Research Papers: Techniques and Procedures

Propagation and Attenuation of Pressure Waves in Dispersed Two-Phase Flows

[+] Author and Article Information
Jaqueline Costa Martins

São Carlos School of Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
Avenida Trabalhador Sãocarlense, 400,
São Carlos, SP 13566-590, Brazil
e-mail: jaquelinebft@yahoo.com.br

Paulo Seleghim, Jr.

São Carlos School of Engineering,
University of São Paulo,
Avenida Trabalhador Sãocarlense, 400,
São Carlos, SP 13566-590, Brazil
e-mail: seleghim@sc.usp.br

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received December 8, 2015; final manuscript received July 21, 2016; published online October 18, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Mark R. Duignan.

J. Fluids Eng 139(1), 011304 (Oct 18, 2016) (13 pages) Paper No: FE-15-1906; doi: 10.1115/1.4034370 History: Received December 08, 2015; Revised July 21, 2016

The propagation and attenuation of pressure waves in highly dispersed gas–liquid flows are investigated in this work, and an indirect measurement method is proposed to assess the attenuation coefficient in short pipelines. Additionally, a mechanistic acoustic energy dissipation model is derived from the oscillatory solutions of one-dimensional (1D) nondimensionalized mass and momentum equations to facilitate the interpretation of the results. Tests were performed on a 1500 m long, 50 mm internal diameter pipeline in which pressure disturbances were induced by suddenly opening leak valves. The results are consistent and in good agreement with the proposed attenuation model (±10% for 103 < Re < 104), therefore validating the proposed model and indirect measurement method.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Sim, S. , Cole, I. S. , Choi, Y.-S. , and Birbilis, N. , 2014, “ A Review of the Protection Strategies Against Internal Corrosion for the Safe Transport of Supercritical CO2 Via Steel Pipelines for CCS Purposes,” Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control, 29, pp. 185–199. [CrossRef]
Ferrante, M. , and Brunone, B. , 2003, “ Pipe System Diagnosis and Leak Detection by Unsteady-State Tests—1: Harmonic Analysis,” Adv. Water Resour., 26(1), pp. 95–105. [CrossRef]
Ferrante, M. , and Brunone, B. , 2003, “ Pipe System Diagnosis and Leak Detection by Unsteady-State Tests—2: Wavelet Analysis,” Adv. Water Resour., 26(1), pp. 107–116. [CrossRef]
Leinov, E. , Lowe, M. J. S. , and Cawley, P. , 2015, “ Investigation of Guided Wave Propagation and Attenuation in Pipe Buried in Sand,” J. Sound Vib., 347, pp. 96–114. [CrossRef]
Almeida, F. C. L. , Brennan, M. J. , Joseph, P. F. , Dray, S. , Whitfield, S. , and Paschoalini, A. T. , 2014, “ Measurement of Wave Attenuation in Buried Plastic Water Distribution Pipes,” J. Mech. Eng., 60(5), pp. 298–306. [CrossRef]
Boyd, J. W. R. , and Varley, J. , 2001, “ The Uses of Passive Measurement of Acoustic Emissions From Chemical Engineering Processes,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 56(5), pp. 1749–1767. [CrossRef]
Atkinson, C. M. , and Kytömaa, H. K. , 1992, “ Acoustic Wave Speed and Attenuation in Suspensions,” Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 18(4), pp. 577–592. [CrossRef]
Chung, N. M. , Lin, W. K. , Pei, B. S. , and Hsu, Y. Y. , 1992, “ Sound Attenuation and Its Relationship With Interfacial Area Density in an Air-Water Two-Phase Bubbly Flow,” Flow Meas. Instrum., 3(1), pp. 45–53. [CrossRef]
Martins, C. S. , and Padmanabhan, M. , 1979, “ Pressure Pulse Propagation in Two-Component Slug Flow,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 101(1), pp. 44–52. [CrossRef]
Nigmatulin, R. I. , 1995, “ Some Fundamentals and Applications, Paradoxes and Myths in Mechanics of Multiphase Flow,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multiphase Flow, Vol. 1, April 3–7, Kyoto, Japan.
Xu, X. X. , and Gong, J. , 2008, “ A United Model for Predicting Pressure Wave Speeds in Oil and Gas Two-Phase Pipeflows,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 60(3–4), pp. 150–160. [CrossRef]
Huang, F. , Takahashi, M. , and Guo, L. , 2005, “ Pressure Wave Propagation in Air-Water Bubbly and Slug Flow,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, 47(1–4), pp. 648–655. [CrossRef]
Wang, H. , Priestman, G. H. , Beck, S. B. M. , and Boucher, R. F. , 2000, “ Measurement and Simulation of Pressure Wave Attenuation in Upward Air-Water Bubbly Flow,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 21(1), pp. 104–111. [CrossRef]
Wylie, E. B. , Streeter, V. L. , and Suo, L. , 1993, Fluid Transients in Systems, Vol. 1, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chaudhuri, A. , Osterhoudt, C. F. , and Sinha, D. N. , 2012, “ An Algorithm for Determining Volume Fractions in Two-Phase Liquid Flows by Measuring Sound Speed,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 134(10), p. 101301. [CrossRef]
Barabanov, S. A. , and Glikman, B. F. , 2009, “ The Attenuation Coefficient of an Acoustic Wave Propagating in a Turbulent Flow in a Long Pipeline,” Acoust. Phys., 55(2), pp. 170–177. [CrossRef]
Press, W. H. , 2007, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 1235.
Meniconi, S. , Brunone, B. , Ferrante, M. , and Massari, C. , 2014, “ Energy Dissipation and Pressure Decay During Transients in Viscoelastic Pipes With an In-Line Valve,” J. Fluids Struct., 45, pp. 235–249. [CrossRef]
Wahba, E. M. , 2008, “ Modelling the Attenuation of Laminar Fluid Transients in Piping Systems,” Appl. Math. Modell., 32(12), pp. 2863–2871. [CrossRef]
Wahba, E. M. , 2015, “ On the Propagation and Attenuation of Turbulent Fluid Transients in Circular Pipes,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 138(3), p. 031106. [CrossRef]
Martins, J. C. , and Seleghim, P. J. , 2010, “ Assessment of the Performance of Acoustic and Mass Balance Methods for Leak Detection in Pipelines for Transporting Liquids,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 132(1), p. 011401. [CrossRef]
Pezzinga, G. , Brunone, B. , Cannizzaro, D. , Ferrante, M. , Meniconi, S. , and Berni, A. , 2014, “ Two-Dimensional Features of Viscoelastic Models of Pipe Transients,” ASCE J. Hydraul. Eng., 140(8), p. 0401403. [CrossRef]
Huan, H.-F. , Ghidaoui, M. , Lee, P. J. , and Tung, Y. K. , 2010, “ Unsteady Friction and Visco-Elasticity in Pipe Fluid Transients,” J. Hydraul. Res., 48(3), pp. 354–362. [CrossRef]
Churchill, S. W. , 1977, “ Friction-Factor Equation Spans All Fluid-Flow Regimes,” Chem. Eng., 84(24), pp. 91–92.
Ishii, M. , and Zuber, N. , 1979, “ Drag Coefficient and Relative Velocity in Bubbly, Droplet and Particulate Flow,” AlChE J., 25(5), pp. 843–854. [CrossRef]
Falk, K. , 1999, “ Pressure Pulse Propagation in Gas-Liquid Pipe Flow, Modeling, Experiments and Field Testing,” Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Ogilvie, J. F. , 1984, “ A Monte-Carlo Approach to Error Propagation,” Comput. Chem., 8(3), pp. 205–207. [CrossRef]
Lemmon, E. W. , Huber, M. L. , and McLinden, M. O. , 2013, “ NIST Standard Reference Database 23: Reference Fluid Thermodynamic and Transport Properties-REFPROP, Version 9.1,” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program, Gaithersburg, MD.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the structure of a pressure signal sensed by a pressure probe placed at a distance ℓ from the inlet, in response to a pressure disturbance caused by opening a leak valve (negative pressure wave)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Schematic representation of the multiphase flow (air–oil–water) test loop (positions of the pressure sensors (◇) and leakage valves (▪) are relative to the input pressure sensor indicated by    Ⓐ )

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Typical input (continuous) and output (dotted) flow rates and pressure signals, respectively, measured by the electromagnetic flow meters and pressure sensor, corresponding to the automated test procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Visual assessment of the arrival times and disturbance amplitudes sensed by pressure sensors installed along the pipeline at known positions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Evolution of the acoustic propagation speed, void fraction, and inlet flow pressure for all the tested flow rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Direct attenuation coefficients (λdir) assessed from pressures waves sensed by each one of the ten sensors in the pipe loop, for disturbances generated by opening one leakage valve at a time for all the tested flow rates: (a) 154.5 l/min, (b) 143.9 l/min, (c) 127.6 l/min, (d) 111.4 l/min, (e) 94.6 l/min, (f) 77.5 l/min, (g) 33.8 l/min, and (h) 14.9 l/min

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Examples of the temporal damping coefficient of the multiple echo signals measured by pressure sensors 4 and 6, respectively, up and downstream of leak valve 10 which was opened to generate the acoustic disturbance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Acoustic attenuation coefficients assessed via three different approaches: directly measured (▪), indirectly measured (▲), and theoretically from Eq. (21) (continuous curve)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Schematic representation sequential calculations leading to the theoretical attenuation coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Probability distributions of the theoretical attenuation coefficient: (a) Re = 6.95 × 103, (b) Re = 1.58 × 104, (c) Re = 3.61 × 104, (d) Re = 4.41 × 104, (e) Re = 5.19 × 104, (f) Re = 5.95 × 104, (g) Re = 6.71 × 104, and (h) Re = 7.20 × 104



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In