Pattern Analysis and Applications

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 277–289 | Cite as

An efficient similarity measure approach for PCB surface defect detection

  • Vilas H. Gaidhane
  • Yogesh V. Hote
  • Vijander Singh
Industrial and Commercial Application
  • 92 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, an efficient similarity measure method is proposed for printed circuit board (PCB) surface defect detection. The advantage of the presented approach is that the measurement of similarity between the scene image and the reference image of PCB surface is taken without computing image features such as eigenvalues and eigenvectors. In the proposed approach, a symmetric matrix is calculated using the companion matrices of two compared images. Further, the rank of a symmetric matrix is used as similarity measure metric for defect detection. The numerical value of rank is zero for the defectless images and distinctly large for defective images. It is reliable and well tolerated to local variations and misalignment. The various experiments are carried out on the different PCB images. Moreover, the presented approach is tested in the presence of varying illumination and noise effect. Experimental results have shown the effectiveness of the proposed approach for detecting and locating the local defects in a complicated component-mounted PCB images.

Keywords

Printed circuit board Similarity measure Defect detection Companion matrix Polynomial coefficient Rank 

References

  1. 1.
    Bai X, Fang Y, Lin W, Wang L, Ju BF (2014) Saliency-based defect detection in industrial images by using phase spectrum. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 10:2135–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jian C, Gao J, Ao Y (2017) Automatic surface defect detection for mobile phone screen glass based on machine vision. Appl Soft Comput 52:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng H, Liu Z, Hou L, Yang J (2016) Sparsity-induced similarity measure and its applications. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 26:613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong Y, Du B, Zhang L, Zhang L (2017) dimensionality reduction and classification of hyperspectral images using ensemble discriminative local metric learning. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 55:2509–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaidhane VH, Hote YV, Singh V (2016) Emotion recognition using eigenvalues and Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm-based classifier. Sadhana 41:415–423MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaidhane VH, Hote YV, Singh V (2014) An efficient approach for face recognition based on common eigenvalues. Pattern Recognit 47:1869–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costa CE, Petrou M (2000) Automatic registration of ceramic tiles for the purpose of fault detection. Mach Vis Appl 11:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Son S, So H, Kim J, Choi D, Lee HJ (2015) Energy-efficient adaptive optical character recognition for wearable devices. Electron Lett 52:113–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun TH, Liu CS, Tien FC (2008) Invariant 2D object recognition using eigenvalues of covariance matrices, re-sampling and autocorrelation. Expert Syst Appl 35:1966–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wei SD, Lai SH (2008) Fast template matching based on normalized cross correlation with adaptive multilevel winner update. IEEE Trans Image Process 17:2227–2235MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang Z, Deriche R, Faugeras O, Luong QT (1995) A robust technique for matching two uncalibrated images through the recovery of the unknown epipolar geometry. Artif Intell 78:87–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsai DM, Yang RH (2005) An eigenvalue-based similarity measure and its application in defect detection. Image Vis Comput 23:1094–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li M, Yuan B (2005) 2D-LDA: a statistical linear discriminant analysis for image matrix. Pattern Recognit Lett 26:527–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Debella-Gilo M, Kaab A (2011) Sub-pixel precision image matching for measuring surface displacements on mass movements using normalized cross-correlation. Remote Sens Environ 115:130–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weinberger KQ, Saul LK (2009) Distance metric learning for large margin nearest neighbor classification. J Mach Learn Res 10:207–244MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ying Y, Huang K, Campbell C (2009) Sparse metric learning via smooth optimization. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 2214–2222Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu C, Tao D, Xu C, Rui Y (2014) Large-margin weakly supervised dimensionality reduction. In: Proceedings of the 31st international conference on machine learning (ICML-14), pp 865–873Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ercal F, Allen M, Feng H (2000) A systolic difference algorithm for RLE-compressed images. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 11:433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibrahim Z,. Al-Attas SAR, Aspar Z (2002) Analysis of the wavelet-based image difference algorithm for PCB inspection. In: Proceedings of the 41st SICE annual conference, pp 2108–2113Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moganti M, Ercal F, Dagli CH, Tsunekawa S (2011) Automatic PCB inspection algorithms: a survey. Comput Vis Image Underst 63:287–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kumar A (2008) Computer-vision-based fabric defect detection: a survey. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 55:348–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tsai DT, Lin CT (2003) Fast normalized cross correlation for defect detection. Pattern Recognit Lett 24:2625–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsai DM, Lin CT, Chen JF (2003) The evaluation of normalized cross correlations for defect detection. Pattern Recognit Lett 24:2525–2535CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tsai DM, Chiyang IY, Tsai YH (2012) A shift-tolerant dissimilarity measure for surface defect detection. IEEE Trans Ind Inf 8:128–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen X, Liu N, Bo Y, Bo Xiao (2016) A novel method for surface defect inspection of optic cable with short-wave infrared illuminance. Infrared Phys Technol 77:456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Datta K (1982) An algorithm to determine if two matrices have common eigenvalues. IEEE Trans Autom Control 27:1131–1133MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gaidhane VH, Hote YV, Singh V (2015) Image focus measure based on polynomial coefficients and spectral radius. Signal Image Video Process 9:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luan H, Qi F, Xue Z, Chen L, Shen D (2008) Multimodality image registration by maximization of quantitative–qualitative measure of mutual information. Pattern Recognit 41:285–298CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Belbachir AN, Lera M, Fanni A, Montisci A (2005) An automatic optical inspection system for the diagnosis of printed circuits based on neural network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE industry applications, pp 680–684Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vilas H. Gaidhane
    • 1
  • Yogesh V. Hote
    • 2
  • Vijander Singh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronics EngineeringBirla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Dubai CampusDubaiUAE
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology (IIT)RoorkeeIndia
  3. 3.ICE Division, Netaji Subhas Institute of TechnologyUniversity of DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations