Author Affiliations
Faculty of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan 650500, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Flowchart of SFW method
Fig. 2. Flowchart of modulus maxima edge detection method with wavelet semi-reconfiguration
Fig. 3. 13 feature channels of wall crack
Fig. 4. Feature vectors and structured labels
Fig. 5. Qualitative comparisons of wavelets with traditional detection methods. (a) Original image; (b) GT; (c) hrbio1.1-1; (d) rbior1.1-2; (e) sym2-1; (f) coif1-1; (g) dyadic-2; (h) dmey-1; (i) Prewitt; (j) Sobel; (k) Robert; (l) Canny; (m) Log
Fig. 6. ROC curves and RPFM bars of six wavelets and six other methods. (a) ROC curves; (b) RPFM bars
Fig. 7. Quantitative comparisons of SFW classifier in train and validation. (a) nSample; (b) nCell; (c) normRad; (d) chSmooth; (e) simSmooth; (f) imWidth; (g) gtWidth; (h) fracFtrs; (i) maxDepth; (j) minChild; (k) sharpen; (l) nTree
Fig. 8. Qualitative comparisons of different methods. (a) Original image 1; (b) GT1; (c) hrbio1.1-1; (d) rbior1.1-2; (e) dyadic-2; (f) sym2-1; (g) coif1-1; (h) dmey-1; (i) original image 2; (j) GT2; (k) SFW-M (hrbio1.1-1); (l) SFW-1; (m) SFD-M; (n) SFD-1; (o) FCN-8s; (p) MDW Ncut
Fig. 9. ROC curve and RPFM bars of 11 methods. (a) ROC curves; (b) RPFM bars
Fig. 10. Quantitative comparisons of 5 methods. (a) Original image; (b) GT; (c) SFW; (d) FCN-8s; (e) SFD; (f) Canny; (g) original image; (h) GT; (i) SFW; (j) FCN-8s; (k) SFD; (l) Canny
Fig. 11. ROC curves of two types of images with five methods. (a) First type; (b) second type
Method | R | P | F | MAE | Time /s |
---|
hrbio1.1 | 0.7862 | 0.6152 | 0.6477 | 0.1004 | 0.5107 | rbio1.1 | 0.7809 | 0.6137 | 0.6456 | 0.1174 | 0.5547 | dyadic | 0.7634 | 0.6080 | 0.6380 | 0.1090 | 1.2804 | sym2 | 0.7795 | 0.6133 | 0.6450 | 0.1200 | 0.5231 | coif1 | 0.7741 | 0.6115 | 0.6427 | 0.1024 | 0.6539 | dmey-1 | 0.7543 | 0.6051 | 0.6341 | 0.1513 | 0.8794 | SFW-1 | 0.7619 | 0.6047 | 0.6372 | 0.2483 | 0.1220 | SFD- M | 0.7752 | 0.6116 | 0.6429 | 0.0487 | 0.3636 | SFD-1 | 0.7605 | 0.6067 | 0.6364 | 0.0497 | 0.0841 | FCN-8s | 0.7707 | 0.6108 | 0.6415 | 0.0214 | 1.3646 | M Ncut | 0.7228 | 0.5940 | 0.6195 | 0.1034 | 2.0019 |
|
Table 1. Average comparisons of 11 methods with 5 quantitative methods
Image type | Parameter | SFW | FCN-8s | SFD | Canny |
---|
Crack images ofthe unevenillumination surface | R | 0.8505 | 0.8009 | 0.7961 | 0.7813 | P | 0.6306 | 0.6163 | 0.6149 | 0.6104 | F | 0.6707 | 0.6509 | 0.6490 | 0.6429 | MAE | 0.0135 | 0.0044 | 0.0163 | 0.0093 | Time /s | 0.7531 | 0.2737 | 0.2814 | 0.1165 | Crack imagesof the contaminatedsurface | R | 0.8317 | 0.6610 | 0.8180 | 0.7347 | P | 0.6255 | 0.5698 | 0.6215 | 0.5957 | F | 0.6634 | 0.5885 | 0.6580 | 0.6229 | MAE | 0.0093 | 0.0056 | 0.0089 | 0.0094 | Time / s | 0.7531 | 0.2737 | 0.2814 | 0.1165 |
|
Table 2. Quantitative comparisons of five methods