Structural Health Monitoring of Pipelines Rehabilitated with Lining Technology

Alireza Farhidzadeh, Ehsan Dehghan-Niri, Salvatore Salamone

*

Smart Structures Research Laboratory, Department of Civil, Structural, and Environmental
Engineering, University at Buffalo


ABSTRACT

Damage detection of pipeline systems is a tedious and time consuming job due to digging requirement, accessibility,
interference with other facilities, and being extremely wide spread in metropolitans. Therefore, a real-time and
automated monitoring system can pervasively reduce labor work, time, and expenditures. This paper presents the results
of an experimental study aimed at monitoring the performance of full scale pipe lining systems, subjected to static and
dynamic (seismic) loading, using Acoustic Emission (AE) technique and Guided Ultrasonic Waves (GUWs).
Particularly, two damage mechanisms are investigated: 1) delamination between pipeline and liner as the early indicator
of damage, and 2) onset of nonlinearity and incipient failure of the liner as critical damage state.

Keywords: pipe, inspection, acoustic emission, guided ultrasonic waves, outlier analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
The U.S. water distribution network is aging and many underground pipelines in this infrastructure are beginning to leak
or fail altogether
1
. Several studies estimate that water leakage costs the nation $1-2 billion annually. More importantly,
this estimate does not consider the ancillary costs to the economy, such as property damage and replacement costs due to
infrastructural failures
2,

3
. To increase the operational lifetime of existing underground pipelines without laborious and
costly excavation, replacement, and embankment, in-situ trenchless pipeline lining technology has received significant
interest over the past three decades
4
. Figure 1 shows a typical section of a pipeline retrofitted with Insituform IMain
liner, one commercial type of cured in-place pipeline (CIPP) liner manufactured by InsituForm Technologies, LLC,
Chesterfield, Missouri, USA
5
.


Figure 1. Cross section of a Ductile Iron (DI) pipeline rehabilitated with InsituMain Liner
6

Despite the significant progression and industrialization of CIPP, there is a lack of verification of in-situ pipeline lining
technologies for the seismic retrofit of underground pipelines. This paper presents the results of an experimental study
aimed at monitoring the performance and degradation of full scale pipe-lining systems, subjected to static and dynamic
loading, using acoustic emission (AE) and guided ultrasonic waves (GUWs) technique. Particularly, two damage
mechanisms are investigated: (1) delamination between the pipeline and the liner, and (2) incipient failure of the liner. A
statistical pattern recognition technique based on a multivariate outlier analysis is presented for automatically identifying
the onset of critical damage.


*
ssalamon@buffalo.edu; phone: +1(716) 645-1523, fax: +1(716) 645-3667
In the next section, a brief overview of AE and GUW techniques are presented. It is then followed by a description of the
outlier analysis. The remaining sections discuss the experimental study. Finally, the main conclusions of the study are
presented.

2. ACOUSTIC EMISSION TECHNIQUE
2.1. Background
Acoustic Emission (AE) can be defined as a transient elastic wave generated by the rapid release of energy from a
localized source (or sources) within a specific material
7
. This energy propagates as a stress wave in the structure and is
detected by one or more AE sensors. Generally some relevant features are extracted from AE waveforms to perform the
critical tasks of damage localization, and damage characterization. Extracting features from an AE waveform is usually
referred to as a parameter-based AE technique. Figure 2 illustrates a typical AE signal with some of the most common
features, such as peak amplitude, duration and count
6
.


Figure 2. AE waveformwith time-driven features
6

2.2. Outlier Analysis
To understand whether the condition of the structure has deviated significantly from its normal operational condition,
e.g., incipient failure of the liner, a statistical approach based on outlier analysis is presented in this paper. Outlier
analysis has been extensively used in the structural health monitoring (SHM) community
8

10
. An outlier is an
observation that is numerically distant from a set of baseline data. The baseline data describes the normal operating
condition of the structure under investigation. For multivariate data, a set of p-dimensional data consists of n
observations in p variables. The discordancy test is expressed by the Mahalanobis squared distance, which is a non-
negative scalar defined as:
1
( ) ( )
T
D

x x
(1)
where x is the measurement vector corresponding to the potential outlier, and are the mean vector and covariance
matrix of the baseline, respectively. The mean and covariance matrix can be calculated with or without the potential
outlier, depending upon whether inclusive or exclusive measures are preferred. The exclusive manner of baseline
computation was employed in this work. For a given observation, the discordancy value, calculated using Eq. (1), is
compared with a threshold value in order to classify the observation as an anomaly (i.e. outlier) or normal operating
conditions of the system (inlier). A Monte Carlo simulation was employed to compute the threshold. For an exhaustive
explanation for setting the outlier threshold, an interested reader can refer to
6
.


3. GUIDED ULTRASONIC WAVES (GUWS)
3.1. Background
Whenever an ultrasound propagates into a bounded media, a guided ultrasonic wave (GUW) is generated. The wave is
termed guided because it travels along the medium guided by the mediums geometric boundaries. In pipe
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
A
m
p

[
v
]
Time [sec]
Duration
P
e
a
k

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
A
)
Threshold
Counts
Rise time (RT)
Counts to peak
Onset
applications, GUWs may propagate along the pipes longitudinal direction and excite the entire cross-section
11

13
, and
therefore GUWs are effective when large inspection coverage is required. The advantage of GUW inspection is its ability
to probe long lengths of the pipe, locating cracks and notches from few monitoring points (remotely located), while
providing full coverage of the pipes cross-section. Furthermore, by combining the methodology with opportune signal
processing, the method is feasible for the permanent monitoring of the pipes health. The ability of guided waves to
locate cracks and notches in pipes has been demonstrated in several laboratory works
14

16
. In hollow cylinders, GUWs
can propagate along the circumference and along the axial direction and three different modes can propagate:
longitudinal (L), flexural (F), and torsional (T). The application of GUWs can be challenging as they are multimode
(many vibrating modes can propagate simultaneously) and dispersive (the propagation velocity and the attenuation
depend on the wave frequency f). The dispersive behavior is represented by the dispersion curves.

3.2. Guided Leaky Wave
As GUW propagates in a multilayer system, such as a pipe-liner system, attenuation will occur
17
. In general there is
leakage of energy into the liner. As the wave propagates in the pipe structure a series of disturbance will take place that
propagates into the liner, hence the term leaky wave. As a result in a pipe-liner system, the strength of the wave
generated on the surface of the pipe, will decrease as energy leaks into the surrounding liner. The rate of energy leakage
depends on the wave propagating mode in the pipe, on the acoustic impedance and attenuation properties of the liner. On
the contrary, an increasing of the signal strength will be observed if a debonding occurs between pipe and liner. Figure 3
shows the concept of energy leakage for a healthy and debonded pipeline. Generally, one may infer that an increasing of
signal strength may correspond to pipe-liner system with a progressive debonding; the larger the increasing the greater
the debonding length.



Figure 3. Leaky GUW a) perfect bounding b) debounding
18
.

4. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Experimental tests were carried out on the earthquake simulation system of the Structural Engineering and Earthquake
Simulation Laboratory (SEESL) at the University at Buffalo (UB). The two 50-ton 7 m x 7 m re-locatable shake tables
were utilized to conduct static and dynamic testing on three full scale ductile-iron (DI) pipeline specimens (SP1, SP2,
SP3) retrofitted with InsituMain liner. Each pipeline specimen had two push-on joints located approximately at its 1/3
span. An overview of the experimental setup is shown in Figure 4. More details about the mechanical properties of the
ductile iron and InsituMain liner are given in reference
6
. Table 1 summarizes the sequence of the tests. This list is just a
part of the whole test set carried out in the SEESL laboratory at the University at Buffalo. For the comprehensive
experiemental tests, the reader can refer to
6
,
19
.



Figure 4. Experimental setup
19

Table 1. Test order and loading type
6

Test Specimen Test Description Input Loading Description Damage State
*
1 SP1 Monotonic Tensile (Single J oint) Test Ramp Loading (1.25mm/min.) D/P
2 SP2 Cyclic Tensile (Single J oint) Test Cyclic Load (1.25mm/min.) D/P
3 SP3 Dynamic Tests with Dual Shake Tables 50%,100%, 125% Rinaldi ground motion D/P/F
*
D: Delamination, P: Plastic response, F: Failure

The experimental setups used to test the specimens are illustrated in Figures 5 to 7. The steel restraints on the concrete
pedestal imposed a circumferential pressure on the specimen. The pipeline was instrumented with eight AE sensors (S1,
S2,,S8). For SP1, a monotonic testing was performed on the east joint of the specimen SP1 (see Figure 5). Then,
cyclic tensile tests were performed on the west joint which is not reported here due to space limitations. For SP2, a quasi-
static cyclic was completed in the east joint, followed by a dynamic test on the west side (see Figure 6). The dynamic
part will not be discussed here. A dual joint dynamic test was carried out on SP3 using both shaking tables at the same
time (see Figure 7). The loading protocols for each experiment are given in Figure 8. To define the input motions used in
the seismic tests, a numerical model accounting for the soil-pipeline interaction during transient ground motions was
developed. This model was excited by the Rinaldi motions and the resulting joint opening time-history was used for the
seismic tests on the pipeline specimen
20
.

Figure 9a shows the force-joint opening relationship of the east joint measured during the monotonic tensile test. This
figure indicates a very ductile behavior in the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. Because the liner is a brittle
composite material, the ductility indicates that delamination between the liner and pipeline occurred during the test. The
force-joint opening hysteretic response of the east joint of SP2 during cyclic tests is shown in Figure 9b. A degradation
of the joint stiffness can be observed after the third cycle. The stiffness degradation was mainly caused by the
delamination between the liner and the pipeline, which increases the unbonded length of the liner in the pipeline. No
liner failure or water leakage was detected during the tests
6
. The double joint dynamic tests using the Rinaldi ground
motions were performed on specimen SP3. The joint opening resulting from the numerical simulation under the Rinaldi
ground motions scaled to six different amplitudes of 50%, 100%, 140%, 160%, 190% and 200% of the original-scale
record were used as the input motions for this seismic test series. Significant stiffness degradation can be observed in
both joints for tests with amplitudes larger than 140% of the Rinaldi ground motions. This stiffness degradation can also
be due to significant debonding that occurred during these tests
6
. The west joint of SP3 failed during the 200% Rinaldi
ground motion, at a force of about 143 kN and joint opening of 6.6 mm width; this was followed by significant drop in
the force carried by the pipeline and a sudden increase in the joint opening (see Figure 9c).

Figure 5. Experimental setup for SP1
6


Figure6. Experimental setup and sensor layout for SP2
6



Figure7. Double joint test setup and AE sensor layout for SP3
6



(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure8. Loading protocols for (a) SP1-monotonic, (b) SP2-cyclic, (c) SP2-dynamic. The load protocol for SP3 is similar to SP2 but
with different scales
6
.


(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 9. Force-J oint opening relation of (a) SP1-monotonic, (b) SP2-cyclic, (c) SP3-dynamic-west joint
6
.




0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
S
h
a
k
e
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
Time[sec]
SP1-Monotonic
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 200 400 600 800
S
h
a
k
e
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
Time[sec]
Cycle1
Cycle2
Cycle3
Cycle4
Cycle5
Cycle6
Cycle7
SP2-Cyclic
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 5 10 15 20
S
h
a
k
e
t
a
b
l
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

[
m
m
]
Time[sec]
50% Rinaldi
100% Rinaldi
125% Rinaldi
SP2- Dynamic
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
F
o
r
c
e

[
k
N
]
Joint opening[mm]
5. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
5.1. Delamination
In this section, we show how acoustic emission and guided ultrasonic waves can identify the extent/existence of
delamination (debonding between liner and the pipe).

5.1.1. Acoustic Emission

A linear source localization algorithm was used to monitor the progression of the delamination between pipeline and
liner during testing. This algorithm requires the knowledge of the wave velocity. Standard pencil lead break tests were
carried out on the surface of the pipeline to estimate the wave velocity
19
. The estimated wave velocity (v) was 3672 m/s.
In order to estimate the progression of the delamination along the pipeline, a bivariate (i.e., 2D) histogram was built for
the estimated AE locations versus time and a linear interpolation between adjacent bins was performed. Figure 10 shows
the results. The color bar indicates the number of AE events. It is found that at the monotonic loading, the west side was
affected as AE events were localized on the right side of the west joint. In SP2 at the cyclic test, delamination developed
toward the right side of the joint. In addition, in the dual joint seismic test on SP3, AE could successfully estimate the
direction of debonding. An example of delamination is shown in Figure 11.


(a)

(b)
c)
Figure 10. 2D Histogramof localized AE events for SP1 during Monotonic loading
(a) (b)
Figure 11. (a) Pristine specimen before the test, (b) Damaged specimen after the test

5.1.2. Guided Ultrasonic Waves

GUWs measurements were carried out on the east side before and after the monotonic test. Six different pipe regions
were investigated: 1) between S1 and S2; 2) between S2 and S3; 3) between S3 and S4; 4) between S5 and S6; 5)
between S6 and S7; 6) between S7 and S8. In each region a pair of transmitter/receiver transducers in a pitch-catch
configuration was placed. The assessment of bonding between pipe and liner was carried out by examining the signal
strength of the arriving waves in comparison with a baseline condition (i.e., signal strength before testing). In
particular, when a single actuatorsensor path is considered for debonding interrogation, the amount of signal strength
changes is related to the change in energy leakage due to the debonding progression. With this sensor layout top and
bottom side of the pipe can be inspected. Figure 12 show a typical signal recorded before testing (i.e., perfect bonding)
and after testing (i.e., weak bonding condition).

Figure 13 shows the normalized RMS of the first arrival before and after monotonic test. It can be observed a general
increasing of the normalized RMS (i.e., signal strength) after the monotonic test which indicates that debonding occurred
in these regions after testing. These results are in agreement with AE results shown in Figure 10.

Figure 12. Typical GUW signal: a) First packet selection b) zoomview
19
.
(a)
(b)
Figure 13. RMS versus frequency (a) path 3, (b) path 6
19
.
(a)
(b)
Figure 14. RMS versus frequency (a) path 1, (b) path 4
19
.

Figure 14 shows the RMS results for the left side of the joint during the cyclic test. It can be observed that RMS
increases after each load step. In particular, a jump after load cycle 4 indicates a larger debonding after this load step.
This observation is consistent with the AE results (see Figure 10b). Many AE events have been detected in the left side
of the joint. Furthermore, from Figure 15, one can infer that in the right side of the joint the percentage of debonding is
not significant, as confirmed by the AE results as well (i.e., Figure 10b show a few AE activities in this part of the pipe).

(a)
(b)
Figure 15. RMS versus frequency (a) path 3, (b) path 6
19
.
5.2. Yielding/Failure of the liner
A multivariate outlier analysis using a Mahalanobis distance was implemented on the AE data to detect onset of
plasticity and moment of failure. To select damage representative AE features, a preliminary study based on class-
conditional density functions of the AE features during the loading and unloading cycles was carried out. The AE
featured selected were RMS, Signal Strength and duration
6
. To validate the feasibility of nonlinear response detection,
the method was applied on SP2 under cyclic loading and the results are depicted in Figure 16. As shown in Figure 16b
for the 3
rd
cyclic, the anomalies cross the Monte Carlo threshold, stating a high probability of plastic response.


(a) (b) (c)
Figure 16. Outlier analysis results in the east side of SP2 under cyclic loading: (a) 1
st
cycle, (b) 3
rd
cycle (c) 6
th
cycle
6

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 17. Outlier analysis results for SP23 under earthquake loading: (a) 100% Rinaldi (b) 140% Rinaldi, (c) 200%
6


0 50 100 150
0
100
200
300
400
D

Time [sec]


0
2
4
6
8
10
12
J
o
i
n
t

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

[
m
m
]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
SP2-C1
0 50 100 150 200 250
0
100
200
300
400
D

Time [sec]


0
2
4
6
8
10
12
J
o
i
n
t

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

[
m
m
]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
SP2-C3
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
100
200
300
400
D

Time [sec]


0
2
4
6
8
10
12
J
o
i
n
t

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

[
m
m
]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
SP2-C6
0 5 10 15 20
0
50
100
150
200
250
D

Time [sec]


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
J
o
i
n
t

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

[
m
m
]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
SP3-100%Rinaldi
0 5 10 15 20
0
50
100
150
200
250
D

Time [sec]


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
J
o
i
n
t

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

[
m
m
]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
SP3-140%Rinaldi
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
50
100
150
200
250
D

Time [sec]


0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
J
o
i
n
t

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

[
m
m
]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
SP3-200%Rinaldi
For failure detection, an empirical threshold of 200 was found at dynamic loading rate
6
. This threshold was tested in SP3
under seismic testing and the results are exhibited in Figure 17. Since the maximum discordancy values were recorded
by S2 and S3, a failure located at the west joint was expected. The visual inspection confirmed the estimated location of
breakage. Figure 18 shows the breakage of the liner in this specimen.


Figure 18. Liner breakage at the west joint of SP3

6. CONCLUSIONS
This study aimed at validating the feasibility of online health monitoring of CIPPs by acoustic emission (AE) and guided
ultrasonic waves (GUW). Three full-scale experimental setups were designed and tested under monotonic, cyclic, and
earthquake loading on two parallel shaking tables. The experiments were done to examine the applicability of AE to
localize the extent of debonding and detect liner breakage. GUW were used to validate the AE data in a routine-based
inspection. The quasi-static tests were done to distinguish the effect of loading and unloading on AEs and correlated it
with force-displacement hysteresis loops. The earthquake loading simulated the effect of transient ground motions. The
dynamic test was conducted to study the realistic behavior of the pipes in higher loading rate and its consequences on
acoustic emissions features. AE features were studied to detect appropriate variables for failure detection. A pattern
recognition technique based on outlier analysis was deployed on the extracted AE features to classify fracture from
debonding. Two empirical threshold levels were proposed for anomalies to highlight liner failure at quasi-static and
dynamic loading. It was shown that AE source localization, GUW, and outlier analysis led to promising results about
estimating the length of debonding and alerting the liner failure. It should be noted that the sensor type, sensor-surface
bonding, and the environment condition can affect the outlier threshold. Therefore, more investigations is still needed to
ensure the functionality of the system.

REFERENCES
[1] U.S. Department of Transportation, Call to Action to Improve the Safety of the Nations Energy Pipeline
System, 46 (2010).
[2] Whittle, L.G., Expanding Opportunities in the U.S. Water and Sewer Pipe Renovation Industry Expanding
Opportunities, in 2003 Undergr. Constr. Technol. Conf. Exhib., 120 (2003).
[3] Ghazali, M., Staszewski, W., Shucksmith, J., Boxall, J., and Beck, S., Instantaneous phase and frequency for the
detection of leaks and features in a pipeline system, Struct. Health Monit. 10(4), 351360 (2010).
[4] Allouche, E., Alam, S., Simicevic, J., Sterling, R., Condit, W., Headington, B., Matthews, J., Kampbell, E.,
Sangster, T., et al., A Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Used in Municipal Gravity
Sewers, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Edison, NJ (2011).
[5] InsituForm Technologies, LLC. Cured in Place Pipe., Chesterfield, Missouri, USA.
[6] Farhidzadeh, A., Dehghan-Niri, E., Zhong, Z., Salamone, S., Aref, A., and Filiatrault, A., Post-earthquake
evaluation of pipelines rehabilitated with cured in place lining technology using acoustic emission, Constr Build
Mater 54, 326338 (2014).
[7] Grosse, C.U., and Ohtsu, M., [Acoustic Emission Testing Basics for Research Applications in Civil
Engineering] , Berlin & Heidelberg, Germany, Springer Verlag. (2008).
[8] Farhidzadeh, A., Salamone, S., Luna, B., and Whittaker, A., Acoustic Emission Monitoring of a Reinforced
Concrete Shear Wall by b-value based Outlier Analysis, Struct. Health Monit., 12(1), 3 13 (2013).
[9] Vanniamparambil, P. a., Bartoli, I., Hazeli, K., Cuadra, J., Schwartz, E., Saralaya, R., and Kontsos, a., An
integrated structural health monitoring approach for crack growth monitoring, J Intel Mat Syst Str 23(14),
15631573 (2012).
[10] Worden, K., Damage Detection Using Outlier Analysis, Sound Vib 229(3), 647667 (2000).
[11] D.E., B., and Stanley, R.K., [Nondestructive Evaluation. A Tool in Design,Manufacturing, and Service] , CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fl, USA, (1997).
[12] Rose, J.L, Ditri, J.J., Pilarski, A., Rajana, K., and Carr, F., A guided wave inspection technique for nuclear
steam generator tubing, NDT & E Int 27(6), 307310 (1994).
[13] Rose, J., Jiao, D., and J, S., Ultrasonic guided wave NDE for piping, Mater Eval 54(11), 13101313 (1996).
[14] Alleyne, D.N., Pavlakovic, B., Lowe, M.J.S., and Cawley, P., Rapid long-range inspection of chemical plant
pipework using guided waves, Insight 43(2), 9396 (2001).
[15] Mohr, W., and Hoeller, P., On inspection of thin-walled tubes for transverse and longitudinal flaws by guided
ultrasonic waves, IEEE T Son Ultrason 23(5), 369374 (1976).
[16] Alleyne, D.N., Lowe, M.J.S., and Cawley, P., The reflection of guided waves from circumferential notches in
pipes, J Appl Mech 65(3), 635641 (1998).
[17] Rose, J.L., W, Z., and Zaidi, M., Ultrasonic NDT of titanium diffusion bonding with guided waves, Mater Eval
56(4), 535539 (1998).
[18] Dehghan-Niri, E., Farhidzadeh, A., Salamone, S., Zhong, Z., Aref, A., and Fliatrault, A., Post-Earthquake
Assessment of Rehabilitated Pipelines Using Guided Ultrasonic Waves (GUWs), in 22nd ASNT Res. Symp.
(2013).
[19] Farhidzadeh, A., Dehghan-Niri, E., and Salamone, S., Non-Destructive Evaluation of Ductile Iron Pipe with
Insituform IMain Liner Using Acoustic Emission and Guided Ultrasonic Waves, Technical report, University at
Buffalo, NY, USA (2012).
[20] Haifeng, Z., Zhenlin, L., Zhongli, J., Hongxing, L., and Mingxiao, L., Application of Acoustic Emission and
Support Vector Machine to Detect the Leakage of Pipeline Valve, 5th Int. Conf. Meas. Tech Mech Automat
283286 (2013).