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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of nondestructive evaluation 2021, Vol.40 (1), Article 24 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 |