AFT Impulse™

Verification Cases

AFT Impulse Version 10

Waterhammer Modeling in Piping Systems
Published: August 08, 2024

Dynamic solutions for a fluid world ™

-1-
Contents
Contents

AFT Impulse Verification Overview 6

Verification References 7
Verification Reference - Brown Cover Page 7
Verification Reference - Chaudhry Cover Page 8
Verification Reference - Kamemura Cover Page 10
Verification Reference - Kaplan Cover Page 10

Verification Reference - Karney Cover Page - Efficient Calculation... 11

Verification Reference - Karney Cover Page - Transient Analysis... 12
Verification Reference - Liou Cover Page 13
Verification Reference - Parmakian Cover Page 14
Verification Reference - Watters Cover Page 16
Verification Reference - Wylie Cover Page 17
Verification Methodology 19
Summary of Verification Models 20
Verification Case 1 20
Verification Case 1 Problem Statement 21
View Verification Case 1 Model 23

Verification Case 2 25
Verification Case 2 Problem Statement 27
View Verification Case 2 Model 29
Verification Case 3 30

Verification Case 3 Problem Statement 32

View Verification Case 3 Model 34
Verification Case 4 35

-2-
 Verification Case 4 Problem Statement 37
View Verification Case 4 Model 39
Verification Case 5 40
Verification Case 5 Problem Statement 41
View Verification Case 5 Model 42
Verification Case 6 43
Verification Case 6 Problem Statement 44
View Verification Case 6 Model 46

Verification Case 7 47
Verification Case 7 Problem Statement 48
View Verification Case 7 Model 50
Verification Case 8 51
Verification Case 8 Problem Statement 53
View Verification Case 8 Model 55
Verification Case 9 56
Verification Case 9 Problem Statement 58
View Verification Case 9 Model 61
Verification Case 10 62
Verification Case 10 Problem Statement 63

View Verification Case 10 Model 64

Verification Case 11 65
Verification Case 11 Problem Statement 67
View Verification Case 11 Model 69
Verification Case 12 70

Verification Case 12 Problem Statement 72

View Verification Case 12 Model 74

-3-
Verification Case 13 75
Verification Case 13 Problem Statement 76
View Verification Case 13 Model 78
Verification Case 14 79
Verification Case 14 Problem Statement 82
View Verification Case 14 Model 85
Verification Case 15 86
Verification Case 15 Problem Statement 90

View Verification Case 15 Model 93

Verification Case 16 94
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement 98
View Verification Case 16 Model 104
Verification Case 17 105
Verification Case 17 Problem Statement 109
View Verification Case 17 Model 111
Verification Case 18 112
Verification Case 18 Problem Statement 116
View Verification Case 18 Model 120
Verification Case 19 121

Verification Case 19 Problem Statement 126

View Verification Case 19 Model 129
Verification Case 20 130
Verification Case 20 Problem Statement 133
View Verification Case 20 Model 134

Verification Case 21 135

Verification Case 21 Problem Statement 137

-4-
 View Verification Case 21 Model 139
Verification Case 22 140
Verification Case 22 Problem Statement 142
View Verification Case 22 Model 144

-5-
AFT Impulse Verification Overview
There are a number of aspects to the verification process employed by Applied Flow Technology to
ensure that AFT Impulse provides accurate solutions to waterhammer and surge transient problems in
pipe flow systems. These are discussed in Verification Methodology. A listing of all of the verified models
is given in Summary of Verification Models. The verification models are taken from numerous Refer-
ences.

-6-
Verification References
1. Brown, R.J., Water-Column Separation at Two Pumping Plants, Journal of Basic Engineering,
1968
2. Chaudhry, M. Hanif, Ph.D., Applied Hydraulic Transients, 3rd Ed., 2014, Springer
3. Karney, Bryan W and McInnis, Duncan, Efficient Calculation of Transient flow in Simple Pipe Net-
works, 1992, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 7, No. 26648, July
4. Karney, Bryan W and McInnis, Duncan, Transient Analysis of Water Distribution Systems, Journal
AWWA, July 1990, pp. 62-70
5. Kamemura, Toshihiko, et. al., Fluid Transients in Pipeline, 1988, Nippon Kokan Technical Report
Overseas, No. 52, pp. 42-49
6. Kaplan M., Streeter V., and Wylie E.B., Oil Pipeline Transients, The University of Michigan,
Industry Program of the College of Engineering, August 1966, IP-743
7. Liou, Jim C. P., Understanding Line Packing in Frictional Water Hammer, ASME, Journal of Fluids
Engineering, August 2016, Vol. 138
8. Parmakian, John, Waterhammer Analysis, Dover Publishing, 1963
9. Watters, Gary Z., PE, Modern analysis and Control of Unsteady Flow in Pipelines, 1979, Ann
Arbor Science
10. Wylie, E. Benjamin, Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall

Verification Reference - Brown Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

-7-
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Chaudhry Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

-8-
Verification References

-9-
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Kamemura Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

Verification Reference - Kaplan Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

- 10 -
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Karney Cover Page - Efficient Calculation...

List of All Verification Models

- 11 -
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Karney Cover Page - Transient Analysis...

List of All Verification Models

- 12 -
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Liou Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

- 13 -
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Parmakian Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

- 14 -
Verification References

- 15 -
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Watters Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

- 16 -
 Verification References

Verification Reference - Wylie Cover Page

List of All Verification Models

- 17 -
Verification References

- 18 -
Verification Methodology
The AFT Impulse software is a waterhammer and surge transient analysis product intended for use by
trained engineers. As a technical software package, issues of quality and reliability of the technical data
generated by the software are important. The following description summarizes the steps taken by
Applied Flow Technology to ensure the high quality of the technical data.

1. Comparisons with open literature examples

Numerous examples of waterhammer and surge transient analysis in pipe flow systems are available in
the open literature which include published results. AFT Impulse results have been compared against
many open literature systems. AFT Impulse predictions compare favorably in all cases.

2. Transient solver checks for artificial transient to ensure true steady initial
conditions

Before running the transient solution, AFT Impulse always runs the transient solver for a single time step
with no transient boundary conditions in effect. It then compares the initial conditions to the single step
calculation to see if significant differences exist. If so, a warning is generated.

3. Steady-state and transient solution at time zero are self checking

AFT Impulse has two Solvers – one for the steady-state and one for the transient. They use two entirely
different solution algorithms. First the steady-state state solver is run, and then the results are used to ini-
tialize the transient solver. Before the transient solver is actually run, a sanity check is performed (as dis-
cussed in Item 2 above). If the two solvers disagree, a warning is generated. Thus is if there were
fundamental calculation errors in either method then an artificial transient would be generated and the
user warned. This does not ensure all transient calculations afterwards are correct, but does ensure that
the fundamental transient equations are being properly represented.

- 19 -
Summary of Verification Models
Comparison of AFT Impulse predictions to the published calculation results is included herein for twenty-
two cases from ten sources.
Below is a summary of the cases:

Case Fluid Pipes Pumps Reference

Case 1 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 2 Water 2 0 Wylie

Case 3 Water 2 1 Chaudhry

Case 4 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 5 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 6 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 7 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 8 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 9 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 10 Water 1 0 Wylie

Case 11 Water 8 0 Karney (1992)

Case 12 Water 8 0 Karney (1992)

Case 13 Water 2 1 Watters

Case 14 Water 2 1 Wylie

Case 15 Water 5 0 Kamemura

Case 16 S.G. 1.155 1 1 Parmakian

Case 17 Water 3 1 Watters

Case 18 Water 1 0 Chaudhry

Case 19 Oil 1 0 Kaplan

Case 20 Water 2 0 Karney (1990)

Case 21 Water 7 0 Karney (1990)

Case 22 Oil 2 0 Liou

Verification Case 1
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse

- 20 -
 Summary of Verification Models

TITLE:ImpVerify1.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 46, Example 3.1
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

DISCUSSION:
The results from AFT Impulse are compared to a simulation run by Wiley. Full details of the problem state-
ment can be seen by clicking the link above. Close agreement can be observed in the results.
List of All Verification Models

Verification Case 1 Problem Statement

Verification Case 1
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 46,
Example 3.1
Wylie's Title Page

