Author Affiliations
1School of Safety & Emergency Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, China;2Chongqing Academic of Measurement and Quality Inspection, Chongqing 404100, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Schematic of Crack Identification Net (CIN)
Fig. 2. Flowchart of identification
Fig. 3. Example of crack and non-crack images. (a) Crack images; (b) non-crack images
Fig. 4. Training and validation results for group 4th model. (a) Training results; (b) validation results
Fig. 5. Accuracy rate of training and validation for 5 different groups
Fig. 6. Example of identification results. (a) Original image; (b) crack classification and identification result
Fig. 7. Segmentation results obtained by the proposed algorithm and traditional methods. (a) Original image; (b) improved Otsu algorithm; (c) improved Canny algorithm; (d) improved median filter algorithm; (e) our algorithm
Fig. 8. Comparison of evaluation indicators of each algorithm
Fig. 9. Segmentation results obtained by the proposed algorithm and clustering methods. (a) Original image; (b) K-means algorithm; (c) mean shift algorithm; (d) fuzzy C-means algorithm; (e) our algorithm
Fig. 10. Comparison of evaluation indicators of each algorithm
Fig. 11. Identification of cracks with different thicknesses. (a) Original image; (b) identification of neural network; (c) segmentation; (d) mark
Fig. 12. Example of crack marking. (a) Crack 1; (b) crack 2
Fig. 13. Original crack images for quantitative calculation
Crack number | Segmentationnumber | Width /pixel | Length /pixel | Averagewidth /pixel | Overalllength /pixel | Area /pixel2 | Occupationration /% |
---|
| 1 | 4 | 107 | | | | | | 2 | 4 | 63 | | | | | | 3 | 4 | 97 | | | | | Crack 1 | 4 | 5 | 152 | 4.63 | 1193 | 5994 | 0.76 | | 5 | 6 | 163 | | | | | | 6 | 6 | 286 | | | | | | 7 | 5 | 258 | | | | | | 8 | 3 | 67 | | | | | | 1 | 5 | 913 | | | | | Crack 2 | 2 | 6 | 106 | 4.75 | 1384 | 6213 | 1.47 | | 3 | 4 | 240 | | | | | | 4 | 4 | 125 | | | | |
|
Table 1. Pixel sizes of crack 1 and crack 2
Crack number | Quantitative calculation | Crack gauge measurement |
---|
Averagewidth /mm | Overalllength /mm | Area /mm2 | Averagewidth /mm | Overalllength /mm | Area /mm2 |
---|
Crack 1 | 0.97 | 250.53 | 264.33 | 1.00 | 251.20 | 261.52 | Crack 2 | 1.00 | 290.64 | 273.99 | 0.98 | 288.42 | 270.26 |
|
Table 2. Actual size of cracks 1 and crack 2
Group number | Average width /mm | Overall length /mm | Area /mm2 |
---|
Quantitativecalculation | Crack gaugemeasurement | Error | Quantitativecalculation | Crack gaugemeasurement | Error | Quantitativecalculation | Crack gaugemeasurement | Error |
---|
1 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 253.11 | 257.33 | 4.22 | 250.52 | 254.33 | 3.81 | 2 | 0.9 | 0.92 | 0.02 | 232.45 | 236.62 | 4.17 | 211.20 | 215.69 | 4.49 | 3 | 1.12 | 1.08 | 0.04 | 289.27 | 280.94 | 8.33 | 320.98 | 318.41 | 2.57 | 4 | 1.05 | 1.02 | 0.03 | 271.19 | 265.44 | 5.75 | 281.74 | 277.74 | 4 | 5 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.03 | 250.53 | 256.28 | 6.75 | 248.82 | 253.28 | 4.46 | 6 | 1.02 | 1.00 | 0.02 | 263.44 | 259.60 | 3.84 | 266.70 | 260.24 | 6.46 | 7 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.03 | 245.36 | 250.42 | 5.06 | 240.12 | 247.41 | 7.29 | 8 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.02 | 246.72 | 251.53 | 4.81 | 244.54 | 248.78 | 4.24 | 9 | 0.99 | 1.02 | 0.03 | 265.7 | 263.44 | 2.26 | 265.88 | 267.23 | 1.35 | 10 | 1.2 | 1.16 | 0.04 | 309.93 | 304.60 | 5.33 | 364.81 | 355.60 | 9.21 |
|
Table 3. Comparison of statistical results
Group number | Accuracy of average width /mm | Accuracy of overall length /mm | Accuracy of area /mm2 |
---|
1 | 98.00 | 98.36 | 98.50 | 2 | 97.83 | 98.24 | 97.92 | 3 | 96.30 | 97.03 | 99.19 | 4 | 97.06 | 97.83 | 98.56 | 5 | 97.00 | 97.37 | 98.24 | 6 | 98.00 | 98.52 | 97.52 | 7 | 96.94 | 97.98 | 97.05 | 8 | 97.94 | 98.09 | 98.30 | 9 | 97.06 | 99.14 | 99.49 | 10 | 96.55 | 98.25 | 97.41 |
|
Table 4. Accuracy of statistical results