Defect classification of composite materials using transfer learning methods
Source abstract
Abstract
Nowadays, composite materials have become prevalent across various sectors, particularly finding usage in large-scale applications such as spaceships, automobiles, and aircrafts. The accurate detection of the defects in these materials is crucial, yet traditional methods often rely on human inspection, which is susceptible to errors. Recent advancements in machine learning have enabled defect detection using ultrasonic non-destructive testing methods. This paper introduces a new dataset named UNDT, which is obtained from the scans of 60 different composite materials, generating a total of 1150 images depicting both defective and non-defective areas. Several transfer learning methods are applied on the newly introduced UNDT dataset as well as the publicly available USimgAIST ultrasonic dataset. Comparative performance assessments illustrate the significance of utilising the transfer learning approach for defect classification on ultrasonic inspection images. Furthermore, the research emphasises the substantial benefits of employing these transfer learning methods. Notably, the DenseNet121 and VGG19 models achieve the highest accuracy rates, with 98.8% and 98.6% on the UNDT and USimgAIST datasets, respectively.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection · Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Abdullah Gül University
Erciyes University
Turkcell
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.prostr.2016.02.00810.1016/j.prostr.2016.02.008 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.12.01110.1016/j.ndteint.2018.12.011 ↗
3. Wasilenkoff C. Composites & sustainability. 2024 Apr. https://www.sustainableplastics.com/news/composites-sustainability
4. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.11240510.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112405 ↗
5. 10.1007/s10921-022-00878-x10.1007/s10921-022-00878-x ↗
6. 10.1007/s40684-016-0039-x10.1007/s40684-016-0039-x ↗
7. 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.07110.1016/j.neucom.2019.09.071 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2019.10216410.1016/j.ndteint.2019.102164 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.09310.1016/j.neucom.2020.07.093 ↗
10. 10.1080/10589759.2023.223454810.1080/10589759.2023.2234548 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.energy.2019.11631910.1016/j.energy.2019.116319 ↗
12. 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.306286010.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062860 ↗
13. Ye J, Ito S, Toyama N. Computerized ultrasonic imaging inspection: from shallow to deep learning, sensors. Vol.18. Basel, Switzerland; 2018. p. 3820.
14. 10.1109/ISPA52656.2021.955205610.1109/ISPA52656.2021.9552056 ↗
15. Gupta M, Khan MA, Butola R, et al. Advances in applications of non-destructive testing (ndt): a review. Adv Mater Process Technol. 2022;8(2):2286–2307.
16. 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.12.05510.1016/j.matpr.2022.12.055 ↗
17. 10.1177/168781402091376110.1177/1687814020913761 ↗
18. 10.1155/2022/546223710.1155/2022/5462237 ↗
19. Krautkrämer J, Krautkrämer H. Ultrasonic testing of materials. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
20. Carvalho A, Sagrilo L, Silva I, et al. The pod curve for the detection of planar defects using a multi-channel ultrasonic system. Insight: Non-Destr Test Condition Monit. 2002;44:689–693.
21. 10.1016/0963-8695(93)90160-V10.1016/0963-8695(93)90160-V ↗
22. 10.1590/S1678-5878200500040000710.1590/S1678-58782005000400007 ↗
23. 10.1038/nature1453910.1038/nature14539 ↗
24. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT press; 2016.
25. 10.1002/978111844311810.1002/9781118443118 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.patcog.2017.10.01310.1016/j.patcog.2017.10.013 ↗
27. Pan SJ. Transfer learning. Learning. 2020;21:1–2.
28. 10.1186/s40537-016-0043-610.1186/s40537-016-0043-6 ↗
29. 10.3390/polym1506152010.3390/polym15061520 ↗
30. 10.1134/S106183090603007710.1134/S1061830906030077 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.ultras.2016.08.01710.1016/j.ultras.2016.08.017 ↗
32. 10.1080/10589759.2014.91421010.1080/10589759.2014.914210 ↗
33. 10.1080/10589759.2017.129973210.1080/10589759.2017.1299732 ↗
34. 10.1109/ULTSYM.2015.012810.1109/ULTSYM.2015.0128 ↗
35. 10.1007/BF0294258910.1007/BF02942589 ↗
36. 10.1016/0963-8695(95)00053-410.1016/0963-8695(95)00053-4 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ultras.2018.12.00110.1016/j.ultras.2018.12.001 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ultras.2022.10668510.1016/j.ultras.2022.106685 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.compstruct.2023.11771410.1016/j.compstruct.2023.117714 ↗
40. 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.294644710.1109/ACCESS.2019.2946447 ↗
41. 10.1007/s12206-018-0610-110.1007/s12206-018-0610-1 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.06610.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.066 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.ultras.2022.10685410.1016/j.ultras.2022.106854 ↗
44. 10.1063/1.509981910.1063/1.5099819 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.ultras.2021.10643610.1016/j.ultras.2021.106436 ↗
46. Marcus GF. Deep learning: a critical appraisal. ArXiv abs/1801.00631. 2018.
47. 10.1007/s10921-020-00739-510.1007/s10921-020-00739-5 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.06.09410.1016/j.neucom.2021.06.094 ↗
49. 10.3390/sym1307117610.3390/sym13071176 ↗
50. Ultrasonar Defense and Aviation Technologies Inc. US DSA deep structure analyzer automated immersion type ultrasonic scanning system. 2020.
51. Ultrasonar Defense and Aviation Technologies Inc. US1000 ultrasonic pulser receiver automated immersion type ultrasonic scanning and digitizer unit. 2020.
52. Chollet F. Deep learning with Python. Second ed. Manning; 2021. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=XHpKEAAAQBAJ
53. Chollet F et al. Keras. 2015. Available from: https://github.com/fchollet/keras
54. Van Rossum G, Drake FL. Python 3 reference manual. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts Valley (CA); 2009.