Login | Free Trial | Subscribe | Advertise 

Projects  Operations  Business & Markets  Technology/R&D Regulatory

Community & Environment  Regions  People Perspectives

Home  Magazine  2022  December 2022, Vol. 249, No. 12  Predictive Corrosion Modeling – Rise of the Machines

PREMIUM CONTENT. UPGRADE YOUR

SUBSCRIPTION
December 2022, Vol. 249, No. 12 TO ACCESS THIS
FEATURES
EXCLUSIVE CONTENT.
Already a subscriber? Click here to log in.

Predictive Corrosion Modeling – Upgrade Subscription

Rise of the Machines Due to a system upgrade, users may need to reset thier
password here.


By Parth Iyer, P.Eng., Mike Westlund, B.Sc., and Wei Liu, M.Sc., Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems,
Inc.

(P&GJ) — Pipelines play an important role in the international transportation of natural gas, petroleum
products and other energy resources. To ensure pipeline operational safely, instrumented inspections and
assessments are completed on a recurring frequency.

Figure 1: Typical inline inspection workflow(1),(2)

One of the most used inspection methods is inline inspection (ILI), a form of nondestructive testing used to
assess pipeline conditional integrity. ILI involves using a technologically advanced instrumented tool,
propelled within the product flow inside the pipeline, to identify and size corrosion, cracks and other pipe
wall defects that can lead to catastrophic structural failure.

ILI can also record data such as pipe wall loss, pipe geometry deviations in alignment with linear positioning
that can be used in the determination of pipeline repair and replacement locations. Figure 1 presents a
typical ILI program workflow, based on API 1163 and API 580.

However, not all pipelines are considered “ILI compatible,” and those that cannot be inspected using
traditional ILI technologies are typically categorized as difficult-to-inspect (DTI). Challenges to performing
an ILI can be categorized into either physical (e.g., design, materials, geometry or location) or operational
(e.g., pressure, flow, product or temperature) limitations.

Table 1: Input variables fed into models in this project

Therefore, the industry typically resorts to alternative assessment methods such as hydrostatic testing or
direct assessments (DA) to assess the integrity of DTI pipelines, which can be destructive in nature and
may require an interruption in operation.(3) This is the process step in the gray box (“Perform In-line
Inspection”) in Figure 1.

In this project, machine learning algorithms were used to predict the location and severity of metal loss
corrosion on pipelines, with the intent of providing a nondestructive screening tool that can quickly and
reliably aid pipeline operators in assessing the threats of internal and external corrosion on pipelines
without ILI data.

Specifically, the algorithm predictions for a specific pipe segment includes a potential for the presence of
metal loss (if the metal loss is on the internal or external wall surface) and a regression analysis of metal
loss characteristics (corrosion depth, length, width and orientation).
 Table 2: Input Data Consolidation

Methodology

This project hypothesizes that a correlation exists between pipeline attributes and operating condition data,
and the metal loss reported by ILI. Based on this, machine learning methods are trained to find the
correlations and patterns such that accurate predictions can be made when ILI data are not available.

Machine learning methods mainly use statistical methods to train algorithms for classification and
regression. Compared with traditional methods, the application of machine learning has the potential to
analyze large amounts of data and at a high accuracy level.

Supervised learning, the method used in this project, is the most popular paradigm for machine learning.
Based on output variables, a supervised learning method was used for classification (corrosion/non-
corrosion, external/internal corrosion) and regression (corrosion depth, corrosion length, corrosion width
and corrosion orientation) challenges.

After comparing different supervised learning algorithms, XGBoost1 was chosen for its high prediction
accuracy. As one of the most progressive ensemble machine learning methods, XGBoost produces an
advanced prediction model in the form of an ensemble of weak prediction models, typically decision trees.
Based on the Linux system of VMware and using Python,2,(4) this study implements the XGBClassifier3
and XGBRegressor4 from the Scikit-learn5,(5) module to create the supervised learning classifiers and
regressor.
 Figure 2: Dynamic Segments

In addition, Grid Search is used to compute the optimum values of hyperparameters when building different
models.

Data Preparation

Prior to building the model, data preparation included selecting 28 pipeline parameters, including pipeline
attributes and environment conditions as input variables (Table 1). The input variables were selected and
extracted from a larger pipeline database used to perform risk assessments, which contains information
from multiple anonymized North American pipeline operators.

Data Standardization

Following data preparation, data standardization and consolidation was needed because of the multiple
parameters and naming conventions used across pipeline operators within the database. A significant
amount of time was spent consolidating the input values to ensure the model would perform optimally.

For example, within the data, there were multiple pipe grades and coating types identified that could be
consolidated, a subset of which is shown in Table 2. This process was repeated for all 28 input variables to
ensure data quality, consistency across the database, and optimal prediction model performance.

Dynamic Segments

The Dynamic Risk software application makes use of the concept of dynamic segmentation, which is
defined as a length of pipe that maintains consistency across specific variables for its entire length. The
purpose of this granularization is to establish a discrete length of pipe for each unique set of input variables.
Figure 2 provides a simple example of dynamic segmentation in using wall thickness, coating type and land
use.
 Figure 3: Machine learning algorithm workflow

In this example (Figure 2) both wall thickness and coating can be broken up into three discrete linear
events, while land use can be broken up into two linear events. Each of these linear events is distinct in their
length. When dynamic segments are defined, the linear events can be taken for each variable to create a
dynamic segment, of which there are six, each with uniform variable types across its length.

Segmentation for pipelines within the database that have magnetic flux leakage (MFL) ILI was completed
based on the 28 linear data attributes (noted in Table 1 and the process outlined in Figure 2). The
segments created included the metal loss features from the most recent MFL ILI data for consumption by
the predictive model.

Machine Learning

Figure 3 shows the methodology workflow for each prediction model. The database of dynamic pipeline
segments was split randomly into a training set containing 80% of the data and a testing set containing
20% of the data. The training set (with the ILI features) was fed into the machine learning model for
training and validation so it could identify the patterns within the data.
 Table 6: Confusion Matrix – First Model in Case 2

Upon identifying a correlation between the input features and output labels, the predictive model gained
the function to predict the labels of the testing set. The predictive performance of the models was obtained
by comparing the predictions with corresponding real data of the testing set.

Model Building

There were six outputs to be predicted, two for the classification model and four for the regression model,
as shown in Table 3.

In machine learning, prior to building the model, a set of hyperparameters, defined as parameters whose
value is used to control the learning process, need to be identified. The following four hyperparameters
were chosen to control the learning process of the models:

Learning rate: a parameter that helps control overfitting by changing the weight of each new decision
tree added to the model.
Number of estimators: the number of decision trees included in the iterative process of the model.
Maximum depth: the maximum depth of each individual decision tree.
Minimum child weight: the minimum sum of weights required to split a node.

To determine the best combination of all hyperparameter values, a function of Python’s Grid Search was
used to conduct an exhaustive search of a subset of hyperparameter values. A tenfold cross-validation
assessed the performance of each candidate classifier.

In the tenfold cross-validation, a training data set was split into approximately 10 equal size subsets. One
subset was chosen as a validation sample and the remaining subsets were used as the training samples.
After repeating the training-validation procedure several times, the mean prediction result was compared
among all models with different hyperparameter combinations. The model with the best performance was
selected to be retained.

In this project, all the models were built by a systematic XGBoost method combining training and validation,
hyperparameter selection and model testing. Other supervised learning methods could be used to build this
model (e.g., random forest, gradient boosted decision trees); however, the prediction accuracy was found to
be lower than XGBoost.

Results

Once trained, the models were introduced to the testing data set. Based on the six different outputs, two
classification models and four regression models were built. Results of the classification and regression
models are discussed in this section.
 Figure 5: Correlation coefficient of regression models.

Classification Models

Case 1: Corrosion/non-corrosion model

In this case study, the classification model was instructed to predict whether a dynamic segment contained
corrosion. Two models were built and compared in this method. In the first model, the best prediction was
obtained using 1,048,403 dynamic segments (1,044,527 corrosion and 3,876 non-corrosion).

Only about 20% of these (209,681 samples) were used as part of the test set, which is reflected in Table 4,
and the remaining were used to train the algorithm.
Table 4 shows an overall accuracy of 99.92% between the predicted results and the actual results in the
first model. The accuracy in corrosion and non-corrosion samples is 99.98% and 81.08%, respectively. A
constraint of this model is that the data size of corrosion samples is overwhelmingly larger than non-
corrosion samples, which introduces a bias in the training.

To overcome this sample bias, a second model was created by selecting a sample of dynamic segments
with approximately equal number of segments having corrosion vs. non-corrosion. This case provided a
more complete database and removed any bias by including 172,772 segments with corrosion and
172,422 segments without corrosion.

For the best prediction, a total of 345,194 dynamic segments were used for this second model. Of these,
only 20% (69,039 samples) were used as test samples, and the rest were used to train the algorithm. As
seen in Table 5, the overall accuracy of the second model is 95.14%.

The accuracy in corrosion and non-corrosion samples is 95.44% and 94.84%, respectively. Even though
the accuracy of the second model is slightly lower than the first model, the second model is more reliable
and less biased.

Case 2: Corrosion Model

Case Study 2 used dynamic segments that contained ILI corrosion features with the same 28 input
variables to predict the surface on which corrosion occurred (external and internal). Two models were also
built.

In the first model, the best prediction was obtained from the training and testing using 1,044,527 dynamic
segments (997,153 segments with external corrosion and 47,374 segments with internal corrosion).
About 20% of these (208,906 dynamic segments) were used as part of the test set, reflected in Table 6.

Table 6 shows an accuracy of 99.05% between the predicted results and the actual results in the first
model. The accuracy in external and internal corrosion samples is 99.59% and 87.70%, respectively.

Like Case 1, the challenge in the first model was that the data size of external corrosion samples was
overwhelmingly larger than internal corrosion samples. This affected the prediction of the model because of
the sample bias. The lower accuracy among the internal corrosion samples can be attributed to fewer
training samples and the limitation of input features. Typical susceptibility criteria for internal corrosion
such as elevation profile, product composition and coupon data were not available to include in the list of
inputs to the model in the project.

The second model in this case provided a more complete database with less difference between the
number of dynamic segments with external and internal corrosion. The database used for this prediction
model contained 168,001 dynamic segments that contained ILI corrosion features (128,089 external and
39,912 internal).

Of these, 20% (33,601 dynamic segments) were used as test samples, and the remaining were used to
train the algorithm. Table 7 shows that the overall accuracy of this second model is 93.83%. The accuracy
for each of external corrosion and internal corrosion samples is 96.78% and 84.37%, respectively.

As with Case 1, the prediction accuracy of the second model using a more complete database is lower than
the first model; however, it is more reliable and less bias.

Regression Models

To further predict the attributes of the corrosion within the dynamic segments, four regression models were
built in the following four corresponding cases.

Using the same data (168,001 dynamic segments with ILI features) as the second model of Case 2, the
corrosion depth (Case 3), corrosion length (Case 4), corrosion width (Case 5), and corrosion orientation
(Case 6) are shown in Figure 4.

Confidence Levels

Figure 4 shows a sample of the prediction performance of four regression model cases. Test samples that
fall within the shaded region in each of the graphs indicate a 90% confidence in the prediction accuracy.

Nearly all the predicted corrosion depth data are within the 90% confidence area when compared to ILI
measured depth. That is to say, the model has 90% confidence to predict the corrosion depth accurately.

For corrosion length and corrosion width, there were some predictions falling outside of the 90%
confidence area, which suggest that the models have less than 90% confidence to predict corrosion length
and width. In the prediction of corrosion orientation, more than half of the real data fall out of the 90%
confidence area, which means the model has weak predictive power for the corrosion orientation.

This low confidence in predicting orientation can be attributed to no input features containing useful
information to help the model learn about corrosion orientation.
 Figure 7: Corrosion depth distributions for pipe grade

Correlation Coefficient

The correlation coefficient (R2) assesses the quality of a model prediction by observing the difference
between predicted data and actual data. Figure 5 shows the R2 of the four regression models (Cases 3
through 6).

Results suggest that the model could provide satisfactory prediction of corrosion depth with R2 up to 0.44.
The predictive performance of models for corrosion length and width was lower than that of corrosion
depth, with 0.09 R2 and 0.12 R2, respectively.

For the corrosion orientation, the model had poor performance of prediction. The R2 was only 0.029 and
the prediction values fell into a very limited range (150° to 200°).

Probability of Failure

Typically, for pipelines where ILI data are not available, risk assessment is performed using qualitive models
or subject matter expertise.(6) But, with this machine learning approach, a quantitative risk assessment
can be performed on DTI pipelines as well.

Therefore, using the depth, length and width prediction, probability of exceedance (POE) was calculated
using the method presented by Mihell, et. al (Table 8).(7)

Table 8 shows that NPS 8 pipe on average observed the highest POE values (3.81 × 10-2) in the data set.
This is because of the larger number of dynamic segments for NPS 8 pipe and the higher predicted depth
from the models on NPS 8 pipe. NPS 16 pipe, on the other hand, had the largest sample size in terms of
dynamic segments and a very low average predicted depth.

This resulted in a low average POE of 1.21 × 10-7. NPS 14 pipe was scarcely represented in the database
and, because of the shallower anomalies, also resulted in a very low average POE.

Insights

As an output from the database, distributions for each input variable were created to gain more insights on
the data and to further analyze the data for trends and commonalities. The figures below show the ILI-
measured metal loss depth distributions for two of the input features (pipe year and pipe specification).
From the prediction distributions, observations can be made such as the lowest corrosion depths are
associated with pipe manufactured in 1970, and the highest ILI metal loss depths are associated with pipe
manufactured in 1959 (Figure 6).

The distribution of ILI metal loss features for the input parameter of “Pipe Specification” (Figure 7)
indicates that Grade X46 steel is associated with lower ILI-measured metal loss depths.
The highest ILI metal loss depths are associated with a pipe grade of X49; however, after further
investigation, the overall population of ILI features in the database that occur in pipe with this grade is very
small (accounting for only 10 ILI features). Also, a Grade of X49 is not a typical pipeline grade associated
with transmission pipelines.

This input parameter would require further investigation to confirm if the grade of X49 is a unique segment
of pipe within the database or a data error. A similar case that would require further investigation exists
with the grade of X68, which accounts for only one ILI feature in the database and is likely due to an error
in the data.

Distributions can be produced for each of the input variables, such as “Coating Type” and “Pipe
Manufacturer,” to gain further insights on the data. Observations made from the distributions then can be
used to improve the quality of the input data, validate corrosion risk algorithms, or investigate specific
areas of other pipeline segments that contain similar input parameters.

Conclusions

Based on the results obtained from implementing the machine learning model, the following conclusions
were made:

Machine learning was used successfully to develop a corrosion prediction model using ILI data and pipeline
parameter data.

A significant amount of effort was required to prepare and standardize the data prior to building the
prediction model. Depending on the completeness and validity of certain data elements, other variables can
be used as proxies for input into the model.

Using a database with equal number of segments (corrosion and non-corrosion) provided slightly lower
prediction accuracy. However, the results of this prediction model were more reliable due to lower bias.

Prediction of external metal loss was better than internal metal loss. This result was expected because
many of the input parameters catered to external corrosion mechanisms. Input data based on internal
corrosion mechanisms were not as abundantly available for this project and may be a consideration for
future developments.

In the regression cases, the model could predict the corrosion depth with 90% confidence level and 0.44
R2. Predictions of corrosion length and width were less accurate but considered acceptable. The corrosion
orientation could not be predicted accurately because of the limitation of input variables.

NPS 8 pipe showed the highest average POE because of the large sample size and higher average
predicted depth.

Output distributions provide data insights for each input variable. Data trends and observations require
further investigation and can be useful to improve the data quality or validate actual conditions in other
pipeline segments.

This paper demonstrates a proof of concept for a machine learning–based approach to predicting location
and dimensions of metal loss. The overall accuracy of the classification models and the high confidence
level in the regression models show promise and have the potential, with additional development, to
become screening tools for DTI pipelines.

Editor’s note: This paper was presented at the 34th Pipeline Pigging & Integrity Management Conference,
Jan. 31- Feb. 4, 2022. © Clarion Technical Conferences and Great Southern Press. Used with permission.

References:

4. API RP 580, “Risk-Based Inspection,” Third Edition (Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute, 2016).
5. API STD 1163, “In-line Inspection Systems Qualification Standard,” Third Edition (Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute,
2021).
6. B. Mittelstadt and C. Parker, “Guidelines for Integrity Assessment of Difficult to Inspect Pipelines,” Pipeline Research Council
International, 2019.
7. G.V. Rossum, “Python,” Python Software Foundation, 1991. Accessed 2021; https://www.python.org/downloads/.
8. F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, and O. Grisel, “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn.
Res. 12 (2011): p. 2825–2830.
9. P. Iyer, H. Wu, Y. Nakazato, M. Sen, and L. Krissa, “Estimating the Financial Risk Reductions Associated with Cathodic Protection
Programs,” Corrosion 2020 (Houston, TX: NACE, 2020).
10. J. Mihell, J. Lemieux, and S. Hasan, “Probability-based Sentencing Criteria for Volumetric In-line Inspection Data,” International Pipeline
Conference, 2016.
11. A. Rachman and R.C. Ratnayake, “Machine learning approach for risk-based inspection screening assessment,” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
185 (2019): p. 518–523.
12. W.Y. Loh, “Classification and Regression Trees,” WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2011): p. 14-23.


Related Articles
Case Study: Identification, Sizing Accuracy for UTCD In-Line Inspection
Remote Alarm Notification Helps Fuel Increased Gas Production
Solving Sulfide Stress Cracking in Sour Service

Optimizing Emergency Response Through Alarm Management

Spotlight on Supply Chain: How Companies Can Avoid Uncertainty
Crucial Role of Testing Labs in Pipeline Emergency Response

Comments

Type your comment here Add Comment

Related Articles
Case Study: Identification, Sizing Accuracy for UTCD In-Line Inspection
Remote Alarm Notification Helps Fuel Increased Gas Production
Solving Sulfide Stress Cracking in Sour Service
Optimizing Emergency Response Through Alarm Management
Spotlight on Supply Chain: How Companies Can Avoid Uncertainty
Crucial Role of Testing Labs in Pipeline Emergency Response

CONNECT WITH PGJ


SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OUR NEWSLETTER

Most Read Most Commented

Keystone Oil Pipeline Resumes Operations After Temporary Shutdown
U.S. House Passes Bill to Reverse Biden's LNG Pause
Mexico Orders Seizure of Hydrogen Plant at Pemex Oil Refinery
EnCap Eyes $5 Billion Sale of Bakken Shale Producer Grayson Mill
Sunoco to Acquire NuStar Energy in $7.3 Billion Deal for Midstream Expansion

PIPELINE PROJECT SPOTLIGHT

Owner:
East African Crude Oil Pipeline Company

Project:
East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)

Type:
TotalEnergies in discussions with a Chinese
company after Russian supplier Chelpipe was
hit by sanctions.

Length:
902 miles (1,443 km)

Capacity:
200,000 b/d

Start:
2022

Completion:
2025
 Home / About Us / Advertise / Free Trial / Full Access Subscription / Renew Subscription / Contact Us / Help / Store
/ Sitemap

Magazine News Resources

Free Trial Latest News Associations
Current Issue Conference News Buyer's Guide
Archive People Global Energy Infrastructure
Reprints & Back Issues Newsletter Sign Up Gulf Energy Information Store
Author Guidelines RSS Feed Pipeline Projects
Special Reports Sustainability Leadership (Blog) Special Reports
Editorial Calendar Webcasts
White Papers
Podcasts

Events Topics Regions

Energy Events Calendar Projects North America
Underground Construction Technology Operations Central & South America
Eastern Mediterranean Gas Conference Business & Markets Europe
Pipeline Opportunities Conference Technology/R&D Asia/Pacific
Women's Global Leadership Conference Regulatory Australia
Pipeline & Gas Journal Awards Community & Environment Russia & CIS
Regions Middle East
People Africa
Perspectives

Our Brands
Gulf Energy Information
World Oil
Hydrocarbon Processing
PE Media Network
Gas Processing & LNG
Underground Infrastructure
Pipeline Data
© 2023 Pipeline & Gas Journal, © 2023 Gulf Publishing Holdings LLC.
All material is subject to strictly enforced copyright laws.
Please read our Terms & Conditions, Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy before using the site.