\

c
c
+ 
.

\

c
c
= o
(1)
For a small perturbation, i.e. when (oP)
0
then we get:
( ) dx
x
P
dt
t
P
P
t x

.

\

c
c
+ 
.

\

c
c
= =
0
0
o
(2)
or
t x
x
P
t
P
W speed wave ion decompress
dt
dx

.

\

c
c

.

\

c
c
= = / ) (
(3)
Equation (3) indicates that the decompression wave speed (W)
is simply the ratio of two pressure gradients: the spatial and
temporal partial gradients ( )
x
t P c c / and ( )
t
x P c c / which
can be determined from the pressuretime traces at different
locations close to the rupture location and at a given pressure
level. For example, Fig. 1 shows these pressuretime traces
for Case #7 in Table 1 at different locations corresponding to
the indicated pressure transducers (PTs). The corresponding
spatial pressure gradients at 10 MPaa and at different
distances from the rupture location (and hence different times;
t
1
through t
7
) are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. It is shown that
spatial pressure gradient is highest closer to the rupture
location.
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Table 1: Compiled Shock Tube and Full Scale Rupture Test Cases.
#
Nominal
Diamter
(inches)
Roughness
Parameter
(m)
Pi (kPaa) Ti (
o
C) C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6+ N2 CO2 MW
HHV
(MJ/m3)
Ref.
1 ReferenceRough 2 3.81 18,438 17 97.275 1.437 0.267 0.032 0.043 0.010 0.007 0.009 0.556 0.363 16.53 38.03 [5]
2 ReferenceSmooth 2 0.635 16,210 19.19 92.773 4.618 1.052 0.113 0.145 0.032 0.024 0.027 0.478 0.739 17.40 39.51 [5]
3 Test 1Rough 2 3.81 18,107 20.3 87.629 6.620 3.133 0.265 0.558 0.008 0.005 0.012 0.627 1.142 18.60 41.50 [5]
4 Test 1Smooth 2 0.635 18,584 21.5 87.917 6.552 3.104 0.256 0.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.506 1.186 18.53 41.38 [5]
5 Test 3Rough 2 3.81 14,419 10.95 79.936 7.678 7.217 0.896 1.210 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.464 2.583 20.82 44.76 [5]
6 Test 3Smooth 2 0.635 14,182 12.2 80.408 7.360 7.308 0.817 1.093 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.462 2.551 20.70 44.55 [5]
7 Test 4RRough 2 3.81 19,708 11.15 81.861 7.071 7.144 0.800 1.040 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.470 1.594 20.33 44.70 [5]
8 Test 4RSmooth 2 0.635 18,175 11.9 81.640 7.207 7.477 0.750 0.970 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.467 1.489 20.35 44.84 [5]
9 Test 5Rough 2 3.81 21,237 4.5 83.759 6.395 6.474 0.668 0.995 0.008 0.005 0.007 0.480 1.210 19.86 44.10 [5]
10 Test 5Smooth 2 0.635 21,171 3.51 82.916 6.649 7.029 0.666 0.891 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.473 1.376 20.04 44.32 [5]
11 Test 6Rough 2 3.81 21,451 10.19 78.751 10.472 5.990 1.393 1.863 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.445 1.069 20.92 46.39 [5]
12 Test 6Smooth 2 0.635 21,344 14.01 79.302 10.001 6.110 1.328 1.736 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.450 1.072 20.80 46.14 [5]
