Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An intelligent model to predict the life condition of crude oil pipelines using artificial neural networks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inefficient scheduling of a pipeline system may lead to severe degradation and substantial economic losses. Earlier studies mostly focussed on corrosion and statistical analysis. This study presents a novel approach for the prediction of life conditions and the classification of metal loss (ML) faults for a group of five pipeline sections of a pipeline system. An intelligent model is developed using artificial neural networks. The historical reports are grouped from the oil and gas industry located in Sudan. The results obtained by a proposed intelligent model are found to be satisfactory based on the highest coefficient of determination (R2) and the lowest mean squared error (MSE) values. The model developed with 12 number of hidden neurons accurately predicted the pipeline condition with an overall R2 value of 0.98148, 0.99359, 0.9943, 0.99336, and 0.99084 for the pipeline sections S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5, respectively. A sensitivity analysis has been carried out to understand the interrelationship between the factors affecting pipeline conditions for all sections of a pipeline system. The remaining useful life for all the sections of the pipeline system has been estimated, and a comparative analysis has been conducted in this work. The significant advantage of the present work is that the developed model can estimate the type of ML due to which the pipeline condition would mostly deteriorate. The deterioration profiles of the selected factors considered for this study have been generated, and the assessment scale has been designed. The proposed approach is more valuable in oil and gas industries to avoid unnecessary inspection costs and to plan the maintenance schedule. This study is progressively worthwhile to organize pipeline inspections and rehabilitation necessities.

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
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kennedy JL (1993) Oil and gas pipeline fundamentals. Pennwell books, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  2. Guo B, Song S, Ghalambor A, Chacko J (2005) Offshore pipelines. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bai Y, Bai Q (2005) Subsea pipelines and risers. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shahriar A, Sadiq R, Tesfamariam S (2012) Risk analysis for oil & gas pipelines: a sustainability assessment approach using fuzzy based bow-tie analysis. J Loss Prev Process Ind 25(3):505–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Velazquez J, Caleyo F, Valor A, Hallen J (2009) Predictive model for pitting corrosion in buried oil and gas pipelines. Corrosion 65(5):332–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sinha SK, Pandey MD (2002) Probabilistic neural network for reliability assessment of oil and gas pipelines. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 17(5):320–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Papavinasam S, Revie RW, Friesen WI, Doiron A, Panneerselvan T (2006) Review of models to predict internal pitting corrosion of oil and gas pipelines. Corros Rev 24(3–4):173–230

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nešić S (2007) Key issues related to modelling of internal corrosion of oil and gas pipelines–A review. Corros Sci 49(12):4308–4338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Azevedo CR (2007) Failure analysis of a crude oil pipeline. Eng Fail Anal 14(6):978–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mahmoodian M, Li CQ (2017) Failure assessment and safe life prediction of corroded oil and gas pipelines. J Petrol Sci Eng 151:434–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahammed M (1997) Prediction of remaining strength of corroded pressurised pipelines. Int J Press Vessels Pip 71(3):213–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nyborg R Overview of CO2 corrosion models for wells and pipelines. In: CORROSION 2002, 2002. Nace International

  13. Nyborg R, Dugstad A (2004) Reliability and limitations of corrosion prediction tools for oil and gas pipelines. Eurocorr/2004 (Nice: CEFRACOR, 2004)

  14. Vitse F, Alam K, Gunaltun Y, de Torreben DL, Duchet-Suchaux P (2002) Semi-empirical model for prediction of the Top-Of-the-Line corrosion risk. CORROSION/2002, paper (245)

  15. Al-Alawi S, Al-Badi A, Ellithy K (2005) An artificial neural network model for predicting gas pipeline induced voltage caused by power lines under fault conditions. COMPEL Int J Comput Math Electr Electron Eng 24:69–80

  16. Race JM, Dawson SJ, Stanley L, Kariyawasam S (2006) Predicting corrosion rates for onshore oil and gas pipelines. In: 2006 international pipeline conference, 2006, pp 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1115/ipc2006-10261

  17. Papavinasam S, Doiron A, Revie RW (2010) Model to predict internal pitting corrosion of oil and gas pipelines. Corrosion 66(3):035006–035006–035011

  18. Ren C, Qiao W, Tian X (2012) Natural gas pipeline corrosion rate prediction model based on bp neural network. In: Cao BY, Xie XJ (eds) Fuzzy engineering and operations research. Advances in intelligent and soft computing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, vol 147, pp 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28592-9_47

  19. Zerpa LE, Aman ZM, Joshi S, Rao I, Sloan ED, Koh C, Sum A (2012) Predicting hydrate blockages in oil, gas and water-dominated systems. In: Offshore technology conference, 2012. Offshore Technology Conference,

  20. Thodi P, Khan F, Haddara M (2013) Risk based integrity modeling of offshore process components suffering stochastic degradation. J. Qual Maint Eng 10:375–387

  21. Senouci A, Elabbasy M, Elwakil E, Abdrabou B, Zayed T (2014) A model for predicting failure of oil pipelines. Struct Infrastruct Eng 10(3):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. El-Abbasy MS, Senouci A, Zayed T, Mirahadi F, Parvizsedghy L (2014) Artificial neural network models for predicting condition of offshore oil and gas pipelines. Autom Constr 45:50–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hillier A, Imtiaz S, Khan F, Thodi P Risk-Based Evaluation of Subsea Pipeline Leak Detection Technologies. In: International conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, 2015. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p V05BT04A051

  24. Aljaroudi A, Khan F, Akinturk A, Haddara M, Thodi P (2015) Risk assessment of offshore crude oil pipeline failure. J Loss Prev Process Ind 37:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yang Y, Khan F, Thodi P, Abbassi R (2017) Corrosion induced failure analysis of subsea pipelines. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 159:214–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu H, Khan F, Thodi P (2017) Revised burst model for pipeline integrity assessment. Eng Fail Anal 80:24–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang W, Shen K, Wang B, Dong C, Khan F, Wang Q (2017) Failure probability analysis of the urban buried gas pipelines using Bayesian networks. Process Saf Environ Prot 111:678–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li F, Wang W, Dubljevic S, Khan F, Xu J, Yi J (2019) Analysis on accident-causing factors of urban buried gas pipeline network by combining DEMATEL, ISM and BN methods. J Loss Prev Process Ind 61:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Adumene S, Khan F, Adedigba S (2020) Operational safety assessment of offshore pipeline with multiple MIC defects. Comput Chem Eng 138:106819

  30. Shabarchin O, Tesfamariam S (2016) Internal corrosion hazard assessment of oil & gas pipelines using Bayesian belief network model. J Loss Prev Process Ind 40:479–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mohamed A, Hamdi MS, Tahar S (2016) A hybrid intelligent approach for metal-loss defect depth prediction in oil and gas pipelines. In: Bi Y, Kapoor S, Bhatia R (eds) Intelligent systems and applications. Studies in computational intelligence. Springer, Cham, vol 650, pp 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33386-1_1

  32. Tee KF, Pesinis K (2017) Reliability prediction for corroding natural gas pipelines. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 65:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsai Y-H, Wang J, Chien W-T, Wei C-Y, Wang X, Hsieh S-H (2019) A BIM-based approach for predicting corrosion under insulation. Autom Constr 107:102923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Seghier MEAB, Keshtegar B, Tee KF, Zayed T, Abbassi R, Trung NT (2020) Prediction of maximum pitting corrosion depth in oil and gas pipelines. Eng. Fail Anal 112:104505

  35. Salemi M, Wang H (2020) Fatigue life prediction of pipeline with equivalent initial flaw size using Bayesian inference method. J. Infrastruct Preserv Resil 1(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Xiang W, Zhou W (2020) A nonparametric Bayesian network model for predicting corrosion depth on buried pipelines. CORROSION 76(3):235–247. https://doi.org/10.5006/3421

  37. Basha SN, Rao PS (2018) A simulated model for assessing the line condition of onshore pipelines. In: MATEC web of conferences, 2018. EDP Sciences, p 06003

  38. Pipeline Operators Forum (2009) Specifications and requirements for intelligent pig inspection of pipelines.

  39. Burden F, Winkler D (2008) Bayesian regularization of neural networks. In: Livingstone DJ (ed) Artificial neural networks. Methods in Molecular Biology™, Humana Press, vol 458, pp 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-101-1_3

  40. Ahmad Z, Zhang J (2005) Bayesian selective combination of multiple neural networks for improving long-range predictions in nonlinear process modelling. Neural Comput Appl 14(1):78–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Li Z, Shi K, Dey N, Ashour AS, Wang D, Balas VE, McCauley P, Shi F (2017) Rule-based back propagation neural networks for various precision rough set presented KANSEI knowledge prediction: a case study on shoe product form features extraction. Neural Comput Appl 28(3):613–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Suliman A, Omaro BS (2018) Applying Bayesian regularization for acceleration of Levenberg–Marquardt based neural network training. IJIMAI 5(1):68–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Thomas AJ, Petridis M, Walters SD, Gheytassi SM, Morgan RE Two hidden layers are usually better than one. In: International conference on engineering applications of neural networks, 2017. Springer, pp 279-290

  44. Najah A, El-Shafie A, Karim OA, El-Shafie AH (2013) Application of artificial neural networks for water quality prediction. Neural Comput Appl 22(1):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fei J, Chu Y (2019) Double hidden layer output feedback neural adaptive global sliding mode control of active power filter. IEEE Trans Power Electron 35(3):3069–3084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Shaik NB, Pedapati SR, Abd Dzubir FA (2020) Remaining useful life prediction of crude oil pipeline by means of deterioration curves. Process Saf Prog 39:e12112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yildiz B, Bilbao JI, Sproul AB (2017) A review and analysis of regression and machine learning models on commercial building electricity load forecasting. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 73:1104–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Desboulets LDD (2018) A review on variable selection in regression analysis. Econometrics 6(4):45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. El-Abbasy MS, Senouci A, Zayed T, Mirahadi F, Parvizsedghy L (2014) Condition prediction models for oil and gas pipelines using regression analysis. J Constr Eng Manag 140(6):04014013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Senouci A, El-Abbasy MS, Zayed T (2014) Fuzzy-based model for predicting failure of oil pipelines. J Infrastruct Syst 20(4):04014018

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malaysia, for the facilities provided to conduct this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia

    Nagoor Basha Shaik, Srinivasa Rao Pedapati & A. R. Othman

  2. School of Electrical Engineering, VIT University, Tamil Nadu, Vellore, 632014, India

    Kishore Bingi

  3. Mechanical Department, Group Technical Solutions, Project Delivery and Technology Division, Petroliam Nasional Berhad, 50050, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Faizul Azly Abd Dzubir

Authors
  1. Nagoor Basha Shaik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Srinivasa Rao Pedapati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. R. Othman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kishore Bingi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Faizul Azly Abd Dzubir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nagoor Basha Shaik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendix: Algorithm

Appendix: Algorithm

The pseudo-code for implementing the proposed algorithm is given in Algorithm 1.

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shaik, N.B., Pedapati, S.R., Othman, A.R. et al. An intelligent model to predict the life condition of crude oil pipelines using artificial neural networks. Neural Comput & Applic 33, 14771–14792 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06116-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06116-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation