The Effect of Different Flaw Data to Machine Learning Powered Ultrasonic Inspection

Previous research (Li et al., Understanding the disharmony between dropout and batch normalization by variance shift. CoRR abs/1801.05134 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05134 arXiv:1801.05134 ) has shown the plausibility of using a modern deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from pha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of nondestructive evaluation 2021, Vol.40 (1), Article 24
Hauptverfasser: Koskinen, Tuomas, Virkkunen, Iikka, Siljama, Oskar, Jessen-Juhler, Oskari
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page
container_title Journal of nondestructive evaluation
container_volume 40
creator Koskinen, Tuomas
Virkkunen, Iikka
Siljama, Oskar
Jessen-Juhler, Oskari
description Previous research (Li et al., Understanding the disharmony between dropout and batch normalization by variance shift. CoRR abs/1801.05134 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05134 arXiv:1801.05134 ) has shown the plausibility of using a modern deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data. This brings the repeatability and effectiveness of automated systems to complex ultrasonic signal evaluation, previously done exclusively by human inspectors. The major breakthrough was to use virtual flaws to generate ample flaw data for the teaching of the algorithm. This enabled the use of raw ultrasonic scan data for detection and to leverage some of the approaches used in machine learning for image recognition. Unlike traditional image recognition, training data for ultrasonic inspection is scarce. While virtual flaws allow us to broaden the data considerably, original flaws with proper flaw-size distribution are still required. This is of course the same for training human inspectors. The training of human inspectors is usually done with easily manufacturable flaws such as side-drilled holes and EDM notches. While the difference between these easily manufactured artificial flaws and real flaws is obvious, human inspectors still manage to train with them and perform well in real inspection scenarios. In the present work, we use a modern, deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data and compare the results achieved from different training data obtained from various artificial flaws. The model demonstrated good generalization capability toward flaw sizes larger than the original training data, and the effect of the minimum flaw size in the data set affects the a 90 / 95 value. This work also demonstrates how different artificial flaws, solidification cracks, EDM notch and simple simulated flaws generalize differently.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2504839411</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2504839411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-a3714fc45d4a7d0755f50b3ce0a2be1877746def4c9eba726d5983232a9c0aab3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE9LAzEQxYMoWKtfwFPA8-rkX7M5Slu1UFGwPYc0m7RbarYmW1q_vVlW8ObhMXP4vTfDQ-iWwD0BkA-JgKKkgE4ghSxOZ2hAhGQFL0f0HA2AKFEoqspLdJXSFgBUKckAfSw2Dk-9d7bFjceTOq_RhRY_7cwRT0xrcNvgV2M3dXB47kwMdVjj9-aYsQovd200qQm1xbOQ9jmlbsI1uvBml9zN7xyi5dN0MX4p5m_Ps_HjvLAcoC0Mk4R7y0XFjazy18ILWDHrwNCVI6WUko8q57lVbmUkHVVClYwyapQFY1ZsiO763H1svg4utXrbHGLIJzUVwEumOCGZoj1lY5NSdF7vY_1p4rcmoLvydF-ehk5defqUTaw3pQyHtYt_0f-4fgAV23In</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2504839411</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effect of Different Flaw Data to Machine Learning Powered Ultrasonic Inspection</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Koskinen, Tuomas ; Virkkunen, Iikka ; Siljama, Oskar ; Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</creator><creatorcontrib>Koskinen, Tuomas ; Virkkunen, Iikka ; Siljama, Oskar ; Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</creatorcontrib><description>Previous research (Li et al., Understanding the disharmony between dropout and batch normalization by variance shift. CoRR abs/1801.05134 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05134 arXiv:1801.05134 ) has shown the plausibility of using a modern deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data. This brings the repeatability and effectiveness of automated systems to complex ultrasonic signal evaluation, previously done exclusively by human inspectors. The major breakthrough was to use virtual flaws to generate ample flaw data for the teaching of the algorithm. This enabled the use of raw ultrasonic scan data for detection and to leverage some of the approaches used in machine learning for image recognition. Unlike traditional image recognition, training data for ultrasonic inspection is scarce. While virtual flaws allow us to broaden the data considerably, original flaws with proper flaw-size distribution are still required. This is of course the same for training human inspectors. The training of human inspectors is usually done with easily manufacturable flaws such as side-drilled holes and EDM notches. While the difference between these easily manufactured artificial flaws and real flaws is obvious, human inspectors still manage to train with them and perform well in real inspection scenarios. In the present work, we use a modern, deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data and compare the results achieved from different training data obtained from various artificial flaws. The model demonstrated good generalization capability toward flaw sizes larger than the original training data, and the effect of the minimum flaw size in the data set affects the a 90 / 95 value. This work also demonstrates how different artificial flaws, solidification cracks, EDM notch and simple simulated flaws generalize differently.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-9298</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-4862</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Application ; Arrays ; Artificial neural networks ; Characterization and Evaluation of Materials ; Classical Mechanics ; Control ; Dynamical Systems ; Engineering ; Flaw detection ; Inspection ; Machine learning ; Neural networks ; Notches ; Object recognition ; Size distribution ; Solid Mechanics ; Solidification ; System effectiveness ; Technology ; Training ; Trends in NDE 4.0: Purpose ; Ultrasonic testing ; Vibration</subject><ispartof>Journal of nondestructive evaluation, 2021, Vol.40 (1), Article 24</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-a3714fc45d4a7d0755f50b3ce0a2be1877746def4c9eba726d5983232a9c0aab3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-a3714fc45d4a7d0755f50b3ce0a2be1877746def4c9eba726d5983232a9c0aab3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6389-5150</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Koskinen, Tuomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Virkkunen, Iikka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siljama, Oskar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</creatorcontrib><title>The Effect of Different Flaw Data to Machine Learning Powered Ultrasonic Inspection</title><title>Journal of nondestructive evaluation</title><addtitle>J Nondestruct Eval</addtitle><description>Previous research (Li et al., Understanding the disharmony between dropout and batch normalization by variance shift. CoRR abs/1801.05134 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05134 arXiv:1801.05134 ) has shown the plausibility of using a modern deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data. This brings the repeatability and effectiveness of automated systems to complex ultrasonic signal evaluation, previously done exclusively by human inspectors. The major breakthrough was to use virtual flaws to generate ample flaw data for the teaching of the algorithm. This enabled the use of raw ultrasonic scan data for detection and to leverage some of the approaches used in machine learning for image recognition. Unlike traditional image recognition, training data for ultrasonic inspection is scarce. While virtual flaws allow us to broaden the data considerably, original flaws with proper flaw-size distribution are still required. This is of course the same for training human inspectors. The training of human inspectors is usually done with easily manufacturable flaws such as side-drilled holes and EDM notches. While the difference between these easily manufactured artificial flaws and real flaws is obvious, human inspectors still manage to train with them and perform well in real inspection scenarios. In the present work, we use a modern, deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data and compare the results achieved from different training data obtained from various artificial flaws. The model demonstrated good generalization capability toward flaw sizes larger than the original training data, and the effect of the minimum flaw size in the data set affects the a 90 / 95 value. This work also demonstrates how different artificial flaws, solidification cracks, EDM notch and simple simulated flaws generalize differently.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Application</subject><subject>Arrays</subject><subject>Artificial neural networks</subject><subject>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials</subject><subject>Classical Mechanics</subject><subject>Control</subject><subject>Dynamical Systems</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Flaw detection</subject><subject>Inspection</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Notches</subject><subject>Object recognition</subject><subject>Size distribution</subject><subject>Solid Mechanics</subject><subject>Solidification</subject><subject>System effectiveness</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Trends in NDE 4.0: Purpose</subject><subject>Ultrasonic testing</subject><subject>Vibration</subject><issn>0195-9298</issn><issn>1573-4862</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE9LAzEQxYMoWKtfwFPA8-rkX7M5Slu1UFGwPYc0m7RbarYmW1q_vVlW8ObhMXP4vTfDQ-iWwD0BkA-JgKKkgE4ghSxOZ2hAhGQFL0f0HA2AKFEoqspLdJXSFgBUKckAfSw2Dk-9d7bFjceTOq_RhRY_7cwRT0xrcNvgV2M3dXB47kwMdVjj9-aYsQovd200qQm1xbOQ9jmlbsI1uvBml9zN7xyi5dN0MX4p5m_Ps_HjvLAcoC0Mk4R7y0XFjazy18ILWDHrwNCVI6WUko8q57lVbmUkHVVClYwyapQFY1ZsiO763H1svg4utXrbHGLIJzUVwEumOCGZoj1lY5NSdF7vY_1p4rcmoLvydF-ehk5defqUTaw3pQyHtYt_0f-4fgAV23In</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Koskinen, Tuomas</creator><creator>Virkkunen, Iikka</creator><creator>Siljama, Oskar</creator><creator>Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-5150</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>The Effect of Different Flaw Data to Machine Learning Powered Ultrasonic Inspection</title><author>Koskinen, Tuomas ; Virkkunen, Iikka ; Siljama, Oskar ; Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c400t-a3714fc45d4a7d0755f50b3ce0a2be1877746def4c9eba726d5983232a9c0aab3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Application</topic><topic>Arrays</topic><topic>Artificial neural networks</topic><topic>Characterization and Evaluation of Materials</topic><topic>Classical Mechanics</topic><topic>Control</topic><topic>Dynamical Systems</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Flaw detection</topic><topic>Inspection</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Notches</topic><topic>Object recognition</topic><topic>Size distribution</topic><topic>Solid Mechanics</topic><topic>Solidification</topic><topic>System effectiveness</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Trends in NDE 4.0: Purpose</topic><topic>Ultrasonic testing</topic><topic>Vibration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Koskinen, Tuomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Virkkunen, Iikka</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Siljama, Oskar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of nondestructive evaluation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Koskinen, Tuomas</au><au>Virkkunen, Iikka</au><au>Siljama, Oskar</au><au>Jessen-Juhler, Oskari</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effect of Different Flaw Data to Machine Learning Powered Ultrasonic Inspection</atitle><jtitle>Journal of nondestructive evaluation</jtitle><stitle>J Nondestruct Eval</stitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>1</issue><artnum>24</artnum><issn>0195-9298</issn><eissn>1573-4862</eissn><abstract>Previous research (Li et al., Understanding the disharmony between dropout and batch normalization by variance shift. CoRR abs/1801.05134 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05134 arXiv:1801.05134 ) has shown the plausibility of using a modern deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data. This brings the repeatability and effectiveness of automated systems to complex ultrasonic signal evaluation, previously done exclusively by human inspectors. The major breakthrough was to use virtual flaws to generate ample flaw data for the teaching of the algorithm. This enabled the use of raw ultrasonic scan data for detection and to leverage some of the approaches used in machine learning for image recognition. Unlike traditional image recognition, training data for ultrasonic inspection is scarce. While virtual flaws allow us to broaden the data considerably, original flaws with proper flaw-size distribution are still required. This is of course the same for training human inspectors. The training of human inspectors is usually done with easily manufacturable flaws such as side-drilled holes and EDM notches. While the difference between these easily manufactured artificial flaws and real flaws is obvious, human inspectors still manage to train with them and perform well in real inspection scenarios. In the present work, we use a modern, deep convolutional neural network to detect flaws from phased-array ultrasonic data and compare the results achieved from different training data obtained from various artificial flaws. The model demonstrated good generalization capability toward flaw sizes larger than the original training data, and the effect of the minimum flaw size in the data set affects the a 90 / 95 value. This work also demonstrates how different artificial flaws, solidification cracks, EDM notch and simple simulated flaws generalize differently.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><doi>10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6389-5150</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0195-9298
ispartof Journal of nondestructive evaluation, 2021, Vol.40 (1), Article 24
issn 0195-9298
1573-4862
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2504839411
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Algorithms
Application
Arrays
Artificial neural networks
Characterization and Evaluation of Materials
Classical Mechanics
Control
Dynamical Systems
Engineering
Flaw detection
Inspection
Machine learning
Neural networks
Notches
Object recognition
Size distribution
Solid Mechanics
Solidification
System effectiveness
Technology
Training
Trends in NDE 4.0: Purpose
Ultrasonic testing
Vibration
title The Effect of Different Flaw Data to Machine Learning Powered Ultrasonic Inspection
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T06%3A00%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effect%20of%20Different%20Flaw%20Data%20to%20Machine%20Learning%20Powered%20Ultrasonic%20Inspection&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20nondestructive%20evaluation&rft.au=Koskinen,%20Tuomas&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=1&rft.artnum=24&rft.issn=0195-9298&rft.eissn=1573-4862&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2504839411%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2504839411&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true