Guided Waves For Stress Corrosion Crack Detection in Pipelines - Feature Selection and Classification

Guided Waves for Stress
Corrosion Crack Detection in

Pipelines Feature Selection
and Classification
Austin Albright, Venugopal K. Varma,

Raymond Tucker, and Philip Bingham
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Outline
Introduction and System Overview

Current Methodology & Challenges
Features Selection/Manipulation
Our Technique & Features
Results from Synthetic & Real-World
SCC Samples
Lessons Learned & Future Work
Stress Corrosion Cracks (SCCs)

are a growing concern for the
Nations aging infrastructure.
Major contributors to creation of SCCs are:
Repeated Stressing and Relaxation of the
System
e.g. Thermal and operating pressure
variations, and other mechanical influences.
Environment
Soil pH, moisture level, coating break down
Our Focus is to detect SCCs in

large diameter Natural Gas
Pipelines, specifically 26-inch and
30-inch diameter pipelines.
Corrosion + Cyclical Loading = SCC
SCC generally found in colonies
SCC are very hard to see with the naked eye
The majority of SCCs run along the axial
direction of pipes
We are looking for SCCs on the outside of the
pipes
from inside the pipe
Liquid Fluorescent Magnetic Particle

Inspection allows SCCs to be visualized
on pipes that have been removed from
service & cleaned
Suspension of fine metal particles in an aerosol spray can

The suspect area is sprayed, then a strong magnetic field is
applied
This draws the metal particles into any depression in the
surface such as nicks, scratches, and SCCs
The metal particles glow under a blacklight
One or The suspension is white paint and the particles are black
the other
not both
White Paint & Black Particle Version

Blacklight Version
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) is

the standard pipeline
inspection technique used today
Used on active, buried natural gas pipelines
MFL creates a magnetic field axially along the
pipe
Unfortunately, the axial orientation of SCCs
combined with their small size result in little to
no flux leakage.

As an alternative, we can
inspect buried pipes using
Electromagnetic Acoustic
Transducers
Allows ultrasonic (EMATs)
Inspection without the need
of a liquid coupling agent
EMATs can be designed to fit almost any
diameter pipe
ORNL EMATs
have been designed specifically to create an

ultrasonic guided wave to detect SCC (axial defects)
produce a shear wave traveling circumferentially in
the pipe wall
utilize pitch-catch mode (one is the transmitter, the
other
is the
receiver)
OAK RIDGE
NATIONAL
LABORATORY
The ORNL Shear EMAT

S
N
Permanent
Magnet
Magnets
Current
Coils
Current Coils
EMAT for 30
diameter pipes
Pipe
Pipe Wall
Wall
Shear
Wave
Shear
Lorentz Force:
f=JxB
f is body force per unit volume

J is current density [Amp/m2]
B is magnetic flux density [Tesla]
Aluminum
Frame
Magnets
EMAT Coil
ORNLs Test Platform

EMATs
Computer
System Carriage
Signal Conditioning
unit
Resolver
ORNL Platform Inside a 30 inch

Pipe

Discrete Data Points in Time
The received EMAT Signatures are

functions of axial position and
time.
Amplitude
Color Indicates Amplitude
The features are extracted from the data

in this boxed range
Axial Position [inches] can also be in [signatures]

Features are numerical quantities

that describe an event, object, or
trait.
Good features should improve the discernability

between classes
There are two categories describing feature sets:
Supervised and Unsupervised

Supervised learning uses known data sets (i.e., a
signature in the set is known to be a SCC signatures or a
non-SCC signatures) and determines what features
discriminate these two classes.
Unsupervised learning assumes nothing about the class
of the signatures making up the data
Supervised Feature Sets are difficult to create for realworld applications.
Wavelet filtering is a useful method

for extracting information from
transient signals, such as our EMAT
signatures.
Wavelet Analysis
Time-Frequency Decomposition
Transients can be resolved
Basis Function can be created or selected to target a
signal
Example Wavelet Decomposition Tree

Details of our Wavelet

Decomposition
4-level Decomposition
(yields 5 pieces)
Using semi-custom Basis
Function
We still must distill features

from the wavelet transform
Energy Percentage of Energy in each Wavelet Level.
Entropy Percentage of Entropy in each Wavelet Level.
Difference Measure the mean of each wavelet level is
calculated from the no-defect set and subtracted from
the matching level of the current signature and then
summed.
Point-by-Point Mahalanobis Distance (MD) treat
each discrete point of a wavelet level as an actual feature.
(Point-by-Point MD)2 square each wavelet levels
point-by-point MD value , for each signature.
If all the features were good, then

using all the features would produce
the best classification.
Feature Problems
A feature can be noise
Redundant
Misrepresentative
Related Problems
Overfitting
Dimensionality
Poor Classification
Common Techniques to Reduce these

Problems are:
Find Better Features
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Principal Component Analysis

(PCA)
also known as
Karhunen-Leve transform
Reduces the feature space
dimensionality
PCA is an Unsupervised
Technique
where,
S is the covariance matrix of the data set
e is an eigenvector(s) of S
Set (matrix) of
eigenvectors being used
is the eigenvalue(s) corresponding to

To project: y eset
x
Projected data
S e e
the eigenvectors
Original data
Linear Discriminant Analysis

(LDA)
also known as
Fisher Discriminant
Analysis
Seeks to minimize the

in-class variance while
at the same time
reducing the betweenclass variance
Projects the data
in to a c 1 n matrix
LDA is a Supervised
Technique
S B w SW w
where,
S B is the between-class scatter matrix
SW is the within-class scatter matrix
w is the eigenvectors of S B
is the eigenvalue of S B , each
corresponds a single eigenvector in w

Set (matrix) of
eigenvectors being used

To project: y wset x
Projected data
Original data
LDA versus PCA

Efficient Discrimination or Efficient
Space

PCA+LDA, as a sequential operation

applied to the original feature set
PCA is used to remove stochastic noise
and lower the dimensionality
LDA is used to provide improve
discernability between the classes
Feature
Matrix
(n x m)
1xm
kxm
LDA
PCA
Example:
k<n
n features
m samples
2 classes

Classifier
Class
B
Class
A
Which technique should be used? It

depends on what your problem is,
but the basic criteria are
If you have a noise problem and/or have high
dimensionality
at least use PCA.
If you have a class separability issue
use
LDA.
If you have both problems
use PCA+LDA.
If you just plain arent sure what is going on
try each of these techniques.
The Mahalanobis Distance (MD)

calculated from a set of non-SCC
signatures is used to classify the
unknown signatures.
Statistically the non-SCC (good) signatures are
well represented, which is why we use MD from
the good signatures for our classifier.
MD returns a scalar value indicating a signatures
distance from the good clusters centroid.
We refer to the MD value as the Flaw Distance,
since the larger the distance the more flaw-like
the signature under test.
The feature transformation

techniques presented have improved
our defect detection.
Synthetic SCC Test Bed

Unused (new) 10-foot long, 30 diameter pipe
4 scan lines were machined in to it
2 lines of parabolic cuts
circumferential widths of 8, 12, 16, and 20 mils
2 lines of rectangular cuts

circumferential widths of 8, 12, 16, and 20 mils
Cuts ranged in depth from 10-75% of the wall

thickness (0.375).
Comparison of Results from a Parabolic Cuts Scan Line

MD using all of the original features
MD using 2 hand-picked features
MD after using PCA (13 out of 25 eigenvectors)
MD after using LDA
MD after using PCA+LDA

Blind Test of a Decommissioned

Natural Gas Pipeline Section (known
to contain SCCs)
Conducted at the Battelle Pipeline Simulation

Facility (PSF) in Columbus, OH.
Given a pipe and specific areas from which we
were to report our findings (from those areas only.)
Allowed to make multiple scans of the pipe to
collect data.
Given 2 weeks to submit our findings.
Then the PSF staff distributed the answer keys.
January 2006, Blind Test Results

Every defect response in the MD plot corresponds to a

defect and/or combination of defects
B
Corrosion &
SCC
SCC
NOT SCCs
Superficial
Manufacturing
Handling Marks
Corrosion
SCCs

Conclusion/Summary
We can detect SCCs in any orientation e.g. axial

We also can detect pitting and corrosion patches
Our detection threshold is tied to the volume of
the defect, not merely depth of penetration
PCA+LDA significantly improved the
discernability of both synthetic and real SCC
Mostly by suppressing the responses generated by
metallurgic variations and small changes in gap
between the EMAT and the pipe wall.
Most Important is, when the projection matrices

calculated from the synthetic SCC data are used
on REAL SCC data, the same improvements are
achieved.
Future Work
Automate identification of real defect
Develop a method for differentiating
between corrosion patches and SCCs, and
possible SCCs in a corrosion patch as well.
Investigate the benefits of normalizing
the energy across an entire scan data set,
in hopes of removing the false positives
due to changes in the air gap (coupling)
between the EMATs and the pipe wall.

