1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

ACOUSTIC LEAK DETECTION TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Augusto Garcia-Hernandez
Southwest Research Institute

San Antonio, Texas, USA

Shane Siebenaler
Southwest Research Institute

San Antonio, Texas, USA



ABSTRACT
Leak detection systems are a vital part of a pipeline integrity
management program. For liquid hydrocarbon pipelines, these
leak detection systems can take the form of measuring
conditions inside the pipeline (internal detection) or by use of
hardware installed outside of the pipe (external detection). One
internally-based technology is acoustic leak detection,
sometimes known as rarefaction-wave monitoring. This
technology is based on detecting transient pressure waves that
are generated when a sudden leak occurs. Acoustic pressure
waves travel in the pipeline at the speed of sound of the fluid
that is being transported and can be detected by dynamic
pressure sensors. Various filters and algorithms can be used to
identify this disturbance and distinguish it from other pressure
events on the pipeline. This architecture can even be used for
noise and for signal pattern recognition to allow for automatic
alarming of potential leak events. Each manufacturer of such
technology applies unique algorithms or processing methods to
capture and analyze the pressure signals that are used to later
predict leaks and their locations.
This paper presents a comprehensive review of the technical
basis and methodology employed by acoustic leak detection
systems in order to further understand their capabilities and
limitations. This work included a vast amount of hydraulic
modeling aimed at understanding the physics of wave
propagation caused by leak events. Diverse parameters, such as
initial pressure wave amplitude, signal attenuation, flow and
pressure dependence, speed of sound effects, and sensor
locations were evaluated. This modeling was conducted for a
variety of simulated fluids. A proportional relationship between
leak rate and the initial pressure disturbance caused by a leak
was obtained. This linear trend can be used in combination
with an attenuation model to calculate sensor location
limitations. The work determined that the uncertainty in the
speed of sound for a pipeline fluid segment significantly
impacts the error bands of leak location. The modeling was
used to generate correlations for signal attenuation over
distance as a function of pipeline conditions.
NOMENCLATURE
A Predicted pressure amplitude (psi, KPa)
A
o
Initial pressure amplitude (psi, KPa)
Attenuation coefficient (1/miles, 1/m)
z Distance (miles, m)
s Leak location (ft, m)
L Distance between sensors (ft, m)
t
i
Time detected by the sensor (s)
Speed of sound (ft/s, m/s)
ABBREVIATIONS
ALD Acoustic Leak Detection
FFT Fast Fourier Transformation
TAPS Transient Analysis Pipe Solver
SCADA Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition
MOP Maximum Operating Pressure
INTRODUCTION
The basic approach of ALD relies on the acoustic disturbance
that develops when an opening occurs in a pressurized pipeline.
This disturbance is characterized by a sudden decrease in
pressure and tends to take the form of a negative-pressure pulse
[1, 2, 3, 4]. This acoustic disturbance has also been referred to
as a rarefaction wave, acoustic wave, and an expansion wave
[5, 6, 7, 8]. The acoustic disturbance travels upstream and
downstream from the leak location, regardless of whether or
not there is flow in the line. An ALD system uses an array of
pressure transducers along the piping to detect these
disturbances to determine that a leak has occurred. Once a
pressure wave is detected, the location of the leak can be
calculated based on the speed of sound in the fluid. Since the
distance between pressure transducers is known, the time
Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference
IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90146
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
required to reach adjacent pressure transducers can be used to
calculate the location of the leak. In some cases, the general
magnitude of the leak may be determined by the magnitude of
the pulse created by the leak [9, 10].
One of the basic assumptions of ALD is that this technology
requires leaks to occur in a sudden manner. In order for there
to be an acoustic pulse to detect, the leak must be large enough
and occur quickly enough to create a pulse. In situations where
a leak develops slowly, also called progressive leaks, no
disturbance is created that can be detected by the ALD system
[9, 10]. Such progressive leaks can occur due to slow
corrosion. In addition, if a leak is initially missed by the ALD
system, it is highly unlikely that the ALD system will ever
detect the leak. ALD methods can be used for piping with
liquids, gases, and multiphase flow. In all three cases, a sudden
leak event creates an expansion wave that can travel through
liquid or gas. In multiphase flow, additional uncertainties exist
because of the multiple speeds of sound. However, onsite
calibration can mitigate some of the uncertainty [11].
The determination of leak size is a weakness in the ALD
method. One method to calculate leak size using ALD is to use
acoustic attenuation. In this estimation, the initial pulse size is
assumed to be equivalent to the pressure loss due to the leak. A
simple exponential decay is assumed for the dissipation of the
pulse [9, 10]. Knowing the travel length of the pulse to the
sensor, the original magnitude of the pulse can be calculated
using the assumed attenuation. The leak size is then estimated
using the calculated pressure at the leak location [9, 10]. There
is a great deal of uncertainty in these calculations due to the
fact that acoustic attenuation is a not well-understood
phenomenon [9, 10].
MODELING OF A PIPELINE LEAK ACOUSTIC
BEHAVIOR
In order to evaluate the applicability and capabilities of acoustic
leak detection, a modeling approach was used. The models
were used to predict the physical phenomena theoretically
observed during a leak event and to estimate the limitations of
technology based on these physics. Specifically, the topics of
interest were signal attenuation and frequency content. The
modeling effort was focused on simulating critical leak
conducts with emphasis on leak rates smaller than 5% of the
nominal pipeline flow rate. The baseline operating conditions
were obtained from a survey of operators. These conditions
include fluid properties, operational characteristics, and the
configuration of typical pipelines. The focus of the study was
to further understand the phenomena behind the ALD
technology and determine its main capabilities and limitations.
Background
The ALD method relies on detecting pressure disturbances to
identify leaks; an ALD system must be able to differentiate a
disturbance due to a leak and disturbances due to background
noise. Fluids in piping experience acoustic pulsations, pulses,
and disturbances due to valve operation, pump startup,
compressor noise, flow effects, and many other sources.
Researchers have identified that acoustic responses due to leaks
tend to have low frequency content between 0.5 Hz and 2 Hz
[9, 10]. One vendor identifies the frequencies more generally
as less than 3 Hz [12]. Another vendor identifies typical
wavelengths of 100 meters to 100,000 meters [1, 2], which
would result in frequencies of less than 3.5 Hz for water.
Vendors use low-pass and high-pass analog filters for the
pressure signals to filter out acoustic noise [1, 2]. ALD vendors
use moving-average filters, band-pass filters, and repetitive
filters [1, 2]. The details of these filters, such as cut-off
frequencies, are not published as they are considered
proprietary to each respective vendor. However, the expected
range of the leak response is provided by the vendors, and these
data can be utilized to estimate values used for the cut-off
frequencies. Another technique recently applied is the
generation of a leak map by processing the pressure data with
special algorithms that remove the pump/process noise prior to
any pattern matching. Thus, a map of the pressure data with
some distinct marks that reveal the presence of a leak can be
generated with this technique [8]. It is clear that a filtering
method or processing algorithms must be used to better
interpret the pressure wave generated by a leak event since
there is pipeline noise originated by different sources. Thus,
the main difference between the various ALD technologies is
the application of a distinctive filtering method algorithm to
process the pressure data.
After the various filters are applied, the pressure signal is
compared to a database of representative pressure profiles for a
leak-induced pulsation [1, 2, 12]. The comparison is usually
made either using a correlative filter or a neural filter [9, 10].
The basic idea is that if the pulse profile measured in the
pipeline compares to one of the profiles in the database (or a
single representative profile), the measured pulse is a result of a
leak. If the pulse profile does not match, then it is attributed to
pipeline noise and is rejected. The correlative filter essentially
provides a score for the comparison; the closer the match, the
higher the score [9, 10]. A threshold can be determined in
advance as to what magnitude the score must have to be
considered a leak-induced pulse. The pulse profiles used by
each vendor are considered proprietary, as are the filter
methods. The correlative filter serves a second purpose to
identify characteristics of the disturbance to compare for timing
purposes. Since the wavelengths tend to be quite long (much
longer than an acceptable position error), a particular point on
the waveform must be selected to determine when the pulse has
arrived at the pressure transducer [1, 2]. A particular vendor
may select the beginning of the leak pulse as the arrival time of
the peak. The time of arrival at both adjacent sensors must use
the same point on the waveform or additional uncertainty will
be introduced into the leak position calculation.
It is very critical to capture the first transient pulse when a leak
occurs, since the ALD depends on that initial pressure wave
pulse to predict a leak. Subsequent pulsations in the
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
simulations from reflections off boundaries are not factored
into the analysis.
Approach
The modeling was conducted using two different computational
software packages available at Southwest Research Institute
(SwRI

): a commercial pipeline simulator and Transient

Analysis Pipe Solver (TAPS); the latter is a proprietary SwRI
code. Both codes apply an adaptive knot and time spacing to
avoid any possible false dispersion of the results and maintain
accuracy during the rapid transient events. This initial approach
modeled small leaks in the middle and quarter spans of the
pipeline segments. The low-amplitude and low-frequency
pressure waves generated at the leak location were monitored
along the pipe to determine the effect at pumping-receiving
facilities, the possible locations of leak detection devices.
Frequency spectra plots of the pressure waves provide the leak
frequency content at the different locations and indicate the
minimum and maximum amplitudes and frequencies obtained
when a particular leak occurs.
The main difference between the two analysis packages is the
solution method. TAPS applies the full Navier-Stokes solution
in one dimension, which can be analyzed in the time or
frequency domain, while the commercial software uses
conventional acoustic wave equation solution. A parametric
study of typical leak cases was used to evaluate the two
computational packages. Results were evaluated to determine
their applicability and whether they may be validated against
real available data.
Simulation Approach and Boundary Conditions
Several models were created to simulate the leak response in
multiple products. A representative pipeline model for crude
oil is shown in Figure 1. Pipe lengths, diameters, and fluid
properties have been varied between the models. However, the
basic elements in the representation are consistent between
each of the models.
An initial set of model runs was conducted. To simplify the
approach, a single monitored pipe segment was simulated.
Therefore, the inlet and outlet sensors representing two
consecutive sensors and additional measurements were not
required. However, pressure was also determined at each leak
location to correlate the attenuation of the pulse between the
leak location to the inlet and outlet sensors.



