# A Spatio-Temporal Ensemble Deep Learning Architecture for Real-Time Defect Detection during Laser Welding on Low Power Embedded Computing Boards

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- Development and evaluation of a unique ensemble deep learning architecture combining CNNs and GRUs with high performance classification algorithms (i.e., SVM, kNN) for real time detection of six different welding quality classes;
- Comparison of the proposed architecture with available deep learning architectures as well as classical machine learning methods based on manual feature extraction;
- Assessment of the significance of geometric and statistical features extracted from the keyhole and weld pool region of two different image data sources (i.e., MWIR and NIR) with respect to the ability to detect particular weld defects;
- Development and evaluation of a real-time inference pipeline for the proposed method operating on low-power embedded computing devices.

## 2. Methodology and Background Knowledge

- Decision tree (DT);
- K-nearest neighbors (kNN);
- Random forest (RF);
- Support vector machine (SVM);
- Logistic regression (LogReg);
- Artificial neural network (ANN).

#### 2.1. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)

#### 2.2. Recurrent Neural Networks and Gated Recurrent Units (GRU)

#### 2.3. Ensemble Deep Learning

## 3. Experiment Setup and Data Preprocessing

#### 3.1. Multi-Camera Welding Setup

#### 3.2. Feature Extraction for In Situ Weld Image Data

- Binarize image based on the target object threshold (keyhole threshold > weld pool threshold);
- Detect contour (connected boundary line of an object) using the algorithm of Suzuki et al. [59] and select largest contour from all contours found in image;
- Calculate contour properties such as centroids and other image moments Table A1);
- Fit an ellipse to the found contour;
- Obtain geometrical parameters of the ellipse (Table A1 in Appendix A);
- Calculate additional features such as statistical and sequence-based features (Table A2).

#### 3.3. Welding Defects and Data Preparation

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Assessment of Feature Importance

^{rd}_order_mom[M03|µ00]) are most relevant for weld defect prediction. Additionally, time series features from the keyhole and weld pool region (i.e., MWIR_keyhole/ts-area_variance) also appear among the top ten features. Table 3 shows the defect detection performance of several feature subsets derived from the original amount of 172 features as cross-validated F1-Score.

#### 4.2. Model Comparison Based on Grid Search Results

^{®}Core™ i7-9700 CPU and Nvidia

^{®}GeForce

^{®}GTX 1080 Ti GPU.

#### 4.3. Experimental Evaluation

#### 4.4. Real-Time Optimization and Inference Times on Embedded Systems

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

**Table A1.**Features based on shape descriptors and image moments (geometrical features) for a given keyhole or weld pool contour.

Feature Name | Feature Expression | Feature Description |
---|---|---|

cnt_area | ${m}_{00}={\displaystyle \sum}_{x}{\displaystyle \sum}_{y}I\left(x,y\right)\mathsf{\Delta}A$ | 0th-order moment which represents the area |

cnt_centroid_x/y | $\overline{x}=\frac{{m}_{10}}{{m}_{00}};\overline{y}=\frac{{m}_{01}}{{m}_{00}}$ | 1st-order moments: Center of gravity (COG) |

cnt_2nd_order_mom[Mxx|M00] | ${x}_{2}=\frac{{m}_{20}}{{m}_{00}};{y}_{2}=\frac{{m}_{02}}{{m}_{00}}$ | 2nd-order moments: distribution of contour pixel around COG normalized by ${m}_{00}$ |

cnt_3nd_order_mom[Mxx|M00] | ${x}_{3}=\frac{{m}_{30}}{{m}_{00}};{x}_{3}=\frac{{m}_{03}}{{m}_{00}}$ | 3rd-order image moments of the given contour normalized by ${m}_{00}$ |

cnt_ellipse_angle (Ellipse rotation angle $\alpha $) | Calculates the ellipse that fits (in a least-squares sense) the given contour best of all | |

cnt_ellipse_center_x/y ($x/y$ coordinate of the center) | $\frac{{\left(x\mathrm{cos}\alpha +y\mathrm{sin}\alpha \right)}^{2}}{{a}^{2}}+\frac{{\left(x\mathrm{sin}\alpha -y\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right)}^{2}}{{b}^{2}}$ = 1 | The algebraic distance algorithm is used [70] |

