MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367680609 · doi:10.1177/14759217231168212

Deep learning-based concrete defects classification and detection using semantic segmentation

2023· article· en· W4367680609 on OpenAlexafffund
Palisa Arafin, A. H. M. Muntasir Billah, Anas Issa

Bibliographic record

VenueStructural Health Monitoring · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkSegmentationDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Histogram of oriented gradientsContextual image classificationMachine learningClassifier (UML)Image segmentationHistogramImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual damage detection of infrastructure using deep learning (DL)-based computational approaches can facilitate a potential solution to reduce subjectivity yet increase the accuracy of the damage diagnoses and accessibility in a structural health monitoring (SHM) system. However, despite remarkable advances with DL-based SHM, the most significant challenges to achieving the real-time implication are the limited available defects image databases and the selection of DL networks depth. To address these challenges, this research has created a diverse dataset with concrete crack (4087) and spalling (1100) images and used it for damage condition assessment by applying convolutional neural network (CNN) algorithms. CNN-classifier models are used to identify different types of defects and semantic segmentation for labeling the defect patterns within an image. Three CNN-based models-Visual Geometry Group (VGG)19, ResNet50, and InceptionV3 are incorporated as CNN-classifiers. For semantic segmentation, two encoder-decoder models, U-Net and pyramid scene parsing network architecture are developed based on four backbone models, including VGG19, ResNet50, InceptionV3, and EfficientNetB3. The CNN-classifier models are analyzed on two optimizers-stochastic gradient descent (SGD), root mean square propagation (RMSprop), and learning rates-0.1, 0.001, and 0.0001. However, the CNN-segmentation models are analyzed for SGD and adaptive moment estimation, trained with three different learning rates-0.1, 0.01, and 0.0001, and evaluated based on accuracy, intersection over union, precision, recall, and F1-score. InceptionV3 achieves the best performance for defects classification with an accuracy of 91.98% using the RMSprop optimizer. For crack segmentation, EfficientNetB3-based U-Net, and for spalling segmentation, IncenptionV3-based U-Net model outperformed all other algorithms, with an F1-score of 95.66 and 89.43%, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations100
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructural Health MonitoringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207