the computational results. This fact is
Fig. 10. Diamond grid of characteristics with notation used in the calculation
method.
Fig. 11. Rectangular grid of characteristics with notation used in the calculation
method.
already conrmed by many numerical tests published in the lit-
erature concerning this issue (e.g. in Bergant et al., 2001) the
numerical grid with 8, 16 and 32 computational reaches were
tested. However there are much more differences between cal-
culations obtained basing on different grid structures, diamond
and rectangular. It follows directly from basic feature of rectan-
gular grid which, in fact, consists of two diamond grids shifted
in relation to each other. These two diamond grids are coupled
only through the partial velocity derivatives in quantity J which
are calculated using nite differences. For comparisons between
experimental results and calculations the diamond grid was used.
4.3. Friction models used in calculation method
4.3.1. Vardy and Brown model
One of the main groups of unsteady friction models for
turbulent unsteady ows (the multi-layer models) bases its
mathematical description on Reynolds-Averaged NavierStokes
Equations applied to axisymmetric ow. In these equations the
Reynolds averaging procedure is used for averaging the ow
parameters. Adoption of the Boussinesq hypothesis that relates
the turbulent Reynolds stress and averaged velocity eld V
x
, as
in Eq. (15), the eddy viscosity coefcient is introduced into the
mathematical description of the analysed phenomenon
t
:
V

x
V

r
=
t
V
x
r
(15)
In models based on such approach, experimental data con-
cerning cross-sectional eddy viscosity distribution are used and
the pipeline inertance can be related to the local acceleration of
ow by means of the weighting function W(t):
J
u
=
16
gD
2

t
0
V
t
(u)W(t u)du (16)
Eq. (16) describing the inertance presented was proposed by
Zielke (1968) for axisymmetric unsteady laminar ows. He also
proposed a form of weighting function W(t) for these kind of
ows using inverse transformation of Laplace transform of the
J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093 2091
equation of motion for laminar axisymmetric ow of an incom-
pressible uid. Vardy and Brown (2003, 2004) have utilized
similar methodology for deriving their unsteady friction models.
In this model approximation of real eddy viscosity distribution
is used and ow is divided into two regionsthe outer annu-
lar region (near the wall) where the eddy viscosity is assumed
to vary linearly with distance from the pipe wall and the inner
core region (in the vicinity of the pipe axis) in which the eddy
viscosity is assumed to be constant. Using such distribution of
eddy viscosity and applying Laplace transformation to equations
describing pipe unsteady ow, Vardy and Brown obtained a Re-
dependent weighting function W. There are two different forms
of weighting function for smooth and rough pipes and relation
(13) refers to smooth pipes unsteady ow:
W
app
=
A

e
/C

with A

=
1
2

= 0.2821,
C

=
12.86
Re

, = log
10

15.29
Re
0.0567

(17)
In case of laminar ow(Re Re
c-s
) the value of the Reynolds
number in Eq. (17) is replaced by the critical value of Re
(Re
c-s
=2320) that separates laminar and turbulent ows (the
critical value of Re for transient ows in this model remain the
same as in case of steady ows). According to authors this model
is valid for initial Reynolds numbers Re <10
8
and for smooth
pipes only.
4.3.2. Brunone et al. model
This model (Brunone et al., 1991) is related to the second
trend in hydraulic resistance modelling.
The authors of this model had carefully analysed the inu-
ence of the quasi-steadyhypothesis onthe results of calculations.
On this basis they stated that observed discrepancies between
calculations and experimental data are caused mainly by inap-
propriate mathematical description of inertial forces and wall
friction stress. It results directly from assuming the uniform
velocity prole in calculations. Analyses based on experimental
data concerning velocity proles in different pipe cross-sections
and at wide range of Re revealed clear correlation between the
pipeline inertance and the acceleration (local and convective
velocity derivative) dened as
J
u
=
k
3
g

V
t
a
V
x

(18)
Originally the k
3
coefcient assumed constant and tted so as
to match computational and experimental results on a sufcient
level of conformity. Vardy and Brown proposed the follow-
ing empirical relationship to derive this coefcient analytically
(Vardy and Brown, 2003):
k
3
=

2
(19)
The coefcient C
*
is calculated according to Eq. (17) and it
cause that coefcient k
3
is variable, depending on the instanta-
neous Re values during unsteady ow.
Fig. 12. Comparison between calculated and measured pressure traces at the
valvetest run with initial Reynolds number Re
0
=5700.
4.4. Comparison between calculated and measured
pressures
Results of calculation (relative pressure head variations at
the valve for initial Reynolds number equal to 5700) are shown
together with experimental ones in Fig. 12. Calculations were
carried out using diamond grid of characteristics.
In contrary to the results of calculations obtained using
Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2, which are based on the quasi-
steady hypothesis, the results calculated using the unsteady
friction models give good conformity with measured pressure
variations. Similar results have been published also by other
researchers as the authors of this paper (Adamkowski and
Lewandowski, 2004, 2006; Vitkovsky et al., 2000; Bergant et al.,
2001; Bughazem and Anderson, 2000; Ghidaoui et al., 2002).
It is worth emphasizing that the best conformity was obtained
using the Vardy and Brown model. This model predicts very
well not only the rate of pressure wave attenuation but it also
preserves the wave front shape and the wave frequency. The last
feature is not characteristic for the Brunone et al. model.
4.5. Comparison of force F calculated with and without
dynamic friction
The good agreement between the measured and calculated
pressures implies that forces calculated using models of Vardy
andBrownor Brunone shall be more realistic thancorresponding
forces calculated with the quasi-steady friction model.
Force F has been calculated using Eq. (2) (momentum term
containing m(t)V(t) was not considered) and dynamic friction
2092 J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093
Fig. 13. Re
0
=5700. Force F calculated with Relap5 and using dynamic friction
models.
Fig. 14. Re
0
=5700, (a) rst four peaks of force F from Fig. 11 and (b) last six
peaks of force F from Fig. 13.
Fig. 15. Re
0
=15,800. Last six peaks of force F (compare with Fig. 14).
(models of Vardy and Brown and Brunone). Calculations were
conducted for Reynolds numbers Re
0
=5700 and 15,800. The
results for Re
0
=5700 are shown in Figs. 13 and 14.
The results for Re
0
=15,800 are very similar, only amplitudes
are larger. Fig. 15shows last sixpeaks of force Ffor Re
0
=15,800
(compare with Fig. 14). Figs. 1315 show clearly that consider-
ing the dynamic friction results in a very strong damping of force
F, i.e. forces calculated with Relap5, Drako and Flowmaster2
are conservative.
Figs. 1315 show also that the Brunone et al. model gives a
small shifting of force frequency (it becomes slightly lower).
5. Conclusions
(a) The results of calculations made by means of the Relap5,
Flowmaster2 and Drako software packages have been com-
pared. Quite small differences between pressure variations
(waves) calculated by means of these packages have been
noticed. The main differences are with regard only to numer-
ical damping. However, the differences between the forces
calculated with Relap5 and Drako/Flowmaster2 can be
signicant because of sensitivity of Relap5 to numerical
damping. In order to reduce numerical damping in Relap5
use of Courant number (based on wave speed) between 0.02
and 0.005 is recommended. However further reducing the
Courant number can imply generating of purely numerical
high frequency oscillations of pressures and forces.
(b) The comparison of calculated (Relap5, Flowmaster2 and
Drako) and measured pressure variations show signicant
differences. These differences regard mainly the damping
of pressure waves. The measured pressure oscillations are
more damped than the calculated ones. Use of quasi-steady
wall friction model in tested software packages is considered
as the main reason of observed differences.
(c) The discrepancies between calculated and measured pres-
sure waves can be reduced by using unsteady friction models
in calculations. It is shown on the base of calculations per-
formed by means of special computer code which includes
chosen unsteady friction models.
(d) The dynamic friction has a very strong damping effect on
dynamic forces acting on pipe segments during the unsteady
ow conditions. Calculation of forces performed with the
quasi-steady friction model is therefore conservative.
(e) Experimental verication of calculations presented in this
paper concerns relatively small Reynolds numbers. It results
