applied

sciences
Article
Acoustic Wave Propagation in Air-Filled Pipes Using
Finite Element Analysis
Mustapha Abdullahi * and S Olutunde Oyadiji *
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
* Correspondence: mustapha.abdullahi@manchester.ac.uk or mustymnos@yahoo.com (M.A.);
s.o.oyadiji@manchester.ac.uk (S.O.O.); Tel.: +44-161-275-3248




Received: 6 July 2018; Accepted: 1 August 2018; Published: 7 August 2018


Abstract: The major objective of this work is to develop an efficient Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
procedure to simulate wave propagation in air-filled pipes accurately. The development of such
a simulation technique is essential in the study of wave propagation in pipe networks such as oil and
gas pipelines and urban water distribution networks. While numerical analysis using FEA seems
superficially straight forward, this paper demonstrates that the element type and refinement used
for acoustic FEA have a significant effect on the accuracy of the result achieved and the efficiency of
the computation. In particular, it is shown that the well-known, better overall performance achieved
with 3D solid hexahedral elements in comparison with 2D-type elements in most stress and thermal
applications does not occur with acoustic analysis. In this paper, FEA models were developed taking
into account the influence of element type and sizes using 2D-like and 3D element formulations,
as well as linear and quadratic nodal interpolations. Different mesh sizes, ranging from large to very
small acoustic wavelengths, were considered. The simulation scheme was verified using the Time of
Flight approach to derive the predicted acoustic wave velocity which was compared with the true
acoustic wave velocity, based on the input bulk modulus and density of air. For finite element sizes of
the same order as acoustic wavelengths which correspond to acoustic frequencies between 1 kHz and
1 MHz, the errors associated with the predictions based on the 3D solid hexahedral acoustic elements
were mostly greater than 15%. However, for the same element sizes, the errors associated with the
predictions based on the 2D-like axisymmetric solid acoustic elements were mostly less than 2%.
This indicates that the 2D-like axisymmetric solid acoustic elements are much more efficient than the
3D hexahedral acoustic elements in predicting acoustic wave propagation in air-filled pipes, as they
give higher accuracies and are less computationally intensive. In most stress and thermal FEA, the
3D solid hexahedral elements are much more efficient than 2D-type elements. However, for acoustic
FEA, the results show that 2D-like axisymmetric elements are much more efficient than 3D solid
hexahedral elements.

Keywords: Finite Element Analysis (FEA); Time of Flight; acoustic reflectometry; acoustic
wave propagation

1. Introduction
Understanding the wave propagation in a pipe is of fundamental importance to some engineering
systems such as oil and gas pipeline systems and urban water distribution networks. Pipelines are
extensively used to transport energy products like crude oil and gas, and for water transport and
distribution. Corrosion flaws can begin to develop as pipelines age, and it is therefore vital to develop
ways to inspect them efficiently. Many industrial pipelines are buried in the ground and are mostly
isolated and inaccessible. Therefore, there is a need to employ remote sensing techniques to monitor
the development of flaws in such pipelines. The acoustic wave propagation technique has become

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318; doi:10.3390/app8081318 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 2 of 20

a very attractive, non-destructive testing technique for the remote monitoring of pipelines. The wave
propagation technique has the advantage of full volumetric inspection, and can be used to find the
characteristics of flow in a fluid-filled pipeline. The acoustic wave propagation technique operates in
elongated geometrical bodies with constant or variable cross-sections, e.g., pipes. Sound generated
in these bodies is constrained to propagate in the pipe wall, as well as in the fluid inside the pipe,
and is reflected back to the generation point when a change in impedance (discontinuity) occurs.
Therefore, acoustic wave propagation can only occur when there is a medium in which to propagate.
Acoustic wave propagation phenomena along pipelines have been investigated theoretically
and experimentally. Several modifications of the acoustic wave equation to more complex equations
have been established. For instance, for a fluid flowing with varying density and acoustic velocity,
Bergmann [1] previously proposed an equation that is widely used in underwater acoustics problems,
whereas Pierce [2] derived a generalized wave equation for an inhomogeneous fluid in motion whose
flow profile differs in time and position. Chen and Shen [3] proposed a method to analyze the surface
waves propagating on a grounded anisotropic slab. They considered the field variation in the direction
parallel to the wave propagation. The wave propagation characteristics were derived on the basis of
Maxwell’s equation and boundary conditions.
Recent developments showed that acoustic wave propagation using the Finite Element Method
(FEM) has been utilized in pipeline detection. The sound propagation within a fluid flow in a pipe
can be evaluated, taking the flow profile as a boundary condition for the simulation task. The FEA
solvers for linear and non-linear acoustic wave equations vary. This leads to a symmetric matrix
formulation for fluid-structure interaction [4], and this is being used in several computation solvers for
acoustics. Mohamed and Walied [5] developed a finite element model of a surface acoustic wave sensor
using the ANSYS simulation tool; the model was tested for hydrogen detection. Another numerical
FEA approach was proposed for the calculation of non-linear propagation of acoustic waves by
Kagawa et al. [6].
Eccardt et al. [7] presented an FEA method based on a modified wave equation, and compared
their results with previously developed techniques like the Holtz-Kirchhoff integral and ray
tracing method. They obtained sets of primary and secondary wave equations, and for numerical
implementation, they employed the Finite Element Method to discretize and solve the equation integral
scheme with respect to time. The numerical result shows that the equations are valid, but with more
pronounced discretization error for the secondary waves. An FE numerical technique for simulating
a 3D acoustic-wave correlator was presented by Tikka et al. [8]. They presented and discussed the
results of the analysis of device responses for variable acoustic modes and differences in electrical
response in the system. They concluded that FEA provides an effective means of analysing the
correlator’s response to various propagating modes.
Kutiš et al. [9] used FEM in modelling and simulation of surface acoustic wave sensor.
They performed modal and transient piezoelectric analysis to determine the eigenmodes and
frequencies of the system that were used to investigate the harmonic wave propagation characteristics
of the system. Yu and Yan [10] conducted a series of numerical studies using FEA to investigate
the wave propagation behaviour in wooden poles. Their results showed that a higher elastic
modulus in longitudinal direction always generated higher guided wave behaviour in a wooden
pole, and experimental testing was performed to validate their findings. Many works have been
conducted with the aim of improving the computational efficiency and accuracy of the convectional
FEA method. Owowo and Oyadiji [11] investigated the effect of leakage on acoustic wave propagation
in an air-filled pipe using the FEA method and experimental testing. Their predicted and measured
data was subsequently used to identify and locate the leakage using a Time-of-Flight approach.
Other numerical techniques have been used for predicting acoustic wave propagation.
These include the Boundary Element Method (BEM), Statistical Energy Analysis (SEA), and the SWAN
(Simulating Waves Nearshore) spectral phase averaged wave model. For example, Chen et al. [12]
used the Finite Element Method and Boundary Element Method (FEM-BEM) to analyse acoustic
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 3 of 20

fluid-structure interaction. An algorithm based on FEM-BEM was presented for simulation of

fluid-structure interaction in their work. The accuracy of the simulation was improved by evaluating
the single integrals in boundary integral equations using the Cauchy principal value and the Hadamard
finite part integral method.
In order to understand the mechanism of acoustic wave propagation in a body, the noise
propagation in ship structures was investigated by Weryk et al. [13], and was tested in several vessels
using Statistic Energy Analysis (SEA). Their predicted result was compared with the experimental
results obtained from tests carried out using similar vessels. Eugen [14] studied the patterns by which
wave energy propagates in the western side of the Black sea and simulated the propagation using the
SWAN spectral phase averaged wave model. The study shows that there is a tendency for the waves
to travel faster along the Black sea surface.
A field experiment to assess the feasibility of using commercially available accelerometers and
related signal condition to analyse acoustic wave propagation in a pipe was recently conducted [15].
Results from the experiments confirmed that attenuation is the most important factor that affects
the viability of acoustic wave propagation for impact detection. In another work, a sound intensity
measurement technique was used to investigate how sound energy propagates around organ pipes [16].
The authors obtained the sound intensity distributions around the pipes, and the directions of the
acoustic energy flow were presented. Papadopoulou et al. [17] used the acoustics pulse reflectometer
technique for flaw detection in pipes in the time domain.
The use of analytical equations to investigate acoustic- or pressure-wave propagation in
a fluid-filled pipeline might be straight-forward and easily implemented for a simple straight pipe.
However, when pipe networks are involved, the prediction of acoustic or pressure wave propagation
becomes very difficult to implement analytically. In such cases, the use of a numerical method,
such as FEA, is imperative. However, large errors may also occur in the numerical predictions of
acoustic wave propagation. For example, when FEA was used to predict acoustic wave propagation
in an air-filled pipe, as in the work by Owowo and Oyadiji [11], very large acoustic speed errors
were obtained. They used 3D hexahedral acoustic elements whose structural counterparts usually
give accurate predictions. They expected the 3D hexahedral acoustic elements to also give accurate
predictions, but did not check to confirm the degree of their accuracy. Therefore, there is a need to
further investigate the FEA of acoustic wave propagation in fluid-filled pipes using other acoustic
finite elements in order to achieve accurate and efficient predictions.
In this paper, the simulation of acoustic wave propagation in a pipe using FEA is presented
and verified using the Time of Flight approach to deduce the acoustic velocity associated with the
predictions. The use of different acoustic element types of 2D-like and 3D formulations, and of linear
and quadratic interpolations, are investigated in order to deduce the most accurate acoustic FEA
approach, and thereby, to minimise the errors.

2. Acoustic Wave Theory and Finite Element Formulation

2.1. Acoustic Wave Theory

Acoustic wave propagation in a homogenous fluid media at rest is governed by the wave equation:

2 1 ∂2 Φ
Φ= (1)
c2 ∂t2
For Cartesian and polar coordinates, (x, y, z) and (r, θ, z), respectively, the three-dimensional
Laplacian operator is defined, respectively by:

2 ∂2 ∂2 ∂2
= + + (2)
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂z2
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 4 of 20

and
2 ∂2 1 ∂2 1 ∂2 ∂2
= 2
+ 2
+ 2 2+ 2 (3)
∂r r ∂r r ∂θ ∂z
and the equations for coordinate transformations are given by:
q
x = rcos θ, y = rsin θ, r = x 2 + y2 (4)

where c is the velocity of acoustic wave propagation, Φ velocity potential and x, y, and z are standard
Cartesian coordinates. The corresponding acoustic pressure wave propagation is governed by:

2 1 ∂2 p
p= (5)
c2 ∂t2
where the pressure, p and instantaneous particle velocity, u are related to the velocity potential, Φ by:

∂Φ
u= Φ; p = −ρ (6)
∂t
For an open-ended air-filled pipe without defect, with uniform cross-sectional area, driven by
a sound pulse, the general solution of Equation (1) is of the form [18]:

qk x ,ky ,kz ( x, y, z, t) = Aei(k x x+ky y+kz z−ωt) (7)

or
qkr ,kθ ,kz (r, θ, z, t) = Aei1(kr r+kθ θ +kz z−ωt) (8)

where q represents the longitudinal displacement of the fluid as the wave propagates through it, t is
time, ω is the frequency and k is the wave number. The FEA method based on Equation (1) leads to
a symmetric matrix formulation for fluid structure interaction [1,3] which is used in several numerical
computational analysis programs for acoustics. For direct integration transient analysis, FEA solutions
are based on Equation (7).

2.2. Acoustic Finite Element Formulation in the Abaqus FEA Software

The acoustic elements in the Abaqus FEA software model 1 the propagation of acoustic waves,
and are active in dynamic analysis procedures. In the Abaqus FEA software (version 6.14,
ABAQUS Inc, Johnston, RI, USA), the analysis with acoustic elements should be thought of as
small-displacement linear perturbation analysis. The equation for small motions of compressible, adiabatic
fluid is taken to be [19]: 1

∂p . ..
+ γu( x, α) + ρu( x, α) = 0 (9)
∂x
.
where p is the pressure in the fluid, x is the spatial position of the fluid particle, u is the fluid particle
..
velocity, u is the fluid particle acceleration, ρ is the density of the fluid, γ is the “volumetric drag”
(force per unit volume per velocity), and α are independent field variables such as temperature,
humidity of air, or salinity of water, on which ρ and γ may depend.
The constitutive behavior of the fluid is assumed to be inviscid, linear, and compressible;
the pressure can be obtained as
∂
p = −K ( x, α) ·u (10)
∂x
where K is the bulk modulus of the fluid.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 5 of 20

2.3. Direct Integration Transient Dynamics Formulation

The partial differential equation used in direct integration transient analysis in the Abaqus FEA
software is obtained by combining Equations (9) and (10), to give the equation of motion for the fluid
in terms of the fluid pressure [19]:
 
1 .. γ . ∂ 1 ∂p
p+ p− · =0 (11)
K ρK ∂x ρ ∂x

An equivalent weak variational form of the equation of motion, Equation (11), is obtained by
introducing an arbitrary variational field, δp and integrating over the fluid domain to give:
  
1 .. 1 ∂p
Z
γ . ∂
δp p+ p− · dV = 0 (12)
V K ρK ∂x ρ ∂x

Applying all necessary boundary conditions, Green’s theorem allows the Equation (12) to give
the final variational statement for the acoustic medium as [19]:
R h  1 .. γ .

1 ∂∂p ∂p
i R R 
γ

γ 1 .

1 ..

V δp K p + ρK p + · dV − s ∂pTdS + s ∂p ρc p + ρK + c p + K p dS
ρ ∂x .
∂x 
+ s ∂p 1c p + β1 p dS
R
(13)
..
  . .. ..

− s ∂pn·udS + s ∂p ργc p + ργK + 1c p + K1 p − n·u dS = 0
R R

where n = −n is the inward normal of the surface. For the structural interface:
Z Z Z Z Z
. ..
δε : σdV + βρδu·udV + ρδu·udV + pδu·ndS + δu·tdS = 0 (14)
V V V V V

where σ is the stress at a point in the structure, p is the pressure acting on the fluid-structural interface,
n is the outward normal to the structure, ρ is the density of the material, β is the mass proportional
..
damping factor, u is the acceleration of a point in the structure, T is the surface traction applied to
the structure, δu is a variational displacement field, and δε is the strain variation that is compatible
with δu.

2.4. The Discretized Finite Element Equation

The variational problem for the coupled fields u and p is defined by Equations (13) and (14).
The problem domain is discretized by introducing the following interpolation functions (i) in the fluid:
P = H P p P , where H is the interpolation function in the fluid domain and superscript P = 1, 2, . . . up
to the number of pressure nodes; and (ii) in the structure: u = N N u N , where N is the interpolation
function in the structural domain and superscript N = 1, 2, . . . up to the number of displacement
degrees of freedom. Using Galerkin method and the Petrov-Galerkin substitution, the discretized
coupled variational equation is obtained by adding Equations (13) and (14) to give [19]:
  .. Q  .Q  
..

−δ P̂ P M PQ
f + M PQ
fr P + C PQ
f + C PQ
fr P + K PQ
f + K PQ
fr + K PQ
fi P Q − S PM u
fs − P P
f

T
 (15)
.. .
h i
+δu I N + M N M u + C(NmM) u + SQN fs PQ − P N = 0

where the superscripts P, Q refer to pressure degrees of freedom in the fluid and N, M refer to
displacement degrees of freedom in the structure and the bracketed terms are integral expressions of
the interpolation functions H and N defined in [19].
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 6 of 20

3. Acoustic Elements
Acoustic elements are formulated for modelling an acoustic medium undergoing small
pressure changes. The solution in the acoustic medium is defined by a single pressure variable.
Impedance boundary conditions representing absorbing surfaces or radiation to an infinite exterior are
available on the surfaces of these acoustic elements. The major acoustic element types in the Abaqus
FEA software are the acoustic 3D hexahedral solid elements (AC3D8 and AC3D20) and acoustic
axisymmetric solid elements (ACAX4 and ACAX8).

3.1. Acoustic 3D Solid Elements (AC3D8 and AC3D20)

Three-dimensional elements are defined in the global X, Y, Z space. These elements are used
when the geometry and/or the applied loading are too complex for any other element type with fewer
spatial dimensions. The solid 3D acoustic elements in the Abaqus FEA software includes the 8-node
brick (AC3D8) element that has linear nodal interpolations and the 20-node brick (AC3D20) element
Appl.which
Sci. 2018,
has8, quadratic
x nodal interpolation as shown in Figure 1. 6 of 19

(a) (b)

Figure 1. 1.
Figure Solid
Solidhexahedral
hexahedral elements: (a)8-nodes;
elements: (a) 8-nodes;(b)(b) 20-nodes
20-nodes [19].[19].