cnt_ellipse_axis_x/y (major semi-axis a/b) | Algorithm returns five ellipse parameters | |

cnt_equi_diameter | $d=\sqrt{\frac{4\xb7{m}_{00}}{\pi}}$ | Calculates the diameter of a circle based on the contour area |

cnt_aspect_ratio | $Aspectratio=\frac{Width}{Height}$ | Defines bounding rectangle of the contour in terms of height and width |

cnt_extent | $Extend=\frac{{m}_{00}}{BR-Area}$ | Extent is defined as contour area divided by the area of the enclosing rectangle |

cnt_solidity | $Sol=\frac{{m}_{00}}{ConvexHullArea}$ | Ratio of contour area to the area of the convex hull. |

Feature Name | Feature Expression | Feature Description |
---|---|---|

Prefix^{1}_mean | $\overline{x}=\frac{1}{n}\left({\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1}^{n}}{x}_{i}\right)$ | Mean of the data ${x}_{1,\dots ,n}$ depending on prefix |

Prefix^{1}_variance | ${\sigma}^{2}=\frac{1}{n}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1}^{n}}{\left({x}_{i}-\overline{x}\right)}^{2}$ | Variance of the data ${x}_{1,\dots ,n}$ depending on prefix |

Prefix^{1}_skewness | $Skew=\frac{1}{n}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1}^{n}}{\left[\frac{\left({x}_{i}-\overline{x}\right)}{\sigma}\right]}^{3}$ | Skewness of the data ${x}_{1,\dots ,n}$ depending on prefix |

Prefix^{1}_kurtosis | $Kurt=\frac{1}{n}{\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1}^{n}}{\left[\frac{\left({x}_{i}-\overline{x}\right)}{\sigma}\right]}^{4}$ | Kurtosis of the data ${x}_{1,\dots ,n}$ depending on prefix |

^{1}Prefix can be “cnt” for pixel intensities within the extracted contour of the keyhole or weld pool, or “axis_x/y” for pixel intensities along the keyhole or weld pool ellipse axis, “ts-area” for nine consecutive weld pool areas (time domain) or no prefix for overall statistics of the given image data.

**Table A3.**Classification algorithms and hyperparameter values used for cross-validated (nested) grid search.

Algorithm Name | Hyperparameter | Grid Values |
---|---|---|

Decision Tree Classifier (DT) | max_depth: Maximum depth of decision treemax_features: Number of unique features used to evaluate the best splitcriterion: Estimation of the split quality | [10,20,30,40,50] [sqrt(n_features)’, ‘log2(n_features))’] [‘gini’, ‘entropy’] |

KNeighbors Classifier (kNN) | metric: Metric used to measure distance between two data points in an n-dimensional feature spaceweights: Function used to weight points in each neighborhoodn_ neighbours: number of neighbors to evaluate | [‘minkowski’, ‘euclidean’,‘manhattan’] [‘uniform’,‘distance’] [2–6] |

Support Vector Classifier with non-linear kernel (SVM (non-linear)) | C: regularization strength (L2 penalty) while regularization is inversely proportional to C. Used for all kernels (sigmoid, rbf, polynomial)kernel: type of kernel useddegree: Degree of the polynomial kernel function (poly) | [0.01,0.1,1,10,100,1000,10000] [‘rbf‘,‘poly‘,‘sigmoid‘] [3–6] |

Support Vector Classifier with linear kernel (SVM linear) | C: Regularization strength while regularization is inversely proportional to Closs: Specifies the loss functionpenalty: Application of Lasso (L1) orRidge (L2) regularization | [0.01,0.1,1,10,100,1000,10000] [‘hinge’, ‘squared_hinge’] [l2, l1] |

Random Forest (RF) | n_estimators: Number of overall decision treesmax_features: Number of unique features used to evaluate the best splitcriterion: Estimation of the split quality | [5,10,100,500] [sqrt(n_features)’,‘log2(n_features))’] [‘gini’, ‘entropy’] |

Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) | learning_rate_init: Learning rate at start that manages the weight update rate.Activation: The hidden layer’s activation functionhidden_layer_sizes: Number of nodes the hidden layer consists of | [0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5, 1.0] [‘logistic, ‘relu’, ‘tanh’] [25,50,100] |

Logistic Regression (LogReg) | C: Regularization strength while regularization is inversely proportional to Csolver: Algorithm to solve the optimization problempenalty: Application of Lasso (L1) or Ridge (L2) regularization | [0.01,0.1,1,10,100,1000,10000] [’liblinear’, ’saga] [l2, l1] |

Convolutional Neural Network (CNN-baseline) | Activation: the activation function for convolution and fully connected layerconv_1_depth: the number of output filters in the first convolutional layerconv_2_depth: the number of output filters in the 2nd convolutional layerDense_units: number of units in the hidden layer | [ReLU, tanh] [24,32,48] [36,50,64] [24,36,48] |

Convolutional Neural Network + Gated Recurrent Units (CNN-GRU) | Activation: The activation function for convolution and fully connected layerconv_1_depth: The number of output filters in the first convolutional layerconv_2_depth: The number of output filters in the 2nd convolutional layerGRU_units: Number of units in the Gated Recurrent Unit layerDense_units: Number of nodes in the hidden layernsequence: Length of the input image sequence to be classified | [ReLU, tanh] [12,20,32] [8,16,24,32] [48,64,96,112,128] [8,10,12,24,32] [3,9,15,25,35] |

## References

- You, D.Y.; Gao, X.D.; Katayama, S. Review of laser welding monitoring. Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.
**2013**, 19, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shao, J.; Yan, Y. Review of techniques for on-line monitoring and inspection of laser welding. J. Phys. Conf. Ser.
**2005**, 15, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Stavridis, J.; Papacharalampopoulos, A.; Stavropoulos, P. Quality assessment in laser welding: A critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
**2017**, 94, 1825–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kim, C.; Ahn, D.-C. Coaxial monitoring of keyhole during Yb:YAG laser welding. Opt. Laser Technol.
**2012**, 44, 1874–1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Courtois, M.; Carin, M.; Le Masson, P.; Gaied, S.; Balabane, M. A complete model of keyhole and melt pool dynamics to analyze instabilities and collapse during laser welding. J. Laser Appl.
**2014**, 26, 042001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Saeed, G.; Zhang, Y.M. Weld pool surface depth measurement using a calibrated camera and structured light. Meas. Sci. Technol.
**2007**, 18, 2570–2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bertrand, P.; Smurov, I.; Grevey, D. Application of near infrared pyrometry for continuous Nd:YAG laser welding of stainless steel. Appl. Surf. Sci.
**2000**, 168, 182–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kong, F.; Ma, J.; Carlson, B.; Kovacevic, R. Real-time monitoring of laser welding of galvanized high strength steel in lap joint configuration. Opt. Laser Technol.
**2012**, 44, 2186–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Purtonen, T.; Kalliosaari, A.; Salminen, A. Monitoring and Adaptive Control of Laser Processes. Phys. Proc.
**2014**, 56, 1218–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Zhang, Y.; Zhang, C.; Tan, L.; Li, S. Coaxial monitoring of the fibre laser lap welding of Zn-coated steel sheets using an auxiliary illuminant. Opt. Laser Technol.
**2013**, 50, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Knaak, C.; Kolter, G.; Schulze, F.; Kröger, M.; Abels, P. Deep learning-based semantic segmentation for in-process monitoring in laser welding applications. Appl. Mach. Learn.
**2019**, 11139, 1113905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tenner, F.; Riegel, D.; Mayer, E.; Schmidt, M. Analytical model of the laser welding of zinc-coated steel sheets by the aid of videography. J. Laser Appl.
**2017**, 29, 22411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Schmidt, M.; Otto, A.; Kägeler, C. Analysis of YAG laser lap-welding of zinc coated steel sheets. CIRP Ann.
**2008**, 57, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wuest, T.; Weimer, D.; Irgens, C.; Thoben, K.-D. Machine learning in manufacturing: Advantages, challenges, and applications. Prod. Manuf. Res.
**2016**, 4, 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Xing, B.; Xiao, Y.; Qin, Q.H.; Cui, H. Quality assessment of resistance spot welding process based on dynamic resistance signal and random forest based. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
**2017**, 94, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Knaak, C.; Thombansen, U.; Abels, P.; Kröger, M. Machine learning as a comparative tool to determine the relevance of signal features in laser welding. Procedia CIRP
**2018**, 74, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jager, M.; Hamprecht, F. Principal Component Imagery for the Quality Monitoring of Dynamic Laser Welding Processes. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
**2008**, 56, 1307–1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - You, D.; Gao, X.; Katayama, S. WPD-PCA-Based Laser Welding Process Monitoring and Defects Diagnosis by Using FNN and SVM. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
**2015**, 62, 628–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Schmidhuber, J. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Netw.
**2015**, 61, 85–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hinton, G.; Deng, L.; Yu, D.; Dahl, G.E.; Mohamed, A.-R.; Jaitly, N.; Senior, A.; Vanhoucke, V.; Nguyen, P.; Sainath, T.N.; et al. Deep Neural Networks for Acoustic Modeling in Speech Recognition: The Shared Views of Four Research Groups. IEEE Signal Process. Mag.
**2012**, 29, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kruger, N.; Janssen, P.; Kalkan, S.; Lappe, M.; Leonardis, A.; Piater, J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, A.J.; Wiskott, L. Deep Hierarchies in the Primate Visual Cortex: What Can We Learn for Computer Vision? IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.
**2013**, 35, 1847–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Mohamed, A.-R.; Sainath, T.N.; Dahl, G.E.; Ramabhadran, B.; Hinton, G.E.; Picheny, M.A. Deep Belief Networks using discriminative features for phone recognition. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Prague, Czech Republic, 22–27 May 2011; pp. 5060–5063. [Google Scholar]
- Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Commun. ACM
