| Literature DB >> 35746299 |
Abstract
Pipes are construction materials for water and sewage, air conditioning, firefighting, and gas facilities at construction sites. The quantification and identification of pipes stacked at construction sites are indispensable and, thus, are directly related to efficient process management. In this study, an automated CNN-based technique for estimating the diameter and thickness of the pipe in an image is proposed. The proposed method infers the thickness of the pipe through the difference by segmentation, by overlapping the inside and outside circles for a single pipe. When multiple pipes are included in the image, the inside and outside circles for the identical pipe are matched through the spatial Euclidean distance. The CNN models are trained using pipe images of various sizes to segment the pipe circles. An error of less than 7.8% for the outer diameter and 15% for the thickness is verified through execution with a series of 50 testing pipe images.Entities:
Keywords: construction; convolutional neural network; image processing; image segmentation; materials management; perspective transformation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746299 PMCID: PMC9230155 DOI: 10.3390/s22124517
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Flow chart for estimating the number and size of steel piles.
Figure 2Labeling method for representative images with annotations.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of pipe counting and size estimation.
Part of K-fold cross-validation result.
| Split | mAP of Mask | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fold | Label | Outside | Inside | Name Tag | All | |||||||||
| Iteration | 1k | 5k | 10k | 1k | 5k | 10k | 1k | 5k | 10k | 1k | 5k | 10k | ||
| 70:30 | 1 | 33.4 | 39.2 | 41.1 | 31.7 | 40 | 40.9 | 32.8 | 38.3 | 41.1 | 32.6 | 39.2 | 41.1 | |
| 2 | 32.9 | 41.5 | 39.5 | 33.5 | 41.6 | 38.7 | 35.1 | 40.7 | 41.1 | 33.8 | 41.3 | 39.8 | ||
| 3 | 32.5 | 38.8 | 37.3 | 32.2 | 40.5 | 39.8 | 33.7 | 39.4 | 37.8 | 32.8 | 39.6 | 38.3 | ||
| Total mean | 29.1 | 38.4 | 37.8 | 28.7 | 36.9 | 37.6 | 31 | 36.5 | 39.8 | 29.6 | 37.3 | 38.4 | ||
| 80:20 | 1 | 34.1 | 42.2 | 43.3 | 34.6 | 41.5 | 43.9 | 34.5 | 38.9 | 45.7 | 34.4 | 40.9 | 44.3 | |
| 2 | 32.5 | 40.1 | 42.2 | 33.9 | 39.6 | 42 | 34.1 | 40.8 | 41.3 | 33.5 | 40.2 | 41.8 | ||
| 3 | 31.6 | 38.1 | 38.6 | 33.7 | 36.8 | 39 | 31.7 | 35.5 | 38.9 | 32.3 | 37.1 | 38.8 | ||
| Total mean | 31.9 | 39.9 | 37.3 | 32.1 | 38.8 | 40.4 | 32.3 | 34.2 | 40.2 | 32.1 | 37.6 | 39.3 | ||
| 90:10 | 1 | 33.1 | 40.2 | 41.3 | 31.7 | 39 | 41.5 | 30.8 | 37 | 39.2 | 31.9 | 38.7 | 40.7 | |
| 2 | 32.1 | 36.8 | 39.1 | 32.1 | 36.4 | 40.3 | 34.4 | 37.7 | 41.2 | 32.9 | 37 | 40.2 | ||
| 3 | 31.1 | 36.1 | 38.3 | 29.5 | 34 | 37.2 | 30.9 | 35.2 | 35.5 | 30.5 | 35.1 | 37 | ||
| Total mean | 28.8 | 33.7 | 39.2 | 27.2 | 31.6 | 37.3 | 30 | 33.1 | 35.7 | 28.7 | 32.8 | 37.4 | ||
Figure 4Total loss and mAP of box and mask by training.
Figure 5Pipe size estimation process and results. (a) Sample 1, (b) Sample 2.