See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326801696

Pressure Wave Velocity in Fluid-Filled Pipes with and without Deposits in the
Low-Frequency Range

Article  in  Journal of Hydraulic Engineering · October 2018

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001517

CITATION READS

1 1,647

4 authors:

Eivind Nag Mosland Kjetil Daae Lohne

University of Bergen NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS
8 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bjørnar Ystad Anders Hallanger

NORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS Dynamic Research
11 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   151 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research at the NDRE View project

Bjørnar Ystad Phd thesis in applied mathematics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kjetil Daae Lohne on 13 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PRESSURE WAVE VELOCITY IN
FLUID-FILLED PIPES WITH AND
WITHOUT DEPOSITS IN THE
LOW FREQUENCY RANGE
by

Mosland, E. N., Lohne, K. D., Ystad, B. and Hallanger, A.

Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

FINAL DRAFT

Citation:

Mosland, E. N., Lohne, K. D., Ystad, B. and Hallanger, A., (2018). “Pressure
Wave Velocity in Fluid-Filled Pipes with and without Deposits in the Low-
Frequency Range”, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 144, Issue
10 (October 2018), Online Publication date: 20 July 2018,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001517
 1 PRESSURE WAVE VELOCITY IN FLUID-FILLED PIPES

2 WITH AND WITHOUT DEPOSITS IN THE LOW

3 FREQUENCY RANGE

4 Eivind N. Mosland1 Kjetil D. Lohne 2

Bjørnar Ystad, 3 , Anders Hallanger4

5 ABSTRACT
6 Solid pipeline deposits can be mapped by analyzing reflections of hydraulic pressure pulse
7 waves in the low frequency range. To determine the amount and position of the deposits an
8 inverse problem should be solved: The pressure pulse is measured in one or several positions,
9 and the pipeline that generated this pulse must be determined. To solve this problem
10 estimates of the pressure pulse velocity are essential. A finite element axisymmetric model for
11 fluid-filled pipelines has been implemented and applied to numerically study low frequency
12 estimates for the pressure wave velocity in pipes with deposits that appear frequently in
13 pipelines of the petroleum industry. Finite element simulations include deposit thicknesses
14 in the range up to, and covering, 90 % of the internal diameter of the pipe. The results show
15 how deposits with different stiffness affect the pressure wave velocity. Input to the model
16 are the geometry and parameters (thickness, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio) of the
17 pipe and the deposits.
18 Keywords: Finite element modelling, Fluid-structure interaction, Pressure wave velocity.
1
Christian Michelsen Research AS, Fantoftvegen 38, Bergen, Norway. Email: eivind.mosland@cmr.no
2
Christian Michelsen Research AS, Fantoftvegen 38, Bergen, Norway (corresponding author). Email:
kjetil@cmr.no
3
KTN AS, Gravdalsveien 262, Bergen, Norway. Email: by@knt.no
4
Christian Michelsen Research AS, Fantoftvegen 38, Bergen, Norway. Email: anders.hallanger@cmr.no

1 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

19 INTRODUCTION
20 For deposit profiling in long and fluid-filled pipelines, utilization of hydraulic transient
21 pressure waves is a promising method. Such deposit monitoring and profiling is provided as
22 a service by industrial enterprises such as Halliburton (2017), Paradigm (2017) and KTN
23 (2017). Hydraulic transient pressure waves in a fluid-filled pipeline system would typically
24 be created by the rapid closure or opening of a valve. The sudden change in flow velocity
25 causes a pressure wave to develop and propagate along the pipeline.
26 A pressure wave is a low frequency mode that can propagate long distances in the fluid
27 column. The wave interacts with the surrounding structure and in positions along the
28 pipe where the geometry and/or properties are altered, the pressure wave velocity, c, may
29 change. The combined effect of the change in diameter and wave velocity results in reflection
30 and transmission of the pressure pulse. Thus transmitted and reflected pressure pulses will
31 contain useful information about the condition along the fluid-filled pipeline. To determine
32 the position and amount of deposits in a pipe, an inverse problem should be solved: The
33 pressure pulse is measured in one or several positions, and the properties and geometry of
34 the pipe that generated this pulse should be determined. To solve this inverse problem,
35 estimates of the pressure wave velocity are essential.
36 Deposit prevention and removal are important parts of pipeline maintenance. Unnec-
37 essary extensive cleaning with chemicals and/or utility pigs will increase cost. Insufficient
38 cleaning could lead to pipeline deposit blockages and may increases the risk of having a stuck
39 pig during a pigging operation (Hoffmann et al. 2011). Information about deposit composi-
40 tion, location and quantity is useful input when choosing the cleaning strategy. This strategy
41 should include choosing correct pigs for the cleaning and determining how often pigging is
42 necessary. Deposit information is also relevant input to the design of surveys with intelligent
43 pigs, since the quality of the integrity measurements of some tools depend on having a clean
44 inner pipe surface (DNV 2015). Knowing the geometry and properties of the deposits would
45 help deciding whether a utility pig should be applied in advance of the intelligent pigging.

2 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

46 Introduction of a high pressure variation may damage a pipeline, and traditionally, avoid-
47 ance of damages has been the main motivation for studies of hydraulic transient pressure
48 waves. However, hydraulic transient pressure waves are also excited intentionally for the
49 mapping of pipeline systems. Extensive studies have been devoted to time-domain and
50 frequency-domain techniques for leak and/or blockage detection in pipelines, see e.g. (Gong
51 et al. 2013; Meniconi et al. 2013; Scola et al. 2017; Gong et al. 2018). Other studies concen-
52 trate on detection of leakage in buried fluid-filled pipes, see e.g. (Long et al. 2003; Muggleton
53 et al. 2004; Leinov et al. 2015; Gao et al. 2016). In the study by Meniconi et al. (2013), the
54 focus is on blockage detection, and the constriction is described as a pipe section with re-
55 duced inner diameter of the pipe material. The constriction in the pipe by the pipe material
56 itself will change c, but the change will usually be different if the constriction is made up of
57 a solid deposition. In a study by Stewart and Jack (2017), the focus is on the location of a
58 blockage and cases are shown for stuck pigs. In a more relevant study for deposit detection
59 by Gudmundsson and Celius (2005), a pressure pulse method is presented for monitoring
60 (locate and quantify) deposits in pipelines. In the latter study, the pressure wave velocity is
61 claimed to be equal to the sound velocity in the fluid in free space.
62 The objective of the present study is to determine how a deposit in a pipeline affects the
63 pressure wave velocity. A finite element (FE) axisymmetric model for fluid-filled pipelines
64 with free outer boundaries is implemented and results from the FE model are compared to
65 analytical expressions where applicable. The inclusion of a solid deposit layer inside the
66 pipe makes the FE model implemented here different from other FE models that have been
67 reported (Graf 2014; Jiang et al. 2011; Maess et al. 2006).
68 For a pipe without deposits, results from the FE model are compared to results from i)
69 an expression for a pipe with arbitrary thickness presented by Lafleur and Shields (1995) and
70 Baik et al. (2010), ii) to the Korteweg formula (based on a thin-wall approximation) that
71 is frequenctly used in waterhammer calculations and presented by e.g. Tijsseling (1996),
72 and iii) to an expression for a lined pipe (ESDU 2007). For a pipe with varying deposit