Figure 1. Crude Oil Piping Model Schematic
(NOTE: There is a ten-mile spacing between transmitters)

The inlet boundary condition was set as flow (velocity)
provided by pumping equipment while at the end of the pipe.
A pressure regulator and a storage tank were used to simulate
the back pressure control system of the pipeline. Additional
piping was included before and after each sensor to improve the
boundary conditions. Since the model represented a pipe
segment, and not the entire pipeline, the boundary conditions at
both ends should have allowed pulsations to pass by both ends
with no reflection. It was found in some simulations that minor
reflections did sometimes occur, due to the numerical nature of
the solutions. Adding the pipe lengths allowed the leak pulse to
travel past the inlet and outlet sensors before recording the
reflections from the boundary conditions.
One leak event was modeled during each simulation. For each
liquid, multiple runs were performed. Both the leak location
and the rate of the leak were varied. The leaks themselves can
be modeled a number of ways, including: varying the opening
rate of the leak, modeling the leak as a forced flow rate, and/or
modeling the leak as a valve between the pipe and atmospheric
pressure.
It was found that modeling the leak as an instantaneous forced
flow provided the most control for modeling purposes.
However, the capability to model the leaks in the other methods
does exist. By varying the position of the leak, it was expected
that the effect of leak position on leak location accuracy can be
determined. It was anticipated that varying the leak size will
provide insight into the minimum leak that can be resolved
using this leak detection method.
Unless otherwise noted, conditions within the pipe during
simulation were allowed to reach steady-state before initializing
a leak event. In a time domain model, startup transients often
occur, and waiting for these transients to disperse is necessary
for modeling transients of short duration. The resolved data at
all measurement locations were analyzed in both the time and
frequency domain. Time domain analyses include filtering and
averaging, both of which are reportedly used by the
manufacturers in their algorithms. Frequency domain analysis
is composed of performing Fast Fourier Transformations
(FFTs) on various time segments of the time output.
The performed simulations were intended to represent typical
fluids used in the industry, based on survey results and the
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
typical implementation of leak detection systems. A number of
papers have been published by acoustic leak detection
manufacturers [5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14]. In many of these papers, the
fluid type and distance between sensors were reported. The
typical spacing of transmitters is on the order of ten miles. To
accurately represent pipeline characteristics that closely match
the realistic pipeline leak event, a survey of the operating
conditions, pipeline geometry, and fluid characteristics was
applied to different pipeline companies. Results from the
survey were used to define a simulation matrix. This matrix
included the basic parameters to be simulated, such as pipeline
geometry, fluid properties, typical size and extent of leaks, as
well as the pipeline operating conditions. Four typical liquid
products: crude oil, gasoline, NGL, and LNG were selected by
the pipeline companies for this study.
Cases Studied
Four different fluids were used to simulate leak events in a
typical segment of a pipeline system. The main focus of the
simulation was to capture the physical phenomena and
understand the acoustic behavior of the pipeline system during
a leak event. The initial cases were performed with crude oil
with leak events in a range of 1-5% (1,000-5,000 BPD) of the
total flow rate transport by the pipeline. Figure 2 shows results
of a 5% flow rate simulated leak of crude oil in a 10-mile
(16.09-kilometer) pipeline segment. In this simulation, the leak
was located in the middle of the pipeline and the pressure was
monitored at 10%, 25%, and 50% of the total length of the
pipeline, as well as at the beginning of the pipe, to understand
the behavior of the pressure wave in the system and observe the
effect of the boundary conditions on the amplitude and
frequency content of the negative pulse originated at the leak
point. The time delay between the signals was used to
determine the leak location, since two sensors are utilized for
processing the data. Thus, the measurement of this delay is
very critical for the application of the technology and any
miscalculation will affect the accuracy of the leak locations
predictions.



Figure 2. Leak Results for 5% Leak of Crude Oil Change in
Pressure over Time at Different Locations in the Pipeline
Another important aspect observed in the modeling was the
pressure pulse attenuation versus distance for a particular
pipeline system. The attenuation of an acoustic signal depends
on the impedance of the system. The complex system
impedance would depend on the properties of the fluid
transported and geometry. For the case of propagation through
a pipeline, wall vibrations and viscous forces at the interface
can affect the frequency content of the pressure waves. For
resistive effects, energy is removed from the wave and
converted into noise, vibration, or other forms. Figure 3
presents an example of the pressure attenuation in the system
for a 5% leak rate. The initial pressure wave originated by the
leak event was damped through the system; thus, its amplitude
and frequency were reduced over the entire distance.

