10.05.2015 Views

Journal of AE, Volume 27, 2009 (ca. 35 MB) - AEWG

Journal of AE, Volume 27, 2009 (ca. 35 MB) - AEWG

Journal of AE, Volume 27, 2009 (ca. 35 MB) - AEWG

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

graph) shows higher activity between channels 2 and 3, while the linear lo<strong>ca</strong>tion graph based on<br />

the energy <strong>of</strong> the signals shows higher activity between channels 3 and 4. The part <strong>of</strong> the pipe<br />

between channels 2 and 3 was buried at shallow depth (about 40 cm) while the part between<br />

channels 3 and 4 was buried deeper in the ground (about 1.5 m). This probably results in signifi<strong>ca</strong>nt<br />

attenuation difference between the two sections. This fact and the variability <strong>of</strong> threshold<br />

combined with the high ASL values that indi<strong>ca</strong>te a strong source may have resulted in the linear<br />

lo<strong>ca</strong>tion not being exact.<br />

Initially, a 5-m length part <strong>of</strong> the pipe was exposed starting from channel 3 to channel 2. ASL<br />

was getting lower when measuring towards channel 2 along the pipe. Thus, it was decided to expose<br />

the part indi<strong>ca</strong>ted by the energy graph and a big leak was found (Fig. 7).<br />

Fig. 6. ASL measurements (top) indi<strong>ca</strong>ting the suspected area. <strong>AE</strong> acquisition linear lo<strong>ca</strong>tion<br />

each one showing different lo<strong>ca</strong>tions near channel 3, after 25 minutes <strong>of</strong> acquisition.<br />

Fig. 7. Picture <strong>of</strong> the leak found by <strong>AE</strong>.<br />

33

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!