3 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

73 thickness, results from the FE model and from an expression for a lined pipe (ESDU 2007)
74 are compared. For a nearly clogged pipe, results from the FE model are also compared to
75 results from a model based on the expression in Lafleur and Shields (1995) and Baik et al.
76 (2010). In this comparison it is assumed that the properties of the pipe wall equals the
77 properties of the deposit.
78 This article focuses on materials and dimensions of pipes and deposits relevant for remote
79 monitoring of deposits which are common in the petroleum industry. Simulation results are
80 shown for 2”, 4” and 8” steel pipes with varying wall thicknesses, i.e. pipe schedules 40, 80
81 and 160. The range of deposit material properties are chosen so that typical parameters for
82 both organic and inorganic scales, e.g. calcium carbonate, paraffin wax and gas hydrates,
83 are covered. Material parameters for a model scale, stearin, are also included. The fluid
84 medium here is water, although several of the deposits can only come from hydrocarbons.
85 Replacing multiphase fluids in oil pipelines with a single phase liquid is relevant when an
86 intelligent pigging operation is scheduled. This is because some inspection methods, such
87 as ultrasonic integrity inspection (NDT-Global 2018), require a single phase liquid coupling
88 medium. Pressure pulse measurements can then be carried out in a single phase liquid
89 such as water prior to the ultrasonic integrity inspection. Changing the pipe fluid from a
90 multiphase to a single phase fluid makes the analysis of the pressure pulse data much simpler
91 and less ambiguous.

92 MODELLING THE PRESSURE WAVE VELOCITY

93 A fluid-filled elastic pipeline will act as a waveguide for a pressure wave travelling along
94 its length, transforming the initially simple pressure wave into one or more guided wave
95 modes with different characteristics. At low frequencies there exist in general two guided
96 wave modes in a fluid-filled pipe. One travels primarily in the pipe wall and the other
97 primarily in the enclosed fluid. The latter is the fundamental fluid mode, which produces
98 plane wave motion in the fluid when approaching 0 Hz (Lafleur and Shields 1995). This
99 mode is denoted ET 0 by Lafleur and Shields (1995) and Baik et al. (2010), and α1 by Long

4 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

100 et al. (2003). The low frequency mode will propagate in the fluid column with a velocity c.
101 Extensive research has been devoted to studying guided wave propagation in pipes and
102 plates for various applications, see e.g. (Lafleur and Shields 1995; Del Grosso 1971; Lowe
103 1995; Kippersund et al. 2011; Aanes et al. 2016; Aanes et al. 2017b). In these studies and
104 in many others, modelling tools that calculate dispersion curves and/or reflection and trans-
105 mission are important. Lowe (1995) summarizes historical work related to wave propagation
106 in multi-layered media, with focus on matrix techniques. Modal methods based on matrix
107 techniques can be used to study dispersion properties in a range of frequencies for single
108 and multi-layered systems, and are thus also relevant when studying dispersion properties
109 in fluid-filled pipes with deposits. Modal methods calculate unforced properties of a system
110 (Lowe 1995). The acoustic field is separated into incoming and outgoing longitudinal and
111 shear waves in each cylindrical layer. The partial waves are modelled by Bessel functions,
112 and the initial value problem is solved numerically. Design of a numerical model based
113 on modal methods of multi-layered cylindrical systems includes complex matrix treatment,
114 search for roots with a root finding algorithm, and comprehensive verification and validation
115 of the model. One such model for deposit detection is presented by Kippersund et al. (2011),
116 but that model focuses on guided wave modes propagating in the elastic media (pipe wall
117 and deposits).
118 For simple systems, the propagation velocity of the fundamental mode can be reduced
119 to analytical expressions in the low frequency limit. Several analytical expressions exist
120 for the fundamental and low frequency fluid mode for fluid-filled pipes without deposits
121 on the inner wall. Frequently used according to Tijsseling (1996) is the expression derived
122 by Korteweg in 1878 that includes interaction between the fluid and the elastic pipe wall.
123 The Korteweg formula, given in the next section, is based on a thin-wall approximation and
124 shows that c is affected if the fluid properties, solid properties or the pipe geometry (diameter
125 and/or thickness) change. Similar expressions with a thin-wall approximation include other
126 fluid-structure interactions, other pipeline restraints or other surrounding conditions (e.g.

5 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

127 buried fluid-filled pipes (Gao et al. 2016)). Alternative expressions which are derived without
128 introducing a thin-wall approximation are presented e.g. by Lafleur and Shields (1995), Baik
129 et al. (2010) and Tijsseling (2007), as shown in the next section.
130 Analytical expressions of the fundamental and low frequency fluid mode are limited to
131 fluid-filled pipes without deposits inside the pipe (as shown in the next section). There are
132 also expressions for fluid-filled pipes buried in soil (Long et al. 2003; Muggleton et al. 2004;
133 Leinov et al. 2015; Gao et al. 2016), fluid-filled concrete tunnels with a thin steel lining (ESDU
134 2007; Halliwell 1963) and lined circular pipes as given by ESDU (2007). The derivation of
135 analytical expressions often involve various approximations. There are, however, models for
136 the pressure wave velocity that do not involve these approximations. Some of these models
137 are analytical, other are numerical methods such as the modal and the finite element (FE)
138 methods. The FE model used here is presented in a separate section.
139 In the models presented here, Kf and ρf are the adiabatic bulk modulus and the density
140 of the fluid. cf is the wave velocity of an infinite fluid medium. D, R and tp are the inner
141 diameter, inner radius and thickness of the pipe, respectively. The pipe material is described
142 using Ep , ρp and νp , which are Young’s modulus, the density and the Poisson’s ratio for the
143 pipe material, respectively. Analogous, the deposit material is described using Ed , ρd and
144 νd , and the thickness of the deposit layer is td .

145 ANALYTICAL EXPRESSIONS FOR PIPES WITHOUT DEPOSITS

146 Pipe with arbitrary pipe wall thickness - Model 1

147 Lafleur and Shields (1995) studied axisymmetric propagation in a liquid-filled elastic
148 tube waveguide and used previous work by Del Grosso (1971) as the basis for the theoretical
149 description of modal phase velocities. These works are based on exact longitudinal and shear
150 wave equations for tubes of arbitrary thickness, and dispersion relations are obtained for
151 axially propagating waves in fluid-filled pipes surrounded by vacuum. For the zero frequency
152 limit, Lafleur and Shields (1995) derived an analytical expression for the fundamental and
153 low frequency fluid mode. Later, Baik et al. (2010) extended the work to include the complex

6 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

154 domain in order to predict the attenuation. Baik et al. (2010) also points out that there is
155 a typographic error in Lafleur and Shields (1995), and that the correct analytical expression
156 for the pressure wave velocity is

2c2f Ê
157 c2 =  1/2 (1)
−F̂ − F̂ 2 − 4Ê Ĝ

158 where the different parameters are given as

 
159 Ê = 3β̂ − 4α̂ ŷ (2)

  h   i
160 F̂ = −4γ̂ β̂ − α̂ − ˆ
3β − 4α̂ (1 + γ̂) + β̂ β̂ − α̂ ŷ (3)

 
161 Ĝ = β̂ 2 γ̂ + β̂ β̂ − α̂ (1 + γ̂) ŷ (4)

162 α̂ = (cf /cL )2 , β̂ = (cf /cS )2 , γ̂ = β̂ρf /ρp , ŷ = [(R + tp )/R]2 − 1 (5)

163 cL and cS are the longitudinal and shear wave velocities for the elastic pipe, respectively.
164 They can be expressed as function of Kf (Kinsler et al. 1999) and Ep and νp (Cheeke 2002)

Kf
165 c2f = (6)
ρf
166
Ep (1 − νp )
167 c2L = (7)
ρp (1 + νp )(1 − 2νp )
168
Ep
169 c2S = (8)
2ρp (1 + νp )

170 Eq. (1) is denoted here as Model 1 and is for a fluid-filled pipe with arbitrary wall
171 thickness. The typographic error corrected by Baik et al. (2010) is in the expression for γ̂.
172 In Lafleur and Shields (1995), this quantity is set equal to the inversion of the correct ratio.

7 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

173 A similar set of equations for calculating the low-frequency pressure wave velocity is given
174 by Tijsseling (2007). The equation in (Tijsseling 2007) is valid for thick-walled liquid-filled
175 pipes, and contains small correction terms and factors accounting for the wall thickness.
176 Eq. (1) includes the interaction between the fluid and the elastic pipe wall and results
177 in a pressure wave velocity, c, that is affected by this interaction and lower than cf given
178 by Eq. (6). Since Eq. (6) overestimates the actual pressure wave velocity, cf is not directly
179 applicable in waterhammer calculations. However, cf is an important input to other models
180 for the pressure wave velocity in pipes. It is important to note that all parameters in Eq.
181 (6) vary with the equilibrium temperature and pressure, and no simple formula is available
182 for predicting the variations. For distilled water, there exists a formula that is accurate to
183 within 0.05 % for temperatures, T , in the range 0 < T < 100◦ C. The formula is given by
184 Kinsler et al. (1999) as

185 cf (P, t) = 1402.7 + 488t − 482t2 + 135t3 + (15.9 + 2.8t + 2.4t2 )(PG /100) (9)

186 and is a function of the gauge pressure, PG , in bar and the temperature, t = T /100, with
187 T in degrees Celsius. At 10 bar and approximately 19.1◦ C, Eq. (9) shows that the sound
188 velocity in distilled water is 1481 m/s.

189 Pipe with thin wall approximation - Model 2

190 Several authors have studied theoretically the propagation of elastic waves in liquid filled
191 tubes, most of them using various approximations where the tube is treated as a thin shell.
192 Tijsseling (2007) states that if the usual thin-wall assumption is made, in which tp /R is
193 negligible with respect to unity, the thick-wall FSI four-equation model in Tijsseling (2007)
194 is reduced to the four-equation model of Skalak (1956). Skalak’s mathematical model is
195 valid for axisymmetric thin-walled tubes and includes the effects of radial inertia of liquid
196 and pipe, and longitudinal stress waves in the pipe (Tijsseling et al. 2008). The low frequency
197 pressure wave velocity, given also in Tijsseling et al. (2008), can be shown to reduce to the

8 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

198 classical Korteweg formula, when using νp = 0. The Korteweg formula is the analytical
199 expression frequently used to estimate the pressure wave velocity in thin-walled elastic pipes
200 filled with a compressible fluid (Tijsseling 1996)

c2f
201 c2 = K D
(10)
1 + Ψ Epf tp

202 Ψ is a coefficient that accounts for different pipe supports. Eq. (10) with Ψ = 1 is denoted
203 here as Model 2 and was first presented by Korteweg in 1878. It has since seen widespread
204 use both in classical waterhammer analysis (Tijsseling 1996) and in acoustic leak detection
205 (Long et al. 2003). Ψ = 1 corresponds to a pipe where each pipe section is anchored with
206 expansion joints or to pipeline materials with a high elastic modulus such as steel (ESDU
207 2007). Eq. (10) reduces to Eq. (6) for compressible fluids in a pipe with entirely rigid walls,
208 i.e. when Ep >> Kf , (Tijsseling 1996; Tijsseling et al. 2008).
209 When (Kf D)/(Ep tp ) < 1, Eq. (1) can be shown to reduce to Eq. (10) by using νp = 0
210 and the approximation that the pipe wall thickness is thin in comparison to the inner radius
211 (i.e. by only keeping the leading orders of tp /R). The definition for thin-walled pipes differs
212 somewhat between sources. The definitions in Jones et al. (2008) and ESDU (2007) are
213 tp /D < 0.025 and tp /D < 0.1, respectively. Tijsseling (2007) states that the requirement for
214 a thin-walled pipe is that tp /D is small with respect to 0.5, and points out that exact solutions
215 from the thick-wall FSI four-equation model show that the corrections are important only
216 for pipes with tp /D > 0.25.

217 ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION FOR PIPES WITH DEPOSITS

218 Fluid-filled and lined pipe - Model 3

219 Only one analytical expression which may describe a fluid-filled pipe with free outer
220 boundaries and with a layer inside the pipe has been revealed. The Engineering Sciences
221 Data Unit publication, ESDU (2007), presents this analytical expression as the pressure wave

9 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

222 velocity for lined circular pipes. The expression is given as

v
Kf /ρf
u
c=t (11)
u
223 2 +t2 )(1−ν )+2ν D t ]
(Dm −tp )(1−νp2 )[(Dm p p p m p
1+ Kf ( Ep Dm tp (Dm −tp )(1−νp )+Ed td [(D 2 2 )
m +tp )(1−νp )+2νp Dm tp ]

224 where Dm = D + tp is the mean diameter. Eq. (11) is here denoted as Model 3. In the
225 derivation it is assumed that Poisson’s ratio for the lining, νd , is equal to νp (ESDU 2007). It
226 is stated in ESDU (2007) that the assumption is valid for most pairs of isotropic materials as
227 the expression is relatively insensitive to variation in the Poisson’s ratio. Additional details
228 on the assumptions used when deriving the expression are not given.
229 A similar model for the pressure wave velocity of a tunnel through rock which is lined
230 with concrete and steel is also given in ESDU (2007). The same Poisson’s ratio of steel lining,
231 concrete and rock is assumed. It can be shown that if the Young’s modulus of rock is equal
232 to zero, results from that expression agrees with results calculated with Eq. (11). Halliwell
233 (1963) also presents an expression for steel and concrete lined tunnels. If the radii and
234 thickness used in the expression in Halliwell (1963) are doubled, agreement to the similar
235 expression in ESDU (2007) is obtained. In the model presented in Halliwell (1963), it is
236 stated that the thickness of the lining represents the thickness of a thin steel lining.

237 Fluid-filled deposit pipe - Model 4

238 An alternative method to estimate pressure wave velocities in fluid-filled pipes which are
239 nearly clogged with deposit is to set the properties of the pipe wall equal to those of the
240 deposit and use the analytical expression for a fluid-filled pipe with arbitrary wall thickness
241 to calculate c. This yields Model 4 as Eq. (1) using Ê, F̂ and Ĝ as defined in Eqs. (2), (3)
242 and (4), but using α̂, β̂, γ̂ as

243 α̂ = (cf /cLd )2 , β̂ = (cf /cSd )2 , γ̂ = β̂ρf /ρd , ŷ = (Ro /Ri )2 − 1 (12)

244 where cLd , cSd are defined as

10 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

245 c2Ld = [Ed (1 − νd )]/[ρd (1 + νd )(1 − 2νd )] (13)

246 c2Sd = Ed /[2ρd (1 + νd )] (14)

247 and where Ro and Ri represents the outer and inner radius of the deposit cylindrical shell,
248 respectively. When approaching a fully clogged pipe, i.e. the ratio of the inner diameter to
249 the pipe thickness approaches zero, the equations reduce to the pressure wave velocity in a
250 circular tunnel made of the deposit material (Tijsseling 2007),

 −1
2 ρf 2ρf
251 c = + (1 + νd ) (15)
Kf Ed

252 FE MODEL
253 Commercial FE software can be used for numerical calculations of the pressure wave veloc-
254 ity in fluid-filled pipes with and without deposits. The two-dimensional (2-D) axisymmetric
255 FE model implemented here is based on using the Acoustics Module with acoustic-structure
256 interaction in the commercial software COMSOL MultiphysicsTM . The acoustic-structure
257 interaction couples fluid and structural domains. The model solves two equations coupling
258 the displacement in the elastic media to the pressure in the fluid. The elastic wave equation
259 in the time domain is (COMSOL 2015a; COMSOL 2015b; Aanes et al. 2017a)

∂2
260 ρ u = ∇ · σ̃(u) (16)
∂t2

261 where u is the mechanical displacement, σ̃(u) is the Cauchy stress tensor and all source
262 terms have been set equal to zero (Aanes et al. 2017a). For a time-harmonic wave, Eq. (16)
263 reduces to an inhomogeneous Helmholtz equation (COMSOL 2015a; COMSOL 2015b)

264 ∇ · σ̃(û) = −ρω 2 û (17)

11 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

265 where û is the Fourier transform of u with respect to time. The acoustic pressure, p, in the
266 fluid and the Fourier transformed pressure, p̂, are in the time and frequency domains given
267 by the wave equations (COMSOL 2015a; COMSOL 2015b; Aanes et al. 2017a)

1 ∂2
268 p = ∇2 p (18)
c2f ∂t2

ω2
269 (∇2 + )p̂ = 0 (19)
c2f

270 respectively. The boundary conditions at the different interfaces are i) zero normal and shear
271 stress at the elastic-vacuum interface, ii) continuity of normal and shear displacement and
272 stress at the elastic-elastic interface, and iii) continuity of normal displacement and stress,
273 and zero shear stress at the elastic-fluid interface.
274 The FE model is general and simulations can be performed for arbitrary frequencies.
275 In this study the analysis is performed in the frequency domain. A central fluid column
276 is enclosed by either a pipe wall or a deposit layer and a pipe wall. The fluid is modelled
277 without losses and is defined by ρf and cf . The deposit and pipe materials are modelled as
278 isotropic linear elastic materials without losses, defined by their Young’s modulus, Poisson’s
279 ratio, and density. A rectangular mapped mesh is used throughout. One end of the fluid
280 column is exited by an axial acceleration, yielding guided waves. At the end of each domain,
281 a perfectly matched layer (PML) is used to attenuate the incoming sound waves. The PML
282 prevents the creation of reflected waves that could create standing waves and other artefacts
283 in the steady state solution. Different PMLs are defined for the fluid and elastic domains.
284 PMLs do not remove all reflections, but their effect seem to be negligible in the current
285 study.
286 Although the pressure amplitude vary across the pipe cross-section, the pressure wave
287 velocity is uniform. The sound pressure distribution along the central axis of the pipe is
288 extracted from the simulation. From the pressure as a function of position, an automatic

12 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

289 zero-crossing detection is used to find the wavelengths at different points along the axis
290 with a 0.1 m/s resolution. These wavelength estimates are averaged and multiplied with the
291 excitation frequency, and the speed of sound is obtained.
292 The FE model is developed with inspiration from Graf (2014) who used a FE method to
293 solve the coupled equations equations between elastic and fluid layers in the frequency domain
294 for an axisymmetric geometry. Graf (2014) investigated the fundamental axisymmetric mode
295 of the water column in buried Polyethylene pipes at low frequencies. The pipe was treated
296 as an elastic material while the water and soil or air were modelled as fluids. The thickness
297 of the soil/air was not considered and a PML terminated the layers. In Graf (2014), the
298 water column was excited by an axial acceleration and the wavelength λ was extracted from
299 the computed pressure field along the central axis of the pipe. λ was multiplied with the
300 exciting frequency f to find c. Graf (2014) also used the FE simulation setup to study the
301 eigenmodes of the system and showed the effect of the surrounding media when studying
302 buried Polyethylene pipes.
303 Compared to the model by Graf (2014), the present FE model does not consider buried
304 pipes and fluid loading is neglected since the error introduced by neglecting air surrounding
305 steel pipes is small. Furthermore, the FE model differs from other FE models reported as
306 it includes an internal (deposit) elastic layer. Examples of other FE models for a fluid-filled
307 elastic pipe with no deposit are the models presented by Jiang et al. (2011) and Maess et al.
308 (2006). The FE model in Jiang et al. (2011) is used to study acoustic wave propagation
309 modes and attenuation in liquid-filled viscoelastic pipes. The FE model in Maess et al.
310 (2006) tracks dispersion curves through a frequency band of interest through an eigenpath
311 analysis.

312 SIMULATION SETUP

313 FE model parameters

314 The fluid is excited using an axial acceleration of 0.1 m/s2 . A frequency of 100 Hz is used
315 in the FE model to obtain the presented results, allowing for reduced pipe length and efficient

13 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

316 computations. It yields a good approximation for the speed of sound for the fundamental
317 fluid mode approaching 0 Hz due to minimal dispersion for the cases considered. A pipe
318 length of 35 m is typically used.
319 A rectangular mapped mesh is applied throughout in the FE model, with a global max-
320 imum element size typically set to 3 mm. The maximum element size limits both the radial
321 and axial dimensions of each mesh element. Since each geometric domain (pipe, deposit,
322 fluid) is meshed separately with continuity at the interfaces, further restrictions on the mesh
323 size are imposed, mainly in the radial direction as the axial scales are much larger than the
324 maximum element size. For example, a 7.11 mm thick pipe wall will require three 2.37 mm
325 elements in the radial direction if the maximum element size is set equal to 3 mm.
326 As a basis for the choice of frequency, pipe length, and mesh element size, a number
327 of simulations were performed. The parameters listed in the section describing the FE
328 model were varied, as well as the pipe geometry listed in the geometry subsection and
329 deposit thickness. The impact of averaging the recorded wavelengths in the whole pipe was
330 also investigated. The grid was refined until the deviation of the calculated pressure wave
331 velocities was smaller than 2 m/s. To obtain this, a grid of 3 mm is sufficient with the
332 exception of cases for small pipes with very thick and soft deposits (covering 80 or 90 % of
333 the inner radius of the pipe). These cases require a mesh resolution of 1 mm.

334 Material parameters

335 The material parameters used to model steel pipes are ρp = 8000 kg/m3 , Ep = 220 GPa,
336 and ν = 0.3, and the enclosed fluid is water with material parameters ρf = 1000 kg/m3 , and
337 cf = 1481 m/s. The material parameters of water and steel differ, depending on e.g. type
338 of steel, processing methods, salinity, dissolved air, temperature and pressure. The chosen
339 material parameters for steel are similar to parameters listed in Leinov et al. (2015), where
340 ρp = 7932 kg/m3 , Ep = 216.9 GPa, and ν = 0.286543.
341 Deposit parameters are chosen to span possible deposits that may be encountered in
342 oil and gas pipelines. These are often divided into inorganic and organic scale, where the

14 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

343 former are different types of mineral deposits, and the latter are e.g. gas hydrates or paraffin
344 wax. The variation in material parameters within each group may be large due to the
345 differing chemical composition depending on how the deposit was formed and the degree
346 of liquid saturation for porous materials. The material parameters presented in Table 1
347 are estimates, but suitable to define the general range of encountered material parameters.
348 Included is material properties for stearin, which may be used as a model for wax. Values of
349 ρd , Ed , and νd are presented as found in the references, converted using standard relations
350 between physical properties of isotropic linear elastic materials [e.g.(Kinsler et al. 1999;
351 Cheeke 2002)] or presented as estimates.
352 Paraffin wax has a sound velocity for longitudinal waves between 1600 and 2100 m/s, and
353 a density between 800 and 1000 kg/m3 (Rommetveit 2011; Wedvich et al. 1992). An estimate
354 of the Poisson’s ratio for paraffin wax has proved hard to come by. In these calculations it
355 is assumed that it lies within the interval 0.2 to 0.4.
356 An overview of modelled and measured wave speeds in different gas hydrates are given
357 by Helgerud (2001). Densities range from 800 kg/m3 for empty lattices to 1700 kg/m3 ,
358 depending on the properties of the cage filling fluid. Measured longitudinal wave speeds
359 for gas hydrates range from 2400 to 3700 m/s. Less data are available for the shear wave
360 speed, but reported values range from approximately 1600 m/s to 1900 m/s for samples with
361 longitudinal wave speeds between 3250 and 3665 m/s.
362 The most common oilfield scales are calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate and different
363 iron compounds (Merdhah and Yassin 2007). Calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) in the form of
364 calcite has when dry a density of 2710 kg/m3 , and wave speeds of 6530 m/s and 3360 m/s for
365 longitudinal and shear waves, respectively (Helgerud 2001; Greenberg and Castagna 1992).
366 The change in elastic properties when the deposit is saturated by fluids is not considered
367 here.
368 In-house ultrasonic measurements at 1 MHz on a stearin sample yielded sound speeds
369 of 2240 m/s and 1110 m/s for longitudinal and shear waves, respectively. An ultrasonic

15 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

370 measurement cell similar to one described in (Freemantle and Challis 1998) was used. Based
371 on in-house volume and mass measurements, the density was estimated to be 950 kg/m3 .

372 Geometry

373 Steel pipe dimensions are typically defined by a nominal pipe size and an outer diameter
374 in inches. The pipe schedule is related to the pressure rating and it defines the wall thickness
375 for a given outer diameter. Results in the present study are given for pipe dimensions 2”, 4”
376 and 8” and the pipe schedules 40, 80 and 160. The corresponding wall thicknesses are given
377 in Table 2. The inner diameter, D, can also be calculated from these data. The tp /D ratio
378 is given in Table 3. Note that all tp /D ratios given in Table 3 represents thick-walled pipes
379 according to Jones et al. (2008).

380 RESULTS

381 Water-filled steel pipes without deposits

382 In Fig. 1 the results of the FE model are compared to different analytical expressions
383 for a water-filled steel pipe (without deposits) for different schedules and outer diameters.
384 The analytical models are Model 1 - the fundamental fluid mode for a pipe with arbitrary
385 pipe wall thickness given in Eq. (1), Model 2 - the basic analytical model of Eq. (10) for
386 thin-walled pipes using Ψ = 1, and Model 3 - the analytical expression for a lined circular
387 pipe, Eq. (11), using td = 0. The results in Fig. 1 are plotted as a function of the tp /D
388 ratio.

389 Water-filled steel pipes with deposits

390 Simulations for water-filled steel pipes with deposits are shown in Figs. 2, 3 and 4.
391 Fig. 2 shows calculations of the pressure wave velocity using the FE model and Model 3.
392 Calculations are shown for 2”, 4” and 8” pipes and with schedules 40, 80 and 160. In the
393 calculations, the pipe is filled with water and the deposit thickness is varied in the range
394 from 0 to 90 % relative to the inner radius of the pipe. Calcium Carbonate with material

16 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

395 parameters as listed in Table 1 are used in the simulations. Note that Model 3, using Eq.
396 (11), assumes identical ν for the deposit and the pipe, which in this case is 0.3.
397 The simulation results shown in Fig. 3 presents the effect of changing the deposit stiffness
398 from Ed = 1 GPa to Ed = 80 GPa. Effects of varying νd are also shown in Fig. 3. The
399 case in Fig. 3 is a 2” water-filled steel pipe where 50% of the pipe diameter is clogged with
400 deposits of varying Ed and νd . The results in Fig. 3 are plotted relative to a pipe without
401 deposits, i.e. relative to Model 1 results for the different pipe schedules.
402 Calculations of the pressure wave velocity in a 4” schedule 80 steel pipe with a stearin
403 deposit layer of varying thickness is shown in Fig. 4, using material parameters for stearin
404 listed in Table 1. The deposit thickness is varied in the range from 0 to 90 % relative to the
405 inner radius of the pipe. FE calculations are compared to i) the Model 1 result for a pipe
406 with no deposit, ii) Model 3 results, and iii) the Model 4 results for deposit thicknesses in
407 the range from 50 to 90 %. In Model 4, a wall thickness of td + tp is assumed.

408 Analysis and discussion of results

409 The results in Fig. 1 show that c decreases with decreasing tp /D and that the deviations
410 between the models are relatively small. The estimates of the FE model and Model 1 are
411 close, with deviations smaller than 0.17 m/s. Model 2 estimates of c are 0.68 % to 0.84 %
412 (or 9 m/s to 12 m/s) larger than FE model estimates. Overestimation is expected for the
413 tp /D values in Fig. 1 since the model is based on a thin-wall approximation with validity
414 for tp /D < 0.025 (Jones et al. 2008). The additional mass of the pipe wall neglected in
415 the thin-wall approximation reduce the pressure wave velocity (Tijsseling 2007). Model 3
416 overestimates in comparison to the FE model when the tp /D ratio is small, but the estimates
417 approach those of the FE model and Model 1 with increasing tp /D ratio. Details on the
418 underlying assumptions of Model 3 are not given in ESDU (2007), preventing further analysis.
419 The results from the FE model with a relatively stiff deposit (Ed = 80 GPa) in Fig. 2 show
420 an increase in c with increasing deposit thickness for most of the studied pipe dimension.
421 The slope of the curve is correlated with tp /D. For these deposit parameters, the lowest

17 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

422 tp /D cause the largest increase in c and the highest tp /D cause a slight decrease in c.
423 Approaching a fully clogged pipe, all calculations with the FE model seem to tend towards
424 the same pressure wave velocity. It can be shown that this corresponds to the pressure wave
425 velocity of Model 4 - a circular tunnel of the deposit material - which here is approximately
426 1430.1 m/s. Hence, for a nearly clogged pipe, c seems to be affected by the deposit only
427 and not by the surrounding steel pipe which appears to be invisible. Assuming that c
428 changes monotonously with increasing deposit thickness, Model 4 and Model 1 can be used
429 to determine the range of c for a given case and arbitrary deposit thickness. This means that
430 there also exists a combination of pipe and deposit parameters where the change in pressure
431 wave velocity as a function of relative deposit thickness is negligible.
432 As observed in Fig. 1, there are only small discrepancies between the results from the FE
433 model and Model 3 with no deposit in the pipe. With increasing deposit thickness, Model
434 3 estimates of c increase for all cases shown in Fig. 2, and the deviation relative to the FE
435 model also increase. The smallest deviations are observed for the pipes with a high tp /D,
436 where the curve shape of the two models are similar, as opposed to the case with the lowest
437 tp /D.
438 FE simulations not shown here have indicated that the deposit density has no discernible
439 effect on the pressure wave velocity when modelling the deposit as an elastic material. This
440 is consistent with the fact that neither Model 3 nor Model 4 include ρd . Deposit parameters
441 affecting c in a given water-filled pipe are thus td , Ed and νd .
442 The FE model results in Fig. 3 of a partially (50 %) clogged pipe indicate a large decrease
443 of c relative to a pipe without deposits when the stiffness of the deposit is low. FE model
444 results also indicate that the effect of changing νd is small for large Ed and that this effect is
445 larger when Ed is small. For a 2” schedule 40 pipe, a change of νd from 0.2 to 0.4 would lead
446 to 0.5 % (6.9 m/s) and 5 % (69.0 m/s) velocity changes for the Ed = 80 GPa and Ed = 1
447 GPa cases, respectively. The relative importance of Ed and νd can also be deduced from
448 model 4 for a nearly clogged pipe.

18 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

449 The FE model calculations of Fig. 4 show that changing the deposit thickness from 0
450 % to 90 % decreases c from 1392.7 m/s to 879.8 m/s which is a 36.8 % reduction with
451 respect to the no deposit case. At 90 % deposit thickness, the Model 4 estimate of c is 865.8
452 m/s. Fig. 4 indicates that the FE model and Model 4 estimates approach a common value,
453 from opposite directions, for a nearly clogged pipe, i.e. c for a circular tunnel made of the
454 deposit material, which here is 870.2 m/s. Fig. 4 also shows that for this relatively soft
455 deposit (Ed = 3.1 GPa), Model 3 does not predict the decreasing c with increasing deposit
456 thickness. Comparing Figs. 2 and 4, it seen that Model 3 is not capable of modelling the
457 effect of a ”soft” deposit (relative to pipe dimensions). It is possible that for Young’s moduli
458 well above the 80 GPa studied here, Model 3 may yield satisfactory results, depending on
459 accuracy requirements.

460 CONCLUSIONS
461 The low frequency pressure wave velocity in fluid-filled pipes is investigated in this paper,
462 with particular focus on deposits affecting this velocity. A finite element model has been
463 implemented for the study, and it has been validated against analytical models for pipes with-
464 out deposit and for pipes that are nearly clogged with deposits. For pipes without deposits,
465 calculations with the FE model are in good agreement with calculations performed with
466 an analytical expression valid for pipes with arbitrary thickness (no thin wall assumption).
467 Small deviations (< 1%) are observed when calculating with other analytical expressions.
468 These simplified models can yield satisfactory results in applications where the uncertainty of
469 the estimate is dominated by the uncertainties of the input parameters. For fluid-filled pipes
470 with deposits where the deposit thickness approaches a fully clogged pipe, the FE model
471 calculates a pressure wave velocity that tends towards the pressure wave velocity in a tunnel
472 made of the deposit material. Assuming monotonous change in pressure wave velocity with
473 increasing deposit thickness, the maximum change in the pressure wave velocity caused by
474 a deposit is thus given by the analytical equations for a pipe without deposits and a tunnel
475 made of deposit.

19 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

476 For pipes that are neither clean nor fully clogged, no available analytical expression can
477 accurately calculate the pressure wave velocity for the investigated deposits. The FE model
478 shows that the pipe geometry and deposit thickness, Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio
479 all affect the pressure wave velocity for a given pipe material. ”Stiff” deposits cause the
480 pressure wave velocity to increase for increasing deposit thickness, while ”soft” deposits
481 have the opposite effect and may have significant effects even for relatively small deposit
482 thicknesses. Somewhere between the ”soft” and ”stiff” deposits there is also deposits which
483 have minimal effect on the pressure wave velocity for any deposit thickness. The material
484 parameters corresponding to a ”stiff” or ”soft” deposit will to some extent depend on the
485 dimensions of the pipe.

486 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
487 The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Regional Research Fund of Western
488 Norway in the grant number 257068. Special thanks go to Stian Stavland for valuable
489 discussions during in the project execution.

20 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

490 NOTATION
491 The following symbols are used in this paper:
c = pressure wave velocity (m/s);
cf = wave velocity of an infinite fluid medium (m/s);
cL , cS = longitudinal and shear wave velocity in pipe material (m/s);
cLd , cSd = longitudinal and shear wave velocity in deposit material (m/s);
D = pipe inner diameter (m);
Dm = mean pipe diameter (m);
Ed , Ep = Young’s modulus of deposit and pipe material (Pa);
f = frequency (Hz);
Kf = adiabatic bulk modulus (Pa);
p = acoustic pressure (bar);
PG = gauge pressure (bar);
492

R = pipe inner radius (m);

Ri , Ro = inner and outer radius of a deposit cylinder (m);
T = temperature (◦ C);
td , tp = thickness of deposit layer and pipe wall (m);
u = mechanical displacement (m);
λ = wavelength (m);
νd , νp = Poisson’s ratio for the deposit and pipe material ( );
ρd , ρp = density of deposit and pipe material (kg/m3 );
ρf = density of a fluid (kg/m3 );
σ̃(u) = Cauchy stress tensor ( );
Ψ = coefficient that accounts for pipe supports ( ).

493 REFERENCES

494 Aanes, M., Kippersund, R. A., Lohne, K. D., Frøysa, K.-E., and Lunde, P. (2017a). “Time-
495 of-flight dependency on transducer separation distance in a reflective-path guided-wave

21 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

496 ultrasonic flow meter at zero flow conditions.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
497 America, 142(2), 825.
498 Aanes, M., Lohne, K. D., Lunde, P., and Vestrheim, M. (2016). “Beam diffraction effects in
499 sound transmission of a fluid-embedded viscoelastic plate at normal incidence.” Journal
500 of the Acoustical Society of America, 140(1), EL67–EL72.
501 Aanes, M., Lohne, K. D., Lunde, P., and Vestrheim, M. (2017b). “Beam diffraction effects
502 in the backward wave regions of viscoelastic leaky lamb modes for plate transmission
503 at normal incidence.” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
504 Control, 64(10), 1558–1572.
505 Baik, K., Jiang, J., and Leighton, T. G. (2010). “Acoustic attenuation, phase and group
506 velocities in liquid-filled pipes: Theory, experiment, and examples of water and mercury.”
507 The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128(5), 2610–2624.
508 Cheeke, J. D. N. (2002). Fundamentals and applications of ultrasonic waves. CRC Press
509 LLC.
510 COMSOL (2015a). “Acoustics module users guide, comsol multiphysics v. 5.2.
511 COMSOL (2015b). “Structural mechanics users guide.
512 Del Grosso, V. A. (1971). “Analysis of multimode acoustic propagation in liquid cylinders
513 with realistic boundary conditions - application to sound speed and absorption measure-
514 ments.” Acoustica, 24(6), 299–311.
515 DNV (2015). “Integrity management of submarine pipeline systems. recommended prac-
516 tice..” Report No. DNV-RP-F116, Det Norske Veritas AS.
517 ESDU (2007). “Fluid transients in pipes and tunnels: Speed of propagation of pressure
518 waves, with Amendment A.” Report No. ESDU 83046, IHS Engineering Sciences Data
519 Unit.
520 Freemantle, R. J. and Challis, R. E. (1998). “Combined compression and shear wave ul-
521 trasonic measurements of curing adhesive.” Measurement Science and Technology, 9(8),
522 1291–1302.

22 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

523 Gao, Y., Sui, F., Muggleton, J. M., and Yang, J. (2016). “Simplified dispersion relation-
524 ships for fluid-dominated axisymmetric wavemotion in buried fluid-filled pipes.” Journal
525 of Sound and Vibration, 375(4), 386–402.
526 Gong, J., Lambert, M. F., Nguyen, S. T. N., Zecchin, A. C., and Simpson, A. R. (2018).
527 “Detecting thinner-walled pipe sections using a spark transient pressure wave generator.”
528 Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 144(2), 1–8.
529 Gong, J., Lambert, M. F., Simpson, A. R., and Zecchin, A. C. (2013). “Single-event leak de-
530 tection in pipeline using first three resonant responses.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
531 139(6), 645–655.
532 Graf, T. (2014). “Acoustic wave propagation in water filled buried plastic pipes.” Proceedings
533 of the 2014 COMSOL Conference in Cambridge.
534 Greenberg, M. L. and Castagna, J. P. (1992). “Shear-wave velocity estimation in porous
535 rocks: Theoretical formulation, preliminary verification and applications.” Geophysical
536 Prospecting, 40(2), 195–209.
537 Gudmundsson, J. S. and Celius, H. K. (2005). “Monitoring of deposits in pipelines using pres-
538 sure pulse technology.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Gas Hydrates
539 in Trondheim.
540 Halliburton (2017). “Pressure pulse services, <http://www.halliburton.com/en-
541 US/ps/production-solutions/pipeline-process-services/pipeline-services/pressure-
542 pulse.page> (Dec. 22, 2017).
543 Halliwell, A. R. (1963). “Velocity of a water-hammer wave in an elastic pipe.” Journal of the
544 Hydraulics Division, 89(4), 1–21.
545 Helgerud, M. B. (2001). “Wave speeds in gas hydrate and sediments containing gas hydrate:
546 a laboratory and modelling study.” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
547 Hoffmann, R., Amundsen, L., and Schuller, R. (2011). “Online monitoring of wax deposition
548 in sub-sea pipelines.” Measurement Science and Technology, 22(7), 1–13.
549 Jiang, J., Baik, K., and Leighton, T. G. (2011). “Acoustic attenuation, phase and group

23 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

550 velocities in liquid-filled pipes ii: Simulation for spallation neutron sources and planetary
551 exploration.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 130(2), 695–706.
552 Jones, G. M., Sanks, R. L., Tchobanoglous, G., and Bosserman, B. E. (2008). Pumping
553 Station Design.
554 Kinsler, L. E., Frey, A. R., Coppens, A. B., and Sanders, J. V. (1999). Fundamentals of
555 acoustics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 4 edition.
556 Kippersund, R. A., Lunde, P., and Frøysa, K.-E. (2011). “Hydrate deposit detection in
557 pipes using ultrasonic guided waves.” Proceedings of the 34th Scandinavian Symposium on
558 Physical Acoustics.
559 KTN (2017). “Deposit profiling, <http://ktn.no/> (Dec. 22, 2017).
560 Lafleur, L. D. and Shields, F. D. (1995). “Low-frequency propagation modes in a liquid-filled
561 elastic tube waveguide.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97(3), 1435–1445.
562 Leinov, R., Lowe, M. J. S., and Cawley, P. (2015). “Investigation of guided wave propagation
563 and attenuation in pipe buried in sand.” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 347(7), 96–114.
564 Long, R., Cawley, P., and Lowe, M. J. S. (2003). “Acoustic wave propagation in buried iron
565 water pipes.” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 459(2039), 2749–2770.
566 Lowe, M. J. S. (1995). “Matrix techniques for modeling ultrasonic waves in multilayered
567 media.” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, 42(4),
568 525–542.
569 Maess, M., Wagner, N., and Gaul, L. (2006). “Dispersion curves of fluid filled elastic pipes
570 by standard fe models and eigenpath analysis.” Journal of Sound and Vibration, 296(4-2),
571 264–276.
572 Meniconi, S., Duan, H. F., Lee, P. J., Brunone, B., Ghidaoui, M. S., and Ferrante, M. (2013).
573 “Experimental investigation of coupled frequency and time-domain transient testbased
574 techniques for partial blockage detection in pipelines.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
575 139(10), 1033–1040.
576 Merdhah, A. B. and Yassin, A. A. M. (2007). “Barium sulfate scale formation in oil reservoir

24 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

577 during water injection at high-barium formation water.” Journal of Applied Sciences,
578 7(17), 2393–2403.
579 Muggleton, J. M., Brennan, M. J., and Linford, P. W. (2004). “Axisymmetric wave prop-
580 agation in fluid-filled pipes: wavenumber measurements in in vacuo and buried pipes.”
581 Journal of Sound and Vibration, 270(1).
582 NDT-Global (2018). “Ultrasonic corrosion inspection, <https://www.ndt-
583 global.com/about/our-technology/ut-corrosion-inspection-technology> (Mar. 16, 2018).
584 Paradigm (2017). “Pipe-profile. pipeline debris mapping technology,
585 <http://www.paradigm.eu/flow/pipe-profile.html> (Dec. 22, 2017).
586 Rommetveit, T. (2011). “Development of non-invasive ultrasound inspection techniques
587 through steel.” Ph.D. thesis, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
588 Trondheim, Norway.
589 Scola, I. R., Besanon, G., and Georges, D. (2017). “Blockage and leak detection and location
590 in pipelines using frequency response optimization.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
591 143(1), 1–12.
592 Skalak, R. (1956). “An extension of the theory of water hammer.” Transactions of the ASME,
593 78, 105–116.
594 Stewart, N. and Jack, G. (2017). “Pipeline blockage location by pressure wave analysis.”
595 SPE Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition Conference.
596 Tijsseling, A. S. (1996). “Fluid-structure interaction in liquid-filled pipe systems: A review.”
597 Journal of Fluids and Structures, 10(2), 109–146.
598 Tijsseling, A. S. (2007). “Water hammer with fluid-structure interaction in thick-walled
599 pipes.” Computers and Structures, 85(11-14), 844–851.
600 Tijsseling, A. S., Lambert, M. F., Simpson, A. R., Stephens, M. L., Vı́tkovský, J. P., and
601 Bergant, A. (2008). “Skalak’s extended theory of water hammer.” Journal of Sound and
602 Vibration, 310(3), 718–728.
603 Wedvich, G., Ingebrigtsen, H., and Bø, R. (1992). “Manuelt styrt målecelle for måling av

25 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

604 voksavsetning i olje.” Report No. CMR-92-F10011, Christian Michelsen Research.

26 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

605 List of Tables
606 1 Typical properties for different deposit materials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
607 2 Outer diameter in mm for different nominal pipe size, and thickness in mm
608 for combinations of pipe schedule for a steel pipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
609 3 Ratio of thickness and inner diameter as listed in and calculated from Table
610 2 for combinations of outer diameter and pipe schedule for a steel pipe. . . . 30

27 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

 TABLE 1. Typical properties for different deposit materials.

Material ρd Ed νd
(kg/m3 ) (GPa) ()
Paraffin wax (Rommetveit 2011; Wedvich et al. 1992) 800-1000 1-4 0.2-0.4
Gas hydrate (Helgerud 2001) 800-1700 6-11 0.3-0.4
Calcium Carbonate (Helgerud 2001; Greenberg and Castagna 1992) 2710 80 0.32
Stearin 950 3.1 0.34
∗ The Poisson’s ratio of Paraffin wax and density of Stearin are estimated values.

28 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

TABLE 2. Outer diameter in mm for different nominal pipe size, and thickness in mm
for combinations of pipe schedule for a steel pipe.

Nominal pipe size Outside diameter Schedule 40 Schedule 80 Schedule 160

2” 60.3 3.91 5.54 8.74
4” 114.3 6.02 8.56 13.49
8” 219.1 8.18 12.70 23.01

29 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

TABLE 3. Ratio of thickness and inner diameter as listed in and calculated from Table
2 for combinations of outer diameter and pipe schedule for a steel pipe.

Nominal pipe size Schedule 40 Schedule 80 Schedule 160

2” 0.0745 0.1126 0.2041
4” 0.0589 0.0881 0.1545
8” 0.0403 0.0656 0.1329

30 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

611 List of Figures
612 1 Calculated pressure wave velocities of water-filled steel pipes without deposits
613 for different pipe schedules and pipe diameters as listed in Tables 2 and 3.
614 Comparison of calculations with FE model and analytical models, i.e. Models
615 1, 2 and 3 using Eqs. (1), (10) with Ψ = 1 and (11) with td = 0, respectively. 32
616 2 Calculated pressure wave velocities for water-filled steel pipes with deposits
617 for different pipe schedules and pipe diameters as listed in Tables 2 and 3.
618 Calculations made for absence of deposit and increasing deposit thickness to
619 90 % relative to the inner radius of the steel pipe. Deposit material parameters
620 are Ed = 80 GPa, ρd = 2710 kg/m3 , and νd = 0.32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
621 3 Calculated pressure wave velocities relative to no deposit for a 2” water-filled
622 steel pipe when the deposit fills 50 % of the pipe diameter. FE calculations
623 for schedule 40, 80 and 160 with νp = 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
624 4 Pressure wave velocity in a water-filled 4” schedule 80 steel pipe with a stearin
625 deposit layer of varying thickness. Deposit material parameters are Ed = 3.1
626 GPa, ρd = 950 kg/m3 , and νd = 0.34. FE calculations compared to Model 3
627 and to Model 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

31 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

 1460
Pressure wave velocity, c [m/s]

1440

1420

1400

1380
Schedule
1360 40 80 160
1 5 FE model
1340 2 6 Model 1
3 7 Model 2
1320 4 8 Model 3

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

tp/D

FIG. 1. Calculated pressure wave velocities of water-filled steel pipes without deposits
for different pipe schedules and pipe diameters as listed in Tables 2 and 3. Comparison
of calculations with FE model and analytical models, i.e. Models 1, 2 and 3 using Eqs.
(1), (10) with Ψ = 1 and (11) with td = 0, respectively.

32 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

 1460
Pressure wave velocity, c [m/s]

1440

1420

1400

1380
FE model Model 3
1360 2" 4" 8" 2" 4" 8"
Schedule

40
1340
80
1320 160

0 20 40 60 80
Deposit thickness relative to inner radius [%]

FIG. 2. Calculated pressure wave velocities for water-filled steel pipes with deposits for
different pipe schedules and pipe diameters as listed in Tables 2 and 3. Calculations
made for absence of deposit and increasing deposit thickness to 90 % relative to the
inner radius of the steel pipe. Deposit material parameters are Ed = 80 GPa, ρd = 2710
kg/m3 , and νd = 0.32.

33 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

Pressure wave velocity rel. to no deposit [%]

110

100

90

80
Poisson's ratio
70 0.2 0.3 0.4
Schedule

40 1 4 7
60 80 2 5 8
160 3 6 9
50
0 20 40 60 80
Deposit Young's modulus [GPa]

FIG. 3. Calculated pressure wave velocities relative to no deposit for a 2” water-filled

steel pipe when the deposit fills 50 % of the pipe diameter. FE calculations for schedule
40, 80 and 160 with νp = 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4.

34 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

 1400
Pressure wave velocity, c [m/s]

1300

1200

1100

1000

900 FE model
Model 3
800 Model 4
0 20 40 60 80
Deposit thickness relative to inner radius [%]

FIG. 4. Pressure wave velocity in a water-filled 4” schedule 80 steel pipe with a stearin
deposit layer of varying thickness. Deposit material parameters are Ed = 3.1 GPa,
ρd = 950 kg/m3 , and νd = 0.34. FE calculations compared to Model 3 and to Model 4.

35 Mosland et al., June 27, 2018

View publication stats