3-D defect profile reconstruction from magnetic flux leakage signatures using wavelet basis function neural networks

The most popular technique for inspecting natural gas pipelines involves the use of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) methods. The measured MFL signal is interpreted to ob­ tain information concerning the structural integrity of the pipe. Defect characterization involves the task of calculating the shape and size of defects based on the information contained in the signal. An accurate estimate of the defect profile allows assessment of the safe operating pressure of the pipe. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) have been employed for characterizing defects in the past. However, conventional neural networks such as radial basis function neural networks are not always suitable for the following reasons: (1) It is difficult to quantify and measure the confidence level associated with the profile estimates (2) They do not provide adequate control over output accuracy and network complexity trade-off. (3) Optimal center selection schemes typically use an optimization technique such as least-mean-square (LMS) algorithm a tedious and computationally intensive procedure. These disadvantages can be overcome by employ­ ing a wavelet basis function (WBF) neural network. Such networks allow multiple scales of approximation. For the specific application on hand, Gaussian radial basis functions and Mexican hat wavelet frames are used as scaling functions and wavelets respectively. The proposed basis function centers are calculated using a dyadic expansion scheme and the A:-means clustering algorithm. The validity of the proposed approach is demonstrated by predicting defect profiles from simulation data as well as experimental magnetic flux leakage signals. The results demonstrate that wavelet basis fimction neural networks can successfully map MFL xiii signatures to three-dimensional defect profiles. The center selection scheme requires minimal effort compared to conventional methods. Also, the accuracy of the output can be controlled by varying the number of network resolutions. It is also shown that the use of a priori information such as estimates of the geometric parameters of the defect helps improve characterization results.

[1]  Gösta H. Granlund,et al.  Fourier Preprocessing for Hand Print Character Recognition , 1972, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[2]  Ingrid Daubechies,et al.  Ten Lectures on Wavelets , 1992 .

[3]  Michael C. Mozer,et al.  Mathematical Perspectives on Neural Networks , 1996 .

[4]  Qinghua Zhang,et al.  Multidimensional wavelet frames , 1995, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[5]  Christopher A. Carter,et al.  Neural Networks for Classification of Radar Signals , 1993 .

[6]  M J Koenig,et al.  GRI PIPELINE SIMULATION FACILITY METAL LOSS DEFECT SET. TOPICAL REPORT, 1990-1994 , 1995 .

[7]  Elie Bienenstock,et al.  Neural Networks and the Bias/Variance Dilemma , 1992, Neural Computation.

[8]  G. C. Short Conventional pipeline pigging technology. I : Challenges to the industry , 1992 .

[9]  Y. Meyer,et al.  Wavelets and Filter Banks , 1991 .

[10]  Satish S. Udpa,et al.  Optimization of Neural Network Parameters for Defect Characterization , 1996 .

[11]  L. Jackson,et al.  Flux leakage testing applied to operational pipelines , 1988 .

[12]  Alexander Ehrlich,et al.  The Hall Effect , 1997 .

[13]  Y. C. Pati,et al.  Discrete Affine Wavelet Transforms For Anaylsis And Synthesis Of Feedfoward Neural Networks , 1990, NIPS 1990.

[14]  T. A. Bubenik,et al.  GRI nondestructive evaluation program: Pipeline simulation facility development. Annual report, January-December 1991 , 1992 .

[15]  L. Udpa,et al.  A novel boundary extraction algorithm based on a vector image model , 1996, Proceedings of the 39th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems.

[16]  Julius T. Tou,et al.  Pattern Recognition Principles , 1974 .

[17]  David S. Broomhead,et al.  Multivariable Functional Interpolation and Adaptive Networks , 1988, Complex Syst..

[18]  D. Signorini,et al.  Neural networks , 1995, The Lancet.

[19]  Bruno O. Shubert,et al.  Random variables and stochastic processes , 1979 .

[20]  D. Broomhead,et al.  Radial Basis Functions, Multi-Variable Functional Interpolation and Adaptive Networks , 1988 .

[21]  Satish S. Udpa,et al.  Wavelet-based permeability compensation technique for characterizing magnetic flux leakage images , 1997 .

[22]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  A Theory for Multiresolution Signal Decomposition: The Wavelet Representation , 1989, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[23]  Tomaso A. Poggio,et al.  Extensions of a Theory of Networks for Approximation and Learning , 1990, NIPS.

[24]  K. K. Tandon MFL tool hardware for pipeline inspection , 1997 .

[25]  Marian M. Chao Neural networks for characterizing magnetic flux leakage signals , 1995 .

[26]  Carretera de Valencia,et al.  The finite element method in electromagnetics , 2000 .

[27]  Jack Blitz,et al.  Electrical and Magnetic Methods of Nondestructive Testing , 2020 .

[28]  W. Lord,et al.  A Discussion of the Inverse Problem in Electromagnetic NDT , 1986 .

[29]  Athanasios Papoulis,et al.  Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes , 1965 .

[30]  Roderick K. Stanley,et al.  Nondestructive Evaluation: A Tool in Design, Manufacturing and Service , 2018 .

[31]  J. Stringer Hall Effect , 1972, Nature.

[32]  E. Ecer,et al.  Numerical Linear Algebra and Applications , 1995, IEEE Computational Science and Engineering.

[33]  D. L. Atherton Magnetic inspection is key to ensuring safe pipelines , 1989 .

[34]  Bhavik R. Bakshi,et al.  Wavelets as basis functions for localized learning in a multi-resolution hierarchy , 1992, [Proceedings 1992] IJCNN International Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

[35]  Jun Zhang,et al.  Wavelet neural networks for function learning , 1995, IEEE Trans. Signal Process..

[36]  R. C. Mcmaster Nondestructive testing handbook , 1959 .