13 Alliance 36 inch (Test 1) 36 15 12,105 16.5 80.670 15.410 3.090 0.232 0.527 0.021 0.014 0.003 0.039 0.000 19.41 44.61 [25]
14 Alliance 36 inch (Test 2) 36 15 12,105 16.5 80.086 15.217 3.291 0.272 0.608 0.024 0.014 0.001 0.045 0.442 19.62 44.61 [25]
15 X100 Test 2 36 inch 36 15 18,100 15 96.450 3.260 0.110 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.180 16.58 38.65 [2]
16 JGA Test 1 (30 inch) 30 15 18,520 6.5 88.850 6.160 2.470 0.400 0.560 0.130 0.080 0.070 0.320 0.980 18.48 41.58 [3]
17 JGA Test 2 (30 inch) 30 15 16,260 19.2 89.190 5.950 2.450 0.380 0.540 0.110 0.070 0.050 0.340 0.920 18.38 41.42 [3]
18 JGA Test 3 (30 inch) 30 15 18,620 13.5 88.870 6.110 2.500 0.390 0.560 0.120 0.070 0.060 0.390 0.920 18.45 41.53 [3]
19 JGA Test 4 (24 inch) 24 15 18,410 19.4 90.040 5.520 2.150 0.370 0.500 0.130 0.080 0.080 0.350 0.770 18.22 41.22 [3]
20 Foothills NAB 1 (56 inch) 56 15 7,546 23.5 86.590 6.800 4.030 0.262 0.421 0.057 0.034 0.008 1.710 0.076 18.70 42.03 [26]
21 Foothills NAB 3 (48 inch) 48 15 8,787 3.5 85.360 8.220 4.340 0.182 0.278 0.029 0.028 0.013 0.780 0.780 18.96 42.48 [26]
22 Foothills NAB 4 (48 inch) 48 15 8,787 18.5 85.360 7.680 4.460 0.238 0.331 0.032 0.032 0.011 1.804 0.049 18.88 42.39 [26]
23 Foothills NAB 5 (56 inch) 56 15 7,546 18.5 84.700 8.210 4.380 0.201 0.235 0.029 0.030 0.008 1.106 1.106 19.08 42.23 [26]
24 Foothills NAB 6 (48 inch) 48 15 8,787 4.5 85.190 8.070 4.400 0.203 0.300 0.029 0.029 0.010 0.885 0.885 19.01 42.43 [26]
25 Foothills NAB 8 (48 inch) 48 15 8,803 6.1 87.140 7.245 2.316 0.467 0.892 0.022 0.030 0.001 1.832 0.055 18.54 41.63 [26]
26 CAGSL Test 3 (48 inch) 48 15 11,686 10.55556 88.320 5.723 3.586 0.362 0.466 0.091 0.068 0.054 0.957 0.374 18.54 41.90 [27]
S
h
o
c
k
T
u
b
e
T
e
s
t
s
F
u
l
l
S
c
a
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
T
e
s
t
s
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Figure 1: PressureTime Profiles at Different Transducer
Locations for Test #7 in Table 1 [ref 5].
Figure 2: Pressure Gradient (dP/dx) at 10 MPaa, and
Different Locations inside the Shock Tube for Test #7 in
Table 1.
Figure 3: Pressure Gradient (dP/dx) at 10 MPaa as a
function of distance along the Shock Tube for Test #7 in
Table 1.
Since this spatial pressure gradient is related to the outflow
velocity, it has a direct effect on the decompression wave
speed, since u C W = . This prompts further examination to
relate this pressure gradient to the decompression wave speed
by applying the onedimensional momentum equation and
perturbation theory, which can be written in the form:
0
2
1
= +
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
u u
D
f
x
P
x
u
u
t
u
DW
(4)
Following the theory of decompression waves, the
relationships between ou and o or oP follow a similar
relation to isentropic expansion, (though they are not
isentropic due to friction):
( )
( ) ( )
C
P
C u
o
o = =
;
s
P
C


