International Journal of Mathematics and

Computer Applications Research (IJMCAR)

ISSN(P): 2249-6955; ISSN(E): 2249-8060
Vol. 5, Issue 6, Dec 2015, 45-56
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

A NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH FOR SOLVING

NONLINEAR WATER HAMMER EQUATIONS
JAIPAL1, RAKESH C. BHADULA2 & V. N. KALA3
1

Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, D.B.S. (P.G.) College Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
2
3

Department of Mathematics Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Department of Applied Science, G. B Pant Engineering College, Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India

ABSTRACT
The nonlinear equations of motions and equation of continuity for water hammer problem in the pipe line
systems are solved numerically by applying explicit central difference method and an attempt is made to solve these
nonlinear equations analytically with suitable initial and boundary conditions. The dependence of flow and pressure
head in pipe on the valve closure time at different points in the pipe is discussed. The negative flow and very high
pressure head is observed at some points in the pipe which is due to upstream wave during sudden closer of valve.
KEYWORDS: Equation of Continuity for Water, To Upstream Wave

INTRODUCTION
Water hammer is high pressure wave generated by a sudden changes of velocity in closed pipe line. It has
been studied for many decades but till today there is not efficient method available to predict the exact location of

Original Article

Received: Nov 04, 2015; Accepted: Nov 16, 2015; Published: Nov 21, 2015; Paper Id.: IJMCARDEC20155

water hammer in pipe lines. Masashi and syuuzi (1984) solve equation using series solution method and compared
the result with finite difference method. Brunone et al. (1995) developed 2-D model and considered Rapid
damping of the pressure peaks after the end of a complete closure maneuver, are closely linked to the shape of the
cross-sectional velocity distributions and their Variability in time. Yao et al. (2014) described the attenuation of
water hammer pressure wave with time varying valve closure by using an asymptotic analysis. They examined the
effect of flow reversal on the pressure wave attenuation through comparison with a similar method applied to the
water hammer generated during flow establishment the flow reversal Ghidaoui (2004) reviewed the relation
between straight equation and speeds in single as well as two phase transient flow by using order of magnitude
analysis. Ghidaui et al. (2001) performed linear stability analysis of base flow velocity profiles for laminar and
turbulent water hammer flows. The base flow velocity profile are determined analytically. Where the transient is
generated by instantaneous reduction in flow rate at the downstream end of a single pipe system .The presence of
inflection points in the base flow velocity profile and the large velocity gradient near the pipe wall are the sources
of flow instability. Delgodo et al. (2014) discussed the uncertainties associated with the hydraulic transient
modeling of raising pipe system with and without surge protection.They developed a one dimensional hydraulic
transient model based on the classic water hammer theory and solved by the method of characteristics (MOC). The
transient test with and without the hydropnuematic vessel connected to the system for different flow rates were
observed by them. Hariri Asli et al.(2012) defined an eulerian based computational model compared with
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

