地面激光扫描点云路面破损检测。精度评价和算法比较

Ziyi Feng , Aimad El Issaoui , Matti Lehtomäki , Matias Ingman , Harri Kaartinen , Antero Kukko , Joona Savela , Hannu Hyyppä , Juha Hyyppä
{"title":"地面激光扫描点云路面破损检测。精度评价和算法比较","authors":"Ziyi Feng ,&nbsp;Aimad El Issaoui ,&nbsp;Matti Lehtomäki ,&nbsp;Matias Ingman ,&nbsp;Harri Kaartinen ,&nbsp;Antero Kukko ,&nbsp;Joona Savela ,&nbsp;Hannu Hyyppä ,&nbsp;Juha Hyyppä","doi":"10.1016/j.ophoto.2021.100010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this paper, we compared five crack detection algorithms using terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) point clouds. The methods are developed based on common point cloud processing knowledge in along- and across-track profiles, surface fitting or local pointwise features, with or without machine learning. The crack area and volume were calculated from the crack points detected by the algorithms. The completeness, correctness, and F<sub>1</sub> score of each algorithm were computed against manually collected references. Ten 1-m-by-3.5-m plots containing 75 distresses of six distress types (depression, disintegration, pothole, longitudinal, transverse, and alligator cracks) were selected to explain variability of distresses from a 3-km-long-road. For crack detection at plot level, the best algorithm achieved a completeness of up to 0.844, a correctness of up to 0.853, and an F<sub>1</sub> score of up to 0.849. The best algorithm’s overall (ten plots combined) completeness, correctness, and F<sub>1</sub> score were 0.642, 0.735, and 0.685 respectively. For the crack area estimation, the overall mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of the two best algorithms were 19.8% and 20.3%. In the crack volume estimation, the two best algorithms resulted in 19.3% and 14.5% MAPE. When the plots were grouped based on crack detection complexity, in the ‘easy’ category, the best algorithm reached a crack area estimation MAPE of 8.9%, while for crack volume estimation, the MAPE obtained from the best algorithm was 0.7%.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100730,"journal":{"name":"ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100010"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667393221000107/pdfft?md5=09bfe8cd60354c21430255cf71ad1419&pid=1-s2.0-S2667393221000107-main.pdf","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pavement distress detection using terrestrial laser scanning point clouds – Accuracy evaluation and algorithm comparison\",\"authors\":\"Ziyi Feng ,&nbsp;Aimad El Issaoui ,&nbsp;Matti Lehtomäki ,&nbsp;Matias Ingman ,&nbsp;Harri Kaartinen ,&nbsp;Antero Kukko ,&nbsp;Joona Savela ,&nbsp;Hannu Hyyppä ,&nbsp;Juha Hyyppä\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ophoto.2021.100010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In this paper, we compared five crack detection algorithms using terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) point clouds. The methods are developed based on common point cloud processing knowledge in along- and across-track profiles, surface fitting or local pointwise features, with or without machine learning. The crack area and volume were calculated from the crack points detected by the algorithms. The completeness, correctness, and F<sub>1</sub> score of each algorithm were computed against manually collected references. Ten 1-m-by-3.5-m plots containing 75 distresses of six distress types (depression, disintegration, pothole, longitudinal, transverse, and alligator cracks) were selected to explain variability of distresses from a 3-km-long-road. For crack detection at plot level, the best algorithm achieved a completeness of up to 0.844, a correctness of up to 0.853, and an F<sub>1</sub> score of up to 0.849. The best algorithm’s overall (ten plots combined) completeness, correctness, and F<sub>1</sub> score were 0.642, 0.735, and 0.685 respectively. For the crack area estimation, the overall mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of the two best algorithms were 19.8% and 20.3%. In the crack volume estimation, the two best algorithms resulted in 19.3% and 14.5% MAPE. When the plots were grouped based on crack detection complexity, in the ‘easy’ category, the best algorithm reached a crack area estimation MAPE of 8.9%, while for crack volume estimation, the MAPE obtained from the best algorithm was 0.7%.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100010\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667393221000107/pdfft?md5=09bfe8cd60354c21430255cf71ad1419&pid=1-s2.0-S2667393221000107-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667393221000107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667393221000107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

在本文中,我们比较了五种基于地面激光扫描仪(TLS)点云的裂纹检测算法。这些方法是基于沿轨和跨轨轮廓、表面拟合或局部点特征的通用点云处理知识开发的,可以使用或不使用机器学习。根据算法检测到的裂纹点计算裂纹面积和体积。根据人工收集的参考文献计算每个算法的完整性、正确性和F1分数。选择10个1米× 3.5米的地块,包含6种类型(洼地、崩解、坑洞、纵向、横向和鳄鱼裂缝)的75个裂缝,以解释3公里长的道路上的裂缝变异性。对于图级的裂缝检测,最佳算法的完备性可达0.844,正确性可达0.853,F1评分可达0.849。最佳算法的总体(10个图组合)完备性、正确性和F1得分分别为0.642、0.735和0.685。对于裂纹面积估计,两种最佳算法的总体平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)分别为19.8%和20.3%。在裂缝体积估计中,两种最佳算法的MAPE分别为19.3%和14.5%。当根据裂纹检测复杂度对图进行分组时,在“easy”类别中,最佳算法的裂纹面积估计MAPE为8.9%,而在裂纹体积估计MAPE为0.7%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pavement distress detection using terrestrial laser scanning point clouds – Accuracy evaluation and algorithm comparison

In this paper, we compared five crack detection algorithms using terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) point clouds. The methods are developed based on common point cloud processing knowledge in along- and across-track profiles, surface fitting or local pointwise features, with or without machine learning. The crack area and volume were calculated from the crack points detected by the algorithms. The completeness, correctness, and F1 score of each algorithm were computed against manually collected references. Ten 1-m-by-3.5-m plots containing 75 distresses of six distress types (depression, disintegration, pothole, longitudinal, transverse, and alligator cracks) were selected to explain variability of distresses from a 3-km-long-road. For crack detection at plot level, the best algorithm achieved a completeness of up to 0.844, a correctness of up to 0.853, and an F1 score of up to 0.849. The best algorithm’s overall (ten plots combined) completeness, correctness, and F1 score were 0.642, 0.735, and 0.685 respectively. For the crack area estimation, the overall mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE) of the two best algorithms were 19.8% and 20.3%. In the crack volume estimation, the two best algorithms resulted in 19.3% and 14.5% MAPE. When the plots were grouped based on crack detection complexity, in the ‘easy’ category, the best algorithm reached a crack area estimation MAPE of 8.9%, while for crack volume estimation, the MAPE obtained from the best algorithm was 0.7%.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信