Paper detail

Detecting micro fractures: A comprehensive comparison of conventional and machine-learning based segmentation methods

Studying porous rock materials with X-Ray Computed Tomography (XRCT) has been established as a standard procedure for the non-destructive visualization of flow and transport in opaque porous media. Despite the recent advances in the field of XRCT, some challenges still remain due to the inherent noise and imaging artefacts in the produced data. These issues become even more profound when the objective is the identification of fractures, and/or fracture networks. The challenge is the limited contrast between the regions of interest and the neighboring areas. This limited contrast can mostly be attributed to the minute aperture of the fractures. In order to overcome this challenge, it has been a common approach to apply digital image processing, such as filtering, to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio. Additionally, segmentation methods based on threshold-/morphology schemes can be employed to obtain enhanced information from the features of interest. However, this workflow needs a skillful operator to fine-tune its input parameters, and the required computation time significantly increases due to the complexity of the available methods, and the large volume of the data-set. In this study, based on a data-set produced by the successful visualization of a fracture network in Carrara marble with XRCT, we present the segmentation results from a number of segmentation methods. Three conventional and two machine-learning-based methods are evaluated. The segmentation results from all five methods are compared to each other in terms of segmentation quality and time efficiency. Due to memory limitations, and in order to accomplish a fair comparison, all the methods are employed in a 2D scheme. The output of the 2D U-net model, which is one of the adopted machine-learning-based segmentation methods, shows the best performance regarding the quality of segmentation and the required processing time.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.