3.2. Acoustic Axisymmetric

3.2. Acoustic Solid
Axisymmetric SolidElements
Elements(ACAX4 andACAX8)
(ACAX4 and ACAX8)
Axisymmetric elements provide for the modelling of bodies of revolution under axially symmetric
Axisymmetric elements provide for the modelling of bodies of revolution under axially
loading conditions. A body of revolution is generated by revolving a plane cross-section about an axis
symmetric loading conditions. A body of revolution is generated by revolving a plane cross-section
(the symmetry axis), and is readily described in cylindrical polar coordinates r, z, and θ. There are two
about an acoustic
main axis (theaxisymmetric
symmetry axis),
elementand is readily
types described
used in the Abaqus inFEAcylindrical polar
software: the coordinates
4-node r, z, and
quadrilateral
θ. There are(ACAX4)
element two main acoustic
with axisymmetric
linear nodal element
interpolation types
and the used
8-node in the Abaqus
quadrilateral FEAelement
(ACAX8) software:
withthe 4-
nodequadratic
quadrilateral element (ACAX4) with linear nodal interpolation and the 8-node
nodal interpolation. Figure 2 shows a typical reference cross-section and the elements in quadrilateral
(ACAX8) element with
an axisymmetric quadratic
solid at θ = 0. nodal interpolation.
These elements Figureas2ifshows
are defined a typical
they are reference
2D elements, but cross-section
they are
and actually
the elements in an axisymmetric
solid elements solid at θrevolved
when they are internally = 0. These elements
in the software are defined in
as illustrated as Figure
if they2. are 2D
elements, but they are actually solid elements when they are internally revolved in the software as
illustrated in Figure 2.
 about an axis (the symmetry axis), and is readily described in cylindrical polar coordinates r, z, and
θ. There are two main acoustic axisymmetric element types used in the Abaqus FEA software: the 4-
node quadrilateral element (ACAX4) with linear nodal interpolation and the 8-node quadrilateral
(ACAX8) element with quadratic nodal interpolation. Figure 2 shows a typical reference cross-section
and the elements in an axisymmetric solid at θ = 0. These elements are defined as if they are 2D
elements,
Appl. Sci. but they are actually solid elements when they are internally revolved in the software as
2018, 8, 1318 7 of 20
illustrated in Figure 2.

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Reference cross-section and axisymmetric solid elements: (a) 4-nodes (b) 8-nodes [19].
Figure 2. Reference cross-section and axisymmetric solid elements: (a) 4-nodes (b) 8-nodes [19].
4. Acoustic Finite Element Analysis (AFEA) of Acoustic Wave Propagation in a Straight Pipe
4. Acoustic Finite Element Analysis (AFEA) of Acoustic Wave Propagation in a Straight Pipe
4.1. Finite Element Modelling Description
4.1. Finite Element Modelling Description
To perform the acoustic wave propagation using FEA in a pipe, three stages must be considered
Toinperform
the numerical modelling:
the acoustic wave (i) propagation
pre-processing, (ii) analysis,
using FEA in aand (iii)three
pipe, post-processing.
stages mustThe be analysis
considered
in the starts from the
numerical development
modelling: of the geometry of
(i) pre-processing, (ii)the air cavityand
analysis, (domain) of an air-filled pipe.
(iii) post-processing. TheThis is
analysis
followed by the discretization of the geometry into smaller discrete elements. The elements
starts from the development of the geometry of the air cavity (domain) of an air-filled pipe. This is are joined
together by nodes to form a mesh. The amount of elements used for a particular model is referred to
followed by the discretization of the geometry into smaller discrete elements. The elements are joined
as the mesh density. The acoustic finite element is a unique element designed for the simulation of a
together by nodes to form a mesh. The amount of elements used for a particular model is referred
system undergoing small variation in acoustic pressure. The simulation process of the AFEA of the
to as the meshwave
acoustic density. The acoustic
reflectometry methodfinite element
involves theisintegration
a unique element designed description
of the geometrical for the simulation
of a
of a system undergoing small variation in acoustic pressure. The simulation process of the AFEA of
the acoustic wave reflectometry method involves the integration of the geometrical description of
a model with the parameters of the fluid-medium, such as: pressure, momentum, and energy across
the elements of the domain. The AFEA then evaluates the medium responses at each of the integration
points of the elements, thereby obtaining the responses at the nodes that join the elements together.
Thus, for any other point within the elements, results are obtained by interpolation from the
nodal data. However, the geometrical order of interpolation is determined by the kind of element
employed for the analysis. There are two principal interpolations, namely: linear interpolation used by
element types ACAX4 and AC3D8, and quadratic interpolations used by element types ACAX8 and
AC3D20 [19].

4.2. Analysis Procedure and Boundary Conditions

In creating the intact pipe model using the solid elements AC3D8 and AC3D20, the 3-D modelling
space of the Abaqus/CAE part module was used to create a single solid shape deformable cylinder
that represents the model of the air volume that occupied the pipe cavity. In the case of the intact pipe
model using the axisymmetric elements ACAX4 and ACAX8, a longitudinal sectional plane of the
3-D modelling space was used to part-define the model from which the full solid shape deformable
cylinder was derived internally by revolving the plane about its axis. In both cases, only the fluid (air)
content of the pipe was modelled without the inclusion of the pipe in the model. Since the specific
acoustic impedance of the air medium is much smaller than the specific impedance of the wall of
a metallic or plastic pipe, this assumption is reasonable. This eliminates contact interaction of the solid
pipe wall and the fluid, and as a consequence, reduces computational time and resources.
The acoustic properties of air used for the intact models are density ρ = 1.225 kg m−3 and bulk
modulus B = 142, 000 N m−2 which give an acoustic velocity of 340.47 m s−1 . Volumetric drag of
the air medium was assumed to have negligible effect on the analysis and was ignored. The next
 the fluid (air) content of the pipe was modelled without the inclusion of the pipe in the model. Since
the specific acoustic impedance of the air medium is much smaller than the specific impedance of the
wall of a metallic or plastic pipe, this assumption is reasonable. This eliminates contact interaction of
the solid pipe wall and the fluid, and as a consequence, reduces computational time and resources.
The2018,
Appl. Sci. acoustic
8, 1318 properties of air used for the intact models are density 𝜌𝜌 = 1.225 kg m
−3
and8bulk
of 20
modulus ℬ = 142,000 N m which give an acoustic velocity of 340.47 m s . Volumetric drag of
−2 −1

the air medium was assumed to have negligible effect on the analysis and was ignored. The next step
step in creating
in creating the the
model model involves
involves defining
defining and and assigningmaterial
assigning materialandandsection
section properties
properties toto the
the
deformable domain.
deformable domain.
In
In defining
definingthe theanalysis
analysisstep for for
step the simulation,
the simulation,the step
themodule of the Abaqus/CAE
step module was selected.
of the Abaqus/CAE was
The air properties were evaluated to define a general dynamic implicit step
selected. The air properties were evaluated to define a general dynamic implicit step with a primary with a primary period
of
period 10−3 s×for
1.469of× 1.469 10−3thes initial
for thestep, and
initial with
step, andanwith
increment size setsize
an increment at 1.469 10−6 s.
set at×1.469 × Also, a fixed
10−6 s. Also,
maximum numbernumber
a fixed maximum of timeofincrements of 10, 000
time increments was defined
of 10,000 to guarantee
was defined convergence
to guarantee in theintime
convergence the
increments. The solution
time increments. technique
The solution used for
technique thefor
used equation solver was
the equation thewas
solver FulltheNewton, while the
Full Newton, default
while the
analysis product that converts severe discontinuity iterations to propagate from
default analysis product that converts severe discontinuity iterations to propagate from the previous the previous step was
selected. The extrapolation
step was selected. of prior of
The extrapolation state of state
prior eachof increment was chosen
each increment as linear,
was chosen whilewhile
as linear, AlphaAlpha
time
integrator parameter was specified as
time integrator parameter was specified as −0.333. − 0.333.
An
An acoustic impulse of
acoustic impulse of aa half
half sine
sine wave,
wave, asas shown
shown in in Figure
Figure3,3,was
wascreated.
created.TheThepulse
pulsehadhada
amaximum
maximumamplitude
amplitudeofof11Pa, Pa,and andwas
wasapplied
appliedforforaaduration
durationofof10 −4 s at the inlet. Similarly, at the
10−4 s at the inlet. Similarly, at the
pipe
pipe outlet region, a zero acoustic pressure was defined to create a profile of
outlet region, a zero acoustic pressure was defined to create a profile of pressure
pressure damping
damping from
from
maximum
maximum to to atmospheric
atmospheric at at the
the pipe
pipe exit
exit boundary.
boundary.
1
Half cycle of sine wave

0.8

0.6
Load amplitude (Pa)

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (s) -4
10

Figure 3.
Figure 3. A half sine
A half sine wave
wave acoustic
acoustic impulse.
impulse.

4.3. Simulation Results

4.3.1. Verification of Results Using Time of Flight

The FEA of acoustic wave propagation in a pipe of diameter 25.4 mm and of length 4.02 m
was earlier conducted by Owowo and Oyadiji [11]. A 20-node quadratic acoustic brick (AC3D20)
element type was employed for their analysis, as illustrated in Figure 4. As a starting point in these
investigations, the acoustic wave propagation in the same pipe was analysed using the AC3D20
element type and the same mesh seed size of 9 mm. The responses obtained at six monitoring points,
which are designated as ‘sensor’ locations s1 to s6 , as shown in Figure 5, are illustrated in Figure 6.
These results are identical to those shown in the paper by Owowo and Oyadiji [11], and the Time of
Flight approach was used to check their accuracy.
Figure 6 presents stacked plots of the dynamic pressure versus time waveforms at the six
monitoring nodes identified in the intact pipe model. It should be noted that all the plots start
with a dynamic pressure amplitude of zero. Thus, in all cases, the maximum peak amplitudes are
less than 1.0 Pa. The stacking of the plots enables a direct comparison of the forward-going and
backward-going (reflected) wavefronts at the different sensor locations. From the figure, the first
positive peaks seen in each of the graphs indicate the arrival of the pressure pulse to the individual
sensors. The compression pulse propagates past the respective sensors (s1 –s6 ) in the order of time seen
in the second column of Table 1. On the other hand, the first negative peaks seen at the various sensor
locations are the times taken by the wave to travel to the pipe outlet and back to the corresponding
4.3.1. Verification of Results Using Time of Flight
4.3.1. Verification of Results Using Time of Flight
4.3.1.
TheVerification of Results
FEA of acoustic wave Using Time of Flight
propagation in a pipe of diameter 25.4 mm and of length 4.02 m was
The FEA of acoustic wave propagation in a pipe of diameter 25.4 mm and of length 4.02 m was
earlierTheconducted by
FEA of acousticOwowo and
waveand Oyadiji
propagation [11].
in aA 20-node
pipe quadratic
of diameter 25.4acoustic
mm andbrick (AC3D20)
of length 4.02 melement
was
earlier conducted by Owowo Oyadiji [11]. A 20-node quadratic acoustic brick (AC3D20) element
type was
earlier employed
conducted by for theirand
Owowo analysis,
Oyadiji as illustrated
[11]. A 20-node in Figureacoustic
quadratic 4. As brick
a starting
(AC3D20)point in these
element
type was employed for their analysis, as illustrated in Figure 4. As a starting point in these
investigations, the acoustic
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318
type was employed for theirwave propagation
analysis, in the same
as illustrated pipe 4.was
in Figure As analysed
a startingusing pointthe
in AC3D20
9 of 20
these
investigations, the acoustic wave propagation in the same pipe was analysed using the AC3D20
element type andthe
investigations, the same mesh waveseed size of 9 mm. The responses obtained at six monitoring points,
element type and theacoustic
same mesh propagation
seed size of 9 mm. in the Thesame pipe was
responses analysed
obtained using
at six the AC3D20
monitoring points,
which
elementaretype
designated the as
andThus, same‘sensor’
mesh locations ofss19 to s6 ,The
as shown in Figure 5, at
aresixillustrated in Figure 6.
which
sensor are designated
locations. as
since s6 is seed
‘sensor’ sizeclose
locations
located mm.
1 to 6 , as
to sthe responses
shown
pipe in obtained
outlet, Figure
the 5, are
reflection monitoring
the waveinpoints,
illustrated
of Figure
from 6.
Pout
These
which results are identical
are designated to those
as ‘sensor’ shown in
locations s1 theto spaper by Owowo
, as shown and5,Oyadiji
in Figure [11], and
are illustrated the Time
in Figure 6. of
These
is results
first noticed are
by identical to those
s6 , then followed shown
by s5 –s3in the 6paper
, and by Owowo
subsequently to s2and
andOyadiji [11], tabulated
s1 , at times and the Time
in theof
Theseapproach
Flight results are wasidentical
used to tocheck
those their
shown in the paper by Owowo and Oyadiji [11], and the Time of
accuracy.
Flightcolumn
third approach was used
of Table 1. to check their accuracy.
Flight approach was used to check their accuracy.

Figure 4. Air-filled pipe model meshed using the acoustic continuum 3D 20-node brick elements
Figure
Figure 4.4.Air-filled
Figure4. Air-filled pipe model
Air-filled pipe model meshed
model meshedusing
meshed usingthe
using theacoustic
the acousticcontinuum
acoustic continuum
continuum 3D
3D3D 20-node
20-node brick
brick
20-node elements
elements
brick elements
(AC3D20).
(AC3D20).
(AC3D20).
(AC3D20).

Figure 5.
Figure
Figure 5. Schematic
Schematicpipe
Schematic pipegeometry
pipe geometryinin
geometry 2D.
in 2D.
2D.
Figure 5. Schematic pipe geometry in 2D.
s s
AC3D20 Element 1
AC3D20 Element s1
44 AC3D20 Element s 1
4 2 s
s2
s 2
3 s
s3
3 s 3
3 4 s
(Pa)

3 s
s4
(Pa)

4
5 s
(Pa)

s5
pressure

s 5
pressure

2 6 s
pressure

2 s6
2 6
Dynamic

1
Dynamic
Dynamic

1
1

0
0
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0 0.01 0.02
Time (s) 0.03 0.04 0.05
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Time (s)
Time (s)
Figure 6. Stacked Plots of pressure vs. time predicted using FEA at sensor 𝑠𝑠1 to 𝑠𝑠6 on intact air–filled
pipe using
Figure
Figure 6. AC3D20
6. Stacked
Stacked Plots(Note:
Plots of all plotsvs.
ofpressure
pressure start with
vs.time
time zero amplitude;
predicted
predictedusing maximum
usingFEA
FEA peak
atatsensor
sensor𝑠𝑠s1amplitude
to
to 𝑠𝑠s6 on of each
on intact
intact plot
air–filled
air–filled
Figure 6. Stacked Plots of pressure vs. time predicted using FEA at sensor 𝑠𝑠11 to 𝑠𝑠66 on intact air–filled
is less
pipe
pipe using 1.0 Pa). (Note:
thanAC3D20
using AC3D20 (Note: all
all plots
plots start
start with
with zero
zero amplitude;
amplitude; maximum
maximum peakpeak amplitude
amplitude of of each
each plot
plot
pipe using AC3D20 (Note: all plots start with zero amplitude; maximum peak amplitude of each plot
is less than 1.0 Pa).
is less than 1.0 Pa).
is less than 1.0 Pa).

A magnified plot of the dynamic pressure versus time waveform predicted for sensor s1 is shown
in Figure 7. Considering the predicted times of flight, the wave speed can be deduced from the arrival
times predicted for sensor locations s1 to s6 using the following relation:

∆` 2 × (` − ls )
c= = (16)
∆t t p − ts
 going (reflected) wavefronts at the different sensor locations. From the figure, the first positive peaks
seen in each of the graphs indicate the arrival of the pressure pulse to the individual sensors. The
compression pulse propagates past the respective sensors (𝑠𝑠1 – 𝑠𝑠6 ) in the order of time seen in the
second column of Table 1. On the other hand, the first negative peaks seen at the various sensor
locations are the times taken by the wave to travel to the pipe outlet and back to the corresponding
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 10 of 20
sensor locations. Thus, since s6 is located close to the pipe outlet, the reflection of the wave
from Pout is first noticed by 𝑠𝑠6 , then followed by 𝑠𝑠5 – 𝑠𝑠3 , and subsequently to 𝑠𝑠2 and 𝑠𝑠1 , at times
tabulated
where ` is in
thethe third
pipe column
length (m)of, lTable
s is the1.distance from the pipe inlet to sensor location (m), c is the
waveA magnified
speed, plot
t p is the timeof itthe dynamic
takes the wave pressure versus
to travel from time waveform
the inlet predicted
to the sensor then for sensor
to the 1 is
pipe𝑠𝑠exit
shown in Figure 7. Considering the predicted times of flight, the wave speed can
and back to sensor location (s) and ts is the time it takes the wave to travel from the inlet to sensorbe deduced from
the arrival
location times predicted for sensor locations 𝑠𝑠1 to 𝑠𝑠6 using the following relation:
sn (s).
∆ℓ 2 × (ℓ − 𝑙𝑙𝑠𝑠 )
𝑐𝑐 =Rarefaction
Table 1. Arrival Time of Compression and = Wave-front using the acoustic continuum 3D (16)
∆t 𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 − 𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠
20-node brick elements (AC3D20).
where ℓ is the pipe length (m), 𝑙𝑙𝑠𝑠 is the distance from the pipe inlet to sensor location (m), c is the
−1 )
wave speed, 𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 is the time
sn itltakes
s (m) the
ts wave
(ms) to tptravel
(ms) fromc (msthe inletError,
to the sensor then to the pipe exit
E (%)
and back to sensor location
s1 (s) and 𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠0.3
0.128 is the time
20.5 it takes the wave to14.5
395.1 travel from the inlet to sensor
location 𝑠𝑠𝑛𝑛 (s). s2 0.938 2.2 18.2 395.4 14.6
s3 1.758
Substituting the respective data in4.2
Equation 16.0
(16) for397.9
sensor 𝑠𝑠1 gives;15.3
s4 2.240 5.5 14.8 397.9 15.3
s5 3.050 7.62 × (4.12
12.8− 0.128)
400.6 16.1
s6 𝑐𝑐 = 9.6
3.870 10.7 414.8 ≈ 395.09 ms −1
20.2
(20.51 − 0.302)(× 10 −3 )

1
AC3D20 Element s
1
0.8

0.6
t =20.51(ms)
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

0.4

0.2

-0.2 t =0.302(ms)
s

-0.4
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Time (s)

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Enlarged
Enlargedview of of
view pressure vs. vs.
pressure time time
response predicted
response at sensor
predicted 𝑠𝑠1 usings1AC3D20
at sensor element
using AC3D20
type. type.
element

Table 1. Arrival Time of Compression and Rarefaction Wave-front using the acoustic continuum 3D
Substituting the respective data in Equation (16) for sensor s1 gives;
20-node brick elements (AC3D20).
2 × (4.12 − 0.128)
𝒔𝒔𝒏𝒏 𝒍𝒍𝒔𝒔 (m) c =𝒕𝒕𝒔𝒔 (ms) 𝒕𝒕𝒑𝒑 (ms) ≈ (𝐦𝐦𝐬𝐬−𝟏𝟏 )ms−1 Error, 𝐄𝐄 (%)
𝒄𝒄 395.09
(20.51 − 0.302)(×10−3 )
𝑠𝑠1 0.128 0.3 20.5 395.1 14.5
𝑠𝑠
Similarly, the
2 0.938 2.2 18.2 395.4
wave speed c, according to the time of flight for other sensor 14.6 points (s1 –s6 ) are
computed and𝑠𝑠tabulated
3 1.758in Table 4.2
1. Using the16.0
properties of397.9 15.3analysis, the actual
air used for the AFE
speed of sound𝑠𝑠4in air2.240 5.5 345 ms14.8
is approximately −1 . Comparison 397.9of the derived15.3
sound speed (derived
𝑠𝑠
from the predicted
5 3.050 7.6 12.8 400.6 16.1
arrival times) with the actual sound speed used in the AFEA gives the errors E
𝑠𝑠6each 3.870
associated with 9.6 as shown10.7
sensor location, 414.8 of Table 1. 20.2
in the fifth column These errors are rather
large and unacceptable. They can be attributed to the coarseness of the mesh used in the Abaqus AFEA.
Therefore, there is a need for mesh refinement, in order to get a more accurate result. This refinement
is a bit challenging; as the model size will become bigger, the computation time will be too long and
the grid cells will be too much to be numerically computed on a regular computer.
In order to use a finer mesh size without increasing the model size, axisymmetric element types
were also used in the simulation. AFEA of acoustic wave propagation in an intact air-filled pipe
was conducted using solid axisymmetric element type ACAX8, as illustrated in Figure 8. With this
axisymmetric element type, it was possible to use very refined element sizes of 1 mm, and even down
to 0.01 mm, for the simulations on a desktop PC with standard specifications, whereas the use of
 refinement isis aa bit
refinement bit challenging;
challenging; as as the
the model
model size size will
will become
become bigger,
bigger, the
the computation
computation time time will
will bebe
too long
too longandandthe the grid
gridcells
cellswill
will be
be too
too much
much to to be
be numerically
numerically computed
computed on onaa regular
regularcomputer.
computer.
In order to use a finer mesh size without increasing the model size,
In order to use a finer mesh size without increasing the model size, axisymmetric element axisymmetric elementtypes
types
were also used in the simulation. AFEA of acoustic wave propagation in
were also used in the simulation. AFEA of acoustic wave propagation in an intact air-filled pipe was an intact air-filled pipe was
conducted
conducted
Appl. using
Sci. 2018, using
8, solid axisymmetric
1318 solid axisymmetric elementelement typetype ACAX8,
ACAX8, as as illustrated
illustrated inin Figure
Figure 8. 8. With
With this
this
11 of 20
axisymmetric element type, it was possible to use very refined element sizes
axisymmetric element type, it was possible to use very refined element sizes of 1 mm, and even down of 1 mm, and even down
to 0.01
to 0.01 mm,
mm,for for the
thesimulations
simulations on onaa desktop
desktop PC PC with
withstandard
standardspecifications,
specifications,whereas
whereas the theuse
use of
of the
the
the solid
solid element
element types
types AC3D8
AC3D8 andand AC3D20
AC3D20 waswas not possible
notpossible
possible for element
forelement
element mesh mesh
sizesize less
thanthan
lessthan 9 mm.
solid element types AC3D8 and AC3D20 was not for mesh size less 99mm.
mm. The
The
The predicted
predicted wave wave propagation
propagation usingusing element
element type
typeACAX8
ACAX8 ACAX8forthe forsmallest
the the smallest mesh
sizeisissize
meshsize shownis shown
inFigurein
Figure
predicted wave propagation using element type for smallest mesh shown in
Figure 9. Similarly,
9.Similarly,
Similarly, theTime theof
Time Time of Flight
Flight approach approach
wasused wastoused
used to verify
verify the acoustic
theacoustic
acoustic speed results
speedresults
results fromthe from
the the
arrival
9. the of Flight approach was to verify the speed from arrival
arrival time
time predicted predicted
predicted for forsensor for sensor
sensor locations locations s extracted
locations 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠11 extracted
extracted from
from Figure Figure
Figure10. 10. 10.
time 1 from

Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.A
8. Ameshed
A meshedair-filled
meshed air-filledpipe
air-filled pipemodel
pipe modelusing
model usingthe
using theacoustic
the acousticcontinuum
acoustic continuumaxisymmetric
continuum axisymmetric8-node
axisymmetric 8-nodeelement
8-node element
element
(ACAX8).
(ACAX8).
(ACAX8).

4.5
4.5
ss
11

44 ACAX8
ACAX8 ss
22
ss
33
3.5
3.5 ss
44
ss
33 55
ss
66
(Pa)

2.5
pressure(Pa)

2.5
Dynamicpressure

22

1.5
1.5
Dynamic

11

0.5
0.5

00

00 0.005
0.005 0.01
0.01 0.015
0.015 0.02
0.02 0.025
0.025 0.03
0.03 0.035
0.035 0.04
0.04 0.045
0.045 0.05
0.05
Time(s)
Time (s)

Figure9.
Figure
Figure 9.Stacked
9. StackedPlots
Stacked Plotsof
Plots ofpressure
of pressurevs.
pressure vs.time
vs. timepredicted
time predictedusing
predicted using FEA
usingFEA at
FEAat sensor tos𝑠𝑠6𝑠𝑠66on
sensor 𝑠𝑠s𝑠𝑠111 to
atsensor to onintact
on intactair–filled
intact air–filled
air–filled
pipe
pipe using
using ACAX8
ACAX8 (Note:
(Note: all
all plots
plots start
start with
with zero
zero amplitude;
amplitude; maximum
maximum peak
pipe using ACAX8 (Note: all plots start with zero amplitude; maximum peak amplitude of each
peak amplitude
amplitude of of each
each plot
plot
plot is
is
lessless
is less
than than
than 1.0
1.01.0 Pa).
Pa).
Pa).

Similarly, by using the properties of air used for the FEA analysis, the actual speed of sound in
air is approximately 345 ms−1 . Comparison of the derived sound speed (derived from the predicted
arrival times) with the actual sound speed used in the AFEA gives the errors (E) associated with each
sensor location, as shown in the sixth column of Table 1. These errors are very small in comparison to
the errors associated with the use of the AC3D20 element. The relatively very small errors associated
with the use of the ACAX8 element type indicate that the axisymmetric elements are better suited
for acoustic wave propagation simulations than the AC3D20 element type. Nevertheless, it is seen
from Table 2 that the errors associated with sensor location s6 is about 3.5 to 7 times that of the errors
associated with the other sensor locations. This is due to the closeness of sensor s6 to the end of the
open-ended pipe outlet where the acoustic wave is reflected.
to the errors associated with the use of the AC3D20 element. The relatively very small errors
associated with the use of the ACAX8 element type indicate that the axisymmetric elements are better
suited for acoustic wave propagation simulations than the AC3D20 element type. Nevertheless, it is
seen from Table 2 that the errors associated with sensor location 𝑠𝑠6 is about 3.5 to 7 times that of the
errors
Appl. Sci.associated
2018, 8, 1318with the other sensor locations. This is due to the closeness of sensor 𝑠𝑠6 to the end
12 of 20
of the open-ended pipe outlet where the acoustic wave is reflected.

Figure 10. Enlarged view of pressure vs. time response predicted at sensor 𝑠𝑠1 using ACAX8 element
Figure 10. Enlarged view of pressure vs. time response predicted at sensor s1 using ACAX8
type.
element type.