Questions ?
THE
END

ORNL Sensor System

Hardware
Electromagnetic
Acoustic Transducers
(EMATs) the sensors
Resolver for position
Signal Conditioning
Devices amps & matching
networks
Software
Online
O/S Windows 2000
LabVIEW (National Instruments)
All Data Acquisition is
handled via LabVIEW
Offline
Matlab (Mathworks)
Computer dual Xeon

Data Acquisition
Tone Burst Generator
Data Processing,
Flaw Identification,
Visualization, etc
We still must distill features from

the wavelet transform.
Energy Percentage of Energy in each Wavelet Level
n
S 2
ijk
k
1
F
, for j 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
ij
5 n
S2
p 1 k 1 ijkp
Entropy Percentage of Entropy in each Wavelet Level

n
F S
ln(S
) , for j 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10
ij k 1 i ( j 5)k
i ( j 5)k
Difference Measure the mean of each wavelet level

is calculated from the good set and subtracted from the
matching level of the current signature and then summed
n
F (S
SM
) 2 , for j 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15
ij k 1 i ( j 10)k
( j 10)k
We still must distill features from the

wavelet transform, Continued.
Point-by-Point MD treat each discrete point of a wavelet level
as an actual feature.
( Si ( j 15)1 GM ( j 15)1)
M i [( S
i ( j 15)1
GM
( j 15)1
) (S
i ( j 15)k
GM
( j 15)k
)] 1
( Si ( j 15)k GM ( j 15)k )
, for j 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20
(Point-by-Point MD)2 square each wavelet levels point-bypoint MD value , for each signature.
Notation
j the wavelet level
i signature number
k number of discrete points in each
wavelet level e.g. detail-4 k = 32
p number of wavelet levels
S signature data vector
GM mean of level j of the good set

-1 the good sets inverse covariance
matrix
NOTE: j is formed so that all the features
can be calculated in one pass. GM is
accessible as a whole level or point-by-point
PCA can
reduce stochastic noise

lower dimensionality by representing the
information in the most efficient space
LDA can
improve classification by better separating the

classes
lower dimensionality, returns feature matrix as
a (Num. Classes 1) x (Num. Samples) matrix
PCA+LDA can
remove stochastic noise

lower the dimensionality
Improve discernability between classes


Guided Waves For Stress Corrosion Crack Detection in Pipelines - Feature Selection and Classification

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Guided Waves For Stress Corrosion Crack Detection in Pipelines - Feature Selection and Classification

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Guided Waves for Stress

Corrosion Crack Detection in

Austin Albright, Venugopal K. Varma,

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Introduction and System Overview

Stress Corrosion Cracks (SCCs)

Our Focus is to detect SCCs in

Liquid Fluorescent Magnetic Particle

Suspension of fine metal particles in an aerosol spray can

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) is

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

have been designed specifically to create an

The ORNL Shear EMAT

f is body force per unit volume

ORNLs Test Platform

ORNL Platform Inside a 30 inch

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Discrete Data Points in Time

The received EMAT Signatures are

The features are extracted from the data

Axial Position [inches] can also be in [signatures]

Features are numerical quantities

Good features should improve the discernability

There are two categories describing feature sets:

Supervised and Unsupervised

Wavelet filtering is a useful method

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Details of our Wavelet

We still must distill features

If all the features were good, then

Common Techniques to Reduce these

Principal Component Analysis

Reduces the feature space

S is the covariance matrix of the data set

is the eigenvalue(s) corresponding to

Linear Discriminant Analysis

Seeks to minimize the

S B is the between-class scatter matrix

SW is the within-class scatter matrix

is the eigenvalue of S B , each

corresponds a single eigenvector in w

LDA versus PCA

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

PCA+LDA, as a sequential operation

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Which technique should be used? It

The Mahalanobis Distance (MD)

The feature transformation

Synthetic SCC Test Bed

2 lines of rectangular cuts

Cuts ranged in depth from 10-75% of the wall

Comparison of Results from a Parabolic Cuts Scan Line

MD using 2 hand-picked features

MD after using PCA (13 out of 25 eigenvectors)

MD after using LDA

MD after using PCA+LDA

Blind Test of a Decommissioned

Conducted at the Battelle Pipeline Simulation

January 2006, Blind Test Results

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Every defect response in the MD plot corresponds to a

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY