Stationarity Index Based Segmentation Approach
in Leak Locating Systems
Marllene Dăneţi
“Politehnica” University of Timişoara, Faculty of Electronics and Communication, Applied Electronics Department,
2 Bd. V. Pârvan, 300233 Timişoara, România, Tel:(+40)-0256-403291, Fax(+40)-0256-403295, e-mail:
marllene.daneti@etc.upt.ro
Abstract—This paper presents a practical criterion for
extracting piecewise stationary segments from pipeline leak
signals, in order to better locate the leak on the pipe. The
segmentation technique, that enables detecting and avoiding
the non stationary abrupt data changes, is based on
computing the stationarity index (SI) function of the
acquired noisy leak signals. A comparative study, involving
different segmentation thresholds on real leak signals,
captured in an experimental pipeline installation, indicate
an optimum threshold. According to the proposed criterion,
the signals acquired with pipeline’s end obstructed,
practically needed no segmentation and gave the best
estimates.
Index Terms—Time delay estimation, leak detection,
stationarity index.
I. INTRODUCTION
An important problem for pipeline transportation
systems is to find leaks as soon as possible as they may
occur along the pipe. Leaks in pipelines carrying different
fluids can cause serious environment pollution or injures
of the pipe bedding, roads or nearby buildings. One of the
most known methods in the literature for leak locating is
based on the analysis of the acoustic noise generated by
the fluid passing through the leak. The acoustic leak signal
can be captured by non intrusive sensing devices placed
on the pipeline. The leak locating principle consists of
estimating the time delay at which the leak signal reaches
at two separate locations on the pipe [2],[3]. The current
mathematical model for this problem is described by a
linear set of equations:
 r1 (t ) = s (t ) + n1 (t ),
 p
r2 (t ) = s (t − D ) + n 2 (t )
where r1(t), r2(t) are the received signals, n1(t), n2(t) are
the disturbing additive noises at the sensor locations, s(t)
is the original leak noise and D is the time delay, desired
to be estimated.
Most of the techniques from the literature assume that
the random received signals are described by ideal
features (stationary, white, Gaussian) [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],
[7],[13]. In this case, a typical method for estimating the
time delay is to compute the cross-correlation function
between the received signals. The argument at which the
cross-correlation function’s maximum occurs is the
estimated time delay. Knowing the noise’s propagation
Authorized licensed use limited to: Jesus Esquivel. Downloaded on March 17,2010 at 10:03:55 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
velocity and the distance between the sensors, the leak can
be located [4],[5],[6],[7].
However, in practice, real leak data prove to perform a
number of random abrupt amplitude changes, causing
certain deviations from the original ideal assumptions and
lower estimation results [12]. These burst interferences
can be produced internally, from a sudden pressure and
flow velocity variation (turbulent flow), or externally by
non stationary disturbing noises such as traffic, human
voice, etc., [8]. A useful idea in preprocessing real leak
signals is to detect and avoid these abrupt data changes by
extracting piecewise stationary segments from the
acquired signals for a better implementation of the
estimation algorithms.
The time-frequency representation (TFR) of the
recorded data is an important tool for characterizing non
stationary signals. Usually, the TFR [1] is a two-
dimensional plot in the time-frequency plane that displays
the estimated power spectral density of the signals passed
through a moving window. The window’s length is
comparable to the time over which the data can be
assumed to remain stationary.
An efficient detection method, introduced by Laurent
and Doncarli [9],[10], based on the time-frequency
representation TFR (t,f), define the “stationarity index”,
(SI) function which characterizes the abrupt spectral
signals’ changes. According to this definition, the
stationarity index at each time instant t is computed as the
distance measure of two TFR sub-images around that time
instant. Between different distance measures proposed in
the literature [9], [10], [11], the Kolmogorov distance,
which generally proved to give the best results define the
stationarity index as follows:
(1)
SI (t ) = ∫ ∫ TFR(t − p + τ , f ) − TFR(t + τ , f ) dfdτ ,(2)
τ =0
where p is the sub-image’s width and τ ∈ [0, p ].
A typical non stationary leak data pair, its TFRs and the
derived stationary indices are presented in Fig.1. It can be
seen that the SI functions perform sharp peaks
corresponding to signals’ burst portions and are nearly
constant otherwise.
This paper investigates how this function can be applied
particularly to leak signals, as a preprocessing stage for
further estimation algorithms implementations..
 quantities have to be compared, according to the proposed
criterion. The first one, (denoted with Q1) is the absolute
difference between the SI’s mean and trimmed mean,
while the second one, (denoted with Q2) is the peak-to-
peak SI’s amplitude, SIpp divided by a constant, k, as in the
following relationships:

