Drone-Based Non-Destructive Inspection of Industrial Sites: A Review and Case Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using aerial platforms for Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) of large and complex structures is a growing field of interest in various industries. Infrastructures such as: buildings, bridges, oil and gas, etc. refineries require regular and extensive inspections. The inspection reports are used to plan and perform required maintenance, ensuring their structural health and the safety of the workers. However, performing these inspections can be challenging due to the size of the facility, the lack of easy access, the health risks for the inspectors, or several other reasons, which has convinced companies to invest more in drones as an alternative solution to overcome these challenges. The autonomous nature of drones can assist companies in reducing inspection time and cost. Moreover, the employment of drones can lower the number of required personnel for inspection and can increase personnel safety. Finally, drones can provide a safe and reliable solution for inspecting hard-to-reach or hazardous areas. Despite the recent developments in drone-based NDI to reliably detect defects, several limitations and challenges still need to be addressed. In this paper, a brief review of the history of unmanned aerial vehicles, along with a comprehensive review of studies focused on UAV-based NDI of industrial and commercial facilities, are provided. Moreover, the benefits of using drones in inspections as an alternative to conventional methods are discussed, along with the challenges and open problems of employing drones in industrial inspections, are explored. Finally, some of our case studies conducted in different industrial fields in the field of Non-Destructive Inspection are presented.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it