- 21 -
Summary of Verification Models

- 22 -
 Summary of Verification Models

View Verification Case 1 Model

Verification Case 1

- 23 -
Summary of Verification Models

- 24 -
Verification Case 2
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify2.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 121
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

- 25 -
 Verification Case 2

DISCUSSION:
A long pipeline is modeled using two methods, one where the full length of the pipe is modeled, and one
where two sections of the pipe are modeled with the infinite pipe method applied. It can be seen in the
two graphs above that similar to Wylie, AFT Impulse gives nearly identical results for the pipe with each
of the methods applied. As noted by Wylie, the infinite pipe feature can only be used up to the time when
a reflection would return from the end of the pipeline.
List of All Verification Models

- 26 -
Verification Case 2 Problem Statement
Verification Case 2
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 121
Wylie Title Page

- 27 -
Verification Case 2 Problem Statement

- 28 -
View Verification Case 2 Model
Verification Case 2

- 29 -
Verification Case 3
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE:ImpVerify3.imp
REFERENCE: M. H. Chaudhry, Applied Hydraulic Transients, 3rd ed. Springer, pp. 131, 535-543.
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

- 30 -
 Verification Case 3

DISCUSSION:
The results from AFT Impulse are compared to a simulation run by Chaudhry. Full details of the problem
statement can be seen by clicking the link above. Close agreement can be observed in the results.
List of All Verification Models

- 31 -
Verification Case 3 Problem Statement
Verification Case 3
M. H. Chaudhry, Applied Hydraulic Transients, 3rd ed. Springer, pp. 131, 535-543.
Chaudhry Title Page

- 32 -
Verification Case 3 Problem Statement

- 33 -
View Verification Case 3 Model
Verification Case 3

- 34 -
Verification Case 4
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify4.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 195, Example 8-5
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Valve is described as “fast closing”. Closing profile is not specified. Impulse model
assumes instantaneous closure.
RESULTS:

- 35 -
 Verification Case 4

DISCUSSION:
This experiment was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common
with cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude
of prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 36 -
Verification Case 4 Problem Statement
Verification Case 4
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 195
Wylie Title Page

- 37 -
Verification Case 4 Problem Statement

- 38 -
View Verification Case 4 Model
Verification Case 4

- 39 -
Verification Case 5
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify5.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 202, Example 8-6
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

DISCUSSION:
This example was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common with
cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude of
prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 40 -
Verification Case 5 Problem Statement
Verification Case 5
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 202,
Example 8-6
Wylie Title Page

- 41 -
View Verification Case 5 Model
Verification Case 5

- 42 -
Verification Case 6
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify6.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 202, Example 8-7
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

DISCUSSION:
This example was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common with
cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude of
prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 43 -
Verification Case 6 Problem Statement
Verification Case 6
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 202,
Example 8-7
Wylie Title Page

- 44 -
Verification Case 6 Problem Statement

- 45 -
View Verification Case 6 Model
Verification Case 6

- 46 -
Verification Case 7
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify7.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 202, Example 8-8
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

DISCUSSION:
This example was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common with
cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude of
prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 47 -
Verification Case 7 Problem Statement
Verification Case 7
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 202,
Example 8-8
Wylie Title Page

- 48 -
Verification Case 7 Problem Statement

- 49 -
View Verification Case 7 Model
Verification Case 7

- 50 -
Verification Case 8
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify8.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 204
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: The problem statement from Wylie does not specify the valve closing transient. It says
merely that “most” of the flow reduction occurs in the first 16 ms, and that the valve fully closes after 39
ms. It was therefore estimated that “most” means that the valve closes linearly to 3% open over 16 ms,
and then linearly to fully closed at 39 ms.
RESULTS:

- 51 -
 Verification Case 8

DISCUSSION:
This experiment was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common
with cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude
of prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 52 -
Verification Case 8 Problem Statement
Verification Case 8
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 204
Wylie Title Page

- 53 -
Verification Case 8 Problem Statement

- 54 -
View Verification Case 8 Model
Verification Case 8

- 55 -
Verification Case 9
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify9.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 205, Example 8-10
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Downstream pressure constant at 64 kPa. Problem statement is merely that the down-
stream pressure is fixed, but the actual value is not given. To achieve the given flowrate of 0.0158
m3/sec, a pressure of 64 kPa is required. Unfortunately, the initial HGL at the specified locations of 30
and 10 meters was not able to be matched. Thus the Impulse results shown below are likely off in the ver-
tical direction to some degree. Nevertheless, Impulse predictions follow the major trends quite well.
RESULTS:

- 56 -
 Verification Case 9

DISCUSSION:
This experiment was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common
with cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude
of prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 57 -
Verification Case 9 Problem Statement
Verification Case 9
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 205,
Example 8-10
Wylie Title Page

- 58 -
Verification Case 9 Problem Statement

- 59 -
Verification Case 9 Problem Statement

- 60 -
View Verification Case 9 Model
Verification Case 9

- 61 -
Verification Case 10
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify10.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 69, DVC Model Case
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

DISCUSSION:
This experiment was designed to cause transient cavitation, and the flow does cavitate. As is common
with cavitation modeling the timing of pressure spikes is marginal, but the major features and magnitude
of prominent spikes is represented.
List of All Verification Models

- 62 -
Verification Case 10 Problem Statement
Verification Case 10
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 69, DVC
Model Case
Wylie Title Page

- 63 -
View Verification Case 10 Model
Verification Case 10

- 64 -
Verification Case 11
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify11.imp
REFERENCE: Efficient Calculation of Transient flow in Simple Pipe Networks, 1992, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 7, No. 26648, July, Karney, Bryan W. and McInnis, Duncan, pp.
1022-1030
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Karney uses a relief valve connected to 3 pipes which discharges to atmosphere. AFT
Impulse does not support a relief valve with this configuration. Thus an additional pipe (called P8) is used
and made as short as possible without increasing pipe sectioning. The valve at J6 is then located at the
end of pipe P8, and is modeled with an event transient to simulate Karney’s relief valve.
RESULTS:

- 65 -
 Verification Case 11

DISCUSSION:
This model represents the solution for how a network responds to changes in a control valve. Differences
between the published results and results from AFT Impulse may be attributed to the differences in how
the relief valve is modeled in AFT Impulse, as is discussed in the assumptions above.
List of All Verification Models

- 66 -
Verification Case 11 Problem Statement
Verification Case 11
Efficient Calculation of Transient flow in Simple Pipe Networks, 1992, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. 118, No. 7, No. 26648, July, Karney, Bryan W. and McInnis, Duncan, pp. 1022-1030
Karney Title Page

- 67 -
Verification Case 11 Problem Statement

- 68 -
View Verification Case 11 Model
Verification Case 11

- 69 -
Verification Case 12
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify12.imp
REFERENCE: Efficient Calculation of Transient flow in Simple Pipe Networks, 1992, Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 7, No. 26648, July, Karney, Bryan W. and McInnis, Duncan, pp.
1022-1030
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Karney uses a relief valve connected to 3 pipes which discharges to atmosphere. AFT
Impulse does not support a relief valve with this configuration. Thus an additional pipe (called P8) is used
and made as short as possible without increasing pipe sectioning. The relief valve at J6 is then located at
the end of pipe P8.
RESULTS:

- 70 -
 Verification Case 12

DISCUSSION:
This model represents the solution for how a network responds to changes in a control valve. Differences
between the published results and results from AFT Impulse may be attributed to the differences in how
the relief valve is modeled in AFT Impulse, as is discussed in the assumptions above.
List of All Verification Models

- 71 -
Verification Case 12 Problem Statement
Verification Case 12
Efficient Calculation of Transient flow in Simple Pipe Networks, 1992, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. 118, No. 7, No. 26648, July, Karney, Bryan W. and McInnis, Duncan, pp. 1022-1030
Karney Title Page

- 72 -
Verification Case 12 Problem Statement

- 73 -
View Verification Case 12 Model
Verification Case 12

- 74 -
Verification Case 13
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify13.imp
REFERENCE: Modern Analysis and Control of Unsteady Flow in Pipelines, 1979, Ann Arbor Science,
Watters, Gary Z., PE, Page 181, Ex. 7-2
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

DISCUSSION:
The AFT Impulse model is built with one pump junction that represents four identical pumps operating in
parallel which are simultaneously tripped in order to replicate the problem statement in Watters.
List of All Verification Models

- 75 -
Verification Case 13 Problem Statement
Verification Case 13
Modern Analysis and Control of Unsteady Flow in Pipelines, 1979, Ann Arbor Science, Watters, Gary Z.,
PE, Page 181, Ex. 7-2
Watters Title Page

- 76 -
Verification Case 13 Problem Statement

- 77 -
View Verification Case 13 Model
Verification Case 13

- 78 -
Verification Case 14
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify14.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter,
Page 153, Ex. 7-1
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Wylie’s method includes a combined discharge valve and pump four quadrant ele-
ment. AFT Impulse does not support this combined element – the pump and valve must be modeled as
separate elements. Thus the AFT Impulse model places the valve at the equivalent of one computing sta-
tion downstream of the pump which is 72 feet. The total pipe length between pipes 1 and 2 is 1440 feet,
the same as Wylie.
Because of this, the appropriate location to compare transient head and flow is the inlet of pipe 2, which
represents the valve discharge. This data is shown below.
RESULTS:

- 79 -
 Verification Case 14

DISCUSSION:
The results in Wylie are based on a computer program in Appendix D which assumes that once the flow
goes to zero at the pump discharge (this occurs when the valve closes at about 9.5 seconds) then the
pump speed stays constant at whatever value it has at that time. This is not a completely valid assump-
tion, and AFT Impulse does not assume this. Thus the pump speeds do not agree as well after this time.
The HGL prediction is not impacted because it is downstream of the valve which, once closed, the pump
speed can no longer impact.

- 80 -
 Verification Case 14

List of All Verification Models

- 81 -
Verification Case 14 Problem Statement
Verification Case 14
Fluid Transients in Systems, 1993, Prentice-Hall, E. Benjamin Wylie, Victor L. Streeter, Page 153, Ex. 7-
1.
Wylie Title Page

- 82 -
Verification Case 14 Problem Statement

- 83 -
Verification Case 14 Problem Statement

- 84 -
View Verification Case 14 Model
Verification Case 14

- 85 -
Verification Case 15
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify15.imp
REFERENCE: Fluid Transients in Pipeline, 1988, Nippon Kokan Technical Report, Overseas No. 52,
Toshihiko Kamemura, et. al., Page 48, Case B.
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

- 86 -
Verification Case 15

- 87 -
 Verification Case 15

DISCUSSION:
All of the results from Impulse were compared to the measured results plotted in figures 13-17 found in
the reference. This was accomplished by scanning the figures, and using digitization software to obtain
values for the plotted results.
Figures 13-15 in the reference plot the results as Absolute Pressure Head, whereas Impulse plots pres-
sure head as the Hydraulic Gradeline, which is a relative pressure. In the case of Figure 14, the results

- 88 -
 Verification Case 15

for Hydraulic Gradeline plotted from Impulse had to be adjusted by 4.56 m to match the absolute pres-
sure head due to the change in pipe elevation at x = 40m.

List of All Verification Models

- 89 -
Verification Case 15 Problem Statement
Verification Case 15
Fluid Transients in Pipeline, 1988, Nippon Kokan Technical Report, Overseas No. 52, Toshihiko
Kamemura, et. al., Page 48, Case B.
Kamemura Title Page

- 90 -
Verification Case 15 Problem Statement

- 91 -
Verification Case 15 Problem Statement

- 92 -
View Verification Case 15 Model
Verification Case 15

- 93 -
Verification Case 16
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify16.imp
REFERENCE:Waterhammer Analysis, John Parmakian, Dover Publishing, 1963, Page 75 - 86.
FLUID: Unspecifed. Specific gravity is 1.155. Viscosity is not relevant because friction factors are
assumed. Liquid bulk modulus is not relevant because all wavespeeds are specified.
ASSUMPTIONS: Parmakian assumes the pipes are frictionless. The Impulse model assumes the friction
factors are very small (0.001). The specific speed of the example pumps was 0.79 (2160 gpm units). The
four quadrant data set from Kittredge of 0.71 (1935 gpm units) was assumed. Neglect cavitation.
From Parmakian’s Figure 56 on page 86, it was estimated that the pump discharge elevation was 36 feet
and that the pipe traveled horizontally for 1000 feet before rising to the discharge reservoir. It was also
estimated that the pipe entered the discharge reservoir at 200 feet.
RESULTS:

- 94 -
Verification Case 16

- 95 -
 Verification Case 16

DISCUSSION:
Parmakian obtained these results using graphical waterhammer methods.
The specific speed of the example pumps was 0.79 (2160 gpm units). AFT Impulse has a data set from
Thorley for exactly this specific speed. But agreement with the predictions was marginal and is not
shown. The next closest specific speed of 0.71 (1935 gpm units) gave very good agreement and is
shown above. The classic data from Donsky for specific speed of 0.46 (1270 gpm units) was also ran and
gave good agreement (but is not shown).

- 96 -
 Verification Case 16

List of All Verification Models

- 97 -
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement
Verification Case 16
Waterhammer Analysis, John Parmakian, Dover Publishing, 1963, Page 75 - 86.

- 98 -
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement

- 99 -
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement

- 100 -
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement

- 101 -
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement

- 102 -
Verification Case 16 Problem Statement

- 103 -
View Verification Case 16 Model
Verification Case 16

- 104 -
Verification Case 17
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify17.imp
REFERENCE: Watters, G.Z., Modern Analysis and Control of Unsteady Flow in Pipelines, Ann Arbor
Science Publishers Inc. pp. 170-173, Example 7-1
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Transient cavitation turned off
RESULTS:

- 105 -
Verification Case 17

- 106 -
Verification Case 17

- 107 -
 Verification Case 17

DISCUSSION:
Column separation would occur after 5.19 seconds and Watter's model did not account for this so he
stopped his model at this point. AFT Impulse can model column separation, but for the purposes of this
verification the cavitation capabilities are turned off in the AFT Impulse model. This will result in the warn-
ing saying system pressure has gone below vapor pressure.
List of All Verification Models

- 108 -
Verification Case 17 Problem Statement
Verification Case 17
Watters, G.Z., Modern Analysis and Control of Unsteady Flow in Pipelines, Ann Arbor Science Pub-
lishers Inc. pp. 170-173, Example 7-1
Watters Title Page

- 109 -
Verification Case 17 Problem Statement

- 110 -
View Verification Case 17 Model
Verification Case 17

- 111 -
Verification Case 18
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify18.imp
REFERENCE: M. H. Chaudhry, Applied Hydraulic Transients, 3rd ed. Springer, pp. 102-104, 527-533.
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

- 112 -
Verification Case 18

- 113 -
Verification Case 18

- 114 -
 Verification Case 18

DISCUSSION:
No explicit Cv value is given for the valve, but a head loss at a given flow was provided and a full open Cv
of 1716 was calculated. The given valve closure curve was then curve fit to the 4th order and then the
max Cv of 1716 was applied to this curve to generate the closing profile used by Impulse.
List of All Verification Models

- 115 -
Verification Case 18 Problem Statement
Verification Case 18
M. H. Chaudhry, Applied Hydraulic Transients, 3rd ed. Springer, pp. 102-104, 527-533.
Chaudhry Title Page

- 116 -
Verification Case 18 Problem Statement

- 117 -
Verification Case 18 Problem Statement

- 118 -
Verification Case 18 Problem Statement

- 119 -
View Verification Case 18 Model
Verification Case 18

- 120 -
Verification Case 19
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify19.imp
REFERENCE: Kaplan M., Streeter V., and Wylie E.B., Oil Pipeline Transients, The University of
Michigan, Industry Program of the College of Engineering, August 1966, IP-743, Long Pipeline.
FLUID: Oil
ASSUMPTIONS: Fluid properties where assumed for crude oil.
RESULTS:

- 121 -
Verification Case 19

- 122 -
Verification Case 19

- 123 -
Verification Case 19

- 124 -
 Verification Case 19

DISCUSSION:
This example demonstrates line pack as the result of closing a valve at the end of a long pipeline.
List of All Verification Models

- 125 -
Verification Case 19 Problem Statement
Verification Case 19
Kaplan M., Streeter V., and Wylie E.B., Oil Pipeline Transients, The University of Michigan, Industry Pro-
gram of the College of Engineering, August 1966, IP-743, Long Pipeline.
Kaplan Title Page

- 126 -
Verification Case 19 Problem Statement

- 127 -
Verification Case 19 Problem Statement

- 128 -
View Verification Case 19 Model
Verification Case 19

- 129 -
Verification Case 20
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify20.imp
REFERENCE: Karney, Bryan W and McInnis, Duncan, Transient Analysis of Water Distribution Sys-
tems, Journal AWWA, July 1990, pp. 62-70, Figures 2 and 3
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: N/A
RESULTS:

- 130 -
Verification Case 20

- 131 -
 Verification Case 20

DISCUSSION:
The valve Cv is not given, but was calculated based on flow and pressure drop.
List of All Verification Models

- 132 -
Verification Case 20 Problem Statement
Verification Case 20
Karney, Bryan W and McInnis, Duncan, Transient Analysis of Water Distribution Systems, Journal
AWWA, July 1990, pp. 62-70, Figures 2 and 3
Karney Title Page

- 133 -
View Verification Case 20 Model
Verification Case 20

- 134 -
Verification Case 21
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify21.imp
REFERENCE: Karney, Bryan W and McInnis, Duncan, Transient Analysis of Water Distribution Sys-
tems, Journal AWWA, July 1990, pp. 62-70, Figures 5 - 7
FLUID: Water
ASSUMPTIONS: Valve Cv is unknown, but calculated based on flow and pressure drop.
RESULTS:

- 135 -
 Verification Case 21

DISCUSSION:
Karney uses very few sections, using fewer in AFT Impulse will result in more similar results to Karney,
but using more sections is required to get a better description of the square wave behavior that results
from an instantaneous closure.
List of All Verification Models

- 136 -
Verification Case 21 Problem Statement
Verification Case 21
Karney, Bryan W and McInnis, Duncan, Transient Analysis of Water Distribution Systems, Journal
AWWA, July 1990, pp. 62-70, Figures 5 - 7
Karney Title Page

- 137 -
Verification Case 21 Problem Statement

- 138 -
View Verification Case 21 Model
Verification Case 21

- 139 -
Verification Case 22
View Model Problem Statement
PRODUCT: AFT Impulse
TITLE: ImpVerify22.imp
REFERENCE: Liou, Jim C. P., Understanding Line Packing in Frictional Water Hammer, ASME, Journal
of Fluids Engineering, August 2016, Vol. 138, Application Example
FLUID: Oil
ASSUMPTIONS: Closure is started at 20 seconds in both cases. Liou states valve Cv vs. time is known,
but no curve is provided. It is assumed the valves close linearly over 60 or 180 seconds.
RESULTS:

- 140 -
 Verification Case 22

DISCUSSION:
Liou states "Since the valve head loss is negligible relative to the pipe frictional head loss, the effective
valve closure time is much shorter than the physical closure times. Therefore, an instantaneous closure
of this valve can be assumed". This is essentially correct as an instantaneous closure results in essen-
tially the same maximum head as the longer closure profiles. This is typically true for long pipelines with
long communication times and insignificant valve head loss. Cv profiles should not be considered neg-
ligible if the closure time is greater than communication time or if the valve has significant head loss com-
pared to pipe friction (major losses).
List of All Verification Models

- 141 -
Verification Case 22 Problem Statement
Verification Case 22
Liou, Jim C. P., Understanding Line Packing in Frictional Water Hammer, ASME, Journal of Fluids Engin-
eering, August 2016, Vol. 138, Application Example
Liou Title Page

- 142 -
Verification Case 22 Problem Statement

- 143 -
View Verification Case 22 Model
Verification Case 22

- 144 -