**2017**, 60, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abadi, M.; Agarwal, A.; Barham, P.; Brevdo, E.; Chen, Z.; Citro, C.; Corrado, G.S.; Davis, A.; Dean, J.; Devin, M.; et al. TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems. 2015. Available online: http://tensorflow.org/ (accessed on 12 May 2021).
- Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; et al. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32; Wallach, H., Larochelle, H., Beygelzimer, A., Alché-Buc, F.D., Fox, E., Garnett, R., Eds.; Curran Associates Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 8024–8035. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, Y.; Shelhamer, E.; Donahue, J.; Karayev, S.; Long, J.; Girshick, R.; Guadarrama, S.; Darrell, T. Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding. 2014. Available online: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.5093v1 (accessed on 10 May 2021).
- Wang, J.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, L.; Gao, R.X.; Wu, D. Deep learning for smart manufacturing: Methods and applications. J. Manuf. Syst.
**2018**, 48, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Knaak, C.; Masseling, L.; Duong, E.; Abels, P.; Gillner, A. Improving Build Quality in Laser Powder Bed Fusion Using High Dynamic Range Imaging and Model-Based Reinforcement Learning. IEEE Access
**2021**, 9, 55214–55231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Xue, B.; Chang, B.; Du, D. Multi-Output Monitoring of High-Speed Laser Welding State Based on Deep Learning. Sensors
**2021**, 21, 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Božič, A.; Kos, M.; Jezeršek, M. Power Control during Remote Laser Welding Using a Convolutional Neural Network. Sensors
**2020**, 20, 6658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Zhang, Z.; Li, B.; Zhang, W.; Lu, R.; Wada, S.; Zhang, Y. Real-time penetration state monitoring using convolutional neural network for laser welding of tailor rolled blanks. J. Manuf. Syst.
**2020**, 54, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Günther, J.; Pilarski, P.M.; Helfrich, G.; Shen, H.; Diepold, K. First Steps towards an Intelligent Laser Welding Architecture Using Deep Neural Networks and Reinforcement Learning. Procedia Technol.
**2014**, 15, 474–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Gonzalez-Val, C.; Pallas, A.; Panadeiro, V.; Rodriguez, A. A convolutional approach to quality monitoring for laser manufacturing. J. Intell. Manuf.
**2019**, 31, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Liu, T.; Bao, J.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y. A Hybrid CNN–LSTM Algorithm for Online Defect Recognition of CO
_{2}Welding. Sensors**2018**, 18, 4369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Ouyang, X.; Xu, S.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, P.; Yang, Y.; Liu, G.; Li, X. A 3D-CNN and LSTM Based Multi-Task Learning Architecture for Action Recognition. IEEE Access
**2019**, 7, 40757–40770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, Y.; Lu, X.; Li, D.; Liu, Y. Video-based emotion recognition using CNN-RNN and C3D hybrid networks. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, 12–16 November 2016; pp. 445–450. [Google Scholar]
- Ordóñez, F.J.; Roggen, D. Deep Convolutional and LSTM Recurrent Neural Networks for Multimodal Wearable Activity Recognition. Sensors
**2016**, 16, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Valiente, R.; Zaman, M.; Ozer, S.; Fallah, Y.P. Controlling Steering Angle for Cooperative Self-driving Vehicles utilizing CNN and LSTM-based Deep Networks. In Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Paris, France, 9–12 June 2019; pp. 2423–2428. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, W.; Kann, K.; Yu, M.; Schütze, H. Comparative Study of CNN and RNN for Natural Language Processing. 2017. Available online: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.01923v1 (accessed on 12 May 2021).
- He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Identity Mappings in Deep Residual Networks. 2016. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05027 (accessed on 12 May 2021).
- Sandler, M.; Howard, A.; Zhu, M.; Zhmoginov, A.; Chen, L. Mobilenetv2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottlenecks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 18–23 June 2018; pp. 4510–4520. [Google Scholar]
- Szegedy, C.; Vanhoucke, V.; Ioffe, S.; Shlens, J.; Wojna, Z. Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. 2015. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.00567 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
- Bishop, C.M. Pattern recognition and machine learning. In Information Science and Statistics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 21–24. ISBN 9780387310732. [Google Scholar]
- Nixon, M.S.; Aguado, A.S. (Eds.) Feature Extraction & Image Processing for Computer Vision, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; ISBN 9780123965493. [Google Scholar]
- Runkler, T.A. Data Analytics: Models and Algorithms for Intelligent Data Analysis; Vieweg+Teubner Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012; ISBN 9783834825889. [Google Scholar]
- Raschka, S. Python Machine Learning: Unlock Deeper Insights into Machine Learning with this Vital Guide to Cutting-Edge Predictive Analytics; Packt Publishing Open Source: Birmingham, UK, 2016; ISBN 9781783555130. [Google Scholar]
- Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Michel, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Duchesnay, E. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res.
**2011**, 12, 2825–2830. [Google Scholar] - Lee, K.B.; Cheon, S.; Kim, C.O. A Convolutional Neural Network for Fault Classification and Diagnosis in Semiconductor Manufacturing Processes. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf.
**2017**, 30, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Arif, S.; Wang, J.; Hassan, T.U.; Fei, Z. 3D-CNN-Based Fused Feature Maps with LSTM Applied to Action Recognition. Future Internet
**2019**, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Kim, D.; Cho, H.; Shin, H.; Lim, S.-C.; Hwang, W. An Efficient Three-Dimensional Convolutional Neural Network for Inferring Physical Interaction Force from Video. Sensors
**2019**, 19, 3579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Zhu, G.; Zhang, L.; Shen, P.; Song, J. Multimodal Gesture Recognition Using 3-D Convolution and Convolutional LSTM. IEEE Access
**2017**, 5, 4517–4524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ullah, A.; Ahmad, J.; Muhammad, K.; Sajjad, M.; Baik, S.W. Action Recognition in Video Sequences using Deep Bi-Directional LSTM With CNN Features. IEEE Access
**2018**, 6, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rana, R. Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) for Emotion Classification from Noisy Speech. 2016. Available online: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.07778v1 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
- Cho, K.; van Merrienboer, B.; Gulcehre, C.; Bahdanau, D.; Bougares, F.; Schwenk, H.; Bengio, Y. Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation. 2014. Available online: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.1078v3 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
- Hochreiter, S.; Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput.
**1997**, 9, 1735–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Chung, J.; Gulcehre, C.; Cho, K.; Bengio, Y. Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling. arXiv
**2014**, arXiv:1412.3555. [Google Scholar] - Ganaie, M.A.; Hu, M.; Tanveer, M.; Suganthan, P.N. Ensemble Deep Learning: A Review. 2021. Available online: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.02395 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
- DeWitt, D.P.; Nutter, G.D. Theory and Practice of Radiation Thermometry; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Suzuki, S.; Be, K. Topological structural analysis of digitized binary images by border following. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process.
**1985**, 30, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ISO 13919-1: Welding—Electron and Laser-Beam Welded Joints—Guidance on Quality Levels for Imperfections—Part 1: Steel, Nickel, Titanium and Their Alloys. International Standard ISO 13919-1:2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:13919:-1:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 5 June 2021).
- ISO 6520-1: Classification of Geometric Imperfections in Metallic Materials—Part 1: Fusion welding. International Standard ISO 6520-1:2007. 2007. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:6520:-1:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 5 June 2021).
- Goodfellow, I.; Bengio, Y.; Courville, A. Deep Learning; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-0-262-03561-3. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, C.; Shrivastava, A.; Singh, S.; Gupta, A. Revisiting unreasonable effectiveness of data in deep learning era. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017; pp. 843–852. [Google Scholar]
- Zongker, D.; Jain, A. Algorithms for feature selection: An evaluation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Vienna, Austria, 29 August 1996; Volume 2, pp. 18–22. [Google Scholar]
- Kotsiantis, S.; Kanellopoulos, D.; Pintelas, P. Handling imbalanced datasets: A review. GESTS Int. Trans. Comput. Sci. Eng.
**2005**, 30, 25–36. [Google Scholar] - Chawla, N.V.; Bowyer, K.W.; Hall, L.O.; Kegelmeyer, W.P. SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. J. Artif. Intell. Res.
**2002**, 16, 321–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bifet, A.; Gavaldà, R. Learning from Time-Changing Data with Adaptive Windowing. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 26–28 April 2007; pp. 443–448. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, J.; Liu, A.; Dong, F.; Gu, F.; Gama, J.; Zhang, G. Learning under Concept Drift: A Review. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.
**2018**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - NVIDIA Corporation. NVIDIA TensorRT: SDK for High-Performance Deep Learning Inference. Available online: https://developer.nvidia.com/tensorrt (accessed on 5 June 2021).
- Fitzgibbon, A.W.; Fisher, R.B. A Buyer’s Guide to Conic Fitting. In Proceedings of the 6th British Machine Vision Conference, Birmingham, UK, 11–14 September 1995; Volume 51, pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**Proposed spatio-temporal ensemble deep neural network architecture based on convolutional layers, gated recurrent units (GRU) and different classification heads for weld defect detection.

**Figure 3.**(

**a**) Photograph of the welding optics with coaxially integrated cameras; (

**b**) Drawing of welding sheets with different slot sizes (middle sheet); (

**c**) Side view of the sheet configuration used during the welding experiments; (

**d**) Photograph (top view) of two welding trails (P = 3.3 KW, v = 50 mm/s, ds = 0.6 mm, Argon shield gas flow = 60 L/min).

**Figure 4.**(

**a**,

**b**) Original image and geometrical features extracted from keyhole and weld pool regions. (

**c**,

**d**) Detected keyhole and weld pool contours (filled) based on two-step binarization of the original images.

**Figure 5.**Example of MWIR image data and sample distribution of different quality states based on 13 weld trials (14,530 samples) that form the welding data set.

**Figure 6.**Photographs from different perspectives of the welding defects investigated in this study.

**Figure 7.**The 20 most important features based on 172 geometrical and statistical characteristics of the weld pool, keyhole and overall image statistics extracted from MWIR images (starting with the left).

**Figure 8.**Layer activations based on 12 different filter kernels in the first layer of a CNN that was trained to recognize welding defects based on images from the MWIR camera. Each square shows a single activation map.

**Figure 9.**Performance comparison of different conventional machine learning and deep learning classification methods. Optimal hyperparameter for each classifier were found via grid search (Table A3). The median scores are displayed in the top diagram.

**Figure 10.**The metallographic characterization, the resulting ground truth data and the classification results for weld 42 based on the proposed ensemble CNN-GRU architecture.

**Figure 11.**The metallographic characterization, the resulting ground truth data and the classification results for weld 46 based on the proposed ensemble CNN-GRU architecture.

