Pressure Surge or Water Hammer effect in single liquid phase flow
Fundamentals of Pressure Surge
An important consideration in the design of single-liquid-phase pipelines is pressure surge, also known as water hammer. Typical surge events in a pipeline or piping system are generally caused by a pump shutdown or a valve closure. The kinetic energy of flow is converted to pressure energy. The velocity of the pressure wave propagation is determined by fluid and pipeline characteristics.
Typical propagation velocities range from 1100 ft/s for propane/butane pipelines to 3300 ft/s for crude oil pipelines and up to 4200 ft/s for heavy-wall steel water pipelines. A rough estimate of the total transient pressure in a pipeline/pipingsystem following a surge event can be obtained from the following equations:
Pressure Surge Analysis
Surge analysis should be performed during a project’s early design and planning phases. This analysis will help to ensure the achievement of an integrated and economical design. Surge analysis provides assurance that the selected pumps/compressors, drivers, control valves, sensors, and piping can function as an integrated system in accordance with a suitable control system philosophy. A surge analysis becomes mandatory when one repairs a ruptured pipeline/piping system to determine the source of the problem.
All long pipelines/piping systems designed for high flow velocities should be checked for possible surge pressures that could exceed the maximum allowable surge pressure (MASP) of the system piping or components. A long pipeline/piping system is defined as one that can experience significant changes in flow velocity within the critical period. By this definition, a long pipeline/piping system may be 1500 ft long or 800 miles long.
A steady-state design cannot properly reflect system operation during a surge event. On one project in which a loading hose at a tanker loading system in the North Sea normally operated at 25 to 50 psig, a motoroperated valve at the tanker manifold malfunctioned and closed during tanker loading. The loading hose, which had a pressure rating of 225 psig, ruptured. Surge pressure simulation showed that the hydraulic transient pressure exceeded 550 psig. Severe surge problems can be mitigated through the use of quick-acting relief valves, tanks, and gas-filled surge bottles, but these facilities are expensive single-purpose devices.
 R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, T.K. Sherwood, The Properties of Gases and Liquids, third ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.
 K.S. Pedersen, A. Fredenslund, P. Thomassen, Properties of Oils and Natural Gases, Gulf Publishing Company (1989).
 T.W. Leland, Phase Equilibria, Fluid, Properties in the Chemical Industry, DECHEMA, Frankfurt/Main, 1980. 283–333.
 G. Soave, Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redilich-Kwong Equation of State, Chem. Eng. Sci vol. 27 (1972) 1197–1203.
 D.Y. Peng, D.B. Robinson, A New Two-Constant Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. vol. 15 (1976) 59–64.
 G.A. Gregory, Viscosity of Heavy Oil/Condensate Blends, Technical Note, No. 6, Neotechnology Consultants Ltd, Calgary, Canada, 1985.
 G.A. Gregory, Pipeline Calculations for Foaming Crude Oils and Crude Oil-Water Emulsions, Technical Note No. 11, Neotechnology Consultants Ltd, Calgary, Canada, 1990.
 W. Woelflin, The Viscosity of Crude Oil Emulsions, in Drill and Production Practice,, American Petroleum Institute vol. 148 (1942) p247.
 E. Guth, R. Simha, Untersuchungen u¨ber die Viskosita¨t von Suspensionen und Lo¨sungen. 3. U¨ ber die Viskosita¨t von Kugelsuspensionen, Kolloid-Zeitschrift vol. 74 (1936) 266–275.
 H.V. Smith, K.E. Arnold, Crude Oil Emulsions, in Petroleum Engineering Handbook, in: H.B. Bradley (Ed.), third ed., Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, 1987.
 C.H. Whitson, M.R. Brule, Phase Behavior, Monograph 20, Henry, L. Doherty Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas, (2000).
 L.N. Mohinder (Ed.), Piping Handbook, seventh, ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999.
 L.F. Moody, Friction Factors for Pipe Flow, Trans, ASME vol. 66 (1944) 671–678.
 B.E. Larock, R.W. Jeppson, G.Z.Watters, Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999.
 Crane Company, Flow of Fluids through Valves, Fittings and Pipe, Technical Paper No. 410, 25th printing, (1991).
 J.P. Brill, H. Mukherjee, Multiphase Flow in Wells, Monograph vol. 17(1999), L. Henry, Doherty Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, Texas.
 H.D. Beggs, J.P. Brill, A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes,, Journal of Petroleum Technology vol. 25 (No. 5) (1973) 607–617.
 Y.M. Taitel, D. Barnea, A.E. Dukler, Modeling Flow Pattern Transitions for Steady Upward Gas-Liquid Flow in Vertical Tubes, AIChE Journal vol. 26 (1980) 245.
 PIPESIM Course, Information on Flow Correlations used within PIPESIM, (1997). 398 Y. Bai and Q. Bai
 H. Duns, N.C.J. Ros, Vertical Flow of Gas and Liquid Mixtures in Wells, Proc. 6th World Petroleum Congress, Section II, Paper 22-106, Frankfurt, 1963.
 J. Qrkifizewski, Predicting Two-Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipes, Journal of Petroleum Technology (1967) 829–838.
 A.R. Hagedom, K.E. Brown, Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical Conduits, Journal of Petroleum Technology (1965) 475–484.
 H. Mukherjce, J.P. Brill, Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-Phase Flow, Journal of Petroleum Technology (1983) 1003–1008.
 K.L. Aziz, G.W. Govier, M. Fogarasi, Pressure Drop in Wells Producing Oil and Gas, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology vol. 11 (1972) 38–48.
 K.H. Beniksen, D. Malnes, R. Moe, S. Nuland, The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application, SPE Production Engineering 6 (1991) 171–180. SPE 19451.
 A. Ansari, N.D. Sylvester, O. Shoham, J.P. Brill, A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Upward Two-Phase Flow in Wellbores, SPE 20630, SPE Annual Technical Conference, 1990.
 A.C. Baker, K. Nielsen, A. Gabb, Pressure Loss, Liquid-holdup Calculations Developed, Oil & Gas Journal vol. 86 (No 11) (1988) 55–59.
 O. Flanigan, Effect of Uphill Flow on Pressure Drop in Design of Two-Phase Gathering Systems, Oil & Gas Journal vol. 56 (1958) 132–141.
 E.A. Dukler, et al., Gas-Liquid Flow in Pipelines, I. Research Results, AGA-API Project NX-28 (1969).
 R.V.A. Oliemana, Two-Phase Flow in Gas-Transmission Pipeline, ASME paper 76- Pet-25, presented at Petroleum Division ASME Meeting, Mexico City, (1976).
 W.G. Gray, Vertical Flow Correlation Gas Wells API Manual 14BM (1978).
 J.J. Xiao, O. Shoham, J.P. Brill, A Comprehensive Mechanistic Model for Two-Phase Flow in Pipelines, SPE, (1990). SPE 20631.
 S.F. Fayed, L. Otten, Comparing Measured with Calculated Multiphase Flow Pressure Drop, Oil & Gas Journal vol. 6 (1983) 136–144.
 Feesa Ltd, Hydrodynamic Slug Size in Multiphase Flowlines, retrieved from http:// www. feesa.net/flowassurance.(2003).
 Scandpower, OLGA 2000, OLGA School, Level I, II.
 Deepstar, Flow Assurance Design Guideline, Deepstar IV Project, DSIV CTR 4203b–1, (2001).
 J.C. Wu, Benefits of Dynamic Simulation of Piping and Pipelines, Paragon Technotes (2001).
 G.A. Gregory, Erosional Velocity Limitations for Oil and Gas Wells, Technical Note No. 5, Neotechnology Consultants Ltd, Calgary, Canada, 1991.
 American Petroleum Institute, Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Platform Piping System, fifth edition,, API RP 14E, 1991.
 M.M. Salama, E.S. Venkatesh, Evaluation of API RP 14E Erosional Velocity Limitations for Offshore Gas Wells, OTC 4485 (1983). Hydraulics 399