| Literature DB >> 29912153 |
Hao Liang1,2,3, Meng Zhang4,5,6, Chao Gao7,8,9, Yandong Zhao10,11,12.
Abstract
This article presents a non-destructive methodology to determine the modulus of elasticity (MOE) in static bending of wood through the use of near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Wood specimens were obtained from Quercus mongolica growing in Northeast of China. The NIR spectra of specimens were acquired by using a one-chip NIR fiber optic spectrometer whose spectral range was 900~1900 nm. The raw spectra of specimens were pretreated by multiplication scatter correlation and Savitzky-Golay smoothing and differentiation filter. To reduce the dimensions of data and complexity of modeling, the synergy interval partial least squares and successive projections algorithm were applied to extract the characteristic wavelengths, which had closing relevance with the MOE of wood, and five characteristic wavelengths were selected from full 117 variables of a spectrum. Taking the characteristic wavelengths as input values, partial least square regression (PLSR) and the propagation neural network (BPNN) were implemented to establish calibration models. The predictive ability of the models was estimated by the coefficient of determination (rp) and the root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) and in the prediction set. In comparison with the predicted results of the models, BPNN performed better results with the higher rp of 0.91 and lower RMSEP of 0.76. The results indicate that it is feasible to accurately determine the MOE of wood by using the NIR spectroscopy technique.Entities:
Keywords: characteristic wavelengths; near-infrared spectroscopy; successive projections algorithm; synergy interval partial least squares; the modulus of elasticity in static bending
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29912153 PMCID: PMC6022112 DOI: 10.3390/s18061963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The diagram of spectra measurements.
Figure 2The spectral collection points of specimen.
The results of sets partition by improved K-S method.
| Sample Set | Serial Number of Samples | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration set | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 12 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | |
| 22 | 23 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |
| 30 | 32 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 40 | 41 | |
| 43 | 44 | 45 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | |
| 52 | 53 | 54 | 56 | 60 | 63 | 64 | |
| 66 | 67 | 69 | 72 | 74 | 75 | 76 | |
| 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 82 | 83 | 84 | |
| 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 92 | 93 | 94 | |
| 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 100 | 101 | 104 | |
| 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 111 | 112 | 113 | |
| 114 | 115 | 118 | 120 | 122 | 123 | 125 | |
| Prediction set | 1 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 14 |
| 24 | 31 | 33 | 34 | 38 | 39 | 42 | |
| 46 | 51 | 55 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 61 | |
| 62 | 65 | 68 | 70 | 71 | 73 | 81 | |
| 89 | 90 | 91 | 99 | 102 | 103 | 109 | |
| 110 | 116 | 117 | 119 | 121 | 124 | ||
Statistics of the Compressive Strength from the Calibration and Prediction Sets.
| Samples | Maximum (GPa) | Minimum (GPa) | Mean (GPa) | Standard Deviation (GPa) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration set ( | 19.25 | 10.43 | 16.00 | 3.05 |
| Prediction set ( | 18.96 | 11.22 | 16.41 | 2.23 |
Figure 3Raw spectra of specimens.
Figure 4Pretreated spectra: (a) Pretreated by MSC; (b) Pretreated by MSC combined with SG convolution smoothing and differentiation filter.
The results of selected optimal spectral subintervals.
| Number of Intervals | PCs | Selected Subintervals | RMSECV |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 8 | [1 3 5] | 1.439 |
| 6 | 7 | [1 2 3 6] | 1.431 |
| 7 | 6 | [1 5 7 9] | 1.354 |
| 8 | 8 | [1 6 7] | 1.388 |
| 9 | 8 | [1 2 6 8] | 1.355 |
| 10 | 6 | [1 5 7 9] | 1.354 |
| 11 | 7 | [1 2 8 10] | 1.374 |
| 12 | 8 | [1 2 9 11] | 1.360 |
| 13 | 6 | [1 6 9 11] | 1.387 |
| 14 | 7 | [1 7 10 12] | 1.388 |
| 15 | 7 | [1 7 12 13] | 1.389 |
Figure 5Optimal spectra intervals selected by SiPLS.
Figure 6The results of characteristic wavelengths selection by SPA: (a) The variation of RMSE with SPA; (b) Final selected wavelengths.
Comparison of the calibration model results with PLSR and BPNN.
| Types of model |
| RMSEC | SECV |
| RMSEP | RPD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLSR | 0.90 | 1.35 | 1.34 | 0.84 | 1.08 | 2.06 |
| BPNN | 0.94 | 1.00 | 1.04 | 0.89 | 0.76 | 2.93 |
Figure 7Relationships between the measured and predicted MOE of Quercus mongolica in the (a) calibration set and (b) prediction set.