Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38067688›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023

UAV-Based Image and LiDAR Fusion for Pavement Crack Segmentation.

Ahmed Elamin, Ahmed El-Rabbany

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ahmed ElaminDepartment of Civil Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada.
Ahmed El-RabbanyDepartment of Civil Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pavement surface maintenance is pivotal for road safety. There exist a number of manual, time-consuming methods to examine pavement conditions and spot distresses. More recently, alternative pavement monitoring methods have been developed, which take advantage of unmanned aerial systems (UASs). However, existing UAS-based approaches make use of either image or LiDAR data, which do not allow for exploring the complementary characteristics of the two systems. This study explores the feasibility of fusing UAS-based imaging and low-cost LiDAR data to enhance pavement crack segmentation using a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model. Three datasets are collected using two different UASs at varying flight heights, and two types of pavement distress are investigated, namely cracks and sealed cracks. Four different imaging/LiDAR fusing combinations are created, namely RGB, RGB + intensity, RGB + elevation, and RGB + intensity + elevation. A modified U-net with residual blocks inspired by ResNet was adopted for enhanced pavement crack segmentation. Comparative analyses were conducted against state-of-the-art networks, namely U-net and FPHBN networks, demonstrating the superiority of the developed DCNN in terms of accuracy and generalizability. Using the RGB case of the first dataset, the obtained precision, recall, and F-measure are 77.48%, 87.66%, and 82.26%, respectively. The fusion of the geometric information from the elevation layer with RGB images led to a 2% increase in recall. Fusing the intensity layer with the RGB images yielded a reduction of approximately 2%, 8%, and 5% in the precision, recall, and F-measure. This is attributed to the low spatial resolution and high point cloud noise of the used LiDAR sensor. The second dataset crack samples obtained largely similar results to those of the first dataset. In the third dataset, capturing higher-resolution LiDAR data at a lower altitude led to improved recall, indicating finer crack detail detection. This fusion, however, led to a decrease in precision due to point cloud noise, which caused misclassifications. In contrast, for the sealed crack, the addition of LiDAR data improved the sealed crack segmentation by about 4% and 7% in the second and third datasets, respectively, compared to the RGB cases.

Indexed as

crack detectiondeep convolutional neural networkLiDARpixel-levelUAV

Identifiers

PMID38067688
PMCPMC10708482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.