| Literature DB >> 35459034 |
Eshta Ranyal1,2, Ayan Sadhu1, Kamal Jain2.
Abstract
Road condition monitoring (RCM) has been a demanding strategic research area in maintaining a large network of transport infrastructures. With advancements in computer vision and data mining techniques along with high computing resources, several innovative pavement distress evaluation systems have been developed in recent years. The majority of these technologies employ next-generation distributed sensors and vision-based artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies to evaluate, classify and localize pavement distresses using the measured data. This paper presents an exhaustive and systematic literature review of these technologies in RCM that have been published from 2017-2022 by utilizing next-generation sensors, including contact and noncontact measurements. The various methodologies and innovative contributions of the existing literature reviewed in this paper, together with their limitations, promise a futuristic insight for researchers and transport infrastructure owners. The decisive role played by smart sensors and data acquisition platforms, such as smartphones, drones, vehicles integrated with non-intrusive sensors, such as RGB, and thermal cameras, lasers and GPR sensors in the performance of the system are also highlighted. In addition to sensing, a discussion on the prevalent challenges in the development of AI technologies as well as potential areas for further exploration paves the way for an all-inclusive and well-directed futuristic research on RCM.Entities:
Keywords: AI; deep learning; machine learning; pavement distress evaluation; pavement monitoring; road condition monitoring; smart sensors
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35459034 PMCID: PMC9029655 DOI: 10.3390/s22083044
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Types of common pavement distress (Miller and Bellinger 2014).
| Distress Type | Severity Levels | Causes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crack | |||
| Alligator |
| Low (no or few interconnections) | Repeated traffic loadings |
| Block |
| Low: width ≤ 6 mm | Repeated traffic loadings |
| Longitudinal |
| Low: width ≤ 6 mm | Poor joint construction or location |
| Transverse |
| Low: width ≤ 6 mm | Axial loading or temperature change |
| Pothole and Patch | |||
| Pothole |
| Minimum diameter of 150 mm | Water infiltration into cracks |
| Patch |
| Surface ≥ to 0.1 m2 | Lack of preventative maintenance |
| Surface Deformations | |||
| Rutting |
| Not applicable | Heavy load, wheel path, poor mix |
| Shoving |
| Not applicable | Plastic movement of pavement surface, weak subgrade, improper rolling |
| Surface Defects | |||
| Bleeding |
| Not applicable | Excessive binder, low air-void content |
| Ravelling |
| Not applicable | Weather, installation, aggregate separation, mechanical dislodging |
| Polished Aggregate |
| Not applicable | Aggregate with insufficient flakiness and excessive friction on the road by vehicles |
A comparative evaluation of the smart sensors used in RCM.
| Key Variables | Camera | Laser | GPR | Thermal | Vibration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology | 2D imaging | 3D construction of image using reflection | Radio waves to explore underground surface; creates 3D image of sub-surface | Based on the change in temperature of surrounding objects using infrared waves | Accelerometers, gyroscope, and GPS readings |
| Processing | Complex image-processing algorithms | Collection of 3D point cloud | Collection of depth images and simulation data required | Collection of heat variation of surface | Readings are directly used |
| Real-Time Application | Processor dependent | Yes | Yes | Yes | Cannot be used in real-time detection |
| Sensing Time | While approaching distress | While approaching distress | While approaching distress | While approaching distress | Only after experiencing distress |
| Characterization of Distress | Based on shape and size | Based on 3D image | Based on 3D image | Based on heat maps | Detection only along wheel path as 1D parameters |
| Light Sensitivity | Sensitive to illuminance levels, light source position | Not sensitive to light effect | Not sensitive to light effect | Not sensitive to light effect, but surface temperatures | None |
| Accuracy | Algorithm dependent | High | High | High | Highly susceptible to errors |
| Resolution | Varying low to high | High-resolution images | Depends on frequency | Needs improvement | - |
| Processing Time | Data collection and analysis is fast; response time is processor dependent | Data collection is fast and can be collected at speeds as high as 100 km/h | Delayed due to large data processing; however, data collection is automated | Data collection and analysis is fast | Poor as data processing is required |
| Cost | Economical | High | Highly expensive | Very expensive | Low |
| Data Type | 2D, 3D | 3D | 3D | 2D, 3D | 1D |
List of sensor platforms available for data acquisition.
