Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper attempts to summarise the findings of a largenumber of research papers deploying artificial intelligence(AI) techniques for the automatic interpretation of data from non-destructive testing (NDT). Problems in the rail transport domain are mainly discussed. However, a majority of the emphasis in this paper is laid on rail inspection problems, since it was believed that the review would provide a perfect ground to the authors in pursuing further work within the rail inspection area.NDT is a broad name for a variety of methods andprocedures concerned with all aspects of uniformity, quality and serviceability of materials and structures, without causing damage to the material that is being inspected.During the past several years, problems concerning theautomatic interpretation of data from NDT have receivedgood attention and have stimulated interests in other areaslike transportation, for making key assessments within someof its subject areas. Rail, air and marine industries together with bridge inspection and pavement maintenance are good examples of such areas where a considerable amount of work has been done. Such work neatly splits into two schools. The first school investigates the classical usage of data by an experienced human operator to determine the condition of the inspected material or structure. The other school focuses attention on the automatic interpretation of NDT data using AI techniques, in determining the result of inspection.The scope of this paper is only limited to the automaticinterpretation of data from NDT, with the goal of assessingembedded flaws as quickly and accurately as possible in acost effective fashion. AI techniques such as neural networks, machine vision, knowledge-based systems and fuzzy logic were applied to a wide spectrum of problems in the area.A secondary goal was to provide an insight into possibleresearch methods concerning railway sleeper inspectionby automatic interpretation of data. A brief introduction is provided for the benefit of the readers unfamiliar with the techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yella et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: