MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796305543 · doi:10.1117/12.2295959

Automated volumetric damage detection and quantification using region-based convolution neural networks and an inexpensive depth camera

2018· article· en· W2796305543 on OpenAlexaff
Young‐Jin Cha, Gustavo H. Beckman, Dimos Polyzois

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2018 · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePixelVolume (thermodynamics)Computer visionFuse (electrical)SpallSegmentationMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural health monitoring has become an outstanding tool to perform structural condition assessments, once performed solely by trained experts. In this study, a methodology utilizing an inexpensive depth sensor to detect and quantify volumetric damages within concrete surfaces is proposed. To allow automatic damage detection, a Faster Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (Faster R-CNN)-based method is implemented. A database of 444 images with resolution of 853×1440 pixels annotated for concrete spalling is developed. The network is modified, trained and validated using the proposed database. Damage quantification is automatically performed using the depth data output by the sensor. The surface of the analyzed element is extracted by merging the bounding boxes output by the Faster R-CNN onto the depth map. A polystyrene test rig containing damage simulations of known volume was utilized to test the accuracy of volume calculation. In addition to that, a concrete beam was also used to test the entire system. The Faster R-CNN yielded an average precision (AP) of 77.97% for damage detection. Damage quantification routine presents error of 9.45% in volume quantification of samples located within 100 cm and 250 cm away from the sensor plane. On top of that, maximum depth measurements of damages show a mean precision error (MPE) of 3.24% considering the same distance range. The implemented method allows for damage segmentation and quantification regardless of the distance between the sensor and the analyzed element.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems 2018Same topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207