.

\

c
c
=
2
(5)
Substituting in (4), we get:
0
2
= +
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
u u
D
f C
x
P
C
x
P
u
t
P
(6)
and hence, along the decompression wave;
u u
x / P D
f C
u C
x
P
/
t
P
W
dt
dx
t x
(
c c
+ + = 
.

\

c
c

.

\

c
c
= =
) ( 2
) (
(7)
Note: the outflow velocity (u) is negative w.r.t. x direction.
The following two conditions can then be arrived at:
Zero Friction:
) ( u C W =
(8)
With Friction:
) ( u C W =
+ correction term (9)
where
u u
) x / P ( D
f C
term correction
(
c c
=
2
(10)
Since u is negative in the x direction, the above correction
term is negative, which will have the effect of reducing the
decompression wave speed. , i.e.
2
) ( 2
) ( u
x / P D
f C
u C
x
P
/
t
P
W
dt
dx
(
c c
= 
.

\

c
c

.

\

c
c
= =
(11)
It is important to recognize that
) / ( x P c c
is the dynamic
spatial pressure gradient of the decompression wave, which is
10 MPaa
x
t
P

.

\

c
c
t
x
P

.

\

c
c
Shock Tube Test (Case #7)
t
1
t
7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Distance From Rupture (mm)
Test #4Repeat
Rough Shock Tube
t
1
t
2
t
3
t
4
t
5
t
6
t
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
d
P
/
d
x
(
k
P
a
/
m
m
)
Distance (mm)
Test #4Repeat
Rough Shock Tube
t
1
t
7
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
to be distinguished from the steady state pressure gradient
associated with steady flow of gas in pipes.
5. Determination of dP/dx from Experimental Data
The friction correction term in Eq. 11 contains the effects of
the pipe internal diameter in the denominator, which indicates
that for larger pipe sizes, this correction term will be smaller
than that for smaller pipe size. This observation was found to
hold when comparing the shock tube data to the fullscale
large diameter rupture tests. Secondly, the effects of pipe
internal wall roughness are represented by Darcy friction
factor (f) which is on the numerator of the correction term. It
indicates that the higher the friction factor (which is a function
of both relative roughness, (k
s
/D) and outflow Re, the greater
the correction term. However, the value of this friction factor
is not necessarily equal to that corresponding to steady flow in
pipes which is typically determined from a correlation such as
ColebrookWhite [27]. Finally, the spatial pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
appears on the denominator of the correction term,
which indicates that the higher the pressure gradient the
smaller the correction term.
Since friction factor (f) assumes a value that is reflective of the
fast flow transient that occurs following rupture, and the
pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
is also dynamic in nature, and can
only be obtained from an actual rupture test, an estimation
methodology is developed here. This estimation methodology
is applied to the pressure gradient. If one can assume that the
friction factor f corresponds to that determined from a
correlation like ColebrookWhite; the pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
must then be adjusted to correspond to the
assumption in using this f in the correction term. The main
justification for this is that, with the use of the standard
friction factor f in the correction term of Eq. 10, it would be
possible to evaluate this term, since all parameters would be
known along the isentrope of the decompression wave from
the initial pressure to the choke condition calculated using
GASDECOM.
The only parameter that would then be unknown is the
pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
. This is precisely what the present
work is attempting to achieve, and that is to extract the
corresponding values of
) / ( x P c c
from the measured
decompression wave speed from all of the 26 cases in Table 1,
based on the assumption that the friction factor (f) in the
correction term is that determined from ColebrookWhite.
The correction term itself, (AW), is determined from the
difference between the GASDECOM predictions and the
experimentally determined curve, as shown in the example
plots of Fig. 4 for the shock tube Case #7. Of course, the
resulting
) / ( x P c c
will vary along the decompression wave
curve from initial pressure to the plateau pressure, and also
below the plateau pressure, depending on the difference (AW)
along the curve, and on other thermodynamic and geometrical
parameters included in the correction term of Eq. 10.
Figure 4: Example of the Correction Term (AW) along the
Decompression Wave Speed Curve (Shock Tube Case #7).
Example calculations to extract the value of the pressure
gradient
) / ( x P c c
from (AW) are shown in Table 2 for a
pressure range from the plateau pressure (8.75 MPaa) to 10
MPaa, as indicated by the double arrows level in Fig. 4.
In order to compare the pressure gradients between all of the
26 cases in Table 1, the extracted pressure gradient is
normalized with respect to the initial pressure (P
i
) and pipe
diameter (D), via:


.

\


.

\

c
c
= 
.

\

c
c
= c c
i
i i
P
D
x
P
D / x
P / P
x / P
normalized
) (
(12)
Comparison between normalized pressure gradients for five
cases from Table 1, namely, shock tube Test 4R rough and
smooth, Alliance test 2, and JGA Test 4, are shown in Fig. 5
as function of outflow Mach number, from the initial Mach
number (M=0) to that corresponding to the outflow Mach
number just above the plateau pressure. The values of the
normalized pressure gradients below the plateaus for all of the
cases were found to be approximately 3 times higher than
those above the plateau. This is due to the fact that the
deviation between measured and GASDECOM predictions of
the decompression wave speed is smaller below the plateau, as
is demonstrated in the example case of Fig. 4.
The results of the normalized pressure gradients for all of the
cases in Table 1 are given in Table 3 and plotted against gas
mixture MW and HHV in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Note
the correspondence between the normalized pressure gradient
value of 5.29 just above the plateau pressure in Table 2 (Case
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Shock Tube Case #7
W A @ 10 MPAa
Plateau Pressure
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
7) to the one shown in Table 3 for this case. It was also found
that the HHV of all of the gas mixtures in Table 1 correlate
well with their respective MW as shown in Fig. 8. As a result,
similar trends are seen in terms of the normalized pressure
gradient vs. MW (see Fig. 6), normalized pressure gradient vs.
HHV (see Fig. 7) or normalized pressure gradient vs. MW x
HHV (see Fig. 9). Based on these trends, the following
correlations can be derived for the normalized pressure
gradients above the plateau for all of the gas mixtures in Table
1.
MW .
e . x / P
47 0
normalized
1 69 ) (
= c c
(13)
HHV .
e x / P
264 0
normalized
704 ) (
= c c
(14)
( ) HHV . MW .
e . x / P
0063 0
normalized
532 1 ) (
= c c
(15)
The respective normalized pressure gradients for the part of
the decompression wave below the plateau are 3 times higher
than those given in the above three correlations. Note that for
lean gas mixtures, where a plateau is not developed in the
decompression wave speed curve, the correlations above the
plateau are applied throughout.
Figure 5: Example of the Normalized Pressure Gradient as
Function of Outflow Mach number above the Respective
Plateaus in Five Selected Cases from Table 1.
Table 2: Example Calculation of the Pressure Gradient for a Pressure Range just above and just below the Plateau
Pressure of Case 7 Fig. 4 (P
i
= 19,708 kPaa, D = 0.381 m).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
d
(
P
/
P
o
)
/
d
(
x
/
D
)
x
1
0
0
0
Mach Number
Shock Tube Test 4R
(Rough)
JGA Test 4
Alliance Test 2
Shock Tube Test 4R
(Smooth)
T P C U W Density Viscosity Re
Darcy Friction
Factor
W
(Measured)
AW Mach No dP/dx dP/dx *1000
o
C MPaa m/s m/s m/s kg/m
3
Pa.s m/s m/s kPa/mm Normalized
20.7 9.4099 347.51 107.85 239.66 192.91 1.920E05 4.13E+07 0.0120 196.9 42.7 0.310 2.88 5.58
21.1 9.336 346.07 108.96 237.1 192.29 1.914E05 4.17E+07 0.0120 193.6 43.5 0.315 2.87 5.55
21.4 9.2621 344.68 110.08 234.6 191.67 1.908E05 4.21E+07 0.0120 190.2 44.4 0.319 2.85 5.51
21.8 9.1882 343.27 111.21 232.06 191.04 1.902E05 4.26E+07 0.0120 186.8 45.2 0.324 2.83 5.48
22.1 9.1143 341.9 112.35 229.55 190.40 1.896E05 4.30E+07 0.0120 183.4 46.1 0.329 2.82 5.44
22.4 9.0404 340.4 113.5 226.9 189.76 1.890E05 4.34E+07 0.0120 180.0 46.9 0.333 2.80 5.42
22.8 8.9665 339 114.65 224.35 189.12 1.884E05 4.39E+07 0.0120 176.5 47.8 0.338 2.78 5.38
23.2 8.8926 337.64 115.82 221.82 188.47 1.877E05 4.43E+07 0.0120 173.0 48.8 0.343 2.77 5.35
23.6 8.8187 336.24 116.99 219.25 187.82 1.871E05 4.47E+07 0.0120 169.5 49.7 0.348 2.75 5.31
23.9 8.7448 334.71 118.17 216.54 187.16 1.865E05 4.52E+07 0.0120 166.0 50.5 0.353 2.74 5.29
25.8 8.3753 198.09 126.06 72.02 181.15 1.833E05 4.75E+07 0.0120 60.7 11.4 0.636 7.93 15.33
26.2 8.3014 198.01 128.15 69.86 179.26 1.827E05 4.79E+07 0.0120 59.2 10.6 0.647 8.66 16.74
26.6 8.2275 198.13 130.26 67.88 177.37 1.821E05 4.84E+07 0.0120 57.7 10.2 0.657 9.21 17.81
26.9 8.1536 198.46 132.38 66.08 175.49 1.814E05 4.88E+07 0.0120 55.9 10.1 0.667 9.51 18.38
27.4 8.0797 198.88 134.53 64.35 173.62 1.808E05 4.92E+07 0.0120 54.1 10.3 0.676 9.62 18.60
27.8 8.0058 199.33 136.69 62.64 171.76 1.801E05 4.97E+07 0.0120 52.1 10.5 0.686 9.58 18.52
28.2 7.9319 199.83 138.87 60.96 169.90 1.795E05 5.01E+07 0.0120 50.0 11.0 0.695 9.40 18.18
28.6 7.858 200.41 141.07 59.34 168.06 1.788E05 5.05E+07 0.0120 47.7 11.7 0.704 9.08 17.56
29.0 7.7841 200.96 143.29 57.67 166.22 1.782E05 5.09E+07 0.0120 45.3 12.4 0.713 8.74 16.89
29.4 7.7102 201.47 145.52 55.95 164.40 1.775E05 5.13E+07 0.0120 42.7 13.2 0.722 8.37 16.18
A
b
o
v
e
P
l
a
t
e
a
u
B
e
l
o
w
P
a
l
t
e
a
u
Calculated Parameters GASDECOM
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Table 3: Results of the Normalized Pressure Gradient for
all 26 Cases of Table 1 at Pressures above the
Corresponding Plateau Pressures (Note: values below the
plateau pressures are approximately 3 times higher than
those above plateau).
Figure 6: Results of the Normalized Pressure Gradients
for all of the Cases in Table 1 vs. MW
Figure 7: Results of the Normalized Pressure Gradients
for all of the Cases in Table 1 vs. HHV.
Figure 8: Relationship between HHV and MW of the Gas
Mixtures in Table 1.
Figure 9: Results of the Normalized Pressure Gradients
for all of the Cases in Table 1 vs. (MW x HHV)
It should be noted that the above correlations were derived for
the pressure gradient just above the plateau pressure, and as
was already mentioned 3 times that for the pressure just
below the plateau. Arguably, one can assume a constant
pressure gradient for all the decompression curve part above
the plateau and 3 times that for all the decompression curve
part below the plateau. This seems to be more practical than
having to attend to the variation in
) / ( x P c c
along the
decompression wave curve (cf. Fig. 4), particularly when the
main driver to the increase in AW as the pressure decreases, is
actually the square of the outflow velocity (u) in the
# MW
HHV
(MJ/m3)
Normalized
d(P/Pi)/(dx/D) *
1000
1 ReferenceRough 16.53 38.03 18.19
2 ReferenceSmooth 17.40 39.51 22.69
3 Test 1Rough 18.60 41.50 10.97
4 Test 1Smooth 18.53 41.38 15.46
5 Test 3Rough 20.82 44.76 3.84
6 Test 3Smooth 20.70 44.55 5.37
7 Test 4RRough 20.33 44.70 5.29
8 Test 4RSmooth 20.35 44.84 5.17
9 Test 5Rough 19.86 44.10 4.14
10 Test 5Smooth 20.04 44.32 4.51
11 Test 6Rough 20.92 46.39 2.66
12 Test 6Smooth 20.80 46.14 2.71
13 Alliance 36 inch (Test 1) 19.41 44.61 8.21
14 Alliance 36 inch (Test 2) 19.62 44.61 6.13
15 X100 Test 2 36 inch 16.58 38.65 25.88
16 JGA Test 1 (30 inch) 18.48 41.58 6.84
17 JGA Test 2 (30 inch) 18.38 41.42 12
18 JGA Test 3 (30 inch) 18.45 41.53 10.91
19 JGA Test 4 (24 inch) 18.22 41.22 13.17
20 Foothills NAB 1 (56 inch) 18.70 42.03 16.3
21 Foothills NAB 3 (48 inch) 18.96 42.48 12.14
22 Foothills NAB 4 (48 inch) 18.88 42.39 14.83
23 Foothills NAB 5 (56 inch) 19.08 42.23 15.5
24 Foothills NAB 6 (48 inch) 19.01 42.43 13.57
25 Foothills NAB 8 (48 inch) 18.54 41.63 9.31
26 CAGSL Test 3 (48 inch) 18.54 41.90 10.97
S
h
o
c
k
T
u
b
e
T
e
s
t
s
F
u
l
l
S
c
a
l
e
F
r
a
c
t
u
r
e
T
e
s
t
s
y = 69143e
0.47x
R = 0.7868
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
(
d
P
/
d
X
)
x
1
0
0
0
Molecular Weight
Normalized (dP/dX) * 1000
Expon. (Normalized (dP/dX) * 1000)
y = 703689e
0.264x
R = 0.793
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
37 39 41 43 45 47
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
(
d
P
/
d
X
)
x
1
0
0
0
Gross (Higher) Heating Value (MJ/m
3
)
Normalized (dP/dX) * 1000
Expon. (Normalized (dP/dX) *
1000)
y = 1.7378x + 9.5168
R = 0.9493
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
G
r
o
s
s
H
e
a
t
i
n
g
V
a
l
u
e
(
M
J
/
m
3
)
Molecular Weight
y = 1,532.7993e
0.0063x
R = 0.8119
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
(
d
P
/
d
X
)
x
1
0
0
0
MW.HHV (MJ/m
3
)
Normalized (dP/dX) * 1000
Expon. (Normalized (dP/dX) * 1000)
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
correction term (see Eq. 10). In order to assess this conjecture,
the developed correlation for the normalized pressure gradient
(Eq. 15) was applied to sample cases from Table 1. A
constant value of the pressure gradient, corresponding to
respective mixture composition, i.e. MW or HHV, was
applied to the part of the decompression curve above the
plateau and 3 times that applied to the part below the plateau.
The resulting correction term evaluated along the entire
decompression wave was subtracted from the idealized
decompression wave predicted by GASDECOM. The results
of this exercise are shown in Figs. 10 through 14, for the
example cases selected from shock tube and fullscale rupture
tests in Table 1. The resulting corrected decompression wave
speed for each case compares very well with the respective
decompression wave speed from measurements. All other
cases in Table 1 have shown good agreement between the
corrected curve and the corresponding measured ones.
Figure 10: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (Shock
Tube Test 4R).
Figure 11: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (Alliance
FullScale Test 1).
Figure 12: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (X100 Test
2).
Figure 13: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (JGA Test
#2).
Figure 14: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (JGA Test
#4).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
Test #4R
Rough Shock Tube
D = 2 inches
k
s
= 3.81 m
AW = 49 m/s
f=0.012
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
Alliance Full Scale
Test #1
D = 36 inches
k
s
= 15 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
