Comparative Study of Leak Detection in PVC Water Pipes Using Ceramic, Polymer, and Surface Acoustic Wave Sensors.

The detection and location of pipeline leakage can be deduced from the time arrival leak signals measured by acoustic sensors placed at the pipe. Ongoing research in this field is primarily focused on refining techniques for accurately estimating the time delays. This enhancement predominantly revolves around the application of advanced signal processing methods. Additionally, researchers are actively immersed in the utilization of machine learning approaches on vibro-acoustic data files, to determine the presence or absence of leaks. Less attention has been given to evaluating the sensitivity, performance, and overall effectiveness of these sensors in leak detection; although acoustic methods have been successfully used for leak detection in metallic pipes, they are less effective in plastic pipes due to the high attenuation of leak noise signals. The primary thrust of this research centers on identifying sensors that not only possess sensitivity but also exhibit high efficiency. To accomplish this goal, we conducted an exhaustive evaluation of the performance of three distinct categories of acoustic sensors employed for detecting water leaks in plastic pipes: specifically, lead zirconate titanate (PZT) sensors, polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) sensors, and surface acoustic wave (SAW) sensors. Our evaluation encompassed the performance of PVDF and SAW sensors in leak detection, comparing them to PZT sensors under a variety of conditions, including different leak sizes, flow rates, and distances from the leak. The results showed that all three sensors, when they were placed in the same position, were able to detect water leaks in plastic pipes with different sensitivities. For small leaks (1 mm, 2 mm), the PVDF sensor showed the greatest sensitivity (0.4 dB/L/h, 0.33 dB/L/h), followed by the SAW sensor (0.16 dB/L/h, 0.14 dB/L/h), and finally the PZT (0.13 dB/L/h, 0.12 dB/L/h). Similarly, for larger leaks (4 mm, 10 mm), the PVDF sensor continued to show superior sensitivity (0.2 dB/L/h, 0.17 dB/L/h), followed by the SAW sensor (0.13 dB/L/h, 0.11), and finally the PZT sensor (0.12 dB/L/h, 0.1 dB/L/h), outperforming the PZT sensor. This suggests that SAW and PVDF sensors, have the potential to serve as valuable, cost-effective alternatives to traditional commercial leak noise transducers. The outcomes of this comparative study involving three acoustic sensors hold the potential to advance the development of robust and dependable systems for the detection of water leaks in plastic pipelines.