Ipc2012 90050

Semi-Empirical Correlation to Quantify the Effects of Pipe Diameter and
Internal Surface Roughness on the Decompression Wave Speed in Natural

Gas Mixtures

K.K. Botros
NOVA Research & Technology Center
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Email: botrosk@novachem.com

Brian Rothwell
Brian Rothwell Consulting Inc.

Lorne Carlson
Alliance Pipeline Ltd.

Philip Venton
Venton & Associates Pty Ltd
Bundanoon, NSW, Australia
Abstract

GASDECOM is typically used in the design of gas pipelines
for calculating decompression speed in connection with the
Battelle two-curve method used throughout the pipeline
industry for the control of propagating ductile fracture.
GASDECOM idealizes the decompression process as
isentropic and one-dimensional, taking no account of pipe wall
frictional effects. Previous shock tube tests showed that
decompression wave speeds in smaller diameter and rough
pipes are consistently slower than those predicted by
GASDECOM for the same conditions of mixture composition
and initial pressure and temperature. Preliminary analysis
based on perturbation theory and the fundamental momentum
equation showed a correction term to be subtracted from the
ideal value of the decompression speed. One parameter in
this correction term involves a dynamic spatial pressure
gradient of the outflow at the rupture location. While this is
difficult to obtain without a shock tube or actual rupture test,
data from 14 shock tube tests, as well as from 14 full scale
burst tests involving a variety of gas mixture compositions,
were analyzed to quantify the variation of this pressure
gradient with gas conditions and outflow Mach number. A
semi-empirical relationship was found to correlate this
pressure gradient parameter with two basic parameters
representing the natural gas mixture, namely the molecular
weight of the mixture and its higher heating value (HHV). For
lean gas mixes, the semi-empirically obtained correlation was
found to fit very well the experimentally determined
decompression wave speed curve. For rich gas mixes, the
correlation fits both branches of the curve; above and below
the plateau pressure.

This paper provides the basis for the derived semi-empirical
correlation, and suggests a procedure (with examples) to
correct the ideal (frictionless) GASDECOM prediction to
account for both the effects of pipe diameter and pipe internal
wall surface roughness.

Nomenclature

C - speed of sound
CV
a
- Charpy arrest energy
D - pipe internal diameter
f, f
DW
- Darcy friction factor
HHV - gas mixture higher heating value
k
s
- pipe internal surface roughness
L - pipe length
M - outflow Mach number
MW - gas mixture molecular weight
P - gas pressure
P
i
- initial gas pressure prior to rupture
R
a
- arithmetic mean roughness
R
q
- root mean square roughness
R
Z
- mean peak to valley height roughness
s - entropy
t - time
T - temperature
Ti - initial gas temperature prior to rupture
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90050
1 Copyright 2012 by ASME
u - mean flow velocity
W - decompression wave speed
AW - difference between measured and GASDECOM
decompression wave speed (i.e. correction term)
x - axial distance
- gas density

1. Introduction

The control of propagating ductile (or tearing) fracture is a
fundamental requirement in the fracture control design of
pipelines. There are explicit requirements in most pipeline
standards, including CSA Z662 in Canada and AS 2885.1 in
Australia, which also provide simple approaches to the
specification of adequate toughness for pipelines transporting
lean gas at moderate pressures. For higher pressures, and for
richer gas compositions, more comprehensive analysis is
necessary. Despite continuing progress over a period of
almost four decades, the Battelle two-curve method developed
in the early 1970s still forms the basis of the analytical
framework used throughout the industry. This approach
involves comparisons between curves expressing the variation
of fracture speed and of decompression velocity with pressure.
Where the decompression velocity exceeds the fracture speed
(a function of pipe geometry, strength and toughness), fracture
arrest is predicted to occur. Clearly, the accurate prediction of
decompression speed, as a function of gas composition and
initial temperature and pressure, is key to the analysis. The
tool in common use for this purpose is the software
application GASDECOM [1]; while it, too, was developed in
the 1970s, and initially validated against a quite restricted
range of gas composition and initial pressure and temperature,
it has continued to perform relatively well for conditions far
outside the original validation range.

