Evaluation of Reductive Option of Water Hammer Phenomenon for a Water Conveyance System, A Case Study of Shahid Shirdom Residential District-Tehran

Document Type : Research Paper



Sudden changes in the boundary conditions of water transmission systems, such as sudden opening and closing of valves or abrupt on and off switching of pumps and turbines cause a transient flow called ‘water hammer’. In this study, comparisons were made between the effective parameters including pipeline material, on the one hand, and the equipment and tools available for reducing the effects of water hammer, on the other. For this purpose, a practical example of a water transmission line from a pumping station located near Shahid Shirdom Residential District to the upstream reservoir in Tehran was used for modeling by the Bentley Hammer XMV: 8 software. The results obtained for the different parameters and options were compared and it was revealed that, regarding the pipe material, GRP pipes reduced pressure by 49.1 Kpa compared to the Asbestos cement pipes and by 50.3 Kpa compared to the iron pipes. Comparison of the results for the protective systems indicated that the surge tank outperformed the other alternatives in controlling pressure such that maximum pressure was reduced by 3.9 bar when using surge tanks compared to the flywheel and by 5 bar compared to the check valve. Finally, it was found that the concurrent use of the surge tank and the flywheel would be the most ideal method for controlling the water hammer effects.


Main Subjects

Shmsaiy, A. (2006). Applied hydraulic of unsteady flows, Sharif University Pub., Tehran. (In Persian)
2. Kahrom, M. (210). Water convey systems, Ferdowsi Mashhad University Pub., Mashhad. (In Persian)
4. Ghidaoui, M., Zhao, M., McInnis, D., and Axworthy, D. (2005). “A review of water hammer theory and practice.” Transactions of the ASME, 58, 49-76.
5. Silva-Araya, W. (1993). “Energy dissipation in transient flow.” Ph.D., Dissertation,Washington State University, USA.
6. Filion, Y.R., and Karney, B.W. (2003). “Sources of error in network modeling: A question of perspective.” Journal of the American Water Works Association, 95, 119-130.
7. Szymkiewicz, R., and Mitosek, M. (2007). “Numerical aspects of improvement of the unsteady pipe flow equations.” International Journal for NumericalMethods in Fluids, 55, 1039-1058.
8. Bergant, A., Tijsseling, A., Vitkovsky, J., Covas, D., Simpson, A., and Lambert, M. (2008). “Parameters affecting water-hammer wave attenuation.” shape and timing Part 1: Mathematical tools.” J. of Hydraulic Research, 46 (3), 382-391 .
9. Chaudhry, H.M., and Hussaini, M.Y. (1985).“Second-order accurate explicit finite-difference schemes for water hammer analysis.” Journal of Fluids Engineering, 107, 523-529.
10. Sibetheros, L.A., Holley, E.R., and Branksi, J.M. (1991). “Spline interpolation for water hammer analysis.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 117(10),1332-1369.
11. Chaudhry, M.H. (1979). Applied hydraulic transient, Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
12. Programing nad Budget Organization. (2009). List of basic cost of water conveance system, Tehran. (In Persian)