协同的、计算密集型的新型MFL方法确保可靠性并减少挖掘验证的需要

Johannes Palmer, Aaron Schartner, A. Danilov, Vincent Tse
{"title":"协同的、计算密集型的新型MFL方法确保可靠性并减少挖掘验证的需要","authors":"Johannes Palmer, Aaron Schartner, A. Danilov, Vincent Tse","doi":"10.1115/IPC2020-9361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) is a robust technology with high data coverage. Decades of continuous sizing improvement allowed for industry-accepted sizing reliability. The continuous optimization of sizing processes ensures accurate results in categorizing metal loss features. However, the identified selection of critical anomalies is not always optimal; sometimes anomalies are dug up too early or unnecessarily, this can be caused by the feature type in the field (true metal loss shape) being incorrectly identified which affects sizing and tolerance. In addition, there is the possibility for incorrectly identifying feature types causing false under-calls.\n Today, complex empirical formulas together with multifaceted lookup tables fed by pull tests, synthetic data, dig verifications, machine learning, artificial intelligence and last but not least human expertise translate MFL signals into metal loss assessments with high levels of success. Nevertheless, two important principal elements are limiting the possible MFL sizing optimization. One is the empirical character of the signal interpretation. The other is the implicitly induced data and result simplification.\n The reason to go this principal route for many years is simple: it is methodologically impossible to calculate the metal source geometry directly from the signals. In addition, the pure number of possible relevant geometries is so large that simplification is necessary and inevitable. Moreover, the second methodological reason is the ambiguity of the signal, which defines the target of metal loss sizing as the most probable solution. However, even under the best conditions, the most probable one is not necessarily the correct one.\n This paper describes a novel, fundamentally different approach as a basic alternative to the common MFL-analysis approach described above. A calculation process is presented, which overcomes the empirical nature of traditional approaches by using a result optimization method that relies on intense computing and avoids any simplification. Additionally, the strategy to overcome MFL ambiguity will be shown. Together with the operator, detailed blind-test examples demonstrate the enormous level of detail, repeatability and accuracy of this groundbreaking technological method with the potential to reduce tool tolerance, increase sizing accuracy, increase growth rate accuracy, and help optimize the dig program to target critical features with greater confidence.","PeriodicalId":273758,"journal":{"name":"Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity","volume":"7 12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concerted, Computing-Intense Novel MFL Approach Ensuring Reliability and Reducing the Need for Dig Verification\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Palmer, Aaron Schartner, A. Danilov, Vincent Tse\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/IPC2020-9361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) is a robust technology with high data coverage. Decades of continuous sizing improvement allowed for industry-accepted sizing reliability. The continuous optimization of sizing processes ensures accurate results in categorizing metal loss features. However, the identified selection of critical anomalies is not always optimal; sometimes anomalies are dug up too early or unnecessarily, this can be caused by the feature type in the field (true metal loss shape) being incorrectly identified which affects sizing and tolerance. In addition, there is the possibility for incorrectly identifying feature types causing false under-calls.\\n Today, complex empirical formulas together with multifaceted lookup tables fed by pull tests, synthetic data, dig verifications, machine learning, artificial intelligence and last but not least human expertise translate MFL signals into metal loss assessments with high levels of success. Nevertheless, two important principal elements are limiting the possible MFL sizing optimization. One is the empirical character of the signal interpretation. The other is the implicitly induced data and result simplification.\\n The reason to go this principal route for many years is simple: it is methodologically impossible to calculate the metal source geometry directly from the signals. In addition, the pure number of possible relevant geometries is so large that simplification is necessary and inevitable. Moreover, the second methodological reason is the ambiguity of the signal, which defines the target of metal loss sizing as the most probable solution. However, even under the best conditions, the most probable one is not necessarily the correct one.\\n This paper describes a novel, fundamentally different approach as a basic alternative to the common MFL-analysis approach described above. A calculation process is presented, which overcomes the empirical nature of traditional approaches by using a result optimization method that relies on intense computing and avoids any simplification. Additionally, the strategy to overcome MFL ambiguity will be shown. Together with the operator, detailed blind-test examples demonstrate the enormous level of detail, repeatability and accuracy of this groundbreaking technological method with the potential to reduce tool tolerance, increase sizing accuracy, increase growth rate accuracy, and help optimize the dig program to target critical features with greater confidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":273758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity\",\"volume\":\"7 12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2020-9361\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 1: Pipeline and Facilities Integrity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/IPC2020-9361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

漏磁(MFL)是一种具有高数据覆盖率的强大技术。数十年的持续上浆改进使得上浆的可靠性得到了业界的认可。对施胶过程的不断优化确保了对金属损失特征进行分类的准确结果。然而,关键异常的识别选择并不总是最优的;有时异常被过早或不必要地挖掘出来,这可能是由于现场特征类型(真实金属损失形状)被错误识别,从而影响尺寸和公差。此外,有可能错误地识别功能类型,从而导致错误的欠调用。如今,复杂的经验公式以及由拉测、合成数据、挖掘验证、机器学习、人工智能和最后但并非最不重要的人类专业知识提供的多方面查找表,将MFL信号转化为金属损失评估,并取得了很高的成功。然而,两个重要的主要因素限制了可能的MFL尺寸优化。一是信号解释的经验特征。二是隐式归纳数据和结果简化。多年来一直走这条主要路线的原因很简单:从方法上不可能直接从信号中计算金属源的几何形状。此外,可能的相关几何的纯粹数量是如此之大,简化是必要和不可避免的。此外,第二个方法上的原因是信号的模糊性,它将金属损耗大小的目标定义为最可能的解决方案。然而,即使在最好的条件下,最可能的也不一定是正确的。本文描述了一种新颖的、根本不同的方法,作为上述常见mfl分析方法的基本替代方法。提出了一种计算过程,克服了传统方法的经验性质,采用了一种依赖于密集计算和避免任何简化的结果优化方法。此外,本文还将介绍克服MFL歧义的策略。与作业者一起,详细的盲测示例展示了这种突破性技术方法的大量细节、可重复性和准确性,具有降低刀具公差、提高尺寸精度、提高生长速度精度的潜力,并有助于优化挖掘程序,以更大的信心瞄准关键特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Concerted, Computing-Intense Novel MFL Approach Ensuring Reliability and Reducing the Need for Dig Verification
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) is a robust technology with high data coverage. Decades of continuous sizing improvement allowed for industry-accepted sizing reliability. The continuous optimization of sizing processes ensures accurate results in categorizing metal loss features. However, the identified selection of critical anomalies is not always optimal; sometimes anomalies are dug up too early or unnecessarily, this can be caused by the feature type in the field (true metal loss shape) being incorrectly identified which affects sizing and tolerance. In addition, there is the possibility for incorrectly identifying feature types causing false under-calls. Today, complex empirical formulas together with multifaceted lookup tables fed by pull tests, synthetic data, dig verifications, machine learning, artificial intelligence and last but not least human expertise translate MFL signals into metal loss assessments with high levels of success. Nevertheless, two important principal elements are limiting the possible MFL sizing optimization. One is the empirical character of the signal interpretation. The other is the implicitly induced data and result simplification. The reason to go this principal route for many years is simple: it is methodologically impossible to calculate the metal source geometry directly from the signals. In addition, the pure number of possible relevant geometries is so large that simplification is necessary and inevitable. Moreover, the second methodological reason is the ambiguity of the signal, which defines the target of metal loss sizing as the most probable solution. However, even under the best conditions, the most probable one is not necessarily the correct one. This paper describes a novel, fundamentally different approach as a basic alternative to the common MFL-analysis approach described above. A calculation process is presented, which overcomes the empirical nature of traditional approaches by using a result optimization method that relies on intense computing and avoids any simplification. Additionally, the strategy to overcome MFL ambiguity will be shown. Together with the operator, detailed blind-test examples demonstrate the enormous level of detail, repeatability and accuracy of this groundbreaking technological method with the potential to reduce tool tolerance, increase sizing accuracy, increase growth rate accuracy, and help optimize the dig program to target critical features with greater confidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信