The problem with doing this analysis as a static equivalent is that you are being ultra-conservative because you will be considering the steam hammer forces to act throughout your piping system at all bend nodes simultaneously and persistently. This of course does not reflect the actual situation. The comments regarding the DLF are certainly prudent. Since the maximum DLF is 2.0 I would double all the calculated steam hammer forces and then input those at each bend node in the system. Be sure you use the proper load cases for the occasional load evaluation, namely those for nonlinear restraints. Using F1 to represent steam hammer loads at each bend or tee use load cases similar to these:
1) W+T1+P1 (OPE)
2) W+T1+P1+F1 (OPE)
3) W+P1 (SUS)
4) L1-L3 (EXP)
5) L2-L1 (OCC) segregation of steam hammer loads
6) L3+L5 (OCC) use ABS or Scalar combination method under the load case options tab.
By the time you have completed all this work it seems you could have already performed the dynamic analysis.
To do this dynamically you can assume a linear ramp-up to maximum force equal to the closing time of the valve and the same for the ramp-down profile. The only thing missing then is the duration of the unbalanced force that acts on the bend. This is equal to the length of the pipe leg that follows the bend divided by the velocity of the pressure wave, which is equal to the speed of sound in the steam. If you have the temperature and pressure of the steam it should be straight-forward to calculate the speed of sound from a = (Gamma*R*T)^.5 where Gamma is the ratio of specific heats, R is the Gas Constant, and T is the temperature (in R or K, not F or C).
Of course there is no perfect substitute for a good fluid-hammer computer program and there are several on the market. But failing that the above approach will give you a fair representation of the piping response in most cases.