• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 59, Issue 22, 2215003 (2022)
Yaoze Sun1,* and Junwei Gao2
Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Automation, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, Shandong, China
  • 2Shandong Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, Qingdao 266071, Shandong, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP202259.2215003 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Yaoze Sun, Junwei Gao. Defect Detection of Wheel Set Tread Based on Improved YOLOv5[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(22): 2215003 Copy Citation Text show less
    YOLOv5 model structure
    Fig. 1. YOLOv5 model structure
    Structure of convolution attention mechanism
    Fig. 2. Structure of convolution attention mechanism
    Structure diagram of improved YOLOv5
    Fig. 3. Structure diagram of improved YOLOv5
    Tread defect type. (a) Normal; (b) scratch; (c) laceration injury; (d) peel
    Fig. 4. Tread defect type. (a) Normal; (b) scratch; (c) laceration injury; (d) peel
    Loss variation curve
    Fig. 5. Loss variation curve
    Comparison of detection results between YOLOv5 and improved YOLOv5. (a) (c) (e) Detection results of YOLOv5; (b) (d) (f) detection results of the improved YOLOv5
    Fig. 6. Comparison of detection results between YOLOv5 and improved YOLOv5. (a) (c) (e) Detection results of YOLOv5; (b) (d) (f) detection results of the improved YOLOv5
    Comparison of inclusion detection results. (a) Scratch; (b) including scratch; (c) confluent scratch
    Fig. 7. Comparison of inclusion detection results. (a) Scratch; (b) including scratch; (c) confluent scratch
    Defect typeTraining setValidation setTest setTotal
    Scratch20742542662594
    Laceration injury10371431301310
    Peel14251741831782
    Table 1. Target quantity in data
    ModelCBAMReduce layerEIoUPrecision /%mAP /%Speed /(frame·s-1
    YOLOv586.387.145.3
    Improvement 1+89.291.644.1
    Improvement 2++88.590.848.1
    Improvement 3+++90.792.648.1
    Table 2. Experimental results of different improvements
    MethodModel size /MBParameters /106FLOPs /109
    YOLOv5s13.67.0315.9
    Improvement 114.07.0416.2
    Improvement 210.35.2815.5
    Improvement 310.35.2815.5
    Table 3. Comparison of model complexity
    ModelAP(RIoU=0.5)/%mAP/%Speed /(frame·s-1
    Tread scratchTread bruiseTread peel
    SSD72.467.971.970.855.4
    Fast-RCNN89.388.287.288.22.2
    YOLOv587.185.289.187.145.3
    YOLOv5s_A88.888.789.989.245.1
    YOLOv5s_B85.984.288.686.252.3
    Proposed model92.192.393.392.648.1
    Table 4. Performance comparison of mainstream target detection algorithms