sensors

Article
Adaptive Phase Transform Method for Pipeline
Leakage Detection
Yifan Ma 1,2 , Yan Gao 1, *, Xiwang Cui 1 , Michael J. Brennan 3 , Fabricio C.L. Almeida 4
and Jun Yang 1,2
1 Key Laboratory of Noise and Vibration Research, Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing 100190, China; shanximayifan@163.com (Y.M.); cuixiwang2010@126.com (X.C.);
jyang@mail.ioa.ac.cn (J.Y.)
2 University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3 Department of Mechanical Engineering, UNESP, Ilha Solteira, SP 15385-000, Brazil;
mjbrennan0@btinternet.com
4 Faculty of Science and Engineering, UNESP, Tupã, SP 17602-496, Brazil; fabricio.lobato@yahoo.com.br
* Correspondence: gaoyan@mail.ioa.ac.cn; Tel.: +86-10-8254-7794




Received: 2 December 2018; Accepted: 8 January 2019; Published: 14 January 2019


Abstract: In leak noise correlation surveys, time delay estimation (TDE) is of great importance in
pinpointing a suspected leak. Conventional TDE methods involve pre-filtering processes prior to
performing cross-correlation, based on a priori knowledge of the leak and background noise spectra,
to achieve the desired performance. Despite advances in recent decades, they have not proven to be
capable of tracking changes in sensor signals as yet. This paper presents an adaptive phase transform
method based on least mean square (LMS) algorithms for the determination of the leak location
to overcome this limitation. Simulation results on plastic water pipes show that, compared to the
conventional LMS method, the proposed adaptive method is more robust to a low signal-to-noise
ratio. To further verify the effectiveness of the proposed adaptive method, an analysis is carried out
on field tests of real networks. Moreover, it has been shown that by using the actual measured data,
improved performance of the proposed method for pipeline leakage detection is achieved. Hence,
this paper presents a promising method, which has the advantages of simple implementation and
ability to track changes in practice, as an alternative technique to the existing correlation-based leak
detection methods.

Keywords: LMS adaptive algorithm; phase spectrum; pipeline leakage detection; time delay estimation

1. Introduction
Urban pipelines are usually seen as an environmentally friendly means for transporting fluids
and gases [1]. Buried pipelines are badly deteriorated, leading to leakage and burst as a result of aging
water supply facilities, poor management, and inappropriate excavation practices [2,3]. More than
32 billion cubic meters of water is lost within the distribution systems, which accounts for 35% of the
total water supply across the world [4]. Moreover, as the largest developing country in the world,
China has been challenged by its water scarcity situation to maintain the balance between economic
growth and rapid urbanization [5]. The gap between the available water supply and increasing
demand is exacerbated due to water loss; this, in turn, has profound impacts on social, economic,
and environmental wellbeing [6]. There is a growing awareness within the water industry and leak
detection community that more effective pipe leak detection technologies are needed in their attempts
to fulfill high demands of reliability and integrity of pipelines. Further push toward more efficient
real-time monitoring systems for automated leakage detection in buried pipelines is leading to major
changes associated with water resources and water quality management.

Sensors 2019, 19, 310; doi:10.3390/s19020310 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2019, 19, 310 2 of 17

Great efforts have been made to develop leak detection methods, which are mainly divided into
hardware- and software-based methods [7–33]. When it comes to locating a leak with hardware-based
methods, optical fibers and cable sensors can be adopted. In contrast, software-based methods
primarily require signals captured by sensors to provide sufficient information about the leak source,
such as negative pressure waves and fluid waves. Among these techniques, cross-correlation methods
where leak noise is measured at either side of a suspect leak have proved to be effective, and have been
widely used to locate leaks in buried water pipelines for many years [31–33]. Previous work has shown
that the leak noise is concentrated at low frequencies (typically up to 1 kHz for metal pipes and 200 Hz
for plastic pipes), with the dominant waveform being the s = 1 wave as the main carrier of vibrational
energy induced by water leakage. Moreover, the speed of leak noise can be seen as a constant,
with the effect of surrounding soil at low frequencies being negligible [34]. Currently available
cross-correlation leak detection systems operate on passive means to estimate the difference in arrival
times between the pertinent acoustic waves measured by two sensors. A wide spectrum involving
cross-correlation for time delay estimation (TDE) was first discussed by Knapp and Carter [33] and
their performance for water leak detection was further discussed by Gao et al. [32]. More recently
Gao et al. [35] have investigated the implementation of differentiation process (termed DIF) in the
cross-correlation analysis. They showed that the DIF method has the ability to eliminate some of
the ambiguity caused by interference at low frequencies, and thus enables a more pronounced and
reliable peak of cross-correlation corresponding to the true time delay resulting from the propagating
leak noise. On the other hand, Piersol [36] showed that the time delay can be estimated by using
phase data with no penalty in the form of reduction of prediction accuracy. Zhao and Hou [37]
extended his work and set up a theoretical frame of the generalised phase spectrum method by using
a frequency-dependent weighting function. Brennan et al. [38] further validated the equivalence of
the cross-correlation methods and generalised phase spectrum methods (i.e., the duality relationship
between the time and frequency domains).
It should be noted that statistical characteristics of both leak and background noise signals cannot
be known precisely in various practical situations, which may hinder the effectiveness of correlation
methods by passive means. In response to this, the least mean square (LMS) algorithm provides
a solution for TDE. This has an apparent advantage: It can extract adaptively the similarity between
two sensor signals without considering their statistical characteristics, based on the minimum mean
square error. However, the conventional LMS algorithm is based on the assumption that the signals
received by two sensors only have the time delay and attenuation in amplitude (being frequency
independent). This can limit the application of the LMS method for leak detection in pipelines because
of the dispersion behaviour of the leak noise.
Based on the propagation model of leak signals in buried water pipes, an adaptive phase transform
(ADPHAT) method is proposed in this paper. Two impulse response functions (IRFs) are first obtained
by using the LMS algorithm for two sensor signals, and are subsequently transformed into the
frequency domain to result in a new frequency response function (FRF) that only contains the phase
information directly related to the time delay. Simulation and field tests are conducted to evaluate the
performance of the proposed method in comparison with the conventional LMS algorithms for TDE.
To assist the reader, the process of the LMS adaptive algorithm is briefly discussed in Appendix A.
Notations are explained in Nomenclature.

2. Methodology

2.1. Water Leak Detection

Basic principles of water leak detection are briefly discussed in this section to facilitate the
understanding of the process of the proposed adaptive algorithm. When leakage occurs in a pipe
Sensors 2019, 19, 310 3 of 17
Sensors 2019, 19, x 3 of 18

system, the dominant propagating wave at low frequencies is the axisymmetric fluid-borne wave with
a wavenumber approximated by [39] k 2  k 2  1  2Ba 
f   (1)
 Eh  i Eh
2Ba
k2 = k2 1 + (1)
where kf is the free-field fluid wavenumber;f η is the Ehloss factor of the pipe wall; a and h are the pipe
+ iηEh
radius and wall thickness respectively; E is the Young’s modulus of the pipe wall material; and B is
where kf isbulk
the fluid the modulus
free-field of
fluid wavenumber;
elasticity. is the
The realη and loss factor
imaginary of the
parts of pipe wall; a and h result
the wavenumber are theinpipe
the
radius and wall thickness respectively; E is the Young’s modulus of the pipe wall
propagation speed and wave attenuation of the leak noise. From Equation (1), the propagation material; and B is
speed
the
andfluid bulk modulus
attenuation factor ofofleak
elasticity.
noise canThebereal and imaginary
obtained by parts of the wavenumber result in the
propagation speed and wave attenuation of the leak noise. From Equation (1), the propagation speed
1/2
and attenuation factor of leak noise can be obtained  2byBa 
c  c f 1  (2a)
 Eh−1/2
2Ba
c = cf 1 + (2a)
and Eh

and 1  Ba Eh
 1 ηBa/Eh 1 2 (3b)
c f (1 + 2Ba/Eh) 
β = c f 1  2 Ba Eh1/2 (2b)

Equation (2)
(2)shows
showsthatthatleak
leak noise
noise is predominantly
is predominantly non-dispersive
non-dispersive withwith a constant
a constant attenuation
attenuation factor
factor
β. β.
Referring
Referring totoFigure 1, for
Figure 1, leak
for detection in water in
leak detection distribution pipes, sensors
water distribution such sensors
pipes, as accelerometers
such as
or hydrophones are generally deployed at two access points (e.g., pipe sections, hydrants,
accelerometers or hydrophones are generally deployed at two access points (e.g., pipe sections, or valves) in
order to measure
hydrants, the in
or valves) vibration
order toormeasure
acousticthe signals generated
vibration by a suspected
or acoustic leak.
signals generated by a suspected
leak.

Figure 1. Schematic of leak detection measurements in water distribution pipes.

Figure 1. Schematic of leak detection measurements in water distribution pipes.
The leak location (relative to sensor 1), d1 , can be determined using the basic algebraic relationship
givenThe
by leak location (relative to sensor 1), d1, can be determined using the basic algebraic
relationship given by D + cT0
d1 = (3)
2
where D is the distance between two sensors D  cT
 T0 is 0the estimate of the time delay between two
d1 and (3)
measured signals. Equation (3) shows that accurate2estimation of the time delay plays a dominant
role in water leak detection. Various approaches to TDE have been proposed and implemented,
where D is the distance between two sensors and T0 is the estimate of the time delay between two
but it is believed that for this particular application, the correlation methods yield optimal time delay
measured signals. Equation (3) shows that accurate estimation of the time delay plays a dominant
estimators that correspond to distinct peaks in the cross-correlation functions, if a leak exists [33].
role in water leak detection. Various approaches to TDE have been proposed and implemented, but
Noise from a leak, l(t), is measured by two sensors, x1 (t) and x2 (t), as illustrated in Figure 2. Here,
it is believed that for this particular application, the correlation methods yield optimal time delay
H(ω,d1 ) and H(ω,d2 ) denote the FRFs between the leak and sensors 1 and 2 respectively; n1 (t) and n2 (t)
estimators that correspond to distinct peaks in the cross-correlation functions, if a leak exists [33].
are the background noise signals that are assumed to be random Gaussian, and uncorrelated with each
other and with the leak signal. The sensor signals, x1 (t) and x2 (t), can thus be modelled by

x1 ( t ) = h1 ( t ) ⊗ l ( t ) + n1 ( t ) (4a)
 Sensors 2019, 19, 310 4 of 17

x2 ( t ) = h2 ( t ) ⊗ l ( t ) + n2 ( t ) (4b)

where ⊗ denotes convolution; h1 (t) and h2 (t) are the IRFs of the sensor signals 1 and 2 relative to
the leak source respectively, and given by h1 (t) = F −1 { H (ω, d1 )} and h2 (t) = F −1 { H (ω, d2 )}; F −1
denotes the inverse Fourier transform (FT). Correspondingly the sensor signals are seen as the leak
Sensorsnoise
2019, l(t)
19, xpassed through the pipe system in the presence of background noise. 4 of 18

n1 (t )

H ( , d1 ) x1 (t )

H ( , d 2 ) x2 (t )

n2 (t )

Figure 2. Flow diagram of leak noise measured by two sensors.

Figure 2. Flow
Combining Equations diagram
(4a) and (4b), of
theleak noise measured
cross-spectral by two
density sensors.
(CSD) between the two sensor
signals, x1 (t) and x2 (t), can be obtained by
Noise from a leak, l(t), is measured by two sensors, x1(t) and x2(t), as illustrated in Figure 2. Here,
H(ω,d1) and H(ω,d2) denote the FRFsS12 (ωbetween H ∗ (leak
) = Sll (ω )the ω, d1and sensors
) H (ω, d2 ) + Se1(ω
and
) 2 respectively; n1(t) and(5)n2(t)
are the background noise signals that are assumed to be random Gaussian, and uncorrelated with
each where * denotes
other and with complex
the leak conjugation; Sll (ω) issignals,
signal. The sensor the auto-spectral
x1(t) anddensity (ASD)
x2(t), can thusofbe
themodelled byl(t);
leak noise,
and the remaindering term Se(ω ) is attributable to the background noise, which is generally trivial
(t ) signals.
in comparison with the CSD of thex leak
1
h1 (t )  l(t )  n1 (the
Neglecting t ) term Se(ω ), Equation (5) is further(4a)
expressed by
S12 (ω ) = Sll (ω )e−ωβD+ jωT0 (6)
x2 (t )  h2 (t )  l(t )  n2 (t ) (5b)
with the phase obtained by
where  denotes convolution; h1(t) Φ and(ω )h=
2(t)
Argare {Sthe
12 ( ωIRFs
)} =ωT of 0the sensor signals 1 and 2 relative (7) to
-1 -1
the leak source respectively,
It is clear and
from Equation (6)given h1 ( t )of=the
byphase
that the  CSD  , dphase
{ H ((i.e., 1
)} and h 2 ( t ) =between
spectrum)  { H (the 2
)} ;  -1
 , dsensor
denotes the is
signals inverse
relatedFourier
directlytransform
to the time(FT). Correspondingly
shift experienced by the the
leaksensor
signalssignals
as they are seen asalong
propagate the leak
noisethe
l(t)pipe.
passed Indeed,
throughcalculation
the pipeofsystem
the phase gradient
in the of the
presence of CSD with respect
background to frequency leads to
noise.
an estimate ofEquation
Combining the time delay [33,38].
(4a,b), the cross-spectral density (CSD) between the two sensor signals,
x1(t) and x2(t), can be obtained by
2.2. The Proposed ADPHAT Method
S12 ( ) =LMS
The process of the conventional Sll ( ) H (algorithm
adaptive
*
, d1 ) H ( , d2 ) +
is given ( )in Appendix A. It is shown (5)
in S
detail
that in the mathematical model of two sensor signals with a pure time delay, the LMS algorithm may lead
whereto*andenotes
accuratecomplex conjugation;
estimate of the time delay (ω)
SllT is the auto-spectral density (ASD) of the leak noise, l(t);
0 . Of particular interest in this paper, however, is the decaying
and the
leakremaindering
noise with the attenuation
term S()factor is attributable to the background
β. In this circumstance, a large errornoise,
in thewhich
detectionis generally trivial in
of a leak location
may occur
comparison if thethe
with conventional
CSD of the LMSleak
adaptive method
signals. is adopted, the
Neglecting thus term S()its, application
restricting Equation in (5)practical
is further
leak detection surveys. A strong motivation for expanding on the conventional LMS algorithm is its simple
expressed by
implementation, and its ability to track changes in sensor signals without any concern with the spectral
information about the leak noise andSbackground
12
( ) = Snoisell
e - D +Another
( )signals. j T0 disadvantage of the conventional (6)
LMS adaptive algorithm is that in the process, calculation of the phase gradient of the IRF introduces
with athe
reference
phase time Tref . This is addressed explicitly as follows.
delay, by
obtained

( )  Arg{S12 ( )}=T0 (7)

It is clear from Equation (6) that the phase of the CSD (i.e., phase spectrum) between the sensor
signals is related directly to the time shift experienced by the leak signals as they propagate along the
pipe. Indeed, calculation of the phase gradient of the CSD with respect to frequency leads to an
estimate of the time delay [33,38].
Sensors 2019, 19, 310 5 of 17

For the conventional LMS algorithm as discussed in Appendix A, an IRF, h(n), is generated. Here n
is an integer, n = −P~P, and P is the maximum order in the LMS algorithm calculated by the maximum
time delay. FT of h(n) gives
P
F {h(n)} = ∑ h(n)e− jω (n+ P)/ f s (8)
n=− P

where F denotes the FT. For two sensor signals, there are two possible IRFs, h12 (n) and h21 (n), obtained
from x1 (t) and x2 (t) being the input and expected signals and vice versa. Note that if h12 (n) has the
maximum values at n = N, then the maximum value of h21 (n) occurs when n = −N. In general, a sharp
peak in the IRF is desirable for TDE. Correspondingly, neglecting the contributions of the rest terms in
Equation (8) is an approximate approach to the FRF between the two sensor signals. This leads to

H (ω ) ≈ F { h(n)}|n= N = h( N )e− jω ( N + P)/ f s (9)

Consider the following two cases:

(1) If there is no time delay between two signals x1 (t) and x2 (t) (i.e., T0 = 0), then the maximum value
of the IRF h(n) occurs at n = 0. Setting n = 0, Equation (9) leads to the two FRFs given by

H12 (ω ) ≈ F {h12 (n)}|n=0 = h12 (0)e− jωP/ f s (10a)

H21 (ω ) ≈ F {h21 (n)}|n=0 = h21 (0)e− jωP/ f s (10b)

It is clear from Equation (10) that when T0 = 0, the gradient of the phase spectrum is −P/fs, which
is defined as the reference time delay, Tref , by

Tref = − P/ f s (11)

(2) When the time delay T0 6= 0, FTs of the two IRFs lead to

H12 (ω ) ≈ F {h12 (n)}|n= N = h12 ( N )e− jω ( P+ N )/ f s (12a)

H21 (ω ) ≈ F { h21 (n)}|n=− N = h21 (− N )e− jω ( P− N )/ f s (12b)

From Equations (12a) and (12b), the phase spectra between two sensor signals can be obtained by

Φ12 (ω ) = Arg{ H12 (ω )} =−ω ( P + N )/ f s (13a)

Φ21 (ω ) = Arg{ H21 (ω )} =−ω ( P − N )/ f s (13b)

Equation (12) shows that the phase of H12 (ω) and H21 (ω) contains both the time delay, T0 , and the
reference time delay, Tref . Correspondingly, the FRFs, H12 (ω) and H21 (ω), by removing Tref , give rise
to the information of the time delay T0 = N/fs. An alternative FRF is proposed in order to eliminate the
reference time delay in the resultant phase information, and given by
q q
H (ω ) = ∗ (ω ) ≈
H12 (ω ) H21 h12 ( N )h21 (− N )]e− jωN/ f s (14)

It can be seen from Equation (14) that despite the unknown spectral characteristics of leak source,
the proposed FRF, H(ω), only contains the phase information related to the time delay that can be
achieved directly by calculating the gradient of the phase spectrum.

2.3. Improvement in TDE

In the development of the new FRF, it is important to note that ideally, a distinct peak can be
identified in each IRF produced by using the conventional LMS adaptive algorithm (see Appendix A).
achieved directly by calculating the gradient of the phase spectrum.

2.3. Improvement in TDE

In the development of the new FRF, it is important to note that ideally, a distinct peak can
Sensors 2019, 19, 310
be
6 of 17
identified in each IRF produced by using the conventional LMS adaptive algorithm (see Appendix
A). This a good approximation of the FRF between the two sensor signals to be determined by
This a good approximation
considering of thepeak
only the respective FRFvalues
between of the two
h12(n) sensor
and signals
h21(n). to behowever,
In reality, determined
theby considering
contributions
only the respective peak values
of the remaining terms in Equation 12 of h (n) and h (n). In reality, however, the contributions
(8) may be21relatively large compared to the peak values. of the
To
remaining
enhance theterms in Equation
performance of the(8) may be TDE
proposed relatively large an
algorithm, compared
additionalto procedure
the peak values. To enhance
is conducted prior
thethe
to performance
FTs of theofIRFs.the proposed
By takingTDE the algorithm,
square of eachan additional
IRF, the procedure is conducted
corresponding priorcan
peak values to the
be
FTs of the IRFs. By taking the square of each IRF, the corresponding
significantly accentuated. The proposed ADPHAT algorithm for TDE can be obtained from the peak values can be significantly
accentuated.
inverse FT of The proposed
the new ADPHAT
FRF, and is givenalgorithm
by for TDE can be obtained from the inverse FT of the
new FRF, and is given by
=
hh((nn))  1 n q
F −1 H  ( ) H∗* ( )
12 ( ω ) H 21( ω )
H12
o
21  (18)
(15)

A procedure
A procedure for
for the
the implementation
implementation of
of the
the ADPHAT
ADPHAT method
method for
for TDE
TDE isis illustrated
illustratedin
inFigure
Figure3.
3.
In the reminder of this paper, the simulated and actual leak signals will be adopted to evaluate
In the reminder of this paper, the simulated and actual leak signals will be adopted to evaluate the the
effectiveness of
effectiveness of the
the proposed
proposed method.
method.

Figure 3. Implementation of the ADPHAT method.

Figure 3. Implementation of the ADPHAT method.
3. Numerical Examples
3. Numerical Examples
In this section, numerical examples of plastic water pipes are presented to verify the performance
In this section,
of the ADPHAT method numerical
proposed examples of plastic
in this paper for TDE. water In thepipes are presented
simulation, both the to leak
verify the
source
performance
and background of the ADPHAT
noise signals method
are white proposed
Gaussianinwith this zero
papermeans.for TDE. In the simulation,
To emulate the pipe systemboth the as
leak source and background noise signals are white Gaussian with zero
illustrated in Figure 2, the parameters of the plastic pipe are set as β = 2 × 10 s/m, d1 = 22.8 m, means. To
− 4 emulate the pipe
system
d2 = 38 m,as illustrated
c = 380 m/s. in Figure 2, thetimes
The arrival parameters of the
of the leak plastic
source and pipe
theare
twoset as β = are
sensors 2×10calculated
-4 s/m, d1 = 22.8
to be
m,
t1 =d20.06
= 38sm, andc =t2380 m/s.
= 0.1 The arrival times
s respectively, which ofgives
the leak
thesource
actual andtimethe twoTsensors
delay 0 = − 0.04are s.calculated
The to
simulated be
tleak
1 = 0.06 s and t = 0.1 s respectively, which gives the actual time delay
source signal then propagates downstream and upstream of the pipe system, and is captured at
2 T 0 = −0.04 s. The simulated leak
source signal
a sampling then propagates
frequency of fs = 1 downstream
kHz. Consider and
theupstream of the piperatio
low signal-to-noise system,(SNR)andcase,
is captured
for example at a
sampling
SNR = −10 frequency
dB. The ASDs of fs = of1 kHz. Considersensor
the resultant the low signal-to-noise
signals at d1 and dratio (SNR) case, for example SNR
2 are shown in Figure 4. As can be
=seen
−10in
dB. The ASDs of the resultant sensor signals at d
the figure, the ASDs decrease dramatically with increasing frequency
1 and d 2 are shown in Figure
and drop 4. As tocan
the be seen
level of
in the figure,noise
background the below
ASDs 50 decrease dramatically
Hz, suggesting with increasing
the simulated signals are frequency
concentrated and drop
at lower to the level of
frequencies
background
as anticipated. noise
In thebelow 50 Hz,
analysis, suggesting
the possible the simulated
maximum number for signals are concentrated
the signals generated isat setlower
to be
frequencies as anticipated. In the analysis, the possible maximum number
P = 100 in the LMS filter coefficients, as suggested in the appendix. This further yields a reference time for the signals generated
is set to
delay be=P−=P/fs
Tref 100 = in−the0.1LMS
s, as filter
defined coefficients,
by Equationas suggested
(11). In theinconventional
the appendix. LMSThis further method,
adaptive yields a
reference time delay T = −P/fs = −0.1 s, as defined by Equation (11). In the conventional
h12 (n) denotes the IRF for the input signal x1 (t) and the expected signal x2 (t); h21 (n) denotes the IRF for
ref LMS adaptive
method,
the inputhsignal
12(n) denotes
x2 (t) and thethe
IRFexpected
for the input
signalsignal
x1 (t). xIt1(t) andbethe
must expected
borne in mind signal
thatxthe
2(t); reference
h21(n) denotestime
the
delayIRF forneeds
Tref the input
to be signal
removed x2(t)inand the expected
the estimates of the signal
timexdelay
1(t). It given
must by be these
bornetwo in mind that the
algorithms to
ensure accurate TDE.
Figure 5 plots the IRFs, h12 (n) and h21 (n), using the conventional LMS adaptive algorithms. The time
delay estimates are found to be T0 = −0.039 s and 0.041 s for h12 (n) and h21 (n) respectively. However,
the peak values, as shown in the figure, are less convincing, since they are barely distinguishable in the
IRFs due to some fluctuations caused by background noise. This is, indeed, confirmed when observing
the corresponding FRFs in the frequency domain as plotted in Figure 6, by virtue of the fact that the
 Sensors 2019, 19, 310 7 of 17