46

Jaipal, Rakesh C. Bhadula & V. N. Kala

regression of the relationship between the dependent and in dependent variables for water hammer surge wave in pipe.
Riedelmeier et al. (2014) constructed the analysis of effects of fluid-structure interaction (FSI) during water hammer in
piping systems, attest facility and showed resonance experiments on movable bends in two piping system configuration
focused on junction coupling were carried out. Ronghe Wang et al. (2014) derived the hydraulic calculating equation based
on the method of characteristics by considering the pipe head loss and node cavitations .Edwards et. Al.(2014) presented
his method to asses transient modeling and analysis errors which occurs due to demand aggregating and uncertainty. They
investigated the effect of aggregating demand from the small network of residues and found to be most significant when
the number and distribution of the demands was randomly varied. G Pezzinga et al. (2014) showed 2-D features of
viscoelastic model of pipe transients and given an innovative approach to analyze transients in a pressurized polymeric
pipe. In fact on one side the proposed 2-D Kelvin-Voigt model calibrated by using the pressure traces has been checked by
considering the instantaneous profiles of the axial component of the local velocity measured by means of an ultrasonic
Doppler velocitimeter on the other hand he made comparisons with results given by a 2-D model in which an elastic
behavior has been assumed for pipe material. I.A.Sibetheros et al.(1991) investigated the method of characteristics with
spline polynomials for interpolations for numerical water hammer analysis for a frictionless horizontal pipe. Chyr Pyng
Liou et al.(2014) presented a method which improve the accuracy of the approximation commonly used with the friction
term in the water hammer equation. Alexandre Kepler Soares et al. (2008) investigated on the analysis of hydraulic
transient in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe line. They emphasized the importance of pipe wall viscoelasticity in hydraulic
transients in PVC pipeline. Simpson (1986) showed a range of short duration pressure pulses measured in a reservoir
upward sloping pipeline valve system. Due to upward slope of the pipe vapor cavity was confined to be adjacent to the
valve with no distributed cavitations along the pipe.Don J.Wood (2005) presented both MOC and the WCM to slope the
transient flow problem. He stated that the MOC and WCM are both capable of accurately solving for transient pressures
and flow in the water pipeline networks including the effect of pipe friction. Anton Bergant et al.(2008) showed that
describe unsteady friction, cavitations including Column Separation and trapped air pockets, fluid structure interaction,
pipe wall viscoelasticity and leakages and blockages in transient pipe flow. Their models are based on method of
characteristics. David E. Goldberg (1983) presented solution of broad cross section of time varying wave problems in
hydraulics, MOC based methods are likely to continue to see extension use. They showed extent of potential application of
the implicit time-line method also deserves more attention. Gottlieb et al. (1981) investigated numerical model with
experimental result. They considered four different configurations of a steel and a plastic pipeline. Extremely high-pressure
peaks were recorded immediately upon collapse of the vapor cavity. The pressure then dropped to about 40% of the
pressure peak level and maintained this level for twice of l/a seconds. They showed the presence of peaks resembled the
pressure peaks associated with the implosion of gas bubbles in pumps. Martin (1983) presented transient cavitations in as
reservoir-pipe-valve system. The water contained a minimal amount of dissolved gas. They emphasized on limited
cavitations. They showed in experimental results that the maximum pressure may exceed the Joukowsky pressure rise in
the form of short duration pressure pulse. They observed that the reservoir pressure was rising during the experiment
because the tank was to small.Kim et al. (2015) predicted that water hammer following the tripping of pumps lead to over
pressure and negative pressure. Chen et al. (2015) used the method of lines to obtain a finite dimensional ordinary
differential equations model based on the original partial differential equations system for the problem of mitigating water
hammer during valve closure. They concluded that simulation results demonstrating the capability of optimal boundary
control to reduce flow fluctuation. An analytical solution of the nonlinear water hammer equations is still awaited. In this
paper we have solved nonlinear water hammer equations numerically as well as analytically. However we have made some
Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

NAAS Rating: 3.80

A Numerical and Analytical Approach for Solving

Nonlinear Water Hammer Equations

47

assumptions to obtain the analytical solution of nonlinear water hammer equations without deviating the fundamental
natures of the model.
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The unsteady state equation of continuity and equation of motion together with convective terms and nonlinear
friction term can be given as-

H
H
a 2 V
+V
V sin +
=0
t
x
g x

(1)

Q
Q
H
f
+Q
+ gA
+ gA sin +
Q Q =0
t
x
t
2 DA

(2)

Neglecting convective terms in equation (1) and taking

gA

=0 for horizontal pipe then continuity equation becomes

H
Q
= a 2
t
x

(3)

and equation of motion becomes

Q
H
f
+ gA
+
QQ =0
t
t 2 DA
On differentiating partially equation (3) with respect to

(4)

x and equation (4) with respect to t partially respectively

and then subtracting them, we get

Q
2Q
f Q
+
+Q
Q
2
2 DA t
t
t

2 2Q
=0
a
x 2

(5)

Applying explicit central difference method to solve equation (5), putting

2Q Qik +1 2Qik + Qik 1

=
t 2
t 2

(6.1)

2Q Qik+1 2Qik + Qik1

=
x 2
x 2

(6.2)

Q Qik +1 Qik 1
=
t
2t

(6.3)

in equation (5) we get

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

48

Jaipal, Rakesh C. Bhadula & V. N. Kala

k
k +1
k 1
k +1
Qik +1 2Qik + Qik 1
Qik 1 Qi Qi Qi
k Qi

+ c Qi
+

2t
2t
t 2

(7)

Q 2Q + Q
a2
=0
x

k
i +1

k
i
2

k
i 1

Qik +1 2Qik + Qik 1 + r1 Qik Qik +1 Qik 1 + Qik Qik +1 Qik 1

r Qik+1 2Qik + Qik1 = 0

ct
at
Where r =
, r1 =
4
x

(8)

(9)

The initial conditions are

Q ( x,0 ) = Q0 or Q ( xi , 0 ) = Q0 (initial flow in the pipe)

(10.i)

= 0 (for steady flow)

t t =0

(10.ii)

The boundary conditions are

Q ( 0, t ) = Q0

(11.i)

t
Q ( L, t ) = Q0 1 where tc is valve closure time
tc

(11.ii)

H
H ( x, 0) = H 0 ,
=0
t t =0

(11.iii)

Similarly the equation of continuity becomes

H ik +1 = H ik 1 r2 Qik+1 Qik1
Where

r2 =

(12)

a 2 t
gAx

Analytical Solution for Water Hammer Equations-

Using

Q
t

Q Q
in equation (5), we get
Q t

2
2Q
Q
2 Q
+
a
Q
=
a
1
t 2
t
x 2

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

(13)

NAAS Rating: 3.80

A Numerical and Analytical Approach for Solving

Nonlinear Water Hammer Equations

where

a1 =

49

f
DA

Transformation of coordinates
Taking coordinates transformation as

= a1t , z =

a1 x
;
a

(14)

then equation (13) is reduced to

2Q
Q 2Q
+
Q
= 2
2

(15)

Following Polyanin and Zaitsev 2004, the analytical solution of equation (15) is obtained and given by

Q = 2c1 tanh(

A1 ( z A1 )
+ c2 )
1 A12

(16)

Putting equation (16) in equation (3) and solving, we get

H =
where

2ac1
A ( z A1 )
tanh( 1
+ c2 ) + c3
gAA1
1 A12

(17)

c3 is arbitrary constant.
c1 , c2 , c3 and A1 are obtained using initial and boundary conditions.

The values of

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The numerical values for flow

Q and pressure head H are obtained from the difference equations (8) and (12)

respectively with the help of MATLAB and are shown graphically from figure 1 to figure 7. In figure 1 the variation of
water flow in the pipe together with axial distance
sample parameter are taken as wave velocity
initial flow Q0 =1.4 m

www.tjprc.org

x and time t is shown. Valve closure time is taken 0.1 sec. The another

c =1000 m/s, pipe radius r is 0.3 m, initial pressure head H 0 =600 m and

/ sec .

editor@tjprc.org

50

Jaipal, Rakesh C. Bhadula & V. N. Kala

Variation of flow pattern in pipe
2
0

-2

-4

-5

-6

-10

-8
-10

-15

-12

-20
1

-14

1
0.5
x/L

-16

0.5
0

-18

t/T

Figure 1: Variation of Flow in Pipe with

x and t

The variation of flow with time and distance can be clearly observed form figure 1. Initially the variation of flow
with

x is very small and at t = 0.1 s and x = 100 it becomes zero but it changes rapidly as time increases. The value of

flow at some middle points in the pipe is larger than the initial value Q0 . This is feasible since as the valve is going to close
then there is some back flow causing greater values of

Q at mixing points. As time exceeds the value of flow rate

increases in the upstream direction (i.e. negative value of Q ) which is true since the valve is closed and there is no chance
for downstream flow.

Variation of pressure head in pipe due to closure of valve

12

15

10

10

-5
1

1
0.5
x/L

0.5
0 0

t/T

Figure 2: Variation of Pressure Head In Pipe with

x And t

The variation of pressure head with respect to time and axial distance is shown in figure 2. The pressure head in
the pipe increases as time increases. We have observed that at

t = tc there is negative transient pressure head which may

cause cavitations or column separation. After that transient pressure head increases as time increases and is maximum at

t
= 1 i.e. t = T = 2 s . We observed H max = 7800 m .
T

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

NAAS Rating: 3.80

A Numerical and Analytical Approach for Solving

Nonlinear Water Hammer Equations

51
Flow pattern when valve is fully closed

0.1

Nondimensional flow in pipe

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7

0.1

0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Nondimensional distance x along pipe length

0.9

x at t = tc

Figure 3: Variation of Flow with

The flow pattern in pipe when the valve is fully closed is shown in figure 3. Clearly when the valve is fully closed
at the end of pipe the flow is 0 while in the starting it is slightly greater than the initial flow due to upstream wave and after
that the flow is negative and nonlinear.
Flow pattern at a fixed point x at different time
1
0.8
0.6

Nondimensional flow

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4
0.5
0.6
Nondimensional time

0.7

0.8

Figure 4: Variation of Flow with

0.9

t at x =0.9

To study the flow pattern at a fixed position with time, figure 4 is plotted at

x =0.9. It is clear from the figure that

flow decreases first and then it increases for a very short time and then it continuously decreases with a slight fluctuation.
After some time when valve is about half closed flow becomes negative.
Pressure when valve is partially closed

Nondimensional Pressure head

10

-2

0.2

0.4
0.6
Nondimensional distance x

Figure 5: Variation of Pressure with

www.tjprc.org

0.8

x at some Fixed Time

editor@tjprc.org

52

Jaipal, Rakesh C. Bhadula & V. N. Kala

The variation of pressure in the pipe in axial direction is shown in figure 5. Initially the pressure head decreases
and reaches to a negative value and after that it increases continuously and become constant near the valve.
Pressure head at valve with different time

X: 1
Y: 13

Nondimensional pressure head

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

0.2

0.4
0.6
Nondimensional time

Figure 6: Variation of Pressure with

0.8

t at Fixed Point x

The negative value of transient pressure head my cause cavitations or column separation. In figure 6 the variation

L with time is shown. Initially for a very short time the pressure appear to be constant after
that it increases very fast as time increases. The initial pressure head in the pipe was 600 m while it is more than 7800 m
of pressure head at valve i.e. at

at t = 2 s ,where the valve closure time is 0.1 s . This very high pressure head i.e. more than 13 times the initial head may
cause bursting of pipe.
The comparison of pressure head obtain by numerical method and analytical method for nonlinear model is shown
in figure 7.
Comparision of pressure head by numerical and analytical methods
8000
7000

Pressure head

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

20

40
60
Axial distance

80

100

Figure 7: Comparison of Pressure Head by Numerical and Analytical Method

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

NAAS Rating: 3.80

A Numerical and Analytical Approach for Solving

Nonlinear Water Hammer Equations

53

Variation of flow in the pipe due to closure of valve

0
-5

20
-10

-15
-20

-20

-25

-40

-30

-60
2

-35

1.5

100
1
0.5
t

-40

50
-45

0 0

Figure 8: Variation of Flow in the Pipe with Axial Distance and Time
Variation of pressure head in the pipe due to closure of valve
7000

8000

6000

6000

5000

4000

4000

2000
3000

0
2

2000

1.5

100
1

50

0.5
t

0 0

1000

Figure 9: Variation of pressure due to closure of valve

Analytical solutions of the nonlinear model for water hammer problem are shown by the equations (16) and (17).
In the above solution there is restriction that

A1 1 ,0. To draw the graph for the analytical solution we have taken A1 =

2.5 and result are shown from figures 7 to 9. The variation of flow in the pipe with

x and t is shown in figure 8. We

observed that flow is positive before complete closure of valve while it becomes negative after fully closing of valve which
is good agreement with the practical situation. The variation of pressure head in the pipe with time and axial distance is
shown in figure 9. It is clear from the figure that pressure head increases as time increases and it is maximum at the valve.

CONCLUSIONS
Numerical as well as analytical approach to solve water hammer equations are given here by applying suitable
initial and boundary conditions. The results obtained from both these methods are in good agreement with practical
situations. The model can be used to find the location of maximum pressure head in the pipe so that necessary treatment

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

54

Jaipal, Rakesh C. Bhadula & V. N. Kala

can be made prior to the damage of pipe line due to water hammer.
REFERENCES
1.

Andrei Polyanin D. and Valentin F. Z. (2004) Nonlinear partial differential equations, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1-803

2.

Asli K. H., Haghi A. K., Asli H. H. and Eshghi S. (2012). Water hammer modelling and simulation by GIS, Hindawi Publishing
Corporation Modelling and Simulation in Engineering, 2012, 4 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/704163.

