Deep Learning‐Based Crack Damage Detection Using Convolutional Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of image processing techniques (IPTs) have been implemented for detecting civil infrastructure defects to partially replace human-conducted onsite inspections. These IPTs are primarily used to manipulate images to extract defect features, such as cracks in concrete and steel surfaces. However, the extensively varying real-world situations (e.g., lighting and shadow changes) can lead to challenges to the wide adoption of IPTs. To overcome these challenges, this article proposes a vision-based method using a deep architecture of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for detecting concrete cracks without calculating the defect features. As CNNs are capable of learning image features automatically, the proposed method works without the conjugation of IPTs for extracting features. The designed CNN is trained on 40 K images of 256 × 256 pixel resolutions and, consequently, records with about 98% accuracy. The trained CNN is combined with a sliding window technique to scan any image size larger than 256 × 256 pixel resolutions. The robustness and adaptability of the proposed approach are tested on 55 images of 5,888 × 3,584 pixel resolutions taken from a different structure which is not used for training and validation processes under various conditions (e.g., strong light spot, shadows, and very thin cracks). Comparative studies are conducted to examine the performance of the proposed CNN using traditional Canny and Sobel edge detection methods. The results show that the proposed method shows quite better performances and can indeed find concrete cracks in realistic situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".