MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401153286 · doi:10.3389/fbuil.2024.1321634

Recent advances in crack detection technologies for structures: a survey of 2022-2023 literature

2024· article· en· W4401153286 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Built Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Data science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Cracks, as structural defects or fractures in materials like concrete, asphalt, and metal, pose significant challenges to the stability and safety of various structures. Addressing crack detection is of paramount importance due to its implications for public safety, infrastructure integrity, maintenance costs, asset longevity, preventive maintenance, economic impact, and environmental considerations. Methods In this survey paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of recent advancements and developments in crack detection technologies for structures, with a specific focus on articles published between 2022 and 2023. Our methodology involves an exhaustive search of the Scopus database using keywords related to crack detection and machine learning techniques. Among the 129 papers reviewed, 85 were closely aligned with our research focus. Results We explore datasets that underpin crack detection research, categorizing them as public datasets, papers with their own datasets, and those using a hybrid approach. The prevalence and usage patterns of public datasets are presented, highlighting datasets like Crack500, Crack Forest Dataset (CFD), and Deep Crack. Furthermore, papers employing proprietary datasets and those combining public and proprietary sources are examined. The survey comprehensively investigates the algorithms and methods utilized, encompassing CNN, YOLO, UNet, ResNet, and others, elucidating their contributions to crack detection. Evaluation metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and IoU are discussed in the context of assessing model performance. The results of the 85 papers are summarized, demonstrating advancements in crack detection accuracy, efficiency, and applicability. Discussion Notably, we observe a trend towards using modern and novel algorithms, such as Vision Transformers (ViT), and a shift away from traditional methods. The conclusion encapsulates the current state of crack detection research, highlighting the integration of multiple algorithms, expert models, and innovative data collection techniques. As a future direction, the adoption of emerging algorithms like ViT is suggested. This survey paper serves as a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and engineers working in the field of crack detection, offering insights into the latest trends, methodologies, and challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.210 · 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