3.

Bergant Anton, Tijsseling Arris S., John P. Vitkovskym Didia I. C. Covas and Angus R. Simpsonand Martin F. L. (2008).
Parameters affecting water hammer wave attenuation,shape and timing, Journal of Hydraulic Research, 46(3), 373-381.

4.

Brunone B., Golia U. M., and Greco M.(1995). Effects of two-dimensionality on pipeansints modeling. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 121(12), 906-912.

5.

Chen T., Ren Z., Xu C. and Loxton R. (2015). Optimal boundary control for water hammer suppression in fluid transmission
pipelines, Computers & Mathematics with Applications,69(4), 275-290.

6.

Delgado J. N., Martins N. M. C. and Covas D. I. C. (2014). Uncertainties in hydraulic transient modelling in raising pipe
systems, Procedia Engineering, 70, 487-496.

7.

Edwards J. and Collins R. (2014). The effect of demand uncertainty on transient propagation in water distribution systems,
Procedia Engineering, 70, 592-601.

8.

Ghidaoui M. S. (2004). On the fundamental equations of water hammer. Urban Water Journal, 1(2), 71-83.

9.

Ghidaoui M. S. and Kolyshkin A. A.(2001). Stability analysis of velocity profiles in water hammer flows, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 127(6), 499-512.

10. Goldberg David E., ASCE A.M. and Wylie E. Benjamin, ASCE M. (1983). Characteristics method using time-line
interpolations, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 109(5), 670-683.
11. Gottlieb L., K Larnaes G. and Vasehus, J. (1981). Transient cavitations in Pipe line laboratory tests and numerical, 5th
International Symposium on water column separation, IAHR, Obernach, Germany, 487-508.
12. Kepler S. A., Covas Didia I. C. and luisa Fernanda R. (2008). Analysis of PVC pipe wall viscoelasticity during water hammer,
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134, 1389-1394.
13. Kim S. G., Lee B. K., Kim K. Y. (2015). Water hammer in the pump-rising pipeline system with an air chamber, Journal of
Hydrodynamics, Ser.B, 26(6), 960-964.
14. Liou C. P., ASCE P. E., M., Benjamin Wylie E., P. E. and ASCE F. (2014). Approximation of the friction integral in water
hammer equations, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering ,14,06014008-1-06014008-5.
15. Martin, C.S. (1983). Experimental investigation of column separation with rapid closure of downstream valve, 4th
International Conference on Pressure Surges, BHRA, Bath,UK,77-88.
16. Pezzinga G., Brunone B., M. ASCE M., Cannizzaro D., Ferrante M., Meniconi S. and Berni A. (2014). Two-dimensionality
features of viscoelastic models of pipe transients, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 04014036-1-04014036-9.
17. Riedelmeier S, Becker S. and Schlucker E.(2014). Measurements of junction coupling during water hammer in piping systems,
Journal of Fluids and Structures, 48, 156-168.
18. Ronghe W., Zhixun w., Xiaoxue W., Haibo Y. and Jilong S. (2014). Pipe burst risk state assessment and classification based on
water hammer analysis for water supply networks, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Mang,140, 04014005-1-

Impact Factor (JCC): 4.6257

NAAS Rating: 3.80

A Numerical and Analytical Approach for Solving

Nonlinear Water Hammer Equations

55

04014005-8.
19. Shimada M. and Okushima S. (1984). New numerical model and technique for water hammer. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 110(6), 736-748.
20. Sibetheros I. A., Holley E. R. , ASCE M., and Branski J. M. (1991). Spline interpolations for water hammer analysis, Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 117(10), 1332-1351.
21. Simpson, A. R .(1986). Large water hammer pressure due to column separation in slopping pipes PhD thesis, The University
of Michigan Dept. of Civil Engg, Ann Arbor USA.
22. Wood Don J. (2005). Water hammer analysis essential and easy (and Efficient), Journal of Environmental Engg, 131(8),
1123-1131.
23. Yao E., Kember G. and Hansen D. (2014). Analysis of water hammer attenuation inapplications with varying valve closure
times. Journal of Engineering Mechanics,04014107-1- 04014107-9.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org