journal article·2025-07-03Open access

Acoustic emission wave propagation in pipeline sections and analysis of the effect of coating and sensor location

Vinooth Rajendran, Anil Prathuru, Carlos Fernandez, Nadimul Faisal

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental investigation in which acoustic emission (AE) wave was generated through a pencil lead break as a point source on two pipeline sections made of mild steel and titanium. The pipelines (bare, epoxy phenolic coated) were of same length but had two different diameters and wall thicknesses. The recorded AE signals were analysed using time and frequency domain signals, energy levels and wavelet transform to explore time-frequency features for the identification of wave modes. It is concluded that the damping behaviour of coating restricts the peaks of waves, decreases the decay time of waves and reduces the energy level in the coated pipeline. It is concluded that monitoring of coated pipeline wave propagation could be done effectively with sensor placement directly on the pipeline surface compared to sensor placement on the coating surface. A high wall thickness of pipeline results in a higher number of reflected waves and increases the decay time of waves. The coating on pipeline resists wave propagation, and different densities of coating layer and pipeline affect the velocity of the wave. This experimental work advance towards designing an alternative way to monitor changes in pipeline structures (e.g., corrosion under insulation applications).
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Geophysical Methods and Applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Robert Gordon University

References (49)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1515/corrrev-2018-010210.1515/corrrev-2018-0102 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.33410.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.334 ↗
3. 10.3390/s1710220810.3390/s17102208 ↗
4. 10.1002/prs.1027610.1002/prs.10276 ↗
5. 10.1007/s10921-011-0090-z10.1007/s10921-011-0090-z ↗
6. Tscheliesnig P, Lackner G, Jagenbrein A. Corrosion detection by means of acoustic emission (AE) monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 19th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing (WCNDT 2016), Munich, German; 2016 June. p. 13–17.
7. 10.1243/095440806X7882910.1243/095440806X78829 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11323110.1016/j.compstruct.2020.113231 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2012.01.00110.1016/j.ijpvp.2012.01.001 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.10725410.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107254 ↗
11. 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.13-14.23110.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.13-14.231 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.07.01210.1016/j.apacoust.2012.07.012 ↗
13. 10.1109/JSEN.2020.297185410.1109/JSEN.2020.2971854 ↗
14. 10.3390/app1001027910.3390/app10010279 ↗
15. 10.1007/978-1-84882-784-410.1007/978-1-84882-784-4 ↗
16. 10.1080/10589759.2019.166290010.1080/10589759.2019.1662900 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.10814310.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108143 ↗
18. 10.3390/ma1507265910.3390/ma15072659 ↗
19. 10.30657/pea.2023.29.4910.30657/pea.2023.29.49 ↗
20. 10.30657/pea.2024.30.2210.30657/pea.2024.30.22 ↗
21. 10.1007/s10921-018-0488-y10.1007/s10921-018-0488-y ↗
22. ASTM: E 976–99 Standard Guide for Determining the Reproducibility of Acoustic Emission Sensor Response
23. Falcetelli F, Romero MB, Pant S, et al. Modelling of pencil-lead break acoustic emission sources using the time reversal technique. In: Proceedings of the 9th European Workshop on Structural Health Monitoring; Manchester, (UK); 2018 July. p. 10–13.
24. Sause MG.Investigation of pencil-lead breaks as acoustic emission sources. 2011.
25. Materials. ASTM A106 properties. [online]. 2020. Available from: https://materials.gelsonluz.com/2020/09/astm-a106-properties-chem-mech-rankings.html
26. Veiga C, Davim JP, Loureiro AJR. Properties and applications of titanium alloys: a brief review. Rev Adv Mater Sci. 2012;32(2):133–148.
27. 10.1080/13102818.2015.107312210.1080/13102818.2015.1073122 ↗
28. Krishna LSR, Anand BK, Rajan R, et al. Finite element analysis of a fractured mandible fixed with micro plates. Int J Eng Sci Tech. 2017;9(7): 784–795.
29. 10.1016/B978-0-08-100406-7.00006-410.1016/B978-0-08-100406-7.00006-4 ↗
30. Lane R, Hayes SA, Jones FR. Modelling the effect of a discrete interphase on the fragmentation process in polymer matrix composites. ICCM-12: 12th International Conference on Composite Materials; 1999 July 5–9; Paris. 2014. https://iccm-central.org/Proceedings/ICCM12proceedings/papers/pap281.pdf.
31. 10.1088/0957-0233/22/12/12570410.1088/0957-0233/22/12/125704 ↗
32. El-Sherik AM, editor. Trends in oil and gas corrosion research and technologies: Production and transmission. Duxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2017.
33. 10.3390/acoustics102002610.3390/acoustics1020026 ↗
34. 10.1007/978-3-319-30050-4_24-110.1007/978-3-319-30050-4_24-1 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.ultras.2017.09.00810.1016/j.ultras.2017.09.008 ↗
36. 10.1002/978047006162610.1002/9780470061626 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2011.12.01710.1016/j.ymssp.2011.12.017 ↗
38. 10.1016/S0041-624X(00)00026-310.1016/S0041-624X(00)00026-3 ↗
39. 10.1088/1361-6560/aa591d10.1088/1361-6560/aa591d ↗
40. 10.1533/9780857093554.2.23810.1533/9780857093554.2.238 ↗
41. 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90009-810.1016/0010-0285(81)90009-8 ↗
42. Bourbié T, Coussy O, Zinszner B. Acoustics of porous media. Editions Technip; 1987.
43. Tell F Svensson T. Stress Wave Propagation between-Different Materials [master’s thesis]. Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology; 2015. https://www.msb.se/siteassets/dokument/amnesomraden/krisberedskap-och-civilt-forsvar/befolkningsskydd/skyddsrum/examensarbeten/l04-112_stress-wave-propagation-between-different-materials.pdf.
44. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12043510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120435 ↗
45. 10.1533/9780857099136.8610.1533/9780857099136.86 ↗
46. AGU Vallen Wavelet. https://www.vallen.de/products/software
47. 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.01.02310.1016/j.engfracmech.2018.01.023 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.00310.1016/j.compstruct.2016.01.003 ↗
49. 10.1080/00218464.2017.127869610.1080/00218464.2017.1278696 ↗