| Literature DB >> 35477964 |
Lixin Zhang1, Qingrong Nan2, Shengqin Bian3, Tao Liu2, Zhengguang Xu2.
Abstract
Obtaining the surface temperature of billets in heating furnaces has been a hot research in metallurgical industry applications. In order to accurately identify the billet location in infrared images and thus obtain the surface temperature of billets, this paper proposes a real-time segmentation network model based on multi-scale feature fusion to solve the problems of low resolution, low accuracy and slow detection speed of infrared images of traditional target image detection methods. In our method, a dataset with billet infrared images as the experimental object is firstly established, and the proposed network structure adopts multi-scale feature fusion to enhance the information interaction between feature maps at all levels and reduce the information loss during up-sampling by a dense up-sampling strategy. Meanwhile, a lightweight backbone network and deep separable convolution are used to reduce the number of network parameters and speed up the network inference, finally realizing real-time and accurate segmentation of the infrared images of blanks. The highest accuracy of the model in this paper reaches 94.89[Formula: see text]. Meanwhile, an inference speed of 80fps is achieved on GTX2080Ti. Compared with the existing mainstream methods, the method in this paper can better meet the real-time and accuracy requirements of industrial production.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35477964 PMCID: PMC9046428 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-09233-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1The network structure of the method in this paper.
Figure 2The network structure of the feature extraction module.
Figure 3Dense up-sampling module structure.
Experiment results of the effectiveness of the network structure.
| Experiment | Asymmetric + dilated convolution | Muti-scale feature fusion | Dense up-sampling | mIoU | BIoU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 93.68 | 55.85 | |||
| 2 | 93.91 | 56.17 | |||
| 3 | 94.41 | 57.05 | |||
| 4 | 94.08 | 56.44 | |||
| 5 | 94.46 | 57.12 | |||
| 6 | 94.25 | 56.89 | |||
| 7 | 94.74 | 57.53 | |||
| 8 | 94.89 | 57.71 |
Speed and accuracy analysis.
| Model | GFLOPs | Parameters | Frame (fps) | mIoU | PA | BIoU[ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U-shape[ | 6.9 | 18.39M | 83.80 | 93.68 | 98.84 | 55.85 |
| MobileNet[ | 3.9 | 22.09M | 121.41 | 93.54 | 98.61 | 52.08 |
| ENet[ | 3.56 | 0.4M | 26.57 | 93.69 | 98.63 | 46.07 |
| ESPNet[ | 0.79 | 0.264M | 40.26 | 94.28 | 98.77 | 52.47 |
| ERFNet[ | 6.4 | 2.06M | 46.25 | 94.74 | 98.89 | 57.58 |
| BiseNet[ | 10.8 | 12.41M | 125.98 | 93.46 | 98.60 | 46.08 |
| Ours | 8.6 | 20.23M | 79.83 | 94.89 | 98.91 | 57.70 |
Figure 4Comparison of image segmentation results by different methods. (a) Ground truth, (b) ours model, (c) U-shape, (d) ERFNet, (e) ENet, (f) EspNet, (g) mobileNet, (h) BiseNet.
Figure 5Other comparison.