Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Egyptian Journal of Petroleum

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Review

Application of machine learning to stress corrosion cracking risk

assessment
Aeshah H. Alamri
Chemistry Department, College of Science, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, P.O. Box 1982, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: One of the greatest challenges faced by industries today is corrosion and of which, one of the most vital
Received 25 April 2022 forms is stress corrosion cracking (SCC). It brings highest forms of risks to the industry. Performing risk
Revised 20 July 2022 assessment of stress corrosion cracking is critical to ensure that industrial equipment failure is avoided
Accepted 16 September 2022
by employing proper maintenance techniques. With the advancement of digital technology and the
fourth industrial revolution called Industrial Internet of Things (IIOT), coupled with the availability of
computing power and data, advanced analytical tools like artificial intelligence and machine learning
Keywords:
bring powerful algorithms for performing advanced corrosion risk assessment. A perusal of the literature
Machine learning (ML)
Stress corrosion cracking (SCC)
reveals that a review focused on the use of machine learning in corrosion risk assessment of stress cor-
Industrial internet of things (IIOT) rosion cracking is scarce. So, a comprehensive and up-to-date review on this subject is timely. In this
Forms of corrosion work review we present an overview on the machine learning application in the risk assessment of stress
corrosion cracking. First, the current state of the art is briefly summarized. The fundamentals of machine
learning algorithms and stress corrosion cracking were presented. Existing knowledge gaps were identi-
fied and discussed while the challenges and the future perspectives on the employ of machine learning in
corrosion risks assessment of stress corrosion cracking were outlined.
Ó 2022 Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Current state of the literature on the use of machine learning in stress corrosion cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Fundamentals of machine learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1. The categories of machine learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.1. Supervised learning (SL). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2. Unsupervised learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Types of Machine learning algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.1. Neural networks (NN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2. Support vector machine (SVM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.3. Decision tree (DT). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3. Model evaluation criteria of machine learning algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. Stress corrosion cracking – A form of corrosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1. SCC mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.1. Crack initiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1.2. Crack growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5. Corrosion risk analysis and machine learning prediction of SCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Knowledge gaps and challenges of using ML in SCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Future perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Peer review under responsibility of Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute.

E-mail address: ahalamri@iau.edu.sa

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2022.09.001
1110-0621/Ó 2022 Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A.H. Alamri Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21

Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

1. Introduction
Corrosion is one of the most challenging aspects of science and
engineering. This is due to its multidisciplinary nature [1]. Under-
standing corrosion requires knowledge from fields such as
Mechanics/Engineering, Material Science and most importantly
Chemistry as most corrosion phenomena involve chemical reac-
tions. There are many different forms of corrosion, some of which
involve mild risks while others can even result in a catastrophic
failures of engineering materials [2,3]. SCC is one of the most seri-
ous forms of corrosion, which is very difficult to detect. It occurs
due to crack growth in a corrosive environment and simultaneous
tensile stress on the metals or alloys [4]. Identifying and predicting
occurrence of SCC is one of the challenges corrosion scientists and
corrosion engineers currently face. With the advancement of tech-
nology and the fourth industrial revolution, there is more data
available than ever before. Leveraging this data to find solutions
to real world problems has received tremendous attention in
recent times. Availability of such data enables the use of artificial
intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) as advanced technolo-
gies to solve complex problems and helps provide insights that
would normally not be possible [5–7]. Some say that data is cur-
rently as valuable as gold and the one who has the power and
knowledge to leverage this data will benefit from it to levels that
cannot be imagined. Machine Learning is very useful in corrosion
prediction applications. It allows us to utilize the data, which affect
corrosion, parameters of environmental conditions such as ambi-
ent temperature and humidity, process conditions such as flow
conditions, pH, stream temperature & pressure, material condi-
tions such as type of material, material thickness, process unit
dimensions, corrosion protections in-place, visual conditions and
Table 1
Terminology and corresponding abbreviations.
more. All the mentioned data can be modeled using machine learn-
ing algorithm to predict occurrence of stress corrosion cracking
and give a measure to its risk assessment. In this paper, an attempt
has been made to review available relevant studies on the applica-
tion of machine learning to stress corrosion cracking. In addition,
the current state of the art on the fundamentals of machine learn-
ing and stress corrosion cracking are presented. Existing knowl-
edge gaps were identified and the future research directions on
the use of machine learning in corrosion risks assessment of stress
corrosion cracking were outlined. Most of the terminologies and
abbreviations used in this review paper is presented in Table 1.
2. Current state of the literature on the use of machine learning
in stress corrosion cracking
The use of artificial intelligence has enormous advantages over
human intelligence. Machine learning has revolutionized the pre-
dictive maintenance methodology by setting up and guiding new
maintenance practices [8,9]. The use of machine learning to predict
occurrence of stress corrosion cracking is relatively a new topic
with less literature available. Jang [10] has recently published a
thesis on how new machine learning techniques could be used to
perform risk assessment of stress corrosion cracking. He suggested
a new technique that can automatically perform risk assessment of
SCC occurrences. Using tree-based ensemble and kernel-based
techniques he successfully predicted the corrosion and stress cor-
rosion cracking with 81 % accuracy using ensemble techniques
and 87 % accuracy using the kernel-based technique. An example
of SCC of stainless steel 316L [9].
A data driven corrosion risk prediction study was performed by
Ossai [11] using many of the machine learning data analytical tools
such as Feed-Forward Artificial Neural Network (FFANN), Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM)

Terminology Abbreviation Terminology Abbreviation

Industrial Internet of IIOT Support Vector SVM
Things Machine
Stress Corrosion SCC Decision Tree DT
Cracking
Artificial Intelligence AI Pearson’s R2
Correlation
Coefficient
Machine Learning ML Mean Absolute Error MAE
Supervised Learning SL The Root of The RMSE
Mean Squared Error
Unsupervised USL Mean Squared Error MSE
Learning
Linear Regression LR Mean Relative Error MRE
Multiple Linear MLR Average Absolute AARE
Regression Relative Error
Feed-Forward FFANN Pearson’s R2
Artificial Neural Correlation
Network Coefficient
Gradient Boosting GBM Mean Absolute Error MAE
Machine
Convolution Neural CNN The Root of The RMSE
Networks Mean Squared Error
Residual Neural RNN Mean Squared Error MSE
Networks
Artificial Neural ANN Mean Relative Error MRE
Networks
Relative Risk Score RRS Average Absolute AARE
Relative Error
Neural Networks NN
Fig. 1. ML based fatigue growth prediction [14].

