4.5 Article

Statistical Soil Characterization of an Underground Corroded Pipeline Using In-Line Inspections

期刊

METALS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/met11020292

关键词

underground pipeline; soil corrosion; in-line inspection; multiple correspondence analysis; clustering

资金

  1. National Department of Science, Technology and Innovation of Colombia through a Ph.D. scholarship (COLCIENCIAS) [727]
  2. French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs
  3. Campus France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Underground pipelines are affected by surrounding soil properties and protection measures, with corrosion being a major threat. By utilizing categorical measurements and defect depth measurements, it is possible to characterize the soil and propose adequate protective measures to prevent leakage. The study shows that more severe defects are likely to be located in poorly drained soils with high acidity.
Underground pipelines have a space-dependent condition that arises from various soil properties surrounding the pipeline (e.g., moisture content, pH, aeration) and the efficiency of protection measures. Corrosion is one of the main threats for pipelines and is commonly monitored with in-line inspections (ILI) every 2 to 6 years. Preliminary characterizations of the surrounding soil allow pipeline operators to propose adequate protective measures to prevent any loss of containment (LOC) of the fluid being transported. This characterization usually requires detailed soil measurements, which could be unavailable or very costly. This paper implements categorical measurements of soil properties and defect depth measurements obtained from ILI to characterize the soil in the surroundings of a pipeline. This approach implements an independence test, a multiple correspondence analysis, and a clustering method with K-modes. The approach was applied to a real case study, showing that more severe defects are likely located in poorly drained soils with high acidity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据