See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341230405

Data-Driven Structural Health Monitoring and Damage Detection through

Deep Learning: State-of-the-Art Review

Article  in  Sensors · May 2020

DOI: 10.3390/s20102778

CITATIONS READS

0 1,002

3 authors:

Mohsen Azimi Armin Dadras

University of British Columbia - Vancouver Iran University of Science and Technology
22 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   226 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Gokhan Pekcan
University of Nevada, Reno
59 PUBLICATIONS   915 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SHM and Vibration Control through Artificial Intelligence View project

A self-sensing magnetorheological elastomer-based adaptive bridge bearing with a wireless data monitoring system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohsen Azimi on 23 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 sensors
Article
Data-Driven Structural Health Monitoring and
Damage Detection through Deep Learning:
State-of-the-Art Review
Mohsen Azimi 1,2, * , Armin Dadras Eslamlou 3 and Gokhan Pekcan 1, *
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, USA
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 13114-16846, Iran;
armin_dadras@civileng.iust.ac.ir
* Correspondence: mohsen.azimi@nevada.unr.edu (M.A.); pekcan@unr.edu; (G.P.); Tel.: +1-775-784-4512 (G.P.)




Received: 14 April 2020; Accepted: 8 May 2020; Published: 13 May 2020


Abstract: Data-driven methods in structural health monitoring (SHM) is gaining popularity due
to recent technological advancements in sensors, as well as high-speed internet and cloud-based
computation. Since the introduction of deep learning (DL) in civil engineering, particularly in SHM,
this emerging and promising tool has attracted significant attention among researchers. The main
goal of this paper is to review the latest publications in SHM using emerging DL-based methods
and provide readers with an overall understanding of various SHM applications. After a brief
introduction, an overview of various DL methods (e.g., deep neural networks, transfer learning, etc.)
is presented. The procedure and application of vibration-based, vision-based monitoring, along with
some of the recent technologies used for SHM, such as sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), etc.
are discussed. The review concludes with prospects and potential limitations of DL-based methods
in SHM applications.

Keywords: deep learning; machine learning; structural health monitoring; crack detection; damage
detection; data science; computer vision

1. Introduction
Civil infrastructures are prone to a significant loss of functionality due to structural deficiencies
that are primarily caused by material deterioration and loadings from earthquake, wind, vehicle,
or ambient vibrations. In the United States, on a grade scale of A (excellent condition) to F (unacceptable
condition), the overall score was as low as D+ for infrastructures, and C+ for bridges with an estimated
$123Bn for retrofitting [1]. The report states that 7.5% of bridges rated structurally deficient and mostly
below standard, with many elements approaching their end of service life. Furthermore, more than 30%
of the approximately 617,000 highway bridges in the US need immediate attention due to deteriorating
conditions [2].
During recent decades, ensuring life safety and the need to reduce inspection costs have emerged
as the top priorities for practicing engineers and researchers. Therefore, the significance of cost-effective
structural health monitoring (SHM) to ensure long-term structural integrity and safety levels has
been highlighted on many platforms [3–7]. Various types of emerging SHM methods have the
potential to streamline periodic inspections and minimize the direct and indirect costs that are
associated with undesired failure of aging infrastructure in addition to conventional inspection and
non-destructive evaluation (utilizing impact echo, ultrasonic surface wave, ground-penetrating radar,
electrical resistivity, etc.) techniques [8]. At the center of any SHM method and application lies
sensors and sensor data (observable response). Recent advancements in sensor and communication

Sensors 2020, 20, 2778; doi:10.3390/s20102778 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 2 of 34

technologies (contact and contactless, wired and wireless, etc.) have created opportunities for the
acquisition of observables at an unprecedented rate and amount. Furthermore, advancements in other
supporting hardware and software have been exploited in various forms. For example, a major focus
has been on the development of new technologies to efficiently maintain the infrastructures while
using potentially viable alternatives, such as unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Current UAS research
focuses on fully autonomous multirotor platforms that can hover for extended periods and carry a
wide variety of sensors to enable SHM tasks. Such sensors may include high-resolution cameras for
visible-spectrum light, as well as infrared and near-infrared cameras, LIDAR systems, radar, and sonar.
A team of drones could inspect a bridge for defects with minimal or no management from humans on
the ground [9].
The limitations on sensor measurement capabilities and challenges in deploying sensor networks
due to power and data communication requirements have historically hindered the deployment of
dense sensor arrays on civil infrastructure. Large amounts of heterogeneous data are becoming available
from different types of sensors, as these limitations have been overcome. However, conventional
SHM methods that rely on validated multi-physics models may generally not be suitable for effective
health monitoring utilizing large sensor datasets. Fortunately, advances in data-driven techniques
revolutionized data collection and interpretation. Unlike the traditional physics-based SHM models,
data-driven models offer bottom-up solutions that include diagnosis and prognosis that include damage
detection and remaining life estimation, respectively [10]. In addition, the traditional physics-based
models require the least noise in the measured data, which is not possible when considering the nature
of structures and working conditions. Consequently, data-driven models have demonstrated versatility
and become the most attractive approaches in SHM [10,11].
Deep Learning (DL) is considered as a sub-branch of machine learning (ML), and its applications
in dealing with large amounts of data have been successfully demonstrated on many platforms. The DL
models can capture and learn information that is hidden in the data to predict different patterns
via stacked blocks of layers that form the DL skeleton [10,12]. Fortunately, the advances in parallel
computation, along with the development of DL [13], DL-based models have been successfully used in
several applications in a wide range of research areas, including computer vision, speech, and audio
recognition, and SHM. The main reasons for such significant attention toward DL-based SHM can be
summarized, as follows:
Advances in Big Data and cloud-based computation: the cost of sensors has decreased
significantly, while the cost of materials has been increasing in recent decades, which makes it possible
to deploy large numbers of sensors in host structures and transfer data wirelessly to cloud-based fast
computers. Similarly, the cost of portable devices and cameras has reduced, which makes it feasible to
access and monitor parts of large-scale infrastructures through autonomous systems [14].
Advances in computer hardware and software: multi-core processors have dramatically
improved during the last decade and, accordingly, there has been significant attention towards
the exploitation of the capabilities of graphics processor unit (GPU) for training deep neural networks
with minimum time while using dedicated software packages implemented in NVIDIA, Python,
MATLAB, as well as the online cloud-based platforms, including Amazon and Google.
Advances in Data Science: data is considered as the core component of any SHM application [15].
The term ‘Data Science’ and ‘Data Engineering’ did not exist until a few decades ago, and now it is at
the forefront of data-driven applications in several fields, including SHM. With the recent advances in
ML algorithms as well as data acquisition and data transmission, data scientists can interpret data,
detect abnormalities, or recover lost-data [16].
Advances in Transfer Learning (TL): while the DL-based research and applications are effectively
becoming more widespread, the pre-trained networks, such as VGG [17], AlexNet [18], and ResNet [19],
have been receiving increased attention for SHM-related applications, which has been frequently
proven to be very effective and time-saving.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 3 of 34

This paper provides an overview of frontier DL-based studies that made significant contributions
to SHM until recently. The main goal of this review is to present the relative findings of the latest
studies in SHM and assist researchers in this field with a condensed source of references that are
related to novel DL-based SHM methods. The peer-reviewed papers were selected from prominent
databases, including Science Direct, Web of Science, ASCE, Engineering Village, Sage, and Wiley Online
Library. In Section 2, the review begins with the introduction of DL and outlining the main concepts.
Sections 3 and 4 review the recent application of DL techniques to vibration- and vision-based SHM,
respectively. Applications of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and Smartphones as the new generation
of devices that facilitate data acquisition, monitoring, and identification of damages are explained
in Section 5. In Section 6, the Transfer Learning and the popular pre-trained networks in SHM are
described. In Section 7, the explanations regarding data science as a necessary tool for data-driven
SHM are presented and a comprehensive list of recently utilized datasets is reported. In Section 8,
popular software applications for DL-based SHM is reviewed. Finally, Section 9 is provided to list the
prospects as the big picture and highlights the main points of the paper.

2. From Shallow to Deep Learning: An Overview

Machine learning (ML) is a subcategory of artificial intelligence (AI). The goal of ML techniques is
to develop trainable algorithms that are capable of learning from available measured or simulated
response data, so that future predictions can be made [20,21]. The scope of ML methods is generally
much broader in computer science than other engineering fields; however, only relevant aspects in
SHM applications are discussed in this review. ML-based SHM models are mainly designed with the
ability to learn by themselves and, from this point of view, DL can be considered as a feature-learning
tool and a subset of ML [10,22].
ML-based SHM models can be categorized as supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement learning.
In supervised learning, an ML model can be trained whlie using a set of training data with labeled target
values. If the outputs of the model are discrete or categorical variables, the model is known as a classifier
(e.g., support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor, Bayesian method, decision trees, as well as deep
learning); otherwise, the model performs regression (e.g., neural networks, decision trees, linear and
nonlinear regression) [20,21]. The methods that are classified as unsupervised learning, cluster datasets
without explicit training procedures. Hierarchical clustering, partitional clustering, k-means, spectral
clustering, etc. are examples of clustering methods [22]. On the other hand, in reinforcement learning,
the ideal performance is determined through agents, by try and error, which leads to maximizing
the so-called reward. The performance limitations for traditional ML methods, such as designing
and pre-selection of appropriate features, can be eliminated through DL. It is noted that the use of
conventional models requires knowledge and experience for designing features for a specific SHM
applications, which is not always practical as the monitored systems become more complex (e.g.,
due to highly nonlinear behavior), the implementation of conventional models requires knowledge
and experience for designing features, which is not always practical [10].
On the other hand, the DL-based SHM methods aim to develop fully automated feature extraction
and hierarchical representation mechanisms from the raw input data through stacked blocks of deep
neural network (DNN) layers with nonlinear mappings [23,24]. Each layer in a DNN is responsible for
learning a new representation of the input response data and, thus, DL-based SHM is an end-to-end
system with no requirement for human intervention for designing features. Therefore, all of the
feature extraction, pattern classification, and regression parameters are simultaneously designed [10],
which makes DL-based SHM applicable to a wide range of problems with minimum knowledge about
the specific features.
Figure 1 depicts the aforementioned contrast between conventional and DL-based SHM.
In conventional data-driven SHM techniques: (1) expert knowledge is required to design the features;
(2) a step-by-step training procedure is required; and, (3) trained models are generally less efficient
for large-scale structures and may not be suitable for vision-based SHM applications. On the other
 (2) a step-by-step training procedure is required; and, (3) trained models are generally less efficient
for large-scale structures and may not be suitable for vision-based SHM applications. On the other
hand, for the DL-based SHM: (1) training procedure has an end-to-end structure and features are
automatically extracted; (2) hyper-parameters are trained simultaneously; and, (3) trained models are
suitable
Sensors for2778
2020, 20, large-scale structures and efficient for vision- and vibration-based SHM while dealing 4 of 34
with compressed or big data.
Various alternative DL models have been recently proposed, such as Deep Convolutional Neural
Networks
hand, for the [25], Deep SHM:
DL-based Boltzmann Machines
(1) training [26], Deep
procedure Belief
has an Networkstructure
end-to-end [10], Recurrent Neural
and features are
Networks [27],
automatically Auto-encoders
extracted; [28], and Generative
(2) hyper-parameters Adversarial
are trained Networks
simultaneously; and,(GANs) [29],models
(3) trained etc. Theare
number
suitable for of new ML structures
large-scale algorithmsand
hasefficient
been increasing; however,
for vision- a mind map SHM
and vibration-based of thewhile
frequently
dealingused
with
algorithms,
compressed orincluding
big data. deep learning (shown in dark shaded color), are presented in Figure 2.

(a)
RMS/Variance ANN

Max/Min ICA SVM

Skewness/Kurtosis LDA Random Forest

Peak/Kurtosis PCA KNN

Index
Y
Z

X
Wavelet Energy Decision Tree

Monitored Host Structure Data Acquisition Hand-crafted Features Feature Selection/Extraction Classifier Target

(b)

Y X

Monitored Host Structure Data Acquisition Autonomous Feature Extraction and Classification Target

Figure (a)(a)
1. 1.
Figure Conventional
Conventionaldata-driven
data-drivenSHM
SHM vs. (b) Deep
vs. (b) Deeplearning-based
learning-basedSHM.
SHM.

Various alternative DL models have been recently proposed, such as Deep Convolutional
Neural Networks [25], Deep Boltzmann Machines [26], Deep Belief Network [10], Recurrent Neural
Networks [27], Auto-encoders [28], and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) [29], etc. The number
of new ML algorithms has been increasing; however, a mind map of the frequently used algorithms,
including deep learning (shown in dark shaded color), are presented in Figure 2.
Inspired by the significant advances in computer vision, researchers have recently attempted
to solve civil engineering problems by adapting the vision-based deep learning methods. DL-based
SHM techniques have been used for: general SHM [30], multi-level damage detection, corrosion
detection [31], concrete surface bughole recognition [32], concrete crack detection [33], pavement
crack detection [34], acoustic emissions source detection [35], etc. One common objective of these
proposed approaches is to avoid traditional visual inspections by providing modern, economic,
safe, fast, and autonomous methods that are suitable for any type and scale of structures [3,36,37].
Several disadvantages have been reported for direct methods in image-processing for crack detection.
The main problem with the majority of the algorithms in the available literature is that the models
are custom-made for certain datasets, which may have lower performance in real-world applications
due to challenging circumstances that involve weather, temperature, camera position and quality,
shadow and light, etc. [38]. In addition, such approaches highly depend on the selected pre-processing
methods, including edge detection.
The following sections present the state-of-the-art applications of DL in SHM to provide a baseline
for future studies. Investigations with similar goals and tools are compared in terms of model
architecture, datasets, as well as their performance.
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 1 of 36
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 5 of 34

k-Means
Naïve Bayes
k-Medians
Clustering Gaussian Naïve Bayes
Hierarchical Clustering
Bayesian Multinomial Naïve Bayes
Expectation Maximization
Bayesian Network (BN)
Linear Regression
Bayesian Belief Network (BBN)
Stepwise Regression
k-Nearest Neighbor (kNN)
Logistic Regression
Regression Learning Vector Quantization (LVQ)
Ordinary Least Square Regression (OLSR)
Instance Based Self-Organizing Map (SOM)
Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS)
`
Locally Weighted Learning (LWL)
Locally Estimated Scatterplot Smoothing (LOESS)
Machine Learning Support Vector Machines (SVM)
Perceptrons
Back-Propagation Classification and Regression Tree (CART)
Neural Networks Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID)
Hopfield Network Decision Trees
Radial Basis Function Network (RBFN) Decision Stump
Conditional Decision Trees
Random Forest
Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE)
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
Boosting Ensemble Learning
Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR)
AdaBoost
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)
Gradient Boosted Regression Trees (GBRT)
Principal Component Regression (PCR)
Deep Boltzmann Machine (DBM) Dimensionality Reduction
Mixture Discriminant Analysis (MDA)
Deep Belief Network (DBN)
Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA)
Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)
Deep Learning Regularized Discriminant Analysis (RDA)
Stacked Auto-Encoder
Flexible Discriminant Analysis (FDA)
Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)
Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN)

Figure2.2. Machine
Figure Machine Learning
Learning (ML)
(ML)algorithms
algorithmsmind
mindmap.
map.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 6 of 34

3. Vibration-Based SHM through DL

Numerous vibration-based damage assessment methods have been developed with particular
applications in SHM while using ML techniques. DL has introduced new horizons in vibration-based
data-driven SHM for large-scale structures and facilitated the acquisition and processing of large sets
of data from different types of sensors [3,4,39]. Most of the conventional methods to localize damage,
such as radiography or ultrasonic methods, require prior knowledge of the approximate location of
damage [36,40,41]. Identifying candidate damage locations can be time-consuming, costly, and difficult.
However, the vibration-based methods are founded on the premise that damages (physical changes)
cause corresponding changes in vibration characteristics (especially modal shapes, frequencies, and
damping) [40], and they may be used to identify the location of damage from measured response data.
Kong et al. provide a detailed review of these techniques [42].
In general, vibration-based methods can be classified into two broad categories, namely
model-based (parametric) and non-model-based (non-parametric). Model-based techniques usually
require computational models and associated assumptions about the structural system as one key
element. They usually yield good accuracy, but, in real-world applications, the essential and accurate
information about the structural system might not necessarily be available. The difficulties in
developing reliable computational models lead to the next category, so-called, non-parametric methods.
These methods essentially perform post-processing of response (sensor) data to identify damages
without any prior assumption regarding the structural system.
ML techniques contributed to both of these categories. They are usually used to extract the modal
parameters in the scope of non-model-based methods [43,44]. The traditional ML methods involve
two phases in non-model-based methods. The first phase is feature extraction, in which sensor data
(e.g., acceleration) are used to extract effective features, thereby eliminating the cumbersome manual
feature extraction process. The second phase is a classification procedure that identifies the location
and/or level of damage [45]. Support Vector Machines (SVM), Probabilistic ANNs (PNN) [46–48],
Fuzzy ANNs (FNN) [49], and Extreme Learning Machine Networks (e.g., online sequential) [50] are
some of the popular methods that are used for vibration-based SHM.
Abdeljaber et al. [51] presented an approach for damage identification while using output-only
response data. Training data were generated for various simulated damage (loose bolt) cases from
measured acceleration response. After training separate CNNs for each damage case, the probability
of damage (PoD) indicator was defined. Examining undamaged, single damage, and multiple damage
cases, it was shown that specific cases were accurately identified with a 0.54% average error. In a similar
study, three-dimensional wireless sensors were used to record the acceleration response [52]. However,
this approach required a large amount of response data that were associated with various permutations
of loose connections that rendered the application impractical. Abdeljaber et al. [53] introduced a new
approach that only required two states of damage, namely undamaged and fully-damaged cases, in
order to alleviate the drawbacks. The computational procedure was similar to the previous investigation,
but this method could only determine the general condition of the structure. Lin et al. [54] trained a
CNN simulating FE model of a simply supported beam and considering noisy and noise-free states.
It was demonstrated that the response frequency bands, vibration modes, and their combination were
learned by a deep neural network as essential characteristics that were identifiable from sensor data.
Wang and Cha [55] proposed an unsupervised method using an acceleration signal that was obtained
from an intact laboratory-scale three-dimensional (3D) steel bridge. The response signal vectors were
normalized, and then the continuous wavelet transformation (CWT) and Fast Fourier Transformation
(FFT) were applied, which were then fed to a two-dimensional (2D)-CNN autoencoder to extract
essential features. Ten One-Class Support Vector Machines (OC-SVM) were used as novelty-detectors
corresponding to the sensors. The location of sensors with the highest novelty rates was considered to
be the approximate location of loose-bolt damage. Wavelet packet transform (WPT) of vibration signals,
as well as vision data, are efficient in damage localization, according to the studies that were conducted
by Pan et al. [20,21] and Pan and Yang [56]. A parallel configuration of CNN (Figure 3) can be used
 wavelet transformation (CWT) and Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) were applied, which were then
fed to a two-dimensional (2D)-CNN autoencoder to extract essential features. Ten One-Class Support
Vector Machines (OC-SVM) were used as novelty-detectors corresponding to the sensors. The
location of sensors with the highest novelty rates was considered to be the approximate location of
loose-bolt
Sensors 2020, 20,damage.
2778 Wavelet packet transform (WPT) of vibration signals, as well as vision data, are 7 of 34
efficient in damage localization, according to the studies that were conducted by Pan et al. [20,21]
and Pan and Yang [57]. A parallel configuration of CNN (Figure. 3) can be used for a robust damage
forlocalization
a robust damage localization
and damage and
intensity damage intensity
estimation, where theestimation,
time-domainwhere
data the
are time-domain data
processed using theare
processed using the one-dimensional (1D) CNN (upper branch) and the time-frequency-domain
one-dimensional (1D) CNN (upper branch) and the time-frequency-domain (WPT) or vision data are (WPT)
or processed
vision datausing
are processed
2D CNN using
(lower2D CNN (lower
branch), and the branch),
featureand
mapstheare
feature maps arein
concatenated concatenated
the end for in
theclassification
end for classification or regression.
or regression. Details ofDetails
the CNNof the CNN configuration
configuration in Figure in Figure
3 are 3 are available
available from Azimi from
and and
Azimi Pekcan [58]. [57].
Pekcan

Vibration Data

Input Data 1 Conv+ReLU Conv+ReLU Flatten

Pooling Pooling
(1D-CNN)
F. Maps
F. Maps F. Maps P0
Feature Maps
P1

Pn-1
Vision Data
Pn

Conv+ReLU Conv+ReLU Flatten

Pooling Pooling

F. Maps
F. Maps F. Maps
Feature Maps

Input Convolution + Pooling Layers FC Layers Output

Figure3.3.AAmulti-headed
Figure multi-headed deep
deep neural network
networkfor
fordifferent
differentinput
inputdata.
data.

BaoBao et al. [30]

et al. proposed
[30] proposed a framework
a framework forfor
anomaly
anomaly detectiosn
detectiosn that
thatis is
inspired
inspiredbybyhuman
human vision and
vision
thinking. First, the
and thinking. measured
First, the measuredacceleration response
acceleration datadata
response were transformed
were transformed to grayscale
to grayscaleand
andthen
thenfed
into deep
fed intoconvolution neuralneural
deep convolution networks (DCNNs)
networks after manual
(DCNNs) labeling.
after manual The method
labeling. The methodreached a global
reached a
global accuracy
accuracy of 87.0% of for87.0% for one-year
one-year datathat
data testing testing
canthat can be
be used forused for real-time
real-time SHM, alarming
SHM, alarming systems,
andsystems,
off-lineand off-line assessment.
assessment. Tang et al.Tang
[58] et al. [59] enhanced
enhanced this methodthis by
method
working by working with different
with different forms of
forms of response data. First, two images of time and frequency domains
response data. First, two images of time and frequency domains were stacked with, respectively, were stacked with,
respectively, red and green channels into dual-channel images. In contrary
red and green channels into dual-channel images. In contrary to the previous work using imbalanced to the previous work
using
data (i.e.,imbalanced data (i.e.
with the unequal with the
number unequal for
of samples number of samples
different classes),for different
herein data classes), herein and
were balanced dataits
were balanced and its impact was investigated. The method achieved
impact was investigated. The method achieved 93.5% accuracy and outperformed the former approach. 93.5% accuracy and
outperformed the former approach. Wu and Jahanshahi [60] presented a study on the application of
Wu and Jahanshahi [59] presented a study on the application of CNN for linear and nonlinear structural
CNN for linear and nonlinear structural dynamic response estimation and identification. They
dynamic response estimation and identification. They examined single- and multi-degree of freedom
examined single- and multi-degree of freedom systems and indicated that, in some cases, trained
systems and indicated that, in some cases, trained convolution kernels and convolution layers can
convolution kernels and convolution layers can be interpreted as numerical integration or dominant
be interpreted as numerical integration or dominant frequency extraction operators, respectively.
Furthermore, they compared the results that were obtained by the MLP technique with CNN and
showed that the latter approach is more accurate and robust against noise-contaminated input data.
Oh et al. [60] proposed a CNN model to estimate the response of tall buildings under wind excitations.
They showed that integration can be approximated by convolutional layers without a max-pooling
layer. They provided a physical interpretation of the trained convolutional layers indicating their
ability of noise filtering, eliminating irrelevant information, and preserving the dominant frequency.
Recently, Khodabandehlou et al. [61] applied 2D CNN for the overall assessment of concrete bridges
while using shake-table tests of a one-fourth scale highway bridge. They implemented a 2D CNN for
damage classification that was trained using 40 sets of experimental acceleration records and tested
on eight new sets. Four system-level damage states namely intact, minor, moderate, and extensive
were quantified and accurately predicted by the proposed model. Li and Sun [62] applied CNN to the
damage detection of an experimental cable bridge model, which compared the performance of CNN
with those of random forest, support vector machine, k-nearest neighbor, and decision tree methods
showing at least 15% outperformance in the accuracy.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 8 of 34

In general, these methods demonstrated that CNNs require a large amount of data for training.
These necessary data can be generated from finite element (FE) simulations, or from the measured
response (acquired via sensors when available). In FE simulations, an exhausting amount of response
data associated with different damage states can be easily generated, which yields accurate and
high-level damage identification subject to the accuracy of the simulation models. In other words,
it should be taken into consideration that these data differs from the recorded sensor data because of
the uncertainties and noise. The recorded response data are usually utilized for level 1 (presence of
damage) identification through an unsupervised scheme. Pathirage et al. [63] introduced an approach to
remove these drawbacks based on autoencoders. The first-order sensitivity-based method was used for
matching the FE model and the real model [64]. Subsequently, the calibrated FE model was utilized to
extract frequencies and mode shapes as training data. They proposed a two-step framework comprising
dimension reduction and relationship learning DNNs. In the first step, a deep autoencoder was used to
extract salient features and its outputs fed into a damage identification network. A pre-training scheme
was used to find the optimal weights. They considered the uncertainty effect in the FE model as well as
noise. It was shown that the proposed approach was more accurate than the traditional ANN. Pathirage
et al. [28] added a pre-processing stage and introduced a three-step method with data pre-processing,
sparse dimensionality reduction, and relationship learning steps. This framework was similar to the
former method and it demonstrated efficient and acceptable performance. Recently, Teng et al. [65]
similarly utilized the simulation data of modal strain for training a CNN and verified its performance
while using experimental response data from a steel frame. They achieved 100% accuracy in damage
localization of several single- and multi- damage scenarios. In most of the studies, the geometric
location of sensors was not considered in the input data structure. Providing a solution to feed this
information is of sufficient importance to influence accuracy. For this purpose, Sajedi and Liang [66]
developed a grid environment methodology for the real-time damage segmentation in large scale civil
infrastructures. They used a fully convolutional encoder–decoder neural network that was trained by
cumulative intensity measures as the input and damage states of nodes as output. Their proposed
approach yielded global accuracies of 96.3% and 93.2% for the detection of damage location and
severity in a FE model, respectively.
Several researchers attempted to employ other types of sensor data or use alternative features
since the acceleration response signal is highly prone to noise. Li et al. [67] collected deflection data
of a scaled-down model bridge through a fiber-optic gyroscope. They fed these data as input to a
1D-CNN to classify its damage as four classes comprising an intact class and other three damaged
states. They examined the performance by cross-validation and demonstrated that the CNN had at
least 15.3% accuracy advantage over other traditional techniques, such as random forest, support
vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), and decision trees (DT). Lopez-Pacheco et al. [68]
proposed a new frequency domain convolutional neural network (FDCNN) for damage identification
based on the Bouc–Wen hysteretic model to increase robustness against noise. The FDCNN utilized
spectral pooling operator, attenuated the noise in measurements, and was trained four times faster
than similar time-domain networks. Moreover, it was demonstrated that energy dissipation could be
captured by FDCNN, which allowed for higher diagnosis accuracy.
Hung et al. [69] developed a hybrid framework combining 1D-CNN and Long-Short Term
Memory (LSTM) network for damage detection. This network directly receives raw time-series data
and determines the presence of damage. It was shown that, with a low level of noise, the proposed
network could provide accurate detections. Ding et al. [70] created a sparse Deep Belief Network
(DBN) based on Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBM) and trained by incomplete modal data that
were extracted from FE simulations. The introduced network could successfully predict the damage
location and severity with acceptable accuracy, even in multi-damage cases and in the presence of noise.
Although their method showed better performance than swarm intelligence techniques, it is noted that
the latter techniques require fewer finite element simulations and they are able to adapt to different
types of structural systems. Therefore, instead of directly identifying the damage attributions, DNN can
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 9 of 34

be used for other purposes, such as denoising, to enhance the performance of other available techniques.
Fan et al. [71] introduced a modified version of Residual Convolutional Neural Network (ResNet) with
dropout, skip connection, and sub-pixel shuffling modules to denoise acceleration response signals.
They tested the trained network on extensively contaminated data that were measured from a TV
Tower and observed that the suggested approach could successfully identify the modal properties of
the structure.

4. Vision-Based SHM through DL

The majority of the conventional infrastructure inspection techniques are based on visual
assessments (i.e., crack existence, location, and width) that rely on experts’ insight and experience,
which may not always be reliable [72]. Besides, such techniques are costly and time-consuming [73].
The vision-based inspections can be performed by inspecting raw images (by human and without
post-processing), by image enhancement or applying basic image processing filters to magnify and
detect edges to accelerate the inspection, and by autonomous image processing tools that require
computers and ML algorithms [74,75].
The main goal of the studies in the computer vision field concerned with information extraction
from image data to automatically recognize the real-world (as visual cortex functions). Such efforts
were initiated decades ago with the aim of detection of edges, and it has been continuously developed to
problems with complex image patterns, such as facial recognition, vehicle, and pedestrian detection [39].
Jahanshahi and Masri [76] showed that morphological operations are not the only techniques in
image processing-based damage detection. Other approaches include: binarization [77], image
correlation [78,79], edge detectors [36,80–82], percolation model [83], fractal analysis [84], etc.
Most of the efforts in computer vision are concentrated in developing end-to-end learning
algorithmswhile using artificial intelligence, particularly through DCNNs that was capable of achieving
more than 95% of accuracy on image-based classification problems [85]. In addition, the application of
CNNs has been extended to pixel-level labeling within an image to detect and localize different objects
of interest while using nonlinear filters and feature maps [27]. The recent advances in computer-vision
have brought more attention to such technologies in SHM as one of the most effective tools in
the non-contact assessment of deflection [86,87], corrosion [88], concrete spalling [89,90], concrete
and pavement cracks [33,91,92], fatigue detection [93], and surface and subsurface damages [94,95].
Dorafshan et al. carried out a comprehensive study [96] to discuss the performance of vision-based
image processing techniques in SHM, which employ artificial intelligence.

4.1. Crack Detection through Vision-Based DL

Infrastructures, particularly aging concrete structures, are prone to the formation of cracks due
to changing loading conditions, corrosion, etc. Cracks in concrete or road pavements usually appear
as lines with random orientations and intensity. Usually, these lines are darker and connected, and
a simple crack detection can be carried out while using properly prescribed thresholds. Generally,
two approaches have been used by researchers in vision-based SHM, particularly in crack detection,
the image binarization method [97], and the sequential image processing method [83]. Binarization
techniques for transforming images into black and white pixels, or cracked and sound pixels, [98],
as well as mathematical morphology [99] can facilitate and improve the accuracy of the detection
process due to the nature of cracks.
Prior to the introduction of DL in crack detection, the traditional approaches have been using
pixel groups with similar color levels. The earlier generation of heuristic methods for vision-based
crack detection in concrete structures was based on edge detection algorithms by applying filters,
such as Roberts, Prewitt, Sobel, and LoG (in the spatial domain), or Butterworth and Gaussian (in the
frequency domain) [100]. Figure 4 compares the results of applying different filters for detecting cracks
on a concrete surface.
pixel groups with similar color levels. The earlier generation of heuristic methods for vision-based
pixel groups with similar color levels. The earlier generation of heuristic methods for vision-based
crack detection in concrete structures was based on edge detection algorithms by applying filters,
crack detection in concrete structures was based on edge detection algorithms by applying filters,
such as Roberts, Prewitt, Sobel, and LoG (in the spatial domain), or Butterworth and Gaussian (in the
such as Roberts, Prewitt, Sobel, and LoG (in the spatial domain), or Butterworth and Gaussian (in the
frequency domain) [101]. Figure 4 compares the results of applying different filters for detecting
frequency domain) [101]. Figure 4 compares the results of applying different filters for detecting
cracks on a concrete surface.
cracks2020,
Sensors on a20,concrete
2778 surface. 10 of 34

Figure
Figure 4. 4. Concrete
Concrete surface
surface crack
crack detection
detection using
using different
different edge
edge detection
detection filters.
filters.
Figure 4. Concrete surface crack detection using different edge detection filters.
Abdel-Qaderet etal.al.[81]
Abdel-Qader [80]showed
showedthat thatthe
thefast
fastHaar
Haartransform
transformhas hashigher
higheraccuracy
accuracy(86%)(86%)asas
Abdel-Qader et al. [81] showed that the fast Haar transform has higher accuracy (86%) as
compared to the other filters, such as Canny and Sobel, with 76% and 68% of accuracies,
compared to the other filters, such as Canny and Sobel, with 76% and 68% of accuracies, respectively. respectively.
compared to the other filters, such as Canny and Sobel, with 76% and 68% of accuracies, respectively.
Theimage
The imagedataset
datasetthat
thatwaswasused
usedininthis
thisstudy,
study,asaswell
wellasasthe
theclassification
classificationcriteria,
criteria,were
werefurther
further
The image dataset that was used in this study, as well as the classification criteria, were further
improved by Dorafshan et al. [96]. In general, major ML-based problems include
improved by Dorafshan et al. [97]. In general, major ML-based problems include three techniques: three techniques:
improved by Dorafshan et al. [97]. In general, major ML-based problems include three techniques:
classification,localization,
classification, localization,and andsegmentation.
segmentation.Figure Figure 5 illustrates
5 illustrates thethefrequent
frequentcrackcrackdetection
detection
classification, localization, and segmentation. Figure 5 illustrates the frequent crack detection
approaches:
approaches: classification
classification [25],
[25], object
object localization
localization [23],
[23], andand pixel-level
pixel-level segmentation
segmentation [101].Using
[102]. Using the
the
approaches: classification [25], object localization [23], and pixel-level segmentation [102]. Using the
classification method, the dataset is labeled as cracked, non-cracked (sound). In the
classification method, the dataset is labeled as cracked, non-cracked (sound). In the crack localization crack localization
classification method, the dataset is labeled as cracked, non-cracked (sound). In the crack localization
method,the
method, thecracks
crackswithin
withineacheachinput
inputimage
imageare arelabeled
labeledwith
withbounding
boundingboxes.boxes.InInthe thepixel-level
pixel-level
method, the cracks within each input image are labeled with bounding boxes. In the pixel-level
segmentation method, the pixels are classified as cracked and non-cracked
segmentation method, the pixels are classified as cracked and non-cracked [103]. [102].
segmentation method, the pixels are classified as cracked and non-cracked [103].

(a)(a) (b)(b) (c)(c)

Figure
Figure 5. 5. Illustration
Illustration of of
(a)(a) crack
crack and
and non-crack
non-crack image
image classification,
classification, (b)(b) object
object localization,
localization, andand
(c)(c)
Figure 5. Illustration of (a) crack and non-crack image classification, (b) object localization, and (c)
pixel-level
pixel-level segmentation
segmentation (open-access
(open-access images
images from
from Yangetetal.al.[102]).
Yang [101]).
pixel-level segmentation (open-access images from Yang et al. [102]).
Dorafshan
Dorafshan et et
al.al. discussed
discussed a comparison
a comparison ofof different
different edge
edge detection
detection methods
methods and
and performance
performance
Dorafshan et al. discussed a comparison of different edge detection methods and performance
of different filters have been discussed by [96]. Based on ANN-based image processing
of different filters have been discussed by [97]. Based on ANN-based image processing methods, methods,
of different filters have been discussed by [97]. Based on ANN-based image processing methods,
several researchers highlighted potential applications of autonomous crack detection
several researchers highlighted potential applications of autonomous crack detection techniques. techniques.
several researchers highlighted potential applications of autonomous crack detection techniques.
Jahanshahi
Jahanshahi and
and Masri
Masri [103]
[104] proposed
proposed ML-based
ML-based models
models using
using SVMs
SVMs forfor concrete
concrete crack
crack detection,
detection,
Jahanshahi and Masri [104] proposed ML-based models using SVMs for concrete crack detection,
based on morphological features. The crack width was measured by identifying
based on morphological features. The crack width was measured by identifying the centerlinethe centerline of cracks
of
based on morphological features. The crack width was measured by identifying the centerline of
in their study. Using the abovementioned techniques, an automated vision-based crack detections
framework was proposed by Yeum and Dyke [104] for bridge inspection.
Only a limited number of studies have attempted to compare the performance of recently
developed crack detection methods by other researchers [96,97,105]. In addition, most of the recent
studies have not clearly described the accuracy and classification criteria, including true positive (TP)
metrics for reproducibility of the results. Furthermore, a comparison of several studies from a broadly
different range of datasets [106], as well as comparisons using small datasets or the idealized datasets
that were collected in laboratory conditions [96] do not reflect the merits of one method over another.
Dorafshan et al. [37] and Talab et al. [83] proposed an automatic crack detection using the OTSU
threshold [107] and image filtering. Such methods were later improved by implementing terrestrial
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 11 of 34

laser scanning, which has three main steps: shading correction, crack detection, and mapping [108], and
could be implemented in an automated manner using robotic systems yielding up to 95% accuracy [109].
Deep CNNs have been consistently developed by researchers in the computer vision field;
Rawat and Wang present more details regarding the background of the CNN developments in image
classification [110]. Following such significant achievements, several studies adapted CNN to detect
surface and subsurface cracks in pavement and concrete. Earlier studies used DCNN to classify
concrete or pavement surfaces by sliding-window method, but, recently, semantic segmentation through
an end-to-end pipeline using fully convolutional networks (FCN) has attracted attention [111,112].
This approach has been employed to tackle challenging classification problems in different fields,
including SHM. Recently, Chen and Jahanshahi [113] developed an enhanced CNN-based crack
detection method while using a Naïve Bayes data fusion scheme for the extracted data from video
frames. Kim et al. [73] proposed a faster CNN-based model to determine pixel-wise location while
using image binarization.
Detecting cracks in tunnels is of vital importance. They might be a potential sign of a hidden
danger that can pose serious threats to users or even become a trigger to the catastrophic collapse.
On the other hand, identifying tunnel cracks is challenging, because there are many noise patterns in
the tunnel images. Therefore, developing automated accurate methods for monitoring their surfaces
can effectively enhance safety and decrease the potential costs. Li et al. [114] created a database of
60,000 tunnel crack images for training, testing, and comparing different crack segmentation networks.
According to their study, by introducing clique block and attention mechanisms into U-net, it can
significantly outperform basic U-net, fully convolutional networks (FCN), SegNet, and multi-scale
fusion crack detection (MFCD) for detecting cracks in tunnel noisy images.
Soloviev et al. [115], Li et al. [116], Tong et al. [117], and Fan et al. [118] demonstrated the use of
DCNNs to detect and recognize cracks as defects with quantifiable properties in applications for crack
detection on pavement surfaces (e.g., crack length and size). Fan et al. [119] proposed a CNN-based
multi-label classifier by improving the positive-to-negative ratio of samples. In another study by Wang
et al. [120], they proposed a CNN model with three blocks of convolutional layers followed by two FC
layers, consisting of 1,246,240 trainable parameters in total, which could detect surface cracks from the
subdivided images of asphalt pavement. Tong et al. [117] developed another two-stage CNN-based
model to also detect asphalt pavement crack length. A fast pavement crack detection network (FPCNet)
was developed by Liu et al. [121] using encoder-decoder configurations.
The majority of studies in the literature validated the performance of DL models implemented in
laboratory conditions with image datasets of intact and cracked surfaces, which still has limitations
in addressing the real-world conditions. The acquired surface images may be contaminated with
noise, shadow, dust, or extra brightness, which requires more robust and intelligent techniques for
classification. Depending on the applications, such practical challenges have been addressed in several
studies. Kim and Cho [122] defined a five-class crack detection problem using a large volume of images
collected from the Internet as well as their augmentations. Their study considered field conditions to
tackle real-world limitations that are associated with several uncertainty factors, as well as the inability
in employing contextual information, such as the nature of materials, structural components, and
the region of interest (ROI). Cha et al. discussed the feasibility of autonomous DL-based methods
for crack detection, and Cha and Choi [123] proposed CNN-based classifiers and applied a sliding
window method on 256 × 256 RGB images of concrete surfaces to detect cracks. Their proposed
methods achieved an accuracy of 97% for concrete image datasets when considering different light
intensities associated with variable weather conditions. Jang et al. developed a DL-based crack
detection method [124] using hybrid images of combined vision and infrared thermography of macro-
and micro-cracks. They observed that the hybrid images made the network robust against varying
operational conditions such as shadow, dust on the surface, rust, etc. Moreover, they developed a
sticking-type UAV that can be utilized in the inspection of large reinforced concrete civil infrastructures.
Jang et al. [125] devised a ring-type robot for crack evaluation of circular bridge piers in a controlled
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 12 of 34

manner. This robot provides fast scanning and high-quality raw images for crack detection. Feeding
these images, they trained a CNN that was able to precisely segment the crack maps on the piers.
The proposed system could identify images with 97.47% recall and 90.92% precision, according to the
experimental results.
In typical region-based classification, or object detection, a bounding box is created around the
region of interest (e.g., cracks, spalling, components, etc.) [96]. For example, Ali et al. [126] proposed
a modified cascade face detection method that uses the Viola–Jones algorithm for crack detection
on concrete walls while using bounding boxes around the region of the crack. This method was
modified by Ramana et al. [127,128] to automatically detect loosened bolts in steel structures with
higher efficiency when compared to the earlier studies using hand-crafted features [129].
Yeum et al. used region-based CNNs (R-CNN) [130] for post-event evaluation of buildings with
an accuracy of nearly 60%; however, this technique requires further developments to also include
multiple damage scenarios. Xu et al. proposed a fast R-CNN approach [131] to detect different
damage types in concrete structures as well as damage locations using bounding boxes. Fast R-CNN
and Faster R-CNN were developed by Girshick [132] and Ren et al. [133], respectively. Another
newly-developed region-based segmentation technique is Mask R-CNN [134] that segments images
into objects, which can be used for crack detection, concrete spalling, and rebar detection. Cha et al.
proposed a faster R-CNN for detecting multiple damage types, and Cha et al. developed the method
to localize multiple damage types, including steel and bolt corrosion and delamination. One of the
main drawbacks of the regular CNN approaches for detecting cracks is their deficiency in specifying
out-of-plane cracks. Deng et al. [135] recently embedded deformable modules into various R-CNN and
fully convolutional networks to overcome this drawback. When comparing the suggested technique
with regular networks, they observed that the modified approach not only improves the detection
accuracy of out-of-plane cracks, but also enhances the accuracy for other cases.
Other studies proposed pixel-level classification methods [33] to provide more precise information
regarding the path and intensity of cracks. In most of the published research, the binary classification
problems include distinguishing ‘crack’ and ‘non-crack’ regions or pixels. For more precise classification,
Dung and Anh [33] proposed semantic segmentation to also identify path and density,. The typical
object detection models attempt to fit a bounding box around the ROI [85], and semantic segmentation
methods [136] or pixel-level classification [101], should be used to precisely delineate damage level,
shape, and location. For pavement crack detection problems, Zhang et al. [27,137] proposed CrackNet,
an efficient model based on R-CNNs. Xu et al. [93] developed a DL-based fatigue crack identification
technique for long-span steel box girder bridges using deep CNN, as well as a framework for steel
crack detection while using restricted Boltzmann machine [138] with high accuracy. Hoskere et al.
proposed a pixel-wise DCNN with a parallel configuration and a fully CNN (FCN) [139,140] to localize
and classify different damages, including concrete cracks, spalling, exposed rebars, corrosion, fatigues
cracks, and asphalt cracks.

4.2. Structural-Component Recognition and Change Detection through Vision-Based DL

It is essential to perform a global-level inspection, as well as the structural component recognition
process, before moving closer to the details, to understand the relationship between damage and safety
of structures [86]. However, recent studies in DL-based SHM have not fully addressed this concern.
Even the video-based crack detection models do not interpret the impact of damage in a global context.
Yeum et al. [141] proposed a CNN-based technique to classify civil infrastructure images by recognizing
regions of interest. Gao and Mosalam used similar object-detection techniques [142] to classify
structural components as well as damage types. A Faster R-CNN algorithm was used by Liang [143]
to automatically detect structural components of the RC bridge system using boundary boxes.
Narazakia et al. [144] used both global and close-up views to train two recurrent neural networks
(RNNs) while using a single image-based pre-trained FCN for structural component recognition from
video image data. The simple RNN and ConvLSTM units in their models could learn memories of the
 infrastructure images by recognizing regions of interest. Gao and Mosalam used similar object-
detection techniques [144] to classify structural components as well as damage types. A Faster R-
CNN algorithm was used by Liang [145] to automatically detect structural components of the RC
bridge system using boundary boxes.
Narazakia et al. [146] used both global and close-up views to train two recurrent neural networks
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 13 of 34
(RNNs) while using a single image-based pre-trained FCN for structural component recognition from
video image data. The simple RNN and ConvLSTM units in their models could learn memories of
theregion
focus focus ofregion of theThe
the video. video. The ground-truth
ground-truth labels forlabels for the
the video video
frames of frames of flying
flying UAV were UAV were
synthetically
synthetically created using a game engine [86]. Their overall goals were associated
created using a game engine [85]. Their overall goals were associated with the recognition, localization,with the
andrecognition, localization, classification
structural component and structuralfrom
component
complex classification
scenes. Eachfrom complex
input imagescenes. Each inputor
is automatically
image is automatically or semi-automatically down-sampled using convolutional layers and then up-
semi-automatically down-sampled using convolutional layers and then up-sampled to generate the
sampled to generate the segmented image that is similar to the ground truth, as shown in Figure 6.
segmented image that is similar to the ground truth, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Illustrations of bridge components recognition.

Figure 6. Illustrations of bridge components recognition.

Alcantarilla et al. proposed street-view (ground-level) change detection [145] using

Alcantarilla et al. proposed street-view (ground-level) change detection [147] using
deconvolutional networks. Using a CNN model, Stent et al. [146] proposed a change detection
deconvolutional networks. Using a CNN model, Stent et al. [148] proposed a change detection
method for tunnels. The main assumptions in these studies were that the cracks are connected slender
method for tunnels. The main assumptions in these studies were that the cracks are connected slender
andand
darker lines
darker onon
lines concrete
concretesurfaces
surfaces[83].
[84].
5. Applications of UAVs and Portable Smartphones for DL-Based SHM
5. Applications of UAVs and Portable Smartphones for DL-based SHM
DeepDeeplearning
learningnetworks
networks facilitated thedamage
facilitated the damage identification
identification tasktask by automating
by automating the process
the process and
andachieving
achieving acceptable
acceptable levels
levels of accuracy.
of accuracy. However,
However, in somein some
cases,cases, inspectors
inspectors do not dohavenotaccess
havetoaccess
all
to all
partsparts of structures
of structures to acquire
to acquire image image
data (for data (for vision-based
vision-based approaches) approaches) or sensors
or sensors data data (for
(for vibration-
vibration-based
based methods). methods).
This is one This is one
of the mainofdifficulties
the main in difficulties
structures,insuch
structures, such as bridges,
as tall buildings, tall buildings,
and
bridges,
heritageand heritage[149].
structures structures
Drones [147].
wereDrones
proposed were proposed
as tools as tools for
for inspecting suchinspecting
structuressuch structures
to overcome
to these
overcome these [150].
difficulties difficulties
Drones, [148]. Drones,
Unmanned Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles Aerial
(UAVs),Vehicles (UAVs),Aerial
or Unmanned or Unmanned
Systems
Aerial Systems
(UASs), (UASs), based
are classified are classified
on their based
level ofon their level of
automaticity, automaticity,
size, size, and other
and other capabilities. They capabilities.
minimize
the minimize
They need for physical
the needlabor in addition
for physical laborto in
being time-saving,
addition to beingcost-effective,
time-saving, safe, available, and
cost-effective, safe,
accurate.and
available, In recent years,
accurate. Indifferent studies
recent years, have been
different conducted
studies have in order
been to provide
conducted inaorder
framework for
to provide
using UAVs,
a framework forshowing their applicability
using UAVs, showing their and applicability
address some and of their disadvantages.
address Whendisadvantages.
some of their considering
the considering
When rapid developments
the rapid in developments
drone industries, nowadays,
in drone utilizing
industries, intelligentutilizing
nowadays, UAVs for wireless data
intelligent UAVs
acquisition is not considered as a future technology.
for wireless data acquisition is not considered as a future technology.
The The
mainmain developersofofUAVs
developers UAVsfor forbridge
bridgeandand other
other structural
structural inspections
inspectionsare arethe
thedepartments
departments
of transportation (DOT) and the universities in the USA [85,149–152]. Along with thedevelopments
of transportation (DOT) and the universities in the USA [86,151–154]. Along with the developments
in wireless data transmission techniques, several studies have been conducted that utilized UASs
in wireless data transmission techniques, several studies have been conducted that utilized UASs
technologies to broaden vision-based inspection in SHM [14,155,156], as well as vibration-based
technologies to broaden vision-based inspection in SHM [14,153,154], as well as vibration-based
techniques [157].
techniques [155].
Since DL-based SHM is an emerging technology, the capability of UAVs for robust real-time
evaluation is still a challenge. Kim et al. [122] demonstrated the feasibility of UAV-based inspection
of a concrete retaining wall. They analyzed videos (two frames/second) that were recorded from
approximately 2m from the concrete surface. By embedding image processing and computer vision
systems in UAVs, instant crack detection tasks could be safely done with minimum costs and maximum
greater accuracy [156]. For example, Jang et al. [157] mounted a hybrid image scanning system (HIS)
combining the laser thermography cameras and vision sensors in order to detect concrete cracks.
For bridge inspections, Kim et al. [158] deployed a high-resolution camera on a commercial
UAV to collect images for crack detection and generating damage map of a concrete bridge.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 14 of 34

