4.7 Article

Feature extraction of wood-hole defects using empirical mode decomposition of ultrasonic signals

期刊

NDT & E INTERNATIONAL
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ndteint.2020.102282

关键词

Ultrasonics; Empirical mode decomposition; Damage detection; Nondestructive testing; Wood; Damage sensitive feature; Defects; Time-of-flight

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Hub 'The Centre for Forest Value'

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Holes and knots are common defects that occur in wood that affect its value for both structural and high-end aesthetic applications. When these defects are internal to wood they are rarely evident from visual inspection. It is therefore important to develop techniques to detect and analyse these defects both in standing trees prior to harvesting them and in processed timber and/or completed wooden structures. This paper presents an effective method to detect and analyse hole defects in wood. The method uses the recorded output wave signal from an ultrasonic device tested on rectangular wood samples. The ultrasonic wave signal is decomposed into its constructive modes using Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). This process decomposes a non-stationary nonlinear wave signal into its semi-orthogonal bases known as intrinsic mode functions (IMFs). A matrix of all IMFs (except the residual IMF) is then assembled and its covariance matrix derived. The research demonstrates through several experimental studies that the maximum eigenvalue of the proposed covariance matrix is more sensitive to hole defects in wood than traditionally used measures such as time-of-flight. The results provide evidence that the proposed damage sensitive feature (DSF) can successfully detect hole defects in hardwood samples but further work is recommended on its application to other materials. It is anticipated that this method will have wide applicability in the forestry and timber industries for aiding in product value determination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据