Comparison of a conventional image processing approach with an artificial neural network approach to three‐dimensionally trace multiple particles in dynamic x‐ray microtomography experiments under laboratory conditions

Judith Marie Undine Siebert, Martin Wolf, Stefan Odenbach
{"title":"Comparison of a conventional image processing approach with an artificial neural network approach to three‐dimensionally trace multiple particles in dynamic x‐ray microtomography experiments under laboratory conditions","authors":"Judith Marie Undine Siebert, Martin Wolf, Stefan Odenbach","doi":"10.1002/zamm.202400505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper compares a classic digital image processing approach to trace particles in laboratory x‐ray micro‐computed tomography (µCT), which is based on a combination of random sample consensus (RANSAC) algorithm and least squares ellipse fitting (LSF), with an approach based on artificial neural networks (ANNs). In order to be able to perform the comparison, dynamic experiments were carried out in a laboratory microtomography facility. During active scans with a duration of 30–75 s several sedimentation experiments have been carried out with an exposure time of 0.13 s/projection. Through the movement of the particles during the scan curved motion artefacts in the reconstructed data occur, where the vertex marks the coordinate of the particle. It could be shown that both approaches enable the tracing of particles in laboratory x‐ray µCT with deviations from a manually evaluated result of exemplarily 1.25% for the conventional digital image processing (CDIP) and 0.48% for the ANN. It was found that ANNs are able to identify particle positions in non‐symmetrical motion artefacts, appearing around the first and last position of the particles in the scan, allowing an extension of the motion range of the particles that can be evaluated. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Due to the high complexity and size as well as partly black box structures of neural networks, they are not 100% comprehensible whereas conventional image processing is 100% transparent and understandable. But because of the complexity of the tracing of particles, the CDIP code offers many parameters that can be set, which is why the application is therefore slightly more complex.","PeriodicalId":501230,"journal":{"name":"ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/zamm.202400505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper compares a classic digital image processing approach to trace particles in laboratory x‐ray micro‐computed tomography (µCT), which is based on a combination of random sample consensus (RANSAC) algorithm and least squares ellipse fitting (LSF), with an approach based on artificial neural networks (ANNs). In order to be able to perform the comparison, dynamic experiments were carried out in a laboratory microtomography facility. During active scans with a duration of 30–75 s several sedimentation experiments have been carried out with an exposure time of 0.13 s/projection. Through the movement of the particles during the scan curved motion artefacts in the reconstructed data occur, where the vertex marks the coordinate of the particle. It could be shown that both approaches enable the tracing of particles in laboratory x‐ray µCT with deviations from a manually evaluated result of exemplarily 1.25% for the conventional digital image processing (CDIP) and 0.48% for the ANN. It was found that ANNs are able to identify particle positions in non‐symmetrical motion artefacts, appearing around the first and last position of the particles in the scan, allowing an extension of the motion range of the particles that can be evaluated. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages. Due to the high complexity and size as well as partly black box structures of neural networks, they are not 100% comprehensible whereas conventional image processing is 100% transparent and understandable. But because of the complexity of the tracing of particles, the CDIP code offers many parameters that can be set, which is why the application is therefore slightly more complex.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
传统图像处理方法与人工神经网络方法在实验室条件下对动态 X 射线显微层析成像实验中的多个粒子进行三维追踪的比较
本文比较了在实验室 X 射线显微计算机断层扫描(µCT)中追踪粒子的经典数字图像处理方法(基于随机样本共识(RANSAC)算法和最小二乘椭圆拟合(LSF)的组合)和基于人工神经网络(ANN)的方法。为了进行比较,我们在实验室的微断层扫描设备上进行了动态实验。在持续时间为 30-75 秒的主动扫描过程中,以 0.13 秒/投影的曝光时间进行了多次沉积实验。在扫描过程中,由于颗粒的运动,重建数据中出现了曲线运动伪影,顶点标志着颗粒的坐标。结果表明,这两种方法都能对实验室 X 射线 µCT 中的颗粒进行追踪,传统数字图像处理(CDIP)与人工评估结果的偏差仅为 1.25%,而 ANN 的偏差仅为 0.48%。研究发现,ANN 能够识别非对称运动伪影中的颗粒位置,这些伪影出现在扫描中颗粒的第一个和最后一个位置周围,从而扩大了可评估的颗粒运动范围。这两种方法各有利弊。由于神经网络的高度复杂性和规模以及部分黑箱结构,它们并不是百分之百可理解的,而传统的图像处理则是百分之百透明和可理解的。但是,由于粒子追踪的复杂性,CDIP 代码提供了许多可设置的参数,这也是应用稍微复杂一些的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Flow around a slender body with sharp edges Heat transfer analysis of a peristaltically induced creeping magnetohydrodynamic flow through an inclined annulus using homotopy perturbation method Mathematical modeling of convective heat transfer enhancement using circular cylinders in an inverted T‐shaped porous enclosure Numerical simulation of melting heat transport mechanism of Cross nanofluid with multiple features of infinite shear rate over a Falkner‐Skan wedge surface Wave scattering in a cracked exponentially graded magnetoelectroelastic half‐plane
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1