| Literature DB >> 29522500 |
Jiaxing Ye1, Takumi Kobayashi2, Masaya Iwata3, Hiroshi Tsuda4, Masahiro Murakawa5.
Abstract
Developing efficient Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled systems to substitute the human role in non-destructive testing is an emerging topic of considerable interest. In this study, we propose a novel hammering response analysis system using online machine learning, which aims at achieving near-human performance in assessment of concrete structures. Current computerized hammer sounding systems commonly employ lab-scale data to validate the models. In practice, however, the response signal patterns can be far more complicated due to varying geometric shapes and materials of structures. To deal with a large variety of unseen data, we propose a sequential treatment for response characterization. More specifically, the proposed system can adaptively update itself to approach human performance in hammering sounding data interpretation. To this end, a two-stage framework has been introduced, including feature extraction and the model updating scheme. Various state-of-the-art online learning algorithms have been reviewed and evaluated for the task. To conduct experimental validation, we collected 10,940 response instances from multiple inspection sites; each sample was annotated by human experts with healthy/defective condition labels. The results demonstrated that the proposed scheme achieved favorable assessment accuracy with high efficiency and low computation load.Entities:
Keywords: audio signal processing; hammer sounding; machine learning; non-destructive evaluation; online learning
Year: 2018 PMID: 29522500 PMCID: PMC5876765 DOI: 10.3390/s18030833
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The general processing flow of computerized hammering response investigation.
Figure 2Hammer sounding waveform (left) and its Fourier spectrum (right).
Figure 3Flow chart of online learning formulation for hammering response investigation.
Figure 4Examples of hammering response spectrum: normal (left) and defective cases (right).
Figure 5The hammer device and microphone used for data capture (upper, right) and the microphone directivity illustration.
Summary of the parameter setting by algorithms.
| Device | Specification | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hammer device | Solenoid: Takaha Kikou Co., Ltd., CB15670033 |
| 2 | Transducer | Low-cost condenser microphone: ECM PC60 |
| 3 | Recorder | Olympus Voice-Trek V-803 |
Figure 6Photos of two working sites for hammering response data capture.
Summary of the parameter setting by algorithms.
| Index | Algorithm | C | Others | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Perceptron | / | / | / | parameter free |
| 2 | OGD | / | / | ||
| 3 | PA | / | / | / | parameter free |
| 4 | SOP | / | / | parameter free | |
| 5 | CW | / | |||
| 6 | AROW | / | |||
| 7 | SCW-II |
Figure 7Visualization of hammering response dataset using principal component analysis (PCA).
Figure 8Summary of online cumulative classification error rate.
Figure 9Processing time cost comparison.
Figure 10Comparison of number of updating steps.
Summary of all experimental results.
| Algorithm: | Mistake Rate (M ± Std) | Size of SVs (M ± Std) | Cpu Time (M ± Std) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceptron | 0.144 ± 0.002 | 1570.8 ± 25.2 | 0.647 ± 0.056 |
| OGD | 0.128 ± 0.005 | 1460.7 ± 59.3 | 0.718 ± 0.045 |
| PA | 0.147 ± 0.002 | 2945.8 ± 41.2 | 0.699 ± 0.037 |
| SOP | 0.181 ± 0.002 | 1983.8 ± 27.0 | 9.708 ± 0.608 |
| CW | 0.126 ± 0.002 | 3000.1 ± 36.6 | 3.460 ± 0.248 |
| AROW | 0.115 ± 0.004 | 6378.9 ± 278.2 | 6.357 ± 0.429 |
| SCW-II | 0.105 ± 0.002 | 3128.4 ± 61.6 | 3.577 ± 0.244 |