Use of deep learning and data augmentation by physics-based modelling for crack characterisation from multimodal ultrasonic TFM images
Source abstract
Abstract
In this article, we study a machine learning-based approach for characterising crack-like defects in specimens with complex geometries using the multi-modal total focusing method (M-TFM) applied to ultrasonic full matrix capture (FMC) data. In particular, this work frames into a scientific machine learning perspective leveraging the use of physics-based numerical solvers as an efficient yet accurate data augmentation strategy. Toward this end, the numerical simulations have been tailored to built a suitable data set aiming at gathering the uncertainties in M-TFM images encountered when the reconstruction parameters are barely known. That is, the use of such a physical knowledge has been exploited to train a deep convolutional neural network designed for retrieving crack size and position based on multi-modal TFM images. Furthermore, for validating the learning proposed scheme, an experimental campaign has been also carried out accordingly to the most relevant factors that typically impact the quality of reconstructed M-TFM images. The developed approach has been tested on both synthetic and experimental data sets never shared in the training phase.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Geophysical Methods and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, List, Palaiseau, France
Funding
Euratom Research
References (83)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2005.04.00210.1016/j.ndteint.2005.04.002 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2006.03.00610.1016/j.ndteint.2006.03.006 ↗
3. 10.1016/S0029-5493(00)00421-010.1016/S0029-5493(00)00421-0 ↗
4. Mahaut S, Roy O, Beroni C, et al. Development of phased array techniques to improve characterization of defect located in a component of complex geometry. Ultrasonics. 2002;40:165–169.10.1016/S0041-624X(02)00131-2 ↗
5. Chatillon S Fidahoussen A Calmon IP. Time of flight inverse matching reconstruction of ultrasonic array data exploiting forwards models. 2009 Aug. London (ON) Canada.
6. Fidahoussen A, Calmon P, Lambert M, et al. Imaging of defects in several complex configurations by simulation-helped processing of ultrasonic array data. AIP Conf Proc. 2010;1211:847–854.10.1063/1.3362502 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.10.00110.1016/j.ndteint.2009.10.001 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2012.08.00310.1016/j.ndteint.2012.08.003 ↗
9. 10.1109/TUFFC.2018.279326710.1109/TUFFC.2018.2793267 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2014.08.00410.1016/j.ndteint.2014.08.004 ↗
11. 10.1134/S106377101302002410.1134/S1063771013020024 ↗
12. 10.1109/TUFFC.2020.300498210.1109/TUFFC.2020.3004982 ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.07.00510.1016/j.ndteint.2018.07.005 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10270310.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102703 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.ultras.2022.10677610.1016/j.ultras.2022.106776 ↗
16. Ahmed S, Miorelli R, Calmon P et al. Real time flaw detection and characterization in tube through partial least squares and svr: application to eddy current testing. In: AIP conference proceedings; 16–21 July 2017; Provo, Utah, USA; AIP Publishing; 2018. Vol. 1949. (44TH ANNUAL REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN QUANTITATIVE NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION).
17. 10.1080/09205071.2019.157254610.1080/09205071.2019.1572546 ↗
18. 10.3390/met808061210.3390/met8080612 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.02.00410.1016/j.ndteint.2018.02.004 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.infrared.2021.10375410.1016/j.infrared.2021.103754 ↗
21. 10.3390/bdcc501000910.3390/bdcc5010009 ↗
22. Granados GE, Miorelli R, Gatti F et al. A deep learning framework for efficient global sensitivity analysis and shap values calculations applied to eddy current testing problems. In: 50th annual review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation. Vol. 87202. American Society of Mechanical Engineers; Austin, Texas, USA; 2023. p. V001T10A001.
23. 10.1109/WACV.2017.11910.1109/WACV.2017.119 ↗
24. 10.1007/s10921-020-0655-910.1007/s10921-020-0655-9 ↗
25. 10.1007/s00138-021-01195-510.1007/s00138-021-01195-5 ↗
26. 10.1007/s10921-021-00750-410.1007/s10921-021-00750-4 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.engappai.2022.10563610.1016/j.engappai.2022.105636 ↗
28. 10.1007/s13534-018-0058-310.1007/s13534-018-0058-3 ↗
29. Aldrin JC, Forsyth DS. Demonstration of using signal feature extraction and deep learning neural networks with ultrasonic data for detecting challenging discontinuities in composite panels. In: AIP Conference Proceedings; 15–19 July 2018; Vermont, USA; AIP Publishing LLC; 2019. Vol. 2102. p. 020012. (45TH ANNUAL REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN QUANTITATIVE NONDESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION).
30. Gantala T, Balasubramaniam K. Automated defect recognition for welds using simulation assisted tfm imaging with artificial intelligence. J Nondestr Eval. 2021;40(1):1–24.10.1007/s10921-021-00761-1 ↗
31. 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.06610.1016/j.neucom.2016.11.066 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.ultras.2018.12.00110.1016/j.ultras.2018.12.001 ↗
33. 10.1186/s40323-020-00174-110.1186/s40323-020-00174-1 ↗
34. 10.1115/1.405110010.1115/1.4051100 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2020.10221810.1016/j.ndteint.2020.102218 ↗
36. 10.1177/1475921723116971910.1177/14759217231169719 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2023.10290410.1016/j.ndteint.2023.102904 ↗
38. 10.1109/TUFFC.2020.304584710.1109/TUFFC.2020.3045847 ↗
39. 10.1109/TUFFC.2021.308479810.1109/TUFFC.2021.3084798 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10275610.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102756 ↗
41. Granados G, Miorelli R, Gatti F, et al. Towards a multi-fidelity deep learning framework for a fast and realistic generation of ultrasonic multi-modal total focusing method images in complex geometries. NDT E Int. 2023;139:102906.10.1016/j.ndteint.2023.102906 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.23194610.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.231946 ↗
43. Liu Y, Yang Z, Zou X, et al. Data quantity governance for machine learning in materials science. Natl Sci Rev. 2023;10(7):nwad125.10.1093/nsr/nwad125 ↗
44. 10.1109/MSP.2022.319880510.1109/MSP.2022.3198805 ↗
45. Nerlikar V, Miorelli R, Recoquillay A et al. Machine learning-based digital twin framework for realistic guided wave signal generation, applied to reliability assessment and global sensitivity analysis in shm. In: 50th annual review of progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation. Vol. 87202. Austin, Texas, USA: American Society of Mechanical Engineers; 2023. p. V001T05A003.
46. 10.1016/j.ultras.2023.10704110.1016/j.ultras.2023.107041 ↗
47. 10.3390/s1811382010.3390/s18113820 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.ultras.2021.10637210.1016/j.ultras.2021.106372 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2021.10248010.1016/j.ndteint.2021.102480 ↗
50. Simonyan K Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. 2014:1–14.
51. 10.1109/CVPR.2016.9010.1109/CVPR.2016.90 ↗
52. 10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x10.1007/s10921-021-00757-x ↗
53. Sun H Jacob R Ramuhalli P. Classification of ultrasonic b-scan images from welding defects using a convolutional neural network. Tech. Rep. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL); 2023. Oak Ridge (TN) (United States).
54. 10.1016/j.measurement.2024.11566210.1016/j.measurement.2024.115662 ↗
55. 10.1109/TUFFC.2021.308175010.1109/TUFFC.2021.3081750 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2022.10262810.1016/j.ndteint.2022.102628 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.ultras.2021.10661010.1016/j.ultras.2021.106610 ↗
58. 10.1016/j.ultras.2024.10731610.1016/j.ultras.2024.107316 ↗
59. 10.1109/TUFFC.2022.317692610.1109/TUFFC.2022.3176926 ↗
60. 10.1109/TUFFC.2023.324896810.1109/TUFFC.2023.3248968 ↗
61. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2024.10323410.1016/j.ndteint.2024.103234 ↗
62. Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A. Deep learning. The MIT Press; 2016.
63. 10.1615/JMachLearnModelComput.202304736710.1615/JMachLearnModelComput.2023047367 ↗
64. Kingma DP Ba J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. 2014;1–15.
65. 10.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_5310.1007/978-3-319-10590-1_53 ↗
66. Yosinski J Clune J Nguyen A et al. Understanding neural networks through deep visualization. 2015:1–12.
67. Xie N, Ras G, van Gerven M et al. Explainable deep learning: a field guide for the uninitiated Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 2022;73:329–396.10.1613/jair.1.13200 ↗
68. Ribeiro MT Singh S Guestrin C. Model-agnostic interpretability of machine learning. 2016:91–95.
69. 10.3390/e2301001810.3390/e23010018 ↗
70. 10.1145/338716610.1145/3387166 ↗
71. 10.1007/s10462-024-10721-610.1007/s10462-024-10721-6 ↗
72. 10.1016/j.ultras.2015.08.00810.1016/j.ultras.2015.08.008 ↗
73. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2020.10232710.1016/j.ndteint.2020.102327 ↗
74. Iakovleva E, Roué D, Brédif P. Automatic image alignment and stitching for ultrasound-based robotic inspection of complex geometry components. NDT E Int. 2024:103158.10.1016/j.ndteint.2024.103158 ↗
75. 10.1080/10589759.2024.238774210.1080/10589759.2024.2387742 ↗
76. 10.1016/j.jmat.2023.05.00110.1016/j.jmat.2023.05.001 ↗
77. 10.1016/j.ultras.2024.10732510.1016/j.ultras.2024.107325 ↗
78. 10.1007/s10994-021-05946-310.1007/s10994-021-05946-3 ↗
79. 10.1109/CVPR.2019.0027710.1109/CVPR.2019.00277 ↗
80. 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.306286010.1109/ACCESS.2021.3062860 ↗
81. Samek W Wiegand T Müller K-R. Explainable artificial intelligence: understanding visualizing and interpreting deep learning models. 2017.
82. 10.1016/j.simpat.2017.10.00310.1016/j.simpat.2017.10.003 ↗
83. 10.1016/j.scib.2023.05.01710.1016/j.scib.2023.05.017 ↗