journal article·2024-03-03

Dynamic Defect Detection in Fast, Robust NDE Methods by Transfer Learning Based Optimally Binned Hypothesis Tests

Subrata Mukherjee, Lei Peng, Lalita Udpa, Yiming Deng

Publisher page

Abstract

The structural integrity of safety-critical infrastructures diminishes over time, necessitating periodic inspections. The gathering of low-noise, precise nondestructive evaluation (NDE) readings for defect detection can be both time-consuming and costly. In practical applications, NDE data can be highly noisy due to factors like liftoff/stand-off distances, probe drift, scanning speed, and variations in data acquisition rates. Given the broad spectrum of potential uncertainties that can contribute to noise accumulation, characterizing the noise in such NDE data presents significant difficulties. As a result, the extraction of defect signals through deconvolution becomes challenging. This article introduces an NDE-based dynamic defect tracking framework designed for robust conditions. It incorporates regular periodic monitoring of the material under test (MUT) using a cost-effective, easy-to-implement magnetic flux leakage (MFL) probe. The framework proposes a dynamic setup that includes occasional, highly accurate, expensive MFL scans among regular, low-cost, noisy MFL scans. The objective is to detect and precisely track defect formation in metallic pipes over time, thereby enabling the efficient alarming and localization of defects before they reach detrimental sizes. A key characteristic of the proposed dynamic monitoring method is its noise type agnosticism in the low-cost MFL scans. It remains effective even when the underlying noise-producing uncertainties fluctuate significantly over time, a feature achieved through the use of transfer learning. The method transfers accurate information regarding the locations and sizes of existing corrosions from the detailed MFL scan to the subsequent noisy MFL inspections. With this supportive information from defective scan-points, it estimates the degradation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the noisy MFL scans. The framework suggests binned hypothesis tests in noisy MFL scans, setting the level of aggregation based on the SNR estimate in the scan data. This proposed binned hypothesis test optimizes defect coverage and maintains control over the false discovery rate (FDR). Experimental MFL data, gathered under a wide range of uncertainties and defect types, illustrates the highly heterogeneous nature of noise distributions in low-cost MFL scans and the significant variance in SNR deteriorations. The necessity of using binned hypothesis tests in these low-cost MFL data is highlighted by the poor performance of pointwise multiple hypothesis tests. Finally, the high effectiveness of the proposed transfer learning-based binned hypothesis testing method is demonstrated. Although the method was applied to MFL data in this instance, it is also suitable for other NDE applications. The applicability of the algorithms has also been confirmed through validation on experimentally generated Eddy Current (EC) data.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Geophysical Methods and Applications · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Nondestructive Evaluation Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

Funding

U.S. Department of Transportation

References (70)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/S0098-1354(00)00442-710.1016/S0098-1354(00)00442-7 ↗
2. R. Fullenbaum, J. Fallon, and B. Flanagan, Oil & Natural Gas Transportation & Storage Infrastructure: Status, Trends, & Economic Benefits. (IHS Global Inc, Washington, 2013).
3. 10.1109/TMAG.2017.271218910.1109/TMAG.2017.2712189 ↗
4. 10.1201/978149871105010.1201/9781498711050 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2009.06.00910.1016/j.ndteint.2009.06.009 ↗
6. S. Mukherjee et al., In 2019 Prognostics and System Health Management Conference (PHM-Paris), Paris, France. 2019.
7. S. Mukherjee et al., In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (ICPHM), Detroit. 2020.
8. R. Wagner et al., Insight-Non-Destr. Test. Cond. Monit. 55 (4), 187–196 (2013).
9. 10.1007/s10921-019-0647-910.1007/s10921-019-0647-9 ↗
10. 10.1063/5.008832010.1063/5.0088320 ↗
11. S. Mukherjee et al., J. Nondestruct. Eval. Diagn. Progn. Eng. Syst. 5 (1), 011002 (2022).
12. G. Diamond and D. A. Hutchins, In Proceedings of European Conference on NDT, Berlin, Germany. 2006
13. 10.1016/S0041-624X(00)00059-710.1016/S0041-624X(00)00059-7 ↗
14. 10.1016/0308-9126(79)90086-510.1016/0308-9126(79)90086-5 ↗
15. 10.1109/20.50838310.1109/20.508383 ↗
16. 10.1088/0022-3735/17/9/01210.1088/0022-3735/17/9/012 ↗
17. J. W. Wilson and G. Yun Tian, Insight-Non-Destr. Test. Cond. Monit. 48 (6), 357–359 (2006).
18. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.07.04910.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.07.049 ↗
19. 10.1016/0308-9126(88)90189-710.1016/0308-9126(88)90189-7 ↗
20. E. Mohseni and M. Viens. Communication lors de la conférence : NDT in Canada 2017, Quebec, QC, Canada. 2017.
21. Z. Li et al., In 2021 International Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Symposium (ACES), Chengdu, China. 2021.
22. 10.1080/09349847.2019.159598710.1080/09349847.2019.1595987 ↗
23. 10.31274/rtd-180813-993110.31274/rtd-180813-9931 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2004.09.00710.1016/j.ndteint.2004.09.007 ↗
25. C. Mandache, M. Brothers, and V. Lefebvre, NDT. net. 10 (6), 1–7 (2005).
26. R. Gongzhang et al., In 2012 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, Dresden, Germany. 2012.
27. S. Mukherjee et al., In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Online, Virtual. 2020.
28. 10.1016/S0963-8695(02)00024-510.1016/S0963-8695(02)00024-5 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.sna.2005.07.01310.1016/j.sna.2005.07.013 ↗
30. M. Prabhakaran et al., Int. J. Comput. Appl. Technol. 975, 8887 (2013).
31. 10.1109/20.71770610.1109/20.717706 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.jmmm.2006.02.22510.1016/j.jmmm.2006.02.225 ↗
33. 10.1109/TMAG.2009.202016010.1109/TMAG.2009.2020160 ↗
34. R. Gaige et al., IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 70 (1), 951–964 (2022).
35. X. Hewu et al., IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat 19, 8406–8417 (2022).
36. R. Gaige et al., IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas 72, 6009815 (2023).
37. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2015.09.00110.1016/j.ndteint.2015.09.001 ↗
38. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2016.10.00410.1016/j.ndteint.2016.10.004 ↗
39. 10.1007/s10921-022-00890-110.1007/s10921-022-00890-1 ↗
40. J. Buckley and H. Loertscher, Insight. 41 (11), 696–699 (1999).
41. 10.1021/nl071644910.1021/nl0716449 ↗
42. 10.1109/TKDE.2009.19110.1109/TKDE.2009.191 ↗
43. P. H. Westfall and S. Stanley Young, Resampling-Based Multiple Testing: Examples and Methods for P-Value Adjustment (John Wiley & Sons, Newyork, NY, 1993), Vol. 279, pp. 10158–0012.
44. C. George and R. L. Berger, Statistical Inference (Cengage Learning, Boston, Massachusetts, 2021).
45. 10.1007/BF0064994110.1007/BF00649941 ↗
46. 10.1080/0094965021572510.1080/00949650215725 ↗
47. G. Katz et al., In 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Hong Kong. 2015.
48. S. Watanabe, In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Espoo, Finland. 2022.
49. 10.1109/TIT.2012.220679310.1109/TIT.2012.2206793 ↗
50. 10.1111/rssb.1206410.1111/rssb.12064 ↗
51. L. Deng H. Kejun and X. Zhang. (2022).
52. 10.1080/01621459.2020.185937910.1080/01621459.2020.1859379 ↗
53. M. E. Taylor and P. Stone, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 10 (7), 1633–1685 (2009).
54. 10.1115/1.137671910.1115/1.1376719 ↗
55. 10.1201/978020390843310.1201/9780203908433 ↗
56. 10.1016/j.prostr.2019.08.06910.1016/j.prostr.2019.08.069 ↗
57. W. Brown and D. Reeves.In ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 2006.
58. S. Yukawa, Guidelines for Pressure Vessel Safety Assessment (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 1988), Vol. 780.
59. 10.3390/ma1510369710.3390/ma15103697 ↗
60. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00463.x10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00463.x ↗
61. 10.32614/RJ-2016-02110.32614/RJ-2016-021 ↗
62. Y. Bengio, In Proceedings of ICML workshop on unsupervised and transfer learning, Edinburgh, Scotland. 2012.
63. 10.1109/79.54397510.1109/79.543975 ↗
64. 10.18637/jss.v032.i0610.18637/jss.v032.i06 ↗
65. B. Whitcher R Packagerve. (2005).
66. 10.4018/978-1-60566-766-9.ch01110.4018/978-1-60566-766-9.ch011 ↗
67. 10.1109/20.10635610.1109/20.106356 ↗
68. A. Kyrgiazoglou and T. Theodoulidis. In COMSOL Conference, Rotterdam. 2017.
69. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2023.10296410.1016/j.ndteint.2023.102964 ↗
70. S. Mukherjee, L. Udpa, and Y. Deng. “In 2023 International Applied Computational Electromagnetics Society Symposium (ACES), Monterey, California. 2023.