Kang and Cha [14,159] developed an autonomous UAV system for SHM while using ultrasonic
beacons to replace the role of GPS that performs poorly in partially covered places, such as under bridge
decks. In addition, Huynh et al. [160] used a UAV for the quasi-real-time inspection of connection bolts
on a full-scale girder bridge. Dorafshan et al. [75] examined the performance of different UASs for
detecting cracks in steel bridges and concluded that instability in GPS-denied and windy environment
might pose major challenges for UAS-assisted inspections.
UAVs were also employed to create image datasets for masonry heritage structures [161].
The images collected by UAVs are sometimes noisy or have relatively low contrast; in addition,
the unavailability of GPS signals in indoor environments or under bridges interrupts their
performance [162]. Duarte et al. [163] discussed the performance of the networks when considering
multi-resolution images derived from satellite, manned, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Hoskerre
et al. [140] proposed a framework to convert UAV data to DL-based condition-aware models for
automating and accelerating post-earthquake inspections. They trained three networks for building
information, the presence of damage, and the types of damage. Moreover, they suggested an
approach for modal identification of the structures while using videos recorded from different parts
of a structure through a divide and conquer strategy [164]. Because of the growing attention to
smartphone applications, several studies used them as inexpensive tools for SHM [102]. Images taken
by smartphones have been utilized for the identification of various damages, such as pavements [165],
bolt loosening [160,166], volumetric damages [167], and concrete cracks. Zhao et al. [168] developed a
mobile-based method for measuring the forces in cables of cable-stayed bridges.
Using the framework of Core ML as well as the Xcode, Li, and Zhao [169,170] integrated a trained
CNN model into a developed smartphone application in order to detect the presence of concrete surface
cracks on a bridge with 99% accuracy. Furthermore, using CNN, Wang et al. [171] developed a real-time
efflorescence and spalling detection of historic brick masonry buildings. Based on 99 × 99 RGB images
that were acquired by low-cost smartphone sensors, Zhang et al. [34] developed a deep CNN model
with six convolution layers for automatic crack detection on road surfaces, which was a binary
classification task. Pauly et al. proposed a deeper CNN model [172] to enhance the performance of
CNNs based on the 99 × 99 RGB images. Maeda et al. [173] prepared a large-scale dataset while using
a smartphone that was installed on a car dashboard, which used images to develop an end-to-end
public application so-called ‘RoadDamageDetector’, which classifies different types of road damages.

6. Transfer Learning (TL) through Pre-Trained Models

When the dataset is relatively small and there is a pre-trained network that has already been
trained on a larger dataset, an efficient way is to fine-tune the existing network for the new similar
classification task. Using transfer learning techniques (TL), the training time can be minimized by
transferring the coefficients from the base model instead of starting with randomly assigned weights.
The depth of the network has a direct relationship with the number of training parameters. Therefore,
deep networks require a considerably long time and a large amount of data for training. Transfer
Learning (TL) can alleviate this issue by providing prior knowledge (weights) that was obtained from
a similar problem [174]; therefore, fine-tuning can be carried out with a lower computational cost and
fewer data samples. Figure 7 illustrates four typical TL strategies thatare based on the target data size
in its similarity to the source domain. For a CNN model with convolutional layers in series, followed
by fully connected (FC) layers, a common practice is to fine-tune the last FC layers, or replacing them
with new layers. Therefore, the convolutional layers are frozen and skipped during the training.
The application of TL is an emerging area in SHM, and novel studies are being carried out in
classification problems in vision-based SHM [142]. Pre-trained CNN models can even be used for
new problems with completely different output classes. In pavement crack detection, TL has been
proven to be an efficient approach for improving the accuracy of the classification problem [175].
For example, Gopalakrishan et al. [176] were able to perform crack detection on Hot-Mix Asphalt,
as well as Portland Cement Concrete, through the TL technique. They used the VGG16 network that
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 15 of 34

was trained on ImageNet data. Dorafshan et al. [96] compared the performance of a fully trained
AlexNet model with the same AlexNet, but in transfer learning and no-training modes for concrete
crack detection tasks. Perez et al. [177] applied a pre-trained VGG-16 for localization of building
deteriorations that stem from dampness such as stain, peeling, and crazing. Özgenel and Sorguç [178]
conducted a comprehensive study with an emphasis on the dataset size, number of training epochs,
number of convolution layers, as well as the trainability and transferability features of each CNN-based
pre-trained models. Wu et al. [179] designed an efficient DCNN that was developed using transfer
learning (of VGG16 and ResNet18) and Taylor expansion-based network pruning. The network pruning
technique refers to removing the least important neurons and filters of a belief network. They showed
that the proposed approach reduces memory demands and inference time. This technique can be
applied to decrease the need for a huge amount of training data without losing performance in damage
detection. Table 1 provides further examples of TL applications using the popular pre-trained DNNs
for SHM problems. The most popular pre-trained DNNs that have been frequently used for SHM
problems are summarized in the following:
AlexNet: AlexNet [18], one of the earlier DL models, has been developed to classify objects in the
images, and it won the ImageNet [180] classification competition in 2012. It has five convolutional and
max-pooling layers, three fully-connected layers, and a 1000-way softmax output layer (25 layers in
total). When considering the concrete surface cracks as objects, AlexNet can be fine-tuned for crack
detection purposes through transfer learning [96,122]. AlexNet can be loaded to Matlab or Python
using the dedicated toolboxes.
VGG: VGG16 [17] is a deeper version of AlexNet, which itself has six different configurations
namely A, A-LRN, B, C, VGG16, and VGG19. VGG16 and VGG19 are the popular versions with 16
and 19 layers, and 138 and 144 million parameters, respectively.
Inception: the kernel size is related to the distribution of salient information. The large and small
kernel sizes are suitable for global and local distribution of information, respectively. Using different
filter sizes in parallel can resolve the problem of choosing suitable sizes. Different versions of inception
modules, so-called V1, V2, V3, and V4, have evolved iteratively [181].
ResNet: Resnet50 [182] is a deep network that implements residual learning. It was introduced by
Facebook AI Research (FAIR). Although it provides significantly high accuracy, it requires considerable
processing time because of the significant depth of the network. ResNet50 has 50 main layers and 177
in total, and ResNet101 has 101 main layers with 347 layers in total [19].
GoogleNet: GoogleNet was proposed by Szegedy et al. [19]. It has 22 main layers (144 in
total) [182] but 12 times fewer parameters than AlexNet. Using weighted Gabor filters [183] with
various sizes in the inception sparse architecture allows for a deeper and wider network without
increasing the computational budget.
ZFNet: ZFNet is the fine-tuned version of AlexNet, which was the Winner of ILSVLC 2013 in
image classification. The Architecture of AlexNet and ZFNet is similar, and the differences are mainly
focused on filter size and stride that resulted in reducing the error rates [184].
CrackNet: the first version of CrackNet (CrackNet I) was developed for crack detection on
three-dimensional (3D) asphalt surfaces with the explicit objective of pixel-perfect accuracy [27,137].
This CNN does not use max-pooling layers and it achieved 90.13% precision and 87.63% recall.
The second version (CrackNet II) enhanced the CrackNet I in terms of robustness against noise and
increasing performance speed by removing the handcrafted feature generation, adding learnable
parameters, and increasing the depth of the network. This CNN achieved 90.20% precision and 89.06%
recall, which are better than the original version [185].
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 36

in its similarity to the source domain. For a CNN model with convolutional layers in series, followed
by fully connected (FC) layers, a common practice is to fine-tune the last FC layers, or replacing16
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778
them
of 34
with new layers. Therefore, the convolutional layers are frozen and skipped during the training.

Frozen

Trainable

Target Domain Data Size

Conv. layers

FC layers

Source-Target Domain Data Similarity

Figure 7.
Figure Fourtransfer
7. Four transferlearning
learningapproaches
approachesbased
basedon
ontarget
targetdomain
domainsize
sizeand
and similarity
similarityto
tothe
the source
source
domain [57].
domain [58].
Table 1. Examples of Transfer Learning (TL) Applications in SHM using pre-trained deep neural
The application
networks (DNNs).of TL is an emerging area in SHM, and novel studies are being carried out in
classification problems in vision-based SHM [144]. Pre-trained CNN models can even be used for
Pre-Trained Network Purpose/Application Researches in SHM
new problems with completely different output classes. In pavement crack detection, TL has been
• Crack detection
proven to be an efficient approach •
for improving the accuracy of the classification problem [178]. For
Mixed reality systems
example, Gopalakrishan et al.• [179] were able
Bolt loosening to perform crack detection on Hot-Mix Asphalt, as well
detection
[32,34,102,141,144,145,176,178,
VGG (VGG-16,
as Portland Cement19) [17]
Concrete, • through
Corrosion detection
the TL technique. They used the VGG16 network 186–194] that was
• Component recognition
trained on ImageNet data. Dorafshan • et al. [97] compared
Steel damage condition assessment the performance of a fully trained AlexNet
model with the same AlexNet, but in transfer learning and no-training modes for concrete crack
• Post-earthquake assessment

detection tasks. Perez

Inception (Inception-V2, V3, V4)et
1 al.
• [180] applied a pre-trained VGG-16 for localization of building
Crack detection
[33,169,176,196,197]
deteriorations that stem from• dampness
[19,181,195] Damage detection
such as of historic
stain,masonry
peeling,buildings
and crazing. Özgenel and Sorguç [181]
conducted a comprehensive •study with
Crack an emphasis on the dataset size, number of training epochs,
detection
ResNet (ResNet-20, 50, 101, 152) [33,139,144,171,178,190,191,194,
number of convolution • as
layers, Bridge
well component
as the extraction
trainability and transferability features of each CNN-
[185] 198–200]
• Structural inspection
based pre-trained models. Wu et al. [182] designed an efficient DCNN that was developed using
transfer learning (of VGG16• and Crack detection
ResNet18) and Taylor expansion-based network pruning. The
• Comprehensive maintenance and inspection [73,96,122,124,143,178,193,196,
AlexNet [18]technique refers to removing the least important neurons and filters of a belief
network pruning • sUAS-assisted structural inspections 201–203]
network. They showed that •the Post-earthquake
proposed approachassessment reduces memory demands and inference time.

This technique can be applied • toCrack

decrease the need for a huge amount of training data without losing
detention
performanceGoogleNet [19]
in damage • Post-disaster
detection. Table inspection
1 provides further examples of TL[143,157,169,178,196,198,202]
applications using the
• Comprehensive maintenance and inspection for bridges
popular pre-trained DNNs for SHM problems. The most popular pre-trained DNNs that have been
• Road damage detection
frequentlyMobileNet
used for SHM problems are summarized in the following: [173]

AlexNet: AlexNet [18], •oneSegmentation

UNet, SegCaps, SegNet [113]
of the earlier DL models, has been developed to classify [186,194]
objects in
• Pixel-level crack detection
the images, and it won the ImageNet [183] classification competition in 2012. It has five convolutional
and max-pooling layers, three • fully-connected layers, and a 1000-way softmax output layer (25 layers
ZF-Net for fast R-CNN.
• Region-based DL for detecting multiple damage types
in total). When considering the
ZF-net [187] •
concrete surface cracks as objects, AlexNet can be fine-tuned
Detection and localization of multiple types of damage [167,203–205]
for crack
detection purposes through •transfer learning
Comprehensive [97,124].
maintenance andAlexNet can
inspection for be loaded to Matlab or Python
bridges
• Volumetric damage quantification
using the dedicated toolboxes.
VGG: VGG16 [17] is a deeper
CrackNet, CrackNet-R [139,188]
• Crackversion
detection of AlexNet, which itself has six different configurations
[27,101,194]
• Pixel-level road crack detection
namely A, A-LRN, B, C, VGG16, and VGG19. VGG16 and VGG19 are the popular versions with 16
1 V denotes the version.
and 19 layers, and 138 and 144 million parameters, respectively.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 17 of 34

7. Databases for DL-Based SHM

Data are an essential part of all data-driven techniques in SHM. During recent years, the importance
of reliable data for SHM applications has become obvious along with the emerging DL-based algorithms
that can process and interpret massive amounts of data [15]. To date, no open-access and standard
dataset for DL-based SHM has been published; however, individuals have created datasets generated
under laboratory-controlled environments for limited applications. For example, Maguire et al. [206]
created a database, called SDNET2018, which contains 56,000 images of a bridge deck, wall, and
pavement, which is suitable for DL-based applications. The dataset by Hoskere et al. [139] consists
of images from different types of structures, such as buildings, bridges, dams, pavements, as well
as laboratory tests images. For small size datasets, the augmentation techniques can be applied,
including geometry transformation, color conversion, and adding noise or blurring, which address
the camera position and image quality as well as the light and weather conditions in real-world [122].
More sophisticated techniques, such as a generative adversarial network (GAN), have been used for
data augmentation for structural images [207]. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the vibration-based and
vision-based datasets that have been recently used in DL-based SHM. The goal of the studies, as well
as the nature of the datasets, size, and other characteristics, are also included.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 18 of 34

Table 2. Examples of vibration-based datasets for deep learning (DL)-based SHM.

Reference(s) Goal Dataset

Zhang et al. [208] Vibration-based structural state identification 8595, 14,465, and 4800 raw acceleration data (9 Ch. × 10,000) for each of the bridges
Damage identification by making a deep mapping between the modal 20,000 data samples containing the first three frequencies and mode shapes
Pathirage et al. [28]
characteristics and structural damage obtained by Eigen analysis of finite element model
Avci et al. [52] Wireless vibration-based bolt loosening detection 330 signals each containing 245,760 samples of velocity
Vibration-based damage detection and finding the stiffness reduction Modal information of 10,300 damage cases that include the first seven frequencies
Pathirage [63]
of elements (7 arrays) and the regarding mode shapes at 14 beam-column joints (98 arrays)
10,014 time and frequency response of a long-span cable-stayed bridge stacked in
Tang et al. [58] Data anomaly detection and classification
two channels with the resolution of 100 × 100
6800 frequency domain 50 × 50 matrices calculated by Fast Fourier Transformation
Wang and Cha [55] Vibration-based loosened bolt localization
(FFT) of acceleration signals of a lab-scale bridge
Damage identification and localization of buildings controlled with
Yu et al. [209] 1900 group of 5 × 2832 matrices of power spectral density
smart devices
Lin and Nie [54] Vibration-based feature extraction for damage detection 459 set of vertical acceleration signals collected from nine nodes in 1024 × 9 matrices
Vision-based anomaly detection and classification in a long-span
Bao et al. [30] 333,792 of acceleration signals plotted in 100 × 100 one channel images
cable-stayed bridge
Abdeljaber et al. [53] Bolt loosening localization on a lab-scale steel grandstand simulator 749 × 12 vectors of acceleration signals with 128 × 1 dimension

Table 3. Examples of vision-based datasets for DL-based SHM.

Reference(s) Goal Dataset

Gulgec et al. [210] Robust damage detection and localization of steel connections 30,000 damaged and 30,000 healthy strain distribution matrices in 28 × 56 dimension
Ye et al. [211] Concrete crack detection 14,000 concrete crack images with 80 × 80 pixel resolutions obtained from a concrete beam test
2400 images with 640 × 640 pixel resolution of concrete cracking, concrete spalling, rebar
Xu et al. [131] Multi-type seismic damage identification and localization
exposure, and rebar buckling
Nahata et al. [193] Post-earthquake damage extent identification of buildings 1200 RGB images with 224 × 224 × 3 pixel resolution
Beckman et al. [167] Concrete spalling damage detection and quantification 444 concrete spalling images with the resolution of 853 × 1440 pixels
20,000 hybrid combining vision and infrared thermography of concrete crack and intact
Jang et al. [157] Detection of micro and macro concrete cracks
images with 224 × 224 pixel resolution
Dung and Anh [33] Concrete crack detection, segmentation, and density evaluation A public dataset of 40,000 concrete crack 227 × 227 pixel images
Zhang et al. [166] Real-time autonomous bolt loosening detection 300 tight and loosened bolt images with 224 × 224 pixels
Wang et al. [171,196] Spalling detection for historic masonry structures 500 images with 500 × 500 pixel resolutions
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 19 of 34

Table 3. Cont.

Reference(s) Goal Dataset

A vision-based [189] Crack detection of gusset plate welding in steel bridges 12,896 images with 64 × 64 pixels of cracks and the same number of non-cracks
Image-driven low cycle fatigue-induced damage identification for post-hazard 8259 images with 224 × 224 pixels extracted from a the video was taken during the
Liu and Zhang [192]
inspection experimental test
65,319 crack and 64,681 non-crack 224 × 224 RGB images for GoogleNet and 60,000 images
Ni et al. [198] Concrete thin crack identification and width measurement
for ResNet
Rapid and autonomous post-earthquake inspections including identification of A set of 665 images with 288 × 288 pixels containing post-earthquake damage scenarios such
Hoskere et al. [140]
damage presence and damage type as concrete cracks, spalling and exposed rebar
Chen [113] Inspection of nuclear power plants and detection of cracks in video frames A total 147,344 crack and 149,460 non-crack 120 × 120 image patches
Post-disaster system-level failure analysis of bridges, the structural
Liang [143] 492 number of 224 × 224 RGB images
component-level identification, and local-level damage localization
Classification the types of bridges, recognition of bridge components and crack 3832 RGB images of an arch, suspension and cable-stayed bridges with 227 × 227 pixel
Zhao et al. [202]
detection resolution and 60,000 intact and cracked concrete RGB images with 224 × 224 pixel resolution
Component type, spalling condition, damage level, and damage type
Gao et al. [142,212] 2000 images with a size of 224 × 224 RGB (Structural ImageNet)
determination.
Autonomous inspection of concrete structures using Unmanned Aerial Systems 9011 227 × 227 pixel images of lab-made bridge decks including 1471 cracked and 7540 intact
Dorafshan et al. [203]
(UASs) cases taken by Nikon camera
2366 images of concrete cracks, steel delimitation, corrosion, and bolt loosening with a size of
Suh and Cha [204] Damage type detection and localization
500 × 375 pixel
Damage type identification (intact, crack, efflorescence, and spall) and 5145 stretcher and header brick images with 480 × 105 and 210 × 105 pixel resolutions
Wang et al. [196]
localization for masonry historic structures respectively
Determining the existence and location of cracks from surface images 3186 images crack and intact surfaces with different distances between the camera and 227 ×
Kim et al. [72]
considering crack-like noise patterns 227 pixel
Silva et al. [213] Automated inspection of concrete structures and crack detection 3500 sample of concrete surface images of 256 × 256 pixels with and without cracks
18,000 concrete panel images with the size of 256 × 256 pixel simulating reinforced concrete
Dorafshan et al. [96] Image-based crack detection in concrete structures
bridge decks
Sharma et al. [214] Image-based detection of the crack presence 15,600 crack and non-crack 28 × 28 RGB image patches
Li and Zhao [169] Crack detection of concrete surfaces real concrete surface RGB images with 224 × 224 pixel resolution and taken by a smartphone
Autonomous UAV method using ultrasonic beacons for damage detection and
Kang and Cha [14] 40,000 cracked and intact concrete surface images with 256 × 256 pixel
localization
Yang et al. [101] Semantically identification and pixel-wise segmentation A collection of 800 images of various cracks with 224 × 224 pixel
7195 images of cracks, joints, edges, plants, and intact surfaces with 227 × 227 pixel scraped
Kim and Cho [122] Crack detection on concrete surfaces
from the Internet
Beckman et al. [205] Volumetric damage detection and quantification 444 images of concrete spalling with the resolution of 853 × 1440 pixels
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 20 of 34

Table 3. Cont.

Reference(s) Goal Dataset

12,000 images of cracks, root intrusions, deposits, and in pipelines with the dimension of
Kumar et al. [215] Automated CCTV inspection of sewer pipelines
256 × 256
Narazaki et al. [144,190,199] Structural bridge components recognition 39,081 images of a concrete girder bridge with a size of 240 × 320
Mixed reality inspection including detection and segmentation of cracks and
Karaaslan et al. [186] 51,300 concrete crack, road damage and bridge inspection images with the size of 300 × 300
spalls
Oliveira et al. [216] Damage classification in an aluminum plate 720 frames of 128 × 128 greyscale representation of electromechanical impedance
Li et al. [217] Concrete bridge inspection and estimating the probability of being cracked 326,000 samples of 18 × 18 one channel greyscale patches of concrete cracks and non-cracks
An et al. [124] Autonomous detection of macro- and micro-cracks A set of 20,000 images of crack and intact images 227 × 227 RGB images
Building damage (rubble piles, debris) classification and assessment from
Duarte et al. [163] A total of 12,973 of the satellite and airborne 224 × 224 pixel images
images such as
613 collapsed and 1857 non-collapsed buildings Post-Earthquake Satellite images with the
Ji et al. [218] Identification of collapsed buildings from post-event satellite images
resolution of 96 × 96
Kang and Cha [159] Intact and cracked concrete area classification A broad variation of 2304 × 1280 raw images of concrete surfaces
2400 number of real concrete crack and intact surfaces and 6000 debonded and intact
Modarres et al. [219] Crack detection of concrete bridges and composite panels
sandwich panels with a resolution of 96 × 96 pixel
Classification and localization for visual assessment of connections in a
Yeum et al. [141] 100,000 images of welded joints with a dimension of 256 × 256
full-scale truss structure
1695 images of concrete spalling, exposed rebar, steel corrosion, concrete cracks, fatigue
Hoskere [139] Damage localization and classification for post-earthquake structural assessment
cracks and asphalt cracks with a resolution of 288 × 288
Nazaraki et al. [191] Pixel-wise bridge component recognition 11,897 urban, bridge and general 180 × 180 images
Atha and Jahanshahi [31] Assessment and corrosion detection on metallic surfaces 67,187 images of regions with and without corrosions with 128 × 128 pixel resolution
Cha et al. [25] Automatic concrete crack detection 40,000 images of cracks on concrete images with a dimension of 256 × 256 pixel
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 21 of 34

8. Software Frameworks for DL Applications

Various frameworks have been developed by research centers to perform deep learning tasks.
Table 4 summarizes the most popular ones (Pouyanfar et al. [220]) that continue to evolve.

Table 4. Comparison of popular deep learning frameworks.

Framework Core Programming Language Interface Support CNN and RNN Support
TensorFlow Python, C++, Cuda Python, C/C++, Java Yes
Torch/PyTorch C, Lua Python, C/C++, Lua Yes
Keras Python Python, Matlab Yes
Caffe C++ Python, Matlab Yes
Theano Python Python Yes

TensorFlow: a powerful platform that is developed by Google and dedicated to deep learning
applications is TensorFlow [221]. TensorFlow can deploy multiple CPUs or GPUs while using
the same Application Programming Interface (API), which increased its popularity among the DL
researchers [222]. No framework is superior over the others; however, some researchers compared
the performances on a single GPU, and showed that the TensorFlow might not outperform Theano,
Torch, Neon, and TensorFlow DL frameworks, despite its flexibility [105,223]. On the other hand, it is
faster when Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) units are used as the core of the model [222]. It is worth
noting that TensorFlow can also run models on mobile platforms.
Torch/PyTorch: Torch is a simple, open-source, and extensible DL framework that is dedicated
to building fast and efficient GPU-based ML algorithms [222]. It outperforms CPU-based training
according to Bahrampour et al. [105]. PyTorch is considered to be the primary software tool for deep
learning after TensorFlow, which is developed by Facebook services.
Keras: one of Python’s most popular and high-level libraries in DL that is capable of running on
top of TensorFlow [224]. Keras is extremely user-friendly and, due to the modularity and extensibility
features, it is attractive for both novice and experienced researchers in DL.
Caffe: for computer-vision tasks, Caffe, which is developed at the University of California-Berkeley,
is one of the fastest and easiest platforms to train CNNs with the capability of processing 60 million
input images per day [225].
Theano: originally developed to be used as a CPU/GPU compiler in Python, and not to be a
DL framework, but it is one of the Python libraries for fast numerical computations, particularly
non-standard DL models [105]. For relatively shallow models of CNNs and LSTMs, Theano might
outperform Torch and TensorFlow [105]. Theano is not further developed since 2017.

9. Summary and Prospects

The advantages of machine learning (ML) in solving structural health monitoring (SHM) problems
are evident, and the number of deep learning (DL) applications has grown exponentially since its
introduction during recent years. However, every proposed method has its limitations, and some of
the major challenges are summarized, as follows:

1. Despite remarkable advances since the introduction of DL-based SHM, current techniques in
the literature cannot be considered to be fully automated, and human perception is not easy to
replicate through vibration or vision-based DL algorithms [226]. Such capabilities should be
addressed in future studies, including the significance of damage with respect to the type of
structural components, materials, locations, and other environmental conditions.
2. The number of available image databases of structural systems and other infrastructure
components is very limited for SHM purposes, which leads to lower performance of the available
trained models when new conditions arise, such as texture, joints, light, environment, pollutions,
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 22 of 34

etc. In addition, environment-related issues cannot be perfectly simulated via generalized

numerical models; therefore, larger datasets can only be formed by acquiring data from the
real world.
3. The nature of damages, as well as their significance, may differ from one structural component to
another when considering the global structural context. Therefore, comprehensive hierarchical
approaches should be devised in which structural component recognition is included as an
essential first step before using image data. Such an approach has the potential to bring context
in the assessment, evaluation, and interpretation of damage as part of SHM applications.
4. Laboratory conditions are idealized in the available studies, and further research is needed for
in-situ DL-based SHM. For example, the presence of wind and light may disrupt UAVs for the
vision-based measurements. A clear example is the dynamic vibrations and deflections of a long
suspension bridge under traffic and wind loads. In addition, damages occur gradually with small
changes [145,146].

Along with the rise of the DL-based methods, the importance of data is more evident than ever
before. Vision and vibration data from host structures both need to be automatically processed and
stored efficiently, which requires robust and real-time signal and image processing models that are
capable of identifying an anomaly in data. Response data compression and response reconstruction [227]
for long-term monitoring purposes remain challenges that require more developments to avoid
information loss. The near-future directions of DL-based technologies can be grouped into the following
categories when considering the limitations and advantages of the recently proposed methods.

9.1. DL Applications in Vision-Based and Vibration-Based SHM

The DL-based damage detection techniques are capable of learning implicit relations between
features with less computational costs. DL-based techniques result in significantly higher accuracy,
despite the conventional ML methods that rely on hand-crafted features. Along with the advances in
computer vision techniques, vision-based SHM is expected to play a pivotal role in the next generation
of SHM. In addition, it has been shown that vibration data can be treated in grid-like images to train
deep CNN models [61], which expands DL applications to solve real-world problems. In addition,
DL models can be used to predict or minimize the response of complex structures without the need for
complex finite element models.

9.2. DL Applications in SHM Using Self-Powered Sensors

During the last decade, wireless sensors networks (WSNs) have been developed as the
best alternative for traditional wired networks. In addition, the development of self-powered
sensors for harvesting energy from the sensed vibrations has recently been in the center of
attention. Such technology has transformed data acquisition and promoted energy-efficient data
interpretation [228]. The majority of the ML-based SHM methods are combinations of hand-crafted
formulas and empirical models, which still depend on the knowledge of the inspector as well as the
capability of computers and algorithms, despite the significant advances in data-driven approaches [22].
As the predominant methods in SHM, ML-based approaches require a large amount of data from the
host structure. The incorporation of wireless networks of self-powered sensors with deep learning
technologies will increase the efficiency and minimize the cost of maintenance through continuous
monitoring. DL-based methods are reliable and efficient end-to-end training models with higher
prediction accuracies, which are able to learn the nonlinear interrelation without the need for manual
feature extraction methods.

9.3. DL-Based SHM as Part of IoT and Smart Cities

Emerging wireless data transmission and cloud-based computation have created new paradigms,
known as the Internet of Things (IoT) [22]. Nowadays, it is practically feasible to mount low-cost
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 23 of 34

wireless sensors in large numbers on infrastructures to efficiently monitor the structural health [229].
With the advantages of the powerful cloud-based computing and DL platforms, future studies would
integrate DL and IoT for SHM to extract information from a large amount of data that are constantly
received from networks of sensors. Such studies would further expand the boundaries of SHM and
IoT in a large-scale, by remote sensing and monitoring, as well as learning from previous events to
make decisions in the future. Smart and sustainable cities have been at the center of attention since the
introduction of the IoT concept. Interpreting a large amount of distributed data requires efficient DL
approaches that, ultimately, result in the integrity of the whole system with minimum costs and in an
automatic way. The future studies would introduce new protocols in data acquisition, transmission,
storing, and DL-based interpretation for SHM as part of IoT.

9.4. DL Applications in SHM through Transfer Learning/Synthetic Simulation Data

It is obvious that data play a key role in deep learning, and, as explained in previous sections, data
collection is not always possible. One option is using transfer learning to shortcut the learning process
by using some level of knowledge from earlier studies. An emerging technique for increasing the
training data size is using synthetic data for pre-training DL models while using finite element analysis
packages (for vibration-based data) or game engines (for vision-based data). Therefore, such data can
be used for pre-training a network before fine-tuning using real-work data.

9.5. DL-Based SHM Using Portable Smartphones, UAVs and GNSS

In the current era, cell phones have become an integral part of our lives. These programmable small
devices have a camera, memory, as well as good computing and network technology, which enables
offline and cloud-based real-time assessments. The smartphones are generally equipped with different
sensors, namely magnetometer, gyroscope, accelerometer, and GPS. These capabilities have made
them a potential device for structural health monitoring, particularly, when they are paired with
UAVs to obtain and process data while using DL-based algorithms. Moreover, the Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) technology that is capable of acquiring massive amounts of accurate structural
vibration response data. These data can lead to noticeable gains in the operational efficiency of SHM.
The cost of SHM can be reduced and its reliability can be improved, as this modern technology and DL
will be linked together with a resulting decrease in the need for sensors [230].

9.6. DL-Based Seismic Vibration Control for Smart Structures

Time-delay and sensor failure are among the major issues that directly impact the performance of
vibration control systems during an earthquake [231]. By implementing recurrent neural networks
(RNNs), such as long short-term memory (LSTM) networks, it can be possible to predict the response
of structures to address delay problems. Furthermore, signal failures or damage presence can be
effectively detected, which leads to the design of stable and robust controllers [232]. Model-free deep
reinforcement learning techniques for seismic vibration control are novel and they can incorporate
deep learning models for training controllers by learning from experiments, which is suitable for active
and semi-active control problems [233]. With the recently developed open-source Python packages,
such as OpenseesPy [234] and OpenAI Gym [235], it is possible to build, train, and validate a deep
reinforcement learning algorithm for nonlinear structures under seismic excitations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A. and A.D.E.; methodology, M.A., A.D.E., and G.P.; validation,
M.A., A.D.E., and G.P.; investigation, M.A., A.D.E., and G.P.; resources, M.A., A.D.E., and G.P.; data curation,
M.A., A.D.E.; writing—original draftpreparation, M.A., A.D.E., and G.P.; writing—review and editing, M.A.,
A.D.E., and G.P.; visualization, M.A., A.D.E.; supervision, G.P.; fundingacquisition, M.A. and G.P. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through Award No: 1646420.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments
on manuscript.
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 24 of 34

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. ASCE. ASCE’s 2017 Infrastructure Report Card. Available online: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
(accessed on 17 September 2018).
2. FHWA. Bridge Condition by Highway System 2019. Available online: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/
no10/condition19.cfm (accessed on 11 May 2019).
3. Sohn, H.; Farrar, C.R.; Hemez, F.M.; Shunk, D.D.; Stinemates, D.W.; Nadler, B.R.; Czarnecki, J.J. A review of
structural health monitoring literature: 1996–2001. Los Alamos Natl. Lab. 2003, 20, 34–45.
4. Salawu, O. Detection of structural damage through changes in frequency: A review. Eng. Struct. 1997, 19,
718–723. [CrossRef]
5. An, Y.; Chatzi, E.; Sim, S.H.; Laflamme, S.; Blachowski, B.; Ou, J. Recent progress and future trends on
damage identification methods for bridge structures. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2019, 12, e2416. [CrossRef]
6. Mashayekhi, M.; Santini-Bell, E. Three-dimensional multiscale finite element models for in-service
performance assessment of bridges. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 34, 385–401. [CrossRef]
7. Mashayekhizadeh, M. Fatigue Assessment of Complex Structural Components of Steel Bridges Integrating
Finite Element Models and Field-Collected Data. Bridge Struct. 2018, 15, 75–86.
8. Cicero, T.; Cawley, P.; Simonetti, F.; Rokhlin, S.I. Potential and Limitations of a Deconvolution Approach for
Guided Wave Structural Health Monitoring. Struct. Health Monit. 2009, 8, 381–395. [CrossRef]
9. Rakha, T.; Gorodetsky, A. Review of Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) applications in the built environment:
Towards automated building inspection procedures using drones. Autom. Constr. 2018, 93, 252–264.
[CrossRef]
10. Zhao, R.; Yan, R.; Chen, Z.; Mao, K.; Wang, P.; Gao, R.X. Deep learning and its applications to machine health
monitoring. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 115, 213–237. [CrossRef]
11. Kaveh, A.; Dadras, A. Structural damage identification using an enhanced thermal exchange optimization
algorithm. Eng. Optim. 2018, 50, 430–451. [CrossRef]
12. Schmidhuber, J. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Netw. 2015, 61, 85–117. [CrossRef]
13. LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 2015, 521, 436. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Kang, D.; Cha, Y.J. Autonomous UAVs for Structural Health Monitoring Using Deep Learning and an
Ultrasonic Beacon System with Geo-Tagging. Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 18, 99–107. [CrossRef]
15. Bao, Y.; Chen, Z.; Wei, S.; Xu, Y.; Tang, Z.; Li, H. The State of the Art of Data Science and Engineering in
Structural Health Monitoring. Engineering 2019, 3, 34–38. [CrossRef]
16. Fan, G.; Li, J.; Hao, H. Lost data recovery for structural health monitoring based on convolutional neural
networks. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2019, 26, e2433. [CrossRef]
17. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. Available online: https://arxiv.org/
abs/1409.1556 (accessed on 9 May 2020).
18. Krizhevsky, A.; Sutskever, I.; Hinton, G.E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks.
In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada,
8–14 December 2019; pp. 1097–1105.
19. Szegedy, C.; Liu, W.; Jia, Y.; Sermanet, P.; Reed, S.; Anguelov, D.; Erhan, D.; Vanhoucke, V.; Rabinovich, A.
Going deeper with convolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern
Recognition, Boston, MA, USA, 7–12 June 2015; pp. 1–9.
20. Pan, H.; Azimi, M.; Gui, G.; Yan, F.; Lin, Z. Vibration-Based Support Vector Machine for Structural Health
Monitoring. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil
Engineering Structures, La Jolla, CA, USA, 12–14 July 2017; pp. 167–178.
21. Pan, H.; Azimi, M.; Yan, F.; Lin, Z. Time-Frequency-Based Data-Driven Structural Diagnosis and Damage
Detection for Cable-Stayed Bridges. J. Bridge Eng. 2018, 23, 56–70. [CrossRef]
22. Salehi, H.; Burgueno, R. Emerging artificial intelligence methods in structural engineering. Eng. Struct. 2018,
171, 170–189. [CrossRef]
23. Cha, Y.J.; Choi, W.; Suh, G.; Mahmoudkhani, S.; Büyüköztürk, O. Autonomous structural visual inspection
using region-based deep learning for detecting multiple damage types. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.
2018, 33, 731–747. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 25 of 34

24. Mosalam, K.; Muin, S.; Gao, Y. New Direction in Structural Health Monitoring. NED Univ. J.Res. 2019, 2,
77–112. [CrossRef]
25. Rafiei, M.H.; Khushefati, W.H.; Demirboga, R.; Adeli, H. Supervised Deep Restricted Boltzmann Machine for
Estimation of Concrete. ACI Mater. J. 2017, 114, 88–95. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, A.; Wang, K.C.; Fei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Chen, C.; Yang, G.; Li, J.Q.; Yang, E.; Qiu, S. Automated pixel-level
pavement crack detection on 3D asphalt surfaces with a recurrent neural network. Comput.-Aided Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 34, 213–229. [CrossRef]
27. Pathirage, C.S.N.; Li, J.; Li, L.; Hao, H.; Liu, W.; Wang, R. Development and application of a deep
learning–based sparse autoencoder framework for structural damage identification. Struct. Health Monit.
2019, 18, 103–122. [CrossRef]
28. Goodfellow, I.; Pouget-Abadie, J.; Mirza, M.; Xu, B.; Warde-Farley, D.; Ozair, S.; Courville, A.; Bengio, Y.
Generative adversarial nets. In Proceedings of the Advances in neural information processing systems,
Montréal, QC, Canada, 8–13 December 2014; pp. 2672–2680.
29. Bao, Y.; Tang, Z.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y. Computer vision and deep learning–based data anomaly detection method
for structural health monitoring. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 401–421. [CrossRef]
30. Atha, D.J.; Jahanshahi, M.R. Evaluation of deep learning approaches based on convolutional neural networks
for corrosion detection. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 17, 1110–1128. [CrossRef]
31. Wei, F.; Yao, G.; Yang, Y.; Sun, Y. Instance-level recognition and quantification for concrete surface bughole
based on deep learning. Autom. Constr. 2019, 107, 102920. [CrossRef]
32. Dung, C.V.; Anh, L.D. Autonomous concrete crack detection using deep fully convolutional neural network.
Autom. Constr. 2019, 99, 52–58. [CrossRef]
33. Zhang, L.; Yang, F.; Zhang, Y.D.; Zhu, Y.J. Road crack detection using deep convolutional neural network.
In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Phoenix, AZ, USA,
25–28 September 2016; pp. 3708–3712.
34. Ebrahimkhanlou, A.; Salamone, S. Single-Sensor Acoustic Emission Source Localization in Plate-Like
Structures Using Deep Learning. Aerospacecraft 2018, 5, 50. [CrossRef]
35. Dorafshan, S.; Maguire, M.; Qi, X. Automatic surface crack detection in concrete structures using OTSU
thresholding and morphological operations. UTC Rep. 2016, 1, 2–8.
36. Kaneko, S.; Oka, S.; Matsumiya, N. Detection of cracks in concrete structures from digital camera images.
NTT Tech. Rev. 2012, 10, 23–28.
37. Wu, L.; Mokhtari, S.; Nazef, A.; Nam, B.; Yun, H.-B. Improvement of crack-detection accuracy using a novel
crack defragmentation technique in image-based road assessment. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2014, 30, 04014118.
[CrossRef]
38. Carden, E.P.; Fanning, P. Vibration based condition monitoring: A review. Struct. Health Monit. 2004, 3,
355–377. [CrossRef]
39. Doebling, S.W.; Farrar, C.R.; Prime, M.B. A summary review of vibration-based damage identification
methods. Shock. Vib. Dig. 1998, 30, 91–105. [CrossRef]
40. Xu, J.; Fu, Z.; Han, Q.; Lacidogna, G.; Carpinteri, A. Micro-cracking monitoring and fracture evaluation
for crumb rubber concrete based on acoustic emission techniques. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 17, 946–958.
[CrossRef]
41. Kong, X.; Cai, C.S.; Hu, J. The state-of-the-art on framework of vibration-based structural damage identification
for decision making. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 497. [CrossRef]
42. Goh, L.; Bakhary, N.; Rahman, A.; Ahmad, B. Prediction of unmeasured mode shape using artificial neural
network for damage detection. J. Teknol. 2012, 61, 52–56. [CrossRef]
43. Hakim, S.; Razak, H.A.; Ravanfar, S. Fault diagnosis on beam-like structures from modal parameters using
artificial neural networks. Measurement 2015, 76, 45–61. [CrossRef]
44. Castellini, P.; Revel, G.M. An experimental technique for structural diagnostic based on laser vibrometry and
neural networks. Shock. Vib. 2000, 7, 381–397. [CrossRef]
45. Jiang, S.F.; Zhang, C.M.; Koh, C. Structural damage detection by integrating data fusion and probabilistic
neural network. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2006, 9, 445–458. [CrossRef]
46. Jiang, S.F.; Zhang, C.M.; Yao, J. Eigen-level data fusion model by integrating rough set and probabilistic
neural network for structural damage detection. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2011, 14, 333–349. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 26 of 34

47. Zhou, X.; Ni, Y.; Zhang, F. Damage localization of cable-supported bridges using modal frequency data and
probabilistic neural network. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 2014, 92–99. [CrossRef]
48. Palomino, L.V.; Steffen, V.; Finzi Neto, R.M. Probabilistic neural network and fuzzy cluster analysis methods
applied to impedance-based SHM for damage classification. Shock. Vib. 2014, 2014, 88–90. [CrossRef]
49. Meruane, V. Online sequential extreme learning machine for vibration-based damage assessment using
transmissibility data. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2015, 30, 04015042. [CrossRef]
50. Abdeljaber, O.; Avci, O.; Kiranyaz, S.; Gabbouj, M.; Inman, D.J. Real-time vibration-based structural damage
detection using one-dimensional convolutional neural networks. J. Sound Vib. 2017, 388, 154–170. [CrossRef]
51. Avci, O.; Abdeljaber, O.; Kiranyaz, S.; Hussein, M.; Inman, D.J. Wireless and real-time structural damage
detection: A novel decentralized method for wireless sensor networks. J. Sound Vib. 2018, 424, 158–172.
[CrossRef]
52. Abdeljaber, O.; Avci, O.; Kiranyaz, M.S.; Boashash, B.; Sodano, H.; Inman, D.J. 1-D CNNs for structural
damage detection: Verification on a structural health monitoring benchmark data. Neurocomputing 2018, 275,
1308–1317. [CrossRef]
53. Lin, Y.z.; Nie, Z.h.; Ma, H.w. Structural damage detection with automatic feature-extraction through deep
learning. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 32, 1025–1046. [CrossRef]
54. Wang, Z.; Cha, Y.j. Automated damage-sensitive feature extraction using unsupervised convolutional neural
networks. In Proceedings of the Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and
Aerospace Systems, Denver, DE, USA, 27 March 2018; p. 105981J.
55. Pan, X.; Yang, T. Postdisaster image-based damage detection and repair cost estimation of reinforced concrete
buildings using dual convolutional neural networks. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 1, 66–68.
[CrossRef]
56. Azimi, M.; Pekcan, G. Structural Health Monitoring Using Extremely Compressed Data through Deep
Learning. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 35, 597–614. [CrossRef]
57. Tang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Bao, Y.; Li, H. Convolutional neural network-based data anomaly detection method
using multiple information for structural health monitoring. Struct. Control.Health Monit. 2019, 26, e2296.
[CrossRef]
58. Wu, R.T.; Jahanshahi, M.R. Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Structural Dynamic Response Estimation
and System Identification. J. Eng. Mech. 2018, 145, 04018125. [CrossRef]
59. Oh, B.K.; Glisic, B.; Kim, Y.; Park, H.S. Convolutional neural network-based wind-induced response
estimation model for tall buildings. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 9, 14–23. [CrossRef]
60. Khodabandehlou, H.; Pekcan, G.; Fadali, M.S. Vibration-based structural condition assessment using
convolution neural networks. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2019, 26, 74–77. [CrossRef]
61. Li, S.; Sun, L. Detectability of Bridge-Structural Damage Based on Fiber-Optic Sensing through
Deep-Convolutional Neural Networks. J. Bridge Eng. 2020, 25, 04020012. [CrossRef]
62. Pathirage, C.S.N.; Li, J.; Li, L.; Hao, H.; Liu, W.; Ni, P. Structural damage identification based on autoencoder
neural networks and deep learning. Eng. Struct. 2018, 172, 13–28. [CrossRef]
63. Lu, Z.R.; Wang, L. An enhanced response sensitivity approach for structural damage identification:
Convergence and performance. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 2017, 111, 1231–1251. [CrossRef]
64. Teng, S.; Chen, G.; Liu, G.; Lv, J.; Cui, F. Modal Strain Energy-Based Structural Damage Detection Using
Convolutional Neural Networks. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3376. [CrossRef]
65. Sajedi, S.O.; Liang, X. Vibration-based semantic damage segmentation for large-scale structural health
monitoring. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 3, 99–102. [CrossRef]
66. Li, S.; Zuo, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, H. Applying Deep Learning to Continuous Bridge Deflection Detected by Fiber
Optic Gyroscope for Damage Detection. Sensors 2020, 20, 911. [CrossRef]
67. Lopez-Pacheco, M.; Morales-Valdez, J.; Yu, W. Frequency domain CNN and dissipated energy approach for
damage detection in building structures. Soft Comput. 2015, 14, 1–20. [CrossRef]
68. Hung, D.V.; Hung, H.M.; Anh, P.H.; Thang, N.T. Structural damage detection using hybrid deep learning
algorithm. J. Sci. Technol. Civ. Eng. 2020, 14, 53–64.
69. Ding, Z.; Li, J.; Hao, H. Structural damage identification by sparse deep belief network using uncertain and
limited data. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2020, 21, 18–22. [CrossRef]
70. Fan, G.; Li, J.; Hao, H. Vibration Signal Denoising for Structural Health Monitoring by Residual Convolutional
Neural Networks. Measurement 2020, 1, 107651. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 27 of 34

