| Literature DB >> 29880774 |
Keming Mao1, Duo Lu2, Dazhi E3, Zhenhua Tan4.
Abstract
Heated metal mark is an important trace to identify the cause of fire. However, traditional methods mainly focus on the knowledge of physics and chemistry for qualitative analysis and make it still a challenging problem. This paper presents a case study on attribute recognition of the heated metal mark image using computer vision and machine learning technologies. The proposed work is composed of three parts. Material is first generated. According to national standards, actual needs and feasibility, seven attributes are selected for research. Data generation and organization are conducted, and a small size benchmark dataset is constructed. A recognition model is then implemented. Feature representation and classifier construction methods are introduced based on deep convolutional neural networks. Finally, the experimental evaluation is carried out. Multi-aspect testings are performed with various model structures, data augments, training modes, optimization methods and batch sizes. The influence of parameters, recognitio efficiency and execution time are also analyzed. The results show that with a fine-tuned model, the recognition rate of attributes metal type, heating mode, heating temperature, heating duration, cooling mode, placing duration and relative humidity are 0.925, 0.908, 0.835, 0.917, 0.928, 0.805 and 0.92, respectively. The proposed method recognizes the attribute of heated metal mark with preferable effect, and it can be used in practical application.Entities:
Keywords: attribute recognition; convolutional neural networks; heated metal mark
Year: 2018 PMID: 29880774 PMCID: PMC6022075 DOI: 10.3390/s18061871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Relations between color change of ferrous metal and heating temperature. The heating duration time is set with 30 min.
| Color | Heating Temperature |
|---|---|
| dark purple | 300 |
| sky blue | 350 |
| brown | 450 |
| dark red | 500 |
| orange | 650 |
| light yellow | 1000 |
| white | 1200 |
Figure 1The framework of this work.
Attributes of heated metal defined in this study.
| Attribute Abbr. | Attribute Name | Types (Predefined Label Values) |
|---|---|---|
|
| Metal type | 2 types: (1) galvanized steel; (2) cold rolled steel |
|
| Heating mode | 3 types: (1) vacuum; (2) muffle furnace; (3) gasoline burner |
|
| Heating temperature | 4 degrees: (1) 400 |
|
| Heating duration | 4 degrees: (1) 15 min; (2) 30 min; (3) 40 min; (4) 45 min |
|
| Cooling mode | 2 types: (1) Natural cooling; (2) forced cooling |
|
| Placing duration | 3 degrees: (1) 24 h; (2) 36 h; (3) 48 h |
|
| Relative humidity | 2 degrees: (1) 65%; (2) 85% |
Figure 2Devices used in this study for generating image dataset. (a) demonstrates vacuum resistance furnace; Muffle furnace and gasoline burner are shown in (b,c) respectively; (d) is a test chamber with constant temperature and humidity.; Heated metal mark images are captured via microscope in (e).
Figure 3Demonstration of generated heated metal mark image samples. 7 attributes are labeled at the top-left position of each image.
Figure 4Demonstration of convolution operation in an image.
Figure 5Demonstration of pooling operation.
Figure 6Demonstration of fully connected layers in CNN.
Recognition rate of heated metal mark attributes.