non-dispersive behaviour is dominant in the narrow bandwidth below 50 Hz (i.e., the phase can clearly
be seen to vary linearly with frequency). Once the two IRFs have been determined, they can be adopted
to lead to the new FRF H(ω) by following the procedures as illustrated in Figure 3. The phase of the
resulting H(ω) is shown in Figure 6 in comparison with those given by the conventional LMS adaptive
method. The evidence is compelling: The phase of H(ω) has a linear relationship for the frequency range
up to 400 Hz, which dramatically broadens the bandwidth over which the TDE can be conducted when
subjected to the deteriorating effect of background noise. The IRF is shown in Figure 7, from which
a more accurate time Figure
delay estimate
4. ASDsofof = −two
T0the 0.04 sensor
s can besignals
obtained, corresponding
when SNR = −10.to the peak value 7 of 18
Sensors 2019, 19, x
in the proposed IRF, h(n). Moreover, compared to the results given by the conventional LMS adaptive
method as plotted in Figure 5, it can be seen that the ADPHAT method gives a more pronounced peak
Figure
reference 5 plots
time theTref
delay IRFs, h12to
needs (n)be
and h21(n), using
removed in the the conventional
estimates LMS
of the time adaptive
delay given algorithms.
by these twoThe
with fewer fluctuations in the time domain representation.
time delay estimates
algorithms are found
to ensure accurate to be T0 = −0.039 s and 0.041 s for h12(n) and h21(n) respectively.
TDE.
However, the peak values, as shown in the figure, are less convincing, since they are barely
distinguishable in the IRFs due to some fluctuations caused by background noise. This is, indeed,
confirmed when observing the corresponding FRFs in the frequency domain as plotted in Figure 6,
by virtue of the fact that the non-dispersive behaviour is dominant in the narrow bandwidth below
50 Hz (i.e., the phase can clearly be seen to vary linearly with frequency). Once the two IRFs have
been determined, they can be adopted to lead to the new FRF H(ω) by following the procedures as
illustrated in Figure 3. The phase of the resulting H(ω) is shown in Figure 6 in comparison with those
given by the conventional LMS adaptive method. The evidence is compelling: The phase of H(ω) has
a linear relationship for the frequency range up to 400 Hz, which dramatically broadens the
bandwidth over which the TDE can be conducted when subjected to the deteriorating effect of
background noise. The IRF is shown in Figure 7, from which a more accurate time delay estimate of
T0 = −0.04 s can be obtained, corresponding to the peak value in the proposed IRF, h(n). Moreover,
compared to the results given by the conventional LMS adaptive method as plotted in Figure 5, it can
be seen that the ADPHAT method gives a more pronounced peak with fewer fluctuations in the time
domain representation.
Figure 4. ASDs of the two sensor signals when SNR = −10.
Figure 4. ASDs of the two sensor signals when SNR = −10.

Figure 5 plots the IRFs, h12(n) and h21(n), using the conventional LMS adaptive algorithms. The
time delay estimates are found to be T0 = −0.039 s and 0.041 s for h12(n) and h21(n) respectively.
However, the peak values, as shown in the figure, are less convincing, since they are barely
distinguishable in the IRFs due to some fluctuations caused by background noise. This is, indeed,
confirmed when observing the corresponding FRFs in the frequency domain as plotted in Figure 6,
by virtue of the fact that the non-dispersive behaviour is dominant in the narrow bandwidth below
50 Hz (i.e., the phase can clearly be seen to vary linearly with frequency). Once the two IRFs have
been determined, they can be adopted to lead to the new FRF H(ω) by following the procedures as
illustrated in Figure 3. The phase of the resulting H(ω) is shown in Figure 6 in comparison with those
given by the conventional LMS adaptive method. The evidence is compelling: The phase of H(ω) has
a linear relationship for the frequency range up to 400 Hz, which dramatically broadens the
bandwidth over which the TDE can be conducted when subjected to the deteriorating effect of
background noise. The IRF is shown in Figure 7, from which a more accurate time delay estimate of
T0 = −0.04 s can be obtained, corresponding to the peak value in the proposed IRF, h(n). Moreover,
compared to the results given by the conventional LMS adaptive method as plotted in Figure 5, it can
be seen that the ADPHAT method
Figure 5. IRFsgives
given a
bymore pronounced
the conventional LMS peak with
adaptive fewer fluctuations in the time
method.
domain representation.
Sensors 2019, 19, x 8 of 18

Sensors 2019, 19, 310 8 of 17

Figure 5. IRFs given by the conventional LMS adaptive method.

Figure 6. Phase of the FRF.

The performance of the LMS adaptive methods for TDE is shown in Figure 8 as a function of
SNR. In general, it can be observed that the performance of each adaptive algorithm provides
consistency in TDE. As can be seen in Figure 8b, the conventional LMS algorithms, h12(n) and h21(n),
lead to errors of 1%~3% in TDE for different SNRs, whereas the new IRF, h(n), with relative error less
than 1%, outperforms the IRFs given by the conventional LMS methods. In particular, when the SNR
is very poor (SNR = −20 dB), the proposed IRF, h(n), can still achieve very accurate time delay
estimate. The reason h(n) gives the best estimate of the time delay is that the leak noise signals are
both corrupted by background noise at locations d1 and d2, which can, to some extent, be compensated
for by multiplying the two FRFs, H12(ω) or H21(ω), prior to the FT. Furthermore, it must be pointed
out that in practice the leak location is unknown, and thus h(n) will also provide an optimal solution
for TDE based on the calculated h12(n) and h21(n).
Figure 6. Phase of the FRF.
Figure 6. Phase of the FRF.

The performance of the LMS adaptive methods for TDE is shown in Figure 8 as a function of
SNR. In general, it can be observed that the performance of each adaptive algorithm provides
consistency in TDE. As can be seen in Figure 8b, the conventional LMS algorithms, h12(n) and h21(n),
lead to errors of 1%~3% in TDE for different SNRs, whereas the new IRF, h(n), with relative error less
than 1%, outperforms the IRFs given by the conventional LMS methods. In particular, when the SNR
is very poor (SNR = −20 dB), the proposed IRF, h(n), can still achieve very accurate time delay
estimate. The reason h(n) gives the best estimate of the time delay is that the leak noise signals are
both corrupted by background noise at locations d1 and d2, which can, to some extent, be compensated
for by multiplying the two FRFs, H12(ω) or H21(ω), prior to the FT. Furthermore, it must be pointed
out that in practice the leak location is unknown, and thus h(n) will also provide an optimal solution
for TDE based on the calculated h12(n) and h21(n).

Figure 7. The IRF given by the proposed ADPHAT method for TDE.
Figure 7. The IRF given by the proposed ADPHAT method for TDE.
The performance of the LMS adaptive methods for TDE is shown in Figure 8 as a function of SNR.
In general, it can be observed that the performance of each adaptive algorithm provides consistency
in TDE. As can be seen in Figure 8b, the conventional LMS algorithms, h12 (n) and h21 (n), lead to
errors of 1%~3% in TDE for different SNRs, whereas the new IRF, h(n), with relative error less than 1%,
outperforms the IRFs given by the conventional LMS methods. In particular, when the SNR is very poor
(SNR = −20 dB), the proposed IRF, h(n), can still achieve very accurate time delay estimate. The reason
h(n) gives the best estimate of the time delay is that the leak noise signals are both corrupted by
background noise at locations d1 and d2 , which can, to some extent, be compensated for by multiplying
the two FRFs, H12 (ω) or H21 (ω), prior to the FT. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that in practice
the leak location is unknown, and thus h(n) will also provide an optimal solution for TDE based on the
calculated h12 (n) and h21 (n).

Figure 7. The IRF given by the proposed ADPHAT method for TDE.
 Sensors
Sensors 19, 19,
2019,
2019, x 310 9 of 17 9 of 18
Sensors 2019, 19, x 9 of 18

Figure 8. Effect of background noise on the performance of the adaptive methods for TDE: (a) Time
Figure 8. Effect of background noise on the performance of the adaptive methods for TDE: (a) Time
delay estimate; (b) relative error.
Figure 8.estimate;
delay Effect of(b)
background noise on the performance of the adaptive methods for TDE: (a) Time
relative error.
delay estimate; (b) relative error.
4. Experimental
4. Experimental Work
Work
The leak
The leak detection
4. Experimental detection data
Work data presented
presented in
in this
this section
section were
were captured
captured from
from aalive
livewater
waterdistribution
distribution
system. Filed
system. Filed tests
tests were
were carried
carried out
out atat aa leak
leak detection
detection facility
facility connected
connected to to the
the mains
mains located
located at at the
the
The leak
campus
campus detection
ofofthe
theInstitute
Institute data
of of presented
Acoustics,
Acoustics, in this
Chinese
Chinese section
Academy
Academy ofwere captured
of Sciences
Sciences from
(IACAS),
(IACAS), a alive water
map ofdistribution
schematic
a schematic map
which of
system.
which
is Filed
shown tests
is shown
in Figure were
in Figure carried
9. The9.pipelineout at
The pipeline a
consistedleak detection
consisted
of 200ofmm facility
200 ODmmcast connected
OD iron,
cast iron,
and and to
waswasthe mains
buried
buried at aatlocated
a depth
depth ofat the
campus of the Institute
of approximately
approximately 2 m.2 m.Withofreference
With Acoustics,
reference Chinese
to
to Figure Figure 9,Academy
9, the the testing
testing wasof
wasSciences
conducted
conducted (IACAS),
on on a pipe
a straight
a straight schematic
pipe section
section map
of of
which of is
100shown
m within Figure
three 9. The pipeline
accelerometers consisted
attached of 200
magnetically mm toOD the
100 m with three accelerometers attached magnetically to the pipe wall through three access manholes cast
pipe iron,
wall and was
through buried
three at
accessa depth
manholes
of approximately
shown shown
in Figure 2 m.
10.inWith
Figure
As 10. As in
reference
illustrated illustrated
to Figure
Figure in
11, Figure
9,bythe 11, by
testing
opening awas opening
valve, a valve,
conducted
a leak from leak
onaapipe frompipe
straight
section a was
pipesection
section
generated was generated
above the above
ground the
at a ground
distance at
of a
6.2distance
m from of 6.2
access
of 100 m with three accelerometers attached magnetically to the pipe wall through three accessm from
point access
2. point 2.
manholes The
The leaksignals
leak
shown signals
in Figure were
were captured
captured
10. Asby by using
using
illustrated a B&K a 3050-B-060
in B&K
Figure 3050-B-060 multi-channel
multi-channel
11, by opening noise noisea analyser.
analyser.
a valve, The
leaksampling
from The a pipe
sampling of
frequency frequency
8192 Hz of 8192
was Hz was
applied to applied
the to the accelerometer-measured
accelerometer-measured signals for a signals for
duration of a duration
10 s (that may of
section was generated above the ground at a distance of 6.2 m from access point 2.
−4approximately
10 s a(that
give may give
discrepancy inathe
discrepancy
TDE due toina the timeTDE due resolution
domain to a time domain resolution
of approximately 10of s). The parameters 10−4
The leak signals were captured by using a B&K 3050-B-060 multi-channel noise analyser. The
s).cast
of Theiron
parameters
were cf = of cast
1500 ironB were
m/s, = 2.25cGPa,
f = 1500andm/s, B = GPa.
E = 140 2.25 GPa, and E =these
Substituting 140 GPa. Substituting
pipe system these
parameters
sampling frequency
pipeEquation
system of 8192into
parameters HzEquation
was applied to the accelerometer-measured signals for a duration of
into (2a), the propagation speed (2a),
of thethe
leakpropagation speed of as
signal was calculated thec =leak
1333signal
m/s. wasLeakcalculated
detection
10 smeasurements
(that
as c = may
1333 givem/s.
were aLeak
discrepancy
made by usingin
detection the TDE due
measurements
accelerometer wereto aat
pairs time
made
accessdomain
by using2resolution
points accelerometer of approximately
and 3 and access pairs
points 1 and 10
at access
−4

s). The parameters

3points
(denoted2 and as 3A2&A3of cast
and andiron
access were1asand
points
A1&A3 cfplotted
= 1500 m/s,
3 (denoted
in FigureBas= 10)
2.25
A2&A3 GPa, andand
respectively. E
In=the
A1&A3 140 GPa. Substituting
asfollowing
plotted Figure 10)these
insubsections,
pipethesystem
respectively.
adaptive parameters
methods into
In the following
are Equation
appliedsubsections,
to these (2a),
two the
the propagation
adaptive
pairs methodsspeed areof
of accelerometer-measured the leak
applied signal
to these
signals thattwowas calculated
pairs
bracketed of
as cthe= 1333
leak. m/s. Leak detection measurements were made by using accelerometer pairs at access
accelerometer-measured signals that bracketed the leak.
points 2 and 3 and access points 1 and 3 (denoted as A2&A3 and A1&A3 as plotted in Figure 10)
respectively. In the following subsections, the adaptive methods are applied to these two pairs of
accelerometer-measured signals that bracketed the leak.

Figure 9. Schematic of the test site located at the IACAS.

Figure 9. Schematic of the test site located at the IACAS.

Figure 9. Schematic of the test site located at the IACAS.

Sensors 2019, 19, x 10 of 18
Sensors 2019, 19, 310 10 of 17
Sensors 2019, 19, x 10 of 18
(a) (b) (c)
(a) (b) (c)

A1
A1
A3
A2
A3
A2

Figure 10. Accelerometers attached magnetically to the test pipe. (a) At access point 1; (b) At access
Figure 10. Accelerometers attached magnetically to the test pipe. (a) At access point 1; (b) At access
point 2;10.
Figure (c)Accelerometers
At access point attached
3. magnetically to the test pipe. (a) At access point 1; (b) At access
point 2; (c) At access point 3.
point 2; (c) At access point 3.

Figure 11. Leak generated above the ground.

Figure 11. Leak generated above the ground.
4.1. Case One Figure 11. Leak generated above the ground.
4.1. Case Oneaccelerometer pair located at A2&A3, the distances of the two accelerometers were 6.2 m
For the
4.1. Case
and 43.8 One
m, relative to the pair
leak,located
respectively. Fromthe Equation (3),ofathe
true time delay of 0.0282 s can
For the accelerometer at A2&A3, distances two accelerometers were 6.2
be calculated.
m and For43.8
them, The timetoseries
relative
accelerometer the
pair of
leak,the two
at accelerometer-measured
respectively.
located A2&A3, FromtheEquation
distances(3), asignals
of the true are
twotime plotted
delay ofin
accelerometers Figure
0.0282
were 12.
s can
6.2
The
m signals
be and
calculated. were
43.8 m,The then
time to
relative processed
series
the of via a 1024-point
therespectively.
leak, FFT using
two accelerometer-measured a
From Equation (3), Hanning
signals
a true window
are plotted
time with
delay inof 50%
Figure overlap.
12.s The
0.0282 can
Figure
signals
be 13a,b
were show
calculated. then the frequency
The processed
time seriesvia a results, including
1024-point
of the FFT usingthe acoherence
two accelerometer-measured function
Hanningsignals
window and
arewith the phase
50%in
plotted spectrum,
overlap.
Figure Figure
12. The
respectively,
signals were between
13a,b show then the accelerometer
the frequency
processed results,
via pair. It
including
a 1024-point can
FFT thebecoherence
using seen from Figure
a Hanning function
window 13aand
that the
withthe50%signals
phase measured
spectrum,
overlap. Figure
by the accelerometers
respectively,
13a,b show thebetween are concentrated
the accelerometer
frequency mainly in
pair. It can
results, including the frequency
thebecoherence range
seen from function between
Figure 13aand 100
thatthe Hz
the signalsand 3200
measured
phase spectrum, Hz
(except between
respectively, 1 kHzthe
by the accelerometers
between andaccelerometer
are 1400 Hz) where
concentrated a good
mainly
pair. in coherence
It canthe is found,
frequency
be seen from rangeotherwise
Figure between the coherence
100signals
13a that the Hz and is very
3200
measured Hz
low
by since
(except
the background
between 1 kHzare
accelerometers noise
and dominates.
1400 Hz) where
concentrated mainlya good
in thecoherence
frequencyisrange found, otherwise
between 100 Hzthe and
coherence
3200 Hz is
The time
very lowbetween
(except delay estimate
since background
1 kHz andnoise using the
1400 dominates. proposed ADPHAT method is now made
Hz) where a good coherence is found, otherwise the coherence is in comparison
with those
very low given
since by conventional
background LMS adaptive algorithms. Using the empirical formula defined
noise dominates.
in Appendix A, the order of the IRF can be taken as P = 250, which results in a reference time delay
calculated as Tref = −P/fs= −0.0305 s. Figure 14 shows the steady IRFs (after 2 × 105 iterations)
using the conventional LMS algorithms. Here, h12 denotes the result for the input signal at A2 and
the expected signal at A3; h21 denotes the result for the input signal at A3 and the expected signal
at A2. The maximum values in the figure lead to time delay estimates of 0.0282 s and −0.0283 s for
h12 and h21 respectively. Figure 15 plots the new FRF H(ω) achieved in the implementation of the
ADPAHT method, which highlights a linear behaviour of the phase in the entire frequency range of
interest. By taking the inverse FT of the FRF, a distinct peak can be obtained in the IRF as plotted in
Figure 16, which corresponds to the time delay estimate of T0 = 0.0282 s. Compared to the results given
by the conventional LMS adaptive method, a more distinguishable time delay estimate can be obtained
by the proposed ADPHAT method.
Sensors 2019, 19, x 11 of 18

Sensors2019,
Sensors 2019,19,
19,310
x 11ofof17
11 18

Figure 12. Leak signals measured by the accelerometer pair of (a) A2; (b) A3.
Figure 12. Leak signals measured by the accelerometer pair of (a) A2; (b) A3.
Figure 12. Leak signals measured by the accelerometer pair of (a) A2; (b) A3.

Sensors 2019, 19, x 12 of 18

Figure 13. Frequency analysis of the signals measured at A2&A3: (a) Coherence function; (b) phase spectrum.
Figure 13. Frequency analysis of the signals measured at A2&A3: (a) Coherence function; (b) phase
spectrum.
Figure 13. Frequency analysis of the signals measured at A2&A3: (a) Coherence function; (b) phase
spectrum.
The time delay estimate using the proposed ADPHAT method is now made in comparison with
those given by conventional LMS adaptive algorithms. Using the empirical formula defined in
The time
Appendix delay
A, the estimate
order of theusing the proposed
IRF can be taken asADPHAT
P = 250, method is now in
which results made in comparison
a reference with
time delay
those given
calculated by
as T conventional LMS adaptive algorithms. Using the empirical formula defined in
ref = −P/fs= −0.0305 s. Figure 14 shows the steady IRFs (after 2 × 105 iterations) using the

conventional LMS order

Appendix A, the of the Here,
algorithms. IRF can be takenthe
h12 denotes as result
P = 250,
forwhich results
the input in at
signal a A2
reference
and thetime delay
expected
calculated as T ref = −P/fs= −0.0305 s. Figure 14 shows the steady IRFs (after 2 × 105 iterations) using the
signal at A3; h21 denotes the result for the input signal at A3 and the expected signal at A2. The
conventional
maximum LMSinalgorithms.
values the figure Here,
lead toh12time
denotes theestimates
delay result forofthe inputs signal
0.0282 at A2 and
and −0.0283 s fortheh12expected
and h21
signal at A3; h 21 denotes the result for the input signal at A3 and the expected signal at A2. The
respectively. Figure 15 plots the new FRF H(ω) achieved in the implementation of the ADPAHT
maximum
method, values
which in the figure
highlights a linear lead to time of
behaviour delay estimates
the phase in theof entire
0.0282frequency
s and −0.0283
ranges offorinterest.
h12 andByh21
respectively. Figure 15 plots the new FRF H(ω) achieved in the implementation
taking the inverse FT of the FRF, a distinct peak can be obtained in the IRF as plotted in Figure 16, of the ADPAHT
method,
which which highlights
corresponds a linear
to the time behaviour
delay estimateofofthe
T0 phase in the
= 0.0282 entire frequency
s. Compared range of
to the results interest.
given By
by the
taking the inverse
conventional FT of themethod,
LMS adaptive FRF, a distinct
a more peak can be obtained
distinguishable in theestimate
time delay IRF as plotted
can be in Figure by
obtained 16,
which corresponds
the proposed ADPHAT method.to the time delay estimate of T 0 = 0.0282 s. Compared to the results given by the

conventional LMS adaptive method, a more distinguishable time delay estimate can be obtained by
Figure 14. IRFs between the signals measured at A2&A3 using the conventional LMS adaptive method.
the proposed
Figure 14.ADPHAT method.
IRFs between the signals measured at A2&A3 using the conventional LMS adaptive
method.
 Figure 14. IRFs between the signals measured at A2&A3 using the conventional LMS adaptive
method.
Figure 14. IRFs between the signals measured at A2&A3 using the conventional LMS adaptive
Sensors 2019, 19, 310 12 of 17
method.

Figure 15. The new FRF between the signals measured at A2&A3.
Figure 15. The new FRF between the signals measured at A2&A3.
Figure 15. The new FRF between the signals measured at A2&A3.

Figure 16. The proposed ADPHAT algorithm for TDE when D = 50 m.

Figure 16. The proposed ADPHAT algorithm for TDE when D = 50 m.
4.2. Case Two
Consider the accelerometer pair located at A1&A3, the distances of which were 35.0 m and 43.8 m
4.2. Case Two
relative toFigure
the leak16. The Aproposed
source. ADPHAT
true time delay algorithm
of 0.0066 for TDEfrom
s can be calculated when D = 50(3).
Equation m.Figure 17
plots the original time domain signals captured by A1&A3. Similar to the frequency analysis performed
4.2. Case Two
on A2&A3, the results of the coherence and phase spectrum are shown in Figure 18. It can be seen
from Figure 18a that the two signals have good coherence in the frequency 100~3200 Hz, where the
phase does not vary linearly with frequency. In light of this, inaccuracies in the time delay estimates
by directly adopting the conventional LMS adaptive method is perhaps not surprising. Nevertheless,
by using the proposed method, an approximately linear relationship is found in the new FRF, H(ω),
in the entire frequency range of interest, as shown in Figure 19. This further leads to the IRF as plotted
in Figure 20. A sharp peak is found in the IRF corresponding to an accurate time delay estimate of
T0 = 0.0066 s.
 be seen from Figure 18a that the two signals have good coherence in the frequency 100~3200 Hz,
estimates
where theby directly
phase adopting
does not the conventional
vary linearly with frequency.LMS adaptive
In light of this,method is perhaps
inaccuracies notdelay
in the time surprising.
Nevertheless, by using
estimates by directly the proposed
adopting method, an
the conventional LMSapproximately
adaptive method linear relationship
is perhaps is found in the
not surprising.
Nevertheless,
new FRF, H(ω),by inusing the proposed
the entire frequencymethod,
rangean of approximately linearinrelationship
interest, as shown Figure 19. isThis
found in theleads to
further
new FRF,
theSensors
IRF 2019,H(ω),
as plotted in the entire frequency range of interest, as shown in Figure 19. This
in Figure 20. A sharp peak is found in the IRF corresponding to an accuratefurther leads to time
19, 310 13 of 17
the IRF
delay as plotted
estimate of Tin Figure 20. A sharp peak is found in the IRF corresponding to an accurate time
0 = 0.0066 s.
delay estimate of T0 = 0.0066 s.

Figure 17. Leak signals measured by the accelerometer pair of (a) A1; (b) A3.
Figure 17. Leak signals measured by the accelerometer pair of (a) A1; (b) A3.
Figure 17. Leak signals measured by the accelerometer pair of (a) A1; (b) A3.

Figure 18. Frequency analysis of the signals measured at A1&A3: (a) Coherence function; (b)
Sensors 2019, 19, x Figure 14 of 1
18. Frequency analysis of the signals measured at A1&A3: (a) Coherence function; (b) phase
phase spectrum.
spectrum.

Figure 18. Frequency analysis of the signals measured at A1&A3: (a) Coherence function; (b) phase
spectrum.

Figure 19. The new FRF between the signals measured at A1&A3.
Figure 19. The new FRF between the signals measured at A1&A3.
 Figure 19. The new FRF between the signals measured at A1&A3.
Sensors 2019, 19, 310 14 of 17

Figure 20. The proposed ADPHAT algorithm for TDE when D = 78.8 m.

Figure 20. The proposed ADPHAT algorithm for TDE when D = 78.8 m.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, an ADPHAT method for TDE has been developed for pipeline leakage detection.
5. Conclusions
It has expanded on the conventional LMS algorithm, and developed a new way to calculate the
time delay of the sensor signals. The leakage propagation characteristics of pipelines have been
In this paper,for
accounted aninADPHAT method
the implementation for TDE
process of thehas beenadaptive
proposed developed for pipeline
algorithm, which resultsleakage
in detection.
It has expanded on the conventional
an FRF containing LMS algorithm,
only the phase information of two leakand developed
signals. a newofway
Due to the duality both to
thecalculate
time the time
and frequency domains, the time delay is estimatedby searching the maximum value of the inverse
delay of the sensor signals. The leakage propagation characteristics of pipelines have been accounted
FT of the new FRF. Simulations on plastic water pipes demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
for in themethod
implementation
for locating leaksprocess
even in ofa lowtheSNR
proposed
environment.adaptive
Field testsalgorithm,
were furtherwhichconductedresults
to in an FRF
containing onlythe
confirm theimproved
phase performance
information of two
compared to leak signals. Due
the conventional to the duality
LMS algorithms for TDE,of both
which is the time and
frequencyparticularly
domains,well-suited
the timetodelaypipelineis leakage detection.
estimated An additional
by searching theadvantage
maximum of this approach
value of the inverse FT
over the existing correlation-based leak detection methods is that it does not rely on the selection
of the new FRF. Simulations on plastic water pipes demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
of pre-filtering/frequency weighting of input signals, and potentially could interpret the similarity
method for locating
between leaks
two sensor evenin in
signals a lowa SNR.
low SNR environment. Field tests were further conducted to
confirm the improved performance compared to the conventional LMS algorithms for TDE, which is
Author Contributions: Y.G. conceived and designed the experiments; Y.M. and Y.G. performed the experiments;
particularly
Y.M.well-suited to the
and Y.G. presented pipeline leakage
method; Y.M. detection.
analysed the data and An
wroteadditional advantage
the article; Y.G., of this
X.C., M.J.B., F.C.L.A. andapproach over
J.Y. contributed to coordinating and revising the article. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
the existing correlation-based leak detection methods is that it does not rely on the selection of pre-
Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
filtering/frequency weighting of input signals, and potentially could interpret the similarity between
(under Grant 11774378).
two sensor signals
Conflicts in a low
of Interest: SNR. declare no conflict of interest.
The authors

Nomenclature Yan Gao conceived and designed the experiments; Yifan Ma and Yan Gao performed
Author Contributions:
the experiments;
d1 , d2 Yifan Ma anddistances
Yan Gao presented
between the leakthe
and method; Yifan
sensors 1 and 2 Ma analysed the data and wrote the article;
Yan Gao, Xiwang
D Cui, Michaeldistance
J. Brennan,
betweenFabricio
two sensorsC.L. Almeida and Jun Yang contributed to coordinating and
B fluid bulk modulus
revising the article. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
E Young’s modulus of the pipe wall
a, h pipeacknowledge
Funding: The authors gratefully radius and wall thickness
the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
β wave attenuation factor
(under Grant 11774378).
k, kf fluid-borne wavenumber and free-field fluid wavenumber
T0 estimate of the time delay
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
η loss factor of the pipe wall
 Sensors 2019, 19, 310 15 of 17

c, cf propagation and fluid wavespeeds

x1 (t), x2 (t) leak signals measured
l(t) leak source signal
n1 (t), n2 (t) background noise
H(ω,d1 ), H(ω,d2 ) FRFs between l(t) and x1 (t), x2 (t)
Sensors 2019, 19, x 15 of 18
h1 (t), h2 (t) IRFs between l(t) and x1 (t), x2 (t)
S12 (ω) CSD between x1 (t) and x2 (t)
Appendix A. The LMS Adaptive Algorithm for TDE
Φ12 (ω), Φ21 (ω) phase spectra of x1 (t) and x2 (t)
h21Detailed
(n), h12 (n),information
h(n) about
IRFs forthe LMS algorithm
measured signals is given in [40,41], but for ease of reference it is
briefly
H(ω),described
H12 (ω), Hin 21 this
(ω) Appendix.
FTs of h12 A
(n), schematic
h21 (n), h(n) diagram of the implementation of the adaptive LMS
T
approach
ref reference time delay
is illustrated in Figure A1. The application of the conventional LMS adaptive method for
TDE maximum order in the LMS algorithm
is relatively straightforward.
λmax

x1 (t )   1for
Appendix A The LMS Adaptive Algorithm  n1 (t )
l(t )TDE (A1a)
Detailed information about the LMS algorithm is given in [40,41], but for ease of reference it is briefly described
in this Appendix. A schematic diagram x2of(tthe
)  implementation
 l(t )  n (t ) of the adaptive LMS approach is illustrated (A1b) in
Figure A1. The application of the conventional LMS2 adaptive2method for TDE is relatively straightforward.
where α1 and α2 are attenuation constants. In contrast to the leak signal model, the sensor signals in
x1 ( t ) = α1 l ( t ) + n1 ( t ) (A1a)
the appendix are delayed signals relative to their reference source signal, l(t), without any concerns
regarding the attenuation being frequency x2 (t) =dependent.
α2 l (t) + n2 (t)Neglecting the background noise, (A1b)
combination of αEquation
where α1 and (A1a,b) gives the FRF as
2 are attenuation constants. In contrast to the leak signal model, the sensor signals in the appendix
are delayed signals relative to their reference source signal, l(t), without any concerns regarding the attenuation
being frequency dependent. NeglectingH (background
the )   exp{-j Tcombination
noise, 0
} (A2)gives
of Equations (A1a) and (A1b)
the FRF as
which indicates a pure time delay in theH (FRF α exp{−
ω ) =since 0}
α jisωTfrequency independent. Based on the(A2)
mathematical model
which indicates a purefortime
thedelay
two in
signals
the FRFdefined byfrequency
since α is Equation (A1a,b), a Based
independent. recursive
on themethod for TDE
mathematical model
was proposed where Widrow's LMS adaptive filter algorithm was applied to compensate for the
for the two signals defined by Equations (A1a) and (A1b), a recursive method for TDE was proposed where
Widrow’s
delay in oneLMS
of theadaptive
received filter algorithm
signals withwas applied
respect to to compensate
the other [4]. for theapproach
This delay in one
hasofbeen
the received
referredsignals
to
with respect to the other [4]. This approach has been referred to as the LMS algorithm that is well documented for
as reducing
the LMSthealgorithm that is well documented for reducing the mean square error. In
mean square error. In this circumstance, it offers a convenient way to estimate accurately the time this
circumstance, it offers
delay by searching a convenient
the maximum valueway
of thetoIRF.
estimate accurately the time delay by searching the
maximum value of the IRF.

Figure A1. Schematic of the implementation of the LMS adaptive method.

Figure A1. Schematic of the implementation of the LMS adaptive method.
For the sampling
For the sampling frequency
frequency fs, the
of fs,ofthe maximum
maximum orderof
order ofthe
the IRF
IRF isischosen
chosentoto
satisfy P ≥P≥D×fs/c,
satisfy D × fs/c, where
whereD is
the distance of two sensors and c is the propagation wavespeed. Assume that the IRF at the nth iteration, h(n),
D isis the distancebyof two sensors and c is the propagation wavespeed. Assume that the IRF at the nth
represented
iteration, h(n), is represented by h(n) = [h(− P), h(− P + 1), . . . h(0), . . . h( P)]T (A3)

h( n) transpose
where the superscript T denotes h(  P  1),Ifthe
[ h(  P ), operation. h(0),input h( P )]vector at the nth iteration,
 signal (A3)X1 (n),
is represented by
1 ( n ) = [ x1 (operation.
where the superscript T denotesXtranspose n + P), . . . x1If(nthe
), . . input − P)]T vector at the nth iteration,(A4)
. , x1 (n signal
X1(n),
thenisthe
represented byadaptive filter is
output of the
y(n) = hT (n)X1 (n) (A5)
X 1 ( n)  [ x1 ( n  P ), x1 ( n), , x1 ( n  P )] (A4)
The error signal is defined as
then the output of the adaptive filter is e ( n ) = x2 ( n ) − y ( n ) (A6)

y ( n )  h  ( n) X 1 ( n) (A5)

The error signal is defined as

e(n)  x (n)  y(n) (A6)

Sensors 2019, 19, 310 16 of 17

In each sampling period, the parameters in the model can be adjusted by

h(n + 1) = h(n) + 2µ × e(n) × X1 (n) (A7)

where µ is the iterative step length controlling the convergence of the algorithm, which can be calculated
empirically by
0 ≤ µ ≤ 2/λmax (A8)
where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of input signal.

References
1. Ben-Mansour, R.; Habib, M.A.; Khalifa, A.; Youcef, K.T.; Chatzigeorgiou, D. Computational fluid dynamic
simulation of small leaks in water pipelines for direct leak pressure transduction. Comput. Fluids 2012, 57,
110–123. [CrossRef]
2. Li, H.; Zhang, P.; Song, G.; Patil, D.; Mo, Y. Robustness study of the pounding tuned mass damper for
vibration control of subsea jumpers. Smart Mater. Struct. 2015, 24, 095001. [CrossRef]
3. Kawsar, M.R.U.; Youssef, S.A.; Faisal, M.; Kumar, A.; Seo, J.K.; Paik, J.K. Assessment of dropped object risk
on corroded subsea pipeline. Ocean Eng. 2015, 106, 329–340. [CrossRef]
4. Farley, M.; Wyeth, G.; Ghazali, Z.B.M.; Istandar, A.; Singh, S. The Manager’s Non-Revenue Water Handbook:
A Guide to Understanding Water Losses; Ranhill Utilities Berhad and the United States Agency for International
Development: Bangkok, Thailand, 2008.
5. China Statistical Yearbook. 2017. Available online: www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2017/indexeh.htm (accessed
on 1 May 2018).
6. International Decade for Action ‘WATER FOR LIFE’ 2005–2015. 2015. Available online: www.un.org/
waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml (accessed on 1 May 2018).
7. Andersen, J.H.; Powell, R.S. Implicit state-estimation technique for water network monitoring. Urban Water
2000, 2, 123–130. [CrossRef]
8. Poulakis, Z.; Valougeorgis, D.; Papadimitriou, C. Leakage detection in water pipe networks using a Bayesian
probabilistic framework. Probab. Eng. Mech. 2003, 18, 314–327. [CrossRef]
9. Lee, P.J.; Vitkovsky, J.P.; Lambert, M.F.; Simpson, A.R.; Liggett, J.A. Leak location using the pattern of the
frequency response diagram in pipelines: A numerical study. J. Sound Vib. 2005, 284, 1051–1073. [CrossRef]
10. Lee, P.J.; Simpson, A.R.; Vitkovsky, J.P.; Liggett, J.A. Experimental verification of the frequency response
method for pipeline leak detection. J. Hydraul. Res. 2006, 44, 693–707. [CrossRef]
11. Huang, S.C.; Lin, W.W.; Tasi, M.T.; Chen, M.H. Fiber optic in-line distributed sensor for detection and
localization of the pipeline leaks. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2007, 135, 570–579. [CrossRef]
12. Hiroki, S.; Tanzawa, S.; Arai, T.; Abe, T. Development of water leak detection method in fusion reactors
using water-soluble gas. Fusion Eng. Des. 2008, 83, 72–78. [CrossRef]
13. Colombo, A.F.; Lee, P.; Karney, B.W. A selective literature review of transient-based leak detection methods.
J. Hydrol. Environ. Res. 2009, 2, 212–227. [CrossRef]
14. Puust, R.; Kapelan, Z.; Savic, D.A.; Koppel, T. A review of methods for leakage management in pipe networks.
Urban Water J. 2010, 7, 25–45. [CrossRef]
15. Yan, S.Z.; Chyan, L.S. Performance enhancement of BOTDR fiber optic sensor for oil and gas pipeline
monitoring. Opt. Fiber Technol. 2010, 16, 100–109. [CrossRef]
16. Bedjaoui, N.; Weyer, E. Algorithms for leak detection, estimation, isolation and localization in open water
channels. Control Eng. Pract. 2011, 19, 564–573. [CrossRef]
17. Ghazali, M.F.; Beck, S.B.M.; Shucksmith, J.D.; Boxall, J.B.; Staszewski, W.J. Comparative study of
instantaneous frequency based methods for leak detection in pipeline networks. Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
2012, 29, 187–200. [CrossRef]
18. Ozevin, D.; Harding, J. Novel leak localization in pressurized pipeline networks using acoustic emission and
geometric connectivity. Int. J. Pres. Ves. Pip. 2012, 92, 63–69. [CrossRef]
19. Durocher, A.; Bruno, V.; Chantant, M.; Gargiulo, L.; Gherman, T.; Hatchressian, J.C.; Houry, M.; Le, R.;
Mouyon, D. Remote leak localization approach for fusion machines. Fusion Eng. Des. 2013, 88, 1390–1394.
[CrossRef]
Sensors 2019, 19, 310 17 of 17

20. Mulholland, M.; Purdon, A.; Latifi, M.A.; Brouckaert, C.; Buckley, C. Leak identification in a water
distribution network using sparse flow measurements. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2014, 66, 252–258. [CrossRef]
21. Ni, L.; Jiang, J.C.; Pan, Y.; Wang, Z.R. Leak location of pipelines based on characteristic entropy.
J. Loss Prev. Proc. 2014, 30, 24–36. [CrossRef]
22. Lee, P.J.; Duan, H.F.; Tuck, J.; Ghidaoui, M. Numerical and Experimental Study on the Effect of Signal
Bandwidth on Pipe Assessment Using Fluid Transients. J. Hydraul. Res. Int. J. Res. 2015, 141, 68–78.
[CrossRef]
23. Datta, S.; Sarkar, S. A review on different pipeline fault detection methods. J. Loss. Prev. Proc. 2016, 41,
97–106. [CrossRef]
24. Guo, C.; Wen, Y.M.; Li, P.; Wen, J. Adaptive noise cancellation based on EMD in water-supply pipeline leak
detection. Measurement 2016, 79, 188–197. [CrossRef]
25. Lu, W.Q.; Liang, W.; Zhang, L.B.; Liu, W. A novel noise reduction method applied in negative pressure wave
for pipeline leakage localization. Process. Saf. Environ. 2016, 104, 142–149. [CrossRef]
26. Abdulshaheed, A.; Mustapha, F.; Ghavamian, A. A pressure-based method for monitoring leaks in a pipe
distribution system: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 69, 902–911. [CrossRef]
27. Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Fang, L.; Xu, M. Experimental study on a de-noising system for gas and oil pipelines based on
an acoustic leak detection and location method. Int. J. Pres. Vessels Pip. 2017, 151, 20–34. [CrossRef]
28. Chehami, L.; Moulin, E.; Rosny, J.D.; Prada, C.; Chatelet, E. Nonlinear secondary noise sources for passive
defect detection using ultrasound sensors. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 386, 283–294. [CrossRef]
29. Nguyen, S.T.N.; Gong, J.Z.; Lambert, M.F.; Zecchin, A.C.; Simpson, A.R. Least squares deconvolution for
leak detection with a pseudo random binary sequence excitation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2018, 9, 846–858.
[CrossRef]
30. Zahab, S.E.; Abdelkader, E.M.; Zayed, T. An accelerometer-based leak detection system. Mech. Syst.
Signal Process. 2018, 108, 276–291. [CrossRef]
31. Fuchs, H.; Riehle, R. Ten years of experience with leak detection by acoustic signal analysis. Appl. Acoust.
1991, 33, 1–19. [CrossRef]
32. Gao, Y.; Brennan, M.J.; Joseph, P.F. A comparison of time delay estimators for the detection of leak noise
signals in plastic water distribution pipes. J. Sound Vib. 2006, 292, 552–570. [CrossRef]
33. Knapp, C.; Carter, G. The generalized correlation method for estimation of time delay. IEEE Trans. Acous.
Speech Signal Process. 1976, 24, 320–327. [CrossRef]
34. Gao, Y.; Sui, F.S.; Muggleton, J.M.; Yang, J. Simplified dispersion relationships for fluid-dominated
axisymmetric wave motion in buried fluid-filled pipes. J. Sound Vib. 2016, 375, 386–402. [CrossRef]
35. Gao, Y.; Liu, Y.Y.; Ma, Y.F.; Cheng, X.B.; Yang, J. Application of the differentiation process into the
correlation-based leak detection in urban pipeline networks. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2018, 112, 251–264.
[CrossRef]
36. Piersol, A. Time delay estimation using phase data. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1981, 29,
471–477. [CrossRef]
37. Zhen, Z.; Hou, Z.Q. The generalized phase spectrum method for time delay estimation, in Acoustics, Speech,
and Signal Processing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on ICASSP’84, San Diego, CA,
USA, 19–21 March 1984.
38. Brennan, M.J.; Gao, Y.; Joseph, P. On the relationship between time and frequency domain methods in time
delay estimation for leak detection in water distribution pipes. J. Sound Vib. 2007, 304, 213–223. [CrossRef]
39. Pinnington, R.; Briscoe, A. Externally applied sensor for axisymmetric waves in a fluid filled pipe.
J. Sound Vib. 1994, 173, 503–516. [CrossRef]
40. Behrouz, F.B. Adaptive Filters: Theory and Applications; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
41. Widrow, B.; Glover, J.R.; McCool, J.M.; Kaunitz, J.; Williams, C.S.; Hearn, R.H.; Zeidler, J.R., Jr.; Dong, E.;
Goodlin, R.C. Adaptive noise cancelling: Principles and applications. Proc. IEEE 1975, 63, 1692–1716.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).