4.7 Article

Failure Pressure Prediction of a Corroded Pipeline with Longitudinally Interacting Corrosion Defects Subjected to Combined Loadings Using FEM and ANN

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse9030281

Keywords

corroded pipeline; interacting corrosion defects; combined loadings; failure pressure; finite element analysis; artificial neural network

Funding

  1. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia [FRGS/1/2018/TK03/UTP/02/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Machine learning tools are increasingly being used in various industries for their excellent predictive capability. In this study, analytical equations for predicting the failure pressure of corroded pipelines were derived based on an artificial neural network model trained with finite element method data. The results were compared with finite element analysis and Det Norske Veritas method.
Machine learning tools are increasingly adopted in various industries because of their excellent predictive capability, with high precision and high accuracy. In this work, analytical equations to predict the failure pressure of a corroded pipeline with longitudinally interacting corrosion defects subjected to combined loads of internal pressure and longitudinal compressive stress were derived, based on an artificial neural network (ANN) model trained with data obtained from the finite element method (FEM). The FEM was validated against full-scale burst tests and subsequently used to simulate the failure of a pipeline with various corrosion geometric parameters and loadings. The results from the finite element analysis (FEA) were also compared with the Det Norske Veritas (DNV-RP-F101) method. The ANN model was developed based on the training data from FEA and its performance was evaluated after the model was trained. Analytical equations to predict the failure pressure were derived based on the weights and biases of the trained neural network. The equations have a good correlation value, with an R-2 of 0.9921, with the percentage error ranging from -9.39% to 4.63%, when compared with FEA results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available