| Model | Pre-Trained | Data Augment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| yes | no | 0.96 | 0.58 | 0.98 | 0.27 | 0.97 | 0.81 | 0.98 | 0.20 | 0.98 | 0.33 | 0.98 | 0.41 | 0.98 | 0.31 | |
| yes | yes | 0.98 | 0.45 | 0.99 | 0.30 | 0.94 | 0.69 | 0.98 | 0.48 | 0.98 | 0.82 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 0.98 | 0.57 | |
| no | no | 0.98 | 0.72 | 0.92 | 0.82 | 0.99 | 0.80 | 0.95 | 0.49 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.62 | 0.91 | 0.83 | |
| no | yes | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.83 | 0.97 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.78 | 0.95 | 0.91 | |
| yes | no | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.98 | 0.25 | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 0.47 | 0.99 | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.47 | 0.92 | 0.31 | |
| yes | yes | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.97 | 0.40 | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.99 | 0.53 | 0.99 | 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.54 | 0.99 | 0.34 | |
| no | no | 0.97 | 0.79 | 0.90 | 0.63 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.93 | 0.60 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.59 | 0.95 | 0.48 | |
| no | yes | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.99 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.69 | 0.98 | 0.91 | |
|
| yes | no | 0.98 | 0.56 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 0.99 | 0.80 | 0.99 | 0.15 | 0.98 | 0.67 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 0.98 | 0.24 |
| yes | yes | 0.98 | 0.45 | 0.98 | 0.43 | 0.99 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.26 | 0.99 | 0.67 | 0.98 | 0.39 | 0.98 | 0.39 | |
| no | no | 0.90 | 0.72 | 0.94 | 0.41 | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.94 | 0.48 | 0.99 | 0.68 | 0.85 | 0.61 | 0.93 | 0.73 | |
| no | yes | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.65 | 0.98 | 0.73 | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.91 | 0.90 | |
|
| yes | no | 0.92 | 0.72 | 0.95 | 0.71 | 0.90 | 0.20 | 0.92 | 0.64 | 0.99 | 0.69 | 0.92 | 0.77 | 0.90 | 0.52 |
| yes | yes | 0.96 | 0.68 | 0.97 | 0.65 | 0.98 | 0.21 | 0.96 | 0.49 | 0.99 | 0.74 | 0.96 | 0.60 | 0.94 | 0.55 | |
| no | no | 0.93 | 0.61 | 0.92 | 0.63 | 0.90 | 0.32 | 0.91 | 0.51 | 0.98 | 0.74 | 0.66 | 0.63 | 0.95 | 0.81 | |
| no | yes | 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.81 | 0.93 | 0.72 | 0.98 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.78 | 0.97 | 0.89 | |
|
| yes | no | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.97 | 0.43 | 0.98 | 0.21 | 0.98 | 0.57 | 0.98 | 0.81 | 0.98 | 0.49 | 0.98 | 0.13 |
| yes | yes | 0.97 | 0.73 | 0.98 | 0.55 | 0.99 | 0.38 | 0.98 | 0.66 | 0.98 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.61 | 0.99 | 0.34 | |
| no | no | 0.90 | 0.68 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.98 | 0.53 | 0.99 | 0.81 | 0.85 | 0.65 | 0.95 | 0.55 | |
| no | yes | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.83 | 0.96 | 0.82 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.74 | 0.97 | 0.91 | |
Classification efficiency analysis.
| Attribute | Efficiency |
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.93 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
|
| 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.89 | |
|
| 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.90 | |
|
|
| 0.92 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.86 | 0.84 | |
|
| 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.85 | |
|
| 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.85 | 0.83 | |
|
|
| 0.80 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.84 | 0.83 | |
|
| 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.83 | 0.80 | |
|
| 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.85 | |
|
| 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.82 | |
|
|
| 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.60 | 0.68 | 0.80 |
|
| 0.83 | 0.92 | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.85 | |
|
| 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.79 | |
|
| 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.84 | |
|
| 0.85 | 0.91 | 0.65 | 0.72 | 0.82 | |
|
|
| 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.71 | 0.83 | 0.88 |
|
| 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.90 | |
|
| 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.73 | 0.80 | 0.89 | |
|
|
| 0.75 | 0.66 | 0.70 | 0.73 | 0.71 |
|
| 0.77 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.75 | |
|
| 0.82 | 0.68 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.76 | |
|
| 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.73 | 0.78 | 0.74 | |
|
|
| 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.88 |
|
| 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.94 | |
|
| 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.91 |
Execution time (seconds).
| Execution Time | Batch Size |
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training time | 8 | 2.67 | 2.45 | 2.03 | 1.84 | 1.59 |
| 12 | 3.05 | 2.77 | 2.29 | 2.09 | 1.81 | |
| 16 | 3.33 | 3.08 | 2.54 | 2.31 | 2.04 | |
| 24 | 3.67 | 3.41 | 2.81 | 2.54 | 2.23 | |
| 32 | 4.33 | 4.05 | 3.34 | 3.02 | 2.65 | |
| Testing time | x | 0.11 | 0.083 | 0.062 | 0.045 | 0.031 |