Pavement distress detection using terrestrial laser scanning point clouds – Accuracy evaluation and algorithm comparison

dc.contributor.authorFeng Ziyi
dc.contributor.authorEl Issaoui Aimad
dc.contributor.authorLehtomäki Matti
dc.contributor.authorIngman Matias
dc.contributor.authorKaartinen Harri
dc.contributor.authorKukko Antero
dc.contributor.authorSavela Joona
dc.contributor.authorHyyppä Hannu
dc.contributor.authorHyyppä Juha
dc.contributor.organizationfi=maantiede|en=Geography |
dc.contributor.organization-code2606901
dc.converis.publication-id381253962
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/381253962
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-28T03:33:15Z
dc.date.available2025-08-28T03:33:15Z
dc.description.abstractIn 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%.
dc.identifier.eissn2667-3932
dc.identifier.jour-issn2667-3932
dc.identifier.olddbid210811
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/193838
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/56531
dc.identifier.urlhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophoto.2021.100010
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2025082790685
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorKaartinen, Harri
dc.okm.discipline1171 Geosciencesen_GB
dc.okm.discipline1171 Geotieteetfi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationnot an international co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.publisher.countryNetherlandsen_GB
dc.publisher.countryAlankomaatfi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeNL
dc.relation.articlenumber100010
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.ophoto.2021.100010
dc.relation.ispartofjournalISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
dc.relation.volume3
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/193838
dc.titlePavement distress detection using terrestrial laser scanning point clouds – Accuracy evaluation and algorithm comparison
dc.year.issued2022

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
1-s2.0-S2667393221000107-main.pdf
Size:
4.08 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format