Aircraft Fuselage Corrosion Detection Using Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corrosion identification and repair is a vital task in aircraft maintenance to ensure continued structural integrity. Regarding fuselage lap joints, typically, visual inspections are followed by non-destructive methodologies, which are time-consuming. The visual inspection of large areas suffers not only from subjectivity but also from the variable probability of corrosion detection, which is aggravated by the multiple layers used in fuselage construction. In this paper, we propose a methodology for automatic image-based corrosion detection of aircraft structures using deep neural networks. For machine learning, we use a dataset that consists of D-Sight Aircraft Inspection System (DAIS) images from different lap joints of Boeing and Airbus aircrafts. We also employ transfer learning to overcome the shortage of aircraft corrosion images. With precision of over 93%, we demonstrate that our approach detects corrosion with a precision comparable to that of trained operators, aiding to reduce the uncertainties related to operator fatigue or inadequate training. Our results indicate that our methodology can support specialists and engineers in corrosion monitoring in the aerospace industry, potentially contributing to the automation of condition-based maintenance protocols.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".