mainly fromsmall diameter of pipe used at the test rig. There
is indeed a strong need for conducting experimental veri-
cation of calculations for higher Re. It is worth emphasizing
that experimental results conrming correctness of unsteady
friction models at high values of Re are not known to the
authors of this paper.
Acknowledgment
The results of investigations published in this paper were
presented on the 14th International Conference on Nuclear Engi-
neering ICONE 14, 1720 July, Miami, FL, USA.
J. Marcinkiewicz et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 238 (2008) 20842093 2093
References
Adamkowski, A., Lewandowski, M., 2004. Unsteady friction modelling in
transient pipe ow simulation. Trans. Inst. Fluid-Flow Mach. 115, 83
97.
Adamkowski, A., Lewandowski, M., 2006. Experimental examination of
unsteady friction models for transient pipe ow simulation. J. Fluids Eng.,
ASME 128 (6), 13511363.
Anon., March 1998. Relap5/MOD3 Code Manual. Volume V: Users Guidelines.
Scientech Inc. Rockville Maryland Idaho Falls, Idaho (MOD3.2.2Beta),
NUREG/CR-5535.
Anon., June 1999. Relap5/MOD3 Code Manual. Volume II: Appendix A
Input Requirements. Scientech Inc. Rockville Maryland Idaho Falls, Idaho
(MOD3.2.2Gama), NUREG/CR-5535.
Axworthy, D.H., Ghidaoui, M.S., McInnis, D.A., 2000. Extended thermodynam-
ics derivation of energy dissipation in unsteady pipe ow. ASCEJ. Hydraulic
Eng. 126 (4), 276287.
Bergant, A., Simpson, A., Vitkovsky, J., 2001. Developments in unsteady pipe
ow friction modelling. J. Hydraulic Res. 39 (3), 249257.
Bilicki, Z., 2002. Non-equilibrium ows in machine construction and exploita-
tion. Trans. Inst. Fluid-Flow Mach. 110, 8192.
Brunone, B., Golia, U.M., Greco, M., 1991. Some remarks on the momentum
equations for fast transients. In: Proceedings of the International Meeting on
Hydraulic Transients with Column Separation, ninth Round Table, IAHR,
Valencia, Spain.
Bughazem, M.B., Anderson, A., 2000. Investigation of an unsteady friction
model for water hammer and column separation. In: Proceedings of the
eighth International Conference on Pressure Surges, BHR Group, The
Hague, Netherlands, pp. 483498.
Cartens, M.R., Roller, J.E., 1959. Boundary-shear stress in unsteady turbulent
pipe ow. J. Hydraulic Div., Proc. ASCE HY2, 6781.
Daily, J.W., Hankey, W.L., Olive, R.W., Jodrdaan, J.M., 1956. Resistance coef-
cients for accelerated and decelerated ows through smooth tubes and
orices. Trans. ASME, 10711077.
Ghidaoui, M.S., Mansour, S.G.S., Zhao, M., 2002. Applicability of quasisteady
and axisymmetric turbulence models in water hammer. J. Hydraulic Eng.,
Soc. Civil Eng. 128 (10), 917924.
Kollman, D., 22 November 1999. DRAKO Pressure Wave Calculation in Pipe
Systems With General ComponentsShort Description. KAE Kraftverks
und Anlagen Engineering GmbH.
Lee, M.Z., Chou, L.Y., Yang, S.H., 1982. PWR safety/relief valve blowdown
analysis experience. Nucl. Eng. Des. 72, 421427.
Lewandowski, M., 2002. Unsteady friction models in modelling unsteady uid
ow in closed conduitsnumerical algorithms. In: Proceedings of the fth
Seminar of PHD-Studies Contemporary Technologies and Energy Conver-
sion, Gdansk, pp. 107116 (in Polish).
SKIFS, 2005. Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI). SKIFS, Stockholm,
p. 2, ISSN 1400-1187.
Tiselj, I., Cerne, G., 2000. Some comments on the behaviour of the Relap5
numerical scheme at very small tine STEPS. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 134, 306311.
Vardy, A.E., Brown, J.M., 2003. Transient turbulent friction in smooth pipe
ows. J. Sound Vibration 259 (5), 10111036.
Vardy, A.E., Brown, J.M., 2004. Transient turbulent friction in fully rough pipe
ows. J. Sound Vibration 270, 233257.
Vitkovsky, J., Lambert, M., Simpson, A., Bergant, A., 2000. Advances in
Unsteady Friction Modelling in Transient Pipe Flow. In: Proceedings of
the eighth International Conference on Pressure Surges, BHR Group, The
Hague, The Netherlands.
Wylie, E.B., Streeter, V.L., 1993. Fluid Transients in Systems. Prentince-Hall
Inc., New Jersey.
Zarzycki, Z., 2000. On weighing function for wall shear stress during unsteady
turbulent pipe ow. In: Proceedings of the eighth International Conference
on Pressure Surges, BHR Group, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Zarzycki, Z., Kud zma, S., 2005. Computationof transient turbulent owof liquid
in pipe using unsteady friction formula. Trans. Inst. Fluid-Flow Mach. 116,
2742.
Zielke, W., 1968. Frequency-dependent friction in transient pipe ow. J. Basics
Eng., ASME 90 (1), 109111.