Figure 3. Leak Impulse and Wave Propagation over Time at two
Different Locations
Gasoline cases were simulated for 0.1% up to 5% leak rates (40
bpd 2,000 bpd). Figure 4 shows the pressure signal originated
576
578
580
582
584
586
588
590
592
594
596
598
600
602
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
g
)
Time(sec)
CrudeOil PressureversusTimeatDifferentLocations
LeakLocatedat50%oftheTotalDistanceandSimulatedLeakRateof
5%oftheTotalCurrentFlow
InitialSensor (IS) NodePointat10%pipelinedistance
25%ofthepipelinedistance 50%ofthe pipelinedistance
585.65
586.15
586.65
587.15
587.65
588.15
588.65
589.15
589.65
590.15
590.65
576.0
576.5
577.0
577.5
578.0
578.5
579.0
579.5
580.0
580.5
581.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
g
)
Time(sec)
PressureLeakImpulseandWaveComparisonversusTime
LeakLocatedat50%ofthetotalDistanceBetweentheSensors
(10miles)andSimulatedLeakRateof36.45gpm(5%oftheTotal
CurrentFlow)
ImpulseattheSimulatedLeakLocation PressureWaveat2.5milesfromtheLeakLocation
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
by a 0.1% leak rate. It can be observed that the amplitude of
the pressure wave at the initial sensor is small (0.06 psi, see
Figure 10). For the other locations, the amplitude was in the
same order of magnitude. Thus, for the simulated pipeline
conditions of 800-psig back pressure and a 40,000 bpd (1,167
gpm) flow rate, a simulated leak of 0.1% (40 bpd, 1.167 gpm)
produced an insignificant change in the pressure behavior of the
system. Thus, this type of event would be difficult to identify
by ALD.

Figure 4. Pressure Signals along the Pipeline for a Gasoline
Simulated Leak of 0.1% (40 bpd) of the Total Current Flow
Leak Located in the Middle of the Pipeline Segment
Different leak rates were evaluated for the gasoline product for
the 10-mile pipeline segment and the pressure attenuation
curves for each case are presented in Figure 5. The attenuation
of the pressure pulse originated by the leak event followed an
exponential behavior. This type of response falls into the
fundamental concept of attenuation in a medium, which
indicates that the propagating pressure wave decays in an
exponential manner in a plane system. Even though in the real
system a three-dimensional effect is present, this concept is still
valid. Moreover, the simulation data indicate that the system
reaction follows the fundamental model as expected. The
calculated attenuation curves presented in Figure 5 exhibit
similar attenuation coefficients, since they are affected by the
same system impedance.

Figure 5. Pressure Attenuation for Various Leak Rates versus
Distance
Solver Comparison with Field Data
A set of raw field leak pressure data was provided to this
project by one of the ALD vendors. The data provided
included pressure trend signals during a leak event, average line
pressure and flow, and type of fluid transported. The data was
used to demonstrate how the simulation results might align with
physical measurements, though the intention here was not to
validate the model. This comparison provides a basic reference
to examine the predictions obtained with the computational
codes without any tuning or refining of the models. Figure 6
shows the raw data provided. These data present the same level
of the background noise prior to the leak event, and then a peak
in the pressure amplitude that represents the leak event. The
leakage was maintained for approximately ten seconds and then
was eliminated; thus, the opposite pressure peak represents
when the system was brought to normal operating conditions.
This set of data was used to compare to the model predictions
and determine if the computational models were able to capture
the physical phenomena observed in a real leak situation.
Three crude oil cases were compared to the provided data and
all of the results were similar for these cases. In Figure 7, it
was observed that computational model predictions of the
physical phenomena were in agreement with the real data. The
initial pressure pulse captured in the raw data and obtained in
the simulation results were between 6.5 psi and 7.5 psi. These
values are higher than the normal transducer sensitivity range
(see Figure 10). In addition, the background noise identified in
the raw data was in the order of magnitude of 0.5 psi.
Differences in the initial pressure pulse and frequency content
were found to be within 16%-18%. However, the main
objective of the comparison was to determine if the
computational tools were able to capture the rapid transient
response originated by a leak event. Moreover, the
computational models were not tuned or refined to match any
data as only a few points were provided. Therefore, in order to
858.34
858.36
858.38
858.4
858.42
858.44
858.46
858.48
858.5
858.52
825
830
835
840
845
850
855
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

t
h
e

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

S
e
n
s
o
r

(
p
s
i
g
)
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
i
g
)
Time(sec)
TransientPressuresatDifferentPipelineLocationsduringthe
LeakEvent Gasoline 0.1%LeakRate
10%PipelineDistance 25%PipelineDistance
LeakSide InitialSensor
y=4.625e
0.065x
R=0.9993
y=2.7638e
0.065x
R=0.9996
y=0.9344e
0.065x
R=0.9993
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
p
s
i
)
DistancefromtheLeakLocation(miles)
PressureWaveOriginatedbytheLeakEventversusDistance
fromtheLeaklocation GasolineatDifferentLeakRates
Gasoline5%LeakRate Gasoline3%LeakRate Gasoline1%LeakRate
6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
obtain more accurate results in a quantitative manner, tuning or
refining of the model is required. However, for the purpose of
the exercise, it was not required, since the main objective of the
modeling was to further understand the physical phenomena
and the behavior of the pipeline system under different leak
scenarios.

Figure 6. Crude Oil Pipeline Leak Event Raw Data, 0.32% Leak
Rate of the Total Current Flow
Figure 6 shows the level of noise present in a real crude oil
pipeline system before and during a leak event. In addition, it
highlights the amplitude of the pulse generated by a real leak
event in comparison with the existing background noise.

Figure 7. Real Leak Event and Simulation Results Comparison for
Crude Oil Pipeline System
ATTENUATION OF PRESSURE WAVES
When pressure waves travel through a medium, their intensity
diminishes with distance. In a pipeline system, the interaction
of the different materials, including the fluid, produces an effect
that weakens the pressure waves. This reduction of the
intensity or loss of energy results from scattering and
absorption. Scattering is the reflection of the sound pressure in
directions other than its original direction of propagation.
Absorption is the conversion of the pressure wave energy to
other forms of energy. The combined effect of scattering and
absorption is called attenuation. Thus, the pressure attenuation
is the decay rate of the wave as it propagates through material
and medium.
Clear pressure decay was observed for all cases studied.
Examples of the attenuation obtained for the different cases are
presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. In these figures, it can be
observed that the attenuation has an exponential trend for all
cases. Using the fundamental concept of the attenuation in a
medium, the amplitude change of a decaying plane wave can be
expressed as:
A = A
o
e
-uZ
(1)
Where:
A
o
is the unattenuated amplitude of the propagating wave
at the original location and the amplitude,
A is reduced by a function of distance Z, and
represents the attenuation coefficient of the traveling
wave.
A clear fitting to this simplified equation was obtained for the
results and represents a useful tool to estimate the possible
locations of the sensors, based on the expected accuracy of the
system and pressure waves originated by very small leaks.
In order to determine the adequate sensor spacing, relevant
process information such as pipeline characteristics, operating
pressure, fluid data, and expected operational background noise
are analyzed. A minimum leak size may be used as criterion
for selecting the system and sensor arrangements. The
distances are usually defined by looking at the desired leak
detection sensitivity, local availability or preferences for sensor
locations, easy to accessibility, and optimal cost-to-
performance relation. For a specific leak size or hole, different
leak rates can be originated based on different pipeline
operating pressures. For example, in an NGL pipeline
operating at 1,400 psig, a hole of -inch in diameter will
originate a leak of approximately 245 gpm, while the same hole
at 600-psig pipeline pressure will cause a 145 gpm leak.
Therefore, simulation methods can be used to calculate the
signal attenuation and provide a sensor spacing that would
complement the sensitivity required for the system.
700
500
300
100
100
300
500
700
900
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

S
i
g
n
a
l
Time(sec)
LeakEventRawData DynamicPressureSignalversusTime
(CrudeOilPipelineOperatingatApproximatly3,600m3/h,
15,850gpm,LeakRateof54.54gpm,1/4inchhole)
SensorA
SensorB
Initialbackgroundnoise
Bringingthesystem
backtonormal
conditions
Leakevent
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
p
s
i
)
Time(sec)
ComparisonofRealLeakDataandSimulationResultsforaCrudeOil
PipelineOperatingatApproximatley3,600m
3
/h,15,850gpm
(LeakRate:1/4inchhole,51.54gpm,0.32%ofTotalCurrentFlowRate)
RealDATA
ComercialSoftware
TAPSResults
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 8. Pressure Wave Attenuation versus Distance for a 100-
mile Pipeline with Gasoline Product for Various Leak Rates
(The attenuation of the signal depends basically on the impedance of
the system, which is presented in these trends as the attenuation
coefficient (exponent of the function -0.031)


Figure 9. Leak Pressure Wave Attenuation versus Distance for a
100-mile Pipeline with Gasoline at Different Operating Pressures
INSTRUMENTATION
The acoustic leak detection system counts on dynamic pressure
transducers to sense the pressure changes originated by a leak
event. The sensor spans are selected based on the pipeline
operating pressure; a normal criterion is 130%-150% of the
maximum operating pressure (MOP). Sensors with high
dynamic resolution are required. In addition, fast response time
(1ms or less) and low hysteresis levels in the entire pressure
range sensors are required as well.
Vendors have claimed that the dynamic signals are extracted
from the sensors internally by the electronics and magnified to
the adequate scale before going to the processing algorithms.
The negative dynamic variations produced by a small leak are
of small amplitude, sometimes well below the level of
background noise of the pipeline. Thus, vendor technologies
conduct a negative transient detection and identification process
by using proper filtering and pattern recognition techniques.
Vendors normally use sensors with accuracies of 0.25% of the
dynamic pressure span, or better. This includes all common
errors, such as linearity, hysteresis, and repeatability. The
ability to track small dynamic pressure variations will be
limited by the sensor hysteresis that normally is lower than
0.05% of the span. Thus, this is the minimum readable
pressure disturbance. The minimum readable pressure pulse
will be limited only by the sensor hysteresis and the resolution
of associated reading circuitry. For example, assuming a
sensor with a pressure range of 100 psi and a declared
hysteresis error of 0.05%, it is expected that the sensor will be
able to read pressure changes as small as 0.05 psi. While in
other cases, minimum readable pressure pulses of 0.72 psi have
been reported. An example of how the sensitivity of the
sensors could affect the distance between them and the
minimum threshold for detecting a small leak is presented in
Figure 10. In this case, if a pulse higher than 0.05 psi can be
detected by a sensor and distinguished by the ALD, leaks of
0.1% can be identified with a minimum distance between the
sensors of approximately 30 miles. On the other hand, if the
minimum pulse that a sensor can detect is 0.72 psi, a 0.1% leak
may not be identified by the system. A similar analysis can be
accomplished for the 1% leak rate where the higher sensitivity
value would limit the minimum distance between the sensors to
be approximately eight miles, while there would not be a
minimum distance requirement if a low sensitivity sensor is
used. However, in practical application, the main limiting
factor for detecting very small amplitude transient pulses is the
pipeline background noise and not the sensor resolution.
Normally, the background noise in the pipeline is much higher
than the sensor resolution and ends up being the practical
limiting factor used to set up the detecting threshold. Although,
the major pipeline noise sources cover a wide range of
frequencies, they are typically out of frequency range of leak
rarefaction pulses. Noise sources come from everywhere,
ambient, pipeline, machinery, process, fluid, etc; thus, there will
always be a background noise in the signal read by the pressure
sensors. However, they are usually identified and filtered out.
y=0.2229e
0.031x
R=0.9906
y=0.8983e
0.031x
R=0.999
y=2.385e
0.031x
R=0.998
y=3.9857e
0.031x
R=0.9981
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
p
s
i
)
DistancefromtheLeakLocation(miles)
PressureWaveOriginatedbytheLeakEventversusDistance
fromtheLeakLocation Gasoline100milePipelineforVarious
LeakRates
Gasoline0.1%LeakRate
Gasoline1%LeakRate
Gasoline3%LeakRate
Gasoline5%LeakRate
LeakPressureWaveversusDistancefromtheLeakLocationGasoline
100milePipeline1%LeakageatDifferentPipelinePressures
y= 0.84247e
0.03131x
R
2
=0.99793
y =0.89829e
0.03077x
R
2
= 0.99905
y=0.78708e
0.03082x
R
2
=0.99874
y=0.75840e
0.03143x
R
2
=0.99920
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
0 10 20 30 40 50
DistancefromtheLeakLocation(miles)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
p
s
i
)
Gasoline 1% LeakRate 793 psig
Gasoline 1% LeakRate 1092 psig
Gasoline 1% LeakRate 493 psig
Gasoline 1% LeakRate 317 psig
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 10. Pressure Wave Amplitude versus Distance with
Transducer Sensitivity
LOCATION UNCERTAINTY
Leak location is identified by recording the time that each
disturbance reaches two adjacent sensor stations whose
positions are known. Typically, vendors present the location
calculation as dependent on the fluid speed of sound, distance
between sensor stations, and the timing of the pulse
identifications. Calculating the position based on timing
requires that the various sensor stations have precise and
synchronized clocks. Two vendors have solved this problem
using the GPS data to ensure that the station clocks are
synchronized [1, 2, 12]. Density variations, the mean flow of
the fluid, and piping diameter changes also introduce added
uncertainty to the calculated leak position if not adequately
addressed [9, 10]. Density variations of the fluid can affect the
speed of sound of the fluid. The mean flow of the fluid
increases the speed at which the pulse reaches the downstream
sensor, and reduces the speed at which the pulse reaches the
upstream sensor. Changes in the diameter can increase or
decrease the velocity of the mean flow through Bernoullis
principle. However, if the mean flow is much less than the
speed of sound, the effect of the mean flow is often considered
negligible [9, 10].
The leak location is calculated by using the distance between
the sensors, the time for the leak arrival to read each sensor,
and the speed of sound of the fluid transported. The general
equation for the leak location is presented in Eq. 2. In this
equation, the calculation of the s parameter (leak location)
depends on the traveling time, separation between sensors, and
fluid speed of sound. Normally, the sensors are synchronized
with an accuracy of approximately 500 to 1,000 nanoseconds.
Thus, this accuracy will produce a miscalculation in the leak
location that is in the order of millimeters. The speed of sound
is calculated using fluid properties and components that may
change (packing) or not be uniform (batched operations). Thus,
the speed of sound can have significant impact on leak location
and is likely to dominate the calculation. It should be noted
that uncertainty in these two parameters does not affect whether
or not a leak is detected; they only impact the accuracy of leak
location.
s =
L
2
+
1
2
(t
1
-t
2
): (2)
The speed-of-sound value is usually calculated based on the
fluid properties of the product transported, such as the bulk
modulus, density, or composition considering the average
operating pressure and temperature of the pipeline system.
Thus, some uncertainty is already included in the calculation of
the speed of sound, since different methods or paths could be
used. In addition, the speed of sound is more sensitive to
temperature than pressure changes; thus, no constant speed of
sound exists in a real system due to the temperature
fluctuations. However, the expected uncertainty for the speed-
of-sound calculation should be in the low range of
approximately 1%-3% of the real value. On the other hand,
different fluids could be pumping into a pipeline system in a
batching mode and this will affect the calculation of a possible
leak location if a default average value is used for the speed of
sound.
An example of a pipeline transporting two different fluids A
and B can be used to illustrate the effect of the speed of
sound variation on the leak location determination. The speed
of sound for fluid A is approximately 940 m/s, while for fluid
B it is 1,200 m/s; the separation between the sensors is
assumed to be 10 km and a leak event occurs in one third of the
distance between the two sensors. The main assumption is to
use an average speed of sound as a default value for this
system. Thus, with this value, the leak location uncertainty
when fluids A or B are transported is approximately
3.35% of the sensors distance. The results from this example
are presented in Figure 11. below. In this chart, the speed of
sound difference is the variation between the average default
value and the real value. In the example presented, the default
value is 1,070 m/s, while the variations were 940 m/s and 1,200
m/s. Therefore, a variation of approximately 12.15% in the
speed of sound originates a leak location uncertainty of 3.35%
if an average speed-of-sound value is assumed.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

W
a
v
e

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
p
s
i
)
DistancefromtheLeakLocation(miles)
PressureWaveOriginatedbytheLeakEventversusDistance
fromtheLeakLocation Gasoline100milePipelineforVarious
LeakRates
Gasoline0.1%LeakRate
Gasoline1%LeakRate
Gasoline3%LeakRate
Gasoline5%LeakRate
TransducersSensitivityRange
9 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Figure 11. Leak Location Uncertainty versus Speed of Sound
Variation
PIPELINE TRANSIENT EVENTS
Pipeline systems are operated based on flow or pressure
control, depending on the process and customer requirements.
In many occasions, sectional or segmentation valves are used
along a pipeline system for emergency shutdown, maintenance,
and repair operations. Thus, the valve closures are important
transient events that could affect the ALD performance.
Normally, the valves installed in a pipeline system close over a
few seconds to minutes, depending on the situation, size, and
location. Such closures would result in rarefaction waves with
frequency content lower than 1 Hz, and would not affect
acoustic leak detection. In normal closure of segmentation
valves, the flow is stopped or diverged to avoid water hammer
effect. In extreme cases, such as an emergency shutdown of the
pipeline, which require a sudden closure of the segmentation
valves, water hammer shock waves could be produced within a
1-Hz to 3-Hz frequency band. Thus, those waves are similar to
those generated by a sudden leak event and could be interpreted
as a leak event. Moreover, rapid pressure changes in the
system could originate flapping of check valves which could
also generate disturbance waves in the system similar to a leak
event. The leak detection vendors have claimed that their
technology has the ability to filter off any signals that preserve
certain differences compared to a leak signal, such as valve
openings and pump start-ups and shutdowns. In addition,
other approaches can be used to avoid false alarms due to
process changes by interfacing with the SCADA to acquire
information on valve and pump operation, or by raising the
threshold to avoid alarming due to such interferences. This
type of situation is usually evaluated carefully based on the
application and it could change by case.
Leak events were also simulated in parallel with pipeline
transient conditions, such as increase in the inlet flow and back
pressure. Figure 12 presents a leak event when an increase of
the back pressure of the system was occurring. In this case, the
leak signal can be identified within the transient behavior of the
pipeline pressure. The leak event occurred 30 seconds after the
ramping of the back pressure, as indicated by the small drop in
pressure at the leak location. It is also observed by the final
sensor approximately 15 seconds later. On the other hand, the
initial sensor did not show any significant pressure drop that
could be related to a leak event. The opposite trend was
observed for the inflow ramping transient scenario. In this
scenario, the pressure pulse was clearly identified at the initial
sensor, but not at the end of the pipeline.

Figure 12. Leak Event during Transient Operating Conditions in a
NGL Pipeline Operating at 1,400 psig
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A theoretical proportional relationship between the leak
rate and the initial pressure disturbance was obtained for
the simulated leak conditions. This linear trend could be
used in combination with the attenuation model to estimate
sensor locations and identify critical conditions where the
ALD will not be efficient or suitable.
Theoretically, leak rates between 1% and 5% produced
pressure disturbances that can be captured by the sensors at
least ten miles apart.
The frequency domain of a leak pulse is very well defined
between 1 Hz and 5 Hz [1, 2, 9, 10, 12], while the typical
pipeline noise sources are in lower and higher frequency
bands than the leak disturbances. Therefore, the leak pulse
frequency is in a range that makes it easier to identify with
respect to the other signals or background noises. However,
there will be cases such as sudden closure of the
segmentation valves and flapping of check valves where
the background noise falls within the frequency domain of
the leak pulses.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
L
e
a
k

