Leveraging physics-informed neural networks for wavefield analysis in laser ultrasonic testing
Source abstract
Abstract
Laser Ultrasonic (LU) technology has emerged as a pivotal non-destructive testing method, offering a unique capability to visualise ultrasonic wavefields and identify defects without causing structural damage. However, challenges arise in certain testing scenarios where direct laser irradiation of the sample surface is hindered, resulting in incomplete LU wavefield datasets. This limitation poses a significant obstacle in accurately assessing material integrity and defect detection. This paper explores the application of Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) for LU wavefield reconstruction and prediction. PINNs are employed to reconstruct wavefields from incomplete data and predict wavefield behaviour at different time instances. Results demonstrate PINNs’ effectiveness in accurately reconstructing wavefields, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.94 between reconstructed and actual wavefields. Additionally, PINNs show promise in predicting LU wavefield data, albeit with slightly reduced accuracy beyond the training range. Moreover, PINNs effectively reduce noise in wavefield data, enhancing clarity and reliability. This study lays groundwork for further exploration of PINNs in LU defect detection.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Thermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Zhengzhou University
Clover Park Technical College
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · Henan Provincial Key Scientific Research Project of Higher Education Institutions
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. Lu M, Ding L, Yan X, et al. Application and prospect of laser ultrasonic nondestructive testing technology in advanced manufacturing. J Vibr Meas Diagn. 2021;41(4):631–643.
2. 10.1070/QE1998v028n03ABEH00117910.1070/QE1998v028n03ABEH001179 ↗
3. 10.1134/S106183092003004310.1134/S1061830920030043 ↗
4. Tian X, Zhao J, Lu B, et al. Laser ultrasonic quantitative detection of buried depth for internal defects in additive manufacturing parts. China Mech Eng. 2022;33(8):952–959.
5. 10.1109/SSD52085.2021.942952110.1109/SSD52085.2021.9429521 ↗
6. 10.1007/s00466-023-02434-410.1007/s00466-023-02434-4 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.04510.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045 ↗
8. 10.1126/science.aaw474110.1126/science.aaw4741 ↗
9. 10.1063/5.017670210.1063/5.0176702 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.cma.2021.11374110.1016/j.cma.2021.113741 ↗
11. 10.3390/s2314664910.3390/s23146649 ↗
12. 10.1007/s10921-020-00705-110.1007/s10921-020-00705-1 ↗
13. 10.1109/MSP.2021.311890410.1109/MSP.2021.3118904 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.ultras.2022.10687210.1016/j.ultras.2022.106872 ↗
15. 10.1109/OCEANSLimerick52467.2023.1024431410.1109/OCEANSLimerick52467.2023.10244314 ↗
16. 10.3389/feart.2023.122782810.3389/feart.2023.1227828 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.10642510.1016/j.engappai.2023.106425 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.cpc.2023.10901010.1016/j.cpc.2023.109010 ↗
19. 10.1093/gji/ggac39910.1093/gji/ggac399 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.cma.2023.11627810.1016/j.cma.2023.116278 ↗
21. 10.1007/s10915-022-01939-z10.1007/s10915-022-01939-z ↗
22. 10.3390/lubricants1111046310.3390/lubricants11110463 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.jcp.2019.01.03610.1016/j.jcp.2019.01.036 ↗
24. 10.1029/2021JB02312010.1029/2021JB023120 ↗
25. Cho S, Choi W, Ji J, et al. Analysis on strategies for modeling the wave equation with physics-informed neural networks. Geophysics Geophys Exploration. 2023;26(3):114–125.
26. 10.1016/j.cageo.2023.10547710.1016/j.cageo.2023.105477 ↗
27. Baydin AG, Pearlmutter BA, Radul AA, et al. Automatic differentiation in machine learning: a survey. J Mach Learn Res. 2018;18(153);1–43.
28. Abadi M, Barham P, Chen JM, et al. TensorFlow: a system for large-scale machine learning. Proceedings of the 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI); 2016 Nov 02–04; Savannah, (GA); 2016
29. 10.1098/rspa.2020.033410.1098/rspa.2020.0334 ↗
30. Datta L. A survey on activation functions and their relation with xavier and he normal initialization arXiv. 2020:2004.06632.
31. 10.3390/math1103068210.3390/math11030682 ↗
32. 10.1137/14095436210.1137/140954362 ↗
33. 10.1007/s00366-023-01881-010.1007/s00366-023-01881-0 ↗
34. 10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-910.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.jcp.2020.10991310.1016/j.jcp.2020.109913 ↗
36. 10.1080/10589759.2024.233818710.1080/10589759.2024.2338187 ↗
37. 10.1213/ANE.000000000000286410.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 ↗
38. 10.1063/5.019432910.1063/5.0194329 ↗