**Figure 12.**The metallographic characterization, the resulting ground truth data and the classification results for weld 48 based on the proposed ensemble CNN-GRU architecture.

**Figure 13.**The metallographic characterization, the resulting ground truth data and the classification results for weld 216 based on the proposed ensemble CNN-GRU architecture.

**Figure 14.**Inference results of the CNN-GRU architecture after optimization via TensorRT for different hardware setups.

Type of Camera | Sensor Material/ Sensitivity Range | Resolution | Acquisition Rate | Field of View | Bandpass Filter (CWL/FWHM) | Interface |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Photonfocus D1312IE-160-CL (NIR) | Si/0.4–0.9 µm | 1312 × 1080 | 100 Hz | 11.6 × 5 mm^{2} | 840 nm/40 nm | CameraLink |

NIT Tachyon μCore 1024 (MWIR) | PbSe/1–5 µm | 32 × 32 | 500 Hz | 9 × 9 mm^{2} | 1690 nm/82 nm | USB2.0 |

**Table 2.**Description of feature sub-groups used for classical machine learning methods and feature importance evaluation.

Feature Sub-Group (Short Name) | Expression | Description |
---|---|---|

Geometrical features (geometrical) | ${G}_{i}^{T}$ | Only geometrical features according to Table A1 based on the weld pool and keyhole region |

Overall image statistics (image stats) | $I{S}_{i}^{T}$ | Overall image statistics according to Table A2 |

Times series statistics (timeseries stats) | $T{S}_{i}^{T}$ | Time series statistics according to Table A2 based on weld pool area |

Weld pool features (weld pool) | $W{P}_{i}^{T}$ | Geometrical and statistical features according to Table A1 and Table A2 derived from the weld pool region |

Keyhole features (keyhole) | $K{H}_{i}^{T}$ | Geometrical and statistical features according to Table A1 and Table A2 derived from the keyhole region |

**Table 3.**Comparison of several feature subsets with respect to their ability to predict different weld defects (without “no weld” class).

Feature Subset | Cross-Validated F1-Score | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Name | No. of Feat. | Lack of Fusion | Sound Weld | Sagging | Irregular Width | Lack of Penetration | Avg |

MWIR+NIR (weld pool, keyhole, image stats, timeseries stats) | 172 | 0.983 | 0.998 | 0.913 | 1.0 | 0.999 | 0.978 |

MWIR+NIR (geometrical) | 64 | 0.89 | 0.989 | 0.976 | 1.0 | 0.998 | 0.970 |

MWIR+NIR (image stats) | 12 | 0.743 | 0.908 | 0.091 | 0.999 | 0.951 | 0.738 |

MWIR+NIR (timeseries stats) | 12 | 0.701 | 0.867 | 0.000 | 1.0 | 0.914 | 0.694 |

MWIR+NIR (weld pool) | 74 | 0.953 | 0.995 | 0.901 | 1.0 | 0.999 | 0.969 |

MWIR+NIR (keyhole) | 74 | 0.948 | 0.995 | 0.829 | 1.0 | 0.999 | 0.954 |

MWIR (weld pool, keyhole, image stats, timeseries stats) | 86 | 0.945 | 0.993 | 0.93 | 1.0 | 0.998 | 0.973 |

MWIR (geometrical) | 32 | 0.834 | 0.96 | 0.864 | 1.0 | 0.98 | 0.928 |

MWIR (image stats) | 6 | 0.688 | 0.74 | 0.000 | 1.0 | 0.862 | 0.658 |

MWIR (timeseries stats) | 6 | 0.569 | 0.669 | 0.000 | 1.0 | 0.801 | 0.607 |

MWIR (weld pool) | 37 | 0.896 | 0.987 | 0.951 | 1.0 | 0.997 | 0.966 |

MWIR (keyhole) | 37 | 0.851 | 0.983 | 0.833 | 1.0 | 0.997 | 0.933 |

NIR (weld pool, keyhole, image stats, timeseries stats) | 86 | 0.904 | 0.986 | 0.956 | 1.0 | 0.996 | 0.968 |

NIR (geometrical) | 32 | 0.56 | 0.907 | 0.780 | 0.923 | 0.961 | 0.826 |

NIR (image stats) | 6 | 0.403 | 0.862 | 0.000 | 0.922 | 0.937 | 0.625 |

NIR (timeseries stats) | 6 | 0.544 | 0.808 | 0.000 | 0.989 | 0.855 | 0.639 |

NIR (weld pool) | 37 | 0.787 | 0.941 | 0.902 | 0.993 | 0.971 | 0.918 |

NIR (keyhole) | 37 | 0.791 | 0.955 | 0.863 | 0.995 | 0.978 | 0.916 |

Welding Parameters | Weld 42 | Weld 46 | Weld 48 | Weld 216 |
---|---|---|---|---|

Laser power (kW) | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 2.7 |

Beam focus offset (mm) | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 |

Welding speed (mm/s) | 50; 37.5 | 50 | 50 | 50 |

Shielding gas (L/min) | 60 | 60 | 60 | 60 |

Sheet configuration | Three sheets; No slots | Three sheets; Slots point upwards | Three sheets; Slots point downwards | Two sheets; No middle sheet |

**Table 5.**Classification performance for different welding trials (not within the training data set).

Method | Weld 42 (2856 Samples) | Weld 46 (2255 Samples) | Weld 48 (2254 Samples) | Weld 216 (3140 Samples) | Avg. Accuracy | Avg. F1-Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Decision Tree | 0.893 | 0.861 | 0.914 | 0.729 | 0.849 | 0.893 |

kNN | 0.977 | 0.885 | 0.921 | 0.94 | 0.931 | 0.939 |

MLP | 0.962 | 0.882 | 0.916 | 0.831 | 0.898 | 0.924 |

LogReg | 0.944 | 0.873 | 0.911 | 0.782 | 0.878 | 0.892 |

Linear SVM- | 0.93 | 0.815 | 0.906 | 0.75 | 0.85 | 0.867 |

Non-Linear SVM * | 0.958 | 0.892 | 0.917 | 0.888 | 0.914 | 0.926 |

RF | 0.97 | 0.921 | 0.927 | 0.796 | 0.904 | 0.923 |

CNN-baseline | 0.822 | 0.895 | 0.916 | 0.933 | 0.892 | 0.897 |

ResNet50 | 0.91 | 0.823 | 0.894 | 0.9174 | 0.887 | 0.902 |

MobileNetV2 | 0.9488 | 0.869 | 0.9041 | 0.965 | 0.922 | 0.922 |

InceptionV3 | 0.967 | 0.898 | 0.919 | 0.821 | 0.908 | 0.905 |

Ensemble CNN-GRU * | 0.973 | 0.923 | 0.944 | 0.963 | 0.951 | 0.952 |

Hardware | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | NVIDIA JETSON AGX XAVIER |
---|---|---|

Type | Desktop GPU | Embedded GPU SoC |

Power Consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 10W/15W/30W/Max-N * profiles |

Cuda Cores | 3584 | 512 |

Memory | 11GB (dedicated) | 16GB (Shared) |

Clock Speed (Base/Boost)) | 1.48 GHz/1.58 GHz | 0.85 GHz/1.37GHz |

Memory Bandwidth | 484.4 GB/s | 137 GB/s |

Size | 267 mm × 112 mm (card only) | 87 mm × 100 mm |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Knaak, C.; von Eßen, J.; Kröger, M.; Schulze, F.; Abels, P.; Gillner, A.
A Spatio-Temporal Ensemble Deep Learning Architecture for Real-Time Defect Detection during Laser Welding on Low Power Embedded Computing Boards. *Sensors* **2021**, *21*, 4205.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21124205

**AMA Style**

Knaak C, von Eßen J, Kröger M, Schulze F, Abels P, Gillner A.
A Spatio-Temporal Ensemble Deep Learning Architecture for Real-Time Defect Detection during Laser Welding on Low Power Embedded Computing Boards. *Sensors*. 2021; 21(12):4205.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21124205

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Knaak, Christian, Jakob von Eßen, Moritz Kröger, Frederic Schulze, Peter Abels, and Arnold Gillner.
2021. "A Spatio-Temporal Ensemble Deep Learning Architecture for Real-Time Defect Detection during Laser Welding on Low Power Embedded Computing Boards" *Sensors* 21, no. 12: 4205.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s21124205