However, GASDECOM, and most other analytical approaches
that are available, idealize the decompression process as
isentropic and one-dimensional, and take no account of pipe
wall friction which affects the outflow velocity and hence the
decompression wave speed. While this approximation appears
not to have been a major issue for large-diameter pipes and for
moderate pressures (up to 12 MPa), there have been several
recent full-scale burst tests [2,3] as well as numerous shock
tube tests [4-11] at higher pressures, for which the measured
decompression velocity has deviated progressively from the
predicted values, in general towards lower velocities.
Inaccuracies of this type would lead to designs based on
GASDECOM underestimating the fracture arrest toughness,
and this issue presents increasing practical significance as
major pipeline designs advance towards higher pressures and
richer gas compositions.

Allied to this concern is the fact that the vast majority of the
fracture testing that has been carried out, from which most of
the publicly-available decompression data derive, has involved
large diameter pipe. There are a large number of existing and
proposed high pressure rich gas transmission pipelines around
the world in diameters around DN450 or smaller at a typical
MAOP of approximately 15 MPa-g. There is thus a need to
account for both the effects of pipe diameter and internal wall
friction on the decompression wave speed for the purpose of
accurate design of pipelines from fracture control
perspectives. By compiling validated results of the large,
medium and small diameter full scale and shock tube rupture
tests it would be possible to have reasonable confidence in the
magnitude of the effect and to develop a methodology to
account for the aforementioned effects.

The present paper presents a compilation of experimental
decompression wave speed data from 14 tests conducted on
rough and smooth DN50 (NPS2) high pressure shock tubes
and from full scale rupture tests conducted on a range of pipe
sizes from DN600 (NPS30) to DN1200 (NPS48). These
experimentally-determined results are compared with the
decompression wave speed predicted by GASDECOM.
Perturbation theory and the fundamental momentum equation
were applied, in order to identify a correction term to be
subtracted from the value of the decompression speed
predicted by GASDECOM. One parameter in this correction
term involves a dynamic spatial pressure gradient of the
outflow at the rupture location. Semi-empirical relationships
were then developed to correlate this pressure gradient
parameter with two basic parameters representing the
characteristics of the natural gas mixture, namely its molecular
weight and its higher heating value (HHV).

It should be pointed out that the internal surface roughness
values for the shock tube tests reported in this paper are the
mean peak to valley height roughness R
Z
according to DIN
4777 and ISO 4287:1997, which should not be confused with
the Nikuradse equivalent sand grain roughness that is used in
hydraulic correlations to determine the friction factor, (see, for
example, Colebrook [12]. However, the work of Sletfjerding
and Gudmundsson [13] showed that R
Z
values are closer to the
sand grain roughness than either R
a
or R
q
. This finding was
also supported by the extensive analysis of Afzal [14].

2. Background

One of the important parameters in pipeline fracture control is
the decompression wave speed (W). Predictions of this
parameter by gas decompression models, such as
GASDECOM [1] and PIPEDECOM [15] are based on
fundamental one-dimensional thermodynamic expansion
behaviour of the gas at the rupture point, independent of the
pipe diameter.

GASDECOM uses the BWRS equation of state in determining
the decompression wave speed. The resulting decompression
wave speed prediction by GASDECOM is slightly dependent
on the increment AP used along the isentrope. Around 200 (or
more) pressure steps between the initial pressure and the
minimum pressure corresponding to zero W are typically used
to obtain consistent results.

Experimentally, the decompression wave speed is determined
either from a full scale rupture of a section of a pipeline or
from shock tube experiments. Here, the decompression wave
speed can be determined from pressure-time traces measured
by high-frequency response transducers mounted at different
locations along the pipe section. For any pressure level below
the initial pressure, the time of arrival of the decompression
wave at each successive pressure transducer can be
determined, and the corresponding propagation speed W can
be calculated using a linear fit of distance from initiation
against arrival time. Such calculations are repeated for
progressively lower pressures, and the results presented in
terms of W as a function of pressure P. This is the format
required for the application of the Battelle two-curve method
for the determination of fracture arrest toughness [16-20]. In
any full scale pipe rupture tests, pressure transducers close to
the rupture initiation are progressively eliminated by the
passage of the fracture front, while those furthest from the
origin will be affected by the reflected pressure wave from the
end of the pipe. Readings affected by such events must clearly
be eliminated from the fitting procedure. Contrarily, in the
shock tube experiments, typically the pressure transducers
closest to the rupture disc are used, to minimize any pipe
internal surface effects. In these experiments, the five
transducers closest to the rupture were used for the purposes
of comparison [see details in ref. 4 &5].

3. Compiled Shock Tube and Full Scale Rupture Test
Data

A total of 26 experimentally-obtained decompression wave
speed curves were compiled. Pipe sizes, internal pipe wall
surface roughness, initial pressure and temperature, and
corresponding mixture composition are compiled in Table 1.
Cases 1 through 12 are shock tube tests conducted on DN50
(NPS2) specialized shock tube [5], while cases 13 through 26
are full-scale rupture test obtained from the corresponding
references shown in the Table. The pipe internal wall
roughness values for these full-scale tests were not reported in
these references. They were assumed to be bare pipes with a
typical roughness value of 15m. Since the Reynolds
numbers (Re) of the outflow for these tests are of the order of
10
6
-10
8
, the friction factor will be in the fully rough region
[21-24].

4. Basis of the Correction Term to account for Pipe
Internal Surface Roughness and Diameter

This section describes the analytical approach leading to a
methodology to correct for the effects of surface roughness
(via the flow friction factor, f) and internal pipe diameter (D).
We start with the fundamentals of the theory of perturbation
applied to infinitesimal decompression wave amplitude. At
any pressure level along the isentrope and at pressures above
the choked pressure, a pressure perturbation oP can be
expressed as:

dx
x
P
dt
t
P
P
t x
|
.
|
\
|
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 pressure-time traces at different
locations close to the rupture location and at a given pressure
level. For example, Fig. 1 shows these pressure-time traces
for Case #7 in Table 1 at different locations corresponding to
the indicated pressure transducers (PTs). The corresponding
spatial pressure gradients at 10 MPa-a 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.


Table 1: Compiled Shock Tube and Full Scale Rupture Test Cases.

#
Nominal
Diamter
(inches)
Roughness
Parameter
(m)
Pi (kPa-a) Ti (
o
C) C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6+ N2 CO2 MW
HHV
(MJ/m3)
Ref.
1 Reference-Rough 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 Reference-Smooth 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 1-Rough 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 1-Smooth 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 3-Rough 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 3-Smooth 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 4R-Rough 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 4R-Smooth 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 5-Rough 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 5-Smooth 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 6-Rough 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 6-Smooth 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]
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

Figure 1: Pressure-Time Profiles at Different Transducer
Locations for Test #7 in Table 1 [ref 5].

Figure 2: Pressure Gradient (dP/dx) at 10 MPa-a, and
Different Locations inside the Shock Tube for Test #7 in
Table 1.

Figure 3: Pressure Gradient (dP/dx) at 10 MPa-a 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 one-dimensional 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 MPa-a
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
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 full-scale
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
Colebrook-White [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 Colebrook-White; 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 Colebrook-White.
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 MPa-a) to 10
MPa-a, 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 MPA-a
Plateau Pressure
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 kPa-a, 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 MPa-a 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 1.920E-05 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 1.914E-05 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 1.908E-05 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 1.902E-05 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 1.896E-05 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 1.890E-05 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 1.884E-05 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 1.877E-05 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 1.871E-05 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 1.865E-05 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 1.833E-05 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 1.827E-05 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 1.821E-05 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 1.814E-05 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 1.808E-05 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 1.801E-05 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 1.795E-05 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 1.788E-05 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 1.782E-05 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 1.775E-05 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
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

for all of the Cases in Table 1 vs. HHV.

Figure 8: Relationship between HHV and MW of the Gas
Mixtures in Table 1.

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 Reference-Rough 16.53 38.03 18.19
2 Reference-Smooth 17.40 39.51 22.69
3 Test 1-Rough 18.60 41.50 10.97
4 Test 1-Smooth 18.53 41.38 15.46
5 Test 3-Rough 20.82 44.76 3.84
6 Test 3-Smooth 20.70 44.55 5.37
7 Test 4R-Rough 20.33 44.70 5.29
8 Test 4R-Smooth 20.35 44.84 5.17
9 Test 5-Rough 19.86 44.10 4.14
10 Test 5-Smooth 20.04 44.32 4.51
11 Test 6-Rough 20.92 46.39 2.66
12 Test 6-Smooth 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
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
)
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
)
Expon. (Normalized (dP/dX) * 1000)
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 full-scale 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).

Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (Alliance
Full-Scale Test 1).

Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (X100 Test
2).

Term and the developed Correlation for dP/dx (JGA Test
#2).

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
)
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
JGA Test #4
D = 24 inches
k
s
= 15 m
6. Validation of the Developed Correlation via
Additional Shock Tube Tests

In order to further validate the developed correlations for the
pressure gradient (Eqs. 13-15), 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.

Term and the Developed Correlations for dP/dx (Case 27).
Case 27 Case 28
Pi (kPa-a) 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
)
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
)
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on MW*HHV Correlation
Test #8
Smooth Tube
Case 27
Smooth Shock Tube
c
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 Colebrook-White
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 difference-based 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 back-calculated (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 Colebrook-White 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
semi-empirical 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 semi-empirical correlation of Eq.
15.

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
)
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
)
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
Corrected based on MW.HHV Correlation
Test #9
Smooth Tube
Case 28
Smooth Shock Tube
c

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 two-curve method [5].

3. Through analysis of 12 shock tube tests and 14 full-scale
rupture tests, a semi-empirical 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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
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
)
Measured
GASDECOM
JGA Test #2
D = 30 inches
k
s
= 90 m
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, NG-18 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 IPC04-0596, 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 12-14, 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.
051303-1, 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
27-29, 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, 5-8 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. 133-156, 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. 1255-1267, 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 PR-273-0135, 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. 70-81.
17. Maxey, W.A.: Fracture Initiation, Propagation and Arrest,
5th Symposium on Line Pipe Research, p. J-1. PRCI
Catalogue No. L30174, 1974.
18. Eiber, R.J. and Maxey, W.A.: Full-Scale 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 909539-73-1, WTIA, Sydney,
Australia, (1997), part. 6-1.
21. Langelandsvik, L.I., Kunkel, G.J. and Smits, A.J.: Flow in
a commercial steel pipe, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol.
595, pp. 323-339, 2008.
22. Shockling, M. A., Allen, J. J., Smits, A. J.: Roughness
effects in turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 564, pp. 267-285, 2006.
23. Zagarola, M.V., Smits, A.J.: Mean-flow scaling of
turbulent pipe flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 373,
pp. 33-79, 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 IPC-2000 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.: Full-Scale Experimental
Investigation of Ductile Fracture Behaviour in Simulated
Arctic Pipeline, Materials Engineering in the Artic,
Proceedings of Int. Conf., St. Jovite, Quebec, Canada, Sept
27-Oct 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
24-28, 2012.


Ipc2012 90050

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipc2012 90050

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Semi-Empirical Correlation to Quantify the Effects of Pipe Diameter and

Internal Surface Roughness on the Decompression Wave Speed in Natural

You might also like