| Literature DB >> 29621174 |
Juwei Zhang1,2, Pengbo Zheng3,4, Xiaojiang Tan5,6.
Abstract
The magnetic flux leakage method is widely used for non-destructive testing in wire rope applications. A non-destructive testing device for wire rope based on remanence was designed to solve the problems of large volume, low accuracy, and complex operations seen in traditional devices. A wavelet denoising method based on ensemble empirical mode decomposition was proposed to reduce the system noise in broken wire rope testing. After extracting the defects image, the wavelet super-resolution reconstruction technique was adopted to improve the resolution of defect grayscale. A back propagation neural network was designed to classify defects by the feature vectors of area, rectangle, stretch length, and seven invariant moments. The experimental results show that the device was not only highly precise and sensitive, but also easy to operate; noise is effectively suppressed by the proposed filtering algorithm, and broken wires are classified by the network.Entities:
Keywords: ensemble empirical mode decomposition; non-destructive testing; super-resolution reconstruction; wavelet denoising
Year: 2018 PMID: 29621174 PMCID: PMC5948680 DOI: 10.3390/s18041110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Schematic of data collection.
Figure 2Schematic of excitation device.
Figure 3Sensor array.
Figure 4Expanding in circumferential direction.
Figure 5Schematic of original data.
Figure 6Schematic of single-channel data before and after denoising: (a) Single-channel raw signal; (b) signal denoised by VMD algorithm; (c) signal denoised by EWT algorithm; (d) signal denoised by HHT-WFCS algorithm; (e) signal denoised by improved EEMD algorithm; (f) signal denoised by proposed algorithm.
The SNR of data denoised by several related algorithms.
| Group | Raw Data | VMD Algorithm | EWT Algorithm | HHT-WFCS Algorithm | Improved EEMD Algorithm | Proposed Algorithm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.67 dB | 49.99 dB | 46.26 dB | 37.10 dB | 35.30 dB | 51.46 dB |
| 2 | 18.50 dB | 51.45 dB | 48.40 dB | 51.52 dB | 45.00 dB | 63.62 dB |
| 3 | 14.53 dB | 29.39 dB | 23.63 dB | 34.19 dB | 31.58 dB | 74.61 dB |
| 4 | 17.15 dB | 59.01 dB | 40.10 dB | 46.82 dB | 47.44 dB | 61.09 dB |
| 5 | 17.51 dB | 49.63 dB | 47.78 dB | 43.63 dB | 42.82 dB | 60.24 dB |
| 6 | 19.31 dB | 22.10 dB | 21.05 dB | 35.78 dB | 44.20 dB | 80.67 dB |
| 7 | 20.45 dB | 39.38 dB | 54.17 dB | 45.31 dB | 53.59 dB | 83.71 dB |
| 8 | 19.23 dB | 43.13 dB | 52.93 dB | 33.43 dB | 53.59 dB | 78.82 dB |
| 9 | 14.39 dB | 34.45 dB | 32.43 dB | 49.09 dB | 35.51 dB | 61.70 dB |
| 10 | 10.29 dB | 42.58 dB | 54.72 dB | 37.01 dB | 52.16 dB | 66.09 dB |
| 11 | 19.66 dB | 50.97 dB | 53.73 dB | 37.35 dB | 45.99 dB | 58.63 dB |
| 12 | 22.46 dB | 32.45 dB | 27.20 dB | 40.51 dB | 32.97 dB | 81.20 dB |
| 13 | 20.90 dB | 62.07 dB | 55.33 dB | 53.17 dB | 42.30 dB | 87.79 dB |
| 14 | 20.84 dB | 61.12 dB | 55.94 dB | 32.48 dB | 43.99 dB | 80.64 dB |
| 15 | 15.42 dB | 36.95 dB | 26.76 dB | 42.37 dB | 28.99 dB | 59.85 dB |
| Average | 17.55 dB | 44.31 dB | 42.70 dB | 41.32 dB | 42.36 dB | 70.01 dB |
Figure 7Schematic of filtered data.
Figure 8Schematic of interpolation data in circumferential direction.
Figure 9MFL grayscale image.
Figure 10WSR algorithm process.
Figure 11Grayscale before (left) and after (right) increase in resolution.
Parts of characteristic vectors of defects.
| Broken Wires | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.37 × 104 | 0.549 | 0.404 | 6.664 | 28.63 | 35.55 | 39.67 | 80.75 | 54.36 | 77.35 |
| 2 | 3.55 × 104 | 0.702 | 0.222 | 6.664 | 29.53 | 39.09 | 35.19 | 72.91 | 49.96 | 72.54 |
| 3 | 4.72 × 104 | 0.744 | 0.262 | 6.665 | 26.87 | 33.75 | 35.69 | 71.36 | 49.62 | 74.19 |
| 4 | 3.08 × 104 | 0.763 | 0.412 | 6.667 | 26.75 | 33.39 | 33.40 | 69.74 | 47.93 | 67.98 |
| 5 | 5.82 × 104 | 0.609 | 0.568 | 6.668 | 25.43 | 33.08 | 33.34 | 66.60 | 46.42 | 68.99 |
| 7 | 9.74 × 104 | 0.732 | 0.727 | 6.669 | 26.89 | 33.73 | 31.82 | 66.01 | 47.26 | 64.72 |
Figure 12Different numbers of hidden layer node recognition results: hidden layers have (a) 15 nodes, (b) 17 nodes, (c) 21 nodes, and (d) 25 nodes.