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

(
%
)
SpeedofSoundDifference(%)
LeakLocationUncertaintyversusSpeedofSoundDifference(%)
foraLeakLocatedatoneThirdoftheSensorsDistance(10Km)
1380
1400
1420
1440
1460
1480
1500
1400
1420
1440
1460
1480
1500
1520
0 10 20 30 40 50
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

t
h
e

F
i
n
a
l

S
e
n
s
o
r

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
p
s
i
g
)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

a
t

t
h
e

L
e
a
k

a
n
d

t
h
e

I
n
i
t
i
a
l

S
e
n
s
o
r

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

(
p
s
i
g
)
Time(sec)
NGLLeakEventDuringanIncreaseofthePipelinePressure
(TransientEvent) 3%LeakRate(825bpd,24gpm)at1,400psig
InitialSensor
LeakSide
FinalSensor
10 Copyright 2012 by ASME
The simulation results indicated that the ALD could be
used in the four different fluids system studied (NGL,
Crude Oil, LNG, and Gasoline).
The location of the leak is critically dependent on the speed
of sound value. It should be noted that uncertainty in
synchronization of the dynamic sensors or speed of sound
value does not affect whether or not a leak is detected; they
only impact the accuracy of leak location.
In general terms, the theoretical average signal attenuation
obtained for all of the simulated cases indicated that the
leak disturbance decays between 1.4% and 2.1% per mile
which follows an exponential decay.
Pipeline noise, signal attenuation, and reflections affect the
application of the technology. It was determined that the
pressure disturbance signals decay in an exponential
manner for a specific pipeline system and this decay is
directly dependent on the impedance of the system. The
signal attenuation depends on the impedance of the
pipeline system and is not affected by the leak rate or
operating pressure.
The leak simulations have shown to be a good tool for
predicting leak event characteristics and they can be used
to determine the applicability of the acoustic leak detection
in specific conditions. Moreover, this tool can be utilized to
calculate the minimum theoretical required distance
between the sensors when an acoustic leak detection
system is being designed.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Pipeline Research Council
International (PRCI) and its members for funding this work. In
addition, special thanks go to the technology vendors for
providing detailed information about the technology as well as
field data and application examples.
REFERENCES

[1] Yang, B., Recane, M., 2003, Pattern Matching for Real
Time Leak Detection and Location in Pipelines, United
States Patent No. US 6,668,619.

[2] Yang, B.W., Recane, M., King, J.V., Smith, S., 2000,
Acoustic Pipeline Leak Detection, Acoustic Systems,
Inc. White Paper, July 21, 2000.

[3] Liou, J.C.P., 1998, Pipeline Leak Detection by Impulse
Response Extraction, Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol.
120, pp. 833-838.

[4] Silva et al., Pressure Wave Behavior and Leak Detection
in Pipelines, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol.
20, pp. 491-496, 1996.

[5] Technical Review of Leak Detection Technologies,
Volume 1 Crude Oil Transmission Pipelines, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, website
address: www.dec.state.ak.us/SPAR/ipp/docs/ldetect2.pdf.

[6] WaveAlert Acoustic Leak Detection System Test Report
for PEMEX Refinery, Acoustic Systems, Inc. White
Paper, August 2000.

[7] WaveAlert Brochure, Acoustic Systems, Inc., website
address:http://www.wavealert.com/download/ASITQ.pdf.

[8] ATMOS Wave International, 2010, ATMOS Wave
Leak Detection Using Rarefaction Wave Analysis - A
Breakthrough in Leak and Theft Detection

[9] Martins, J., De Melo, A.A., 2010, Assessment of the
Performance of Acoustic and Mass Balance Methods for
Leak Detection in Pipelines for Transporting Liquids,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 132, 2010.

[10] Martins, J., De Melo, A.A., Sonic Leak Detection
System for the Crude Oil Terminal, Asel-Tech White
Paper.

[11] Baptista, R., Wildhagen, C.H., 2002, Leak Detection
Systems for Multiphase Flow Moving Forward,
Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference.

[12] Botelho, Carlos, Sonic Leak Detection Systems
SLDS, Asel-Tech White Paper.

[13] Warda, H.A., A Practical Implementation of Pressure
Transient Analysis in Leak Localization in Pipelines,
Proceedings of International Pipeline Conference, 2004.

[14] Beauhausen, R., Tornow, S., Borchers, H., Murphy, K.,
Jun, Z., 2004, Transient Leak Detection in Crude oil
Pipelines, Proceedings of International Pipeline
Conference.

[15] Chuanhu, G., Guizeng, W., Hao, Y., 2007, Analysis of
the Smallest Detectable Leakage flow rate of negative
Pressure Wave_based Leak Detection Systems for Liquid
Pipelines, Computers and Chemical Engineering Journal.

[16] Oliveira, F., Ross, T., Trovato, A., Chandrasekaran, M.,
Leal, F., Smartball: A New Pipeline Leak Detection Leak
Detection, and Its Survey of two Petrobras / Transpetro
pipelines Field Tests, Proceedings of Rio Pipeline 2011
Conference & Exposition.