MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297916564 · doi:10.2118/210406-ms

Failure Pressure Prediction of Defective Pipeline Using Finite Element Method and Machine Learning Models

2022· article· en· W4297916564 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Liu, Zhangxin Chen, Yuan Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPipeline transportPipeline (software)Artificial neural networkMachine learningArtificial intelligenceFinite element methodComputer scienceApproximation errorComputationFailure mode and effects analysisEngineeringReliability engineeringStructural engineeringAlgorithmMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Oil and gas pipeline failure and leakage can seriously damage people's lives and the ecosystem. The prediction of failure pressure for pipelines with damage is one of the most important and challenging tasks faced by industry, which affects the assessment of pipeline safety. Previous studies widely used industrial models or the finite element (FE) method to predict the failure pressure. However, the industrial models may give limited information, and the FE method has much heavy computation burden. In this work, three machine learning models - artificial neural network (ANN), XGBoost (XGB) and CatBoost (CAT) are developed for forecasting the failure pressure of pipelines with defects. Firstly, the simulation results of the FE method are validated by real failure pressure and compared with the calculation results of industrial models (ASME-B31G and DNV). Then 180 pipeline samples including pipeline attributes and defect sizes collected from real in-line inspection data in a pipeline company and the corresponding FE simulation results of failure pressure of these 180 defective pipelines are used for the training and testing of the machine learning models. The results show that the simulation accuracy of the FE method is higher than the calculation accuracy of the industrial models, and the FE simulation results are suitable to be the outputs of machine learning models. The three machine learning methods all provide satisfactory prediction accuracy in failure pressure. Specifically, CAT is the best machine learning method in this study for its lowest relative error (3.11% on average), mean absolute error (0.53), root mean square error (0.78) and highest coefficient of determination (R2) up to 98% in testing. Moreover, the machine learning models present better performance on average relative errors compared to the industrial models. CAT shows higher accuracy than the industrial models and FE simulation on minimum and average relative errors. Finally, the prediction result of CAT is used to discuss the effect of input features on failure pressure of pipelines, which demonstrates that the importance of features follows the order of pipeline thickness > pipeline outside diameter > defect depth > defect length > defect width. Once the above machine learning methods are used in industry, more and more real data will be collected to train a model and make it more accurate. In this way, these methods will provide an efficient way to evaluate the safety of defective pipelines. In addition, the failure pressure of pipeline could be estimated to help operators figure out a pipeline condition and further prioritize the pipelines for maintenance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Annual Technical Conference and ExhibitionSame topicStructural Integrity and Reliability AnalysisFrench-language works237,207