Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Fluids

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c o m p fl u i d

Computational fluid dynamic simulation of small leaks in water pipelines

for direct leak pressure transduction
R. Ben-Mansour a, M.A. Habib a,⇑, A. Khalifa a, K. Youcef-Toumi b, D. Chatzigeorgiou b
a
Mechanical Eng. Dept., KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
b
Mechanical Eng. Dept., MIT, MA, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Computational fluid dynamic simulation of small leaks in a pipe having 0.1 m diameter has been per-
Received 13 June 2010 formed under realistic velocities and pressures using a 3D turbulent flow model of well tested CFD code.
Received in revised form 7 May 2011 The steady state simulations have shown clear signature in the pressure and pressure gradient variations
Accepted 19 December 2011
along the pipe. For very small leaks (below 1 l/min), this signature in not very strong in the pressure var-
Available online 29 December 2011
iation, but very clear in the pressure gradient. The averaged power spectral density (PSD) as well as FFT of
the pressure fluctuations based on transient Detached Eddy Simulations (DESs) are presented for differ-
Keywords:
ent locations around the leak position. These results show that the presence of a leak causes measurable
Leak detection
Water pipelines
differences in the magnitude and frequency of the pressure signal spectrum and also in the averaged PSD
Pressure transduction for the range of 220–500 Hz frequency.
Computational fluid dynamics Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction years, since the value of unaccounted-for product was thought to

1.1. Engineering relevance
The unintentional release of fluid from pipelines is character-
ized as leak. Pipeline leak may result, for example, from bad work-
manship or from any destructive cause, due to sudden changes of
pressure, corrosive action, cracks, defects in pipes or lack of main-
tenance. In most cases, the deleterious effects associated with the
occurrence of leaks may present serious problems and, therefore,
leaks must be quickly detected, located and repaired. The problem
of leak even becomes more serious when it is concerned with the
vital supply of fresh water to the community. In addition to waste
of resources, contaminants may infiltrate into the water supply.
The possibility of environmental health disasters due to delay in
detection of water pipeline leaks have spurred research into the
development of methods for pipeline leak and contamination
detection.
Public water pipeline networks extend for thousands of kilome-
ters, consisting of many pipe segments connected by joints. These
pipelines are subjected to traffic and other surface loads which
overstress the pipes and joints. Leakage of water occurs from mains
and service connections at joints and fittings, from break due to
excessive imposed loads and holes caused by corrosion. In early
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mahabib@kfupm.edu.sa (M.A. Habib).
be insignificant and the cost of the energy was quite low, leakage
in water distribution systems was largely ignored. This view of
leakage management has been gradually changing since the mid-
1980s, for both economical and environmental reasons. Conse-
quently, in the past decades research in water resources has been
primarily directed toward groundwater and transport related top-
ics. On the other hand, the water shortage along with the signifi-
cantly higher cost of energy for water distribution and treatment,
have sparked a fast-growing interest in leakage control problems.
On the national ground, major cities across the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (Riyadh, Jeddah and Medina) depend on desalination for
more than 90% of their water needs [36]. The water is desalinated
in large plants and then distributed to cities and towns. This distri-
bution needed the construction of a large network of pipelines. The
problem of water leakage from these pipelines causes clean water
loss, energy loss and a major increase in water contamination with
hazardous chemicals and metals. It is reported that 30% of the
water transported across the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is lost
through leakage [20]. This is considered a very high quantity given
that the present desalination capacity is estimated at six million
cubic meters per day, and is expected to rise to more than 10 mil-
lion cubic meters per day over the next 5 years [19]. Assuming an
average cost of 0.75 USD per cubic meter, it is estimated that the
desalination cost losses amount to 820 million USD per year. This
amount does not include transportation distribution and other
losses. Furthermore, the problem of leakage implies possible pen-
etration of hazardous contaminants into the water distribution
system.

