| Literature DB >> 31569337 |
Gaurav Tripathi1, Habib Anowarul2, Krishna Agarwal3, Dilip K Prasad4.
Abstract
Ultrasound based structural health monitoring of piezoelectric material is challenging if a damage changes at a microscale over time. Classifying geometrically similar damages with a difference in diameter as small as 100 μ m is difficult using conventional sensing and signal analysis approaches. Here, we use an unconventional ultrasound sensing approach that collects information of the entire bulk of the material and investigate the applicability of machine learning approaches for classifying such similar defects. Our results show that appropriate feature design combined with simple k-nearest neighbor classifier can provide up to 98% classification accuracy even though conventional features for time-series data and a variety of classifiers cannot achieve close to 70% accuracy. The newly proposed hybrid feature, which combines frequency domain information in the form of power spectral density and time domain information in the form of sign of slope change, is a suitable feature for achieving the best classification accuracy on this challenging problem.Entities:
Keywords: classification; feature design; structural health monitoring; ultrasound
Year: 2019 PMID: 31569337 PMCID: PMC6806247 DOI: 10.3390/s19194216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Experimental setup for point contact excitation and detection in piezoelectric (PZT) ceramics. (a) Block diagram of the setup. (b) The steel sphere works as the sender and receiver, the V-shaped structure of the optical fiber works as semi-rigid support for the steel sphere, and the PZT is the sample which may be damaged.
Figure 2Chirp coded excitation signal used in the experiment.
Figure 3Time-domain signals corresponding to the healthy and damaged samples (damage diameter 500 m). Here, the root mean square of the difference between the two signals is 1.024.
Figure 4Time-domain signals corresponding to two damaged samples, one with damage of diameter 500 m and the other with damage of diameter 600 m. Here, the root mean square of the difference between the two signals is 0.0295.
Figure 5Power spectra vs. normalized frequency for data of damage (500 m) and damage (600 m). Here, the root mean square of the difference between the two spectra is 0.9719.
Classification accuracy for the classification of damages of diameters 500 m and 600 m without using principal component analysis (PCA)-based dimensionality reduction (ori) and with using PCA-based dimensionality reduction. KNN = k-nearest neighbor; HOC = higher order crossings; DCT = discrete cosine transform.
| HOC | DCT | CWT | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classifier | ori | PCA | ori | PCA | ori | PCA |
| KNN (simple) | 33.3% | 58% | 42.8% | 59.2% | 47.9% | 70.8% |
| KNN (weighted) | 20.8% | 54% | 56.4% | 59.2% | 70.8% | 72% |
| Naive Bayes (Gaussian) | 20.8% | 58.3% | 54% | 54% | 54.2% | 54.2% |
| Naive Bayes (Kernel) | 20.8% | 58.3% | 54% | 54% | 64.6% | 70.8% |
| Ensemble (bagged trees) | 20.8% | 51.2% | 46% | 56% | 68.8% | 70.8% |
| Ensemble (subspace KNNs) | 20.8% | 55.2% | 56.4% | 59.2% | 68.8% | 70.8% |
Classification accuracy for healthy versus damaged sample (diameter 500 m). Accuracy of better than 90% is shown in grey background. (CNN = convolutional neural network; BLSTM = bidirectional long short term memory; CWT = continuous wavelet transform).
| Classifier | Signal | HOC | DCT | PSD | CWT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KNN (simple) | 100% | 91.7% | 95.4% | 99.9% | 96.8% |
| KNN (weighted) | 100% | 95.8% | 95.4% | 100% | 93.8% |
| Naive Bayes (Gaussian) | 100% | 91.7% | 92.4% | 97.9% | 54.2% |
| Naive Bayes (Kernel) | 100% | 91.7% | 92.4% | 99.8% | 79.2% |
| Ensemble (bagged trees) | 100% | 87.5% | 94.2% | 99.8% | 95.8% |
| Ensemble (Subspace KNN) | 100% | 91.7% | 95.4% | 99.9% | 95.8% |
| CNN | 99.2% | 96.8% | 94.5% | 99.4% | 96.2% |
| BLSTM | 95.1% | 94.4% | - | - | - |
Classification accuracy for damaged samples. Accuracy of better than 90% is shown in grey background.
| (a) Diameters 500 | (b) Diameters 800 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classifier | Signal | HOC | DCT | PSD | CWT | Signal | HOC | DCT | PSD | CWT |
| KNN (simple) | 52.6% | 58% | 59.2% | 94.7% | 70.8% | 58% | 73% | 55.7% | 95.5% | 72.9% |
| KNN (weighted) | 52.8% | 54% | 59.2% | 94.8% | 72% | 58% | 64.3% | 52.4% | 95.4% | 72.9% |
| Naive Bayes (Gaussian) | 51.3% | 58.3% | 54% | 50% | 54.2% | 52% | 57.1% | 46% | 50.5% | 54.2% |
| Naive Bayes (Kernel) | 56.5% | 58.3% | 54% | 53.5% | 70.8% | 52% | 46.4% | 46% | 53.3% | 70.8% |
| Ensemble (bagged trees) | 55.3% | 51.2% | 56% | 92.8% | 70.8% | 51% | 73% | 51% | 93.6% | 72.9% |
| Ensemble (Subspace KNN) | 52.7% | 55.2% | 59.2% | 94.7% | 70.8% | 58% | 73% | 55.7% | 95.5% | 72.9% |
| CNN | 58% | 55.9% | 62% | 64% | 72.8% | 59.6% | 75.2% | 61% | 68% | 73.4% |
| BLSTM | 59.2% | 60% | - | - | - | 57% | 81.2% | - | - | - |
Classification accuracy for damaged samples of 500 m and 600 m using hybrid parameters followed by PCA with 95% variance. Accuracy of better than 90% is shown in grey background.
| Classifier | PSD + Signal | PSD + Signal + SSC | PSD + SSC |
|---|---|---|---|
| KNN (simple) | 96.6% | 97.5% | 98.2% |
| KNN (weighted) | 96.6% | 97.5% | 98.2% |
| Ensemble (bagged trees) | 94.9% | 95.2% | 96.4% |
| Ensemble (Subspace KNN) | 94.6% | 97.5% | 98.2% |