| Sensor Platform | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Unmanned Aerial Vehicle | Large FOV. | Payload and memory restrictions. |
| Ground Vehicle | Long span availability. | Small FOV.Less cost-effective. |
| Smartphone | Lightweight technology. | Low-resolution imagery. |
Figure 1A schematic representation of next-generation sensors and their platforms.
A comparative summary of the data acquisition platforms used for RCM.
| Platforms | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| UAVs |
Well-matched for aerial reconnaissance. Unhindered large field of view. Allow for navigation through difficult terrains. Facilitate safe and quick inspections. |
Unsuitable for RCM in dense traffic roadways. Limited by weather conditions, such as wind speed and harsh climate. |
| Smartphones |
Lightweight sensors. Ease of employability due to their size. Stand-alone (hand-held device) data acquisition method and can be easily installed on vehicles. |
Limited by image resolution. Suffer noisy data due to external factors. |
| Ground robots |
Extensive usability in dense traffic areas. Scalable platforms for multi-array sensors. Find widespread serviceability in RCM. |
Limited by a small field of view. Poor cost-effectiveness in terms of long hours of operation and resources. |
Figure 2A schematic representation of a CNN.
The advantages and limitations of DL methodologies in RCM.
| DL Methodologies | Advantages | Limitations | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification |
Better than conventional ML approaches in terms of performance. |
Demands training on large volumes of data. Very high-resolution images subjected to stitched patches with distresses. Thus, the results are discontinuous and have ambiguous structural semantics. |
Ranges from 90–97% |
| Segmentation |
Performs pixel-level classifications. Pixel-wise class assignment allows an in-depth analysis of an image. Helps in determining the morphology of the distress. |
Demands training on large volumes of data. Requires post-processing algorithms to extract exact and smooth shapes from pixelated outlines. Results are prone to noises. Most of the studies seldom focus on studying the physical characteristics associated with the defects, such as width and length. |
Ranges from 70–99%. Higher accuracies observed in single-class segmentation problems. |
| Detection |
High accuracies in pavement distress detection. Provide classification as well as localization of defects. Allow the mapping of defects. With technologies, such as depth measurement systems using LiDAR, and laser, and point clouds, the measurement of physical characteristics of pavement distress is possible. |
Demands training on large volumes of data. Physical characteristics of pavement distresses remain a gap, when limited to 2D data evaluation. |
Ranges from 70–97%. Higher accuracies observed in single-class object detection, when compared to multi-classification and detection. |
List of the open-source databases on pavement images.
| Reference | Name of Database | Type | Number and Type of Images |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | GAPs | Asphalt | 1968 grayscale |
| [ | RDD2019 | Asphalt | 26,336 RGB |
| [ | Crack500 | Asphalt | 500 RGB |
| [ | GAPs384 | Asphalt | 384 grayscale |
| [ | CrackTree200 | Asphalt | 200 grayscale |
| [ | Crack Forest Dataset | Asphalt | 118 grayscale |
| [ | AEL | Asphalt | 58 grayscale |
| [ | Deep Crack | Concrete, asphalt | 537 RGB |
| [ | GAPs v2 | Asphalt | 2468 grayscale |
| [ | AigleRN | Asphalt | 38 grayscale |
| [ | Pavement Image Dataset | - | 7237 RGB |
| [ | - | Asphalt | 1362 RGB |
| [ | - | Asphalt | 630 RGB |
| [ | RoadID | Asphalt | 44,532 RGB |
| [ | UAPD | Asphalt | 3151 RGB |
| [ | CQU-BPDD | Asphalt | 60,059 RGB |
| [ | EdmCrack600 | - | 600 RGB |
| [ | Road Surface Damage | Asphalt | 18,345 RGB |