• Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
  • Vol. 57, Issue 22, 221023 (2020)
Jiewen Yang1, Guang Zhang1, Xijiang Chen1、*, and Ya Ban2
Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Safety & Emergency Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, China;
  • 2Chongqing Academic of Measurement and Quality Inspection, Chongqing 404100, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/LOP57.221023 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Jiewen Yang, Guang Zhang, Xijiang Chen, Ya Ban. Quantitative Identification of Concrete Surface Cracks Based on Deep Learning Clustering Segmentation and Morphology[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(22): 221023 Copy Citation Text show less
    Schematic of Crack Identification Net (CIN)
    Fig. 1. Schematic of Crack Identification Net (CIN)
    Flowchart of identification
    Fig. 2. Flowchart of identification
    Example of crack and non-crack images. (a) Crack images; (b) non-crack images
    Fig. 3. Example of crack and non-crack images. (a) Crack images; (b) non-crack images
    Training and validation results for group 4th model. (a) Training results; (b) validation results
    Fig. 4. Training and validation results for group 4th model. (a) Training results; (b) validation results
    Accuracy rate of training and validation for 5 different groups
    Fig. 5. Accuracy rate of training and validation for 5 different groups
    Example of identification results. (a) Original image; (b) crack classification and identification result
    Fig. 6. Example of identification results. (a) Original image; (b) crack classification and identification result
    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. 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
    Comparison of evaluation indicators of each algorithm
    Fig. 8. Comparison of evaluation indicators of each algorithm
    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. 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
    Comparison of evaluation indicators of each algorithm
    Fig. 10. Comparison of evaluation indicators of each algorithm
    Identification of cracks with different thicknesses. (a) Original image; (b) identification of neural network; (c) segmentation; (d) mark
    Fig. 11. Identification of cracks with different thicknesses. (a) Original image; (b) identification of neural network; (c) segmentation; (d) mark
    Example of crack marking. (a) Crack 1; (b) crack 2
    Fig. 12. Example of crack marking. (a) Crack 1; (b) crack 2
    Original crack images for quantitative calculation
    Fig. 13. Original crack images for quantitative calculation
    Crack numberSegmentationnumberWidth /pixelLength /pixelAveragewidth /pixelOveralllength /pixelArea /pixel2Occupationration /%
    14107
    2463
    3497
    Crack 1451524.63119359940.76
    56163
    66286
    75258
    8367
    15913
    Crack 2261064.75138462131.47
    34240
    44125
    Table 1. Pixel sizes of crack 1 and crack 2
    Crack numberQuantitative calculationCrack gauge measurement
    Averagewidth /mmOveralllength /mmArea /mm2Averagewidth /mmOveralllength /mmArea /mm2
    Crack 10.97250.53264.331.00251.20261.52
    Crack 21.00290.64273.990.98288.42270.26
    Table 2. Actual size of cracks 1 and crack 2
    Group numberAverage width /mmOverall length /mmArea /mm2
    QuantitativecalculationCrack gaugemeasurementErrorQuantitativecalculationCrack gaugemeasurementErrorQuantitativecalculationCrack gaugemeasurementError
    10.981.000.02253.11257.334.22250.52254.333.81
    20.90.920.02232.45236.624.17211.20215.694.49
    31.121.080.04289.27280.948.33320.98318.412.57
    41.051.020.03271.19265.445.75281.74277.744
    50.971.000.03250.53256.286.75248.82253.284.46
    61.021.000.02263.44259.603.84266.70260.246.46
    70.950.980.03245.36250.425.06240.12247.417.29
    80.950.970.02246.72251.534.81244.54248.784.24
    90.991.020.03265.7263.442.26265.88267.231.35
    101.21.160.04309.93304.605.33364.81355.609.21
    Table 3. Comparison of statistical results
    Group numberAccuracy of average width /mmAccuracy of overall length /mmAccuracy of area /mm2
    198.0098.3698.50
    297.8398.2497.92
    396.3097.0399.19
    497.0697.8398.56
    597.0097.3798.24
    698.0098.5297.52
    796.9497.9897.05
    897.9498.0998.30
    997.0699.1499.49
    1096.5598.2597.41
    Table 4. Accuracy of statistical results
    Jiewen Yang, Guang Zhang, Xijiang Chen, Ya Ban. Quantitative Identification of Concrete Surface Cracks Based on Deep Learning Clustering Segmentation and Morphology[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(22): 221023
    Download Citation