71. Gatti, M. Structural health monitoring of an operational bridge: A case study. Eng. Struct. 2019, 195, 200–209.
[CrossRef]
72. Kim, H.; Ahn, E.; Shin, M.; Sim, S.-H. Crack and noncrack classification from concrete surface images using
machine learning. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 725–738. [CrossRef]
73. Dorafshan, S.; Maguire, M.; Hoffer, N.V.; Coopmans, C. Fatigue Crack Detection Using Unmanned Aerial
Systems in Under-Bridge Inspection. Ida. Transp. Dep. 2017, 2, 1–120.
74. Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R.J.; Maguire, M. Fatigue crack detection using unmanned aerial systems in fracture
critical inspection of steel bridges. J. Bridge Eng. 2018, 23, 04018078. [CrossRef]
75. Jahanshahi, M.R.; Masri, S.F. Adaptive vision-based crack detection using 3D scene reconstruction for
condition assessment of structures. Autom. Constr. 2012, 22, 567–576. [CrossRef]
76. Li, L.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, G.; Shi, L.; Dong, J.; Jia, P. A method of detecting the cracks of concrete undergo
high-temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 162, 345–358. [CrossRef]
77. Hamrat, M.; Boulekbache, B.; Chemrouk, M.; Amziane, S. Flexural cracking behavior of normal strength, high
strength and high strength fiber concrete beams, using Digital Image Correlation technique. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2016, 106, 678–692. [CrossRef]
78. Rimkus, A.; Podviezko, A.; Gribniak, V. Processing Digital Images for Crack Localization in Reinforced
Concrete Members. Procedia Eng. 2015, 122, 239–243. [CrossRef]
79. Abdel-Qader, I.; Abudayyeh, O.; Kelly, M.E. Analysis of edge-detection techniques for crack identification in
bridges. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2003, 17, 255–263. [CrossRef]
80. Lim, R.S.; La, H.M.; Sheng, W. A Robotic Crack Inspection and Mapping System for Bridge Deck Maintenance.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2014, 11, 367–378. [CrossRef]
81. Talab, A.M.A.; Huang, Z.; Xi, F.; HaiMing, L. Detection crack in image using Otsu method and multiple
filtering in image processing techniques. Optimacal 2016, 127, 1030–1033. [CrossRef]
82. Yamaguchi, T.; Nakamura, S.; Saegusa, R.; Hashimoto, S. Image-based crack detection for real concrete
surfaces. IEEJ Trans. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2008, 3, 128–135. [CrossRef]
83. Ebrahimkhanlou, A.; Farhidzadeh, A.; Salamone, S. Multifractal analysis of crack patterns in reinforced
concrete shear walls. Struct. Health Monit. 2016, 15, 81–92. [CrossRef]
84. Spencer, B.F., Jr.; Hoskere, V.; Narazaki, Y. Advances in Computer Vision-Based Civil Infrastructure Inspection
and Monitoring. Engineering 2019, 3, 12–22. [CrossRef]
85. Feng, D.; Feng, M.Q. Vision-based multipoint displacement measurement for structural health monitoring.
Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2016, 23, 876–890. [CrossRef]
86. Lecompte, D.; Vantomme, J.; Sol, H. Crack detection in a concrete beam using two different camera techniques.
Struct. Health Monit. 2006, 5, 59–68. [CrossRef]
87. Jahanshahi, M.R.; Masri, S.F. Parametric performance evaluation of wavelet-based corrosion detection
algorithms for condition assessment of civil infrastructure systems. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 27, 345–357.
[CrossRef]
88. Dawood, T.; Zhu, Z.; Zayed, T. Machine vision-based model for spalling detection and quantification in
subway networks. Autom. Constr. 2017, 81, 149–160. [CrossRef]
89. German, S.; Brilakis, I.; DesRoches, R. Rapid entropy-based detection and properties measurement of concrete
spalling with machine vision for post-earthquake safety assessments. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2012, 26, 846–858.
[CrossRef]
90. Vaghefi, K.; Ahlborn, T.M.; Harris, D.K.; Brooks, C.N. Combined imaging technologies for concrete bridge
deck condition assessment. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2013, 29, 04014102. [CrossRef]
91. Mei, Q.; Gül, M.; Azim, M.R. Densely connected deep neural network considering connectivity of pixels for
automatic crack detection. Autom. Constr. 2020, 110, 103018. [CrossRef]
92. Xu, Y.; Bao, Y.; Chen, J.; Zuo, W.; Li, H. Surface fatigue crack identification in steel box girder of bridges by a
deep fusion convolutional neural network based on consumer-grade camera images. Struct. Health Monit.
2018, 18, 653–674. [CrossRef]
93. Ali, R.; Cha, Y.J. Subsurface damage detection of a steel bridge using deep learning and uncooled
micro-bolometer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 226, 376–387. [CrossRef]
94. Fu, G.; Sun, P.; Zhu, W.; Yang, J.; Cao, Y.; Yang, M.Y.; Cao, Y. A deep-learning-based approach for fast and
robust steel surface defects classification. Opt. Lasers Eng. 2019, 121, 397–405. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 28 of 34

95. Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R.J.; Maguire, M. Comparison of deep convolutional neural networks and edge
detectors for image-based crack detection in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 186, 1031–1045. [CrossRef]
96. Kim, H.; Ahn, E.; Cho, S.; Shin, M.; Sim, S.-H. Comparative analysis of image binarization methods for crack
identification in concrete structures. Cem. Concr. Res. 2017, 99, 53–61. [CrossRef]
97. Liu, Y.; Cho, S.; Spencer Jr, B.F.; Fan, J. Automated assessment of cracks on concrete surfaces using adaptive
digital image processing. Smart Struct. Syst. 2014, 14, 719–741. [CrossRef]
98. Giakoumis, I.; Nikolaidis, N.; Pitas, I. Digital image processing techniques for the detection and removal of
cracks in digitized paintings. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2006, 15, 178–188. [CrossRef]
99. Jahanshahi, M.R.; Kelly, J.S.; Masri, S.F.; Sukhatme, G.S. A survey and evaluation of promising approaches
for automatic image-based defect detection of bridge structures. Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 2009, 5, 455–486.
[CrossRef]
100. Yang, X.; Li, H.; Yu, Y.; Luo, X.; Huang, T.; Yang, X. Automatic pixel-level crack detection and measurement
using fully convolutional network. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 1090–1109. [CrossRef]
101. Mei, Q.; Gül, M. Multi-level feature fusion in densely connected deep-learning architecture and depth-first
search for crack segmentation on images collected with smartphones. Struct. Health Monit. 2020. [CrossRef]
102. Jahanshahi, M.R.; Masri, S.F. A new methodology for non-contact accurate crack width measurement through
photogrammetry for automated structural safety evaluation. Smart Mater. Struct. 2013, 22, 035019. [CrossRef]
103. Yeum, C.M.; Dyke, S.J. Vision-based automated crack detection for bridge inspection. Comput.-Aided Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2015, 30, 759–770. [CrossRef]
104. Comparative Study of Deep Learning Software Frameworks. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.
06435 (accessed on 11 May 2019).
105. Mohan, A.; Poobal, S. Crack detection using image processing: A critical review and analysis. Alex. Eng. J.
2018, 57, 787–798. [CrossRef]
106. Cha, Y.J.; Choi, W.; Büyüköztürk, O. Deep Learning-Based Crack Damage Detection Using Convolutional
Neural Networks. Comput.-Aided Civ.Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 32, 361–378. [CrossRef]
107. Otsu, N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1979, 9,
62–66. [CrossRef]
108. Rabah, M.; Elhattab, A.; Fayad, A. Automatic concrete cracks detection and mapping of terrestrial laser scan
data. NRIAG J. Astron. Geophys. 2013, 2, 250–255. [CrossRef]
109. Prasanna, P.; Dana, K.J.; Gucunski, N.; Basily, B.B.; La, H.M.; Lim, R.S.; Parvardeh, H. Automated crack
detection on concrete bridges. IEEE Trans. on Autom. Sci. Eng. 2016, 13, 591–599. [CrossRef]
110. Rawat, W.; Wang, Z. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification: A Comprehensive
Review. Neural Comput. 2017, 29, 2352–2449. [CrossRef]
111. Badrinarayanan, V.; Kendall, A.; Cipolla, R. Segnet: A deep convolutional encoder-decoder architecture for
image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2017, 39, 2481–2495. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Long, J.; Shelhamer, E.; Darrell, T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings
of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Boston, MA, USA, 7–12 June 2015;
pp. 3431–3440.
113. Chen, F.; Jahanshahi, M.R. NB-CNN: Deep Learning-Based Crack Detection Using Convolutional Neural
Network and Naïve Bayes Data Fusion. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 4392–4400. [CrossRef]
114. Li, G.; Ma, B.; He, S.; Ren, X.; Liu, Q. Automatic Tunnel Crack Detection Based on U-Net and a Convolutional
Neural Network with Alternately Updated Clique. Sensors 2020, 20, 717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
115. Soloviev, A.; Sobol, B.; Vasiliev, P. Identification of Defects in Pavement Images Using Deep Convolutional
Neural Networks. Adv. Mater. 2019, 4, 615–626.
116. Li, B.; Wang, K.C.; Zhang, A.; Yang, E.; Wang, G. Automatic classification of pavement crack using deep
convolutional neural network. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2020, 21, 457–463. [CrossRef]
117. Tong, Z.; Gao, J.; Han, Z.; Wang, Z. Recognition of asphalt pavement crack length using deep convolutional
neural networks. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2018, 19, 1334–1349. [CrossRef]
118. Fan, Z.; Li, C.; Chen, Y.; Mascio, P.D.; Chen, X.; Zhu, G.; Loprencipe, G. Ensemble of Deep Convolutional
Neural Networks for Automatic Pavement Crack Detection and Measurement. Coatings 2020, 10, 152.
[CrossRef]
119. Automatic Pavement Crack Detection Based on Structured Prediction with the Convolutional Neural
Network. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.02208 (accessed on 7 January 2018).
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 29 of 34

120. Wang, K.C.P.; Zhang, A.; Li, J.Q.; Fei, Y.; Chen, C.; Li, B. Deep Learning for Asphalt Pavement Cracking
Recognition Using Convolutional Neural Network. Airfield Highw. Pavements 2017, 2017, 166–177. [CrossRef]
121. FPCNet: Fast Pavement Crack Detection Network Based on Encoder-Decoder Architecture. Available online:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.02248 (accessed on 14 July 2019).
122. Kim, B.; Cho, S. Automated Vision-Based Detection of Cracks on Concrete Surfaces Using a Deep Learning
Technique. Sensors 2018, 18, 3452. [CrossRef]
123. Cha, Y.J.; Choi, W. Vision-Based Concrete Crack Detection Using a Convolutional Neural Network. Proc. Dyn.
Civ. Struct. 2017, 2, 71–73.
124. An, Y.K.; Jang, K.Y.; Kim, B.; Cho, S. Deep learning-based concrete crack detection using hybrid images.
In Proceedings of the Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace
Systems, Denver, DE, USA, 3–7 March 2019; p. 1059812.
125. Jang, K.; An, Y.K.; Kim, B.; Cho, S. Automated crack evaluation of a high-rise bridge pier using a ring-type
climbing robot. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2020, 4, 19–25. [CrossRef]
126. Ali, R.; Gopal, D.L.; Cha, Y.-J. Vision-based concrete crack detection technique using cascade features.
In Proceedings of the Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace
Systems, Denver, DE, USA, 3–7 March 2019; p. 105980L.
127. Ramana, L.; Choi, W.; Cha, Y.-J. Fully automated vision-based loosened bolt detection using the Viola–Jones
algorithm. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 422–434. [CrossRef]
128. Ramana, L.; Choi, W.; Cha, Y.-J. Automated vision-based loosened bolt detection using the cascade detector.
Sens. Instrum. 2017, 5, 23–28.
129. Cha, Y.J.; You, K.; Choi, W. Vision-based detection of loosened bolts using the Hough transform and support
vector machines. Autom. Constr. 2016, 71, 181–188. [CrossRef]
130. Yeum, C.M.; Dyke, S.J.; Ramirez, J. Visual data classification in post-event building reconnaissance. Eng. Struct.
2018, 155, 16–24. [CrossRef]
131. Xu, Y.; Wei, S.; Bao, Y.; Li, H. Automatic seismic damage identification of reinforced concrete columns from
images by a region-based deep convolutional neural network. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2019, 26, e2313.
[CrossRef]
132. Girshick, R. Fast R-CNN. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago,
Chile, 7–13 December 2015; pp. 1440–1448.
133. Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal
networks. Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2015, 3, 91–99. [CrossRef]
134. Wang, N.; Zhao, X.; Zou, Z.; Zhao, P.; Qi, F. Autonomous damage segmentation and measurement of glazed
tiles in historic buildings via deep learning. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2015, 6. [CrossRef]
135. Deng, L.; Chu, H.-H.; Shi, P.; Wang, W.; Kong, X. Region-Based CNN Method with Deformable Modules for
Visually Classifying Concrete Cracks. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 2528. [CrossRef]
136. Zhang, X.; Rajan, D.; Story, B. Concrete crack detection using context-aware deep semantic segmentation
network. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2015, 8. [CrossRef]
137. Zhang, A.; Wang, K.C.; Li, B.; Yang, E.; Dai, X.; Peng, Y.; Fei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.Q.; Chen, C. Automated
pixel-level pavement crack detection on 3D asphalt surfaces using a deep-learning network. Comput.-Aided
Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2017, 32, 805–819. [CrossRef]
138. Xu, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, D.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, F.; Li, N.; Li, H. Identification framework for cracks on a steel
structure surface by a restricted Boltzmann machines algorithm based on consumer-grade camera images.
Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2018, 25, e2075. [CrossRef]
139. Hoskere, V.; Narazaki, Y.; Hoang, T.A.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Vision-based Structural Inspection using Multiscale
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd Huixian International Forum on Earthquake
Engineering for Young Researchers, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA, 11–12 August 2012.
140. Hoskere, V.; Narazaki, Y.; Hoang, T.A.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Towards Automated Post-Earthquake Inspections
with Deep Learning-based Condition-Aware Models. In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on
Structural Control and Monitoring, 7WCSCM, Qingdao, China, 22–25 July 2017.
141. Yeum, C.M.; Choi, J.; Dyke, S.J. Automated region-of-interest localization and classification for vision-based
visual assessment of civil infrastructure. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 3, 1475921718765419. [CrossRef]
142. Gao, Y.; Mosalam, K.M. Deep Transfer Learning for Image-Based Structural Damage Recognition.
Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 748–768. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 30 of 34

143. Liang, X. Image-based post-disaster inspection of reinforced concrete bridge systems using deep learning
with Bayesian optimization. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 3, 112–119. [CrossRef]
144. Narazakia, Y.; Hoskerea, V.; Hoanga, T.A.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Automated Bridge Component Recognition using
Video Data. In Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Structural Control and Monitoring, 7WCSCM,
Qingdao, China, 22–25 July 2017.
145. Alcantarilla, P.F.; Stent, S.; Ros, G.; Arroyo, R.; Gherardi, R. Street-view change detection with deconvolutional
networks. Auton. Robot. 2018, 42, 1301–1322. [CrossRef]
146. Stent, S.; Gherardi, R.; Stenger, B.; Soga, K.; Cipolla, R. Visual change detection on tunnel linings. Mach. Vis.
Appl. 2016, 27, 319–330. [CrossRef]
147. Dorafshan, S.; Maguire, M. Bridge inspection: Human performance, unmanned aerial systems and automation.
J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 2018, 8, 443–476. [CrossRef]
148. Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R.J.; Maguire, M. Benchmarking Image Processing Algorithms for Unmanned Aerial
System-Assisted Crack Detection in Concrete Structures. Infrastructure 2019, 4, 19. [CrossRef]
149. Zink, J.; Lovelace, B. Unmanned Aer. Veh. Bridge Insp. Demonstr. Proj. 2015, 32, 76–84.
150. Wells, J.; Lovelace, B.; Engineers, C. Unmanned Aircr. Syst. Bridge Insp. Demonstr. Proj. Phase II Final. Rep.
2017, 13, 45–55.
151. Tomiczek, A.P.; Bridge, J.A.; Ifju, P.G.; Whitley, T.J.; Tripp, C.S.; Ortega, A.E.; Poelstra, J.J.; Gonzalez, S.A.
Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (sUAV) Inspections in GPS Denied Area beneath Bridges. In Proceedings of
the Structures Congress, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 19–21 April 2018; pp. 205–216.
152. Duque, L.; Seo, J.; Wacker, J. Synthesis of unmanned aerial vehicle applications for infrastructures. J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 2018, 32, 04018046. [CrossRef]
153. Kim, H.; Lee, J.; Ahn, E.; Cho, S.; Shin, M.; Sim, S.-H. Concrete crack identification using a UAV incorporating
hybrid image processing. Sensors 2017, 17, 2052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
154. Morgenthal, G.; Hallermann, N. Quality assessment of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) based visual inspection
of structures. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2014, 17, 289–302. [CrossRef]
155. Yoon, H.; Shin, J.; Spencer Jr, B.F. Structural displacement measurement using an unmanned aerial system.
Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 183–192. [CrossRef]
156. Pereira, F.C.; Pereira, C.E. Embedded image processing systems for automatic recognition of cracks using
UAVs. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 16–21. [CrossRef]
157. Jang, K.; Kim, N.; An, Y.-K. Deep learning–based autonomous concrete crack evaluation through hybrid
image scanning. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 1475921718821719. [CrossRef]
158. Kim, I.-H.; Jeon, H.; Baek, S.-C.; Hong, W.-H.; Jung, H.-J. Application of crack identification techniques for an
aging concrete bridge inspection using an unmanned aerial vehicle. Sensors 2018, 18, 1881. [CrossRef]
159. Kang, D.; Cha, Y.-J. Damage detection with an autonomous UAV using deep learning. In Proceedings of the
Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, Berlin, Germany,
20–27 July 2018; p. 1059804.
160. Huynh, T.-C.; Park, J.-H.; Jung, H.-J.; Kim, J.-T. Quasi-autonomous bolt-loosening detection method using
vision-based deep learning and image processing. Autom. Constr. 2019, 105, 102844. [CrossRef]
161. Chaiyasarn, K.; Khan, W.; Ali, L.; Sharma, M.; Brackenbury, D.; DeJong, M. Crack Detection in Masonry
Structures using Convolutional Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines. In Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, Berlin, Germany, 20–25 July 2018;
pp. 1–8.
162. Lei, B.; Wang, N.; Xu, P.; Song, G. New crack detection method for bridge inspection using UAV incorporating
image processing. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2018, 31, 04018058. [CrossRef]
163. Duarte, D.; Nex, F.; Kerle, N.; Vosselman, G. Multi-resolution feature fusion for image classification of
building damages with convolutional neural networks. Remote. Sens. 2018, 10, 1636. [CrossRef]
164. Hoskere, V.; Park, J.-W.; Yoon, H.; Spencer Jr, B.F. Vision-Based Modal Survey of Civil Infrastructure Using
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. J. Struct. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019062. [CrossRef]
165. Gopalakrishnan, K. Symposium on Automation and Robotics. Deep Learn. Pavement Image Anal. Autom.
Distress Detect. Rev. 2018, 9. [CrossRef]
166. Zhang, Y.; Sun, X.; Loh, K.J.; Su, W.; Xue, Z.; Zhao, X. Autonomous bolt loosening detection using deep
learning. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 19, 1475921719837509. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 31 of 34

