Skip to main content

Hybrid intelligent method for fuzzy reliability analysis of corroded X100 steel pipelines


Epistemic uncertainties are critical for reliable design of corroded pipes made of high-strength grade steel. In this work, corrosion defects geometries and operating pressure are provided as the epistemic uncertainties in reliability analysis. A framework of an iterative approach-based bi-loop is presented for fuzzy reliability analysis (FRA) of corroded pipelines to evaluate the fuzzy reliability index-based various fuzzy-random variables (FRVs). In the inner loop, the conjugate first-order reliability method using adaptive finite-step size is applied for carried out the reliability analysis. The outer loop is structured based on the fuzzy analysis corresponding to a modified particle swarm optimization as an intelligent tool. The adaptive conjugate fine step size is dynamically computed to adjust the conjugate sensitivity vector in the reliability loop. The sufficient descent condition is satisfied based on three-term conjugate first-order reliability method. The performance function of corroded pipelines is defined based on average shear stress yield-based plastic flow theory, remaining strength factor, and operating pressure. Two applicable examples as corroded pipelines made from X100 high-strength steel are given to illustrate the effects of epistemic uncertainties under corrosion defects. Investigation the results has shown that modeling of epistemic uncertainty in the reliability analysis of high-grade steel pipelines could result more reasonable reliability indexes. In addition, results indicate that FRVs have significant influence on fuzzy reliability index calculations, especially corrosion defect depth and operating pressure (as FRVs). The sensitivity measure of FRA demonstrated that fuzzy reliability index of corroded X100 steel pipelines is more sensitive to the FRVs means.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10


  1. 1.

    Xu L, Cheng Y (2012) An experimental investigation of corrosion of X100 pipeline steel under uniaxial elastic stress in a near-neutral pH solution. Corros Sci 59:103–109

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Xu L, Cheng Y (2012) Corrosion of X100 pipeline steel under plastic strain in a neutral pH bicarbonate solution. Corros Sci 64:145–152

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tanguy B, Luu TT, Perrin G, Pineau A, Besson J (2008) Plastic and damage behaviour of a high strength X100 pipeline steel: experiments and modelling. Int J Press Vessels Pip 85(5):322–335

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dai M, Liu J, Huang F, Zhang Y, Cheng YF (2018) Effect of cathodic protection potential fluctuations on pitting corrosion of X100 pipeline steel in acidic soil environment. Corros Sci 143:428–437

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Van Boven G, Chen W, Rogge R (2007) The role of residual stress in neutral pH stress corrosion cracking of pipeline steels. Part I: pitting and cracking occurrence. Acta Materialia 55(1):29–42

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Keshtegar B, el Amine Ben Seghier M (2018) Modified response surface method basis harmony search to predict the burst pressure of corroded pipelines. Eng Fail Anal 89:177–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Keshtegar B, Ben Seghier MEA, Zhu S-P, Abbassi R, Trung N-T (2019) Reliability analysis of corroded pipelines: novel adaptive conjugate first order reliability method. J Loss Prev Process Ind 62:103986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lam C, Zhou W (2016) Statistical analyses of incidents on onshore gas transmission pipelines based on PHMSA database. Int J Press Vessels Pip 145:29–40

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ben Seghier MEA, Keshtegar B, Elahmoune B (2018) Reliability analysis of low, mid and high-grade strength corroded pipes based on plastic flow theory using adaptive nonlinear conjugate map. Eng Fail Anal 90:245–261

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Keshtegar B, Miri M (2014) Reliability analysis of corroded pipes using conjugate HL–RF algorithm based on average shear stress yield criterion. Eng Fail Anal 46:104–117

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Zhou W (2010) System reliability of corroding pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 87(10):587–595

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Zhu S-P, Keshtegar B, Trung N-T, Yaseen ZM, Bui DT (2019) Reliability-based structural design optimization: hybridized conjugate mean value approach. Eng Comput.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    El Amine Ben Seghier M, Keshtegar B, Correia JAFO, Lesiuk G, De Jesus AMP (2019) Reliability analysis based on hybrid algorithm of M5 model tree and Monte Carlo simulation for corroded pipelines: case of study X60 Steel grade pipes. Eng Fail Anal 97:793–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Zhu S, Liu Q, Zhou J, Yu Z (2018) Fatigue reliability assessment of turbine discs under multi-source uncertainties. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 41(6):1291–1305

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Zeng M, Zhou H (2018) New target performance approach for a super parametric convex model of non-probabilistic reliability-based design optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 339:644–662

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Xu H, Li W, Li M, Hu C, Zhang S, Wang X (2018) Multidisciplinary robust design optimization based on time-varying sensitivity analysis. J Mech Sci Technol 32(3):1195–1207

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Zhu S-P, Hao Y-Z, Liao D (2020) Probabilistic modeling and simulation of multiple surface crack propagation and coalescence. Appl Math Model 78:383–398.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Zhu S-P, Liu Q, Peng W, Zhang X-C (2018) Computational-experimental approaches for fatigue reliability assessment of turbine bladed disks. Int J Mech Sci 142:502–517

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wu D, Gao W (2017) Hybrid uncertain static analysis with random and interval fields. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 315:222–246

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Xiao M, Zhang J, Gao L, Lee S, Eshghi AT (2019) An efficient Kriging-based subset simulation method for hybrid reliability analysis under random and interval variables with small failure probability. Struct Multidiscip Optim 59(6):2077–2092.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Zhang J, Xiao M, Gao L, Fu J (2018) A novel projection outline based active learning method and its combination with Kriging metamodel for hybrid reliability analysis with random and interval variables. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 341:32–52.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Helton J, Johnson J, Oberkampf W, Storlie CB (2007) A sampling-based computational strategy for the representation of epistemic uncertainty in model predictions with evidence theory. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(37):3980–3998

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zhang J, Xiao M, Gao L, Qiu H, Yang Z (2018) An improved two-stage framework of evidence-based design optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(4):1673–1693.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bulleit WM (2008) Uncertainty in structural engineering. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 13(1):24–30

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Long X, Mao D, Jiang C, Wei F, Li G (2019) Unified uncertainty analysis under probabilistic, evidence, fuzzy and interval uncertainties. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 355:1–26

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Yu S, Wang Z, Meng D (2018) Time-variant reliability assessment for multiple failure modes and temporal parameters. Struct Multidiscip Optim 58(4):1705–1717.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Yulong W, Chao J (2014) A reliability analysis method for structures with hybrid probability-interval considering fuzzy uncertainty. J Mech Strength 36(3):393–401

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Aliev IM, Kara Z (2004) Fuzzy system reliability analysis using time dependent fuzzy set. Control Cybern 33(4):653–662

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Zhang M, Beer M, Quek S, Choo Y (2010) Comparison of uncertainty models in reliability analysis of offshore structures under marine corrosion. Struct Saf 32(6):425–432

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Möller B, Beer M, Graf W, Sickert J-U (2006) Time-dependent reliability of textile-strengthened RC structures under consideration of fuzzy randomness. Comput Struct 84(8):585–603

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Marano GC, Quaranta G, Mezzina M (2008) Fuzzy time-dependent reliability analysis of RC beams subject to pitting corrosion. J Mater Civ Eng 20(9):578–587

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Möller B, Graf W, Beer M (2003) Safety assessment of structures in view of fuzzy randomness. Comput Struct 81(15):1567–1582

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bagheri M, Miri M, Shabakhty N (2015) Modeling of epistemic uncertainty in reliability analysis of structures using a robust genetic algorithm. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 12(2):23–40

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Zhang J, Xiao M, Gao L, Chu S (2019) A combined projection-outline-based active learning Kriging and adaptive importance sampling method for hybrid reliability analysis with small failure probabilities. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 344:13–33.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Serafinska A, Kaliske M, Zopf C, Graf W (2013) A multi-objective optimization approach with consideration of fuzzy variables applied to structural tire design. Comput Struct 116:7–19

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Freitag S, Graf W, Kaliske M (2013) A material description based on recurrent neural networks for fuzzy data and its application within the finite element method. Comput Struct 124:29–37

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rackwitz R, Flessler B (1978) Structural reliability under combined random load sequences. Comput Struct 9(5):489–494

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Liu H, Jiang C, Liu J, Mao J (2019) Uncertainty propagation analysis using sparse grid technique and saddlepoint approximation based on parameterized p-box representation. Struct Multidiscip Optim 59(1):61–74

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Moon M-Y, Cho H, Choi K, Gaul N, Lamb D, Gorsich D (2018) Confidence-based reliability assessment considering limited numbers of both input and output test data. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(5):2027–2043

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Keshtegar B, Chakraborty S (2018) Dynamical accelerated performance measure approach for efficient reliability-based design optimization with highly nonlinear probabilistic constraints. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 178:69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Bagheri M, Miri M, Shabakhty N (2016) Fuzzy reliability analysis using a new alpha level set optimization approach based on particle swarm optimization. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30(1):235–244

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Micro machine and human science, 1995. MHS’95. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on, 1995. IEEE, pp 39–43

  43. 43.

    Veeramachaneni K, Peram T, Mohan C, Osadciw LA (2003) Optimization using particle swarms with near neighbor interactions. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, 2003. Springer, pp 110–121

  44. 44.

    Djoewahir A, Tanaka K, Nakashima S (2013) Adaptive PSO-based self-tuning PID controller for ultrasonic motor. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 9(10):3903–3914

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Dong Y, Teixeira AP, Guedes Soares C (2018) Time-variant fatigue reliability assessment of welded joints based on the PHI2 and response surface methods. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 177:120–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Meng Z, Keshtegar B (2019) Adaptive conjugate single-loop method for efficient reliability-based design and topology optimization. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 344:95–119.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Yang D (2010) Chaos control for numerical instability of first order reliability method. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 15(10):3131–3141

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Keshtegar B (2016) Chaotic conjugate stability transformation method for structural reliability analysis. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 310:866–885

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Keshtegar B, Zhu S-P (2019) Three-term conjugate approach for structural reliability analysis. Appl Math Model 76:428–442.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Keshtegar B, Hao P (2018) Enriched self-adjusted performance measure approach for reliability-based design optimization of complex engineering problems. Appl Math Model 57:37–51.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Meng Z, Li G, Yang D, Zhan L (2017) A new directional stability transformation method of chaos control for first order reliability analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim 55(2):601–612

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Meng Z, Zhou H, Hu H, Keshtegar B (2018) Enhanced sequential approximate programming using second order reliability method for accurate and efficient structural reliability-based design optimization. Appl Math Model 62:562–579.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Meng Z, Li G, Yang D, Zhan L (2016) A new directional stability transformation method of chaos control for first order reliability analysis. Struct Multidiscip Optim.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Keshtegar B, Ozbakkaloglu T, Gholampour A (2017) Modeling the behavior of FRP-confined concrete using dynamic harmony search algorithm. Eng Comput 33(3):415–430

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Keshtegar B, Kisi O (2018) RM5Tree: radial basis M5 model tree for accurate structural reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 180:49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Keshtegar B (2017) Limited conjugate gradient method for structural reliability analysis. Eng Comput 33(3):621–629

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Keshtegar B, Lee I (2016) Relaxed performance measure approach for reliability-based design optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 54(6):1439–1454

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Keshtegar B, Chakraborty S (2018) A hybrid self-adaptive conjugate first order reliability method for robust structural reliability analysis. Appl Math Model 53:319–332.

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Zhu X-K, Leis BN (2006) Average shear stress yield criterion and its application to plastic collapse analysis of pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 83(9):663–671

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zhu X-K, Leis BN (2005) Influence of yield-to-tensile strength ratio on failure assessment of corroded pipelines. J Press Vessel Technol 127(4):436–442

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Anon A (1991) B31G—manual for determining the remaining strength of corroded pipelines—a supplement to ANSI/ASME B31 code for pressure piping. American Society of Mechanical Engineers

  62. 62.

    Kiefner JF, Vieth PH (1990) Evaluating pipe 1: new method corrects criterion for evaluating corroded pipe. Oil Gas J 88(32):56–59

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Bjørnøy O, Sigurdsson G, Cramer E Residual strength of corroded pipelines, DNV test results. In: The tenth international offshore and polar engineering conference, 2000. International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers

  64. 64.

    Fan Z, Yu J, Sun Z, Wang H (2017) Effect of axial length parameters of ovality on the collapse pressure of offshore pipelines. Thin Walled Struct 116:19–25

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Choi J, Goo B, Kim J, Kim Y, Kim W (2003) Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 80(2):121–128

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Netto T (2010) A simple procedure for the prediction of the collapse pressure of pipelines with narrow and long corrosion defects—correlation with new experimental data. Appl Ocean Res 32(1):132–134

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Teixeira A, Soares CG, Netto T, Estefen S (2008) Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects. Int J Press Vessels Pip 85(4):228–237

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Orynyak I Leak and break models of ductile fracture of pressurized pipe with axial defects. In: 2006 international pipeline conference, 2006. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 41–55

  69. 69.

    Möller B, Beer M (2013) Fuzzy randomness: uncertainty in civil engineering and computational mechanics. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Behrooz Keshtegar.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagheri, M., Zhu, SP., Ben Seghier, M.E.A. et al. Hybrid intelligent method for fuzzy reliability analysis of corroded X100 steel pipelines. Engineering with Computers 37, 2559–2573 (2021).

Download citation


  • Fuzzy reliability analysis
  • Corroded pipelines
  • High-strength steel
  • Conjugate first-order reliability method
  • PSO operators