PreprintCited by 86Infrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Using Convolutional Neural Networks to Automate Aircraft Maintenance Visual Inspection

Open access
Dogru, Anil, Bouarfa, Soufiane, Arizar, Ridwan, Aydogan, Reyhan·2020·Aerospace

Abstract

Convolutional Neural Networks combined with autonomous drones are increasingly seen as enablers of partially automating the aircraft maintenance visual inspection process. Such an innovative concept can have a significant impact on aircraft operations. Through supporting aircraft maintenance engineers detect and classify a wide range of defects, the time spent on inspection can significantly be reduced. Examples of defects that can be automatically detected include aircraft dents, paint defects, cracks and holes, and lightning strike damage. Additionally, this concept could also increase the accuracy of damage detection and reduce the number of aircraft inspection incidents related to human factors like fatigue and time pressure. In our previous work, we have applied a recent Convolutional Neural Network architecture known by MASK R-CNN to detect aircraft dents. MASK-RCNN was chosen because it enables the detection of multiple objects in an image while simultaneously generating a segmentation mask for each instance. The previously obtained F1 and F2 scores were 62.67% and 59.35% respectively. This paper extends the previous work by applying different techniques to improve and evaluate prediction performance experimentally. The approaches uses include (1) Balancing the original dataset by adding images without dents; (2) Increasing data homogeneity by focusing on wing images only; (3) Exploring the potential of three augmentation techniques in improving model performance namely flipping, rotating, and blurring; and (4) using a pre-classifier in combination with MASK R-CNN. The results show that a hybrid approache combining MASK R-CNN and augmentation techniques leads to an improved performance with an F1 score of (67.50%) and F2 score of (66.37%)

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 · 10.20944/preprints202011.0527.v1

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Automated inspection systems have been developed for detecting damages on aircraft wings and fuselage, tyres, engines and composite parts.

    “In aviation, automated inspection systems have been developed for detecting damages on aircraft wings and fuselage [16-21], tyres [22], engines and composite parts [16,23-26].”

    From Automated Defect Detection and Decision-Support in Gas Turbine Blade Inspection (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

    Experiment 3 (page unavailable) reports a model trained to detect dents in aircraft wings, and the literature review describes automated detection of fuselage defects. The copy does not establish that this paper developed systems for inspecting tyres, engines, or composite parts; it mentions engines only as a possible focus for a future part-specific model. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The detection rate is comparable with the performance of neural networks in the reviewed literature, which ranged from 64.4% to 85%.

    “The detection rate is comparable with the performance of neural networks in the reviewed literature [21,35,42,48], which ranged from 64.4% to 85%.”

    From Automated Defect Detection and Decision-Support in Gas Turbine Blade Inspection (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

    Appendix A, Table 3 reports recall values for this paper’s neural-network dent-detection experiments, including 64.08% and 69.97%, providing an example broadly within the claimed range. It does not establish that detection rates across the reviewed literature ranged from 64.4% to 85%, or explicitly make the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Esteva, A.; Kuprel, B.; Novoa, R.A.; Ko, J.; Swetter, S.M.; Blau, H.M.; Thrun, S. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. nature 2017, 542, 115-118.
  2. Cheng, J.Z.; Ni, D.; Chou, Y.H.; Qin, J.; Tiu, C.M.; Chang, Y.C.; Huang, C.S.; Shen, D.; Chen, C.M. Computer-aided diagnosis with deep learning architecture: applications to breast lesions in US images and pulmonary nodules in CT scans. Scientific reports 2016, 6, 1-13.
  3. Gulshan, V.; Peng, L.; Coram, M.; Stumpe, M.C.; Wu, D.; Narayanaswamy, A.; Venugopalan, S.; Widner, K.; Madams, T.; Cuadros, J.; others. Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. Jama 2016, 316, 2402-2410.
  4. Cireşan, D.C.; Giusti, A.; Gambardella, L.M.; Schmidhuber, J. Mitosis detection in breast cancer histology images with deep neural networks. International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, 2013, pp. 411-418.
  5. Benjamens, S.; Dhunnoo, P.; Meskó, B. The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: an online database. npj Digital Medicine 2020, 3, 1-8.
  6. Patrício, D.I.; Rieder, R. Computer vision and artificial intelligence in precision agriculture for grain crops: A systematic review. Computers and electronics in agriculture 2018, 153, 69-81.
  7. Tian, H.; Wang, T.; Liu, Y.; Qiao, X.; Li, Y. Computer vision technology in agricultural automation-A review. Information Processing in Agriculture 2020, 7, 1-19.
  8. Ganesh, P.; Volle, K.; Burks, T.; Mehta, S. Deep orange: Mask R-CNN based orange detection and segmentation. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2019, 52, 70-75.
  9. Yun, J.P.; Shin, W.C.; Koo, G.; Kim, M.S.; Lee, C.; Lee, S.J. Automated defect inspection system for metal surfaces based on deep learning and data augmentation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 2020, 55, 317-324.
  10. Ren, R.; Hung, T.; Tan, K.C. A generic deep-learning-based approach for automated surface inspection. IEEE transactions on cybernetics 2017, 48, 929-940.
  11. Weimer, D.; Scholz-Reiter, B.; Shpitalni, M. Design of deep convolutional neural network architectures for automated feature extraction in industrial inspection. CIRP Annals 2016, 65, 417-420.
  12. Paolanti, M.; Romeo, L.; Martini, M.; Mancini, A.; Frontoni, E.; Zingaretti, P. Robotic retail surveying by deep learning visual and textual data. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2019, 118, 179-188.
  13. Redmon, J.; Divvala, S.; Girshick, R.; Farhadi, A. YouOnlyLookOnce: Unified Real-Time Object Detection. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.02640v5.pdf, 2016. · arXiv
  14. He, K.; Gkioxari, G.; Dollar, P.; Girshick, R. Mask R-CNN. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.06870.pdf, 2018. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dogru, A., Bouarfa, S., Arizar, R., & Aydogan, R.
Corresponding author
Bouarfa, Soufiane
Venue
Aerospace
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-11-20
Volume
7
Issue
12
Pages
171-171
ISSN
2226-4310 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3099364866
Cited by
86
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Aerospace (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eResearch@Ozyegin (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
aircraft maintenance, automated visual inspection, Mask R-CNN, object detection, data augmentation, class imbalance, paint defects, crack detection, lightning damage, data homogeneity

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