MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396615558 · doi:10.3390/s24092923

A Computer Vision Framework for Structural Analysis of Hand-Drawn Engineering Sketches

2024· article· en· W4396615558 on OpenAlexafffund
Isaac Joffe, Yuchen Qian, Mohammad Talebi-Kalaleh, Qipei Mei

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)SketchTrussArtificial intelligenceSoftwareImage (mathematics)MirroringEngineering drawingComputer visionEngineeringAlgorithmProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural engineers are often required to draw two-dimensional engineering sketches for quick structural analysis, either by hand calculation or using analysis software. However, calculation by hand is slow and error-prone, and the manual conversion of a hand-drawn sketch into a virtual model is tedious and time-consuming. This paper presents a complete and autonomous framework for converting a hand-drawn engineering sketch into an analyzed structural model using a camera and computer vision. In this framework, a computer vision object detection stage initially extracts information about the raw features in the image of the beam diagram. Next, a computer vision number-reading model transcribes any handwritten numerals appearing in the image. Then, feature association models are applied to characterize the relationships among the detected features in order to build a comprehensive structural model. Finally, the structural model generated is analyzed using OpenSees. In the system presented, the object detection model achieves a mean average precision of 99.1%, the number-reading model achieves an accuracy of 99.0%, and the models in the feature association stage achieve accuracies ranging from 95.1% to 99.5%. Overall, the tool analyzes 45.0% of images entirely correctly and the remaining 55.0% of images partially correctly. The proposed framework holds promise for other types of structural sketches, such as trusses and frames. Moreover, it can be a valuable tool for structural engineers that is capable of improving the efficiency, safety, and sustainability of future construction projects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207