| Literature DB >> 30544744 |
Tianyuan Liu1, Jinsong Bao2, Junliang Wang3, Yiming Zhang4.
Abstract
At present, realizing high-quality automatic welding through online monitoring is a research focus in engineering applications. In this paper, a CNN⁻LSTM algorithm is proposed, which combines the advantages of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and long short-term memory networks (LSTMs). The CNN⁻LSTM algorithm establishes a shallow CNN to extract the primary features of the molten pool image. Then the feature tensor extracted by the CNN is transformed into the feature matrix. Finally, the rows of the feature matrix are fed into the LSTM network for feature fusion. This process realizes the implicit mapping from molten pool images to welding defects. The test results on the self-made molten pool image dataset show that CNN contributes to the overall feasibility of the CNN⁻LSTM algorithm and LSTM network is the most superior in the feature hybrid stage. The algorithm converges at 300 epochs and the accuracy of defects detection in CO₂ welding molten pool is 94%. The processing time of a single image is 0.067 ms, which fully meets the real-time monitoring requirement based on molten pool image. The experimental results on the MNIST and FashionMNIST datasets show that the algorithm is universal and can be used for similar image recognition and classification tasks.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; CO2 welding; LSTM; deep learning; molten pool; online monitoring
Year: 2018 PMID: 30544744 PMCID: PMC6308811 DOI: 10.3390/s18124369
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Convolutional neural network and long short-term memory network (CNN–LSTM) algorithm overall architecture.
Figure 2Feature hybrid mechanism of CNN-LSTM.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of the ReLU function.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of the random Dropout method.
Figure 5Part of the sample set images. (a) welding through; (b) welding deviation; (c) normal welding.
Figure 6The feature images of the molten pool in three states: (a) welding through; (b) welding deviation; (c) normal welding.
Figure 7The recognition accuracy of this network training and testing process.
Figure 8Influence of different input sizes on each algorithm.
Figure 9Performance comparison of three algorithms under different input dimensions.
The recognition accuracy and recognition time of different algorithms under different input sizes.
| Algorithm Type | Input Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 × 32 | 64 × 64 | 128 × 128 | ||
|
|
| 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.8 |
| (0.017) | (0.033) | (0.167) | ||
|
| 0.88 | 0.89 | 0.92 | |
| (0.02) | (0.06) | (0.233) | ||
|
| 0.90 | 0.91 | 0.94 | |
| (0.04) | (0.099) | (0.33) | ||
|
| 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.95 | |
| (0.033) | (0.067) | (0.2667) | ||
The recognition accuracy of each algorithm on the test sets and the recognition time of a single image.
| Algorithm | Dataset | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| MNIST | FashionMNIST | ||
|
|
| 0.9797 | 0.8671 |
| (0.008) | (0.01) | ||
|
| 0.9911 | 0.8885 | |
| (0.01) | (0.012) | ||
|
| 0.992 | 0.9122 | |
| (0.016) | (0.018) | ||
|
| 0.9922 | 0.9128 | |
| (0.014) | (0.016) | ||