Abstract

There are several challenges associated with existing pipeline rupture detection systems, including an inability to accurately detect during transient conditions (such as changes in pump operating points), an inability to easily transfer from one pipeline configuration to another, and relatively slow response times. To address these challenges, we employ multiple artificial intelligence (AI) classifiers that rely on pattern recognition instead of traditional operator-set thresholds. AI techniques, consisting of two-dimensional (2D) convolutional neural networks (CNN) and adaptive neuro fuzzy interface systems (ANFISs), are used to mimic processes performed by operators during a rupture event. This includes both visualization (using CNN) and rule-based decision making (using ANFIS). The system provides a level of reasoning to an operator through the use of rule-based AI. Pump station sensor data is nondimensionalized prior to AI processing, enabling pipeline configurations outside of the training dataset, independent of geometry, length, and medium. AI algorithms undergo testing and training using two data sets: laboratory-collected flow loop data that mimics transient pump-station operations and real operator data that include simulated ruptures using the real time transient model (RTTM). The multiple AI classifier results are fused together to provide higher reliability especially detecting ruptures from pipeline data not used in the training process.

References

1.
Green
,
K. P.
, and
Jackson
,
T.
,
2015
, “
Safety in the Transportation of Oil and Gas: Pipelines or Rail?
,”
Fraser Institute
, Vancouver, CA.
2.
Transport Safety Board of Canada,
2018
, “
Pipeline Transportation Occurrences in 2018
,” Transport Safety Board of Canada, Gatineau, QC, Canada, accessed Nov. 23, 2021, http://www.tsb.gc.ca
3.
Zhang
,
J.
, and
Hoffman
,
A.
,
2013
, “
Review of Pipeline Leak Detection Technologies
,”
Pipeline Simulation Interest Group
,Houston, TX.
4.
API,
2012
, “
Computational Pipeline Monitoring for Liquids
” (API 1130),
API
,
Washington, DC
.
5.
API,
2015
, “
Pipeline Variable Uncertainties and Their Effects on Leak Detectability
,” (API 1149),
API
,
Washington, DC
.
6.
Marco
,
F.
,
Brunom
,
B.
, and
Silvia
,
M.
,
2007
, “
Wavelets for the Analysis of Transient Pressure Signals for Leak Detection
,”
J. Hydraul. Eng.
,
133
(
11
), pp.
1274
1282
.10.1061/ASCE0733-94292007133;111274
7.
Zhou
,
M.
,
Pan
,
Z.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Zhang
,
Q.
,
Cai
,
Y.
, and
Pan
,
H.
,
2019
, “
Leak Detection and Location Based on ISLMD and CNN in a Pipeline
,”
IEEE Access
,
7
, p.
30457
.10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902711
8.
Barradas
,
I.
,
Garza
,
L. E.
,
Morales-Menendez
,
R.
, and
Vargas-Martınez
,
A.
,
2009
, “
Leaks Detection in a Pipeline Using Artificial Neural Networks
,”
CIARP, LNCS
,
5856
, pp.
637
644
.10.1007/978-3-642-10268-4_75
9.
Nicholas
,
E.
,
Carpenter
,
P.
, and
Henrie
,
M.
,
2015
, “
RTTM Based Gas Pipeline Leak Detection: A Tutorial
,”
Pipeline Simulation Interest Group
, New Orleans, LA, May 12–15, Paper No. PSIG-1504.https://onepetro.org/PSIGAM/proceedings-abstract/PSIG15/All-PSIG15/PSIG-1504/2151
10.
Smith
,
J.
,
Chae
,
J.
,
Learn
,
S.
,
Hugo
,
R.
, and
Park
,
S. S.
,
2018
, “
Pipeline Rupture Detection Using Real-Time Transient Modelling and Convolutional Neural Networks
,”
ASME
Paper No. IPC2018-78426.10.1115/IPC2018-78426
11.
Tullis
,
J. P.
,
1989
, “Hydraulics of Pipelines – Pumps, Valves, Cavitation, Transients,”
Wiley
,
New York
.
12.
Wylie
,
E. B.
,
1983
, “
The Microcomputer and Pipeline Transients
,”
Hydraul. Eng.
,
109
(
12
), pp.
1723
1739
.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1983)109:12(1723)
13.
Lilly
,
J. M.
,
2017
, “
Element Analysis: A Wavelet-Based Method for Analysing Time-Localized Events in Noisy Timeseries
,”
Proc. R. Soc. A.
,
473
(
2200
), p.
20160776
.10.1098/rspa.2016.0776
14.
Mallat
,
S.
,
1999
, “
A Wavelet Tour of Signal Processing
,”
Academic Press
,
San Diego, CA
.
15.
Prieto-Guerrero
,
A.
, and
Espinosa-Paredes
,
G.
,
2019
, “
Linear Signal Processing Methods and Decay Ratio Estimation
Linear and Non-Linear Stability Analysis in Boiling Water Reactors
,
Woodhead Publishing
, Sawston, UK.
16.
Szegedy
,
C.
,
Liu
,
W.
,
Jia
,
Y.
,
Sermanet
,
P.
,
Reed
,
S.
,
Anguelov
,
D.
,
Erhan
,
D.
,
Vanhoucke
,
V.
, and
Rabinovich
,
A.
,
2015
, “
Going Deeper With Convolutions
,” IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (
CVPR
), Boston, MA, pp.
1
9
.10.1109/CVP R.2015.7298594
17.
Tsoukalas
,
L. H.
,
Uhrig
,
R. E.
, and
Zadeh
,
L. A.
,
1997
, “
Fuzzy and Neural Approaches in Engineering
,”
Wiley Inc
, Hoboken, NJ.
18.
Ruta
,
D.
, and
Gabrys
,
B.
,
2000
, “
An Overview of Classifier Fusion Methods
,”
Comput. Inf. Syst.
,
7
, pp.
1
10
.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229078442_An_Overview_of_Classifier_Fusion_Methods
19.
Singh
,
R.
,
Vatsa
,
M.
,
Noore
,
A.
, and
Singh
,
S. K.
,
2006
, “
Dempster-Shafer Theory Based Classifier Fusion for Improved Fingerprint Verification Performance
,”
Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
, Vol.
4338
,
P. K.
Kalra
and
S.
Peleg
, eds.,
Springer
,
Berlin, Heidelberg
.
You do not currently have access to this content.