X100  Test 2
D = 36 inches
k
s
= 15 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 15 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #4
D = 24 inches
k
s
= 15 m
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME
6. Validation of the Developed Correlation via
Additional Shock Tube Tests
In order to further validate the developed correlations for the
pressure gradient (Eqs. 1315), two tests were conducted on
the TransCanada high pressure shock tube facility in
Didsbury, Alberta [5]. In these two tests, inert components of
N
2
and CO
2
were intentionally added to the natural gas
mixture to deviate from the apparent linear correlation of MW
vs. HHV shown in Fig. 8 for the 26 cases of Table 1. The
mixture composition, MW, HHV and the initial pressure and
temperature for these two tests are shown in Table 4. These
two tests, called Case 27 and Case 28, are characterized by
relatively high MW but relatively lower HHV, as shown in
Fig. 15. Clearly, the high concentration of N
2
and CO
2
of
these two test mixture compositions deviated significantly
from the trend of Fig. 8 in terms of the relationship between
HHV and MW.
Table 4: Validation Test Conditions of Mixtures
Containing High Concentrations of Inerts.
Figure 15: Relationship between HHV and MW of the
Validation Tests (27 and 28) in Relation to the Mixtures in
Table 1.
The results of these two additional shock tube tests are shown
in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. In each figure, the results of
applying three correlations are shown in indicative plots as
follows: a) applying the MW correlation of Eq. 13; b)
applying the HHV correlation of Eq. 14; and c) applying the
MW x HHV correlation of Eq. 15. It is clear that the
application of the correlation of Eq. 15 gives the best
agreement with measurements. This is primarily due to the
fact that the correlations of Eq. 13 and Eq. 14 are consistent
with the behaviour of conventional natural gas mixtures. for
which the gas HHVs track the mixture MWs for the most
part, as indicated in Fig. 8. When this relationship is no
longer valid, as in the case of tests 27 and 28, it is better to
apply the correlation of Eq. 15, which takes account of both
MW and HHV. In fact, since HHV for conventional natural
gas mixtures (lean or rich) track the MW, it is recommended
to use the correlation of Eq. 15 across all mixtures of natural
gas, whether they contain high or low concentrations of inerts.
It is, however, emphasized that the developed correlation
should only be used for gas mixtures within the range of
shown in Fig. 9, i.e. 625 <MW.HHV<975. For gas mixtures
outside this range, a shock tube test should be conducted.
Figure 16: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the Developed Correlations for dP/dx (Case 27).
Case 27 Case 28
Pi (kPaa) 14,482 14,130
Ti (
o
C) 21.05 20.30
C1 74.52 79.49
C2 3.34 3.35
C3 0.73 0.79
iC4 0.08 0.09
nC4 0.10 0.12
iC5 0.02 0.03
nC5 0.02 0.02
C6+ 0.02 0.02
N2 10.74 7.67
CO2 10.42 8.43
Sum 100.00 100.00
MW (g/mol) 21.03 20.14
HHV (MJ/m
3
) 31.35 33.33
Mole %
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
G
r
o
s
s
H
e
a
t
i
n
g
V
a
l
u
e
(
M
J
/
m
3
)
Molecular Weight
Case 28
Case 27
Table 1 Mixtures
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on MW Correlation
Test #8
Smooth Tube
Case 27
Smooth Shock Tube
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on HHV Correlation
Test #8
Smooth Tube
Case 27
Smooth Shock Tube
b
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on MW*HHV Correlation
Test #8
Smooth Tube
Case 27
Smooth Shock Tube
c
10 Copyright 2012 by ASME
7. Discussion on the Nature of dP/dx
It is important to recognize that neither the friction factor (f)
nor the spatial pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
terms associated
with the decompression wave and out flow speeds are
associated with conventional steady gas flow at low Mach
numbers in pipelines. It was mentioned that the transients
associated with the outflow of gas following a pipeline
rupture are very rapid, and hence neither of these two
parameters can be determined without an actual rupture test.
Recalling proportionality of the correction term as:
( ) x P/
f
W
c c
A
(16)
one could perhaps develop a correlation for
( )
(
c c x P/
f
rather
than for the pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
. It is argued that the
latter approach is better so as to separate the effect of the wall
roughness via the friction factor parameter (f), and correlate
the pressure gradient with the richness of the gas.
As such, the calculated pressure gradient from applying a
steady state friction factor (f) using the ColebrookWhite
correlation (cf. Table 1) result in a much lower value obtained
from measurements (cf. Fig. 3). This indicates that the
apparent friction factor to be used in such fast transient
events ought to be much higher than that used in steady gas
flow in pipes. In fact Lu, et al. [28] suggested that a factor of
3 x Darcy friction factor to be used in their computational
finite differencebased solution to the one dimensional
governing equations, which is consistent with the present
work, except that the factor 3 was not fully validated.
However, the backcalculated (or extracted) pressure gradient
) / ( x P c c
from the difference between measured and
GASDECOM idealized decompression wave speed curves
does not correspond to the physical value observed in Fig. 3,
but when used together with the conventional Darcy friction
factor (without a multiplier), calculated from a steady state
correlation such as the ColebrookWhite correlation it
defaults back to the same ratio of
( )
(
c c x P/
f
which is
subsequently used in the correction term.
Therefore, we argue that the approach and the developed
semiempirical correlation (Eq. 15) is clearly plausible as it
provides a practical tool to determine the unknown pressure
gradient in the correction term, that is adapted to be used
together with a friction factor calculated according to a
conventional steady flow correlation. The latter can be easily
calculated, since the outflow velocity, pressure, and
temperature are known at every pressure step from
GASDECOM. The only parameter that needs to be calculated
is the dynamic viscosity at each pressure step to calculate Re.
All other parameters in the correction term are determined
directly from GASDECOM, while the pressure gradient is
calculated for the developed semiempirical correlation of Eq.
15.
Figure 17: Comparison between Measured vs. Corrected
Decompression Wave Speed based on the Correction
Term and the Developed Correlations for dP/dx (Case 28).
8. Sensitivity to Internal Surface Roughness
Finally, the sensitivity of the correction term to internal
surface roughness and hence the friction factor (f) can be
demonstrated by the example of JGA Test 2 in the series of
graphs in Fig. 18. It is evident that the internal surface
roughness plays a role in correcting the idealized
decompression wave speed as predicted by GASDECOM.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on MW Correlation
Test #9
Smooth Tube
Case 28
Smooth Shock Tube
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on HHV Correlation
Test #9
Smooth Tube
Case 28
Smooth Shock Tube
b
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on MW.HHV Correlation
Test #9
Smooth Tube
Case 28
Smooth Shock Tube
c
11 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Figure 18: Sensitivity of the Correction Term to the Internal Pipe Surface Roughness.
9. Concluding Remarks
The following conclusions can be drawn from the present
measurements and simulation results:
1. Decompression wave speeds in rough pipes are slower
than in smooth pipes under the same conditions of
mixture composition and initial pressure and temperature.
The difference progressively increases as the pressure
decreases towards the plateau. This is due to higher gas
velocity at lower pressures. Plateau in the decompression
wave speed curve is normally with rich gases or chilled
lean gases
2. The magnitude of the differences observed can be
significant, in terms of their potential effect on the arrest
toughness calculated using the twocurve method [5].
3. Through analysis of 12 shock tube tests and 14 fullscale
rupture tests, a semiempirical correlation was developed
and validated through further shock tube tests. This semi
empirical correlation determines a spatial dynamic
pressure gradient to be used with a conventional Darcy
friction factor for the outflow velocity in a correction term
derived using the fundamental momentum equation and
perturbation theory.
4. It is emphasized that the developed correlation (Eq. 15)
should only be used for gas mixtures within the range of
625 <MW.HHV<975. For gas mixtures outside this
range, a shock tube test should be conducted.
Furthermore, attention should be given to the units of
HHV in this correlation, i.e. it should be in MJ/m
3
.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the sponsors of this program:
TransCanada Pipelines Limited, the Australian Pipeline
Industry Association Research and Standards Committee
(APIA RSC) and Alliance Pipeline Ltd., for their foresight in
initiating and funding this project. The shock tube tests were
conducted at TransCanada Gas Dynamic Test Facility in
Didsbury, Alberta, Canada. Special thanks are due to Thomas
Robinson, Anthony Tse and Tracy Cairns (TCPL) for their
meticulous facilitation and managing the logistics of the
project.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 1 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 7.5 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 15 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 30 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 60 m
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
M
P
a

a
)
Decompression Wave Speed (m/s)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected using Correlation
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 90 m
12 Copyright 2012 by ASME
References
1. GASDECOM, computer code for the calculation of gas
decompression speed that is included in Fracture Control
Technology for Natural Gas Pipelines, by R. Eiber, T.
Bubenik, and W.A. Maxey, NG18 Report 208, A.G.A.
Catalogue No. L51691, December 1993.
2. Andrews R.M., Millwood N., Batte D., and Lowesmith B.:
The Fracture Arrest Behaviour of 914 mm Diameter X100
Grade Steel Pipelines, Paper IPC040596, Proc. IPC 2004,
p. 1693, ASME, New York, NY, 2004.
3. Igi, S., Kawaguchi, S. and Suzuki, N.: Running ductile
fracture analysis for X80 pipeline in JGA burst tests,
Pipeline Technology Conference, Oct 1214, Ostend,
Belgium, 2009.
4. Botros, K.K., Geerligs, J. and Eiber, R.J.: "Measurement of
Decompression Wave Speeds in Rich Gas Mixtures at High
Pressures (370 bar) Using Specialized Rupture Tube",
ASME Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, vol. 132 , p.
0513031, October, 2010.
5. Botros, K.K., Geerligs, J., Rothwell, B., Carlson, L.,
Fletcher, L. and Venton, P.: "Transferability of
Decompression Wave Speed Measured by a Small Diameter
Shock Tube to Full Size Pipelines and Implication for
Determining Required Fracture Propagation Resistance",
Int. Journal of Pressure Vessel and Piping, vol. 87, pp. 681
695, 2010.
6. Botros, K.K., Geerligs, J., Zhou, J. and Glover, A.:
Measurements of Flow Parameters and Decompression
Wave Speed Following Rupture of Rich Gas Pipelines, and
Comparison with GASDECOM, Int. Journal of Pressure
Vessel and Piping, vol. 84, pp. 358367, 2007.
7. Botros, K.K., Geerligs, J. and Eiber, R.J.: "Decompression
Wave Speed in Rich Gas Mixtures at High Pressures and
Implications on Fracture Control Toughness Requirements
in Pipeline Design", ASME 8th International Pipeline
Conference & Exhibition, TELUS Convention Centre,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 27 through October 1,
2010.
8. Botros, K.K., Geerligs, J., Rothwell, B., Carlson, L.,
Fletcher, L. and Venton, P.: "Effects of Pipe Internal Surface
Roughness on Decompression Wave Speeds in Natural Gas
Mixtures", ASME 8th International Pipeline Conference &
Exhibition, TELUS Convention Centre, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, September 27 through October 1, 2010.
9. Botros, K.K., Studzinski, W., Geerligs, J. and Glover, A.:
Determination of Decompression Wave Speed in Rich Gas
Mixtures, Can. J. Chem. Eng., vol. 82, number 5, pp. 880
891, October 2004.
10. Botros, K.K., Studzinski, W., Geerligs, J. and Glover, A.:
Measurements of Decompression Wave Speed in Rich Gas
Mixtures Using NPS 2 Decompression Tube, AGA
OPERATIONS CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION, Gaylord
Palms, Resort & Convention Center, Orlando, Florida, April
2729, 2003.
11. Botros, K.K., Geerligs, J., Glover, A. and Rothwell, A. B.:
Expansion Tube for Determination of the Decompression
Wave Speed for Dense/Rich Gases at Initial Pressures of up
to 22 MPa, 2001 International Gas Research Conference
(IGRC), Amsterdam, Netherlands, 58 November, 2001.
12. Colebrook, C.F.: Turbulent Flow in Pipes with Particular
Reference to the Transition Region Between the Smooth and
Rough Pipe Laws, Institution of Civil Engineers Journal,
London, vol. 11, pp. 133156, 1939.
13. Sletfjerding, E. and Gudmundsson, J.S.: Friction Factor
Directly From Roughness Measurements J. Energy
Resources Technology, vol. 125, pp. 126130, 2003.
14. Afzal, N.: Friction Factor Directly From Transitional
Roughness in a Turbulent Pipe Flow, J. Fluids Eng., vol.
129, pp. 12551267, 2007.
15. Phillips, A.G. and Robinson, C.G.: "Gas Decompression
Behavior following the Rupture of High Pressure Pipelines 
Phase 2: Modeling Report", Final report #L52067e to PRCI
on project PR2730135, PRCI, Falls Church, VA, 2005.
16. Maxey, W.A., Kiefner, J.C., Eiber, R.J., and Duffy, A.R.,
Ductile Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest in
Cylindrical Vessels, Fracture Toughness ASTM STP 514
Philadelphia, Pa, (1972), pp. 7081.
17. Maxey, W.A.: Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest,
5th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, p. J1. PRCI
Catalogue No. L30174, 1974.
18. Eiber, R.J. and Maxey, W.A.: FullScale Experimental
Investigation of Ductile Fracture Behaviour in Simulated
Arctic Pipeline, Materials Engineering in the Arctic, p.
306. ASM, Metals Park, OH, 1977.
19. Eiber, R.J., Bubenik, T.A. and Maxey, W.A.: Fracture
Control for Natural Gas Pipelines. PRCI report, Catalogue
No. L51691, 1993.
20. Rothwell, A.B., Fracture Propagation Control Measures for
Gas Pipelines, Proc. Int. Seminar on Fracture Control in
Gas Pipelines, ISBN 0 909539731, WTIA, Sydney,
Australia, (1997), part. 61.
21. Langelandsvik, L.I., Kunkel, G.J. and Smits, A.J.: Flow in
a commercial steel pipe, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.
595, pp. 323339, 2008.
22. Shockling, M. A., Allen, J. J., Smits, A. J.: Roughness
effects in turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 564, pp. 267285, 2006.
23. Zagarola, M.V., Smits, A.J.: Meanflow scaling of
turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 373,
pp. 3379, 1998.
24. Colebrook, C. F. and White, C. M., Experiments with fluid
friction in roughened pipes. Proc. Royal Soc. (A) 161, 367
378, 1937.
25. Eiber, R.J. and Carlson, L.: Fracture Control for the
Alliance Pipeline, ASME IPC2000 Conference, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, pp.266 277, 2000.
26. Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd.: Final Report on the Test
Program at the Northern Alberta Burst Test Facility,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. (1981).
27. Eiber, R.J. and Maxey, W.A.: FullScale Experimental
Investigation of Ductile Fracture Behaviour in Simulated
13 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Arctic Pipeline, Materials Engineering in the Artic,
Proceedings of Int. Conf., St. Jovite, Quebec, Canada, Sept
27Oct 1, 1976, also Canadian Arctic Gas Study Limited
(CAGSL), Engineering in the Arctic/ASM, St. Jovite,
Quebec, 1977.
28. Lu, C., Venton, P., Botros, K.K., Michal, G., Elshahomi, A.,
Godbole, A., Fletcher, L. and Rothwell, B.: "Investigation of
the effects of pipe wall roughness and pipe diameter on the
decompression wave speed in natural gas pipelines", ASME
9th International Pipeline Conference & Exhibition, TELUS
Convention Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September
2428, 2012.
14 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Much more than documents.
Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.
Cancel anytime.