4.7 Article

CrackW-Net: A Novel Pavement Crack Image Segmentation Convolutional Neural Network

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2021.3095507

关键词

Image segmentation; Convolution; Convolutional neural networks; Roads; Feature extraction; Task analysis; Neural networks; Convolutional neural network; pavement crack; pavement detection; road maintenance; semantic segmentation

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Project [2020YFB1600102, 2020YFA0714302]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51878164, 51922030]
  3. Southeast University Zhongying Young Scholars Project
  4. China Road and Bridge Engineering Company Ltd. [CRBC/KHM/2021/053]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces CrackW-Net, which achieves pixel-level semantic segmentation of pavement cracks with a novel network structure, and conducts training and comparative experiments on two datasets. Results show that CrackW-Net performs the best in crack detection tasks.
Image-based intelligent detection of road cracks with high accuracy and efficiency is vital to the overall condition assessment of the pavement. However, significant problems of continuous cracks interruption and background discrete noise misidentification are frequently observed in current semantic segmentation of pavement cracks, which mainly caused by traditional segmentation convolutional neural networks. This paper proposes a skip-level round-trip sampling block structure with the implementation of convolutional neural networks, thereby constructed a novel pixel level semantic segmentation network called CrackW-Net. After that, two datasets, including the widely recognized Crack500 dataset and a self-built dataset, were used to train two versions CrackW-Net, FCN, U-Net and ResU-Net. Meanwhile, comparative experiments are conducted among all these network models for crack detection. Results show that CrackW-Net without residual block performs the best in the task of pavement crack segmentation.

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

4.7
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