2 × (4.12 − 0.128) −1
𝑐𝑐 =2 × (4.12 − 0.128) ≈ 348.43
−1ms
c= (23.35 − 0.436)(× 10
≈ −3 )
348.43 ms
(23.35 − 0.436)(×10−3 )

Table 2. Arrival Time of Compression and Rarefaction Wave-front using the acoustic continuum
Table 2. Arrival Time of Compression and Rarefaction Wave-front using the acoustic continuum
axisymmetric 8-node element (ACAX8).
axisymmetric 8-node element (ACAX8).
𝒔𝒔𝒏𝒏 𝒍𝒍𝒔𝒔 (m) 𝒕𝒕𝒔𝒔 (ms) 𝒕𝒕𝒑𝒑 (ms) 𝒄𝒄 (𝐦𝐦𝐬𝐬−𝟏𝟏 ) Error, 𝐄𝐄 (%)
sn𝑠𝑠1 ls0.128
(m) ts0.43
(ms) tp23.3
(ms) c 348.4
(ms−1 ) 0.9 E (%)
Error,
𝑠𝑠2 0.938 2.76 21.0 348.5 1.0
s1𝑠𝑠3 0.128
1.758 0.43
5.08 23.3
18.7 348.4
346.9 0.9
0.5
s2𝑠𝑠4 2.240
0.938 6.49
2.76 17.2
21.0 348.5
348.2 0.9
1.0
s3𝑠𝑠5 3.050
1.758 8.81
5.08 14.9
18.7 346.9
347.7 0.7
0.5
s4𝑠𝑠6 3.870
2.240 11.1
6.49 12.6
17.2 348.2
357.1 3.5
0.9
s5 3.050 8.81 14.9 347.7 0.7
s6 3.870 11.1 12.6 357.1 3.5
4.3.2. Sensitivity of Acoustic Finite Elements

4.3.2.In this section,

Sensitivity a sensitivity
of Acoustic Finite analysis
Elements is developed for the meshing of the acoustic medium. The
aim is to investigate the influence of mesh element type and mesh size in acoustic FEA. The AC3D20
element in section,
In this the Abaqus FEA software
a sensitivity analysis produced a lot for
is developed of computational errors
the meshing of the in themedium.
acoustic derived The
acoustic
aim
speed, as seen in the sixth column of Table 1. Most of the errors in the acoustic speed are more than
is to investigate the influence of mesh element type and mesh size in acoustic FEA. The AC3D20
15%. To in
element address this much
the Abaqus FEA more
softwareclosely, the two
produced axisymmetric
a lot element
of computational types
errors in ACAX4 andacoustic
the derived ACAX8
and the two solid element types AC3D8 and AC3D20 were used. Also, various mesh densities were
speed, as seen in the sixth column of Table 1. Most of the errors in the acoustic speed are more than
employed involving element seed sizes of 120 mm down to 0.01 mm. While it was possible to run
15%. To address this much more closely, the two axisymmetric element types ACAX4 and ACAX8
thesethe
and analyses
two solidusing the axisymmetric
element types AC3D8element types were
and AC3D20 ACAX4 andAlso,
used. ACAX8 on amesh
various regular desktop
densities PC
were
(which has a single processor), the analyses using the solid element types AC3D8 and AC3D20 could
employed involving element seed sizes of 120 mm down to 0.01 mm. While it was possible to run
these analyses using the axisymmetric element types ACAX4 and ACAX8 on a regular desktop PC
(which has a single processor), the analyses using the solid element types AC3D8 and AC3D20 could
only be carried out on supercomputers using multiple cores (between 4 and 12 parallel processors).
The results of these sensitivity analyses are shown in Figures 11–13.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x 12 of 19

only beSci.
Appl. carried
2018, 8,out
1318on supercomputers using multiple cores (between 4 and 12 parallel processors).
13 of 20
The results of these sensitivity analyses are shown in Figures 11–13.

(a) (b)
CAX4 (S ) CAX4 (S )
6 1 6 1

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

4 4

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (s)
Time (s) -3
10

(c) (d)
CAX8 (S )
6
CAX8 (S ) 6 1
1

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

4 4

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (s) Time (s) -3
10

(e) (f)
AC3D8 (S ) AC3D8 (S )
6 1 6 1

4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (s) Time (s) -3
10

(g) (h)
AC3D20 (S ) AC3D20 (S )
6 1 6 1

4 4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (s)
Time (s) -3
10

Figure 11. (a,c,e,g) Stacked Plots of pressure vs. time predicted at 𝑠𝑠1 using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and
Figure 11. (a,c,e,g) Stacked Plots of pressure vs. time predicted at s using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8
AC3D20 elements respectively. (b,d,f,h) Magnified view of pressure vs.1 time response predicted at 𝑠𝑠1
and AC3D20 elements respectively. (b,d,f,h) Magnified view of pressure vs. time response predicted
using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and AC3D20 elements respectively (All plots start with zero amplitude).
at s1 using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and AC3D20 elements respectively (All plots start with zero
amplitude).
 Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 14 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x 13 of 19

(a) (b)
ACAX4 (S ) ACAX4 (S )
6 3 6 3

4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time (s) Time (s)

(c) ACAX8 (S (d)

6 3
) ACAX8 (S )
6 3

4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time (s) Time (s)

(e) (f)
AC3D8 (S ) AC3D8 (S )
6 3 6 3

4 4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time (s) Time (s)

(g) (h)
AC3D20 (S ) AC3D20 (S
6 3 6 )
3

4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2
2

0
0

-2
-2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time (s)
Time (s)

Figure 12. (a,c,e,g) Stacked Plots of pressure vs. time predicted at 𝑠𝑠3 using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8
Figure 12. (a,c,e,g) Stacked Plots of pressure vs. time predicted at s3 using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8
and AC3D20 element respectively. (b,d,f,h) Magnified view of pressure vs. time response predicted
and AC3D20 element respectively. (b,d,f,h) Magnified view of pressure vs. time response predicted
at 𝑠𝑠3 using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and AC3D20 elements respectively (All plots start with zero
at s3 using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and AC3D20 elements respectively (All plots start with zero
amplitude).
amplitude).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 15 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, x 14 of 19

(a) (b)
ACAX4 (S ) ACAX4 (S
6 6 ) 6 6
)

4 4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
ACAX8 (S ) ACAX8 (S )
6 6 ) 6 6

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

4 4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Time (s) Time (s)
(e) (f)
AC3D8 (S ) AC3D8 (S )
6 6 6 6

4 4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Time (s) Time (s)
(g) (h)
AC3D20 (S ) AC3D20 (S )
6 6
) 6 6
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

4 4
Dynamic pressure (Pa)

2 2

0 0

-2 -2
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure
Figure13.
13.(a,c,e,g) Stacked
(a,c,e,g) Plots
Stacked of pressure
Plots vs. vs.
of pressure timetime
predicted at 𝑠𝑠6atusing
predicted ACAX4,
s6 using ACAX8,
ACAX4, AC3D8
ACAX8, and
AC3D8
AC3D20 elements respectively. (b,d,f,h) Magnified view of pressure vs. time response predicted
and AC3D20 elements respectively. (b,d,f,h) Magnified view of pressure vs. time response predicted at 𝑠𝑠6
using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and AC3D20 elements respectively (All plots start
at s using ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8 and AC3D20 elements respectively (All plots start with zerowith zero amplitude).
6
amplitude).
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 16 of 20

Figures 11–13 show the pressure vs. time histories predicted using the two axisymmetric element
types, ACAX4 and ACAX8, and the two solid element types, AC3D8 and AC3D20, predicted at sensor
locations s1 , s3 and s6 respectively. These pressure-time histories manifest the relationships between
the element types chosen for the analyses, the mesh densities used, and the computational errors.
The first waveforms for each set of pressure-time histories were also magnified in order to clearly show
the differences in the predictions using different element types and mesh densities.
Firstly, the axisymmetric element type ACAX4 was used with a very coarse mesh density of
element length Le = 120 mm to discretise the model. It can be seen from Figures 11a, 12a and 13a,
and the corresponding enlarged plots of Figures 11b, 12b and 13b, that the predicted waveforms are
not well-separated pulses, but are rather wavy and very noisy curves. The model was refined using
Le = 30 mm; this resulted in a less noisy waveforms, but not well-defined pulses. By further refinement
using Le = 9 mm, the waveforms become a little clearer, with well-defined pulses and only a little noise.
Very refined mesh density of Le = 0.1 mm and Le = 0.01 mm was further used, and the waveforms
become very smooth, clear, identical, and well-defined. Thus, it can be deduced that the AFEA solution
becomes more accurate when element type ACAX4 with length Le = 0.1 mm is used for the analyses.
These analyses were repeated using the axisymmetric element ACAX8 with the same mesh
densities as those previously used with the element type ACAX4. The predicted waveforms are
shown in Figure 11c, Figure 12c, and Figure 13c, and the corresponding enlarged plots of the first
pulses are shown in Figure 11d, Figure 12d, and Figure 13d, respectively. These figures show that the
characteristics predicted by the ACAX8 element type are similar to those predicted by the ACAX4
element type. That is, the predicted waveforms are not well-separated pulses, but are rather wavy and
very noisy curves when coarse mesh densities are used. However, when fine mesh densities are used,
the waveforms become very smooth, clear, and well-defined. Furthermore, the converged waveforms
predicted by the ACAX8 element type are identical to those predicted by the ACAX4 element type.
The main difference between the two element types is that the ACAX8 element type required greater
computational times.
In the introduction, it was stated that Owowo and Oyadiji [11] used 3D hexahedral acoustic
elements which they expected to give accurate predictions, just as the 3D hexahedral structural
elements give accurate predictions for structural problems. But it was shown in the previous
sub-section and in Table 1 that the hexahedral acoustic element type AC3D20 gives large prediction
errors even when the element size used is deemed to be reasonably small. In order to ascertain
the mesh sensitivity versus accuracy of the hexahedral acoustic element types AC3D8 and AC3D20,
they were also used in the acoustic simulations for the same mesh densities as those used with the
axisymmetric element types ACAX4 and ACAX8.
Figure 11e–h, Figure 12e–h, and Figure 13e–h show that when coarse mesh densities
(i.e., Le = 120 mm, Le = 30 mm and Le = 9 mm) are used with element types AC3D8 and AC3D20,
the predicted waveforms are worse than those predicted by the axisymmetric elements. The predicted
waveforms are not well-separated pulses, but are rather very wavy and very noisy curves. When a fine
mesh is used (Le = 1 mm), the waveforms become less noisy and show well-defined pulses.
Figure 11 also shows that when the mesh is coarse, the waveforms predicted by the solid element
type AC3D20 are less noisy than the waveforms predicted by the solid element types AC3D8. When
the mesh is very fine (i.e., Le = 0.1 mm and Le = 0.01 mm), the predictions of the two element types are
identical. However, the analysis using element type AC3D20 takes much more time to complete than
with element type AC3D8. Furthermore, the use of AC3D20 elements generates a much bigger model
and requires more static and dynamic storage than the use of AC3D8 elements.
In addition to the predicted waveforms not being sufficiently smooth with well-defined pulses
when a fine mesh is used (Le = 1 mm), the figures also show that the predicted time intervals between
the pulses is also larger, resulting in large errors in the predicted acoustic wave velocity. Thus, while it
is important for the waveforms to be as smooth as possible, it is not sufficient to judge the accuracy
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 17 of 20

of an acoustic wave propagation analysis by the waveform alone; it is also necessary to consider the
accuracy of the Time of Flight.
The performance of the FEA solutions for different element types and mesh sizes is evaluated
using three key variables, namely: (1) the waviness of the waveforms; (2) the computational time of
the analysis; and (3) the predicted acoustic speed error. The variations of these variables are examined
using different acoustic element types and sizes in the Abaqus FEA software. The relevant sensitive
parameters employed by the analysis for each element type and element sizes are summarised in
Table 3.

Table 3. Basic acoustic mesh sensitivity study.

Element Type Mesh Seed Le (mm) Total No. of Element Total No. of Nodes Total No. of Variables Analysis Time (h)
120 35 72 72 3
30 136 274 274 4.5
9 1374 1836 1836 6
ACAX4 (1) 1 103,000 107,146 107,146 7
0.1 2,475,400 2,612,980 2,612,980 8.5
0.01 13,305,460 13,937,450 13,937,450 10
120 35 178 178 3.5
30 136 683 683 5
9 1374 3836 3836 8
ACAX8
1 103,000 317,291 317,291 9.5
0.1 2,475,400 3,085,430 3,085,430 11
0.01 13,305,460 15,135,560 15,135,560 12
120 432 629 629 24
30 1584 2261 2261 36
9 5328 7565 7565 46
AC3D8 (2) 1 128,000 164,041 164,041 60
0.1 22,776,000 23,235,670 23,235,670 132
0.01 63,085,430 64,587,604 64,587,604 220
120 432 2277 2277 30
30 1584 8229 8229 46
9 5328 27,573 27,573 57
AC3D20
1 128,000 616,113 616,113 71
0.1 22,776,000 28,458,752 28,458,752 179
0.01 63,085,430 113,654,300 113,654,300 240
(1) acoustic continuum axisymmetric 4-node element; (2) acoustic continuum 8-node brick element

4.3.3. Comparisons of Prediction Errors Due to Acoustic Element Type

Table 4 shows the acoustic wave speed derived from the waveforms predicted by the four acoustic
element types using different mesh densities based on the Time of Flight approach. The percentage
errors associated with these predicted velocities are also shown in the table. A summary of the
requirements, performance, and associated errors for the four acoustic element types in the predictions
of the acoustic wave propagation is shown in Table 5.

Table 4. Acoustic mesh sensitivity study showing the acoustic speed computation error.

Acoustic Wave Speed (ms−1 ) Error (%)

Element
Type Le (mm) Le (mm)
120 30 9 1 0.1 0.01 120 30 9 1 0.1 0.01
ACAX4 354.1 353.7 353.2 352.4 349.3 348.4 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.2 0.9
ACAX8 352.6 352.4 352.4 351.6 349.0 348.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.1 0.9
AC3D8 396.3 395.4 395.3 395.4 381.0 350.5 14.9 14.6 14.5 14.6 10.4 1.5
AC3D20 395.9 395.1 395.0 395.0 380.4 349.9 14.8 14.5 14.4 14.4 10.2 1.4
because it has the smallest model size, smallest computational time, and smallest computational
errors.

Table 4. Acoustic mesh sensitivity study showing the acoustic speed computation error.

Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 Acoustic Wave Speed (𝐦𝐦𝐬𝐬−𝟏𝟏 ) Error (%) 18 of 20
Element
𝐋𝐋𝐞𝐞 (mm) 𝐋𝐋𝐞𝐞 (mm)
Type
120 30Sensitivity
Table 5. 9 analysis-
1 key 0.1 0.01
variable 120 evaluation.
performance 30 9 1 0.1 0.01
ACAX4 354.1 353.7 353.2 352.4 349.3 348.4 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.2 0.9
ACAX8Type
Element 352.6 352.4 Quality
Refinement 352.4 351.6 NE 349.0 348.4 NN2.2 2.1
TC (h)2.1 C (ms
1.9 ) 1.1 E (%)
− 1 0.9
AC3D8
AC3D20 396.3 395.4
Coarse 395.3
Noisy 395.4 381.0
1584 350.5822914.9 14.646 14.5 14.6
395.1 10.4 14.51.5
AC3D20
AC3D8 395.9 395.1 Noisy
Coarse 395.0 395.0 1584
380.4 349.9 2261
14.8 14.536 14.4 14.4
395.4 10.2 14.61.4
AC3D20 Fine Smooth 6.31 × 107 (1) 1.13 × 108 (3) 240 349.9 1.4
AC3D8 Fine Smooth 6.31 × 10 7 (1) 6.45 × 107 (4) 220 350.5 1.5
Table 5. Sensitivity analysis- key variable performance evaluation.
ACAX8 Coarse Noisy 136 683 5 352.4 2.1
Element
ACAX4Type Refinement
Coarse Quality 136 NE
Noisy NN
274 TC
4.5 (h) C (ms−1)
353.7 (%)
𝐄𝐄2.5
ACAX8 Fine Smooth 1.33 × 107 (2) 1.51 × 107 (5) 12 348.4 0.9
AC3D20
ACAX4 Coarse Smooth
Fine Noisy 1.33 × 10 1584
7 (2) 1.39 ×8229
107 (6) 1046 395.1
348.4 14.5
0.9
AC3D8 Coarse Noisy 1584 2261 36 395.4
NE = number of elements generated; NN = number of nodes generated; E = Error; C = Speed; TC = computational
14.6
AC3D20
time, Fine (2) 13,305,460;
exact values: (1) 63,085,430; Smooth(3) 113,654,300;
6.31 × 107 (4)
(1) 1.13 × 10
64,587,604; 240(6) 13,937,450.
(5) 815,135,560;
(3) 349.9 1.4
AC3D8 Fine Smooth 6.31 × 107 (1) 6.45 × 107 (4) 220 350.5 1.5
ACAX8
Figure Coarse
14 shows the variationsNoisy 136 acoustic683
of the percentage speed errors5 with the
352.4
element 2.1sizes
ACAX4 Coarse Noisy 136 274 4.5 353.7
for the four acoustic element types. It is observed that the axisymmetric element type ACAX4 2.5and
ACAX8 ACAX8 Fine
produce less computational Smooth
errors in1.33 × 10 7 (2)
the acoustic 1.51 ×Also,
FEA. 10 it is clearly
7 (5) 12 348.4
seen that the0.9
linear
ACAX4 Fine Smooth 1.33 × 10 7 (2) 1.39 × 10 7 (6) 10 348.4
interpolation elements (ACAX4 and AC3D8) have less errors than the quadratic interpolation elements 0.9
(ACAX8NE =andnumber of elements
AC3D20). Figuregenerated;
14 shows NN that=very
numberlargeofcomputational
nodes generated; E = Error;
errors occurCin=theSpeed;
AFETC =
analysis
resultcomputational time, exact
when solid element values:
types (1) 63,085,430; (2) 13,305,460; (3) 113,654,300; (4) 64,587,604; (5) 15,135,560;
AC3D8 and AC3D20 are used. But when the axisymmetric element
13,937,450.
types(6)ACAX4 and ACAX8 are used, the errors are minimised.

20

15
ACAX4
ACAX8
Error (%)

10
AC3D8
AC3D20

0
-2 0 2
10 10 10
L (mm)
e

Figure14.
Figure 14. Relationship
Relationship between
betweenthe
theAcoustic
Acousticspeed
speederror
errorand
andthe
theelement
elementtype/element
type/element size.
size.

5. Conclusions
It is thus concluded that the solid element types AC3D8 and AC3D20 are not optimal in
terms of speed, accuracy, and computation-resource requirements for AFE analysis of acoustic wave
The acoustic finite element approach has been used to predict the wave propagation
propagation in an air-filled pipe. Furthermore, considering the computational time and resources
characteristics in a fluid-filled pipe. This paper has detailed the use of Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
for each model as illustrated in Table 5, the ACAX4 is the best element type for acoustic FEA. This is
because it has the smallest model size, smallest computational time, and smallest computational errors.

5. Conclusions
The acoustic finite element approach has been used to predict the wave propagation characteristics
in a fluid-filled pipe. This paper has detailed the use of Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to simulate the
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 19 of 20

acoustic wave propagation and acoustic wave reflectometry of a pipe. The wave velocity predicted by
the FEA has been found to be consistent with the actual velocity when the right element type is chosen
for the numerical computation. The primary conclusions of this paper are as follows.

• The acoustic FEA of a fluid-filled pipe can be achieved with the simulation of only the fluid content
of the pipe and without the inclusion of the pipe in the model. Thus, this eliminates contact
interaction of the solid pipe wall and the fluid, and as a consequence, reduces computational
time and resources. Since the specific acoustic impedance of the air medium is much smaller
than the specific impedance of the wall of a metallic or plastic pipe, this assumption is reasonable.
The results confirm that the acoustic FEA of an air-filled pipe can be achieved with the
simulation of only the fluid content of the pipe and without the inclusion of the pipe in the
model. However, when a denser fluid medium is used, and when there is high flow velocity,
fluid-structure interaction will become very significant. Then, the fluid medium and the pipe wall
will need to be modelled together.
• The main source of error in an acoustic FEA is the element type chosen and the mesh density.
The results indicate that the ACAX4 element type with a fine mesh should be used in any acoustic
FEA simulation of wave propagation in a symmetrical pipe in order to obtain the smallest
computational errors, fastest computations, and least usage of computer static and dynamic
storage resources. For a nonsymmetrical pipe, the 3D solid hexahedral elements can be used at
the part of the pipe that is unsymmetrical and the 2D-like axisymmetric element should be used at
the symmetric part of the pipe to obtain the smallest computational errors, fastest computations,
and least usage of computer static and dynamic storage resources.
• It has been shown that the use of the Time of Flight approach enables the verification of the
accuracy of the acoustic FEA simulations using any of the four element types investigated,
namely: ACAX4, ACAX8, AC3D8, and AC3D20.
• Of these four element types, the best element for AFE simulations of wave propagation in
a symmetric air-filled pipe was found to be the axisymmetric element type ACAX4, whereas the
worst element type was found to be the solid element type AC3D20. This is a rather surprising
result when compared to the equivalent structural analysis, in which the solid elements with
quadratic interpolation are better than element types with linear interpolation for the same
mesh density.

Author Contributions: M.A. performed the simulation work and wrote the paper. S.O.O. proposed the
methodology used and reviewed the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Petroleum Technology Development Fund, Nigeria.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bergmann, P.G. The Wave Equation in a Medium with a Variable Index of Refraction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
1946, 17, 329–333. [CrossRef]
2. Pierce, A.D. Wave equation for sound in fluids with unsteady inhomogeneous flow. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
1990, 87, 2292–2299. [CrossRef]
3. Chen, Z.; Shen, Z. Surface Waves Propagating on Grounded Anisotropic Dielectric Slab. Appl. Sci. 2018.
[CrossRef]
4. Sandberg, G.; Goransson, P. A symmetric finite element formulation for acoustic fluid-structure interaction
analysis. J. Sound Vib. 1988, 123, 507–515. [CrossRef]
5. El Gowini, M.M.; Moussa, W.A. A finite element model of a MEMS-based surface acoustic wave hydrogen
sensor. Sensors 2010, 10, 1232–1250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Kagawa, Y.; Tsuchiya, T.; Yamabuchi, T.; Kawabe, H.; Fujii, T. Finite Element Simulation of Non-Linear
Sound Wave Propagation. J. Sound Vib. 1992, 154, 125–145. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1318 20 of 20

7. Eccardt, P.; Landes, H.; Lerch, R.; Ag, S. Finite Element Simulation of Acoustic Wave Propagation
within Flowing Media. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA,
3–6 November 1996; Volume 2, pp. 991–994. [CrossRef]
8. Tikka, A.C.; Al-Sarawi, S.F. Finite Element Analysis of a 3-Dimensional Acoustic Wave. In Modeling,
Signal Processing, and Control for Smart Structures 2008, Proceedings of the SPIE Smart Structures and Materials +
Nondestructive Evaluation and Health Monitoring, San Diego, CA, USA, 3 April 2008; SPIE: Bellingham, WA, USA,
2008; Volume 6926, pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
9. Kutiš, V.; Gálik, G.; Královič, V.; Rýger, I.; Mojto, E.; Lalinský, T. Modelling and simulation of SAW sensor
using FEM. Procedia Eng. 2012, 48, 332–337. [CrossRef]
10. Yu, Y.; Yan, N. Numerical Study on Guided Wave Propagation in Wood Utility Poles: Finite Element
Modelling and Parametric Sensitivity Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2017. [CrossRef]
11. Owowo, J.; Oyadiji, S.O. Finite element analysis and experimental measurement of acoustic wave
propagation for leakage detection in an air-filled pipe. Int. J. Struct. Integr. 2017, 8, 452–467. [CrossRef]
12. Chen, L.; Zhao, W.; Liu, C.; Chen, H. 2D Structural Acoustic Analysis Using the FEM/FMBEM with Different
Coupled Element Types. Arch. Acoust. 2017, 42, 37–48. [CrossRef]
13. Weryk, M.; Kozaczka, E.; Grelowska, G. Study of Noise Propagation for Small Vessels. Arch. Acoust.
2015, 40, 267–272. [CrossRef]
14. Rusu, E. Study of the Wave Energy Propagation Patterns in the Western Black Sea. Appl. Sci. 2018. [CrossRef]
15. Koh, J.; Jang, S.; Oh, S. The Analysis of Acoustic Wave Propagation Characteristics in a Buried Pipe By
External Impact. In Proceedings of the 25th World Gas Conference (WGC 2012), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
4–8 June 2012; pp. 425–790.
16. Odya, P.; Kotus, J.; Szczodrak, M.; Kostek, B. Sound Intensity Distribution around Organ Pipe. Arch. Acoust.
2017, 42, 13–22. [CrossRef]
17. Papadopoulou, K.A.; Shamout, M.N.; Lennox, B.; Mackay, D.; Taylor, A.R.; Turner, J.T.; Wang, X.
An evaluation of acoustic reflectometry for leakage and blockage detection. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J.
Mech. Eng. Sci. 2008, 222, 959–966. [CrossRef]
18. Raichel, D.R. The Science and Applications of Acoustics, 2nd ed.; Springer Science and Business Media: New
York, NY, USA, 2006, ISBN 9780387260624.
19. Abaqus. 6.10 User’s Documentation, Getting Started with Abaqus Interactive Edition. 2012. Available online:
http://dsk.ippt.pan.pl/docs/abaqus/v6.13/books/gsa/default.htm (accessed on 20 January 2018).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).