Q1 = m0 − m ,
(4)
Q2 = SI pp / k

If Q1>Q2, the distance between the mean and trimmed

Fig.1 Typical leak signal pair, TFRs, and stationarity indices,
respectively
The proposed segmentation criterion and the associated
algorithm are presented in section II. The experimental
installation for leak signal acquisition and the
measurement procedure are described in section III.
Section IV presents a comparative study involving
different segmentation threshold levels for some real leak
signals captured in the experimental pipeline site.
II. THE SEGMENTATION PROCEDURE
mean is too large, and the criterion decides that the signal
pair need segmentation. Otherwise, the decision is that the
acquisition is piecewise stationary and therefore the entire
data can be used for further processing.
C. Algorithm Block Diagram and Examples
The block diagram that resumes the proposed procedure
for segment extracting is presented in fig.2.
r1 Σ r2
Stationarity Index -Kolmogorov-
(first & last p void samples excluded

A. The Proposed Segmentation Algorithm r[%]

Trimmed Mean Amplitude,
As shown in Fig.1, the stationarity indices of the two mean, m m0 SIpp
received signals perform relatively large amplitude
variations at their burst time moments. In order to select a
time interval during which both signals from the signal - k
+ Q1
pair are piecewise stationary, the received signals r1 and r2 Q2
that form the acquired signal pair are added together and
the sum’s stationarity index function is computed. The
first and the last null p SI samples are excluded, and then
the result’s mean, (denoted m0) and trimmed mean,
(denoted m), are taken. The next algorithm’s step is to Yes No
apply a criterion through which is established when the Q1 > Q2?
decision for segmentation must be taken. The proposed
criterion will be described in section, II B. If the decision’s Segmentation
result is affirmative, then a threshold is derived as follows: needed

thri = (i − 1) ⋅ dSI / (nlev − 1) + m0 ; i ∈ {1,..., nlev}, (3) Compute


dSI = max(SI ) − m. threshold

In the above equations the “i-th” threshold, thri, is

computed as the difference between the SI maximum and Find maximum
the trimmed mean, dSI, divided by the total number of time interval
threshold levels, nlev and added to the SI mean, m0.
The following operation is to find the maximum
Extract data
continuous time interval for which the stationary index is
below the chosen threshold. Finally, the desired piecewise segment
stationary segments included in the previous found
common time interval are extracted from each signal from
the signal pair. Piecewise stationary segment

B. The Proposed Decision Criterion

In order to decide if the acquired signals need to
Fig.2 Algorithm block diagram
perform a segmentation operation, two algorithm derived

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jesus Esquivel. Downloaded on March 17,2010 at 10:03:55 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 As shown in Fig.2, two parameters must be specified x 10
4
Stationarity Index-Case Two
for computation, namely r and k. The first one represents 2

the stationarity index extreme values percent that are 1.8

excluded when computing the trimmed mean. Usually, 1.6

this parameter is about 10%. The second parameter SI
trimmean=18254.2114
specifies the stationarity index amplitude dividing ratio 1.4
mean=18258.8874
above which the decision for segmentation is taken. 1.2 Q1=4.676
SIpp=1659.1317
Normally it is taken around 100.

SI
1
Fig.3 and fig.4 present some typical algorithm 0.8
implementation situations. In the first case, Q1 is higher
than Q2, as shown in the upper part of fig.3. Therefore, the 0.6

left algorithm branch is activated (fig.2). The resulted 0.4

longest piecewise stationary segment is obtained after 0.2
establishing an optimum threshold (fig.3, lower part). On
the other hand, fig.4 presents the second case, when the 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
term Q1 is lower than or equal to the term Q2. In this case,
according to the criterion described above, there is no
need for segmentation. The whole signal pair can be
considered stationary and used on for further processing.
By performing a simply visual inspection, on the data
from the lower part of fig.3 and fig.4, it can be observed
that there are no more major abrupt signal amplitude
variations.
Stationarity Index-Case One
12000
SI
trimmean=5301.1517
mean=5492.1836
10000 thr
i
Q1=191.0319
SIpp=6969.4661
8000
SI

