Deep learning for detecting distresses in buildings and pavements: a critical gap analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The massive number of pavements and buildings coupled with the limited inspection resources, both monetary and human, to detect distresses and recommend maintenance actions lead to rapid deterioration, decreased service life, lower level of service and increased community disruption. Therefore, this paper aims at providing a state-of-the-art review of the literature with respect to deep learning techniques for detecting distress in both pavements and buildings; research advancements per asset/structure type; and future recommendations in deep learning applications for distress detection. Design/methodology/approach A critical analysis was conducted on 181 papers of deep learning-based cracks detection. A structured analysis was adopted so that major articles were analyzed according to their focus of study, used methods, findings and limitations. Findings The utilization of deep learning to detect pavement cracks is advanced compared to assess and evaluate the structural health of buildings. There is a need for studies that compare different convolutional neural network models to foster the development of an integrated solution that considers the data collection method. Further research is required to examine the setup, implementation and running costs, frequency of capturing data and deep learning tool. In conclusion, the future of applying deep learning algorithms in lieu of manual inspection for detecting distresses has shown promising results. Practical implications The availability of previous research and the required improvements in the proposed computational tools and models (e.g. artificial intelligence, deep learning, etc.) are triggering researchers and practitioners to enhance the distresses’ inspection process and make better use of their limited resources. Originality/value A critical and structured analysis of deep learning-based crack detection for pavement and buildings is conducted for the first time to enable novice researchers to highlight the knowledge gap in each article, as well as building a knowledge base from the findings of other research to support developing future workable solutions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".