Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
Plywood is formed by bonding together a number of thin
layers of wood, called veneers, using an adhesive. Figure 1
shows the process of plywood production in the wood mill
considered here. Defects in the veneer sheets are identified
during the grading stage which is highlighted in this figure.
The veneer sheets are placed on a conveyor which runs at a
speed of 2.2 m s1 and they appear at 12 s intervals for human
inspection. This task is extremely stressful and demanding and
a short disturbance or loss of attention results in misclassiCorrespondence and offprint requests to: M. S. Packianather, Manufacturing Engineering Centre, Systems Division, School of Engineering,
Cardiff University, Queens Building, PO Box 688, Cardiff, CF2 3TE,
UK. E-mail: packianathermscf.ac.uk
2.
Aims
425
3. Feature Extraction
The digitised image of the veneer sheet consists of 512 512
picture elements (pixels), each with a grey level value between
0 (black) and 255 (white) inclusive. Defect areas are identified
and separated from clear wood using segmentation [5]. Once
a defect area is found, a 3 cm2 window of size 60 pixels in
the X-direction and 85 pixels in the Y-direction is placed on
it such that the origin of the window is in the middle of the
defect. The grey level values and their frequencies are recorded
from the feature extraction window. The grey level histograms
for samples of the same defect have similar shapes. This
method of extracting features from windows has been tried by
several researchers [68]. First-order and second-order features
may be extracted. First-order features are tonal features and
are calculated directly from the grey level histogram of the
window. Second-order features are textural features and can
be obtained from the image itself by thresholding and edgedetection. The set of 17 features which represent the wood
veneer defects are extracted from each sample for training and
testing the neural network.
426
Second
step
4.
Feature Evaluation
Description
(i ) * f
z1
=
6
i=0
N*
Kurtosis (fourth movement of grey levels) to measure
peakedness
3
(i ) * f
z1
7
8
9
10
11
12
2
3
1.1
1.2
1.3
Feature 13
Feature 14
Feature 15
Feature 16
Feature 17
i=0
N * 4
Number of dark pixels, i.e. with level less than a
given threshold in this case 80.
Number of bright pixels, i.e. with level greater than a
given threshold in this case 220.
Lowest grey level the 20th lowest pixel is used to
allow for noise pixels.
Highest grey level the 20th highest pixel is used to
allow for noise pixels.
Histogram tail length on the dark side = difference in
grey level between the 20th and 2000th lowest pixels.
Histogram tail length on the light side = difference in
grey level between the 20th and 2000th highest pixels.
427
Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Bark
Clear wood
Coloured streaks
Curly grain
Discolouration
Holes
Pin knots
Rotten knots
Roughness
Sound knots
Splits
Streaks
Worm holes
1000000000000
0100000000000
0010000000000
0001000000000
0000100000000
0000010000000
0000001000000
0000000100000
0000000010000
0000000001000
0000000000100
0000000000010
0000000000001
7.
Since the neural network outputs are real numbers it is necessary to convert them into a binary form for the classification
decision. This can be achieved by several methods. The method
used here is to set the highest valued output to 1 and all the
other outputs to 0, thus indicating that the class chosen is that
corresponding to the output neuron with the highest value.
This is a commonly used method and was found to be the
best of the methods considered for this application [15].
428
Table 4. Classification results obtained by the original 17-input neural network and new 11-input neural networks.
% Correct classification
Original 17-input neural network
17-51-13
RS1
89.4
RS2
91.5
Average
RS3
78.7
RS2
89.4
86.5
Pj
xij
i=1
RS3
80.1
RS1
89.4
87.0
xj =
11-33-13
(2)
RS2
91.5
RS3
83.0
88.0
Pj
(xij xj)2
(3)
i=1
xj xl
(2xj + 2xl)1/2
(4)
The best features for separating two classes will have their
class means far apart giving a large value for the inter-class
variation. If the inter-class variation is small, then there will
tend to be more overlapping of feature values for different
classes, in a similar way to when intra-class variation is
large. So small inter-class variation can be used as a feature
rejection criterion.
xyj =
1
Pj
Pj
i=1
xj * yj
(5)
Dxjl
(6)
l=1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
429
Features
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3.51
1.28
0.60
1.21
0.19
0.35
0.58
0.66
0.59
0.25
1.06
1.28
1.43
3.94
1.16
0.53
0.89
0.18
0.83
0.51
0.81
0.51
0.23
0.91
1.11
1.39
2.35
0.45
0.20
0.36
0.08
3.65
0.16
1.63
0.18
0.13
2.82
0.45
0.53
3.18
0.02
0.04
1.29
0.06
4.29
0.07
1.29
0.20
0.10
1.74
0.14
0.58
5.05
0.00
0.03
0.38
0.00
1.58
0.08
3.42
0.03
0.08
1.48
0.01
0.86
4.15
0.00
0.02
0.38
0.00
1.28
0.11
3.77
0.02
0.06
2.97
0.00
0.24
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
4.29
3.36
0.00
2.19
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.15
9.57
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.00
1.06
0.00
0.14
0.21
0.00
1.43
0.25
0.01
3.17
1.19
1.11
0.55
0.15
0.67
1.75
0.19
0.69
0.42
1.12
1.72
0.27
0.59
0.91
0.39
3.76
0.22
0.00
0.34
4.34
0.79
0.72
0.00
0.94
0.00
1.81
0.02
0.71
1.43
0.03
2.43
4.63
0.56
0.09
0.97
0.06
0.18
0.07
2.19
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.01
2.81
0.00
3.88
0.08
0.21
2.42
0.00
0.97
0.38
1.79
1.23
0.38
1.25
0.42
2.12
0.19
1.68
0.34
1.46
1.59
0.17
1.08
0.49
0.23
0.57
0.20
0.11
0.41
4.37
0.18
0.56
0.05
1.69
3.06
2.71
1.00
0.42
0.65
0.74
0.22
0.08
1.83
0.37
0.51
0.02
3.61
0.82
3.85
0.45
0.34
0.96
0.45
0.95
0.29
1.16
0.28
0.90
2.81
0.54
0.01
2.63
1.00
0.89
0.93
0.93
0.31
0.96
1.20
1.38
0.77
1.13
0.84
0.01
430
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Features
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
6.5
13.3
12.3
10.6
28.6
16.6
18.4
17.6
13.8
19.2
10.2
10.7
10.9
6.2
13.4
13.0
11.5
27.7
14.6
18.4
14.7
14.2
18.7
10.7
11.4
13.6
12.7
9.7
11.1
12.8
28.5
6.2
13.9
7.8
11.2
20.4
5.6
8.9
10.2
19.8
20.5
15.0
12.6
16.9
14.3
14.5
15.6
13.8
13.8
14.7
13.9
24.0
9.8
14.7
18.7
13.0
14.7
32.5
20.6
6.9
16.5
12.5
26.2
14.1
26.3
13.7
21.8
17.8
14.8
20.8
41.6
19.0
10.4
17.6
16.0
17.4
20.1
31.5
7.1
7.0
7.3
9.2
8.1
6.8
8.2
12.3
7.0
8.8
7.0
7.0
9.6
10.1
7.0
7.0
6.3
7.0
10.6
7.0
6.1
4.7
7.2
11.6
4.4
10.9
11.7
27.4
15.6
16.0
19.8
21.2
14.9
33.1
24.2
16.7
16.6
17.4
18.4
22.6
15.3
26.4
7.8
59.0
35.6
21.8
7.3
15.8
29.4
35.6
15.1
35.2
6.8
10.1
13.7
6.2
10.0
6.9
13.2
7.1
8.4
6.4
9.1
7.7
9.0
3.6
7.9
7.9
7.1
7.2
3.8
6.7
6.3
9.4
6.0
4.2
7.3
19.8
11.6
16.0
13.5
11.6
14.2
11.2
10.9
15.8
12.8
11.9
8.5
9.3
16.6
7.2
8.9
24.4
8.5
11.3
14.4
13.5
8.2
12.5
9.3
17.8
6.5
28.3
5.5
7.8
30.5
9.1
8.2
15.2
13.3
7.2
11.8
9.0
22.2
5.3
27.2
3.8
8.8
12.7
6.8
8.9
6.7
12.5
8.5
14.7
7.7
8.4
8.7
22.0
6.4
15.4
10.4
9.7
13.4
13.3
9.7
10.5
17.0
9.4
9.4
9.2
23.4
Table 7. Feature selection; Reject feature IF (normalised intra-class variation = maximum AND normalised inter-class variation 8) OR
(normalised inter-class variation = minimum).
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Features
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
431
Table 8. Low and high correlations between features for class 1; IF 0.9 correlation 0.9 THEN low correlation (1) ELSE high
correlation (0).
Features
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Features
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
Fig. 7. Merger diagram for identifying the redundant and non-redundant features.
Fig. 8. Feature rejection step 1 to step 4.
(7)
H = 51
(11 + 13)
= 41
(17 + 13)
(8)
11
= 33
17
432
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Features
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 = non-redundant; 0 = redundant.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Features
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 = best; 0 = poor.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
0
12
0
6
0
4
1
5
1
2
1
3
1
8
0
1
1
4
1
4
1
6
0
0
1
1
1
6
0
5
1
2
1
19. Results
The classification results obtained with the new (11 inputs)
neural network are compared with those obtained with the
initial (17 inputs) neural network in Table 4. These results
show that the new network produces a small improvement in
classification accuracy, except for the 11-33-13 network for
the noisy RS3 test set, for which there is a more substantial
improvement. What is more important to note is that accuracy
has not been compromised whilst greatly reducing the size of
the network and the number of inputs. Using the 113313
network the classification time has been reduced from 0.16 s
to 0.11 s per image for the particular computer implementation
used here.
20. Conclusion
A neural network for the classification of wood veneer by an
automatic visual inspection system has been presented. The
neural network design initially had 17 features of the acquired
image of the wood veneer as inputs, and classified the veneer
as clear wood or one of 12 possible defects. A method of
identifying the superfluous input features has been presented
and has resulted in the elimination of 6 inputs. The resultant
smaller 11-input neural network has produced a 30% reduction
in classification time and, at the same time, classification
accuracy has been improved.
References
1. P. R. Drake and M. S. Packianather, A decision tree of neural
networks for classifying images of wood veneer, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 14(4), pp. 280
285, 1998.
2. H. A. Huber, C. W. McMillin and J. P. McKinney, Lumber
defect detection abilities of furniture rough mill employees, Forest
Products Journal, 35(11/12), pp. 7982, 1985.
3. W. Polzleitner and G. Schwingshakl, Real-time surface grading
of profiled wooden boards, Industrial Metrology, 2, pp. 283
298, 1992.
4. T. Lappalainen, R. J. Alcock and M. A. Wani, Plywood feature
definition
and
extraction,
Report
3.1.2,
QUAINT,
BRITE/EURAM project 5560, Intelligent Systems Laboratory,
School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, 1994.
5. D. T. Pham and R. J. Alcock, Automatic detection of defects
on birch wood boards, Proceedings of Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering, 210, pp.
4552, 1996.
6. R. W. Conners, C. W. McMillin, K. Lin and R. E. VasquezEspinosa, Identifying and locating surface defects in wood: Part
of an automated lumber processing system, IEEE Transaction on
Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, PAMI-5(6), pp. 573
583, 1983.
7. A. J. Koivo and C. W. Kim, Automatic classification of surface
defects on red oak boards, Forest Products Journal, 39(9), pp.
2230, 1989.
8. P. J. Sobey, Automated optical grading of timber, SPIE vol.
1379: Optics in Agriculture, pp. 168179, 1990.
9. R. C. Gonzalez and R. E. Woods, Digital Image Processing, 3rd
edn, Addison-Wesley, chap. 7, pp. 334340, 1992.
10. D. T. Pham and X. Liu, Neural Networks for Identification,
Prediction and Control, Springer-Verlag, chap. 1, pp. 121, 1995.
11. S. Haykin, Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, Macmillan, chap. 6, pp. 138229, 1994.
433
Notation
i
fi
N
x
Z
Pj
xij
yij
xj
yj
xl
xmj
xml
2xj
2xl
2xmj
2xml
Dxjl
xyj
Xt