| Literature DB >> 35684597 |
Jonghwan Kim1,2, Byunyoung Chung2, Junhong Park1, Youngchul Choi2.
Abstract
An elbow wall thinning diagnosis method by highlighting the stationary characteristics of the operating loop is proposed. The accelerations of curved pipe surfaces were measured in a closed test loop operating at a constant pump rpm, combined with curved pipe specimens with artificial wall thinning. The vibration characteristics of wall-thinned elbows were extracted by using a mel-spectrogram in which modal characteristic variation shifting can be expressed. To reduce the deviation of the model's prediction values, the ensemble mean value of the mel-spectrogram was used to emphasize stationary signals and reduce noise signals. A convolutional neural network (CNN) regression model with residual blocks was proposed and showed improved performance compared to the models without the residual block. The proposed regression model predicted the thinning thickness of the elbow excluded in training dataset.Entities:
Keywords: convolutional neural network; ensemble average; loop test; mel-spectrogram; residual block; vibration characteristics; wall thinning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684597 PMCID: PMC9182911 DOI: 10.3390/s22113976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1(a) Section view of a wall thinning curved pipe with 30% thickness at a 34-degree position and (b) loop combined with a thinning elbow.
The thinning thickness of six fabricated specimens.
| Max. Thinning Ratio | Min. Thickness of the Elbow |
|---|---|
| 0% | 7.48 mm |
| 20.3% | 5.96 mm |
| 30.2% | 5.22 mm |
| 41.4% | 4.38 mm |
| 53.0% | 3.59 mm |
| 77.9% | 2.40 mm |
Figure 2Vibration signal measurement system and accelerometer positions at the surface of the curved pipe.
Figure 3Mel-spectrograms calculated with 256 mel-filters from the acceleration measured at 22.5 degrees of (a) 2.40 mm, (b) 3.59 mm, (c) 4.38 mm, (d) 5.22 mm, (e) 5.96 mm, and (f) 7.48 mm thickness specimens.
Figure 4Wall thinning monitoring process using a deep learning model, from signal measurement to thickness estimation.
Figure 5Proposed CNN model architecture using residual block.
Detailed architecture of proposed model.
| Layer | Input Shape | Output Shape |
|---|---|---|
| Input layer | (256, 257, 1) | (256, 257, 1) |
| Skip connection 1 | (256, 257, 1) | (256, 257, 6) |
| Convolutional layer 1 (ReLU) | (256, 257, 1) | (256, 257, 6) |
| Add 1 [Conv1, Skip1] (ReLU) | (256, 257, 6) | (256, 257, 6) |
| Average pooling layer 1 | (256, 257, 6) | (128, 128, 6) |
| Skip connection 2 | (128, 128, 6) | (128, 128, 16) |
| Convolutional layer 2 (ReLU) | (128, 128, 6) | (128, 128, 16) |
| Add 2 [Conv1, Skip1] (ReLU) | (128, 128, 16) | (128, 128, 16) |
| Average pooling layer 2 | (128, 128, 16) | (64, 64, 16) |
| Flatten layer | (64, 64, 16) | (65, 536) |
| FC layer 1 (ReLU) | (65, 536) | (120) |
| FC layer 2 (ReLU) | (120) | (84) |
| Output layer (Linear) | (84) | (1) |
Figure 6Prediction values of test dataset through model trained by the (a) proposed method and (b) traditional method, with the accelerometer located at 22.5 degrees.
MSE loss comparison for each dataset according to the deep learning model.
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| DNN | 0.003665 | 0.005296 | 0.005493 |
| CNN | 0.000440 | 0.001770 | 0.002042 |
| CNN + residual block | 0.000238 | 0.001186 | 0.001244 |
Mean and standard deviation of the prediction values for the missing specimen of the model trained with the raw data and the ensemble-averaged data without one specimen.
| Missing Specimen | Non-Averaged Data | Ensemble-Averaged Data | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| 3.59 | 3.34 | 0.236 | 3.49 | 0.205 |
| 4.38 | 4.75 | 0.279 | 4.38 | 0.215 |
| 5.22 | 5.13 | 0.279 | 5.26 | 0.200 |
| 5.96 | 5.75 | 0.223 | 5.94 | 0.178 |