| Literature DB >> 36236514 |
Liangshuai Liu1, Jianli Zhao1, Ze Chen1, Baijie Zhao1, Yanpeng Ji1.
Abstract
Bolts are important components on transmission lines, and the timely detection and exclusion of their abnormal conditions are imperative to ensure the stable operation of transmission lines. To accurately identify bolt defects, we propose a bolt defect identification method incorporating an attention mechanism and wide residual networks. Firstly, the spatial dimension of the feature map is compressed by the spatial compression network to obtain the global features of the channel dimension and enhance the attention of the network to the vital information in a weighted way. After that, the enhanced feature map is decomposed into two one-dimensional feature vectors by embedding a cooperative attention mechanism to establish long-term dependencies in one spatial direction and preserve precise location information in the other direction. During this process, the prior knowledge of the bolts is utilized to help the network extract critical feature information more accurately, thus improving the accuracy of recognition. The test results show that the bolt recognition accuracy of this method is improved to 94.57% compared with that before embedding the attention mechanism, which verifies the validity of the proposed method.Entities:
Keywords: bolt defect recognition; deep learning; double attention; wide residuals
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236514 PMCID: PMC9572959 DOI: 10.3390/s22197416
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Attention to wide residual network structure.
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the relationship between ResNet block (left) and wide-ResNet block (right).
Figure 3SENet attention structure diagram.
Figure 4CA attention structure diagram.
Figure 5Three categories of bolt image samples.
Ablation test results.
| Method | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|
| WRN | 93.31 |
| WRN + SENet | 93.89 |
| WRN + CA | 94.03 |
| Ours | 94.57 |
Figure 6Accuracy curve on test set.
Figure 7Convergence curve of the model training loss function.
Figure 8Visualization of the bolt feature map.
Ablation test results.
| Recognition Model | Accuracy of Bolt Defect Recognition % |
|---|---|
| VGG16 | 89.37 |
| ResNet50 | 92.45 |
| ResNet101 | 92.67 |
| WRN | 93.31 |
Figure 9Comparison of classification accuracy before and after model improvement.