4.7 Article

ANN- and FEA-Based Assessment Equation for a Corroded Pipeline with a Single Corrosion Defect

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jmse10040476

关键词

failure pressure prediction; artificial neural network; finite element method; single corrosion defect; combined loadings; corroded pipeline

资金

  1. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia [FRGS/1/2018/TK03/UTP/02/1]
  2. Yayasan Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia [015LC0-110]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a new assessment equation using an artificial neural network model to predict the failure pressure of corroded pipelines with a single corrosion defect, outperforming conservative estimates by traditional standards.
Most of the standards available for the assessment of the failure pressure of corroded pipelines are limited in their ability to assess complex loadings, and their estimations are conservative. To overcome this research gap, this study employed an artificial neural network (ANN) model trained with data obtained using the finite element method (FEM) to develop an assessment equation to predict the failure pressure of a corroded pipeline with a single corrosion defect. A finite element analysis (FEA) of medium-toughness pipelines (API 5L X65) subjected to combined loads of internal pressure and longitudinal compressive stress was carried out. The results from the FEA with various corrosion geometric parameters and loads were used as the training dataset for the ANN. After the ANN was trained, its performance was evaluated, and its weights and biases were obtained for the development of a corrosion assessment equation. The prediction from the newly developed equation has a good correlation value, R-2 of 0.9998, with percentage errors ranging from -1.16% to 1.78%, when compared with the FEA results. When compared with the failure pressure estimates based on the Det Norske Veritas (DNV-RP-F101) guidelines, the standard was more conservative in its prediction than the assessment equation developed in this study.

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

4.7
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