12
A.H. Alamri
Fig. 2. Weld SCC prediction using image analytics [15].
and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) models. A detailed study
was performed on an onshore pipeline using operating parameters
of the oil and other fluids through the pipeline. The PCA-GBM
model was able to provide online status and measurement of the
status of the corrosion in the pipelines [11]. Researchers from Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have published a research
work proposing some new insights to stress corrosion cracking
(SCC). They presenting how some nanoscale disruptions in the
microstructure of the material can induce SCC [12]. They also used
scanning tunneling microscope (STM) to map the atomic structure
of a surface to find good indicators of how reactive the material is
and how susceptible it is to stress corrosion cracking under chem-
ical and stressed conditions. A fuzzy neural network model was
proposed by Na et al. [13] and use to predict residual stress for
non-similar metal welds under many different welding environ-
ments. The model used training data to optimize the model accu-
racy showing results with root mean square errors sometimes
less than 5 %. Wang et al. [14], used machine learning approach
with three different machine learning algorithms such as radial
basis function (RBF), extreme learning machine (ELM) and back
propagation method (BPM) in the prediction of fatigue growth rate
Fig. 3. Forms of corrosion in pipeline [23].
13
Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21
Fig. 1. Image analytics is one of the tools of machine learning which
is used to predict stress corrosion cracking. Methods such as finite
element analysis of the images and principal component analysis
help perform the image analytics. A paper published by Jacobsen
et al. [15] showed how X-ray imaging was used to identify flaws
in the welds by using digital image processing for feature extrac-
tion which was then used to analyze the performance of image
recognition algorithms using computational neural networks and
decision trees. Fig. 2 shows how the weld SCC prediction using
image analytics was performed. Similar work was done by Wang
et al. [16] who presented a computer vision-based technique to
identify fatigue crack starting points in a metal. Using convolution
neural networks to train the detector object identifier model, they
were successful in predicting the location of the initiation of the
fatigue crack in a metal. There have been several other works done
to utilize convolution neural networks (CNN) to perform image
recognition. Modarres et al. [17] reported how CNN can be utilize
to perform a predictive maintenance and assess the damage to
materials. Papamarkou et al. [18] has also predicted the occurrence
of SCC using convolution and residual neural networks (RNN).
Their works show how online real time measurement can be uti-
lized to predict stress corrosion cracking and pitting corrosion
using the RNN techniques for use in nuclear fuel dry storage canis-
ters. A study on how cracks induced by stress and corrosion is
propagated has been reported by Bayar and Bilir [19]. Machine
learning techniques called Voronoi diagrams was used to estimate
the propagation of cracks in concrete. The Voronoi based machine
learning algorithm learned from the image of the crack provided as
training data and predicted the path of the crack using image pro-
cessing techniques.
One of the earlier works done by Sturrok et al. [20] showed how
the SCC in austenitic stainless steel in high temperature aqueous
environments was predicted using machine learning investiga-
tions. They explored many of the recent advances in machine
learning techniques in their work. A study was conducted by Habib
et al. [21] in order to evaluate the performance of some materials
commonly used in desalination plants. The performance criteria
were based on susceptibility to stress corrosion cracking mainly
for copper-nickel alloys used in construction of the unit operation
equipment. Experimental stress corrosion cracking tests were car-
ried out using the natural sea water available in the environment.
Then risk assessment calculation was done based on the experi-
mental results at different temperatures.
Another study was performed by Choi et al. [22] to model and
study-four different stages of stress corrosion crack formation. In
another study, Askari et al. [23] provided a comprehensive review
A.H. Alamri Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21

on internal corrosion and cracking of oil and gas pipelines in their non-linear multivariate projection of crack growth. The results
work. Fig. 3 illustrates the different forms of corrosion including showed that the ANN based approach showed better accuracy in
SCC in a pipeline. comparison to experimental data. It is evident from the above
Reed et al. [24] utilized adaptive numerical modelling to model summary that not much research work has been carried out on
material science phenomena. One such case study was utilized to the use of machine learning in stress corrosion cracking prediction
predict and simulate crack growth. An artificial intelligence- in the literature. It is also observed that practical industrial appli-
based technique called support vector machines was explored by cations of machine learning to SCC assessment is scanty in the lit-
Jiang et al. [25] to asses and perform risk analysis for a failure of erature. In the following section, we will review some basics and
rock bolts in underground coal mines. They concluded that labora- fundamentals of machine learning.
tory methods used in failure prediction of these rock bolts were not
reliable since failure of these rock bolts was due to stress corrosion
3. Fundamentals of machine learning
cracking and localized corrosion. Thus, machine learning algorithm
such as support vector machines gave excellent prediction of stress
Machine learning (ML) is the part of artificial intelligence (AI).
corrosion cracking of rock bolts. Calabrese et al. [26] used an acous-
ML aims to design and develop mathematical models which can
tic emission technique to monitor hydrogen assisted stress corro-
be trained without complete knowledge of all the influencing
sion cracking using multivariate and univariate analysis. They
external factors to enable decisions to be made intelligently
utilized principal component analysis and self-organizing maps
[14,31–33]. ML based models can either be descriptive to gain
to predict and identify different stages of stress corrosion cracking,
knowledge from data or predictive to perform prediction, or both.
from initiation to failure. Zukhrufani [27] has utilized supervised
Over the past decade, ML models have been successfully applied to
machine learning algorithm to prevent pipeline corrosion. The
various field of researches and adopted in a number of fields [34–
work showed how machine learning tools can be used by risk man-
38] such as energy production [39,40], computational biology
agement professionals to re-think maintenance procedures based
[41,42], hydrology [43,44], image and speech processing [45,46]
on decision making power assisted by the supervised machine
and computational finance [47,48]. Thus, these models use data
learning algorithm. Tan et al. [28] proposed an automated method
to give additional insights to solve a problem and deduce the
to identify corrosion mechanism by obtaining a set of historical
future by using complex learning and predicting algorithms with-
data which was then utilized in support vector learning algorithm
out or with minimum human intervention [38,49,50]. Developing a
to predict the corrosion behavior. Jamshidi et al. [29] developed
ML technique involves a small number of design choices. It is
and proposed a new technique called fuzzy interference system
expected to bring significant advances in science and engineering
for pipeline risk assessment. In application, a fuzzy logic model
along with improvements in quality of our life [51]. There are
was used to integrate with relative risk score (RRS). The resulting
many types of ML algorithms. The two most common ones are
model provided reasonable accuracy in predicting the risks related
supervised and unsupervised learning. Some of the most well-
to pipeline failure. Another study was conducted by Zhang et al.
known and extensively utilized algorithms in machine learning
[30] to evaluate non-linear fatigue growth using artificial neural
[33] are shown in Fig. 4. A number of fundamental books on these
network. Radial Basis Function based ANN was utilized to obtained
topics are available to the reader [52–54].

Fig. 4. Structuring of ML and Algorithms in Material Science [33].

14
A.H. Alamri Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21

Fig. 5. Typical general model of supervised machine learning [55].

Fig. 6. Typical general model of unsupervised machine learning [55].

3.1. The categories of machine learning
3.1.1. Supervised learning (SL)
In SL the algorithm is given a set of test inputs and are corre-
lated with label outputs. The algorithm is allowed to compare
the learned output versus the actual output and then adjust the
future outputs accordingly. Thus, to select the output variable,
the algorithm must learn the important properties within each
data point in the dataset Also, it should be able to predict the out-
put variables as illustrated in Fig. 5 [55]. These learning methods
have been employed in a wide range of applications, such as soft-
15
ware engineering and bioinformatics [56–58] etc. SL approaches
can be categorized in two primary algorithms depended on output
variable: regression algorithm (continuous variable) and classifica-
tion algorithm (discrete variable).
3.1.1.1. Regression model. Regression analysis is a machine learning
and statistical technique. It allows one to anticipate the value of a
continuous variable if the relationship between the variables can
be described as a linear function. There are two typical approaches
for obtaining the best coefficient vector value: Gradient Descent
Method and Normal Equation Method. Depending on the number
A.H. Alamri Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21

of input variables, there are two types of regression analysis: The
basic linear regression is used when dealing with a single input
variable, (LR) and multiple linear regression is used when the num-
ber of input features is raised (MLR) [59,60].
y ¼ h0  x0 þ h1  x1 þ h2  x2 þ    þ hn  xn
The term y is the output variables, the term h is the coefficient
of the equation and xi (i = 1, 2. . .n) is the number of input features.
3.1.1.2. Classification model. Another method of supervised ML is
classification model. It refers to the capability to categorize entity
into a characteristic set of classes or classifications [27]. Some com-
mon types of classification techniques are Support Vector Machi-
nes, k-nearest neighbors, Naïve Bayes techniques, Decision Trees,
and Neural Networks.
3.1.2. Unsupervised learning
Unlike USL, in this technique, the data is not correlated or
labelled, thus the algorithm shall find common patterns in the
input data. Clustering is the most common USL model, and it is
used to discover possible groupings or inherent patterns in the
input data. The algorithm based on unsupervised learning is more
complex due to large non-labelled sometime called unstructured
data being used [61]. A flow scheme showing the general descrip-
tion of a prediction model of unsupervised machine learning pro-
cess is shown in Fig. 6.
3.1.2.1. Clustering model. Clustering model is unsupervised ML
method since its goal is to cluster data that have similar character-
istics. Using visualizations technique, the quality of the solution in
clustering model can be inspected. k-Means is the most popular
clustering algorithms where k elucidates the number of clusters
or groups that the user chooses to create.
3.2. Types of Machine learning algorithm
3.2.1. Neural networks (NN)
The neural network technique uses algorithms to imitate a
human neuron and recognize patterns. They interpret input data
ð1Þ through weights and input layer clustering or labelling [62]. The
pattern in which the weights are connected, and the actual weights
given to each connection determine the outcome of a prediction.
To train the weights of a neuron, one of the most popular tech-
niques uses is called the back-propagation technique. The low pre-
diction error is calculated using minimization techniques such as
gradient decent rule [59].
3.2.2. Support vector machine (SVM)
This algorithm is a supervised machine learning model that
deals with classification and regression issues by using the kernel
function [63]. The kernel function is used to build the linear rela-
tionship between input and output data in both classification and
regression issues. The kernel function is very beneficial when the
problem is complex and involves nonlinear dynamics [64]. The ker-
nel function translates input features into high-dimensional space
to linearly separate variables that are not linearly separable in the
lower-dimensional vector.
3.2.3. Decision tree (DT)
This algorithm is a supervised learning that present as flow
charts model which imitate branch structure of a real tree. Each
branch of a decision tree is based on a different type of input and
all the inputs are mapped to different outputs on some logical rules
[65]. The DT algorithm can be considered as one of the simplest ML
models. It does not rely on a preconceived relationship between
the input features and the output. Overfitting is an issue with the
DT, as it is with other regression techniques. The DT algorithm uses
a method called ‘‘pruning” to prevent overfitting [66,67]. Table 2
presents the list of some important machine learning algorithms
with a brief description.

Table 2
A list of important machine learning algorithms.

Algorithms Acronym Category Brief Description Ref.

Ensemble Regression, Ensemble Methods algorithm combines multiple models to produce improved results. There usually produce [79]
Methods classification more accurate solutions than a single algorithm would, which can be used as a powerful collaborative
filtering algorithm.
Nonlinear NR NR is a form of regression analysis that relates two variables (X and Y) in a nonlinear relationship. The main [80]
Regression aim of the algorithm is to make the sum of the squares as small as possible. Thus, the better the function fits
the data points in the group. NR uses trigonometric functions, logarithmic functions, exponential functions,
Gaussian functions, power functions and Lorenz curves.
Naïve Bayes NB Classification This algorithm based on Bayes’ Theorem with an assumption of independence among predictors which [81]
assumes that the presence of a particular feature in a class is unrelated to the presence of any other feature.
NB classifier is easy to build and especially helpful for very large data groups. Although its simplicity, it is
known to outperform even highly complex classification models.
Discriminate DA DA is a generalization of Fisher’s linear discriminant. To find a linear combination of features that separates [82]
Analysis Model two classes or more of sets. It is closely related to analysis of regression analysis and variance (ANOVA),
which also attempt to express one dependent variable as a linear combination of other features. Unlike in
cluster analysis DA is used when sets are known a priori.
K-Nearest k-NN K-NN finds the data mining and pattern recognition which it does not make any underlying hypothesizes [83]
Neighbors about the distribution of data The k-NN algorithm is a good example of a ‘‘general approximator” which do
not rely on any ‘‘methods” at all but instead simply use the present data to expect new data.
k-means KMC Clustering k-MC is an algorithm of vector quantization. The goal to division n data into k clusters in which each data [84]
clustering belongs to cluster centers or cluster centroid, serving as a prototype of the cluster.
Gaussian Mixture GMM GMMs is probabilistic method which assume that there are a certain number of Gaussian distributions. GMM [85]
Model uses the soft clustering approach for distributing the points in several clusters and at the same time, set the
data belonging to a single distribution together.
Hidden Markov HMM The modeled system is assumed to be a Markov process with unobserved (hidden) stat HMM is statistical [86]
model model, which is based on the theory. It uses to capture hidden information from data sequential symbols. The
challenge of this algorithm is to determine the hidden parameters from the observable parameters.
Hierarchical HCA HCA algorithm involves creating clusters that have predominating ordering from up to down. Thus, data is [87]
organized in a hierarchy. This algorithm sets similar data into groups named cluster each one is distinct from
each other cluster while the data within one cluster is very like to each other.

16
A.H. Alamri Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21

Table 3
The evaluation metrics used in machine learning algorithms [55].

Metric Description Equation

2 PNp exp  2 cal exp 2
R It squared of Pearson’s correlation ðyi y mÞ ðyi yi Þ
R2 ¼ i¼1 P exp 
coefficient, which is the most common Np 2
ðyi y mÞ
i¼1
measure in all categories of sciences. It
is a statistical measure of the strength
of the relationship between the
relative movements of two variables.
The values ranged from [0–1]. A
correlation of 1 shows an ideal
correlation while 0 presents no
relationship between two variables.
Thus, the calculated value greater than
1.0 means there was an error in the
measurement.
Pn  cal 
exp 
MAE MAE is the lowest measure of MAE ¼ N1p i¼1 yi  yi
prediction accuracy that is refers to
the best performance. It is the
absolute value of the difference
between the predict value and the
true value. MAE measures the average
volume of the errors in a set of
forecasts, without considering error
direction. MAE its value ranged from
[0–1].
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P ffi
RMSE RMSE is the square root of the Np
ðycal yexp Þ
2

variance. It called standard deviation RMSE ¼ i¼1 i

Np
i

of the prediction errors which shows

how concentrated the data around the
best fit line. The use of RMSE is very
familiar, and it is a good measure for
numerical predictions. RMSD is
sensitive to outliers.
PNp
MSE MSE is a procedure for estimating an
unobserved quantity which is average
MSE ¼ i¼1
Np
squared difference between the
forecasted measures and the true
measures. Always, MSE values is
positive (and not zero).
PNp
MRE MRE uses as a measure of precision. It
MRE ¼ i¼1
gives an indication of how good
measurement is relative to the size of
the sample being measured. MRE
shows how large the error is relative
to the actual value, its value ranged
from [0–1]. Lowest value refers to best
performance
AARE Its value ranged from [0–1]. Lowest
AARE ¼ N1p
value refers to best performance
Fig. 8. Crack Growth Modes [70].
3.3. Model evaluation criteria of machine learning algorithms
ðv Þ2
A good evaluation system is more instructive for ML algorithms
in different fields. The main evaluation metrics used in ML algo-
rithms with brief description is presented in Table 3 [68–77].
jycal i j
yexp
Np
i
4. Stress corrosion cracking – A form of corrosion
Stress corrosion cracking is a form of corrosion that is environ-
mentally induced and leads to crack growth due to simultaneous
tensile stress and a corrosive environment on the metals or alloys.
Pn jycal i j
yexp For SCC to start, the metal or alloy surface needs to be in contact
i¼1
i
yexp
i
with a corrosive environment. Particularly, most corrosive chemi-
cals include chloride ions, water, oxygen at different ranges of
pH. The greatest danger of SCC is in its difficulty to detect until it
has matured and reached a dangerous state sometimes causing a
catastrophe as shown in Fig. 7. SCC is controlled or induced by dif-
ferent environmental conditions such as temperature, stress, and
the concentration of corrosive chemical [68].

4.1. SCC mechanisms

The phenomenon and process of stress corrosion cracking can

be described using two mechanisms:

1. Crack Initiation
2. Crack Growth

The two bases for the SCC propagation can be classified into:

Fig. 7. SCC in aluminum alloy used in aircraft [68]. 1. Dissolution based stress corrosion cracking
2. Mechanical Stress/Strain Induced SCC

In the following sections, we shall discuss the above four mech-

anisms describing the SCC in more detail.
17
A.H. Alamri
4.1.1. Crack initiation
Stress Corrosion cracking is sometimes initiated by factors such
as corrosion pits which commonly occur due to metallurgical non-
uniformities, where the oxide layer is not very effective. Some-
times other forms of localized corrosion can initiate the SCC such
as crevice corrosion, pitting corrosion and intergranular or intra-
granular corrosion. There are several factors which may influence
other forms of corrosion to develop into SCC such as mechanical
conditions of stress and strain, and environmental factors such as
chemical composition of the environment, pH, electrochemical
potential etc. Usually, if there are many corrosion pits along the
surface, they may join to form a crack [69].
4.1.2. Crack growth
Accurate prediction of crack growth is vital for proper risk
assessment measurements. Crack growths can occur due to several
mechanical, chemical, and environmental factors. As explained by
Shoji et al. [70], the crack growth is characterized into four differ-
ent mechanisms such as physical deterioration, physical–chemical
deterioration or both. Each of the mechanism as shown in Fig. 8,
will be affected by the mechanical conditions of stress and strain
[71]. Sudden failure due to crack growth can be predicted from
the rate of crack growth. In a paper presented by Vermilyea [72],
a model to predict such crack growth was suggested. The model
is based on Stokes Thin-film rupture theory [73]. This model can
be written as (Eq. (2)):
_l ¼ L ð2Þ
tc
There have been several works done to accurately measure the
crack growth rate. One of the most accepted equations to predict
SCC growth rate was suggested by Hagn et al. [74] as given in
(Eq. (3)):
1 DK th 2
a0 ¼ ð Þ ð3Þ
p c Dr 0
where ao is the critical crack depth, DK th is the stress intensity
threshold, C is a constant, and delta is the surface stress. One of
the drawbacks of this equation is due to the assumption that the
crack pit condition is similar to the surface conditions [75]. It is to
be noted that one of the basic assumptions taken into consideration
is that the crack growth at the tip has a higher rate than the growth
rate at the edges [76]. Two of the basic forms of SCC propagation
are: 1) Dissolution based SCC 2) Fracture (mechanical) based SCC.
Dissolution process is a reaction where a solute in any physical
state reacts and dissolve in a solvent. The reaction rate of a disso-
lution reaction depends on the concentration gradient of the
solute. The reaction rate is a function of temperature, solubility,
and surface area [77]. In SCC, under favorable environmental con-
ditions, the reaction occurs and when induced by stress, the crack
growth propagation occurs. Within dissolution-based SCC, there
are two types of crack growth phenomena that can be observed.
Due to the induced stress, the cracks can grow very rapidly when
the metal is directly exposed to the corrosive environment. In
some cases, the crack growth is slowed down or stopped when
the exposed metal layers are turned into passivated layers. How-
ever, the crack growth when stopped can be reinduced by the
stress bringing a mode of crack growth called periodic crack
growth.
In contrast, if the crack continues to grow continuously, where
the rate of passivation is lower, than the rate of crack growth, it
will result in a complete failure [78].
4.1.2.1. Film-rupture model. Due to the induced stress, the cracks
can grow very rapidly when the metal is directly exposed to the
18
Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21
corrosive environment. In some cases, the crack growth is slowed
down or stopped when the exposed metal layers are turned into
passivated layers. However, the crack growth when stopped can
be re-induced by the stress bringing a mode of crack growth called
periodic crack growth. In contrast, if the crack continues to grow
continuously, where the rate of passivation is lower, than the rate
of crack growth, it will result in a complete failure [78].
4.1.2.2. Active-path model. This active path model is based on inter-
granular stress corrosion cracking. The intergranular corrosion
occurs due to the corrosion susceptibility of the metal due to dif-
ferences in corrosive environments at its crystal or grain bound-
aries. The grain boundary is depleted due to this corrosion
reaction at the boundary [88,89].
The cracks after the initiation, is propagated by dissolution
reaction, and further propagation occurs by mechanical effects
resulting in catastrophic failures. There are several models pro-
posed in the literature to describe the mechanical fracture-based
propagation. For example, corrosion tunnel model proposed by
Swann and Pickering [90], considers corrosion tunnels whose
forming results in ductile fracture and subsequent failures. Adsorp-
tion based plasticity model proposed by Lynch [91] suggests that
the crack formation is propagated and growth is induced by the
formation of voids ahead of cracks which result in cleavage type
crack growths. Another model called Tarnish-rupture model pro-
posed by Forty et al. [92] explains the SCC phenomena by describ-
ing the formation of a corrosive brittle film which affects the
underlying metal surface under stress, which fails at locations of
existing cracks. The cracks grow to failure in a periodic method,
alternating in film rupture and mechanical fracture models. A
model called film-induced cleavage model proposed by Robertson
[93], suggests that the films growth can increase the induced inter-
nal stress and thus propagate the crack growth and crack failure.
Localized surface plasticity (LPS) mechanism considers the anodic
dissolution occurring at the film cracks by galvanic coupling to
the nearby passive surfaces. Local tensile stresses at these anodic
dissolution sites, weakens the metal surfaces, reducing the thresh-
old stress increasing the failure rate of the cracks [94]. A model
called surface mobility model as proposed by Galvele [95] suggests
that crack propagation due to environmental effects is further
propagated by voids at crack tips. There are several models pro-
posed to describe the mechanical effects-based SCC propagation,
a challenge faced by scientists is that the proposed models are
experimentally difficult to verify. There are some testing methods
used to evaluate the occurrence of stress corrosion cracking. Some
of the common techniques are surface flawed, cantilever bend,
double cantilever beam and compact tension specimen. These
techniques are very expensive and lengthy and thus difficult to
use. The preferable way to predict stress corrosion cracking is by
using machine learning approach as it requires only available his-
torical data about environmental conditions which can help the
algorithm predict SCC and do not require any time consuming
and expensive experiments.
5. Corrosion risk analysis and machine learning prediction of
SCC
Corrosion is one of the most important risk factors in industrial
operations. The reason is that the impact of corrosion is threefold.
One is that the cost of corrosion is very high, second is that it is a
threat human life and safety, and third is that it may result in envi-
ronmental impacts. Controlling corrosion is critical to ensure safety
of property and life. Controlling corrosion comes right after we
identify the risk associated with the corrosion. Risks are identified
by performing a risk analysis continually to ensure that the risk is
A.H. Alamri
Fig. 9. SCC Management Framework [97].
properly identified and understood so that the right measures are
taken to mitigate the impact of the corrosion. Risk Analysis is con-
ducted by analyzing historical data and making a prediction about
the probability of failure of a component. The probability multi-
plied by the impact of the occurrence is known as the risk of any
event [96]. A solid risk analysis study must be conducted before
implementation or execution of any project in efforts to mitigate
the cost of corrosion related failures. To have a robust risk manage-
ment plan, a strong understanding of corrosion phenomena and its
underlying root causes plays an important role. A robust inspection
plan in addition to data evaluation techniques preferably utilizing
latest data analytics tools such as machine learning are encourag-
ing and must be implemented to analyze the current state of cor-
rosion effects and provide solid predictions as well as redefine
maintenance procedures to circumvent corrosion related failures
[97]. A basic framework must be developed to manage corrosion
risks which can be set as standards either individual standards
for companies based on specific applications or general standards
provided by local authorities or engineering societies. A typical
SCC management and control framework is shown in Fig. 9. A risk
susceptibility analysis can be implemented to calculate the failure
frequency based on historical data of failure rates and risk impact
based on different mechanisms of failures. A simple formula to cal-
culate this was suggested by Wright et al. [97] (Eq.(4)):
Y with existing process safety and control systems.
Sn
FF ¼ FF H ð4Þ
ð1  M 1 I 1 ÞðM n I n Þ
Integration of machine learning algorithms to perform the sus-
ceptibility predictions will provide more accurate results. This cal-
culation can provide a ranking of the parameter-based analysis
providing direction for field inspections, and prioritization of
detailed analyses of the on-site equipment which is based on his-
torical data. Risk assessments should be carried out to identify
the critical risks and using the machine learning algorithms to for-
mulate and provide maintenance and inspection guidelines in
order to mitigate the SCC based misfortunes [98]. A machine learn-
ing based risk assessment of SCC shall gather data first from the
available sources such as operational data from existing control
systems, environmental data from the geographical information
systems and field periodic inspection data. Powerful predictions
can be made to identify high risk zones in an equipment using
19
Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21
these machine learning models. The goal of the predictive risk
assessment is to re-invent the ways we do maintenance. Predic-
tions can give insights on the high-risk areas which can be then
fed to operations and management processes to implement the
maintenance procedure rather than timely periodic preventive
maintenance. Usually, maintenance procedures and guidelines
set by some local standards, international standards, and company
internal standards or by the manufacturers. Using the machine
learning techniques to perform risk assessment help companies
to move away from the traditional techniques of Preventive Main-
tenance (PM) and Corrective Maintenance (CM) procedures.
6. Knowledge gaps and challenges of using ML in SCC
The previous sections give brief introduction and information
about the fundamentals of stress corrosion cracking, machine
learning and risk analysis or assessment. In this section we will dis-
cuss the knowledge gaps and challenges of using machine learning
to predict SCC. Some of the challenges and existing knowledge gap
are:
1. The ability of industries to use machine learning models for
detection of stress corrosion cracking and performing auto-
mated risk analysis for SCC while integrating these solutions
2. Generalization of machine learning models for use with risk
assessment of stress corrosion cracking.
3. Justification of using specific machine learning model and
model accuracy evaluation.
4. Relating failure rates, environmental factors, and chemical cri-
teria to first principal models for physical understanding and
identifying the root cause of SCC propagation.
5. There seems to be scanty literature available on the use of
machine learning techniques to develop advanced maintenance
procedures for risk assessment of stress corrosion cracking.
7. Future perspectives
1. The future of the industry is big data. The vast availability of big
data like never before and integration of smart devices and
smart sensors into the cloud bringing Industrial Internet of
A.H. Alamri
Things (IIOT) will completely change and to some extent has
already changed the traditional maintenance practices and risk
assessment techniques currently being used.
2. Algorithms such as deep learning neural networks, support vec-
tor machines, artificial neural networks enable this kind of
intelligent and advanced analytics. Stress corrosion risk assess-
ment using machine learning and artificial intelligence will be a
powerful tool for organizations to leverage to ensure that the
future industries are the most safe and economical.
3. Research should continue to explore the applicability to predict
and in fact reduce impact and risks associated to corrosion
specifically to develop tools and techniques that can generalize
the available methods for use with existing systems.
4. Guidelines and procedures to be used by corrosion science and
engineering professionals for implementation of advanced ana-
lytics for corrosion predictions should be developed. Also, gen-
eral, and best practices for integration of corrosion prediction
systems to business planning and management systems which
can provide the right people the right information to make the
best decisions at the right times.
8. Summary and conclusions
This aim of this review paper was to collate information in the
scientific literature on the application of machine learning to stress
corrosion cracking risk assessment. In this review an overview on
the application of machine learning in the risk assessment of stress
corrosion cracking is presented. First, the current state of the art is
briefly summarized. The fundamentals of machine learning algo-
rithms and stress corrosion cracking are presented. Existing knowl-
edge gaps were identified and discussed while the challenges and
the future perspectives on the use of machine learning in corrosion
risks assessment of stress corrosion cracking were outlined. The
future of corrosion risks assessment in the industry is based on
machine learning and artificial intelligence and future research
work in this area is very important. Advance analytics will be a
powerful tool with the availability of big data for corrosion risks
assessment in the future.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] E.J. Schindelholz, M.A. Melia, J.M. Rodelas, Corrosion of additively
manufactured stainless steels—process, structure, performance: A review,
Corrosion 77 (2021) 484–503.
[2] H.M. Abd El-Lateef, K. Shalabi, A.R. Sayed, S.M. Gomha, E.M. Bakir, The novel
polythiadiazole polymer and its composite with a-Al (OH) 3 as inhibitors for
steel alloy corrosion in molar H2SO4: Experimental and computational
evaluations, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 105 (2022) 238–250.
[3] V. Saraswat, R. Kumari, M. Yadav, Novel carbon dots as efficient green
corrosion inhibitor for mild steel in HCl solution: Electrochemical, gravimetric
and XPS studies, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 160 (2022) 110341.
[4] T.L. Galvão, G. Novell-Leruth, A. Kuznetsova, J.O. Tedim, J.R. Gomes, Elucidating
structure-property relationships in aluminum alloy corrosion inhibitors by
machine learning, J. Phys. Chem. C 124 (2020) 5624–5635.
[5] C. Völker, S. Kruschwitz, G. Ebell, A machine learning-based data fusion
approach for improved corrosion testing, Surv. Geophys. 41 (2020) 531–548.
[6] P.O. Dral, O.A. von Lilienfeld, W. Thiel, Machine learning of parameters for
accurate semiempirical quantum chemical calculations, J. Chem. Theory
Comput. 11 (2015) 2120–2125.
[7] C.T. Ser, P. Žuvela, M.W. Wong, Prediction of corrosion inhibition efficiency of
pyridines and quinolines on an iron surface using machine learning-powered
quantitative structure-property relationships, Appl. Surf. Sci. 512 (2020)
145612.
20
Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21
[8] R.S. Patwardhan, H.A. Hamadah, K.M. Patel, R.H. Hafiz, M.M. Al-Gwaiz,
Applications of advanced analytics at Saudi Aramco: A practitioners’
perspective, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 58 (2019) 11338–11351.
[9] P. Rudling, A. Strasser, F. Garzarolli, L. van Swam, Welding of Zirconium alloys,
IZNA7 special topic report Welding of Zirconium Alloys2007.
[10] P. Jiang, Machine learning methods for corrosion and stress corrosion cracking
risk analysis of engineered systems, Doctoral dissertation). University of New
South Wales, 2018.
[11] C.I. Ossai, A data-driven machine learning approach for corrosion risk
assessment—a comparative study, Big Data Cogn. Comput. 3 (2019) 28.
[12] A. Ashrafriahi, A.F. Ebrahimy, V. Ramsundar, A. Korinek, R. Newman, New
insights into the stress corrosion cracking of carbon steel in ethanolic media,
Mater. Corros. 72 (2021) 517–527.
[13] M.-G. Na, J.-W. Kim, D.-H. Lim, Prediction of residual stress for dissimilar
metals welding at nuclear power plants using fuzzy neural network models,
Nucl. Eng. Technol. 39 (2007) 337–348.
[14] H. Wang, W. Zhang, F. Sun, W. Zhang, A comparison study of machine learning
based algorithms for fatigue crack growth calculation, Materials 10 (2017)
543.
[15] C. Jacobsen, U. Zscherpel, P. Perner, A comparison between neural networks
and decision trees, in: P. Perner, M. Petrou (Eds.), Machine Learning and Data
Mining in Pattern Recognition, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg,
1999, pp. 144–158.
[16] S. Wang, P. Zhang, S. Zhou, D. Wei, F. Ding, F. Li, A computer vision based
machine learning approach for fatigue crack initiation sites recognition,
Comput. Mater. Sci. 171 (2020) 109259.
[17] C. Modarres, N. Astorga, E.L. Droguett, V. Meruane, Convolutional neural
networks for automated damage recognition and damage type identification,
Struct. Control Health Monitor. 25 (2018) e2230.
[18] T. Papamarkou, H. Guy, B. Kroencke, J. Miller, P. Robinette, D. Schultz, J. Hinkle,
L. Pullum, C. Schuman, J. Renshaw, Automated detection of pitting and stress
corrosion cracks in used nuclear fuel dry storage canisters using residual
neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.032412020.
[19] G. Bayar, T. Bilir, A novel study for the estimation of crack propagation in
concrete using machine learning algorithms, Constr. Build. Mater. 215 (2019)
670–685.
[20] C. Sturrock, W. Bogaerts, Empirical learning investigations of the stress
corrosion cracking of austenitic stainless steels in high-temperature aqueous
environments, Corrosion 53 (1997).
[21] K. Habib, A. Fakhral-Deen, Risk assessment and evaluation of materials
commonly used in desalination plants subjected to pollution impact of the oil
spill and oil fires in marine environment, Desalination 139 (2001) 249–253.
[22] B.-H. Choi, A. Chudnovsky, Observation and modeling of stress corrosion
cracking in high pressure gas pipe steel, Metall. Mater. Trans. A 42 (2011) 383–
395.
[23] M. Askari, M. Aliofkhazraei, S. Afroukhteh, A comprehensive review on internal
corrosion and cracking of oil and gas pipelines, J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 71 (2019)
102971.
[24] P. Reed, M. Starink, S. Gunn, I. Sinclair, Invited review: Adaptive numerical
modelling and hybrid physically based ANM approaches in materials
engineering–a survey, Mater. Sci. Technol. 25 (2009) 488–503.
[25] P. Jiang, P. Craig, A. Crosky, M. Maghrebi, I. Canbulat, S. Saydam, Risk
assessment of failure of rock bolts in underground coal mines using support
vector machines, Appl. Stochastic Models Bus. Ind. 34 (2018) 293–304.
[26] L. Calabrese, G. Campanella, E. Proverbio, Identification of corrosion
mechanisms by univariate and multivariate statistical analysis during long
term acoustic emission monitoring on a pre-stressed concrete beam, Corros.
Sci. 73 (2013) 161–171.
[27] S. Zukhrufany, The utilization of supervised machine learning in predicting
corrosion to support preventing pipelines leakage in oil and gas industry,
University of Stavanger, Norway, 2018.
[28] W.C. Tan, P.C. Goh, K.H. Chua, I.-M. Chen, Learning with corrosion feature: For
automated quantitative risk analysis of corrosion mechanism, in: 2018 IEEE
14th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE),
2018, pp. 1290–1295.
[29] A. Jamshidi, A. Yazdani-Chamzini, S.H. Yakhchali, S. Khaleghi, Developing a
new fuzzy inference system for pipeline risk assessment, J. Loss Prev. Process
Ind. 26 (2013) 197–208.
[30] W. Zhang, Z. Bao, S. Jiang, J. He, An artificial neural network-based algorithm
for evaluation of fatigue crack propagation considering nonlinear damage
accumulation, Materials 9 (2016) 483.
[31] R. Bekkerman, M. Bilenko, J. Langford, Scaling up machine learning:
Introduction, Scaling up Machine Learning: Parallel and Distributed
Approaches; Bekkerman, R., Bilenko, M., Langford, J., Eds, DOI (2012) 1-22.
[32] V. Cherkassky, F.M. Mulier, Learning from data: concepts, theory, and methods,
John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[33] W.Z. Taffese, E. Sistonen, Machine learning for durability and service-life
assessment of reinforced concrete structures: recent advances and future
directions, Autom. Constr. 77 (2017) 1–14.
[34] T. Mueller, A.G. Kusne, R. Ramprasad, Machine learning in materials science:
Recent progress and emerging applications, Rev. Comput. Chem. 29 (2016)
186–273.
[35] D. Zhang, J.J. Tsai, Machine learning and software engineering, Software Qual. J.
11 (2003) 87–119.
[36] W. Wang, Q. Zhang, L. Ding, Y. Zheng, Simulation of hydrodesulfurization using
artificial neural network, Can. J. Chem. Eng. 88 (2010) 801–807.
A.H. Alamri
[37] M.H. Abbas, R. Norman, A. Charles, Neural network modelling of high pressure
CO2 corrosion in pipeline steels, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 119 (2018) 36–45.
[38] V. Karbhari, L.S.-W. Lee, Vibration-based damage detection techniques for
structural health monitoring of civil infrastructure systems, Structural health
monitoring of civil infrastructure systems, Elsevier 2009, pp. 177-212.
[39] A. Vaughan, S.V. Bohac, Real-time, adaptive machine learning for non-
stationary, near chaotic gasoline engine combustion time series, Neural
Networks 70 (2015) 18–26.
[40] A. Kialashaki, J.R. Reisel, Development and validation of artificial neural
network models of the energy demand in the industrial sector of the United
States, Energy 76 (2014) 749–760.
[41] D. Che, Q. Liu, K. Rasheed, X. Tao, Decision tree and ensemble learning
algorithms with their applications in bioinformatics, Software tools and
algorithms for biological systems2011, pp. 191-199.
[42] S. Zhang, K.-W. Chau, Dimension reduction using semi-supervised locally
linear embedding for plant leaf classification, International conference on
intelligent computing, Springer, 2009, pp. 948-955.
[43] K.W. Chau, C. Wu, A hybrid model coupled with singular spectrum analysis for
daily rainfall prediction, J. Hydroinformatics 12 (2010) 458–473.
[44] X. Chen, Hydrologic connections of a stream–aquifer-vegetation zone in south-
central Platte River valley, Nebraska, J. Hydrol. 333 (2007) 554–568.
[45] K. Di, W. Li, Z. Yue, Y. Sun, Y. Liu, A machine learning approach to crater
detection from topographic data, Adv. Space Res. 54 (2014) 2419–2429.
[46] G. Dede, M.H. Sazlı, Speech recognition with artificial neural networks, Digital
Signal Process. 20 (2010) 763–768.
[47] A. Takeda, T. Kanamori, Using financial risk measures for analyzing
generalization performance of machine learning models, Neural networks 57
(2014) 29–38.
[48] M.-J. Kim, D.-K. Kang, Ensemble with neural networks for bankruptcy
prediction, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010) 3373–3379.
[49] Y. Reich, Machine learning techniques for civil engineering problems,
Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 12 (1997) 295–310.
[50] K.P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspective, MIT Press, 2012.
[51] W. Zewdu Taffese, Data-Driven Method for Enhanced Corrosion Assessment of
Reinforced Concrete Structures, arXiv e-prints, DOI (2020) arXiv: 2007.01164.
[52] Z. John Lu, The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and
prediction, Wiley Online Library (2010).
[53] N.M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning, J. Electron. Imaging
16 (2007) 049901.
[54] L. Tagliaferri, An introduction to machine learning, DigitalOcean (2017).
[55] H.A. Al-Jamimi, S. Al-Azani, T.A. Saleh, Supervised machine learning
techniques in the desulfurization of oil products for environmental
protection: a review, Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 120 (2018) 57–71.
[56] M.A. Ahmed, H.A. Al-Jamimi, Machine learning approaches for predicting
software maintainability: a fuzzy-based transparent model, IET Software 7
(2013) 317–326.
[57] H.A. Al-Jamimi, M. Ahmed, Machine learning-based software quality
prediction models: state of the art, in: 2013 International Conference on
Information Science and Applications (ICISA), 2013, pp. 1–4.
[58] D. Zhang, J.J. Tsai, Machine learning applications in software engineering,
World Scientific, 2005.
[59] A.E. Aladejare, M. Onifade, A.I. Lawal, Application of metaheuristic based
artificial neural network and multilinear regression for the prediction of
higher heating values of fuels, Int. J. Coal Preparation Util. 42 (2022) 1830–
1851.
[60] G.K. Uyanık, N. Güler, A study on multiple linear regression analysis, Proc.-
Social Behav. Sci. 106 (2013) 234–240.
[61] J. Han, J. Pei, M. Kamber, Data mining: concepts and techniques, Elsevier, 2011.
[62] C. Nicholson, A Beginner’s Guide to Neural Networks and Deep Learning,
Retrieved January, 30 (2019) 2020.
[63] G. McDonald, N. García-Pedrajas, C. Macdonald, I. Ounis, A study of SVM kernel
functions for sensitivity classification ensembles with POS sequences, in:
Proceedings of the 40th international ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and
Development in Information Retrieval, 2017, pp. 1097–1100.
[64] Y. Bai, Y. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Ma, Short-term prediction of distribution network faults
based on support vector machine, in: 2017 12th IEEE Conference on Industrial
Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), 2017, pp. 1421–1426.
[65] R. Olivas, Decision Trees, A Primer for Decision-making Professionals, 2007.
[66] F. Elmaz, Ö. Yücel, A.Y. Mutlu, Evaluating the effect of blending ratio on the co-
gasification of high ash coal and biomass in a fluidized bed gasifier using
machine learning, Mugla J. Sci. Technol. 5 (2019) 1–12.
21
Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 31 (2022) 11–21
[67] E.E. Ozbas, D. Aksu, A. Ongen, M.A. Aydin, H.K. Ozcan, Hydrogen production via
biomass gasification, and modeling by supervised machine learning
algorithms, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 44 (2019) 17260–17268.
[68] B.N. Popov, Corrosion Engineering: Principles and Solved Problems, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 2015.
[69] V. Raja, T. Shoji, Stress corrosion cracking: theory and practice, Elsevier, 2011.
[70] T. Shoji, Computer simulation of stress corrosion cracking, International
Conference on Corrosion-Deformation Interactions CDI’92, Fontainebleau,
France, 1993.
[71] T. Shoji, Z. Lu, H. Murakami, Formulating stress corrosion cracking growth
rates by combination of crack tip mechanics and crack tip oxidation kinetics,
Corros. Sci. 52 (2010) 769–779.
[72] D.A. Vermilyea, A theory for the propagation of stress corrosion cracks in
metals, J. Electrochem. Soc. 119 (1972) 405.
[73] D. Moreno-Boza, A. Martínez-Calvo, A. Sevilla, Stokes theory of thin-film
rupture, Phys. Rev. Fluids 5 (2020) 014002.
[74] L. Hagn, Lifetime prediction for parts in corrosive environments, Corros. Power
Generat. Equip. (1983) 481–516.
[75] Y.F. Cheng, Stress Corrosion Cracking of Pipelines, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[76] K. Sieradzki, R. Newman, Stress-corrosion cracking, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 48
(1987) 1101–1113.
[77] J.X. Lu, C. Tupper, J. Murray, Biochemistry, Dissolution and Solubility,
StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 2021.
[78] J.R. Galvele, Electrochemical aspects of stress corrosion cracking, Modern
aspects of electrochemistry, Springer, 1995, pp. 233–358.
[79] R.A. Berk, An introduction to ensemble methods for data analysis, Sociol.
Methods Res. 34 (2006) 263–295.
[80] H.J. Motulsky, L.A. Ransnas, Fitting curves to data using nonlinear regression: a
practical and nonmathematical review, FASEB J. 1 (1987) 365–374.
[81] C. Catal, U. Sevim, B. Diri, Practical development of an Eclipse-based software
fault prediction tool using Naive Bayes algorithm, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011)
2347–2353.
[82] D.D. Wu, L. Liang, Z. Yang, Analyzing the financial distress of Chinese public
companies using probabilistic neural networks and multivariate discriminate
analysis, Socio-Econ. Plann. Sci. 42 (2008) 206–220.
[83] O. Kramer, K-nearest neighbors. Dimensionality reduction with unsupervised
nearest neighbors, Springer, 2013, pp. 13–23.
[84] A. Likas, N. Vlassis, J.J. Verbeek, The global k-means clustering algorithm,
Pattern Recogn. 36 (2003) 451–461.
[85] B. Zong, Q. Song, M.R. Min, W. Cheng, C. Lumezanu, D. Cho, H. Chen, Deep
autoencoding gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection,
International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
[86] S. Zhang, C. Cao, A. Quinn, U. Vivekananda, S. Zhan, W. Liu, B. Sun, M. Woolrich,
Q. Lu, V. Litvak, Dynamic analysis on simultaneous iEEG-MEG data via hidden
Markov model, NeuroImage 233 (2021) 117923.
[87] J.D. West, I. Wesley-Smith, C.T. Bergstrom, A recommendation system based
on hierarchical clustering of an article-level citation network, IEEE Trans. Big
Data 2 (2016) 113–123.
[88] L. Chen, Y. Chen, H. Yang, Y. Su, L. Qiao, Study of the relationship between
intergranular stress corrosion cracking and grain boundary characteristics in
brass, Electrochem. Commun. 131 (2021) 107124.
[89] S. Rahimi, T. Marrow, A new method for predicting susceptibility of austenitic
stainless steels to intergranular stress corrosion cracking, Mater. Des. 187
(2020) 108368.
[90] P. Swann, H. Pickering, Implications of the stress aging yield phenomenon with
regard to stress corrosion cracking, Corrosion 19 (1963) 369t–372t.
[91] S. Lynch, Mechanisms of stress-corrosion cracking and liquid-metal
embrittlement in Al-Zn-Mg bicrystals, J. Mater. Sci. 20 (1985) 3329–3338.
[92] A. Forty, P. Humble, The influence of surface tarnish on the stress-corrosion of
a-brass, Phil. Mag. 8 (1963) 247–264.
[93] W.D. Robertson, Stress, Corrosion Cracking and Embrittlement: A Symposium
Arranged by the Corrosion Division of the Electrochemical Society, Wiley,
Boston, 1956.
[94] D. Jones, Localized surface plasticity during stress corrosion cracking,
Corrosion 52 (1996).
[95] J. Galvele, Surface mobility mechanism of stress-corrosion cracking, Corros.
Sci. 35 (1993) 419–434.
[96] K.E. Perumal, Corrosion risk analysis, risk based inspection and a case study
concerning a condensate pipeline, Procedia Eng. 86 (2014) 597–605.
[97] M. Wright, P. Guillen, J. Soltis, Risk management of stress corrosion cracking of
buried pipelines, Rio Pipeline Conf. Exhibition (2017) 1–7.
[98] C. Venkatesh, P. Farinha, Corrosion Risk Assessment (CRA) in the oil and gas
industry-An overview and its holistic approach, 2006.