Distributed fiber-optic sensing (DFOS) offers continuous, high-resolution monitoring along pipelines and other linear assets, but adoption has been slowed by a fragmented approach to proving what different systems can (and cannot) do. Without clearly defined and objective benchmarks, operators are left to decode competing vendor claims, regulators struggle to evaluate performance expectations, and promising technologies risk being lumped together with under-performing “look-alike” systems.
A unified validation standard represents huge progress towards changing this dynamic. By translating laboratory metrics into pass-fail field criteria, it streamlines procurement and sets clear expectations for real-world performance. Hifi’s own high-fidelity distributed sensing (HDS) technology has already met and exceeded those expectations in blind, third-party trials, demonstrating that rigorous, independent validation is both achievable and essential. What remains is rolling that rigour into a codified, industry-wide framework.
Why the Industry Needs a Unified Validation Standard
Vendor datasheets often measure performance under ideal conditions or cherry-picked scenarios, making “apples-to-oranges” comparisons all too frequent. A common standard defines the test setup, leak parameters (such as orifice size and pressure), environmental noise, and statistical confidence needed to declare a system fit-for-purpose. That clarity avoids the “black-eye” effect, where a poorly validated deployment erodes confidence in DFOS as a whole.
For operators, the payoff is faster capital approval and streamlined regulatory review. For regulators, it means decisions based on published criteria rather than bespoke interpretations. Ultimately, such a standard provides a clear and objective pathway to technology qualification for new/unfamiliar technologies.
Mapping the Current Standards Landscape (FOSA, API RP 1160 & 1175, PRCI, ISO)
Several organizations touch DFOS, but given the technology’s relatively recent traction in commercial pipeline monitoring none of these yet provides a comprehensive validation protocol:
- FOSA publishes the core terminology: detection limit, false-positive rate, time-to-detect.
- API RP 1160 (“Managing System Integrity for Hazardous Liquid Pipelines”) and API RP 1175 (“Pipeline Leak Detection Program Management”) outline overarching API integrity-management and leak-detection expectations but do not prescribe how DFOS should be evaluated.API RP 1175 – to which FOS was added in the 2022 2nd revision – in particular does an excellent job of summarizing an effective, multi-faceted and risk-based approach to managing a leak detection program, but its focus on management rather than design of such systems provides little technical guidance for performance or testing standards.
- PRCI has run comparative studies and provided testing guidelines to offer valuable data, but given their mandate as a world-class R&D organization these efforts stop well short of formal certification.
- Emerging ISO work provides a template for accredited auditing but awaits DFOS-specific content.
Bridging these efforts into a single validation pathway is the logical next step.
Closing the Gaps: Common Barriers to Adoption
Three main hurdles continue to prevent DFOS validation from maturing:
- Fragmented testing: Few independent laboratories can accommodate full-scale, blind trials, and testing protocols vary widely.
- Verification vs. validation confusion: Verification confirms a vendor’s own test results, while a validation approach places control in an independent party’s hands. Many operators still treat the two as interchangeable.
- Technology differences: High-fidelity distributed sensing (HDS) employs novel fiber architecture engineered specifically for sensing applications, while legacy DAS/DTS systems leverage low-SNR backscatter via repurposed telecom fiber. Supplier-designed test protocols perpetuate confusion regarding these fundamentally different technology platforms, muddying stakeholder expectations for real world performance.
Roadmap to Formalization
Phase 1 – Draft Specification
Stakeholders align on definitions, critical metrics, and the equipment needed to replicate test conditions. The draft would explicitly reference FOSA terminology and embed pass-fail thresholds compatible with API RP 1160 and 1175 safety goals.
Phase 2 – Multi-Site Pilot
Conduct DFOS-monitored event detection trials involving multiple technologies at multiple locations to compare performance against the draft specifications (see Hifi’s independent efforts summarized here: real world validation testing examples) and to prove repeatability across a range of variables including climate, fluid, burial depth, etc. Data from these trials feeds back into the draft, tightening ranges and clarifying edge cases.
Phase 3 – Accredited Certification
Once benchmark metrics hold across pilots, an ISO/IEC-style audit framework is applied. Qualified laboratories are accredited to run the tests; systems that pass are listed in a publicly accessible registry, providing operators with a reliable reference to support evaluation and procurement.
Roles & Responsibilities
- Operators: Define priority use cases (leak detection, intrusion, geohazard monitoring) and contribute anonymized field data for benchmark refinement.
- Vendors: Submit systems to blind trials, disclose performance data, and update products to meet emerging thresholds.
- Regulators: Incorporate the standard into permit requirements and integrity-management audits, ensuring consistent enforcement across jurisdictions.
Collaboration at each stage reinforces the credibility of the final certification and accelerates market uptake.
Get Started with Hifi Today
Hifi invites operators, regulators, and peer vendors to provide feedback on this proposed pathway and share their willingness to participate in drafting the associated specifications (Phase 1) and supporting the piloting efforts (Phase 2) outlined above. Contact Hifi today to discuss pilot opportunities or trial our technology to understand the benefits of high-fidelity sensing.