6000

4000

2000 Fig.4 Typical situation when no segmentation is needed

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 III. THE EXPERIMENTAL MODEL
The leak signals used for this study have been captured
in an experimental bended water transportation pipeline
with configuration depicted in fig.5. The studied system,
having a total length of 12.82 meters was implemented
from metal pipes of 2.54 centimeters diameter each. The
leaks, placed on the second and third installation sides
were simulated by faucets for flow rate adjustments. The
experimental pipeline installation was also equipped with
a supplementary faucet placed at the pipe’s end creating
the alternative of obstructing the output flow.
The signal pairs were acquired at the same locations on
the pipe considering two working modalities: without and
with pipeline end obstruction faucet closed, respectively.
The measuring points were equally distributed at 0.3
meters intervals along the pipe.
The acquisition system was composed of a pair of non
intrusive vibration sensors KD Radebeul, two amplifiers
M60T with adjustable amplification between 40 and 60
dB, anti-aliasing low pass filters and a dSPACE DS1102
Fig.3 Typical situation when segmentation is needed board connected to a PC [17]. The sampling frequency
was set to 25 KHz. The processing algorithms were
implemented using the MATLAB® environment [16].

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jesus Esquivel. Downloaded on March 17,2010 at 10:03:55 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Typical Cross-Correlation Function

Water Estimated delay [ms]= 0.86353

Source 0.5

0.4
Bended Water Transportation Pipe
0.3

0.2

0.1

Amplitude
0

-0.1

-0.2
End -0.3
Obstruction
-0.4
Faucet
-0.5
Simulated
Leaks -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Time [ms]
Sink

Fig.7 Cross-correlation function for a pipe segment of 1.5 meters length

Fig.5 Experimental configuration for leak signals acquisition

In order to be able to double check the estimation

results, a preliminary study was conducted on estimating
the propagation velocity of the acoustic signals along the
pipe, at the experimental facility. Both time-of-flight
(TOF) and cross-correlation methods were implemented
for signals acquired at two points that were at known
distances apart.
In the time-of-flight method, transient signals (fig.6)
were generated through a diaphragm pump, parallel
connected at the pipeline’s input, and commanded by an
adjustable frequency pulse generator, [12]. The
propagation velocity was estimated as the traveled Fig 8. Experiment site view
distance divided by the mean difference of the induced
transient signals’ arrival times.
IV. COMPARATIVE STUDY
In the cross-correlation method, the propagation
velocity was derived from the time lag at which the cross- A. The Compared Processing Algorithms
correlation function’s maximum occurred, as presented in
fig.7. In the following study, the time delay was estimated by
two processing techniques which generally proved to give
A picture taken at the experiment site, showing a pipe
good results on real leak signals [12]. The first technique
section and a part of the acquisition system is shown in
is known in the literature as the maximum likelihood
fig.8.
(ML) or Hannan-Thomson (HT) processor [2],[3].
According to this algorithm, the generalized cross-
Signal Pair with Generated Transients
correlation function of the received signals was computed.
0.4 This function is in essence a windowed cross-correlation
0.2
function having the optimal ML window W(f), described
by the following equations:
Amplitude

C (f )
-0.2
1
W( f ) = ⋅ 12 ,
-0.4
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 S 12 ( f ) 1 − C12 ( f ) (5)
S 12 ( f )
2

C12 ( f ) =
0.4
.
0.2 S 11 ( f ) ⋅ S 22 ( f )
Amplitude

0
In the above relationships, S12(f) is the estimated cross-
-0.2 spectrum between the received signals, r1 and r2, while
-0.4
S11(f) and S22(f) are auto-spectra of r1 and r2 , respectively.
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
time[s]
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 Also, C12(f) defines the acquired signals’ squared
coherence function. Finally, the ML windowed cross-
correlation function is computed as the inverse Fourier
Fig.6 Induced transient signals for propagation velocity estimation , transform of the product between the ML window and the
TOF method signals’ cross-spectrum, W(f) and S12(f). The time delay is

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jesus Esquivel. Downloaded on March 17,2010 at 10:03:55 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
estimated as the windowed cross-correlation’s peak, using
a three point interpolation, according to:
Dˆ i = Dˆ −
1 ( ) ( )
R12 Dˆ + 1 − R12 Dˆ − 1
( ) ( ) ( )
2 R12 Dˆ + 1 − 2 R12 Dˆ + R12 Dˆ − 1
In the second processing technique, the received signals
are passed through whitening filters prior computing the
ML cross correlation function. Here, the received signals
are first modeled as AR random processes, then
transformed into signals of white noise type, also called
the innovations representations [1],[15]. In the following
study, this technique was denoted with WML.
The described ML and WML algorithms were also
implemented for leak signals acquired with obstruction at
the pipeline’s end. Here, the last two techniques were
denoted with OML and OWML.
B. Comparative Results
In order to compare the above described algorithms, the
leak signals have been acquired by keeping one sensor
fixed while changing the other’s sensor position gradually,
along the pipe at the equally spaced measuring points’
locations. Therefore, assuming a uniform propagation, the
estimated time delays obtained from one point to another
need to have values proportionally distributed along the
pipe. In this experiment, the leak signals have been
acquired from the straight sides of the pipeline installation
(fig.5). A measure of the data “proportionality degree”
can be obtained by subtracting the best approximation line
from the estimated delays along the pipe and computing
the error’s power. A minimum value is desired for this
factor.
The segmentation algorithm, described in section II, has
been applied to the received data considering seven
threshold levels, for signals that, according to the
proposed criterion, demanded this procedure. An
interesting observation was that the leak signals acquired
with the pipeline’s end obstructed, generally needed no
segmentation. Table I resumes the estimated delay’s
proportionality degree factor for the four previously
described techniques.
Also, another study was accomplished taking into
account the slopes of the estimated delays’ approximation
lines, compared to the expected slope, computed from the
propagation velocity information, previously estimated.
TABLE I.
COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF ESTIMATED DELAY PROPORTIONALITY
Proportionality deviation square error of estimated
Threshold delay
No.
ML WML OML
1 1.0346 0.5048
2 1.0335 0.1931
3 1.0337 0.2131
4 1.0340 6.6373 0.1169
5 1.0336 6.6364
6 1.0337 6.6362
7 1.2892 1.6300
Authorized licensed use limited to: Jesus Esquivel. Downloaded on March 17,2010 at 10:03:55 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Table II summarizes the slope values computed by the
four techniques for seven threshold levels also (in cases
where segmentation was necessary).
(6)
For each implemented algorithm, the estimated time
delay variation versus distance is presented in fig.9 to
fig.11. Also, the corresponding best straight line
approximations for each data set, along with the expected
delay line are shown superimposed. Fig. 12 presents a
synthetic results’ general view for a better algorithm
performance comparison.
In conclusion, the results presented here bring some
useful insights regarding some algorithms used for
processing real leak signals and leak detection. The tables
and fig.9 to fig.12 indicate that the best procedure for
which both the proportionality factor is minimum and the
approximation line’s slope reaches the expected slope the
most, is OWML. This technique adds together both a
“hardware” procedure by closing the pipeline’s end and an
optimum “software” algorithm combination.
Regarding the other case where the signals were
acquired without closing the pipeline’s end, the proposed
segmentation criterion decided for most of the signals, that
the segmentation algorithm needed to be applied. In this
case, the results show the existence of an optimum
segmentation threshold (here at the second level) for
which, especially the WML algorithm, comes nearer to
the desired values for proportionality and slope.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Leak signals acquired in real pipeline systems are
affected by burst-type interferences that worsen the leak
locating accuracy by inducing certain signal deviations
from the ideal characteristics. A way for obtaining better
estimation results is to avoid the abrupt signal changes by
extracting piecewise stationary segments from the
acquired data. This work proposes a practical
segmentation algorithm for leak signals, based on the
stationarity index computation. An associated criterion
for deciding if the acquired signals need segmentation is
also proposed. A comparative study was conducted in an
experimental pipeline installation. The results indicate
that the algorithm that gives the best estimates includes
combination of “hardware” and “software” methods.
Finding the signal’s innovations representation prior to
proper applying the estimation algorithm proved to
improve the obtained results, as noticed in [12], also.
Future work will include studies on mean varying leak
TABLE II.
BEST STRAIGHT –LINE FIT SLOPE COMPARATIVE RESULTS
Slope [µs/cm]
Thresh.
No. Expected
WOML ML WML OML WOML
Slope
1 3.3167 3.4577
2 3.3164 4.6289
3 3.3176 4.5308
0.0264 4 3.3186 -0.4087 4.7684 5.2313 5.7569
5 3.3175 -0.4107
6 3.3174 -0.4105
7 3.3175 2.3374
signals. Proportionality Error Power
8
ML
Estimted Delay vs. Distance -ML Algorithm WML
6
OML

Amplitude
400 thresh1 WOML
thresh2 4
thresh3
200 thresh4 2
thresh5
Estimated delay [microsec.]

