4.6 Article

Automated Crack Detection on Concrete Bridges

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TASE.2014.2354314

关键词

Adaboost; bridge deck inspection; bridge maintenance; computer vision; concrete; crack detection; crack pattern

资金

  1. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detection of cracks on bridge decks is a vital task for maintaining the structural health and reliability of concrete bridges. Robotic imaging can be used to obtain bridge surface image sets for automated on-site analysis. We present a novel automated crack detection algorithm, the STRUM (spatially tuned robust multifeature) classifier, and demonstrate results on real bridge data using a state-of-the-art robotic bridge scanning system. By using machine learning classification, we eliminate the need for manually tuning threshold parameters. The algorithm uses robust curve fitting to spatially localize potential crack regions even in the presence of noise. Multiple visual features that are spatially tuned to these regions are computed. Feature computation includes examining the scale-space of the local feature in order to represent the information and the unknown salient scale of the crack. The classification results are obtained with real bridge data from hundreds of crack regions over two bridges. This comprehensive analysis shows a peak STRUM classifier performance of 95% compared with 69% accuracy from a more typical image-based approach. In order to create a composite global view of a large bridge span, an image sequence from the robot is aligned computationally to create a continuous mosaic. A crack density map for the bridge mosaic provides a computational description as well as a global view of the spatial patterns of bridge deck cracking. The bridges surveyed for data collection and testing include Long-Term Bridge Performance program's (LTBP) pilot project bridges at Haymarket, VA, USA, and Sacramento, CA, USA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据