Pipelines in critical engineered facilities, such as petrochemical and power plants, conduct important roles of fire extinguishing, cooling, and related essential tasks. Therefore, failure of a pipeline system can cause catastrophic disaster, which may include economic loss or even human casualty. Optimal sensor placement is required to detect and assess damage so that the optimal amount of resources is deployed and damage is minimized. This paper presents a novel methodology to determine the optimal location of sensors in a pipeline network for real-time monitoring. First, a lumped model of a small-scale pipeline network is built to simulate the behavior of working fluid. By propagating the inherent variability of hydraulic parameters in the simulation model, uncertainty in the behavior of the working fluid is evaluated. Sensor measurement error is also incorporated. Second, predefined damage scenarios are implemented in the simulation model and estimated through a damage classification algorithm using acquired data from the sensor network. Third, probabilistic detectability is measured as a performance metric of the sensor network. Finally, a detectability-based optimization problem is formulated as a mixed integer non-linear programming problem. An Adam-mutated genetic algorithm (AMGA) is proposed to solve the problem. The Adam-optimizer is incorporated as a mutation operator of the genetic algorithm to increase the capacity of the algorithm to escape from the local minimum. The performance of the AMGA is compared with that of the standard genetic algorithm. A case study using a pipeline system is presented to evaluate the performance of the proposed sensor network design methodology.
KishawyHAGabbarHA. Review of pipeline integrity management practices. Int J Press Vessels Piping2010; 87: 373–380.
2.
KimMSLeeSK. Detection of leak acoustic signal in buried gas pipe based on the time–frequency analysis. J Loss Prev Process Industries2009; 22: 990–994.
3.
RaziPEsmaeelRATaheriF. Improvement of a vibration-based damage detection approach for health monitoring of bolted flange joints in pipelines. Struct Health Monit2013; 12: 207–224.
4.
DuGHuoLKongQ, et al.Damage detection of pipeline multiple cracks using piezoceramic transducers. J Vibroengineering2016; 18: 2828–2838.
5.
YazdekhastiSPiratlaKRAtamturkturS, et al.Novel vibration-based technique for detecting water pipeline leakage. Struct Infrastructure Eng2016; 13: 731–742.
6.
YanSLiYZhangS, et al.Pipeline damage detection using piezoceramic transducers: numerical analyses with experimental validation. Sensors (Basel)2018; 18: 2106.
7.
OkosunFCahillPHazraB, et al.Vibration-based leak detection and monitoring of water pipes using output-only piezoelectric sensors. Eur Phys J Spec Top2019; 228: 1659–1675.
8.
LeeHYangJSohnH. Baseline-free pipeline monitoring using optical fiber–guided laser ultrasonics. Struct Health Monit2012; 11: 684–695.
9.
LeeCParkS. Damage visualization of pipeline structures using laser-induced ultrasonic waves. Struct Health Monit2015; 14: 475–488.
10.
OstapkowiczP. Leak detection in liquid transmission pipelines using simplified pressure analysis techniques employing a minimum of standard and non-standard measuring devices. Eng Structures2016; 113: 194–205.
11.
SheltamiTRBalaAShakshukiEM. Wireless sensor networks for leak detection in pipelines: a survey. J Ambient Intell Humanized Comput2016; 7: 347–356.
12.
KayaalpFZenginAKaraR, et al.Leakage detection and localization on water transportation pipelines: a multi-label classification approach. Neural Comput Appl2017; 28: 2905–2914.
13.
AyadiAGhorbelOBenSalahMS, et al.Kernelized technique for outliers detection to monitoring water pipeline based on WSNs. Computer Networks2019; 150: 179–189.
14.
WangJRenLJiangT, et al.A novel gas pipeline burst detection and localization method based on the FBG caliber-based sensor array. Measurement2020; 151: 107226.
15.
AdegboyeMAFungWKKarnikA. Recent advances in pipeline monitoring and oil leakage detection technologies: principles and approaches. Sensors (Basel)2019; 19: 2548.
16.
TanYZhangL. Computational methodologies for optimal sensor placement in structural health monitoring: a review. Struct Health Monit2019; 19: 1287–1308.
17.
SelaLAminS. Robust sensor placement for pipeline monitoring: mixed integer and greedy optimization. Adv Eng Inform2018; 36: 55–63.
18.
ZanTTTGuptaPWangM, et al.Multi-objective optimal sensor placement for low-pressure gas distribution networks. IEEE Sensors J2018; 18: 6660–6668.
19.
RayarothRGopalakrishnanS. Random bagging classifier and shuffled frog leaping based optimal sensor placement for leakage detection in WDS. Water Resour Manage2019; 33: 3111–3125.
20.
FuYMYuL. Optimal sensor placement based on MAC and SPGA algorithms. Adv Mater Res2012; 594-597: 1118–1122.
21.
GuoHYZhangLZhangLL, et al.Optimal placement of sensors for structural health monitoring using improved genetic algorithms. Smart Mater Struct2004; 13: 528–534.
22.
KangFLiJjXuQ. Virus coevolution partheno-genetic algorithms for optimal sensor placement. Adv Eng Inform2008; 22: 362–370.
23.
AroraJS. Chapter 17–Nature-inspired search methods. In: AroraJS (ed). Introduction to optimum design. 4th ed.Boston: Academic Press; 2017, pp. 739–769.
24.
BelegunduADChandrupatlaTR. Optimization Concepts and Applications in Engineering. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
25.
Etaner-UyarAgitGSarielS. An adaptive mutation scheme in genetic algorithms for fastening the convergence to the optimum. In: Proceedings of 3rd Asian Pacific International Symposium on Information Technologies APIS, Istanbul, Turkey, 13–14 January 2004, pp. 461–465.
26.
DeepKThakurM. A new mutation operator for real coded genetic algrithms. Appl Math Comput2007; 193: 211–230.
27.
DeepKThakurM. A new crossover operator for real coded genetic algorithms. Appl Math Comput2007; 188: 895–911.
28.
ThakurMMeghwaniSSJalotaH. A modified real coded genetic algorithm for constrained optimization. Appl Math Comput2014; 235: 292–317.
29.
DeepKSinghKPKansalML, et al.A real coded genetic algorithm for solving integer and mixed integer optimization problems. Appl Math Comput2009; 212: 505–518.
30.
MichalewiczZDasguptaDLe RicheRG, et al.Evolutionary algorithms for constrained engineering problems. Comput Ind Eng1996; 30: 851–870.
31.
DebKGoyalM. A combined genetic adaptive search (GeneAS) for engineering design. Sci Inform1996; 26: 30–45.
32.
BhandariDPalNRPalSK. Directed mutation in genetic algorithms. Inf Sci1994; 79: 241–270.
33.
ShuklaPK. Gradient based stochastic mutation operators in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of Adaptive and Natural Computing Algorithms, Berlin. Heidelberg, 11–14 April, 2007, pp. 58–66.
34.
QingZYandaL. Directed variation in evolution strategies. IEEE Trans Evol Comput2003; 7: 356–366.
KingmaDPBaJ. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Representations, San Diego, CA, 7–9 May 2015, ICLR, pp. 1–15.
37.
RuderS. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv e-prints, 2016. arXiv:1609.04747.
38.
LeeGKimWOhH, et al.Review of statistical model calibration and validation—from the perspective of uncertainty structures. Struct Multidiscip Optim2019; 60: 1619–1644.
39.
NiuGSinghSHollandSW, et al.Health monitoring of electronic products based on Mahalanobis distance and Weibull decision metrics. Microelectron Reliab2011; 51: 279–284.
40.
NguyenTChanTHTThambiratnamDP. Controlled Monte Carlo data generation for statistical damage identification employing Mahalanobis squared distance. Struct Health Monit2014; 13: 461–472.
41.
WangPYounBDHuC, et al.A probabilistic detectability-based sensor network design method for system health monitoring and prognostics. J Intell Mater Syst Struct2014; 26: 1079–1090.
42.
ChengHWangFHuoL, et al.Detection of sand deposition in pipeline using percussion, voice recognition, and support vector machine. Struct Health Monit2020; 19: 2075–2090.
43.
KhazaeeMBanakarAGhobadianB, et al.Fault detection of engine timing belt based on vibration signals using data-mining techniques and a novel data fusion procedure. Struct Health Monit2016; 15: 583–598.
44.
DackermannUSmithWARandallRB. Damage identification based on response-only measurements using cepstrum analysis and artificial neural networks. Struct Health Monit2014; 13: 430–444.
45.
KhudoyarovSKimNLeeJJ. Three-dimensional convolutional neural network–based underground object classification using three-dimensional ground penetrating radar data. Struct Health Monit2020; 19: 1884–1893.
46.
LiDWangYYanWJ, et al.Acoustic emission wave classification for rail crack monitoring based on synchrosqueezed wavelet transform and multi-branch convolutional neural network. Struct Health Monit2020; 20: 1563–1582.
OhHChoiHJungJH, et al.A robust and convex metric for unconstrained optimization in statistical model calibration—probability residual (PR). Struct Multidiscip Optim2019; 60: 1171–1187.