167. Beckman, G.H.; Polyzois, D.; Cha, Y.J. Deep learning-based automatic volumetric damage quantification
using depth camera. Autom. Constr. 2019, 99, 114–124. [CrossRef]
168. Zhao, X.; Han, R.; Yu, Y.; Hu, W.; Jiao, D.; Mao, X.; Li, M.; Ou, J. Smartphone-based mobile testing technique
for quick bridge cable–force measurement. J. Bridge Eng. 2016, 22, 06016012. [CrossRef]
169. Li, S.; Zhao, X. Convolutional neural networks-based crack detection for real concrete surface. In Proceedings
of the Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, Berlin,
Germany, 20–25 July 2018; p. 105983V.
170. Li, S.; Zhao, X. Image-Based Concrete Crack Detection Using Convolutional Neural Network and Exhaustive
Search Technique. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 6520620. [CrossRef]
171. Wang, N.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, P.; Zhang, Y.; Zou, Z.; Ou, J. Automatic damage detection of historic masonry
buildings based on mobile deep learning. Autom. Constr. 2019, 103, 53–66. [CrossRef]
172. Pauly, L.; Hogg, D.; Fuentes, R.; Peel, H. Deeper networks for pavement crack detection. In Proceedings of
the 34th ISARC, Taipei, Taiwan, 28–31 June 2017; pp. 479–485.
173. Maeda, H.; Sekimoto, Y.; Seto, T.; Kashiyama, T.; Omata, H. Road damage detection and classification using
deep neural networks with smartphone images. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 1127–1141.
[CrossRef]
174. Pan, S.J.; Yang, Q. A survey on transfer learning. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2010, 22, 1345–1359. [CrossRef]
175. Zhang, K.; Cheng, H.D.; Zhang, B. Unified Approach to Pavement Crack and Sealed Crack Detection Using
Preclassification Based on Transfer Learning. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2018, 32, 04018001. [CrossRef]
176. Gopalakrishnan, K.; Khaitan, S.K.; Choudhary, A.; Agrawal, A. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks with
transfer learning for computer vision-based data-driven pavement distress detection. Constr. Build. Mater.
2017, 157, 322–330. [CrossRef]
177. Perez, H.; Tah, J.H.; Mosavi, A. Deep Learning for Detecting Building Defects Using Convolutional Neural
Networks. Sensors 2019, 19, 3556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
178. Özgenel, Ç.F.; Sorguç, A.G. Performance Comparison of Pretrained Convolutional Neural Networks on
Crack Detection in Buildings. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Automation and Robotics
in Construction, Berlin, Germany, 20–25 July 2018; pp. 1–8.
179. Wu, R.T.; Singla, A.; Jahanshahi, M.R.; Bertino, E.; Ko, B.J.; Verma, D. Pruning deep convolutional neural
networks for efficient edge computing in condition assessment of infrastructures. Comput.-Aided Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 34, 774–789. [CrossRef]
180. Deng, J.; Dong, W.; Socher, R.; Li, L.J.; Li, K.; Fei-Fei, L. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database.
In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Miami, FL, USA, 20–25
June 2009.
181. Szegedy, C.; Vanhoucke, V.; Ioffe, S.; Shlens, J.; Wojna, Z. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer
vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Boston, MA, USA,
7–12 June 2015; pp. 2818–2826.
182. He, K.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Sun, J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE
conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 26–30 June 2016; pp. 770–778.
183. Serre, T.; Wolf, L.; Bileschi, S.; Riesenhuber, M.; Poggio, T. Robust object recognition with cortex-like
mechanisms. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2007, 29, 411–426. [CrossRef]
184. Zeiler, M.D.; Fergus, R. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the
European Conference on Computer Vision, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–12 September 2014; pp. 818–833.
185. Zhang, A.; Wang, K.C.; Fei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Tao, S.; Chen, C.; Li, J.Q.; Li, B. Deep learning–based fully automated
pavement crack detection on 3D asphalt surfaces with an improved CrackNet. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2018, 32,
04018041. [CrossRef]
186. Artificial Intelligence Assisted Infrastructure Assessment Using Mixed Reality Systems. Available online:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05659 (accessed on 9 May 2020).
187. Gopalakrishnan, K.; Gholami, H.; Vidyadharan, A.; Choudhary, A.; Agrawal, A. Crack Damage Detection in
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Images of Civil Infrastructure Using Pre-Trained Deep Learning Model. Int. J.
Traffic Transp. Eng 2018, 8, 1–14.
188. Park, S.; Bang, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, H. Patch-Based Crack Detection in Black Box Images Using Convolutional
Neural Networks. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019, 33, 04019017. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 32 of 34

189. Dung, C.V.; Sekiya, H.; Hirano, S.; Okatani, T.; Miki, C. A vision-based method for crack detection in gusset
plate welded joints of steel bridges using deep convolutional neural networks. Autom. Constr. 2019, 102,
217–229. [CrossRef]
190. Narazaki, Y.; Hoskere, V.; Hoang, T.A.; Spencer, B.J. Vision-based automated bridge component recognition
with high-level scene consistency. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 9, 465–482. [CrossRef]
191. Narazaki, Y.; Hoskere, V.; Hoang, T.A.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Automated Vision-Based Bridge Component
Extraction Using Multiscale Convolutional Neural Networks. Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.
05659 (accessed on 9 May 2020).
192. Liu, H.; Zhang, Y. Image-driven structural steel damage condition assessment method using deep learning
algorithm. Measurement 2019, 133, 168–181. [CrossRef]
193. Nahata, D.; Mulchandani, H.; Bansal, S.; Muthukumar, G. Post-Earthquake. Assessment. Buildlings Using
Deep Learning. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019, 8, 330–345.
194. Bang, S.; Park, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, H. Encoder–decoder network for pixel-level road crack detection in black-box
images. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019. [CrossRef]
195. Szegedy, C.; Ioffe, S.; Vanhoucke, V.; Alemi, A.A. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual
connections on learning. In Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco,
CA, USA, 4–9 February 2017.
196. Wang, N.; Zhao, Q.; Li, S.; Zhao, X.; Zhao, P. Damage classification for masonry historic structures using
convolutional neural networks based on still images. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 33, 1073–1089.
[CrossRef]
197. Dick, K.; Russell, L.; Souley Dosso, Y.; Kwamena, F.; Green, J.R. Deep learning for critical infrastructure
resilience. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2019, 25, 05019003. [CrossRef]
198. Ni, F.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Z. Zernike-moment measurement of thin-crack width in images enabled by dual-scale
deep learning. Comput.-Aided Civ. and Infrastruct. Eng. 2018, 32, 67–69. [CrossRef]
199. Narazaki, Y.; Hoskere, V.; Hoang, T.A.; Spencer, B.F., Jr. Vision-based Automated Bridge Component
Recognition Integrated With High-level Scene Understanding. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Workshop on Advanced Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 22–23 July 2016.
200. Ahmed, H.; La, H.; Pekcan, G. Rebar Detection and Localization for Non-Destructive Infrastructure Evaluation
of Bridges using Deep Residual Networks. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Visual
Computing: ISVC’19, Lake Tahoe, CA, USA, 7–9 October 2019.
201. Kim, B.; Lee, Y.; Cho, S. Deep learning-based rapid inspection of concrete structures. In Proceedings of the
Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, Berlin, Germany,
20–25 July 2018; p. 1059813.
202. Zhao, X.; Li, S.; Su, H.; Zhou, L.; Loh, K.J. Image-Based Comprehensive Maintenance and Inspection Method
for Bridges Using Deep Learning. In Proceedings of the ASME Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive
Structures and Intelligent Systems, San Antonio, TA, USA, 10–12 September 2018.
203. Dorafshan, S.; Thomas, R.J.; Coopmans, C.; Maguire, M. Deep learning neural networks for suas-assisted
structural inspections: Feasibility and application. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Dallas, TX, USA, 12–15 June 2018; pp. 874–882.
204. Suh, G.; Cha, Y.-J. Deep faster R-CNN-based automated detection and localization of multiple types of
damage. In Proceedings of the Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and
Aerospace Systems 2018, Berlin, Germany, 20–25 July 2018; p. 105980T.
205. Beckman, G.H.; Polyzois, D.; Cha, Y.-J. Automated volumetric damage detection and quantification using
region-based convolution neural networks and an inexpensive depth camera. In Proceedings of the
Sensors and Smart Structures Technologies for Civil, Mechanical, and Aerospace Systems, Berlin, Germany,
20–25 July 2018; p. 105980W.
206. SDNET2018: A Concrete Crack Image Dataset for Machine Learning Applications. Available online:
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/all_datasets/48/ (accessed on 9 May 2020).
207. Gao, Y.; Kong, B.; Mosalam, K.M. Deep leaf-bootstrapping generative adversarial network for structural
image data augmentation. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 34, 755–773. [CrossRef]
208. Zhang, Y.; Miyamori, Y.; Mikami, S.; Saito, T. Vibration-based structural state identification by a 1-dimensional
convolutional neural network. Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 2019, 9, 15–19. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 33 of 34

209. Yu, Y.; Wang, C.; Gu, X.; Li, J. A novel deep learning-based method for damage identification of smart
building structures. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 18, 143–163. [CrossRef]
210. Gulgec, N.S.; Takáč, M.; Pakzad, S.N. Convolutional Neural Network Approach for Robust Structural
Damage Detection and Localization. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2019, 33, 04019005. [CrossRef]
211. Ye, X.W.; Jin, T.; Chen, P.Y. Structural crack detection using deep learning–based fully convolutional networks.
Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 9, 1369433219836292. [CrossRef]
212. Gao, Y.; Li, K.; Mosalam, K.; Günay, S. Deep Residual Network with Transfer Learning for Imagebased
Structural Damage Recognition. In Proceedings of the Eleventh US National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Integrating Science, Engineering & Policy, San Francisco, CA, USA, 16–25 June 2018.
213. Silva, W.R.L.d.; Lucena, D.S.d. Concrete cracks detection based on deep learning image classification.
Proc. Multidiscip. Digit. Publ. Inst. Proc. 2001, 38, 489. [CrossRef]
214. Sharma, M.; Anotaipaiboon, W.; Chaiyasarn, K. Crack Detection in Masonry Structures using Convolutional
Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines. In Proceedings of the 35th International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2018), Berlin, Germany, 20–25 July 2018.
215. Kumar, S.S.; Abraham, D.M.; Jahanshahi, M.R.; Iseley, T.; Starr, J. Automated defect classification in sewer
closed circuit television inspections using deep convolutional neural networks. Autom. Constr. 2018, 91,
273–283. [CrossRef]
216. De Oliveira, M.; Monteiro, A.; Vieira Filho, J. A New Structural Health Monitoring Strategy Based on PZT
Sensors and Convolutional Neural Network. Sensors 2018, 18, 2955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
217. Li, Y.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, Q. A two-stage crack detection method for concrete bridges using
Convolutional Neural Networks. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 2018, 101, 3249–3252. [CrossRef]
218. Ji, M.; Liu, L.; Buchroithner, M. Identifying Collapsed Buildings Using Post-Earthquake Satellite Imagery
and Convolutional Neural Networks: A Case Study of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Remote. Sens. 2018, 10,
1689. [CrossRef]
219. Modarres, C.; Astorga, N.; Droguett, E.L.; Meruane, V. Convolutional neural networks for automated damage
recognition and damage type identification. Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2018, 25, e2230. [CrossRef]
220. Pouyanfar, S.; Sadiq, S.; Yan, Y.; Tian, H.; Tao, Y.; Reyes, M.P.; Shyu, M.-L.; Chen, S.C.; Iyengar, S. A survey
on deep learning: Algorithms, techniques, and applications. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 2018, 51, 1–36.
[CrossRef]
221. Abadi, M.; Barham, P.; Chen, J.; Chen, Z.; Davis, A.; Dean, J.; Devin, M.; Ghemawat, S.; Irving, G.; Isard, M.
Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. In Proceedings of the OSDI, Savannah, GA, USA,
2–4 November 2016; pp. 265–283.
222. Fonnegra, R.D.; Blair, B.; Díaz, G.M. Performance comparison of deep learning frameworks in image
classification problems using convolutional and recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
Colombian Conference on Communications and Computing (COLCOM), Cartagena, Colombia, 16–18 August
2017; pp. 1–6.
223. Shi, S.; Wang, Q.; Xu, P.; Chu, X. Benchmarking state-of-the-art deep learning software tools. In Proceedings
of the 2016 7th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Big Data (CCBD), Macau, China,
16–18 November 2016; pp. 99–104.
224. Chollet, F. Keras. Available online: https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/
ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1887532 (accessed on 9 May 2020).
225. Jia, Y.; Shelhamer, E.; Donahue, J.; Karayev, S.; Long, J.; Girshick, R.; Guadarrama, S.; Darrell, T. Caffe:
Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international
conference on Multimedia, New York, NY, USA, 14 May 2014; pp. 675–678.
226. Zhang, T.; Biswal, S.; Wang, Y. SHMnet: Condition Assessment of Bolted Connection with Beyond
Human-level Performance. Struct. Health Monit. 2019, 9. [CrossRef]
227. Roohi, M.; Hernandez, E.M.; Rosowsky, D. Nonlinear Seismic Response Reconstruction and Performance
Assessment of Instrumented Wood-frame Buildings—Validation using NEESWood Capstone Full-Scale Tests.
Struct. Control. Health Monit. 2019, 8. [CrossRef]
228. Aono, K.; Kondapalli, S.H.; Lajnef, N.; Pekcan, G.; Faridazar, F.; Chakrabartty, S. Self-powered Sensors to
Facilitate Infrastructural Internet-of-Things for Smart Structures. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Workshop on Advanced Smart Materials and Smart Structures Technology, Tokyo, Japan, 22–23 July 2017.
 Sensors 2020, 20, 2778 34 of 34

229. Fu, Y.; Mechitov, K.; Hoang, T.; Kim, J.R.; Lee, D.H.; Spencer, B.F. Development and full-scale validation of
high-fidelity data acquisition on a next-generation wireless smart sensor platform. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2019, 22,
1369433219866093. [CrossRef]
230. Yu, J.; Meng, X.; Yan, B.; Xu, B.; Fan, Q.; Xie, Y. Global Navigation Satellite System-based positioning
technology for structural health monitoring: A review. Struct. Control Health Monit. 2020, 27, e2467.
[CrossRef]
231. Design of Structural Vibration Control Using Smart Materials and Devices for Earthquake-Resistant
and Resilient Buildings. Available online: https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/handle/10365/28588 (accessed on
9 May 2020).
232. Azimi, M.; Yeznabad, A.M. Swarm-Based Parallel Control of Adjacent Irregular Buildings Considering
Soil–Structure Interaction. J. Sens. Actuator Netw. 2020, 9, 18. [CrossRef]
233. Mnih, V.; Kavukcuoglu, K.; Silver, D.; Rusu, A.A.; Veness, J.; Bellemare, M.G.; Graves, A.; Riedmiller, M.;
Fidjeland, A.K.; Ostrovski, G. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 2015, 518,
529–533. [CrossRef]
234. Zhu, M.; McKenna, F.; Scott, M.H. OpenSeesPy: Python library for the OpenSees finite element framework.
Software 2018, 7, 6–11. [CrossRef]
235. Brockman, G.; Cheung, V.; Pettersson, L.; Schneider, J.; Schulman, J.; Tang, J.; Zaremba, W. Openai Gym.
Available online: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01540 (accessed on 9 May 2020).

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats