Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Automated Crack Detection on Concrete Bridges

Prasanna, Prateek, Dana, Kristin J., Gucunski, Nenad, Basily, Basily B., La, Hung M., Lim, Ronny Salim, Parvardeh, Hooman·2016·IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering

Abstract

Detection of cracks on bridge decks is a vital task for maintaining the structural health and reliability of concrete bridges. Robotic imaging can be used to obtain bridge surface image sets for automated on-site analysis. We present a novel automated crack detection algorithm, the STRUM (spatially tuned robust multifeature) classifier, and demonstrate results on real bridge data using a state-of-the-art robotic bridge scanning system. By using machine learning classification, we eliminate the need for manually tuning threshold parameters. The algorithm uses robust curve fitting to spatially localize potential crack regions even in the presence of noise. Multiple visual features that are spatially tuned to these regions are computed. Feature computation includes examining the scale-space of the local feature in order to represent the information and the unknown salient scale of the crack. The classification results are obtained with real bridge data from hundreds of crack regions over two bridges. This comprehensive analysis shows a peak STRUM classifier performance of 95% compared with 69% accuracy from a more typical image-based approach. In order to create a composite global view of a large bridge span, an image sequence from the robot is aligned computationally to create a continuous mosaic. A crack density map for the bridge mosaic provides a computational description as well as a global view of the spatial patterns of bridge deck cracking. The bridges surveyed for data collection and testing include Long-Term Bridge Performance program's (LTBP) pilot project bridges at Haymarket, VA, USA, and Sacramento, CA, USA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tase.2014.2354314

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Prasanna, P., Dana, K. J., Gucunski, N., Basily, B. B., La, H. M., Lim, R. S., & Parvardeh, H.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering
Published
2016-04
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
591-599
ISSN
  • 1545-5955 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-3783
OpenAlex
W2325975990
Cited by
474
References
33
FWCI
18.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Automated Crack Detection on Concrete Bridges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tase.2014.2354314
The paper
Prasanna, P., Dana, K. J., Gucunski, N., Basily, B. B., La, H. M., Lim, R. S., & Parvardeh, H. (2016). Automated Crack Detection on Concrete Bridges. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tase.2014.2354314

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.