Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonic and Traditional Gas-Leak Detection Systems in the Process Industries: A Monte Carlo Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Existing Gas-Leak Detection Systems
2.1. Literature Review of Gas-Leak Detection Systems
- Routine inspection and monitoring: regular visual inspection is often the first line of defence. This involves inspecting tanks, pipelines, pumps, and valves for signs of leakage. Additionally, nondestructive evaluation techniques are used to detect and monitor the growth of defects, with a focus on corrosion [16,17];
- Pressure monitoring: pipelines and vessels in petrochemical plants often undergo pressure changes. A sudden decrease in the pressure may indicate a leak. This method is primarily used in long-distance pipelines. Recent research has been conducted using artificial intelligence (AI) to identify leak characteristics and build models [18];
- Flow monitoring: this method involves measuring the flow of chemicals at various points in a system. This method is used in conjunction with pressure monitoring. For two-phase (gas–liquid) interactions, upstream pipeline pressure can serve as an important indicator of leaks. The downstream flow can be a key leak indicator, and flow monitoring can be used for leak detection. Discrepancies in the flow measurements can signal a potential leak [19];
- Concentration measurement: this is a traditional method that is widely used not only in oil refining and petrochemical plants but also in other factories, offices, and residential facilities. The gas-detection module determines whether the gas concentration in the proposed environment exceeds a specified range. This includes the use of gas detection systems to identify gases that may escape into the air [20];
- Acoustic sensing: acoustic sensors detect sounds generated by leaks, which can be high-frequency ultrasonic noises that are otherwise inaudible [21]. Recently, technologies have been developed to detect gas leaks in pipeline systems using acoustic methods. Wave propagation in pipelines is a major factor in acoustic methods when leaks occur, and the friction between the pipe walls creates a pressure balance in the pipe. Further tests and simulations must be performed to obtain rapid results and location estimates for leaks using acoustic methods [24]. This method detects gas leaks by adhering a sensor to a pipe, and some methods can detect leaks at a distance. The long-distance measurement method uses equipment that can receive ultrasonic waves, such as a microphone sensor, to measure gas leakage from a distance and even estimate the location of the leak [25]. According to our recent interviews with workers at oil refineries and petrochemical plants in Korea, the use of ultrasonic cameras to measure distances is increasing. However, ultrasonic cameras in plants are portable and require the expertise of skilled operators.
2.2. Spatial Adaptability
3. Ultrasonic Detection System
3.1. Theory
3.2. Differences between Ultrasonic and Traditional Methods
3.3. Development of a Fixed Gas-Leak Monitoring System Utilising Ultrasonic Technology
4. Methods
4.1. Scenario Setup
4.1.1. Simulation-Application Facilities and Environment
4.1.2. Gas-Leak Scenario
4.1.3. Selected Material for Simulation
4.2. Simulation Setup
4.2.1. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
4.2.2. Monte Carlo Simulations (System Dynamics)
5. Simulation
5.1. CFD
5.1.1. Analysis Conditions in CFD
5.1.2. Results of CFD Analysis
5.2. Monte Carlo Simulation
5.2.1. Gas-Leak Detection Probability Prediction Model
5.2.2. Prediction Results and Comparative Analysis of Detection Probability
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
- (1)
- A fixed ultrasonic gas-leak monitoring system was proposed. The performance of the ultrasonic camera was enhanced, including securing the detection performance in the case of microleakage and strengthening the waterproofing function. To confirm the performance of the ultrasonic camera, a laboratory-scale test was conducted following the ASTM E 1002-11 standard, and gas leakage was detected even when the camera was 5 m away from the leak source under a microleakage condition of 1.67 mL/s. The waterproofing performance of the ultrasonic camera exhibited an IP of 55 or higher;
- (2)
- We individually visited oil refining and petrochemical plants to review drawings and conduct field investigations. Layouts and 3D drawings were created through field and literature research. Based on these drawings, a demonstration test facility simulating oil refining and petrochemical plants within the FILK was built. The literature related to gas leaks and frequencies was investigated, and a test scenario was established through an analysis of accident cases;
