Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Scientific Reports volume 15, Article number: 158 (2025 ) Cite this article Butterly Valve Stem
In the process of long-distance pressurized pipeline water transmission, in addition to the problem of water hammer hazards that can easily occur in the pipeline, the safety of the pipeline before the pump also presents hidden dangers. When excessive water hammer pressure occurs in the whole pipeline, it can easily lead to pipeline leakage or even pipe bursting. In this work, we analyze the pressure head in the pipeline of a long-distance pumping station using modeling calculations from KY PIPE software, combined with data from an actual water transmission project, to study the effect of stopping the pump water hammer. The use of two-phase check valves can effectively solve the problem of pump inversion when the pump water hammer stops, and the installation of an air valve and regulating tower can effectively reduce the pressure head of the pipeline. At the same time, the negative pressure in the pipeline can be eliminated, and the installation of a water hammer relief valve can effectively reduce the volume of the bladder surge tank by 77.5%. The results show that the use of joint protection equipment in a long-distance water transmission project has a better effect on the water hammer pressure in the pipeline. It is proposed that the joint protection equipment device can effectively reduce the volume of the surge tank. This provides reference significance for similar projects.
With respect to the characteristics of different projects, effective protective measures can be used to solve and prevent positive and negative pressure problems and potential hazards in pipelines, and common water hammer protection measures include check valves16, air valves17, surge tanks18, surge relief valves, and other different types of protective equipment. Check valves prevent backflow and avoid the harm of water pump reversal caused by pump shutdown. When the pressure inside the pipeline changes, the air valve can quickly release gas and suck in air to prevent the harm caused by pressure fluctuations. The surge tank and surge relief valve can effectively alleviate pressure fluctuations and water hammer phenomena through their functions of replenishing water and releasing pressure in pipelines. According to the needs of the actual project and the protection principles of different protective equipment, a reasonable selection of protective equipment for the hydraulic transition process in a water pipeline should be made. The protective effects of different types of protective equipment should be compared and analyzed using calculation results and combined with practical considerations to select effective, reasonable, and economical water hammer protection measures. Water hammer accidents have always been a safety hazard in water pipelines. It is also the focus of scholars’ research. Based on previous research, KY PIPE software adopts wave characteristic method, has advantages such as fast computing speed, at the same time, KY PIPE can provide accurate transient analysis results. Detailed information including pressure fluctuations, pump reversals, and water hammer effects. And it can optimize the selection of protective equipment. Therefore, this software was chosen for actual engineering simulation.
This work combines a long-distance pumping station water transmission project, which is based on transient flow theory, with the wave characteristic method using KY PIPE software. First, the pumping water hammer in the pumping station water transmission system is analyzed through numerical calculations of the hydraulic transition process without protective measures in place. Second, the results of the comparison and analysis are obtained through the calculation of the effects of installing check valves, air valves, regulating towers, and water discharge valves. The protective effects of different protection schemes and combined protection schemes should be clarified. By using KY PIPE software to calculate and analyze water hammer protection in practical engineering, not only has the accuracy of water hammer simulation been improved, but effective, reasonable, and economical water hammer protection schemes have also been determined for practical engineering, ultimately providing reference for similar projects.
The basic equations of a water hammer are the basis for transient flow analysis and research, and the equations of motion and continuity of a water hammer are a set of partial differential equations in hyperbolic form, reflecting the laws of pressure and flow velocity changes in unsteady water flow during the occurrence of the water hammer phenomenon1.
where x is the length along the pipeline; t is the time; H is the head of the pressure measuring pipe; f is the pipe friction coefficient; v is the flow velocity inside the pipe; α is the angle between the pipe and the horizontal plane; a is the propagation velocity of the water hammer wave; D is the inner diameter of the pipe; and g is the acceleration of gravity.
The wave characteristic method is based on the occurrence, propagation, and reflection of water-striking waves to calculate the transient pressure values at each node in different time intervals19, which has the advantages of clear and intuitive physical concepts and boundary conditions for easy computer programming. The piping system components are usually referred to as pumps and valves. Valves can be regarded as the resistance loss component of water flow, and pumps can be regarded as the active component that increases the energy of water flow. The computational model of both is shown in Fig. 1. In the figure, Q1 and Q2 and Q3 and Q4 are the volume flow rates from the component before and after the arrival of the water hammer wave; H1 and H2 are the initial head upstream and downstream of the component, respectively; D1 and D2 are the water hammer waves propagating from upstream and downstream to the component, respectively; D3 and D4 are the water hammer waves upstream and downstream of the component after D1 and D2 arrive at the component and interact with each other; and C1 and A1 and C2 and A2 are the water hammer wave velocities and cross-sectional areas of the pipeline at the two ends of the component. (Fig. 1).
Component conditions before and after the fluctuation.
For calculation purposes, the direction of flow to the component is usually set to be negative, and the direction of fluid flow from the component is set to be positive. This is based on the premise that there is no water column separation between the two ends of the component flow during the hydraulic transition of an accidental pump stop. When there is a water column separation phenomenon at one or both ends of the component, in the whole process of steam cavity formation, development, and collapse, the water flow no longer meets the continuity theorem and needs to be considered separately. Therefore, according to the continuity theorem, Q1 = -Q2 and Q3 = -Q4. By applying the basic transient flow equations to the water hammer waves propagating to and from the component, the following flow‒pressure relationship can be derived2:
Eq, \(F_{1} = C_{1}/gA_{1}\) , \(F_{2} = C_{2}/gA_{2}\) .
After the action of the water hammer wave, the upstream and downstream pressure heads of the component are as follows:
It is assumed that the flow through the valves and pumps as well as the head always satisfies the following relational equation:
where ΔH is the head difference (m) between the upstream and downstream of the component; A(t), B(t), and C(t) are the coefficients of the general characteristic equations of the component, which do not necessarily vary with time but are always known.
Therefore, after the propagation of the water hammer wave,
where A(t), B(t), and C(t) denote the component characteristic values during the action of the water hammer wave, which can vary with time.
Equations (5) and (6) are brought into Eq. (8) to obtain the following:
where \(M = A\left( t \right) + H_{1} + 2D_{1} - H_{2} - 2D_{2} + \left( {F_{1} + F_{2}} \right)Q_{i}\) .
The quadratic formula or iterative method can be used to solve Eq. (9), assuming that the approximate solution is Q0 = Qi; then, the exact solution of Q0 can be obtained after several recursive calculations. In addition, according to the continuity theorem, Q3 = -Q0 and Q4 = -Q0, and D3 and D4 and H3 and H4 can be found by associating Eqs. (3) and (4) and Eqs. (5) and (6), respectively.
A surge tank is one of the common water hammer protection measures in water conveyance systems. During the hydraulic transition process, if the pressure inside the pipeline is lower than the effective pressure inside the surge tank, the surge tank replenishes water to the pipeline, preventing the generation of negative pressure. A one-way surge tank is connected to the pipeline through a check valve, and this principle is used to effectively protect the negative pressure in the pipeline and prevent the water inside the pipe from flowing back into the surge tank. The mathematical models of surge tank are shown in (Fig. 2).
Mathematical model of surge tank.
The governing equations of the surge tank are as follows:
where Rs is the impedance hole water loss coefficient and As is the area of the surge tank.
An air valve is an essential protective device in pressurized pipelines and plays an important role in preventing pump cavitation, facilitating venting during pipeline pressurization, and allowing air inlets during pipeline drainage. The intake and exhaust effects of the air valve are affected mainly by the valve diameter and the intake and exhaust flow coefficients. The dynamic process of air valve intake and exhaust is a complex gas‒liquid two-phase transient process. At present, the numerical simulation of air valves still follows the mathematical model proposed by Wylie and Streeter, which is based on the following four basic assumptions: (1) It is believed that air flowing in and out of the air valve is entropic. (2) The air quality inside the pipe follows the isothermal law. Owing to the small air quality inside the pipe and the large surface area of the pipe and liquid, a large heat flux is provided, which makes the gas temperature close to the liquid temperature. (3) The air entering the pipe remains near the exhaust valve. (4) Due to the small volume of air compared with the volume of liquid in the pipeline, the height of the liquid surface inside the pipeline remains essentially unchanged.
The air mass flow rate through the valve depends on the absolute pressure p0 and absolute temperature T0 of the atmosphere outside the pipe, as well as the absolute pressure p and absolute temperature T inside the pipe. The air flow is divided into the following four situations:
1) When air flows in at subsonic speed (0.528 p0 < p < p0):
2) When air flows out at a critical velocity (p ≤ 0.528 p0):
3) When air flows out at subsonic speed (p0 < p < 1.894 p0):
4) When air flows out at a critical velocity (p ≥ 1.894 p0):
where Cin and Cout are the inlet and exhaust flow coefficients of the air valve; Ain and Aout are the open areas for the intake and exhaust of the air valve, m2; and R is the gas constant.
In the numerical simulation, the boundary conditions of the air valve are controlled by changing the diameter and flow coefficient of the air valve. Therefore, the reasonable selection of the valve diameter and inlet and exhaust flow coefficients is the key to numerical simulation.
The main function of the surge relief valve is to reduce or eliminate the impact caused by the water hammer pressure in the pipeline. It can automatically open and close according to changes in pressure inside the pipeline and is installed in locations where water hammer pressure hazards are greater, effectively ensuring the safety of the water transmission pipeline. The mathematical model of the surge relief valve is shown in (Fig. 3).
where Qp1, Qp2, and Qp3 are the flow rates upstream, downstream, and at the valve of the surge relief valve, respectively; and Hp1, Hp2, and Hp3 are the pressure heads at the upstream, downstream, and valve locations of the surge relief valve, respectively.
Mathematical model of the surge relief valve.
When the pipeline pressure Hp is less than the starting pressure Hx of the surge relief valve, Qp3 = 0; when the pipeline pressure exceeds the starting pressure of the surge relief valve, the inlet flow rate of the surge relief valve is as follows:
where Cd is the flow coefficient; AG is the opening area; and H0 is the external pressure of the pipeline.
In the Xinjiang water transmission project, a long-distance pumping station spans a length of 35 km and uses ductile iron pipes with a diameter of 1400 mm. The pipeline operates as a single line, with a flow rate of 1.73 m3/s, The elevation of the water intake is 473.0m,The outlet elevation is 564.8m, an intake-to-outlet height difference of -91.8 m. Therefore, two pumping units are selected, operating in a standby water transmission mode. The pumping station has parallel pumping units, each with an installed flow rate of Q installed = 1.73 m3 / s, a design head of H = 130 m, a rated flow of Q pump = 0.87 m3/s, a rated speed of N = 980 r/min, a pump efficiency of η = 0.84, a moment of inertia of J = 1943.2 N·m2, and a shaft power of P = 1800 Kw, as shown in pipeline system (detailed data can be found in Document A of the Supplementary Materials). The pipeline layout in the KY PIPE software is shown in Figs. 4,5 Pipeline layout in .
Sketch of the pipeline system.
Pipeline layout in KY PIPE software.
For normal water transmission in the pipeline, the centerline of the water pipeline and the steady-state condition pressure envelope are shown in Fig. 6 (detailed data can be found in Document B of the Supplementary Materials). A regulating valve is installed at 34 + 324.2 m, with the valve opening at 70%, such that the flow rate of the pipeline is 1.73 m3/s. (Fig. 6).
Centerline of the water pipeline and pressure envelope of the steady-state condition.
During steady-state operation, the maximum pressure water level of the whole line is 131.5 m, which meets the allowable bearing pressure value of 1.6 MPa for the pressure pipeline, and because of the influence of the resistance coefficient along the inner wall of the pipeline, the steady-state pressure envelope gradually decreases along the line. When the water pipeline suddenly stops pumping at the 5th second, the water hammer stops in the water pipeline. The total simulation length is 300 s, and the relevant parameters of the water pump (flow rate, pressure head, and rotational speed) change, as shown in (detailed data can be found in Document C of the Supplementary Materials) Fig. 7.
Changes in pump-related parameters when a pump-stopping water hammer occurs.
After the pump-stopping water hammer occurs, the pump unit speed is -1261.1 r/min at 136.8 s, and the domestic "Pumping Station Design Standards" (GB/T 50265-2022) require that when the pump suddenly stops, the reversal speed of the pump unit should not exceed 1.2 times the rated speed and the duration should not exceed 2 min20. At this time, the reversal speed of the pump unit is far beyond 1.2 times the rated speed, so the pump unit experiences serious safety hazards. The flow rate changes from 0.0 s after the pump stops to 0.868 m3/s in 164.0 s (-0.55 min), creating serious safety risks for the pump unit. Additionally, the flow rate changes to 1.2 times the rated rotational speed from 0.0 s after the pump stops to -0.55 min, which poses serious safety hazards to the pumping station unit. The flow rate decreases from 0.868 m3/s at 0.0 s after the pump stops to -0.559 m3/s at 164.0 s and then stabilizes at approximately -0.472 m3/s. The pump outlet pressure head initially drops from 131.5 m to 3.5 m at 31.6 s, and then because of the transfer of the water hammer wave, the final pressure head stabilizes at approximately -0.472 m3/s. After that, due to the influence of water hammer wave transmission, the final pressure head stabilizes at approximately 94.78 m. When the pump-stopping water hammer occurs, the hydraulic transitions in the pipeline calculation results are shown in (detailed data can be found in Document D of the Supplementary Materials) Fig. 8.
Calculation results of hydraulic transitions in the pipeline when a pump-stopping water hammer occurs.
When the pump-stopping water hammer occurs, the 0 + 0.0 ~ 6 + 445.0 section exceeds the maximum pressure value of the pipeline of 1.6 MPa. The maximum pressure before the pump is 186.6 m, posing a risk of pipe bursting. There is a negative pressure throughout the pipeline, and the pressure is -9.8 m, which indicates the occurrence of the breakthrough of the bridging water hammer and the separation of the water column, leading to the risk of pipeline deflation. According to the above hydraulic transition process calculations and analysis, in the water transmission project in the absence of protective equipment, when the pump-stopping water hammer suddenly occurs, there is a risk of pipe bursting and deflating. Therefore, it is crucial to implement safety measures, including water hammer protection equipment, for the project.
To solve the problem of the pump unit reversing too fast, six different check valves are designed, with total closing times of 15 s and 25 s, including the linear shut-off mode and two-stage quick-closing check valves. Compared with the optimal shut-off mode, the designs of different shut-off modes and hydraulic transition calculations are shown in Table 1.
Six different shut-off valve hydraulic transition calculation results are shown in Fig which, as shown in Fig(a) (detailed data can be found in Document E of the Supplementary Materials), differ in terms of shut-off valve pump unit speed. The six methods are able to effectively solve the problem of pump unit reversal, but at 25 s–45 s, the pump speeds change from 140 r/min to 70 r/min. The total shut-off valve length at 15 s is significantly better, with the minimum speed observed for Condition 2, as shown in Fig(b) Changes in the (detailed data can be found in Document F of the Supplementary Materials). The pump outlet flows of different shut-off valve modes change from 15 s–30 s. The pump outlet flow in the total shut-off valve length of 15 s under the condition of flow fluctuation is small, and the flow fluctuation of Condition 2 is minimal, as shown in Fig(c) Changes in the (detailed data can be found in Document G of the Supplementary Materials). The changes in pipeline pressure head for different shut-off valve modes are shown. After installing check valves, the overall pressure head in the 0 + 0.0 to 3 + 675.6 m section exceeds 1.6 MPa. Compared to the water hammer caused by pump stoppage, the maximum pressure before the pump increased by 9.17%, from 186.6 m to 247.4 m. Although the check valve can prevent the pump unit from reversing, it also introduces new issues, such as an extended positive pressure range along the pipeline and increased pump pressure. In the 7 + 250.0 m to 12 + 500.0 m section, the pressure head with a 15 s shut-off valve is lower than that with a 25 s shut-off valve. At the 12 + 583.5 m section, the pressure head of the 25 s linear shut-off valve mode is 213.6 m, while the pressure head of other shut-off valve modes is 204.2 m, a reduction of 4.40%. Therefore, the two-stage quick-closing check valve performs significantly better than the 25 s linear shut-off valve mode. (Fig. 9).
Calculation results of hydraulic transitions for different valve closing methods. (a) Changes in the speed of pumping units with different valve closure methods, (b) Changes in the pump outlet flow rate for different valve shut-off methods, (c) Changes in the pipeline pressure head for different valve closure methods.
In summary, considering the pump speed, pump outlet flow, and pressure head of the shut-off valve mode of Condition 2 (5 s fast shut-off; 80%), a two-stage quick-closing check valve can effectively solve the problem of pump unit reversal. However, it also increases the water hammer pressure in front of the valve and the pipeline. Therefore, other protective equipment needs to be installed in order to solve this problem.
According to the "Pumping Station Design Standards"20, it is required to set up a ventilation facility every 1000 m along the water pipeline. Based on the actual water pipeline, air valves are installed at local high points every 600–1000 m. The entire line has a total of 44 air valves installed, and the overall installation layout is shown in Fig. 10 (detailed data can be found in Document H of the Supplementary Materials). The air valves are two-stage waterproof hammer air valves, the inlet caliber is 200 mm, and the exhaust caliber is 5 mm. The performance of the air valve with a large aperture is used for supplying a large amount of air to the pipeline and for performing a large amount of exhaust when emptying the pipeline. The inlet can address the problem of water column separation in the water pipeline in time by supplying air. The exhaust port allows dissolved gas in the water valve of the pipeline to escape. The simulation of a 5 s pump-stopping water hammer is conducted in the pipeline hydraulic transition calculation, and the simulation results are shown in (detailed data can be found in Document I of the Supplementary Materials) Fig. 11.
Calculation results of the hydraulic transition of the pipeline after the installation of air valves.
After installation of the two-stage quick-closing air valve, the maximum pressure of water transmission decreases from 247.4 m to 193.6 m, effectively decreasing by 7.43%. However, in the 0 + 0.0 ~ 10 + 897.5 m section, the pipeline pressure is greater than 1.6 MPa. There is a risk of pipeline bursting. The maximum negative pressure of -9.5 m occurs at the 34 + 324.2 m section. Overall, the air valve in the pipeline gives positive and negative pressure protection, but other protective measures are still required.
To solve the issue that the pipeline pressure of the 0 + 0.0 ~ 10 + 897.5 m section is greater than 1.6 MPa, a bladder surge tank with a diameter of 4 m and a tower height of 20 m is installed in front of the pump at 0 + 723.6 m. At the end of the 31 + 732.8 m section of the pipeline, a one-way surge tank with a diameter of 4 m and a height of 7 m is installed to address the break in the flow of the bridging water hammer. The hydraulic transition calculation is shown in Fig. 12 Calculation results of the hydraulic transition process after mounting the surge tank (detailed data can be found in Document J of the Supplementary Materials).
Calculation results of the hydraulic transition process after mounting the surge tank.
The installation of a bladder pressure surge tank can effectively address the large positive pressure at the front end of the pump (0 + 723.6 m), effectively reducing the maximum pressure of the pipeline to 158.4 m. A one-way pressure surge tank is installed at the end of the pipeline, effectively addressing the water column separation that occurs, and the negative pressure is controlled at -4.0 m or less to meet the "Pumping Station Design Standards" (GB/T 50,265–2022). Thus, the sudden pump-stopping water hammer does not burst or deflate the pipeline. Although it can effectively address the problem of the pipeline pressure, at the same time, the different volume conditions of the pressure regulating tower installed at 0 + 723.6m in front of the water pump are shown in Table 2 Calculation results for surge tank under different operating conditions, and the calculation results are shown in Fig. 13 Calculation results of surge tank under different operating conditions. (detailed data can be found in Document K of the Supplementary Materials).
Calculation results of surge tank under different operating conditions.
It was found that the larger the volume of the surge tank. The better the water hammer pressure protection effect, the volume of the surge tank is too small to effectively protect the pressure of the pipeline safely. The installation of a 20 m high bladder surge tank is not conducive to the safety of the project; so it is recommended to install a surge relief valve in front of the pump.
To reduce the height of the bladder surge tank, two surge relief valves are installed at 0 + 8.5 m. The pressure before the pump reaches 1.53 MPa when the surge relief valve opens. The diameter and height of the bladder surge tank are set to 3 m and 8 m, respectively. The calculation results of the hydraulic transition process after installing the surge relief valve are shown in (detailed data can be found in Document L of the Supplementary Materials) Fig. 14.
Calculation results of the hydraulic transition process after installing the surge relief valve.
Through the analysis of Fig. 9, after the installation of the surge relief valve, the maximum pressure of the pipeline occurs at 3 + 133.3 m for 159.7 m, and the pressure head in the entire line does not the exceed 1.6 MPa. The negative pressure at the end of the pipeline is controlled within -4 m. The size of the bidirectional surge tank is reduced from a diameter of 4 m and tower height of 20 m to a diameter of 3 m and a tower height of 8 m. The substantial reduction in the height of the bidirectional surge tank reduces the volume by 77.5%, effectively saving costs. The calculation results are summarized in table 3 .
According to the calculation results, when no protective equipment is used, the water pump speed is -1261.1 r/min, which substantially exceeds the rated speed of the water pump by 1.2 times. After installing a check valve, the hazard of water pump reversal is effectively addressed, and the maximum pressure in the pipeline is increased. With the installation of an air valve and surge tanks, the pressure in the pipeline can be effectively controlled within 1.6 MPa; however, the volume of the bladder surge tank is 251.2 m3. After installing the surge relief valve, the volume of the bladder surge tank can be reduced to 56.52 m3 while ensuring the safe operation of the pipeline, resulting in a 77.5% decrease in the volume of the bladder surge tank.
For long-distance water transmission pipelines, the calculation of the hydraulic transition process is a research focus to ensure safe operation. In the process of pump station water transmission, a pump-shutdown water hammer is the most dangerous working condition, which can easily cause excessive pipeline pressure and lead to pipe bursting. To address this problem, a protection plan that combines multiple protective devices has been proposed. The "check valve + air valve + surge tank + surge relief valve" protection measure is rarely reported as the main water hammer protection measure in long-distance high-head water transmission projects. This study analyzes and compares the water hammer characteristics of long-distance pumping stations under five conditions: no protective measures, check valve, check valve + air valve, check valve + air valve + surge tank, and check valve + air valve + surge tank + surge relief valve. Without protective measures, the maximum pressure of the pipeline exceeds 1.6 MPa, and the minimum pressure reaches the vaporization pressure, which is consistent with the studies of Mohammad Hossein Aref10 and Yuan Tang14. The protection scheme of "check valve + air valve + surge tank" can effectively prevent the water hammer effect in the system; however, the height of the bladder surge tank is 20 m, and the diameter is 4 m. This not only increases the economic investment in building the surge tank but also brings significant challenges. After installing the surge relief valve while ensuring the safe operation of the water pipeline, the size of the bladder surge tank becomes 3 m in height and 8 m in diameter, which not only reduces the volume of the bladder surge tank by 77.5% but also reduces the economic investment.
This study presents a scheme for water hammer protection in long-distance pumping station water delivery projects, providing a reference method for similar projects. However, several limitations remain. This study focuses on a single pipeline, and if the pipeline conditions are complex, further calculations are needed to determine the water hammer protection scheme. The article only considers the protection of water transmission safety in pipelines from the perspective of protective equipment. Research can also be conducted on increasing the moment of inertia of the pump, using auxiliary equipment for energy supply, flexible pipes to reduce the wave speed, etc. There are limitations to whether the assumptions in the air valve model can be implemented in practical.
Water hammer analysis is an important task in the design of long distance pipelines. To address the risk of pump-stopping water hammer, a joint protection scheme that combines different types of protective equipment is proposed. Using the KY PIPE software, the hydraulic transition process is calculated and analyzed to ensure the safety of pipelines, which provides a valuable reference for the protection against water hammers in long-distance pumping station water transmission. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) As the project involves long-distance pumping water transmission and the height difference between the intake and outlet is large, when the pump-stopping water hammer occurs, not only are there safety hazards in the pipeline but also the reversal of the pumping unit cannot be ignored. A check valve can effectively solve the hazards associated with the reversal of the pumping unit.
(2) An air valve, i.e., a single piece of protective equipment, has a certain effect on the positive pressure wave and negative pressure wave of a water hammer; the maximum pressure of the pipeline can be reduced by 7.43%. Joint protective equipment (air valve and surge tank) can effectively reduce the pipeline pressure to within 1.6 MPa.
(3) The larger the volume of the surge tank. The better the water hammer pressure protection effect, the volume of the surge tank is too small to effectively protect the pressure of the pipeline safely.
(4) The setting of the surge tank can meet the specification design requirements. At the same time, for long-distance water transmission projects, the size of the surge tank is large, and a surge relief valve can be set up to effectively reduce the size of the bladder surge tank. As a result, the bladder surge tank volume is reduced by 77.5%, effectively reducing economic costs.
To provide reference and applicability for protective equipment in pump station water delivery and similar projects, and to offer a joint protection scheme. The use of surge relief valves can effectively reduce the volume of the surge tank, thus providing reference for similar pump station water delivery projects.
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
Wylie, E. B. & Streeter, V. L. Hydraulic Transients (McGraw-Hill International Book Co, 1967).
Wood, D. J. Waterhammer analysis-Essential and easy (and efficient). J. Environ. Eng. 131(8), 1123–1131. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2005)131:8(1123) (2005).
Article CAS MATH Google Scholar
Wan, W., Zhang, B. & Chen, X. Investigation on water hammer control of centrifugal pumps in water supply pipeline systems. Energies https://doi.org/10.3390/en12010108 (2018).
Marta, Ż, Natalia, M. & Wojciech, Ż. Numerical simulation of pneumatic throttle check valve using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-29457-4 (2023).
Article PubMed PubMed Central MATH Google Scholar
Sen, Xu., Xiaolong, Z. & Yuwu, T. “Water hammer protection measures and calculation analysis of reservoir water pipelines”. J. Phys.: Conf. Series https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2441/1/012049 (2023).
Balacco, G., Apollonio, C. & Piccinni, A. F. Experimental analysis of air valve behaviour during hydraulic transients. J. Appl. Water Eng. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249676.2015.1032374 (2015).
Balacco, G. & Laucelli, D. Improved air valve design using evolutionary polynomial regression. Water Supply https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2019.081 (2019).
Xiaozhou L& Tao W&Yanhe Z,. “Study on the factors influencing air valve protection against water hammer with column separation and rejoinder”, AQUA — Water Infrastructure. Ecosyst. Soc. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2022.165 (2022).
Kim, H., Hur, J. & Kim, S. The optimization of design parameters for surge relief valve for pipeline systems. AIP Con. Proc. https://doi.org/10.1063/14981974 (2017).
Hossein, A. & M& Mahnaz G H&Rasoul M,. Numerical modeling of water hammer in long water transmission pipeline. Appl. Water Sci. 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-021-01471-9 (2021).
Article ADS MATH Google Scholar
YiPeng Zhang&Meiqing Liu&Zhiyong Liu. Pump-stoppage-induced water hammer in a long-distance pipe: a case from the Yellow River in China. Water Supply 19(1), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2018.069 (2019).
Riasi A&Tazraei P,. Numerical analysis of the hydraulic transient response in the presence of surge tanks and relief valves. Renew. Energy. 107, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.01.046 (2017).
Bostan, M. & Amini, C. Developing multi-objective optimization model with conflicting goals to improve the surge protection devices design for water hammer. Scientia Iranica https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2022.59797.6443 (2022).
Tang, Y. et al. Analysis of the effectiveness of water hammer protection programs for complex long-distance and high-head water supply projects. Water 16(11), 1582–1605. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16111582 (2024).
Zhu, J., Song, X. & Zhang, K. Analysis of water hammer protection in the joint construction of large diameter water supply pipe and Zhuhai tunnel. Water Wastewater Eng. 49(S2), 370–374. https://doi.org/10.13789/j.cnki.wwe1964.2023.07.11.0007.[inChinese] (2023).
Carpintero, J., Martinez, B. & Fábregas, J. Hydraulic characterization of a check valve for low-pressure potable water distribution applications. Water. 15, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132475 (2023).
Xuyun, C. et al. Study on joint protection of air tank and air valve in long-distance water supply system. J. Pressure Vessel Technol. 144(6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4054209 (2022).
Jianxu, Z. et al. Experimental and simulation-based investigations on throttle’s head loss coefficients of a surge tank. Energy Sci. Eng. 8, 2722–2733. https://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.717 (2020).
Streeter, V. L. et al. Water-hammer analysis including fluid friction. Trans. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. 128, 1491–1524 (1963).
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, “Design standard for pumping stations, GBT50265–2022”, China Planning Press, Beijing, China, 2022.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Major Science and Technology Projects of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (Grant No. 2022A02003-4).
College of Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi, China
Zhen Zhou, Zhenwei Mu, Honghong Zhang, Mengqiang Zhang, Yuanhao Gu, Xiufu Shi & Baien Zhao
Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Security and Water Disasters Prevention, Urumqi, China
Zhen Zhou, Zhenwei Mu, Honghong Zhang, Mengqiang Zhang, Yuanhao Gu, Xiufu Shi & Baien Zhao
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
ZZ wrote the manuscript as a whole, and completed the conception, calculation, writing and analysis of the article;MZW funding acquisition and leading project administration;ZHH completed the manuscript check;ZMQ completed the software calculation;GYH is responsible for providing project resources;SXF is responsible for data integration and prepared figures,ZBE completed formal analysis.All authors reviewed the manuscript.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Zhou, Z., Mu, Z., Zhang, H. et al. Analysis and research on water hammer protection measures based on KY PIPE for long distance pumping station water transmission engineering with pump stoppage. Sci Rep 15, 158 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-83785-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-83785-7
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Scientific Reports (Sci Rep) ISSN 2045-2322 (online)
Lug Style Butterfly Valve Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.