An intelligent method for identifying magnetic flux leakage defects in small-diameter pipe elbows based on deep learning
Source abstract
Abstract
The elbow portion of a pipeline plays a critical role in pipeline systems, and defects can lead to potential gas and oil leakage accidents. Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) detection is an efficient method for identifying pipeline defects. To address the issue of image distortion in defect MFL signals, the accuracy of defect recognition must be improved. This paper proposes an intelligent identification method for MFL defects in small-diameter pipe elbows based on a deep learning target detection algorithm. The MSRCR algorithm is enhanced using bilateral filtering and gamma correction to improve the image features of defect MFL signals. Additionally, the YOLOv5 network is augmented with CBAM, Soft-NMS and Focal-EIOU loss to enhance the feature extraction capabilities. The results show that the proposed improved MSRCR algorithm effectively solves the elbow MFL defect distortion problem. The improved YOLOv5 network achieves average defect recognition accuracies of 86.61% and 94.27% on the original and enhanced datasets, respectively. After experimental verification, the network effectively improves the recognition accuracy of MFL defects in small-diameter pipe elbows, and provides useful technical support for the intelligent detection and safety evaluation of elbows.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Changzhou University
CCTEG Chongqing Research Institute
SINOPEC MATRIX Corporation
Jiangsu Guoxin Corporation Limited
Funding
CNPC-CZU · Changzhou University
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2023.10489210.1016/j.ijpvp.2023.104892 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.07.08310.1016/j.neucom.2019.07.083 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.comcom.2022.08.00110.1016/j.comcom.2022.08.001 ↗
4. 10.1007/s11668-022-01344-610.1007/s11668-022-01344-6 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2006.04.00310.1016/j.ndteint.2006.04.003 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.11.00110.1016/j.ndteint.2012.11.001 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2023.17039510.1016/j.jmmm.2023.170395 ↗
8. Sadr A, Ehteram S. Robust defect detection algorithm based classification on features extracted from MFL signals. NDT J Nondestr Test. 2008:NO. May 1–8.
9. 10.1109/SENSORS47125.2020.927865710.1109/SENSORS47125.2020.9278657 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.suscom.2017.08.00210.1016/j.suscom.2017.08.002 ↗
11. 10.3390/s2304185710.3390/s23041857 ↗
12. 10.1007/s11370-014-0158-610.1007/s11370-014-0158-6 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.10.04010.1016/j.asoc.2016.10.040 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2019.10213410.1016/j.ndteint.2019.102134 ↗
15. 10.1109/TIM.2017.267302410.1109/TIM.2017.2673024 ↗
16. 10.1109/TMAG.2009.202016010.1109/TMAG.2009.2020160 ↗
17. 10.1109/TII.2019.292628310.1109/TII.2019.2926283 ↗
18. 10.1109/TIM.2022.319924710.1109/TIM.2022.3199247 ↗
19. 10.1515/corrrev-2023-002710.1515/corrrev-2023-0027 ↗
20. 10.1109/TII.2020.300870310.1109/TII.2020.3008703 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.jvcir.2018.01.01110.1016/j.jvcir.2018.01.011 ↗
22. 10.1002/sca.2128610.1002/sca.21286 ↗
23. 10.1109/TIP.2018.281053910.1109/TIP.2018.2810539 ↗
24. 10.1002/col.2256810.1002/col.22568 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.neucom.2017.03.02910.1016/j.neucom.2017.03.029 ↗
26. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.292040310.1109/ACCESS.2019.2920403 ↗
27. 10.1109/LSP.2020.302499010.1109/LSP.2020.3024990 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.09.01210.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.09.012 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ijleo.2019.02.05410.1016/j.ijleo.2019.02.054 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.compag.2022.10678010.1016/j.compag.2022.106780 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.11529110.1016/j.engstruct.2022.115291 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.patrec.2023.08.01910.1016/j.patrec.2023.08.019 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.neucom.2022.07.04210.1016/j.neucom.2022.07.042 ↗