- (3)
- The performance of the ultrasonic gas-leak monitoring system was verified through demonstration tests that reflected the environment of oil refining and petrochemical plants. It was confirmed that gas-leak detection was possible up to approximately 23 m under the conditions of internal piping pressure of 2.2 bar, leak diameter of 6.9 mm, and leak rate of 0.00217 kg/s. The ultrasonic gas-leak detection time was approximately 8 s, including 3 s for the integrated surveillance system monitoring image processing time and 5 s for leak determination;
- (4)
- Using CFD, we visually expressed the flow owing to gas diffusion and the phenomenon of reaching a concentration that could be detected by concentration-measuring gas detectors, calculated the gas-leak detection time, and compared it with that of an ultrasonic gas-leak monitoring system. The CFD results indicated that the gas-leak detection time of the existing system was 8.895 s. This is slightly longer than the 8 s leak detection time of the ultrasonic gas-leak monitoring system;
- (5)
- As a result of the Monte Carlo simulation, it was calculated that, when the two systems were combined, the detection probability was 96.58% higher than that achieved when the concentration-measurement method was used alone and 3.92% higher than that attained when the ultrasonic measurement method was used alone. The combination of the two systems exhibited the best performance.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gómez-Mares, M.; Muñoz, M.; Casal, J. Axial Temperature Distribution in Vertical Jet Fires. J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 172, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogle, R.A.; Megerle, M.V.; Morrison, D.R.; Carpenter, A.R. Explosion Caused by Flashing Liquid in a Process Vessel. J. Hazard. Mater. 2004, 115, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Cui, Z.; Wang, M.; Liu, B.; Fan, X.; Tian, W. An Energy-Efficiency Prediction Method in Crude Distillation Process Based on Long Short-Term Memory Network. Processes 2023, 11, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonathan, E.; Sugiarto, S. Risk Analysis of Gas Dispersion, Fire and Explosion Due to Gas Pipeline Leak at Onshore Receiving Facility of PT XYZ in Muara Karang Using Aloha Software 5.4. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2023, 1, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dadkani, P.; Noorzai, E.; Ghanbari, A.H.; Gharib, A. Risk Analysis of Gas Leakage in Gas Pressure Reduction Station and Its Consequences: A Case Study for Zahedan. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Satterfield, T. Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. Kim Fortun J. Anthropol. Res. 2003, 59, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva, I.G.S.; Pappalardo, J.R.; da Rocha e Silva, N.M.P.; Converti, A.; de Almeida, F.C.G.; Sarubbo, L.A. Treatment of Motor Oil-Contaminated Soil with Green Surfactant Using a Mobile Remediation System. Processes 2023, 11, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French McCay, D.P.; Whittier, N.; Ward, M.; Santos, C. Spill Hazard Evaluation for Chemicals Shipped in Bulk Using Modeling. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006, 21, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Chakma, S.; Alawa, B.; Kalyanasundaram, M.; Diwan, V. Identification, Characterization, and Implications of Microplastics in Soil—A Case Study of Bhopal, Central India. J. Hazard. Mater. Adv. 2023, 9, 100225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NICS Integrated Chemical Information System (ICIS). Available online: https://www.icis.me.go.kr/ (accessed on 4 July 2023).
- National Fire Agency National Fire Data System (NFDS). Available online: https://www.nfds.go.kr (accessed on 3 July 2023).
- Seo, W.; Im, S.; Lee, G. Characteristics of the Received Signal of an Ultrasonic Sensor Installed in a Chamber with Micro-Leakage. Mech. Sci. 2021, 12, 1051–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wan, J.; Wang, T.; Yuan, G.; Jurado, M.J.; He, Q. Leakage Simulation and Acoustic Characteristics Based on Acoustic Logging by Ultrasonic Detection. Adv. Geo-Energy Res. 2022, 6, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naranjo, E. The Monitor-Monitoring Large Hydrogen Sulfide Releases: Why Sensor Recovery Time Is Important. Available online: https://www.damonhydro.com (accessed on 26 November 2023).
- Ramya, V. Embedded System for Hazardous Gas Detection and Alerting. Int. J. Distrib. Parallel Syst. 2012, 3, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarvis, R.; Cawley, P.; Nagy, P.B. Current Deflection NDE for the Inspection and Monitoring of Pipes. NDT E Int. 2016, 81, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Xiang, J.; Ma, L.; Liu, H.; Wang, C.; Liang, S. Gas-Driven Endoscopic Robot for Visual Inspection of Corrosion Defects Inside Gas Pipelines. Processes 2023, 11, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.K.; Lin, Y.H.; Shen, J.Y. Developing and Implementing an AI-Based Leak Detection System in a Long-Distance Gas Pipeline. Adv. Technol. Innov. 2022, 7, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adegboye, M.A.; Karnik, A.; Fung, W.K. Numerical Study of Pipeline Leak Detection for Gas-Liquid Stratified Flow. J. Nat. Gas. Sci. Eng. 2021, 94, 104054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ishak, A.J.; Mahmood, S.N.; Hussain, A.S.T. GSM Based Gas Leak Monitoring System. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2019, 7, 670–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meribout, M.; Khezzar, L.; Azzi, A.; Ghendour, N. Leak Detection Systems in Oil and Gas Fields: Present Trends and Future Prospects. Flow Meas. Instrum. 2020, 75, 101772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, R.; Liatsis, P.; Kyritsis, D.C. Emission Quantification via Passive Infrared Optical Gas Imaging: A Review. Energies 2022, 15, 3304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olbrycht, R. A Novel Method for Sensitivity Modelling of Optical Gas Imaging Thermal Cameras with Warm Filters. Quant. Infrared Thermogr. J. 2022, 19, 331–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adnan, N.F.; Ghazali, M.F.; Amin, M.M.; Hamat, A.M.A. Leak Detection in Gas Pipeline by Acoustic and Signal Processing—A Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2015, 100, 012013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Li, Y.; Huang, X.; Ren, J.; Feng, H.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, X. High-Sensitivity Gas Leak Detection Sensor Based on a Compact Microphone Array. Measurement 2021, 174, 109017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaconu, B.M. Recent Advances and Emerging Directions in Fire Detection Systems Based on Machine Learning Algorithms. Fire 2023, 6, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinka, J.; Rantuch, P.; Martinka, F.; Wachter, I.; Štefko, T. Improvement of Heat Release Rate Measurement from Woods Based on Their Combustion Products Temperature Rise. Processes 2023, 11, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahalingam, A.; Naayagi, R.T.; Mastorakis, N.E. Design and Implementation of an Economic Gas Leakage Detector. Recent. Res. Appl. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2012, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, M.M. Sensor-Based Gas Leakage Detector System. Eng. Proc. 2020, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meribout, M. Gas Leak-Detection and Measurement Systems: Prospects and Future Trends. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2021, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.-R.; Moon, H.-S.; Jeong, P.-H. Optimal Ventilation Design for Flammable Gas Leaking from Gas Box Used in Semiconductor Manufacturing: Case Study on Korean Semiconductor Industry. Fire 2023, 6, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ou, J.; Wang, X.; Ming, Y.; Sun, X. Study on the Influence of Ventilation Speed on Smoke and Temperature Characteristics of Complex Underground Spaces. Fire 2023, 6, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, D.B.M. Gas Leakage with Auto Ventilation and Smart Management System Using IOT. Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Manag. 2022, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadlock, C.R.; Woolford, S.W. Optimizing Management of Emergency Gas Leaks: A Case Study in Business Analytics. J. Bus. Anal. 2019, 2, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandes, A.S. Operations & Maintenance: Detect Leaks with Ultrasound. Chem. Eng. 2002, 109. [Google Scholar]
- Freiberger, K. Development and Evaluation of Source Localization Algorithms for Coincident Microphone Arrays; Graz University of Technology: Graz, Austria, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Dibiase, J.H. A High-Accuracy, Low-Latency Technique for Talker Localization in Reverberant Environments Using Microphone Arrays; Brown University: Providence, RI, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- SM Instruments Inc. Ultrasonic Camera. Available online: https://www.smins.co.kr (accessed on 29 June 2023).
- Xu, M.; Tao, W. Study on Gas Leakage Localization Method Based on Ultrasonic Sensor Area Array. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Munich, Germany, 3–7 July 2017; AIM: Cranberry Township, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- ASTM International ASTM E1002-11, Standard Practice for Leaks Using Ultrasonics. Available online: http://www.astm.org/Standards/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
- KFPA KFS (Korea Fire Safety) 700-2018 Standards: Standard on Fire Protection for Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants. Available online: https://kfs.kfpa.or.kr/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
- Ku, C.; An, S.; Ma, B. Analysis Characteristic of Non-Point Source in Petrochemical. KIGAS 2022, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KOSHA Technical Guidelines for Installation and Maintenance of Gas Leak Detector (Kosha Guide P-166-2020). Available online: https://www.kosha.or.kr/ (accessed on 21 June 2023).
- Rong, Y.; Peng, J.; Gao, J.; Zhang, X.; Li, X.; Pan, X.; Chen, J.; Chen, S. Numerical Investigation on the Liquid Hydrogen Leakage and Protection Strategy. Processes 2023, 11, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Yang, X.; Dai, G. CFD Simulation of Effects of the Configuration of Gas Distributors on Gas-Liquid Flow and Mixing in a Bubble Column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2009, 64, 5104–5116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tauseef, S.M.; Rashtchian, D.; Abbasi, S.A. CFD-Based Simulation of Dense Gas Dispersion in Presence of Obstacles. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2011, 24, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grumbach, F.; Müller, A.; Reusch, P.; Trojahn, S. Robustness Prediction in Dynamic Production Processes—A New Surrogate Measure Based on Regression Machine Learning. Processes 2023, 11, 1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pokorádi, L. Monte-Carlo Simulation-Based Accessibility Analysis of Temporal Systems. Symmetry 2022, 14, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bird, G.A. Monte carlo simulation of gas flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid. Mech. 1978, 114, 11–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Smit, B. Efficient Monte Carlo Simulations of Gas Molecules inside Porous Materials. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2012, 8, 2336–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qazi, A.; Simsekler, M.C.E. Risk Assessment of Construction Projects Using Monte Carlo Simulation. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2021, 14, 1202–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ming, X.; Liang, Q.; Dawson, R.; Xia, X.; Hou, J. A Quantitative Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment Framework for Compound Flooding Considering Hazard Inter-Dependencies and Interactions. J. Hydrol. 2022, 607, 127477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Dawoody, M.; Eliwa, M.S.; El-Morshedy, M. An Extension of the Poisson Distribution: Features and Application for Medical Data Modeling. Processes 2023, 11, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahai, H.; Khurshid, A. Confidence Intervals for the Mean of a Poisson Distribution: A Review. Biom. J. 1993, 35, 857–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mijburgh, P.A.; Visagie, I.J.H. An Overview of Goodness-of-Fit Tests for the Poisson Distribution. S. Afr. Stat. J. 2020, 54, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bidounga, R.; Batsindila Nganga, P.C.; Niéré, L.; Mizère, D. A Note on the (Weighted) Bivariate Poisson Distribution. Eur. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2021, 14, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Year | Number of Fires | Loss of Life | Property Damage (KRW, Won) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dead | Injury | Total | |||
2022 | 123 | 6 | 109 | 115 | 28,841,530,000 |
2021 | 146 | 1 | 78 | 79 | 2,910,721,000 |
2020 | 141 | 11 | 83 | 94 | 5,678,253,000 |
2019 | 162 | 7 | 117 | 124 | 6,129,454,000 |
2018 | 211 | 5 | 128 | 133 | 2,811,299,000 |
2017 | 175 | 5 | 84 | 89 | 5,482,879,000 |
2016 | 177 | 4 | 86 | 90 | 1,843,516,000 |
2015 | 146 | 2 | 92 | 94 | 2,059,437,000 |
2014 | 168 | 11 | 223 | 234 | 15,197,525,000 |
Year | Region | Case of Accident | Leaking Material | Cause of Accident |
---|---|---|---|---|
2023 | Jeonnam Yeosu | Facility failure | RAW C9 + C | Pipe burst |
2023 | Ulsan Nam-gu | Failure to comply with safety standards | Acetonitrile | Carelessness |
2022 | Gyeonbuk Chilgok | Facility failure | Hydrochloric acid | Pipe damage due to pipe blockage |
2022 | Ulsan Nam-gu | Failure to comply with safety standards | Sodium cyanide | Skin exposure to a cleaning solution |
2022 | Jeonnam Yeosu | Failure to comply with safety standards | Cyclohexane | Partially closed valve |
2022 | Ulsan Nam-gu | Failure to comply with safety standards | Cyclohexane | Explosion during valve-leakage testing |
2022 | Ulsan Nam-gu | Facility failure | Ammonia | Ageing of pipes (suspected corrosion) |
2022 | Ulsan Ulju | Failure to comply with safety standards | Isobutane, Butane | C4 leakage during antisurge valve maintenance operation |
2020 | Ulsan Nam-gu | Facility failure | Styrene monomer | Pipe rupture for unknown reasons |
2019 | Chungnam Seosan | Facility failure | Ammonia | Malfunction of the bypass valve |
2019 | Ulsan Nam-gu | Facility failure | Hydrogen peroxide | RO filter rupture during hydrogen peroxide refining |
Setup | Specification |
---|---|
Program | Fluent 2022 R2 |
Solver | Pressure-based solver |
Time | Transient |
Turbulence Model | k-omega SST |
Air inlet | Velocity inlet, 1.2 m/s |
Leak point inlet | Mass-flow inlet, 1-butene (C4H8), 0.00217 kg/s |
Air outlet | Pressure outlet, 0 Pa gauge |
Initialisation | Pressure 0 Pa, Velocity 0 m/s, Turbulent kinetic energy 0 m2/s2 |
Calculation Setting | Adaptive, Max iteration/Time step 100, Global Courant number 1, Initial 0.5 s, max 1.5 s, min 0.1 s |
Setup | Details |
Initialisation | Pressure 0 Pa, Velocity 0 m/s, Turbulent kinetic energy 0 m2/s2 |
Calculation Setting | Adaptive, Max iteration/Time step 100, Global Courant number 1, Initial 0.5 s, max 1.5 s, min 0.1 s |
Factor | Category | Symbol | Value Range | Unit | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Common | Wind direction | Input | W | ≥0 | Degree |
Random seed | R | 0–1 | - | ||
Gas-leak detector | Maximum detection standard | Parameter | Max | 0–360 | Degree |
Minimum detection standard | Min | 0–360 | Degree | ||
Azimuth | A | 0–360 | Degree | ||
Sensor detection probability 1 | Output | SD1 | 0–100 | % | |
Ultrasonic detector | Poisson (distribution) | Variable | P | ≥0 | - |
Sensor detection probability 2 | Output | SD2 | 0–100 | % | |
Combined detector | Sensor detection probability 3 | Output | SD3 | 0–100 | % |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lee, J.H.; Kim, Y.; Kim, I.; Hong, S.B.; Yun, H.S. Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonic and Traditional Gas-Leak Detection Systems in the Process Industries: A Monte Carlo Approach. Processes 2024, 12, 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12010067
Lee JH, Kim Y, Kim I, Hong SB, Yun HS. Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonic and Traditional Gas-Leak Detection Systems in the Process Industries: A Monte Carlo Approach. Processes. 2024; 12(1):67. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12010067
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, Joon Hyuk, Youngsik Kim, Inkwon Kim, Seok Bum Hong, and Hong Sik Yun. 2024. "Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonic and Traditional Gas-Leak Detection Systems in the Process Industries: A Monte Carlo Approach" Processes 12, no. 1: 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12010067
APA StyleLee, J. H., Kim, Y., Kim, I., Hong, S. B., & Yun, H. S. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Ultrasonic and Traditional Gas-Leak Detection Systems in the Process Industries: A Monte Carlo Approach. Processes, 12(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12010067