0 thresh6 0
thresh7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
expected line
-200 ML lines Aproximation Line Slope
6
-400
4

Amplitude
-600 ML
2
WML
-800 OML
0
WOML
Expected slope
-1000 -2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Threshold No.
-1200
-200 -150 -100 -50 0
Length [cm.]
Fig. 12 Algorithm comparison from proportionality degree and slope
vicinity points of view, respectively
Fig. 9 Experimental and expected delays vs. distance -ML Algorithm

Estimted Delay vs. Distance -WML Algorithm

REFERENCES
thresh1 [1] C.W. Therrien, “Discrete Random Signals and Statistical Signal
2000
thresh2 Processing”, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1992.
thresh3
thresh4 [2] C.H. Knapp, C.G. Carter, “The generalized correlation method for
1500
thresh5 estimation of time delay”, IEEE Trans. on Acoust., Speech, Signal
thresh6 Processing, vol. 24, no.4 pp.320–327, August 1976.
Estimated delay [microsec.]

thresh7
1000
expected line [3] IEEE Trans. On Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing -
WML lines Special Issue on Time Delay Estimation, June 1981.
500 [4] K. Watanabe, H.Koyama, H. Tanoguchi and D.M. Himmelblau,
“Location of pinholes in a pipeline”, Computers & Chemical
0 Engineering, vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 61-70, January, 1993.
[5] O. Hunaidi,W.T.Chu, “Acoustical characteristics of leak signals in
-500 plastic water distribution pipes”, Applied Acoustics, Vol. 58
(1999),pp. 235-254.
-1000 [6] O. Hunaidi, A.Wang, “Leak finder- new pipeline leak detection
system”, 15th World Conference on Non-Destructive Testing,
-200 -150 -100 -50 0
Rome Italy, Oct. 2000,pp.1-6.
Length [cm.]
[7] O. Hunaidi,W.T.Chu, A.Wang, W. Guan, “Detecting leaks in
Plastic Pipes”, Journal AWWA, Vol 92, No.2, pp.82-94, February
Fig. 10 Experimental and expected delays vs.distance -WML 2000.
Algorithm [8] Y. Wen, P.Li, J. Yang, Z. Zhou, “Information processing in buried
pipeline leak detection system”, IEEE, Proc. of International
Conference on Information Acquisition, 2004.
Estimted Delay vs. Distance -ML Algorithm, End Obstructed Pipe
200 [9] H. Laurent, C. Doncarli, “Abrupt changes detection in the time-
OML frequency plane”, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp Time-Frequency and
WOML Time-Scale Analysis, 1996, pp.285-288.
0 expected line
OML line [10] H. Laurent, C. Doncarli, “Stationarity index for abrupt changes
WOML line detection in the time-frequency plane”, IEEE Signal Processing
Estimated delay [microsec.]

-200
Letters, vol. 5, No2, pp.43-45, February 1998.
[11] J.M. Smulko, “Abrupt changes detection of broad-band signals”
-400
IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference,
Budapest, Hungary, pp. 1139-1142 Mai 21-23, 2001.
-600
[12] M. Daneti, “Modeling burst interferences-a practical tool for
studying leak signals”, IEEE Proc. of The 2-nd International
-800 Design and Test Workshop pp.111-112, December 2007.
[13] M. Daneti, S. Ionel, “An overview of time delay estimation
-1000 algorithms”, Trans. on Electronics and Communications, Tom
45(59), Fasc.1, 2000.
-1200
-200 -150 -100 -50 0
[14] M. Daneti, S. Ionel, “A dSPACE implementation of a time
Length [cm.] estimation algorithm”, Trans. on Electronics and
Communications, Tom 45(59), Fasc.1-2, 2002.
[15] J. G. Proakis, C. M. Rader, F. Ling,C.Nikias, Advanced Digital
Fig.11 Experimental and expected delay data and approximation lines - Signal Processing, Maxwell Macmillan International Edidtions,
OML and WOML algorithms, end obstructed mode 1992.
[16] The Mathworks Inc.,” Matlab, Simulink”, 1999
[17] dSPACE, “DS1102 user’s guide”, 3-rd version 1999

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jesus Esquivel. Downloaded on March 17,2010 at 10:03:55 EDT from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.