Quantitative Benchmarking of Acoustic Emission Machine Learning Frameworks for Damage Mechanism Identification
Source abstract
Abstract
A challenging opportunity in structural health monitoring of composite materials is using machine learning (ML) methods to classify acoustic emissions according to the damage mechanism that emitted the signal. A wide variety of ML frameworks have been developed; however, lack of ground truth datasets in addition to limited overlap between experimental configurations has precluded any direct, quantitative benchmarking of their accuracy. Here, we generate a ground truth dataset comprised of pencil lead breaks with known angles of incidence, ( heta ). Each angle generates a unique frequency spectrum that changes continuously with ( heta ), which could be analogous to attributes of acoustic emission signals generated from failure processes, such as those that occur in composites. Five frameworks are then applied to the ground truth dataset and benchmarked according to their ability to discriminate between two sets of signals with a fixed (Delta heta ). A discussion of their performance as related to choice of features is given, and a set of guidelines for best-practices for feature selection and standardized practices are proposed.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (54)
Show source-provided references
1. Elsley RK, Graham LJ (1987) Pattern recognition in acoustic emission experiments. Pattern Recognit Acoust Imaging 0768:28510.1117/12.940279 ↗
2. de Groot PJ, Wijnen PA, Janssen RB (1995) Real-time frequency determination of acoustic emission for different fracture mechanisms in carbon/epoxy composites. Compos Sci Technol 55(4):405–41210.1016/0266-3538(95)00121-2 ↗
3. Johnson M, Gudmundson P (2000) Broad-band transient recording and characterization of acoustic emission events in composite laminates. Compos Sci Technol 60(15):2803–281810.1016/S0266-3538(00)00148-2 ↗
4. Sause MG, Gribov A, Unwin AR, Horn S (2012) Pattern recognition approach to identify natural clusters of acoustic emission signals. Pattern Recogn Lett 33(1):17–2310.1016/j.patrec.2011.09.018 ↗
5. Morscher GN, Godin N (2015) Use of acoustic emission for ceramic matrix composites. In: Bansal NP, Lamon J (eds) Ceramic matrix composites: materials. Modeling and technology, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, pp 571–590
6. Whitlow T, Jones E, Przybyla C (2016) In-situ damage monitoring of a SiC/SiC ceramic matrix composite using acoustic emission and digital image correlation. Compos Struct 158:245–25110.1016/j.compstruct.2016.09.040 ↗
7. Swaminathan B, McCarthy N, Almansour A, Sevener K, Pollock T, Kiser J, Daly S (2021) Microscale characterization of damage accumulation in cmcs. J Eur Ceram Soc 41(5):3082–309310.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2020.05.077 ↗
8. Hilmas AM, Sevener KM, Halloran JW (2020) Damage evolution in SiC/SiC unidirectional composites by x-ray tomography. J Am Ceram Soc 103(5):3436–344710.1111/jace.17017 ↗
9. Maillet E, Singhal A, Hilmas A, Gao Y, Zhou Y, Henson G, Wilson G (2019) Combining in-situ synchrotron X-ray microtomography and acoustic emission to characterize damage evolution in ceramic matrix composites. J Eur Ceram Soc 39(13):3546–355610.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2019.05.027 ↗
10. Huang W, Rokhlin SI, Wang YJ (1995) Effect of fibre-matrix interphase on wave propagation along, and scattering from, multilayered fibres in composites. Transfer Matrix Approach, Ultrasonics 33(5):365–375
11. Wilcox PD, Lee C, Scholey JJ, Friswell MI, Wisnom M, Drinkwater B (2006) Progress towards a forward model of the complete acoustic emission process. Adv Mater Res 13–14:69–7610.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.13-14.69 ↗
12. Sause MG, Horn S (2010) Simulation of acoustic emission in planar carbon fiber reinforced plastic specimens. J Nondestr Eval 29(2):123–14210.1007/s10921-010-0071-7 ↗
13. Gall TL, Monnier T, Fusco C, Godin N, Hebaz SE (2018) Towards quantitative acoustic emission by finite element modelling: contribution of modal analysis and identification of pertinent descriptors. Appl Sci (Switzerland) 8(12):2557
14. McLaskey GC, Glaser SD (2012) Acoustic emission sensor calibration for absolute source measurements. J Nondestr Eval 31(2):157–16810.1007/s10921-012-0131-2 ↗
15. Godin N, Huguet S, Gaertner R, Salmon L (2004) Clustering of acoustic emission signals collected during tensile tests on unidirectional glass/polyester composite using supervised and unsupervised classifiers. NDT and E Int 37(4):253–26410.1016/j.ndteint.2003.09.010 ↗
16. Kostopoulos V, Loutas TH, Kontsos A, Sotiriadis G, Pappas YZ (2003) On the identification of the failure mechanisms in oxide/oxide composites using acoustic emission. NDT and E Int 36(8):571–58010.1016/S0963-8695(03)00068-9 ↗
17. Moevus M, Godin N, Mili MR, Rouby D, Reynaud P, Fantozzi G, Farizy G (2008) Analysis of damage mechanisms and associated acoustic emission in two SiC$$_f$$/[Si-B-C] composites exhibiting different tensile behaviours. Part II : unsupervised acoustic emission data clustering. Compos Sci Technol 68(6):1258–126510.1016/j.compscitech.2007.12.002 ↗
18. Marec A, Thomas JH, El Guerjouma R (2008) Damage characterization of polymer-based composite materials: multivariable analysis and wavelet transform for clustering acoustic emission data. Mech Syst Signal Process 22(6):1441–146410.1016/j.ymssp.2007.11.029 ↗
19. Gutkin R, Green CJ, Vangrattanachai S, Pinho ST, Robinson P, Curtis PT (2011) On acoustic emission for failure investigation in CFRP: pattern recognition and peak frequency analyses. Mech Syst Signal Process 25(4):1393–140710.1016/j.ymssp.2010.11.014 ↗
20. Maillet E, Godin N, R’Mili M, Reynaud P, Fantozzi G, Lamon J (2014) Damage monitoring and identification in SiC/SiC minicomposites using combined acousto-ultrasonics and acoustic emission. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 57:8–1510.1016/j.compositesa.2013.10.010 ↗
21. Muir C, Swaminathan B, Fields K, Almansour AS, Sevener K, Smith C, Presby M, Kiser JD, Pollock TM, Daly S (2021) A machine learning framework for damage mechanism identification from acoustic emissions in unidirectional SiC/SiC composites. npj Comput Mater 7(1):1–1010.1038/s41524-020-00473-6 ↗
22. Muir C, Swaminathan B, Almansour A, Sevener K, Smith C, Presby M, Kiser J, Pollock T, Daly S (2021) Damage mechanism identification in composites via machine learning and acoustic emission. npj Comput Mater 7(1):1–1510.1038/s41524-020-00473-6 ↗
23. Saeedifar M, Zarouchas D (2020) Damage characterization of laminated composites using acoustic emission: a review. Compos Part B Eng 195(2019):10803910.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108039 ↗
24. Farhidzadeh A, Mpalaskas AC, Matikas TE, Farhidzadeh H, Aggelis DG (2014) Fracture mode identification in cementitious materials using supervised pattern recognition of acoustic emission features. Constr Build Mater 67(PART B):129–13810.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.015 ↗
25. Maillet E, Morscher GN (2015) Waveform-based selection of acoustic emission events generated by damage in composite materials. Mech Syst Signal Process 52(53):21710.1016/j.ymssp.2014.08.001 ↗
26. Ospitia N, Aggelis DG, Tsangouri E (2020) Dimension effects on the acoustic behavior of TRC plates. Materials 13(4):95510.3390/ma13040955 ↗
27. Sause MGR, Horn SR (2010) Influence of specimen geometry on acoustic emission signals in fiber. In: 29th European conference on acoustic emission testing pp 1–8
28. Hamstad MA (2007) Acoustic emission signals generated by monopole (Pencil Lead Break) versus dipole sources : finite element modeling and experiments. J Acoustic Emission 25:92–106
29. Saeedifar M, Najafabadi MA, Zarouchas D, Toudeshky HH, Jalalvand M (2018) Clustering of interlaminar and intralaminar damages in laminated composites under indentation loading using Acoustic Emission. Compos Part B Eng 144:206–21910.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.028 ↗
30. Sibil A, Godin N, R’Mili M, Maillet E, Fantozzi G (2012) Optimization of acoustic emission data clustering by a genetic algorithm method. J Nondestr Eval 31(2):169–18010.1007/s10921-012-0132-1 ↗
31. Morizet N, Godin N, Tang J, Maillet E, Fregonese M, Normand B (2016) Classification of acoustic emission signals using wavelets and random forests: application to localized corrosion. Mech Syst Signal Process 70–71:1026–103710.1016/j.ymssp.2015.09.025 ↗
32. Jain AK (1995) Artificial neural networks for feature extraction and multivariate data projection. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 6(2):296–31710.1109/72.363467 ↗
33. Jain AK, Murty P, Flynn P (1999) Data clustering: a review. ACM Comput Surv 31(3):264–32310.1145/331499.331504 ↗
34. Jain AK, Duin R, Mao J (2000) Statistical pattern recognition: a review. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(1):4–3710.1109/34.824819 ↗
35. Gorman MR, Prosser WH (1991) AE source orientation by plate wave analysis. J Acoustic Emiss 9(4):283–288
36. Sause MGR (2011) Investigation of pencil-lead breaks as acoustic emission sources. J Acoustic Emiss 29:184–196
37. ASTM International (2020) Standard practice for secondary calibration of acoustic emission sensors. Designation: E1781/E1781M-13
38. Rand WM (1971) Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J Am Stat Assoc 66(336):846–85010.1080/01621459.1971.10482356 ↗
39. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M (2011) Édouard Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn Res 12(85):2825–2830
40. Gates AJ, Ahn YY (2017) The impact of random models on clustering similarity. J Mach Learn Res 18:1–28
41. Hubert L, Arabie P (1985) Comparing partitions. J Classif 2(1):193–21810.1007/BF01908075 ↗
42. Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, Burovski E, Peterson P, Weckesser W, Bright J, van der Walt SJ, Brett M, Wilson J, Millman KJ, Mayorov N, Nelson ARJ, Jones E, Kern R, Larson E, Carey CJ, Polat İ, Feng Y, Moore EW, VanderPlas J, Laxalde D, Perktold J, Cimrman R, Henriksen I, Quintero EA, Harris CR, Archibald AM, Ribeiro AH, Pedregosa F, van Mulbregt P (2020) SciPy 1.0 contributors, SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python. Nat Methods 17:261–27210.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 ↗
43. Fränti P, Sieranoja S (2019) How much can k-means be improved by using better initialization and repeats? Pattern Recogn 93:95–11210.1016/j.patcog.2019.04.014 ↗
44. Ng A, Jordan M, Weiss Y (2001) On spectral clustering: analysis and an algorithm. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 14
45. Watanabe S (1985) Pattern recognition: human and mechanical. Wiley, New York
46. Swaminathan B, McCarthy NR, Almansour AS, Sevener K, Musaffar AK, Pollock TM, Kiser JD, Daly S (2021) Interpreting acoustic energy emission in SiC/SiC minicomposites through modeling of fracture surface areas. J Eur Ceram Soc 41(14):6883–689310.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2021.06.030 ↗
47. Guel N, Hamam Z, Godin N, Reynaud P, Caty O, Bouillon F, Paillassa A (2020) Data merging of ae sensors with different frequency resolution for the detection and identification of damage in oxide-based ceramic matrix composites. Materials 13(20):1–2210.3390/ma13204691 ↗
48. WenQin H, Ying L, AiJun G, Yuan FG (2016) Damage modes recognition and hilbert-huang transform analyses of cfrp laminates utilizing acoustic emission technique. Appl Compos Mater 23(2):155–17810.1007/s10443-015-9454-3 ↗
49. Kim JT, Sakong J, Woo SC, Kim JY, Kim TW (2018) Determination of the damage mechanisms in armor structural materials via self-organizing map analysis. J Mech Sci Technol 32(1):129–13810.1007/s12206-017-1214-x ↗
50. Aggelis DG, Shiotani T, Papacharalampopoulos A, Polyzos D (2012) The influence of propagation path on elastic waves as measured by acoustic emission parameters. Struct Health Monit 11(3):359–36610.1177/1475921711419992 ↗
51. Deng L, Dong W, Socher R, Li LJ, Li K, Fei-Fei L (2009) ImageNet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2009, pp 248–255, iSSN: 1063-691910.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848 ↗
52. Xiao H, Rasul K, Vollgraf R (2017) Fashion-MNIST: a novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms. arXiv:1708.07747
53. He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J (2015) Deep residual learning for image recognition. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1512.0338510.48550/arXiv.1512.03385 ↗
54. Radford A, Metz L, Chintala S (2015) Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. ArXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1511.0643410.48550/arXiv.1511.06434 ↗