| Literature DB >> 35334743 |
Xiaoqiang Guo1, Xinhua Liu1, Hao Zhou1,2, Rafal Stanislawski3, Grzegorz Królczyk4, Zhixiong Li4.
Abstract
The belt conveyor is the most commonly used conveying equipment in the coal mining industry. As the core part of the conveyor, the belt is vulnerable to various failures, such as scratches, cracks, wear and tear. Inspection and defect detection is essential for conveyor belts, both in academic research and industrial applications. In this paper, we discuss existing techniques used in industrial production and state-of-the-art theories for conveyor belt tear detection. First, the basic structure of conveyor belts is discussed and an overview of tear defect detection methods for conveyor belts is studied. Next, the causes of conveyor belt tear are classified, such as belt aging, scratches by sharp objects, abnormal load or a combination of the above reasons. Then, recent mainstream techniques and theories for conveyor belt tear detection are reviewed, and their characteristics, advantages and shortcomings are discussed. Furthermore, image dataset preparation and data imbalance problems are studied for belt defect detection. Moreover, the current challenges and opportunities for conveyor belt defect detection are discussed. Lastly, a case study was carried out to compare the detection performance of popular techniques using industrial image datasets. This paper provides professional guidelines and promising research directions for researchers and engineers based on the leading theories in machine vision and deep learning.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; machine vision; smart cities; smart mining
Year: 2022 PMID: 35334743 PMCID: PMC8955949 DOI: 10.3390/mi13030449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Overview of defect detection for conveyor belts.
Figure 2Sandwich structure of a conveyor belt crossed by steel cord.
Classification of conveyor belt defect detection methods.
| Taxonomy | Devices | Theory Description and Advantages/Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Sensor-based methods | Magnetic induction sensor, electromagnetic induction sensor | Convert belt damages into electromagnetic signals; then, analyze signal patterns to indirectly obtain the state of the conveyor belt. |
| X-ray/spectrum-based methods | X-ray emitter and receiver, industrial hyperspectral camera | X-ray penetrates conveyor belt and is captured by a special receiver, and the conveyor belt damage can be recognized by analyzing X-ray images. |
| Machine vision-based/deep learning-based methods | CCD, COMS or 3D industrial cameras | Industrial cameras take pictures of the conveyor belt surface in real time, which are simultaneously processed by a specially designed algorithm; not complicated devices, medium cost, complex algorithms. |
Figure 3Basic hardware topology of the X-ray-based conveyor belt method.
Comparison of X-ray/spectrum methods.
| Method | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| X-ray [ | Can detect internal damage of steel cord belt. | (1) Expensive and complicated equipment; |
| Infrared [ | (1) Acquires infrared images; | (1) Based on image binarization and morphological, low robustness; |
| Spectrum [ | (1) Acquires infrared images; | (1) Domain transformation may lead to information loss; |
| Infrared [ | (1) Novel optical path; obtains synchronous infrared and normal images; | (1) Direct image fusion; no information filtering. |
| Spectrum [ | (1) Novel optical path; uses two infrared cameras to obtain different spectrum images; | (1) Uses expensive equipment; |
| Spectrum [ | Acquires images of different spectra; can obtain abundant useful features. | (1) Uses expensive equipment and requires large space to deploy cameras; |
Figure 4Fundamental components for image inspection system.
Figure 5Taxonomy of feature extraction methods.
Figure 6Sketch of underground image acquisition devices.
Comparison of machine vision methods.
| Method | Pros | Common Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Segmentation [ | (1) Based on image segmentation; | (1) Designs of artificial features and some of methods need to set special threshold, which leads to poor robustness; |
| SSR [ | Based on reflection image model and SSR algorithm to extract belt tear features. | |
| Classifier [ | (1) These algorithms extract belt tear features and apply classic classifiers, which have stable performance; | |
| Edge or corner features [ | (1) Based on edge or corner features, which can focus on the region of belt tear; |
Figure 7Pipeline of convolutional neural networks.
Figure 8Architecture of deep neural networks: (a) VGG16; (b) ResNet18; (c) Inception; (d) DenseNet.
Comparison of machine vision methods.
| Method | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| R-CNN | (1) Typical two-stage algorithm; after many improvements, algorithm is well developed and for applications that require high precision; | (1) Region proposal networks make redundant bounding boxes, which leads to low speed; |
| YOLO | (1) Simultaneously predicts object class and location as a regression process and gets rid of the region proposal stage, which simplifies the architecture and increases the speed; | (1) The performance (except for speed) of YOLO series is worse than that of R-CNN series; |
| SSD | (1) A compromise between speed and precision; can achieve excellent performance in certain applications; | (1) Many hyperparameters need to be set properly; |
Figure 9Sample conveyor belt damage images; damage types are cracks, tears and scratches.
Experimental results on custom belt damage dataset and public datasets in which the score threshold is set to 0.5, image resolution of the custom dataset is 416x416 and the GPU is NVIDIA RTX 2080s. For public datasets, models were trained on VOC2007 and VOC2012 training datasets tested on the VOC2007 testing dataset.
| Method | Backbone | Custom Dataset | VOC2007 + VOC2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FPS | mAP(%)@.5 | FPS | mAP(%)@.5 | ||
| Multi-SVM | Null | 28.4 | 61.3 | 24.3 | 47.1 |
| AdaBoost | Null | 23.7 | 39.8 | 19.3 | 43.7 |
| YOLOv5m | Focus+CSP | 128 | 82.5 | 117 | 63.2 |
| YOLOX-X | Modified CSPv5 | 57.4 | 78.4 | 55.8 | 65.3 |
| SSD300 | VGG16 | 59.1 | 81.7 | 57.4 | 72.6 |
| Faster R-CNN | ResNet-101 | 7.4 | 86.4 | 6.2 | 74.9 |
Figure 10Visualization results contain anchor boxes and labels, showing that the obvious damage regions can be successfully detected. However, some small or inconspicuous damage regions are missed by detection algorithms.
List of scale-diversity strategies and descriptions.
| Strategy | Description |
|---|---|
|
No scale |
Does not employ scale balancing strategy. |
|
Multi-scaled features [ |
Features extracted from different layers of backbone network are used to make predictions. |
|
Feature pyramid networks (FPN) [ |
Based on up-sampling or down-sampling methods; intermediate features extracted from adjacent layers of backbone network are merged to new features, which are used to make predictions. |
|
Scaled image pyramids [ |
Input image is scaled into different levels, and each scaled image is fed into the backbone network. |