0045-7930/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2011.12.016
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123
Nomenclature
Cl constant
C e1 ; C e2 ; C e2 constants of the turbulence model
G generation of the turbulent kinetic energy
k turbulent kinetic energy
P pressure
Uj mean velocity
V inlet flow velocity
xj (x, y, z) coordinates
Greek symbols
d Kronecker delta
e rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy
1.2. Literature review on leak detection
Various experimental techniques using field tests for leak
detection have been reported early by Brones and Schaffhaussen
[5] and Hunaidi and Chu [17]. The most popular field tests are flow
direction indicators, tracer gases, subsurface radar, earth sensitiv-
ity changes, infrared spectroscopy, microphones, and odorant and
radioactive tracers. In those early stages, researchers mostly used
simple and direct methods to detect pipeline leaks. These methods
were mainly based on limit values checking of some important sys-
tem variables. Methods based on acoustic effects were applied.
Acoustic measurements have been utilized in detection and pin-
pointing of leak locations in both gas and liquid pipelines for many
years. The first acoustic device for pinpointing leaks in buried pipe-
lines was patented in 1935 by Wilsky [42]. De Read [8] discussed
detection methods that use ultrasonic and magnetic flux pigs.
However, these simple methods can only detect leak at a rather
late stage. In addition, they are expensive and time consuming.
Moreover, such tests, in general, are sensitive to many environ-
mental and operational variations, and therefore, are prone to sig-
naling false alarms. In recent years, methods have been developed
to detect leaks more accurately, and in an early stage. Such meth-
ods are based on system models, parameter identification and state
observers. An early survey of methods on the state variable ap-
proach is reported by Wilsky [42] and on parameter identification
by Siebert [38]. Methods based on both the parameters and state
variable approaches were developed by many investigations such
as those by Isermann [23], Isermann [24], Billmann and Isermann
[3] and Isermann and Freyermuth [21]. Wang et al. [41] have re-
cently developed a method to detect and locate leaks in fluid trans-
port pipelines by using only pressure measurements. Their
method, which does not require flow measurements, on the con-
trary to other methods, is based on statistical autoregressive mod-
el. However, this statistical approach fails to detect small leaks and
has been verified by using a short experimental water pipeline
only.
Liou [30] proposed a leak detection method based on transient
flow simulations whose feasibility was demonstrated by numerical
simulations and physical laboratory tests. A similar method was
tested by Loparo et al. [31] using field trials on real pipeline data
where data noise in pressure and flow measurements are consid-
ered. The presence of noise, however, was found to limit the ability
of the algorithms to detect leaks as well as inducing frequent false
alarms. It was concluded that further work is needed to develop
means to avoid noise amplification in such algorithms. Isermann
[22] addressed the problem of early detection of faults in dynamic
systems by calculating some internal quantities on the basis of
measured input and output signals and their causal dependence.
Parameter and state estimation methods and parity models are
111
l viscosity
q density
Subscripts
eff effective
k turbulent kinetic energy
t turbulent
Superscripts
__ average value
used to determine these internal quantities. An inference mecha-
nism determines possible faults on the basis of fault-symptom cau-
salities and approximate reasoning methods; e.g. probabilistic or
fuzzy logic methods. The application of this approach to leak detec-
tion in pipelines was not addressed. In general, leak detection
methods used in pipeline automatic supervision can be divided
into two major classes. Methods belonging to the first class are
mainly based on directly measurable quantities such as inflows,
outflows, pressures and temperatures. The second class relies,
alternatively, on nonmeasurable quantities such as internal state
variables, model parameters and characteristic quantities of the
pipeline system. Methods of this later class obviously are based
on modeling and estimation methods. It should be noted that most
of the previous research in leak detection [5,17,42,8,38,14,44,31]
is concerned with methods that can be related to the above-
mentioned first class. Much less attention, however, was directed
to develop methods of the second class, which depend on nonmea-
surable quantities. Recently, Khulief and Shabaik [26] developed a
multiple-model state-estimation scheme, which utilizes the non-
measurable state variables, to detect and locate single leaks in an
oil pipeline system. Laboratory tests demonstrated the applicabil-
ity of scheme and revealed that the scheme’s accuracy is depen-
dent on the transducers accuracy.
Other detection techniques were also reported. Lee et al. [29]
developed a ceramic-based humidity sensor that is qualified for
leak-before break applications. The authors employed a local
humidity detection method for the purpose of leak detection in
power plants. They indicated that the sensor conductivity is in-
creased in response to humidity changes. The analytical and exper-
imental results showed that the ceramic humidity sensor satisfied
the requirements for a leak detection system on main steam line
for the application of leak-before break. Ferrante and Brunone [9]
solved the governing equations for transient flow in pressurized
pipes in the frequency domain by means of the impulse response
method. It was indicated that the leak opens the system in terms
of energy and hence it acts in the same sense of the friction reduc-
ing the values of peaks. The analytical expression of the piezomet-
ric head spectrum at the downstream and section of a single pipe
system during transients is then derived. Harmonic analysis of
pressure values during transient, i.e., the comparison of the results
for a pipe with and without a leak was then proposed as a diagnos-
tic tool for reliability assessment of pipe system. The feasibility of
using ground-penetrating radar as one of non-destructive testing
techniques for detecting water leaks in buried water transporta-
tion pipes was studied by Hyun et al. [18]. Mounce et al. [33] con-
sidered the development of a neural network knowledge based
system for automatically and continuously monitoring the time
series for one or more sensors of a water pipeline distribution sys-
tem for normal and abnormal behaviors. The system output was
112 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123
used to raise alarms when failures or leaks are detected. The detec-
tion system adopts an empirical model based upon pattern recog-
nition techniques applied to time series data. Theoretical analysis
was used to model an arbitrary flow sensor for district meter areas.
The model allows the prediction of future values based on a log of
time series values. It was indicated that the ANN system success-
fully detected event and a study in pressure gradient across the
zone provided a more precise location with the zone.
One of the important methods for detecting water distribution
system leaks involves using sonic leak-detection equipment, which
identifies the sound of water escaping a pipe. These devices can in-
clude pinpoint listening devices that make contact with valves and
hydrants, and geophones that listen directly on the ground. In addi-
tion, correlating devices can listen at two points simultaneously to
pinpoint the exact location of a leak. Leak in pressurized water
pipes generates noise. The magnitude and frequency of the noise
depends on many factors such as the shape and size of the leak, pipe
material and the water pressure inside the pipe. In general, there
are three predominant acoustic leak detection systems [27]. These
include acoustic listening devices, leak noise correlators and teth-
ered hydrophone systems. Although each system has its own mer-
its, it also has limitations, as well. Leak noise correlators can be used
to detect the acoustic signal generated by the leak, which travels
simultaneously through both the pipe wall and the water column
in the pipeline [7]. Accelerometers are surface mounted sensors
that measure the vibration induced into the pipe wall by the leak
noise. By measuring the vibration at two or more locations, the
source of vibration can be identified. Leak noise correlators can also
use hydrophones in lieu of accelerometers. Unlike accelerometers,
hydrophones are underwater microphones that are placed in con-
tact with the water column and detect the acoustic noise transmit-
ted through the water column. Hence, the hydrophones must be
inserted into the water via openings on fire hydrants or other
outlets along the pipeline [25]. A third acoustic leak detection tech-
nique is a tethered hydrophone system. This utilizes a hydrophone
sensor tethered to a cable that is connected to a data acquisition
system so that the hydrophone can be listened to while it is in a
pipeline [2]. Recently, a free-swimming leak detection acoustic is
being addressed [27]. The concept of the free-swimming stems
from the realization of the advantage of placing a sensor very near
to the leak (no further than a pipe diameter); which is anticipated to
provide a highly sensitive leak detection method. One of the major
challenges in designing such a sensor was to provide for the sensi-
tive detection of the acoustic signal generated by a leak, with min-
imal interference from noise generated by the movement of the
device as it traverses the pipeline.
Mergelas and Henrich [32] indicated that methods of leak noise
correlators, although suitable for small pipes, are not reliable for
the case of large diameter pipes. Mergelas and Henrich [32] devel-
oped methods that depend on passing acoustic sensor along inside
the pipe and detect the point above the leak noise signal was great-
est. Gao et al. [12] investigated the behavior of the cross-correla-
tion coefficient for leak signals measured using pressure, velocity,
and acceleration sensors. They indicated that pressure responses
using hydrophones is effective for measurements where small sig-
nal-to-noise ratio but a sharper peak correlation coefficient can be
estimated if accelerometers are used. The authors validated their
theoretical work test data from actual water pipes. Gao et al. [13]
considered the delay between two measured acoustic signals to
determine the position of leak in buried water distribution pipes.
The authors compared different time delay estimators for the pur-
pose of leak detection in buried plastic water pipes. The results
were validated by experimental results. Results of spectral analysis
between two sensors were presented. Also, normalized cross-cor-
relation using various correlation methods for measured signals
was also presented.
The equivalence between time and frequency domain methods
to estimate time delay has been investigated by Brennan et al. [4]
and the conditions under which both methods was investigated in
view of the objective of determining the position of a leak in water
distribution pipes. They presented new interpretation of the pro-
cess of cross-correlation for time delay estimation. The results
show that the time delay estimates and their variances calculated
using time and frequency domain methods are almost identical. A
method for the identification of two leaks in a pressurized single
pipeline, where both transient and static behavior of the fluid in
leak were considered, was presented by Verde et al. [39]. The
method was used to identify the parameters associated to the leaks
without requirements of value perturbations. The paper presented
a procedure to identify offline the unknown parameters associated
to the existence of multiple leaks in a pipeline based on a combina-
tion of transient and steady-state conditions. Their model de-
pended on a set of finite dimension nonlinear models assuming
flow rate and pressurized measurements at the extremes of the
pipeline. It was found that steady-state conditions of the fluid with
multiple leaks can be complemented with a dynamic model to re-
duce the search interval of the leaks identification issue.
An improved leak detection method for the water channels
using dissolved tracer material was proposed by Hiroki et al.
[16]. The leak point was roughly localized by evaluating a time de-
lay from the injection of the tracer-dissolved water until the actual
detection of the tracer by using a mass spectrometer. In their re-
cent study, Yang et al. [43] discussed the different methods for leak
detection using acoustic signals in buried water distribution pipe-
lines based on the correlation techniques. The method of leak
detection using time delay estimation was analyzed and a new
proposed method using a principle of leak location based on the
blind system identification was proposed to avoid the condition
of success of the correlation technique as to have predetermined
the accurate distance between the two detection points. The pro-
posed method was applied by Yang et al. [43] to known sources
and channels and practical water pipelines leak location.
1.3. Major leak detection methods
The major leak detection methods available in the market are
listed below in Table 1. The principle of working of each method
is given and the advantages as well as the limitation of each meth-
od are outlined. An estimated rating on the cost and accuracy is
also indicated.
1.4. Main causes of water leakage in Saudi Arabia
A study on water leakage assessment of the Riyadh water distri-
bution network in Saudi Arabia was conducted by Al-Dhowalia
et al. [1]. The research included field tests of ten representative
areas of approximately 0.25 km2 each. The average daily flows
and pressures in the studied areas ranged from 532 to 1246 m3/
day, and 1.5 to 4.2 bars, respectively. The recorded maximum
and minimum pressures were 5.7 and 1.2 bars. The study showed
that the leakage rate increased two to three times as the pressure
increased from 1.5 to 5.0 bars. The average leak percentage of the
ten studied areas was determined to be 30.4% and varied from 1 to
80%. The average leak was about 1977 L/km/hr (varied between 50
and 9845 L/km/hr). Compared to other water leakages in various
cities of the world, the water leak at Riyadh city is considered to
be among the highest. A detailed analysis of the study showed that
extreme variation of leakage was also observed between the new
an old parts of the city network. The three oldest areas of the city
showed leakage levels between 59% and 80%; whereas, the leakage
levels of newly developed areas were between 1% and 10%. The
locations of the leak points were also studied. It was found that
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123 113

Table 1
Major leak detection methods.

Method Principle Advantages Limitations Cost Accuracy

Acoustic
Acoustic with
correlation
Infrared thermography
Ground penetrating
radar
Chemical (gas tracer
and fluoride testing)
Mechanical
Inside pipe sensor
Locating the loudest sound of
leak by audible sound transducer
placed on the ground surface
above the pipe
A correlation program uses two
vibration transducers signals
installed on the pipe at two
locations bounding the leak with
pipeline information
Locating the temperature
differences in soil caused by
leaking water using infrared
radiation
Uses electromagnetic radiation
of the radio spectrum, and
detects the reflected signals from
subsurface structures. It detects
voids created by the leaking
water or anomalies in the depth
of the pipe due to soil saturation
with leaking water
A tracer in the pipe escapes
through the leak and detected at
ground surface
A series of holes drilled in the
soil above the pipe to allow
water rise near the leak
The sensor moves or swims
inside the pipe to detect leaks
internally
 Most commonly used
 Acceptable accuracy
 Simple to carry and move
 Good accuracy
 Relatively acceptable price
 Minimal operator training
 Its non-contact, non-
destructive detection
 The ability to inspect large
areas from above ground with
100% coverage
 Locate subsurface leaks as well
as the additional capability to
locate voids and erosion
surrounding pipelines
 Can be used in a variety of
media
 It can detect objects, changes in
material, and voids and cracks
 Penetration depth could be up
to 15 m in dry soil
 It may be an effective method
in case of emergency that
requires isolating the pipe with
no flow
 Simple
 Low cost
 Can be used to support acoustic
methods
 Capable of detecting very small
leaks in pipelines,
 Can be inserted and retrieved
from a pipeline without
disrupting its flow
 Collect information about leaks
over many miles of pipeline with
a single deployment
 Independent of pipe materials
 Depends on the operator skills Low High
 Not effective for small leaks
 Affected by background noise
 Depends on pipe size, material,
water table level, system pressure,
frequency range
 Loose soil muffles sound
 Exact pipe location must be
known
 Suitable more for hard surfaces
 Depth less than 2 m
 The leak should be located Moderate High
between the two listening points
 Accuracy relies on accurate input
of pipe dimensions and materials
 Not suitable for plastic pipes
 Good sensor contact is essential
 Accuracy depends on the
closeness of the leak to measuring
points
 Sometimes there is no access to
the pipe close to the leak
 High cost High High
 Requires significant operator
experience
 Detection depends on the soil
characteristics, leak size, and pipe
burial depth
 Application is limited by ambient
conditions
 The depth of penetration depends High High
greatly on soil type
 An experienced operator is
needed for correct interpretation of
radarograms
 Considerable expertise is
necessary to effectively design,
conduct, and interpret GPR surveys
 The cost of GPR equipment and
software is relatively high
 Relatively high energy
consumption can necessitate large
cumbersome batteries for extensive
surveys more than 10 h
 Very expensive High High
 Time consuming
 Exact pipe location must be
known
 Limited to depth less than 2 m
 Exact pipe location must be Low Low
known
 Depends on the leak size
 Careful drilling is required
 Requires significant physical
effort
 Expensive High Very high
 Communication with sensor is not
easy
 Powering the sensor is time
limited
 Needs insertion-retrieval
openings
 No control on sensor path in pipe
branching
 Self-generated noise can affect the
signal
 Still under development

(continued on next page)

114 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123

Table 1 (continued)

