Reliable leak detection in pipelines using integrated DdTS
temperature and DAS acoustic fiber-optic sensor
Chaofan Wang, Michael Olson, Benjamin Sherman, Nyambuu
Dorjkhand, Joseph Mehr and Dr. Shailesh Singh
Senstar, 12 Penns Trail, STE 200
Newtown, PA 18940, USA
Abstract— Reliable and early detection of leaks in pipelines
transporting liquid or gas is highly desirable. In this work, two
orthogonal technologies based on high-sensitivity fiber-optic
distributed sensing were integrated into one system and tested
for their effectiveness in actual field installations. The first
technology is based on temperature difference detection using
Distributed Differential Temperature Sensor (DdTS or DDTS).
The second is based on Distributed Acoustic Sensor (DAS), which
uses Coherent Optical Time-Domain Reflectometry (C-OTDR).
DdTS can almost instantaneously detect a temperature difference
in the optical fiber as low as 0.0005 οC, while C-OTDR can detect
minute wide-bandwidth acoustic signals. Both technologies can
detect the location of a leak to within a few meters. Experimental
results for water and nitrogen gas leaks detected by the
integrated system are presented for two different installations in
the field – one where the cable was buried directly in the soil and
another where the cable was buried in soil inside a 2” conduit for
about 29 km. DdTS reliably detected leaks at both installations,
while DAS detected leaks only when the cable was buried directly
in soil. Test results show that the integration of both DdTS and
DAS technologies can increase the probability of leak detection
and minimize false/nuisance alarms. The integrated system also
detected third party interference (TPI), thus providing a one-
system solution for pipeline integrity monitoring and intrusion
detection up to 40 km from a central location.
Keywords— Leak Detection; DdTS; DTS; DAS; TPI; C-OTDR;
Oil and Gas Pipeline; Fiber Optics Sensor
I. INTRODUCTION
Early and accurate pipeline leak detection is essential to
help reduce negative impacts on the environment and decrease
restoration cost. Typical performance criteria for leak
detection systems focus on high sensitivity, reliability,
accuracy and robustness and are described in API 1155
regulation [1, 2].
Typical Internal Leak Detection methods based on
Computational Pipeline Monitoring (CPM) include the
Mass/Volume Balance method, Negative Pressure Wave
method, Statistical Analysis, and Real Time Transient Models
(RTTM) [1-3]. The main drawbacks of these methods are their
low sensitivity (on the order of 1% of design throughput) and
low location accuracy (in excess of 100 m) [3].
External Leak Detection methods include visual
observations from vehicles or aircraft, trained dogs, and
strategically positioned sensors based on chemical, acoustic,
thermal, and recently distributed fiber-optic sensing [1-3].
Fiber-optic sensors benefit from a long range and ease of
installation and maintenance. Distributed fiber-optic sensors
978-1-5386-7931-9/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
can be further classified as temperature sensors, such as DdTS
[4] and DTS (Distributed Temperature Sensor), and acoustic
sensors generally known as DAS. A traditional DTS measures
temperature changes either based on Brillouin scattering or
Raman scattering. Due to weak Brillouin and Raman signals, a
traditional DTS suffers from a low temperature sensitivity (0.1
to 1 οC) and a long leak detection time (usually minutes).
DAS technologies are generally based on C-OTDR or
interferometers. Environmental effects severely limit the
practical range of any interferometer-based system since these
disturbances accumulate over the entire range of the fiber [5].
Therefore, DAS systems based on interferometers cannot be
reliably used for leak detection, even for a range as short as a
few kilometers. DAS technology based on C-OTDR can be
used to detect pipeline leaks by monitoring the broadband
acoustic signals generated from fluid (gas or liquid) leaking
through a small orifice in a buried pipeline. Since every 10 m
segment of the fiber is functionally independent from other 10
m segments, disturbances do not “accumulate” with range.
Therefore, a C-OTDR sensor can be used for long-range leak
detection, typically up to 40-50 km. However, the magnitude
and frequency content of the leak acoustic signal is very
sensitive to the cable installation method and the local soil
types and conditions.
In this paper, we test a Senstar FP7100 series (FP7100)
sensor that integrates both DdTS (temperature-based) and
DAS (acoustic-based) technology for buried pipeline leak
detection. The temperature sensitivity of the DdTS sensor is at
least two orders of magnitude higher than a traditional DTS
[4]. The leak detection time of DdTS is typically a few
seconds, while it is on the order of minutes for a traditional
DTS. The acoustic sensor is based on traditional DAS
technology. The FP7100 sensor uses two fibers for a typical
range of 40-50 km, and, as an additional benefit, also provides
protection against TPI.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section II briefly
describes FP7100 technology. Section III describes the leak
(nitrogen gas and water) test results from Site 1, where a 460
m long cable was buried directly at a depth of ~3 ft. Section
IV presents leak (nitrogen gas and water) and TPI test results
from Site 2, where a 29 km cable was buried in a conduit at a
depth of ~5 ft. Section V discusses the test results and
summarizes the performance of the FP7100 system and its
advantages over other leak systems. Section VI concludes the
paper.
II. TECHNOLOGY FOR LEAK AND TPI
FP7100 integrates both DdTS and DAS technologies for
leak detection, which can help to reduce the nuisance alarm
rate (NAR) and increase the probability of detection (PD). The
DAS is based on the theory of C-OTDR [5]. DdTS is based on
an enhanced form of C-OTDR [4]. The working principle is
that the phase change in the backscattered light caused by the
 change of temperature/strain in a fiber can be replicated by the
change of wavelength of the interrogating light signal [4, 6].
DdTS is much more sensitive (over two orders of magnitude)
than a traditional DTS and can measure a sub-0.0005 °C
temperature difference as well as track changes in temperature
over days.
III. FIELD TEST RESULTS FOR CABLE BURIED DIRECTLY AT SITE 1
FP7100 was tested for leak detection performance on a
cable buried directly in the soil at a depth of about 3 ft. The
length of the sensing cable was about 460 m and was buried in
a serpentine pattern such that its distance from the leak point
could be 1, 3, 5, and 10 ft. The leak occurred at roughly the
same depth as the cable and was oriented 45 degrees relative
to the sensing cable, as shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Test configuration at the customer site 1. The nearest horizontal
distance between sensing cable and orifice was ~1 ft and the leak was oriented
45 degrees.
A. Small nitrogen gas leak at 50 PSI, 3/16” orifice and
distances of 1, 3 and 5 ft
Fig. 2. Temperature rate profiles of a 50 PSI nitrogen gas leak at distances of 1,
3 and 5 ft from the orifice. No DAS signal was observed at this low pressure.
Fig. 3. DdTS signals of a 1000 PSI nitrogen gas leak. The top graph shows
temperature rate profiles 1 ft (white line) and 5 ft (red line) from the orifice,
and the bottom graph shows the temperature rate waterfall. Leaks at 1, 3, and 5
ft. are clearly observable with precise locations.
A very weak leak test was conducted using nitrogen gas
with a leak pressure of about 50 PSI. The test configuration is
shown in Fig. 1. The leak lasted for ~ 5 min. Fig. 2 shows
DdTS temperature rate profiles of the gas leak at distances of
1, 3 and 5 ft. Despite the low pressure, the leak was detected
by DdTS from a distance of 5 ft, where the measured
temperature rate was -0.004 °C/min. The temperature first
dropped because of the Joule-Thompson effect, and increased
back after the leak was stopped. The temperature rate was
smaller at 3 ft than at 5 ft likely due to cooler ambient
temperatures close to the orifice (a consequence of previous
leak tests) and vertical misalignment of the cable at 3ft. There
was no discernible DAS acoustic signal (not shown)
accompanying this weak leak. This test illustrates the high
sensitivity of FP7100 DdTS technology.
B. Nitrogen gas leak at 1000 PSI, 1/8” orifice, and distances
of 1, 3, and 5 ft
Fig. 4. (Top) DAS waterfall at 1000 PSI. (Bottom) Spectrogram at a distance
of 1 ft.
In this brief test, the leak lasted for 30 seconds. The top
graph in Fig. 3 shows the detected temperature rate profile at 1
ft and 5 ft, from which a clear temperature drop (due to the
Joule-Thomson effect) was observed. During the leak, the
measured temperature rate was -0.055 °C/min at 1 ft and -
0.018 °C/min at 5ft. A positive rate was observed after the
leak was stopped. The 1000 PSI leak created such a strong
initial signal at 1 ft that it was filtered out by the algorithm,
making it appear as though the temperature began dropping at
5 ft earlier than at 1 ft. As the bottom (waterfall) graph of Fig.
3 shows, clear DdTS temperature rate signals were observed at
1, 3 and 5 ft.
The leak was also detected by DAS at 1,3, and 5 ft, as
shown in top graph of Fig. 4. The corresponding spectrogram
(bottom graph, Fig. 4) shows a strong leak signal at 1 ft.
C. Water leak at 270 PSI with a 3/16” orifice and a
temperature close to ambient
A 40 s water leak test was performed at a temperature very
close to that of the top soil. The DdTS temperature rate profile
and DAS acoustic signal spectrogram 1 ft from the orifice are
shown in Fig. 5. Clear temperature change was observed with
a rate of ~0.03 °C/min (Fig. 5a). The leak acoustic signal was
clearly apparent as well (Fig. 5b).

Fig. 7. (a) DdTS temperature rate signal of a 250 PSI nitrogen gas leak (0.5,
0.5) ft above the orifice. (b) Corresponding DAS leak spectrogram.

Fig. 5. (a) Temperature rate profile of a 270 PSI water leak ~1 ft from the
orifice. The water temperature was close to the ambient temperature. (b)
Corresponding DAS leak acoustic spectrogram.

IV. FIELD TEST RESULTS FOR CABLE BURIED IN A CONDUIT AT

SITE 2
This section describes field test results from a second test
site (Site 2), at which the cable was buried in a 2” conduit next
to a pipeline. The cable was buried 2 - 4 ft deep depending on
its location. The total length of the cable was ~29 km and was
buried near both highways and audibly isolated areas.

A. Nitrogen gas leak at 250 PSI, 1/4” orifice, and a distance

of ~0.7 ft

Fig. 6. The relative location of the sensing cable to the orifice was (0.5, 0.5) ft,
with the leak directed downward (6 o’clock).

A nitrogen gas leak test was conducted at 250 PSI
through a 1/4” orifice. The leak occurred at a depth of 3 ft,
was oriented downward (6 o’clock), and lasted for 4 mins. The
test configuration is shown in Fig. 6. The relative location of
the buried cable to the orifice was roughly (0.5, 0.5) ft, which
means a 0.5 ft horizontal and 0.5 ft vertical offset from the
orifice. In this configuration the leak was 135 degrees from
the sensing cable (non-ideal for gas leak detection).
Fig. 8. DdTS and DAS signals of a water leak at 160 PSI, 6 GPM flow rate,
and ~50 °C above ambient for Site 2. The top graph shows the temperature rate
signal 1 ft from the leak point, the middle graph shows temperature rate
waterfall, and the bottom graph shows DAS signal 1 ft from the leak point
(where no acoustic signal was detected).
Fig. 7 shows the detected DdTS temperature rate signal
and the DAS acoustic signal spectrogram. The leak-induced
temperature rate was observed to be ~ - 0.02 °C/min.
However, the DAS leak signal was weak and only present at
lower frequencies.
B. Water leak at 160 PSI (6 GPM) with a 1/8” orifice, 1 ft
distance, and a temperature 50 °C above ambient
A 160 PSI water leak was simulated in the field at a depth
of 3 ft with a 6 o’clock orientation and a 20 minute duration.
The cable was buried 1 ft directly below the orifice. This was
the optimal configuration for water leak detection because the
leak was aimed directly at the sensing cable and gravity was
aligned with the water flow. A large temperature rate of ~ 0.03
°C/min was observed, as shown in Fig. 8. The location of the
leak can be easily identified in the waterfall graph. Almost no
DAS acoustic signal was detected during the leak.
C. TPI Detection with the cable in a conduit
FP7100 provides a complete solution for pipeline leaks
(DdTS and DAS) and TPI in one system. The spectrogram in
Fig. 9 shows a typical machine digging signal at Site 2.
Fig. 9. Spectrogram showing a machine digging signal at test site 2.
V. DISCUSSION
Several observations can be made from the test results at
Sites 1 and 2:
A. Leak signals from cable buried directly in soil at Site 1
Both DdTS and DAS leak signals were strong with PD
performances of 97% and 78%, respectively, based on 99 leak
tests. DAS acoustic signals were observed at much higher
frequencies than those typically occupied by environmental
noise, which allowed for reliable detection while maintaining
a low NAR. DdTS alarmed for cables as far as 5 ft from the
leak at a pressure of 500 PSI, while DAS alarmed at 1 ft.
Therefore, either DdTS or DAS can be used effectively for
leak detection at Site 1. However, a combination of both
DdTS and DAS, as in FP7100, further lowers NAR and
provides a robust and reliable leak detection solution.
B. Leak signals from cable buried in a conduit at Site 2
DAS signals were significantly weaker at Site 2, where the
cable was buried in a conduit, than they were at Site 1, where
the cable was buried directly. The PD for DdTS was 81%, but
for DAS was 0% based on a total of 26 leak tests (20 gas and
6 water leaks) conducted over 3 months. The ineffectiveness
of DAS detection was likely due to two factors: (1) The
system was tuned to detect high frequencies characteristic of a
leak, which were likely attenuated by the conduit, and (2) The
orientations of the leaks were misaligned with the cable. Since
tuning to detect leaks at low frequencies typically occupied by
environmental noise can greatly increase nuisance alarms,
DAS may not be an effective technology for leak detection
when the cable is in a conduit. The high PD of 81% for the
FP7100-based DdTS system clearly demonstrates its high
sensitivity.
C. Importance of cable placement for gas and liquid leaks
Of the five missed DdTS leak alarms out of 26 leak tests at
Site 2, three were missed due to suboptimal cable placement
with respect to the leak point, one because of tuning
parameters, and one because of a combination of a low
pressure and a large offset. Of the three missed due to cable
placement, the first was a gas leak in which the cable was
placed below the leak point, and the other two were water
leaks in which the cable was placed above the leak point.
Out of 26 gas and water leak tests, 23 tests occurred with
suboptimal cable configurations, where either the cable offsets
were misaligned or the leak was orientated 135 or 180 degrees
from the cable. The fact that most of these leaks were still
detected demonstrates the high reliability of the FP7100 DdTS
even with suboptimal cable placement.
D. Temperature sensitivity requirements for reliably detecting
leaks
The high PD of the DdTS system at Site 2 depended
critically on the ability of the system to detect temperature
differences as small as 0.0005 °C. Typical changes in
temperature at the cable due to a leak were less than 0.1 °C.
Therefore, other DTS systems, whose temperature sensitivity
is typically 0.1-1 °C, will likely not detect such leaks.
E. Requirements for retrofitting leak sensors to existing fibers
FP7100 can be retrofitted to most existing single-mode
fibers already installed next to pipelines, either directly buried
or installed in a conduit, and can provide reliable and robust
leak detection. To our knowledge, no other existing system
has this capability.
F. Importance of using two independent technologies for leak
detection
Since DdTS and DAS are independent technologies,
Senstar’s FP7100 can be used in an integrated mode using
DdTS as a primary sensor and DAS as a secondary
(verification) sensor to greatly reduce nuisance alarms. Leak
signals from DdTS are clearly observable for most of the leaks
with relatively unambiguous start and end times. DAS signals,
even when weak, can usually be identified by a human
observer if the leak takes place in a quiet area away from
vehicle traffic. Each method provides an independent means
of looking at the leak, and their simultaneous use has the
potential to detect leaks under 1% of the flow rate, in seconds,
with a precise location resolution of +/- 5 meters.
G. Possibility for verification of a leak alarm by a trained
operator
To further minimize nuisance alarms, a trained operator
can observe signals from both DdTS and DAS to verify an
alarm. This can be very effective because once a leak occurs,
 Table 1. Comparison of leak detection technologies
it continues for a long enough time for a trained operator to
analyze signals in real time to come to a definite conclusion.
DdTS and DAS provide complementary insights into a
potential leak, and FP7100 offers various visual tools to aid an
operator in evaluating both signal types simultaneously.
H. Nuisance alarm rate
FP7100 was tested for NAR at Site 2 over a 29 km buried
cable. In general, the NAR performance depends critically on
parameter settings. The NAR was measured for a leak
duration of at least 10 minutes from the field data to be
0.001/day/km over the entire 98 days of testing. For a leak
duration of at least 60 mins, the NAR was measured to be zero
(0.000/day/km) over the same period. This illustrates that the
FP7100 can be set to detect realistic leaks of reasonable
duration with a very low NAR.
I. FP7100 providing both leak and TPI in one system
FP7100 seamlessly integrates both leak and TPI
capabilities into a single system. This provides pipeline
operators with a great solution for both pipeline integrity
monitoring as well as intrusion detection. Table 1 provides a
comparison between the FP7100 DdTS and DAS dual
Technology and other leak detection technologies.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
A FP7100 series sensor with integrated DdTS and DAS
technologies was tested and shown to reliably detect small
leaks in the field with a high PD and low NAR for cables
buried either directly in soil or in a conduit. DdTS technology
was sensitive enough to detect a temperature difference of
0.0005 °C, which is at least two orders of magnitude better
than a traditional DTS. DdTS detected gas leaks as small as 50
PSI with a 3/16” orifice and ~1 ft distance. While both DdTS
and DAS were sensitive to leaks when the cable was buried
directly in soil, DAS failed to detect leaks when the cable was
buried in a conduit, likely because of attenuation of higher-
frequency signals by the conduit. Due to their complementary
nature, the integration of DdTS and DAS technologies can
provide better PD and NAR performance than either
technology in isolation. PD and NAR can be further improved
by a trained operator, who can verify leaks alarms using real-
time visual DdTS and DAS information. In addition to leak
detection, the FP7100 system has integrated TPI technology,
making it well-suited for long-range pipeline integrity
monitoring and intrusion detection.
VII. REFERENCES
[1] J. Fiedler, "An Overview of Pipeline Leak Detection
Technologies," American School of Gas Measurement
Technology (ASGMT), Peabody, MA, US, 2014.
[2] M. Henrie, P. Carpenter, and R. E. Nicholas, Pipeline
leak detection handbook: Gulf Professional Publishing,
2016.
[3] M. Kasch, "Selection Guide for Pipeline Leak Detection
Systems," in 10th Pipeline Technology Conference 2015,
2015.
[4] C. Wang, M. Olson, N. Doijkhand, and S. Singh, "A
novel DdTS technology based on fiber optics for early
leak detection in pipelines," in Security Technology
(ICCST), 2016 IEEE International Carnahan Conference
on, 2016, pp. 1-8.
[5] K. Harman and S. Singh, "A novel long-range perimeter
security sensor based on hybrid michelson and Mach-
Zehnder interferometers," in Security Technology
(ICCST), 2016 IEEE International Carnahan Conference
on, 2016, pp. 1-8.
[6] Z. Zhuang, Y. Zadorozhny, F. A. Annetta, and J. S. Patel,
"Method and apparatus for disturbance detection," ed:
Google Patents, 2014.