Automated matching and visualisation of magnetic flux leakage data in shale gas pipeline based on ICP and DBSCAN algorithm
Source abstract
Abstract
Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) is a non-destructive testing method for shale gas pipeline safety monitoring. Despite many pipelines have completed two or more rounds of internal inspection and have accumulated substantial data, effectively analyzing and utilizing this MFL data remains a significant challenge. To that end, this study proposes a novel combined model that integrates Iterative Closest Point (ICP) and DBSCAN (Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise) fusion to match multiple MFL data. The model outputs the matching result and visualisation images of MFL data acquired in different years. Furthermore, RMSE (root mean square error) and overlap rate have been used to evaluate the model. The results indicate that the average distance error of matched defects between two datasets decreased by 72.5%, and the overlap rate increased by 20%. Additionally, the DBSCAN Fusion shows better computational efficiency with an increase in defect quantity within the pipe segments. Finally, the impact of different datasets on the model’s matching accuracy is discussed in this study. The findings show that small-scale datasets or higher false detection rates lead to decreased accuracy. The proposed model fully leverages MFL data to achieve rapid matching of defects, offering a dependable and effective technical solution for safety monitoring and corrosion prediction in shale gas pipelines.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Geophysical Methods and Applications · Drilling and Well Engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Southwest Petroleum University
Petro China Southwest Oil & Gasfield Company
References (46)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.05.01010.1016/j.engfailanal.2018.05.010 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ress.2017.08.02310.1016/j.ress.2017.08.023 ↗
3. 10.3390/met1204057610.3390/met12040576 ↗
4. 10.3390/met805034610.3390/met8050346 ↗
5. 10.1007/s10921-024-01061-010.1007/s10921-024-01061-0 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.10562210.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105622 ↗
7. 10.3390/s15122984510.3390/s151229845 ↗
8. 10.3390/ma1520736210.3390/ma15207362 ↗
9. 10.1063/9.000045110.1063/9.0000451 ↗
10. 10.1007/978-3-319-50904-4_3210.1007/978-3-319-50904-4_32 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.01.00610.1016/j.ndteint.2009.01.006 ↗
12. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2023.10512310.1016/j.ijpvp.2023.105123 ↗
13. 10.1109/TMAG.2018.284422010.1109/TMAG.2018.2844220 ↗
14. 10.1109/TIM.2021.305200010.1109/TIM.2021.3052000 ↗
15. 10.1080/10589759.2022.211447510.1080/10589759.2022.2114475 ↗
16. 10.1115/1.405117710.1115/1.4051177 ↗
17. 10.1109/TMAG.2020.298145010.1109/TMAG.2020.2981450 ↗
18. 10.1080/10589759.2024.235722910.1080/10589759.2024.2357229 ↗
19. Peng S, Xu Y, Zhang Y, et al. Alignment method of pipeline in-line inspection data and its application. You-qi chuyun. 2021;40(2): 151–156.
20. Su Z. Application of comprehensive corrosion data analysis methods in the integrity management of long-distance crude oil pipelines. Corros Protect. 2023;44(12):114–123
21. 10.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.11.00710.1016/j.ijpvp.2016.11.007 ↗
22. 10.3390/s2314647510.3390/s23146475 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.10.00410.1016/j.ndteint.2018.10.004 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.medengphy.2024.10415310.1016/j.medengphy.2024.104153 ↗
25. 10.1109/TGRS.2023.331782210.1109/TGRS.2023.3317822 ↗
26. 10.3390/buildings1311284110.3390/buildings13112841 ↗
27. 10.1109/TMAG.2021.306106010.1109/TMAG.2021.3061060 ↗
28. 10.3390/s2209315410.3390/s22093154 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.neucom.2024.12732910.1016/j.neucom.2024.127329 ↗
30. Wang D, Lin X, Luo X, et al. Comparison method of two rounds of magnetic flux leakage in-line inspection data of subsea pipelines. Ship Ocean Eng. 2016;45(3):122–126, 130.
31. Wang B, Lu C, Ming L, et al. Research of alignment and analysis based on different MFL data. Pipeline Technol Equip. 2019;(5):24–27.
32. Ji S, Ding N, Zhang G, et al. Development and application study of comparison and analysis software for pipeline internal detection. Automation In Petro-Chem Ind. 2018;54(4):47–51, 60.
33. Wang P, Jin Y, Xiao J, et al. Research on alignment algorithm and integrity evaluation of different in-line inspection data. Petroleum Tubul Goods Instruments [J]. 2023;9(3):52–57.
34. Liu H, Gu S, Liu Q, et al. Alignment method of internal and external pipeline inspection data based on machine learning algorithm. You-Qi Chuyun. 2021;40(11):1236–1241.
35. 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.330741210.1109/ACCESS.2023.3307412 ↗
36. 10.3390/s2406185310.3390/s24061853 ↗
37. 10.3390/s2324983710.3390/s23249837 ↗
38. Rusinkiewicz S, Levoy M. Efficient variants of the ICP algorithm, proceedings of 3rd international conference on 3-D imaging and modeling (3DIM). J Jpn Soc For Artif Intel. 2001;20(4):503.
39. 10.1016/j.aei.2022.10168710.1016/j.aei.2022.101687 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.10486310.1016/j.jdent.2024.104863 ↗
41. Lin X, Li Y, Zhou X, et al. Management of inline inspection data of pipelines under the environment of big data. Oil & Gas Storage Transp. 2015;34(4):349–353.
42. Jiang X, Hong X, Liu Z, et al. Impacts of inline inspection data comparison on integrity assessment of pipelines. Oil & Gas Storage Transp. 2016;35(1):28–31.
43. Russell A, Smith M, Sandana D, et al. Advances in magnetic flux leakage signal matching and corrosion growth rate selection. In: Proc Pigging Prod Services Assoc; Aberdeen, UK. 2016.
44. Hu P, Chen J, Kang X, et al. Internal inspection data comparison in long distance oil and gas pipelines. Nondestr Test. 2021;43(7):90–94.
45. 10.3390/en1603137210.3390/en16031372 ↗
46. Yang H, Liu X, Li Q, et al. Research and application of alignment algorithm for multiple In-line inspection data of oil and gas pipeline. Pipeline Technol Equip. 2020;(1):21–24+28.