Physics-Informed Deep Learning for Automated Defect Localization and Material Characterization in Ultrasonic Non-Destructive Testing

Authors

  • Otis James Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.
  • Diya C. Thakur School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA.
  • Otis M. Hawkins Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA.
  • Leif J. Warner Department of Computer Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA.

Keywords:

physics-informed deep learning, ultrasonic non-destructive testing, defect localization, material characterization, structural health monitoring, uncertainty quantification, industrial deployment

Abstract

Ultrasonic non-destructive testing remains a cornerstone of structural integrity assurance across aerospace, energy, transportation, and civil infrastructure. Conventional interpretation of ultrasonic signals depends heavily on expert judgment, physics-based inversion, and controlled inspection protocols. Deep learning has created new possibilities for automated defect localization and material characterization, but purely data-driven approaches often suffer from limited labeled data, sensor variability, and physically inconsistent predictions. Physics-informed deep learning integrates elastic wave propagation principles, scattering constraints, and material behavior into neural network training and architecture design. This paper presents a system-level examination of physics-informed deep learning for ultrasonic non-destructive testing. It analyzes data acquisition infrastructure, model architecture, simulation-assisted training, deployment constraints, robustness, uncertainty quantification, governance, and sustainability. The discussion emphasizes structural trade-offs between physical fidelity and computational cost, centralized training and edge deployment, and automation and certification. By treating the inspection pipeline as a socio-technical system, the paper argues that industrial adoption requires modular design, standardized data provenance, continuous recalibration, and transparent decision support. Cross-domain comparisons with medical imaging and structural health monitoring further illustrate how governance mechanisms and uncertainty management can support trustworthy automation. The analysis concludes that physics-informed deep learning can improve defect localization and material characterization only when embedded within an institutional framework that supports validation, lifecycle maintenance, and regulatory alignment.

References

1. Shull, P. J. (2002). Nondestructive evaluation: Theory, techniques, and applications. Marcel Dekker.

2. Felice, M. V., & Fan, Z. (2018). Sizing of flaws using ultrasonic bulk wave testing: A review. Ultrasonics, 88, 26–42.

3. Cantero-Chinchilla, S., Wilcox, P. D., & Croxford, A. J. (2022). Deep learning in automated ultrasonic NDE: A review. Structural Health Monitoring, 21(4), 1795–1819.

4. Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. (2019). Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378, 686–707.

5. Ye, J., Ito, S., & Toyama, N. (2020). Computerized ultrasonic imaging inspection: From shallow to deep learning. Sensors, 20(10), 2890.

6. Virkkunen, I., Koskinen, T., Jessen-Juhler, O., & Rinta-aho, J. (2021). Augmented ultrasonic data for machine learning. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 40(1), 4.

7. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.

8. Munir, N., Kim, H. J., Park, J., Song, S. J., & Kang, S. S. (2020). Convolutional neural network for ultrasonic weldment flaw classification. Ultrasonics, 105, 106128.

9. Thompson, R. B. (2002). Quantitative ultrasonic nondestructive evaluation methods. Journal of Nondestructive Evaluation, 21(3), 81–93.

10. Xu, Y., Pourahmadian, F., Song, J., & Wang, C. (2023). Deep learning for full-field ultrasonic characterization. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 201, 110668.

11. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444.

12. Azimi, M., Eslamlou, A. D., & Pekcan, G. (2020). Data-driven structural health monitoring and damage detection through deep learning: State-of-the-art review. Sensors, 20(10), 2778.

13. Sivia, D. S., & Skilling, J. (2006). Data analysis: A Bayesian tutorial (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

14. Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017). On calibration of modern neural networks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 1321–1330). PMLR.

15. Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., Makarenkov, V., & Nahavandi, S. (2021). A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges. Information Fusion, 76, 243–297.

16. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215.

17. Van der Velden, B. H., Kuijf, H. J., Gilhuijs, K. G., & Viergever, M. A. (2022). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in deep learning-based medical image analysis. Medical Image Analysis, 79, 102470.

18. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).

19. Dwivedi, S. K., Vishwakarma, M., & Soni, A. (2018). Advances and researches on non destructive testing: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(2), 3690–3698.

20. International Organization for Standardization. (2012). Non-destructive testing: Qualification and certification of NDT personnel (ISO 9712:2012). ISO.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-24