Method Principle Advantages Limitations Cost Accuracy

Sahara system A sensor Head attached to
(tethered sensor) umbilical cable moves within a
live pipeline with a tracking tool
above ground surface
Smartball (free A free-swimming foam ball with
swimming sensor) an instrument-filled aluminum
alloy core capable of detecting
and locating very small leaks in
pipelines
 Retrieval is easy
 No power and communication
problems
 Possible upstream motion
 It can detect leaks as small as
0.25 gallons/h
 Inserted into a pipeline while it
remains in service
 It can pinpoint the location of
leaks within 2–3 feet
 Accurate for all types of pipes
 Working depth of 10 m
 The sensor actually passes the
leak, thereby providing
maximum acoustic sensitivity
and leak detection resolution
 There is no apparatus noise, so
it detects very small leaks
 Battery life up to 15 h with a
single deployment (at 0.5 m/s
travels 25 km)
 The tracking equipment
needed for the survey is
lightweight and requires
minimal access to the pipe. Can
be inserted and retrieved from a
pipeline under normal operation
 Wire length is the limitation High Very high
 Used for water mains only and not
suitable for small diameters
 Not easy to deploy
 Cannot be directed in pipe
beranching
 Relatively expensive High Very high
 Communication is difficult
 Not easy to use
 Requires trained operator
 Limited to 300 mm pipe.
Diameter
 Battery operated
 Needs insertion/retrieval
mechanism
 Upstream motion not possible
 Cannot be directed in pipe
branching

80% of the total detected leaks were in the service connections. It 2.1. Governing equations
was observed that most of leak points were located at house con-
nections due to damages and cracks in the connection parts such 2.1.1. Mass conservation
as: couplings, elbows, valves, and saddle clamps. The possible The equation for conservation of mass can be written as
causes of these damages or cracks were attributed to negligence
@ @
of contractors during installation of pipe fittings house connec- ðqÞ ðqU j Þ ¼ 0 ð1Þ
@t @xj
tions. It was observed that improper bedding and backfilling were
the major two factors causing pipe connection damage. Improper The parameters and variables and described in the nomencla-
bedding could impose excess bending on pipes, and consequently ture section at the end of the paper.
increased the amount of stresses on pipe fittings. In addition, back-
filling and bedding sand containing large and sharp stones resulted 2.1.2. Momentum conservation
in scratching and puncturing the pipes and fittings. Furthermore, The equation for the conservation of momentum in the i direc-
the cyclic nature of water supplies, pressure fluctuations, temper- tion can be expressed as
ature change, and repeated surges could be contributing factors to  
the life of pipe fittings. In fact, many micrographs of fracture sur- @ @ @p @ @U i
ðqU i Þ þ ðqU i U j Þ ¼  þ l ð2Þ
faces taken from different failed pipe fittings were indicative of fa- @t @xj @xi @xj @xj
tigue failure.
where p is the static pressure. The stress tensor qU i U j is given by
The objective of this study is to carry out a detailed computa-
" !#
tional fluid dynamics simulation around a small leak under typical @U i @U j 2
velocities and line pressure for the water distribution network. qui uj ¼ leff þ  qkdij ð3Þ
@xj @xj 3
This study is necessary to evaluate the feasibility of direct pressure
transduction for leak sensing and localization. where dij is the Kronecker delta which is equal to 1 for i = j and
equals 0 for i – j and leff=lt + l is the effective viscosity. The turbu-
2. Mathematical model of leak and numerical method lent viscosity, lt, is calculated using the high-Reynolds number
form as
The objective of this study is to predict pressure distributions 2
k
for the case of steady flow. As well calculations of response of pres- lt ¼ qC l ð4Þ
sure frequency domain to input perturbations were conducted.
e
Thus, the flow in a pipe and response to a leak was studied. The With Cl = 0.0845. The value of Cl is derived using the mathematical
influence of shape and size of the leak on the water pressure distri- model RNG ‘‘renormalization group’’ [6] to accurately describe the
bution was also investigated. FLUENT (2006) CFD package was variation of turbulent transport with effective Reynolds number,
used for the present calculations. The 3D time-averaged Navier– thus, providing better results for near wall flows. The value of Cl
Stokes governing equations and the k–e model are described in to be used in the present study is therefore different from the value
the following: 0.09 used for high Reynolds number. k and e are the kinetic energy
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123 115

of turbulence and its dissipation rate. These are obtained by solving the pipe, the pressure outlet condition was considered, thus, the
their conservation equations as given below. pipe pressure at the outlet section is 1 bar. The numerical proce-
dure of Patankar [34] was utilized in the present calculations.
2.2. Conservation equations for the turbulence model

The conservation equations of the turbulence model 3. Results and discussion

[35,15,40,28,37] are given as follows:
In order to avoid erosion, the velocities in water pipeline net-
works should normally be less than 2.5 m/s as per international
2.2.1. The kinetic energy of turbulence
standards. The line pressure varies between 1 and 5 bars. There-
 fore, the present work is concerned with investigating the pressure
@ @ @ leff @k  and flow behavior around a small leak of less than one liter/min. In
ðqkÞ þ ðqU j kÞ ¼ þ Gk  qe ð5Þ
@t @xj @xj rk @xi this case, the line pressure is varied and the average flow velocity is
1.0 m/s. The following results are based on steady as well as un-
steady CFD simulations.
2.2.2. The rate of dissipation of the kinetic energy of turbulence

 3.1. Steady state solutions

@ @ @ leff @ e  e e2
ðqeÞ þ ðqU j eÞ ¼ þ C e1 Gk  C e3 q
@t @xj @xi re @xi k k
where Gk represents the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due
to the mean velocity gradients and is given by
@U j
Gk ¼ qui uj
@xi
The quantities rk and re are the effective Prandtl numbers for k
and , respectively and C e3 is given [37] as a function of the term k/e
and, therefore, the model is responsive to the effects of rapid strain
and streamline curvature and is suitable for the present calcula-
C l qg3 ð1gÞ=go
tions. Thus, C e3 is expressed as C e3 ¼ C e2 þ 1þbg3
with g = Sk/
e, go = 4.38, b = 0.012. S being a scalar measure of the deformation
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi @u
tensor given by S ¼ 2xij xij where xij ¼ 0:5ð @xj  @u i
Þ. The model
@xi j
constants C e1 and C e2 have the values; C e1 ¼ 1:42 and C e2 ¼ 1:68.
2.3. Solution procedure and boundary conditions
The present calculations were conducted within the flow do-
main of a pipe of diameter D = 0.1 m and length of L = 2 m. The leak
location, Fig. 1, is centered at the top of the middle section of the
1  m pipe (x = 0, y = D/2, z = 0). In all cases, the calculations were
considered to simulate 3-D turbulent flow inside the pipe. The 3D
mesh used for the 2 m pipe is a hexahedral mesh with more than
540,000 cells. The hole has a rectangular shape (1 mm  1 mm)
with a small cylindrical curvature intersection of the cylindrical
pipe wall with a rectangular rod. In order to obtain good resolution
across the hole, 16 area cells were included. In addition a second
order upwind scheme in space and a second order time stepping
were considered to avoid any numerical errors and to ensure accu-
rate numerical solution. The present calculations were performed
using Fluent 6.2 and utilizing the standard k–e model. The pressure
outlet at the leak hole was taken equal to the atmospheric condi-
tion, thus, Pleak = Patm = 0 (gage). The pipe Inlet velocity, z-velocity,
is prescribed as plug flow such that V = 1 m/s at z = 1 m. At exit of
ð6Þ
3.1.1. Model validation and effect of line pressure and leak size on leak
flow rate
In order to validate the 3D CFD model, more than fifteen 3-D
steady state simulations have been carried out to study the effect
of line pressure on leak flow rates. The summary of the results is
ð7Þ
given in Fig. 2. For the three different leak sizes, the results indicate
that the leak flow rate is a function of the square root of the pres-
sure (pressure coefficient n = 0.5) as Q leak ¼ CðDPÞ0:5 where Qleak is
the leak flow rate in L/s, DP is the difference between the line pres-
sure and pressure outside the leak in bars and C is a constant. This
is in agreement with the theoretical and experimental single orifice
equation [11]. Field data on the effect of pressure on leak flow rate
in a typical pipe network [1] have shown that the coefficient n var-
ies between 0.25 and 2.0. Though these results are yet to be under-
stood, but there may be two reasons for these variations. As the
pressure inside the pipe increases, the pressure difference across
the leak increased and results in higher leak flow rates. Also, as
the size of the leak increases, the pressure loss across the leak de-
creases and the pressure drop that causes the flow through the leak
increases which indicates high flow rate of leak as the size
increases.
3.1.2. Pressure and flow behavior in the vicinity of a small leak
The pressure contours around the leak of size 1 mm by 1 mm
are shown in Fig. 3. It is shown that the large pressure variation
is localized around the leak hole and the line pressure is dominat-
ing the pipe flow. The pressure drops from 100 kPa in the pipe to
50 kPa in the vicinity of the leak position. However, this drop is
limited to a small region close to the leak point (about 2–3 mm
in this case). Taking a line parallel to the centerline and passing
close to the leak point; it is shown that the pressure starts to drop
upstream very close to the leak from 1 bar to around 50 kPa, then,
increase downstream of the leak reaching the line pressure of
1 bar. The static pressure distribution along a line parallel to the
centerline and 1 mm below the leak is shown in Fig. 4 and show

Pipe inlet Leak D=0.1m

y y
z x

L=2m
Pipe outlet

Fig. 1. Physical model and coordinate system (leak center at, x = 0, y = D/2, z = 0).
116 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123

Effect of Pressure on Leaks equation is applicable since the viscous friction can be neglected;
0.350
and hence a sudden reduction in the flow rate is automatically felt
0.300 by a sudden change in the static pressure (or piezometric pressure
Leak size y = 0.1226x0.5012 for an inclined or vertical line). Another way to depict the kink in
0.250 2
centerline pressure is to look at the pressure gradient in the flow
Qleak (l/s)

R =1
10mmx1mm
0.200 direction which is shown in Fig. 6 for the same flow along the cen-
0.150 terline. As Fig. 6 shows, there is very clear pressure gradient signa-
y = 0.0472x 0.5016 ture of the leak at the centerline of the pipe even though the leak is
0.100 R2 = 1
2mmx2mm
y = 0.0121x0.5018 about 0.72 l/min. Hence, considering a non-intrusive method of
2
0.050 R =1 measuring the pressure gradient along the centerline, then it is
1mmx1mm
0.000
possible to sense the leak and detect its location in a clear manner.
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 This method has to be tested to see the effect of many variables
Pressure (Bars) including: turbulence, line pressure, flow velocity and pressure
transducer capabilities in a noisy environment.
Fig. 2. CFD predicted effect of line pressure on leak flow rate (leak 1 mm  1 mm). It turns out that this pressure gradient is almost constant across
the pipe cross section as the pressure gradient of around (300)
a sudden drop in pressure followed by a slight increase before it Pa/m is persistent across the whole section. Only, close to the leak
matches that of the rest of the pipe. hole variations can be seen by zooming in the vicinity of the leak
As one moves from the leak position to the centerline, the case hole as shown in Fig. 7; which presents the contours of (op/oz) at
becomes different. The pressure kink is hardly noticed. The pres- the pipe section z = 0. On the other hand if we look at the pressure
sure distribution along the centerline (z-direction, x = 0, y = 0) is distribution along a line located 1 mm below the leak the pressure
depicted in Fig. 5, a small kink around the leak position is exhib- change is very significant. Much higher gradients are available
ited. In this case the leak flow rate is very small (0.72 l/min). The close to the leak location as detailed in Fig. 7. As a matter of fact
pressure kink is directly caused by the leak. In this case Bernoulli’s the pressure gradient picture in the vicinity of the leak is more
complex. This can be seen as one looks at (op/oz) contours shown
in Fig. 8. This figure presents the contours of pressure gradient in
the plane Z–Y (passing through the centerline) and shows values
of (op/oz) ranging from around 6  107 to around 6  107. The
gradient decreases from a close value to zero to a minimum value,
then increases to a maximum value. As depicted in Fig. 8, at the up-
stream edge of leak hole; the pressure gradient exhibits a very
large negative value (an absolute minimum). This is due to the
abrupt pressure drop from a line pressure of 1 bar to atmospheric
pressure in the vicinity of the leak position. The pressure then in-
creases abruptly to the line pressure just down-stream the edge
of the leak position. This causes a very large positive pressure gra-
dient; in the main flow direction. This behavior only exists around
the leak and disappears few leak diameters away from the leak
center.
Another way to look at the behavior of flow around the leak is to
look at the pressure variation along a line parallel to the z-direction
and positioned few mms directly below the leak. For example, the
pressure gradient variation is shown in Fig. 9 for the case of 1 mm
Fig. 3. Zoom-in view of Pressure, Pa, contours around leak (low pressure highly below the leak position. In Fig. 9, one minimum and another max-
localized), Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
imum are exhibited around the leak. There is also another local

Fig. 4. Pressure variation along the pipe; 1 mm below the leak, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123 117

Fig. 5. Pressure variation along pipe centerline, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.

Fig. 6. Pressure gradient (op/oz, Pa/m) variation along pipe centerline, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.

Fig. 8. Pressure gradient (op/oz, Pa/m) contours at pipe section x = 0, close to the
leak, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
Fig. 7. Pressure gradient (op/oz, Pa/m) contours at pipe section z = 0, close to the
leak, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.

minimum with a very small dip; after the maximum point. Recall the velocity is almost zero. As one gets closer to the leak location
that this line is very close to the leak and the pipe wall, where the behavior of the pressure gradient becomes more complex
118 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123

4.00E+06
Line - 1mm below leak
3.00E+06

dp/dz (Pas/m)
2.00E+06

1.00E+06

0.00E+00
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-1.00E+06 z (m)

-2.00E+06

-3.00E+06

Fig. 9. Pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along pipe, 1mm below leak, Pline = 1 bar,
V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.

due the effect of the flow complexity in the vicinity of the leak. In
this region one depicts the velocity field as shown in Fig. 10. The
velocity vectors shown in Fig. 10 indicate increases in velocity from
around 1 m/s to around 10–11 m/s at exit of the leak position.
Fig. 11. X-vorticity field in the leak vicinity at plane x = 0, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s,
There is also a strong circulation caused by the leak. The X-vorticity
leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
in the plane x = 0 is shown in Fig. 11 to show this effect. As a result
of this complex flow field around the leak, the pressure gradient
variation along the pipe (z-direction) 5 and 10 mm directly below
the leak shows one major maximum and two local minimums be- 20000
fore and after the leak locations as seen in Figs. 12 and 13. Line- 5mm below leak
In order to indicate how visible are these changes away from

dp/dz (Pas/sec)
15000
the leak. The distribution of the pressure gradient is presented
for regions away from the leak position as shown in Figs. 12–15
along 5 mm, 10 mm, 50 mm and 95 mm from the leak position. 10000
As discussed earlier, even though the leak is very small in this case,
there is a clear change in the pressure gradient due to the presence
5000
of a leak. This can be seen in the variation of the pressure gradient
along the centerline (Fig. 14) and along a line 95 mm (Fig. 15) be-
low the leak (close to pipe wall in the opposite direction of the 0
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
leak).
In order to present the influence of the leak on the turbulence,
-5000
the kinetic energy of turbulence was calculated. Fig. 16 shows the z (m)
contours around the hole. It is noted that the kinetic energy in the
vicinity of the leak is almost 3000 times in comparison to the nor- Fig. 12. Pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along pipe, 5 mm below leak, Pline = 1
mal levels across the pipe. This shows a high increase of turbulence bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.

1 mm
leak

Fig. 10. Velocity field in the leak vicinity at plane x = 0, Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123 119

3000 1 mm

dp/dz (Pas/sec)
2500

2000

1500

1000

500
Axial position z (m)
0
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
-500

-1000

Fig. 13. Pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along pipe, 10 mm below leak, Pline = 1
bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.

z (m) Fig. 16. Contours of turbulent kinetic energy, K, around the leak (m2/s2).
0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-20

-40 Relative Centerline Pressure (p-pline) distribution

140.0
-60

-80 120.0
dp/dz (Pas/sec)

-100
P-Pline (Pas)
100.0
-120
80.0
-140

Ceterline y=0 -160 60.0

-180
40.0

Fig. 14. Pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along pipe, 50 mm below leak (center-
20.0
line), Pline = 1 bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm. 0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m)

z (m) Fig. 17. Effect of line pressure on relative pressure variation along the pipe
centerline, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-20
Line 95mm below leak
y=-45mm -40 unaffected. On the other, hand the pressure gradients are clear
and they become more pronounced as the line pressure is in-
-60
creased as depicted in Fig. 18. However this small variation will
-80
be hardly detected using commercially available pressure
dp-dz (Pas/sec)

-100 transducers.
-120 Another set of simulations was executed for a larger hole
-140 (1 mm  10 mm). This hole shape simulates the longitudinal pipe
crack which do occur in plastic pipes due to material or manufac-
-160
turing defects. In this case, the leak flow rates are much higher and
-180
the pressure gradient (see Fig. 19) humps have large magnitude.
Fig. 15. Pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along pipe, 95 mm below leak, Pline = 1
bar, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm. Axial Pressure gradient for 1mmx1mm leak
0
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
6 bars
in the vicinity of the leaking hole as will be shown later with the -20 4
3
DES results. 2
-40 1
dp/dz

3.1.3. Effect of line pressure and leak size on pressure and pressure- -60
gradient distribution in the vicinity of the leak
A systematic parametric study has been carried out using the -80

3D steady CFD model to investigate the effect of line pressure (nor-

-100
mally 1–5 gage-bars in actual water distribution networks) on the
pressure behavior around leaks. For the small hole of 1 mm by -120
1 mm, the line pressure was varied between 1 and 6 bars. As can
Axial distance
be seen in Fig. 17, the relative pressure variations for the different
line pressures are almost undistinguishable. Since the leak flow Fig. 18. Effect of line pressure on pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along the pipe
rate is small, it is expected that the pressure distribution will be centerline, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  1 mm.
120 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123

Axial Pressure gradient 1mmx10mm Table 2

Pressure fluctuations monitoring points.

700 Point Location (x, y, z) (m, m, m) Point Location (x, y, z) (m, m, m)

6 bars
5 P1 (0, 0, 0) P4 (0, 0.04, 0)
500 4 P2 (0, 0.04, 0) P5 (0, 0, 0.5)
3 P3 (0, 0.0495, 0) P6 (0, 0, 0.5)
2
dp/dz

300

100 this frequency range, the predominantly fluid-borne axisymmetric

wave carries most of the acoustic energy generated by the leak. The
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
-100 influence of leak on the FFT is shown in Fig. 21 for the case of
10 mm below the leak point. The figure shows that the high ampli-
-300 tude frequencies move as a result of leak from 250 Hz to region of
Axial Distance (m) 300–400 Hz with the PSD magnitude increased from 5  106 to
18  106. The influence of the leak on the FFT is shown in Fig. 22
Fig. 19. Effect of line pressure on pressure gradient (op/oz) variation along pipe, for the case of 90 mm below the leak point. The figure shows that
centerline, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  10 mm.
the high amplitude frequencies move from 250 Hz to the region of
300–400 Hz with the magnitude increased from 5  106 to
Furthermore the pressure variations (Fig. 20) also have large kinks 8  106 Hz.
which are easily detected. This flow behavior, due the hole, can be In order to distinguish between the two cases of leak and with-
explained using the Bernoulli’s equation as done earlier. out leak, the cross correlation of the pressure signals at 0.5 m up-
stream and downstream of the leak section was calculated. The
normalized cross-correlations are shown in Fig. 23a for the case
3.2. DES transient simulations and FFT analysis

In order to understand the transient turbulent behavior of the

flow field inside the pipe with and without the presence of a leak,
calculations based on transient simulations (Dt = 0.001 s), for a 2 m
long pipe with diameter D = 0.1 m, using the Detached Eddy Simu-
lation (DES) [10] were conducted and the results are presented in
this section. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and power spectral
density (PSD) of the pressure signals are presented for at six partic-
ular locations in the pipe. The locations of these points are given in
Table 2. It should be noted that the center of leak location is (x = 0,
y = 0.05, z = 0).
The net signal due to the existence of the leak results in discrete
frequencies but also results in wide spectrum of frequencies typi-
cal of turbulent flows. This should not be surprising as the leaking
flow from the hole is supposed to create high turbulence around
the edges of the leak hole. As a matter of fact, the turbulent pres-
sure fluctuations are responsible in part for the noise created and
propagated trough the fluid and the pipe wall. The discrete fre-
quencies are caused by streaming that turbulent energy through
the resonant frequencies of the particular fluid and particular pipe
size, and through the pipe wall for a particular material.
It should be noted that low noise in water-filled plastic pipes is
concentrated at low frequencies, generally less than 200 Hz [12]. In

Relative Centerline pressure (p-pline) for 1x10 leak

140

120

100 6 Bars
P-Pline (Pas)

5 Bars
80 4 Bars

60

40 2 Bars
3 Bars

20

0
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
z (m)
Fig. 21. (a) FFT of the pressure signal at 10 mm below the leak position for the case
Fig. 20. Effect of line pressure on relative pressure variation along the pipe of no leak. (b) FFT of the pressure signal at 10 mm below the leak position for the
centerline, V = 1 m/s, leak: 1 mm  10 mm. case of leak.
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123 121

without leak and in Fig. 23b for the case with leak. The cross-cor- leak position. Comparing Figs. 23a and 23b, it is noted that the
relation results showed that the time lag is zero which is correct maximum positive and negative peaks are higher by 5% and 14%,
knowing that both pressure points are at equal distance from the

Delay =0 sec, Peak value= 0.94967, case: CFD with leak,

L1=500mm & L2=-500mm
1

Normalized Cross-Correlation coeff

0.5

-0.5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
lag (sec)

Fig. 23b. Space correlations of the pressure signals of both locations of 0.5 m
upstream and downstream of the leak position with leak.

Fig. 22. (a) FFT of the pressure signal at 90 mm below the leak position for the case Fig. 24a. APSD of pressure simulated signal at point P2 (40 mm below leak).
of no leak. (b) FFT of the pressure signal at 90 mm below the leak position for the
case of leak.

Delay =0 sec, Peak value= 0.91303, case: CFD without leak,

L1=500mm & L2=-500mm
1
Normalized Cross-Correlation coeff

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
lag (sec)

Fig. 23a. Space correlation of the pressure signals of both locations of 0.5 m
upstream and downstream of the leak position without leak. Fig. 24b. APSD of pressure simulated signal at point P4 (90 mm below leak).
122 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123
Fig. 24c. APSD of pressure simulated signal at point P6 (0.5 m downstream along
centerline).
respectively, with the leak on. It should be noted however that
these 3D transient DES simulations are computationally intensive.
For example, the case of 2-m pipe with 547,740 cells takes about
two weeks to simulate the duration of 5 s (Dt = 0.001 s).
3.3. Averaged PSD Calculations
In order to present the differences between the leak and no leak
cases, the average power spectral densities (PSD) were calculated
and are presented in this section. The obtained averaged PSD using
the Welch method and the results show, in a clear way, the differ-
ences due to the leak. Furthermore the PSD plots all the monitored
points indicate the trends that have been discussed originally but
in a more reliable way. Only three points are shown here in Figs
24a–24c, for the monitored points P2, P4 and P6. The results at
point p4 corresponds that of Fig. 22. In all of these cases, the PSD
is higher for the case of leak across the frequency range of 220–
500 Hz. This reliably indicates that the existence of a leak creates
high turbulence having smaller eddies with a size of the hole or
smaller causing higher turbulence frequencies. These flow distur-
bances seem to be transmitted across the pipe by the pressure
waves and are hence felt in the pressure signals far away from
the leak.
4. Conclusions
Steady and unsteady CFD simulations have been carried out to
understand the flow and turbulence fields around a leak of differ-
ent sizes. The steady-state CFD simulations of small leaks; in a
100 mm pipe under realistic velocities and pressures have been
done using a 3D turbulent flow model of well tested CFD commer-
cial code. The simulations have shown clear influence of the leak
on the pressure gradient along the different paths of the flow in-
side the pipe. For very small leaks (below 1 liter/min), this influ-
ence in not very strong in the pressure signal, but very clear in
the pressure gradient. The results also indicate much influence of
the line pressure and leak size on the leak flow rate. These results
are in good agreement with the theoretical as well as the previous
experimental findings. The unsteady behavior of the flow field in
the vicinity of the leak has been analyzed using a DES model. The
averaged power spectral density (PSD) and FFT of the pressure fluc-
tuations are presented for different location around the leak posi-
tion. The results show that the leak causes clear increase in the
magnitude and frequency of the pressure signal spectrum and also
in the averaged PSD for the range of 220–500 Hz frequency. Based
on these results, an experimental setup has been designed and
built to verify the above findings using dynamic pressure transduc-
ers. Both the numerical and experimental findings are part of a re-
search project aimed at designing reliable and robust methods for
detecting leaks in water pipeline networks in city underground.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of KFUPM under the KFUPM-MIT collabo-
ration program during the course of this work is greatly appreci-
ated. The support and collaboration of the MIT mechanical
engineering department is also appreciated.
References
[1] Al-Dhowalia KH, Quraishi AA, Sendil U. Assessment of leakage in the riyadh
water distribution network. KAKST Report 2002, Saudi Arabia, IBSN 9960-720-
99-9; 2002.
[2] Almandoz J, Cabrer E, et al. Leakage assessment through water distribution
network simulation. J Water Resour Plan Manage, Am Soc Civil Eng
2005:458–66.
[3] Billmann L, Isermann R. Leak detection methods for pipelines. Automatica
1987;23(3):381–5.
[4] Brennan MK, Gao Y, Joseph PF. 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(1-2):213–23.
[5] Brones HH, Schaffhaussen H. European methods of leak detection and location.
Pipeline Ind 1972:50–66.
[6] Choudhury D. Introduction to the renormalization group method and
turbulence modeling, Fluent Inc., Technical Memorandum TM-107; 1993.
[7] Daoudi A, Benbrahim M, Benjelloun K. An intelligent system to classify leaks in
water distribution pipes. Proc World Acad Sci, Eng Technol 2005;4:1307–6884.
[8] De Read JR. Comparison between ultrasonic and magnetic flux pigs for pipeline
inspection. Pipes Pipeline Int 1987;7:15.
[9] Ferrante M, Brunone B. Pipe system diagnosis and leak detection by unsteady-
state tests: 1. Harmonic analysis. Adv Water Resour 2003;26:95–105.
[10] Fluent 6.2 User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., 2006, Centerra Research Park, 10
Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA; 2006.
[11] Fox RW, McDonald AT, Pritchard PJ. Introduction to fluid mechanics. 6th
ed. Springer; 2008.
[12] Gao Y, Brennan MJ, Jospeh PF, Maggleton JM, Hunaidi O. On the selection of
acoustic/vibration sensors for leak detection in plastic water pipes. J Sound Vib
2005;283:327–41.
[13] Gao Y, Brennan MK, Jospeh PF. A comparison of time delay estimators for the
detection of leak noise signals in plastic water distribution pipes. J Sound Vib
2006;292:552–70.
[14] Greenslade JG, Wichert E. SCADA system oversees Canadian H2S field,
pipelines. Oil Gas J 1992;90:33–8.
[15] Habib MA, Attya AE, McEligot DM. Calculation of turbulent flow and heat
transfer in channels with streamwise periodic flow. ASME J Turbomach
1989;110:405–11.
[16] 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;83:72–8.
[17] Hunaidi O, Chu WT. Acoustical characteristics of leak signals in plastic
distribution pipes. Appl Acoust 1999;58:235–54.
[18] Hyun SY, Jo YS, oh HC, Kim SY. An experimental study on a ground-penetrating
rader for detecting water-leaks in buried water pipes. IEEE explore-0_7803-
7831-8/03; 2003.
[19] IDA, International Desalination Association, Inventory report; 2001.
[20] IRIN, News website, <www.osisoft.com>, October 2007.
[21] Isermann R, Freyermuth B. Process fault diagnosis based on process model
knowledge – Part I: Principles for fault diagnosis with parameter estimation. J
Dynam Syst, Measure, Control 1991;113:620–6.
[22] Isermann R. Model based fault diagnosis of technical systems. J Flight Sci Space
Res 1996;20(1):1–17.
[23] Isermann R. Process fault detection based on modeling and estimation
methods-a survey. Automatica 1984;20:387–404.
[24] Isermann R. Process fault diagnosis with parameter estimation methods. In:
Seventh IFAC/IFIP-conference on digital computer applications, Vienna,
Austria; 1985. p. 51–60.
[25] Jeffs C, Lloyd C, Pospishill D. An introduction to water loss and leak
detection. Duncan OK: National Rural Water Association; 1989.
[26] Khulief YA, Shabaik HE. Application of multiple-model state estimation
scheme to leak detection and isolation in a laboratory pipeline setup. J Syst
Control Eng, IMechE 2006;220(Part I):1–13.
[27] Kurtz DW. Pure Technologies US Inc., Central Regional Office, 7107, Lavendale
Avenue, Dallas, TX; 2006.
 R. Ben-Mansour et al. / Computers & Fluids 57 (2012) 110–123
[28] Launder BE, Spalding DB. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1974;3:269–89.
[29] Lee NY, Hwang IS, Yoo HI. New leak detection technique using ceramic
humidity sensor for water reactors. Nucl Eng Des 2001;205:23–33.
[30] Liou JCP. Leak detection: A transient flow simulation approach. In: Proc. of the
energy-sources technology conference, New Orleans, LA, USA; 1994.
[31] Loparo A, Buchner MR, Vasudeva KS. Leak detection in an experimental heat
exchanger process: a multiple model approach. IEEE Trans Automat Contr
1991;AC-36(2):167–77.
[32] Mergelas B, Henrich G. Leak locating method for pre-commissioned
transmission pipelines, North American Case studies; 2005.
[33] Mounce SR, Khan A, Wood AS, Day AJ, Widdop PD, Machell J. Sensor-fusion of
hydraulic data for burst detection and location in a treated water distribution
system. Inform Fusion 2003;4:217–25.
[34] Patankar SV. Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. Hemisphere Publishing
Corporation; 1980.
[35] Reynolds WC. Fundamentals of turbulence for turbulence modeling and
simulation. Lecture Notes for Von Karman Institute, Agard Report No. 755;
1987.
123
[36] SAICCG. Saudi Arabia’s Interim Country Commercial Guide for FY2000; 2000.
[37] Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Zhu J. A new k-eddy-viscosity model for high
Reynolds number turbulent flows – model development and validation.
Comput Fluids 1995;24(3):227–38.
[38] Siebert H. A simple method for detection and locating leaks in gas pipeline.
Process Automat 1981;2:90–5.
[39] Verde C, Visairo N, Gentil S. Two leaks isolation in a pipeline by transient
response. Adv Water Resour 2007;30:1711–21.
[40] Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W. An introduction to computational fluid
dynamics; the finite volume method. Longman Scientific and Technical; 1995.
[41] Wang G, Dong D, Fang C. Leak detection for transport pipelines based on
autoregressive modeling. IEEE Trans Instrum Measure 1993;42(1):68–71.
[42] Wilsky AS. A survey of design methods for failure detection systems.
Automatica 1976;12:601–11.
[43] Yang J, Wen Y, Li P. Leak location using blind system identification in water
distribution pipelines. J Sound Vib 2008;310(1–2):134–48.
[44] Yoon S, Mensik M, Luk WY. Canadian pipeline installs leak-detection system.
Oil Gas J 1988;77:85.