Achievements and Challenges in Machine Vision-Based Inspection of Large Concrete Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large concrete structures need to be inspected in order to assess their current physical and functional state, to predict future conditions, to support investment planning and decision making, and to allocate limited maintenance and rehabilitation resources. Current procedures in condition and safety assessment of large concrete structures are performed manually leading to subjective and unreliable results, costly and time-consuming data collection, and safety issues. To address these limitations, automated machine vision-based inspection procedures have increasingly been proposed by the research community. This paper presents current achievements and open challenges in vision-based inspection of large concrete structures. First, the general concept of Building Information Modeling is introduced. Then, vision-based 3D reconstruction and as-built spatial modeling of concrete civil infrastructure are presented. Following that, the focus is set on structural member recognition as well as on concrete damage detection and assessment exemplified for concrete columns. Although some challenges are still under investigation, it can be concluded that vision-based inspection methods have significantly improved over the last 10 years, and now, as-built spatial modeling as well as damage detection and assessment of large concrete structures have the potential to be fully automated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".