| Literature DB >> 30004448 |
Habiba Lais1, Premesh S Lowe2, Tat-Hean Gan3, Luiz C Wrobel4, Jamil Kanfoud5.
Abstract
The accumulation of fouling within a structure is a well-known and costly problem across many industries. The build-up is dependent on the environmental conditions surrounding the fouled structure. Many attempts have been made to detect fouling accumulation in critical engineering structures and to optimize the application of power ultrasonic fouling removal procedures, i.e., flow monitoring, ultrasonic guided waves and thermal imaging. In recent years, the use of ultrasonic guided waves has been identified as a promising technology to detect fouling deposition/growth. This technology also has the capability to assess structural health; an added value to the industry. The use of ultrasonic guided waves for structural health monitoring is established but fouling detection using ultrasonic guided waves is still in its infancy. The present study focuses on the characterization of fouling detection using ultrasonic guided waves. A 6.2-m long 6-inch schedule 40 carbon steel pipe has been used to study the effect of (Calcite) fouling on ultrasonic guided wave propagation within the structure. Parameters considered include frequency selection, number of cycles and dispersion at incremental fouling thickness. According to the studied conditions, a 0.5 dB/m drop in signal amplitude occurs for a fouling deposition of 1 mm. The findings demonstrate the potential to detect fouling build-up in lengthy pipes and to quantify its thickness by the reduction in amplitude found from further numerical investigation. This variable can be exploited to optimize the power ultrasonic fouling removal procedure.Entities:
Keywords: COMSOL; disperse; fouling detection; numerical modelling; ultrasonic guided waves
Year: 2018 PMID: 30004448 PMCID: PMC6068678 DOI: 10.3390/s18072122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Dispersion curve for 6-inch schedule 40 carbon steel pipe cross section using DISPERSE software (solid lines) and GUIGUW software (dashed lines).
Comparison of Ultrasonic Guided Wave systems on the commercial market.
| Supplier | UGW System | Method of Excitation | Operating Frequency Range | Inspection Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant Integrity Ltd. (EddyFi) | Teletest® Focus+ | PZT array | 20–100 kHz | 60 m |
| Guided Ultrasonic Ltd. | Wavemaker® G4 | PZT array | 15–80 kHz | 60 m |
| Structural Integrity Associates Inc. | PowerFocus™ | PZT array | 20–85 kHz | 150 m |
| Olympus corporation | UltraWave® LRT | PZT array | 15–85 kHz | 90 m |
| Innerspec Technologies Inc. | Temate® MRUT | Magnetostrictive coils | 0.1–1 MHz | 1–5 m |
| NDT-Consultant Ltd. | MsSR® 3030R | Magnetostrictive coils | 2–250 kHz | - |
Figure 2(a) Schematic and (b) set-up of the UGW collar arrangement for the current investigation on a 6.2-m 6-inch schedule 40 carbon steel pipe for data collection using pitch-catch configuration.
Figure 3Fouling generation of 6.2-m 6-inch schedule 40 carbon steel pipe (a) schematic and (b) experimental set-up.
Figure 4Image of the inner wall of the 6.2-m 6-inch schedule 40 carbon steel pipe (a) displaying some corrosion before commencing fouling generation procedure and (b) after generating a layer of Calcite.
Figure 5Comparison of maximum receiving amplitude at different input frequencies.
Figure 6Received UGW signal for baseline and Calcite, displaying drop in amplitude.
Figure 7Experimental results—Comparison of maximum amplitude for baseline and Calcite signal at different number of signal cycles.
Assumed material property of steel and Calcite for the Finite Element Analysis.
| Material Property | Carbon Steel | Calcite |
|---|---|---|
| Density | 7830 kg/m3 | 2700 kg/m3 |
| Young’s Modulus | 207 GPa | 70 GPa |
| Poisons ratio | 0.33 | 0.3 |
Figure 8Comparison of FEA pitch-catch signal at different operating frequencies.
Figure 9Comparison of FEA pitch-catch signal at different fouling thicknesses.
Comparison of theoretical and FEA Time of Arrival.
| Torsional Group Velocity | Theoretical Time of Arrival at 4 m (µs) | COMSOL Pk-Pk Time of Arrival (µs) | Error % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 3152.56 | 1268.81 | 1282.60 | 1.09 |
| 1 mm | 3152.77 | 1268.73 | 1282.00 | 1.05 |
| 3 mm | 3153.12 | 1268.59 | 1281.80 | 1.04 |
| 5 mm | 3153.40 | 1268.47 | 1281.20 | 1.01 |