Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A deep learning model to predict the failure response of steel pipes under pitting corrosion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pitting corrosion is one of the major causes of failure in high-pressure oil and gas pipelines. Various inspection techniques can be used to characterize the morphology of corrosion pits, which must be linked to the risk of failure to develop proper maintenance strategies. While numerical techniques such as the finite element method can accurately predict this risk, the labor and computational cost associated with these methods render their application unfeasible over hundreds of miles of a pipeline. In this manuscript, we introduce a deep learning approach relying on the squeeze-and-excitation residual network (SE-ResNet) to predict the strength and toughness of statistical volume elements (SVEs) of a corroded pipe. An automated microstructure reconstruction and mesh generation framework is utilized to synthesize the training data for this model by simulating the failure response of 10,000 SVEs subject to a tensile load (hoop stress). A Bayesian optimization approach is utilized to determine the optimal combination of hyperparameters for the SE-ResNet model, followed by a k-fold cross-validation of the model. We show that the trained SE-ResNet can accurately predict the failure response of corroded pipe SVEs with a maximum error of \(<1\%\). Moreover, a comparison between the proposed model with several other well-known DL architectures shows that it yields superior accuracy and efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rajabipour A, Melchers RE (2013) A numerical study of damage caused by combined pitting corrosion and axial stress in steel pipes. Corros Sci 76:292–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Frankel GS (1998) Pitting corrosion of metals: a review of the critical factors. J Electrochem Soc 145(6):2186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Davidson R (2002) An introduction to pipeline pigging, vol 9. Pigging Products and Services Association

  4. Gupta A, Sircar A (2016) Introduction to pigging & a case study on pigging of an onshore crude oil trunkline. J Latest Technol Eng Manag Appl Sci 5(2):18–25

    Google Scholar 

  5. Papenfuss S (2009) Pigging the “unpiggable”: new technology enables inline inspection and analysis for non-traditional pipelines. In: 5 th MENDT conference, Bahrain

  6. Nagaraj J (2013) Smart pigging in high pressure gas pipeline practical problems and solutions: a case study. In: ASME India oil and gas pipeline conference, vol 45349. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p V001T02A005

  7. Lucas EJK, Hales A, McBryde D, Yun X, Quarini GL (2017) Noninvasive ultrasonic monitoring of ice pigging in pipes containing liquid food materials. J Food Process Eng 40(1):e12306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paik JK, Lee JM, Ko MJ (2003) Ultimate compressive strength of plate elements with pit corrosion wastage. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part M J Eng Marit Environ 217(4):185–200

    Google Scholar 

  9. Paik JK, Lee JM, Ko MJ (2004) Ultimate shear strength of plate elements with pit corrosion wastage. Thin Walled Struct 42(8):1161–1176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang Y, Huang Y, Liu G (2008) A study on assessment of ultimate strength of ship structural plate with pitting corrosion damnification. In: The eighth ISOPE Pacific/Asia offshore mechanics symposium, OnePetro

  11. Ahmmad M, Sumi Y et al (2010) Strength and deformability of corroded steel plates under quasi-static tensile load. J Mar Sci Technol 15(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller AG (1988) Review of limit loads of structures containing defects. Int J Press Vessels Pip 32(1–4):197–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harlow DG, Wei RP (1999) Probabilities of occurrence and detection of damage in airframe materials. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 22(5):427–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen GS, Wan K-C, Gao M, Wei RP, Flournoy TH (1996) Transition from pitting to fatigue crack growth-modeling of corrosion fatigue crack nucleation in a 2024-t3 aluminum alloy. Mater Sci Eng A 219(1–2):126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Turnbull A, McCartney LN, Zhou S (2008) A model to predict the evolution of pitting corrosion and the pit-to-crack transition incorporating statistically distributed input parameters. In: Shipilov S, Jones R, Olive J-M, Rebak R (eds) Environment-induced cracking of materials. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 19–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Amiri M, Arcari A, Airoldi L, Naderi M, Iyyer N (2015) A continuum damage mechanics model for pit-to-crack transition in aa2024-t3. Corros Sci 98:678–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Xiao Y-C, Li S, Gao Z (1998) A continuum damage mechanics model for high cycle fatigue. Int J Fatigue 20(7):503–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu P, Meng Q, Hu W, Shen F, Zhan Z, Sun L (2016) A continuum damage mechanics approach coupled with an improved pit evolution model for the corrosion fatigue of aluminum alloy. Corros Sci 113:78–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang Y, Zheng Y (2019) Research on the damage evolution process of steel wire with pre-corroded defects in cable-stayed bridges. Appl Sci 9(15):3113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu WP, Shen QA, Zhang M, Meng QC, Zhang X (2012) Corrosion-fatigue life prediction for 2024–t62 aluminum alloy using damage mechanics-based approach. Int J Damage Mech 21(8):1245–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ohga M, Appuhamy JMRS, Kaita T, Fujii K, Dissanayake PBR (2010) Numerical study on remaining strength prediction of corroded steel bridge plates. In: International conference on sustainable built environments (ICSBE-2010), pp 529–536

  22. Cui J, Yang F, Yang T-H, Yang G-F (2019) Numerical study of stainless steel pitting process based on the lattice Boltzmann method. Int J Electrochem Sci 14:1529–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bruère VM, Bouchonneau N, Motta RS, Afonso S, Willmersdorf RB, Lyra PR, Torres JV, de Andrade EQ, Cunha DJ (2019) Failure pressure prediction of corroded pipes under combined internal pressure and axial compressive force. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 41(4):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fu B, Stephens D, Ritchie D, Jones CL (2001) Methods for assessing corroded pipeline—review, validation and recommendations. Report GRTC, 3281

  25. Choi JB, Goo BK, Kim JC, Kim YJ, Kim WS (2003) Development of limit load solutions for corroded gas pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 80(2):121–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mohd MH, Lee BJ, Cui Y, Paik JK (2015) Residual strength of corroded subsea pipelines subject to combined internal pressure and bending moment. Ships Offshore Struct 10(5):554–564

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bhaduri A, He Y, Shields MD, Graham-Brady L, Kirby RM (2018) Stochastic collocation approach with adaptive mesh refinement for parametric uncertainty analysis. J Comput Phys 371:732–750

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Bhaduri A, Brandyberry D, Shields MD, Geubelle P, Graham-Brady L (2020) On the usefulness of gradient information in surrogate modeling: application to uncertainty propagation in composite material models. Probab Eng Mech 60:103024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhaduri A, Meyer CS, Gillespie JW Jr, Haque BZ, Shields MD, Graham-Brady L (2021) Probabilistic modeling of discrete structural response with application to composite plate penetration models. J Eng Mech 147(11):04021087

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ok D, Pu Y, Incecik A (2007) Computation of ultimate strength of locally corroded unstiffened plates under uniaxial compression. Mar Struct 20(1–2):100–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ok D, Pu Y, Incecik A (2007) Artificial neural networks and their application to assessment of ultimate strength of plates with pitting corrosion. Ocean Eng 34(17–18):2222–2230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yang Z, Yabansu YC, Al-Bahrani R, Liao WK, Choudhary AN, Kalidindi SR, Agrawal A (2018) Deep learning approaches for mining structure-property linkages in high contrast composites from simulation datasets. Comput Mater Sci 151:278–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rao C, Liu Y (2020) Three-dimensional convolutional neural network (3d-cnn) for heterogeneous material homogenization. Comput Mater Sci 184:109850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mozaffar M, Bostanabad R, Chen W, Ehmann K, Cao J, Bessa MA (2019) Deep learning predicts path-dependent plasticity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(52):26414–26420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Haghighat E, Raissi M, Moure A, Gomez H, Juanes R (2020) A deep learning framework for solution and discovery in solid mechanics. arXiv:2003.02751

  36. Elshawi R, Maher M, Sakr S (2019) Automated machine learning: state-of-the-art and open challenges. arXiv:1906.02287,

  37. Kuhn M, Johnson K et al (2013) Applied predictive modeling, vol 26. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Yang L, Shami A (2020) On hyperparameter optimization of machine learning algorithms: theory and practice. Neurocomputing 415:295–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Talbi E-G (2021) Automated design of deep neural networks: a survey and unified taxonomy. ACM Comput Surv: CSUR 54(2):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bardenet R, Brendel M, Kégl B, Sebag M (2013) Collaborative hyperparameter tuning. In: International conference on machine learning. PMLR, pp 199–207

  41. Li L, Jamieson K, Rostamizadeh A, Gonina E, Ben-Tzur J, Hardt M, Recht B, Talwalkar A (2020) A system for massively parallel hyperparameter tuning. Proc Mach Learn Syst 2:230–246

    Google Scholar 

  42. Joy TT, Rana S, Gupta S, Venkatesh S (2016). Hyperparameter tuning for big data using Bayesian optimisation. In: 2016 23rd international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR). IEEE, pp 2574–2579

  43. Bergstra J, Bardenet R, Bengio Y, Kégl B (2011) Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on neural information processing systems. pp 2546–2554

  44. Hutter F, Hoos HH, Leyton-Brown K (2011) Sequential model-based optimization for general algorithm configuration. In: International conference on learning and intelligent optimization. Springer, pp 507–523

  45. Bergstra J, Bengio Y (2012) Random search for hyper-parameter optimization. J Mach Learn Res 13(2):281–305

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Snoek J, Larochelle H, Adams RP (2012) Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on neural information processing systems, vol 2. pp, 2951–2959

  47. Hill R (1985) On the micro-to-macro transition in constitutive analyses of elastoplastic response at finite strain. In: Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol 98. Cambridge Univ Press, pp 579–590

  48. Lemaitre J (1985) A continuous damage mechanics model for ductile fracture. J Eng Mater Technol 107:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bataille J, Kestin J (1979) Irreversible processes and physical interpretation of rational thermodynamics. J Non Equilib Thermodyn 4:229–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hooputra H, Gese H, Dell H, Werner H (2004) A comprehensive failure model for crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions. Int J Crashworthiness 9(5):449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Keshavarz A, Ghajar R, Mirone G (2014) A new experimental failure model based on triaxiality factor and Lode angle for X-100 pipeline steel. Int J Mech Sci 80:175–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Dzugan J, Spaniel M, Prantl A, Konopik P, Ruzicka J, Kuzelka J (2018) Identification of ductile damage parameters for pressure vessel steel. Nucl Eng Des 328:372–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ahmadian H, Yang M, Nagarajan A, Soghrati S (2019) Effects of shape and misalignment of fibers on the failure response of carbon fiber reinforced polymers. Comput Mech 63(5):999–1017

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Yang M, Garrard J, Abedi R, Soghrati S (2021) Effect of microstructural variations on the failure response of a nano-enhanced polymer: a homogenization-based statistical analysis. Comput Mech 67:315–340

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Yang M, Nagarajan A, Liang B, Soghrati S (2018) New algorithms for virtual reconstruction of heterogeneous microstructures. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 338:275–298

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  57. Soghrati S, Nagarajan A, Liang B (2017) Conforming to interface structured adaptive mesh refinement: new technique for the automated modeling of materials with complex microstructures. Finite Elem Anal Des 125:24–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Nagarajan A, Soghrati S (2018) Conforming to interface structured adaptive mesh refinement: 3d algorithm and implementation. Comput Mech 62(5):1213–1238

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Brain D, Webb GI (1999) On the effect of data set size on bias and variance in classification learning. In: Proceedings of the fourth Australian Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, University of New South Wales, pp 117–128

  60. Hu J, Shen L, Sun G (2018) Squeeze-and-excitation networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 7132–7141

  61. Simonyan K, Zisserman A (2014) Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. arXiv:1409.1556

  62. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2016). Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 770–778

  63. Chollet F et al (2015) Keras

  64. Abadi M, Barham P, Chen J, Chen Z, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Irving G, Isard M et al (2016) Tensorflow: a system for large-scale machine learning. In: 12th \(\{\)USENIX\(\}\) symposium on operating systems design and implementation (\(\{\)OSDI\(\}\) 16), pp 265–283

  65. Shahriari B, Swersky K, Wang Z, Adams RP, De Freitas N (2015) Taking the human out of the loop: a review of bayesian optimization. Proc IEEE 104(1):148–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Szegedy C, Liu W, Jia Y, Sermanet P, Reed S, Anguelov D, Erhan D, Vanhoucke V, Rabinovich A (2015) Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 1–9

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) under grant number FA9550-21-1-0245. The authors also acknowledge the allocation of computing resources by the Ohio State University Simulation Innovation and Modeling Center (SIMCenter) and the Ohio Suercomputer Center (OSC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University, 201 West 19th Avenue, Columbus, OH, USA

    Mingshi Ji, Ming Yang & Soheil Soghrati

  2. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, 201 W. 19th Avenue, Columbus, OH, USA

    Soheil Soghrati

Authors
  1. Mingshi Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Soheil Soghrati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soheil Soghrati.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ji, M., Yang, M. & Soghrati, S. A deep learning model to predict the failure response of steel pipes under pitting corrosion. Comput Mech 71, 295–310 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-022-02238-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00466-022-02238-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation