Water Resources Management

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 569–590 | Cite as

Optimal Size and Placement of Water Hammer Protective Devices in Water Conveyance Pipelines

  • J. YazdiEmail author
  • A. Hokmabadi
  • M. R. JaliliGhazizadeh


Positive and negative pressure waves caused by water hammer possibly may lead to high damages to the water conveyance pipelines. To decrease the negative effects of pressure waves, costly equipment are implemented in pipelines. An economic design of these devices that also provides the safety of the pipeline against water hammer pressure waves and cavitation can be achieved by simulation and optimization tools. In this paper, the simulation task was carried out by meta modeling. The accuracy of three meta models: artificial neural network (ANN), support vector regression (SVR) and adaptive neuro-fussy inference system (ANFIS) was evaluated. According to the results, SVR was identified as the inferior method due to low capability of generalization, ANFIS as the median, and ANN as the superior method for function approximation. Then, ANN was coupled with an evolutionary algorithm (EA), Differential Evolution (DE) to find the optimal size and location of water hammer control devices in a water pipeline. Optimization was carried out on two single- and multi-objective approaches. The results showed that multi-objective optimization approach presents better designs than the single objective approach and optimal designs obtained by both approaches outperform the current setup of the water hammer facilities in terms of both costs and functionality. The single objective-based design could decrease the costs up to 12.5% whereas multi-objective approach was able to reach nearly 30% cost saving with higher level of the safety against cavitation. Results also showed that air chamber is the most effective device and air-valves have little effect for pipeline protection against water hammer.


Water hammer Optimization Surge tank DE ANN SVR ANFIS 



The authors would like to express their gratitude and thanks to Mr. Mahdi Noori who provide the initial data for the case study. His effort is highly acknowledged.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest.


  1. Andrade MA, Choi CY, Lansey K, Jung D (2016) Enhanced artificial neural networks estimating water quality constraints for the optimal water distribution systems design. J Water Resour Plan Manag 142(9)Google Scholar
  2. Azhary Moghaddam M (2004) Analysis and design of simple surge tank. Int J Eng 17:339–345Google Scholar
  3. Bayat B, Mousavi SJ, Namin MM (2011) Optimization–simulation for short-term reservoir operation under flooding conditions. J Water Supply Res Technol AQUA 60(7):434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behzadian K, Kapelan Z, Savic D, Ardeshir A (2009) Stochastic sampling design using a multi-objective genetic algorithm and adaptive neural networks. Environ Model Softw 24(4):530–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broad DR, Maier HR, Dandy GC (2010) Optimal operation of complex water distribution systems using metamodels. J Water Resour Plan Manag 136(4):433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortes C, Vapnik V (1995) Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273–297Google Scholar
  7. Fathi moghaddam M, Haghighipour S, Mohammad Vali Samani H (2013) Design- variable optimization of hydropower tunnels and surge tank using a genetic Algoritm. J Water Resour Plan Manag 139(2):200–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) (1989) multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2(5):359–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iphar M (2012) ANN and ANFIS performance prediction models for hydraulic impact hammers. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 27(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jung BS, Karney BW (2003). Optimum selection of hydraulic devices for water hammer control in the pipeline system using Genetic Algoritm, 4th joint Fluids summer engineering conference. Honolulu, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  11. Jung BS, Karney BW (2006) Hydraulic optimization of transient protection device using GA and PSO approaches. J Water Resour Plan Manag 132(1):44–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jung BS, Muleta M, Boulos PF (2009) Multi-objective design of transient network models. World environmental and water resources congress, Kansas CityCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jung BS, Boulos PF, Altman T (2011) Optimal transient network design a multi- objective approach. Am Water Works Assoc J 103(4):118–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kendir TE, Ozdamar A (2013) Numerical and experimental investigation of optimum surge tank forms in hydroelectric power plants. Renew Energy 60(2013):323e331Google Scholar
  15. Kim SG, LEE KB, KIM KY (2015) Water hammer in the pump- rising pipeline system with an air chamber. J Hydrodyn 26(6):960–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leshno M, Lin VY, Pinkus A, Schocken S (1993) Multilayer feedforward networks with a non-polynomial activation function can approximate any function. Neural Netw 6(6):861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mirfendereski G, Mousavi SJ (2011) Comparition of support vector machines and response surface models in meta-modeling applied in basin-scale optimum water allocation. 19th international congress on modelling and simulation, PerthGoogle Scholar
  18. Mo S, Lu D, Shi X, Zhang G, Ye M, Wu J, Wu J (2017) A Taylor expansion-based adaptive design strategy for global surrogate modeling with applications in groundwater modeling. Water Resour Res 53(12):10802–10823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramadan A, Mustafa H (2013) Surge tank design consideration for controlling water hammer at hydro-electric power plants. Univ Bull 3(15):147–160Google Scholar
  20. Schölkopf B, Smola AJ (2002) Learning with kernels, support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Shaw AR, Sawyer HS, LeBoeuf EJ, McDonald MP, Hadjerioua B (2017) Hydropower optimization using artificial neural network surrogate models of a high-Fidelity hydrodynamics and water quality model. Water Resour Res 53(11):9444–9461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skulovich O, Perelman L, Ostfeld A (2014) Modeling and optimizing hydraulic transients in water distribution systems. Procedia Eng 70:1558–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sun Q, Wu YB, Xu Y, Jang TU (2015) Optimal sizing of an air vessel in a long-distance water-supply pumping system using the SQP method. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 7(3).
  24. Timani B, Peralta R (2017) Aggregated surrogate simulator for groundwater-surface water management via simulation-optimization modeling: theory, development and tests. Environ Model Softw 96:210–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsoukalas I, Makropoulos C (2015) Multiobjective optimisation on a budget: exploring surrogate modelling for robust multi-reservoir rules generation under hydrological uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 69:396–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vapnik VN (1998) Statistical learning theory. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Yan S, Minsker B (2011) Applying dynamic surrogate models in noisy genetic algorithms to optimize groundwater remediation designs. J Water Resour Plan Manag 137(3):284e292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yazdi J (2016) Decomposition based multi objective evolutionary algorithms for Design of Large-Scale Water Distribution Networks. Water Resour Manag.
  29. Yazdi J, Moridi A (2018) Multi-objective differential evolution for design of cascade hydropower reservoir systems. Water Resour Manag 32(14)4779–4791Google Scholar
  30. Yazdi J, Doostparast TA, Zahraie B (2016) Risk based optimal design of detention dams considering uncertain inflows. Stoch Env Res Risk A 30(5)1457–1471Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Yazdi
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Hokmabadi
    • 1
  • M. R. JaliliGhazizadeh
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil, Water and Environmental EngineeringShahid Beheshti UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations