journal article·2025-01-24

Intelligent diagnosis of gas pipeline condition through multivariate analysis of acoustic emission signal-based imaging

Md Junayed Hasan, Khandaker Noman, Wasib Ul Navid, Yongbo Li, Auwal Haruna, Khandaker Ashfak

Publisher page

Abstract

Intelligent gas-pipeline condition monitoring is vital for managing risk and reducing costs, but traditional methods using acoustic emissions (AE) encounter challenges like fluid-pressure changes, flange vibrations, and inconsistent leak length, resulting in unreliable outcomes. This research proposes an intelligent solution that overcomes these obstacles, enabling real-time-accurate monitoring. The initial solution involves resampling and segmenting AE signals, followed by two-parallel processes to enhance the density of AE features. The first process involves stacking the segments to create a 2D-acoustic-time representation (ATR), while the second process uses the Hilbert transform to derive the relative magnitudes of frequency components from the envelope-power-spectrum from each segment. This results in a 2D-acoustic-frequency representation (AFR). A data-level-fusion is then proposed by combining the ATR and AFR to create the multivariate-acoustic-imaging-representation (MAIR), which serves as input for the multivariate-convolutional neural network (MCNN). Unlike previous research in this area, MAIR enables image-based input to MCNN, allowing the utilisation of image augmentation for the first time. This mitigates data limitations and enhances the generalisation performance of the model before training. Testing on the GPLA-12 dataset demonstrates the robustness of the proposed approach, achieving a pipeline-leak detection accuracy of 97.88% for 12 classes, surpassing state-of-the-art methods by at least 8.47%.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Drilling and Well Engineering

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Dataxense

Northwestern Polytechnical University

References (37)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/10589759.2022.205501710.1080/10589759.2022.2055017 ↗
2. 10.1080/15567036.2022.210051810.1080/15567036.2022.2100518 ↗
3. 10.1080/10589759.2024.240939110.1080/10589759.2024.2409391 ↗
4. European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group Database. EGIG report. [cited 2023 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.egig.eu/reports
5. U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. US PHMSA. [cited 2023 Feb 2]. Available from: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/
6. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.10700410.1016/j.ress.2020.107004 ↗
7. 10.1080/10589759.2020.180386010.1080/10589759.2020.1803860 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ress.2023.10948610.1016/j.ress.2023.109486 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.ress.2016.11.01410.1016/j.ress.2016.11.014 ↗
10. The American Society for Nondestructive Testing. Nondestructive testing Handbook third edition: volume 6 acoustic emission testing (AE). 2005 [cited 2023 Feb 2]. Available from: https://asnt.org/
11. 10.1109/TIM.2017.267302410.1109/TIM.2017.2673024 ↗
12. 10.1080/10589759.2023.229979010.1080/10589759.2023.2299790 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.measurement.2020.10828410.1016/j.measurement.2020.108284 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2020.10424310.1016/j.ijpvp.2020.104243 ↗
15. 10.1002/prs.1233410.1002/prs.12334 ↗
16. 10.1109/ICESIT53460.2021.969645510.1109/ICESIT53460.2021.9696455 ↗
17. 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_3810.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_38 ↗
18. 10.1109/TIE.2020.297245810.1109/TIE.2020.2972458 ↗
19. 10.1109/TIM.2022.319674210.1109/TIM.2022.3196742 ↗
20. Mohammad-Alikhani A, Nahid-Mobarakeh B., Hsieh M. F 2023. One-dimensional LSTM-regulated deep residual network for data-driven fault detection in electric machines. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 71(3), 3083-3092.
21. 10.1016/j.ress.2020.10689210.1016/j.ress.2020.106892 ↗
22. 10.1080/10589759.2024.238993510.1080/10589759.2024.2389935 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ress.2021.10753010.1016/j.ress.2021.107530 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.10987510.1016/j.measurement.2021.109875 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.10794010.1016/j.ymssp.2021.107940 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.measurement.2021.10979110.1016/j.measurement.2021.109791 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.10.01510.1016/j.measurement.2015.10.015 ↗
28. 10.1186/s40537-019-0197-010.1186/s40537-019-0197-0 ↗
29. Li J, Yao L. GPLA-12: an acoustic signal dataset of gas pipeline leakage. arXiv Prepr arXiv: 2106. 2021:10277.
30. Luo W Li Y Urtasun R et al. “Understanding the effective receptive field in deep convolutional neural networks.” Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016).
31. 10.1038/nature1453910.1038/nature14539 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.01710.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.017 ↗
33. Hui L, Belkin M. Evaluation of neural architectures trained with square loss vs cross-entropy in classification tasks. In: The Ninth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR 2021); 2021.
34. Gholamy A, Kreinovich V, Kosheleva O. Why 70/30 or 80/20 relation between training and testing sets: a pedagogical explanation. Int J Intell Syst Technol Appl. 2018;11(2):105–111.
35. Brownlee J. Better deep learning: train faster, reduce overfitting, and make better predictions. Mach Learn Mastery. 2018.
36. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. MIT Press; 2016.
37. van der Maaten L, Hinton G. Visualizing data using t-SNE. J Mach Learn Res. 2008;9(Nov):2579–2605.